Comments on: A reader’s guide to Clay Christensen and disruptive innovation http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/ Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:28:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jim McGee http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-230124 Jim McGee Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:31:29 +0000 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/#comment-230124 I agree. I often find my best ideas start from a turn of phrase that I find provocative or that triggers an interesting image. The key, then, is to do what you suggest and to go tease out the implications. I had trouble locating that in the Schrage interview you pointed to. I agree. I often find my best ideas start from a turn of phrase that I find provocative or that triggers an interesting image. The key, then, is to do what you suggest and to go tease out the implications. I had trouble locating that in the Schrage interview you pointed to.

]]> By: Paula Thornton http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-230121 Paula Thornton Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:33:27 +0000 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/#comment-230121 I tend to operate like Schrage -- testing the edges of meaning. I'm not so sure he really wants to 'change' the term, just look at it differently to 'tune' our understanding. I'm doing just that. I've got "Innovator's Dilemma" out and testing for language subtleties. This stuff is ALL central to the conversations we need to be having. Thanks. I tend to operate like Schrage — testing the edges of meaning. I’m not so sure he really wants to ‘change’ the term, just look at it differently to ‘tune’ our understanding.

I’m doing just that. I’ve got “Innovator’s Dilemma” out and testing for language subtleties. This stuff is ALL central to the conversations we need to be having. Thanks.

]]> By: Jim McGee http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-230119 Jim McGee Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:28:00 +0000 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/#comment-230119 I'm not quite sure what to make of Schrage's observation. I sometimes think he can be a bit too enamored of a clever turn of phrase without testing to see whether it pushes the overall conversation forward. I’m not quite sure what to make of Schrage’s observation. I sometimes think he can be a bit too enamored of a clever turn of phrase without testing to see whether it pushes the overall conversation forward.

]]> By: Jim McGee http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-230108 Jim McGee Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:00:56 +0000 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/#comment-230108 There's a certain redundancy across the books and they focus more on filling in the details that flow from the original research and insights. In some sense, it's a flaw in the publishing model and economics. Most of the books subsequent to the Innovators Dilemma would work better as long articles/short monographs. Instead the existing publishing business needs to stretch them to longer form to work for them economically and to reach their target audience. There’s a certain redundancy across the books and they focus more on filling in the details that flow from the original research and insights. In some sense, it’s a flaw in the publishing model and economics. Most of the books subsequent to the Innovators Dilemma would work better as long articles/short monographs. Instead the existing publishing business needs to stretch them to longer form to work for them economically and to reach their target audience.

]]> By: Paula Thornton http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-230036 Paula Thornton Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:46:19 +0000 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/#comment-230036 I'm still ruminating over the Michael Schrage quote I stumbled on yesterday: "Instead of just calling this 'disruptive innovation' the way Clay Christensen does, let's call it 'displacement innovation." [source http://twurl.nl/aaj0h1] I’m still ruminating over the Michael Schrage quote I stumbled on yesterday: “Instead of just calling this ‘disruptive innovation’ the way Clay Christensen does, let’s call it ‘displacement innovation.” [source http://twurl.nl/aaj0h1

]]> By: Graham Horton http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-229946 Graham Horton Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:12:56 +0000 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/06/27/a-readers-guide-to-clay-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/#comment-229946 hi, a nice summary of the christensen series of books. i particularly enjoyed "Every proposed idea was labeled as disruptive. Who knows, some of those consultants might even have read the book." :) disruptive innovation is currently a huge bandwagon, which it seems is lucrative for bloggers/journalists/consultants to jump on. as a result, i can see two very popular, but also very misleading tendencies out there. the first tendency is indeed to label every new idea which is not obviously a improvement on an existing product as "disruptive". this makes you sound cool and "in the know", even if it is miles from the truth. the other tendency, which i believe is much more dangerous, is to suggest that disruptive innovation is now the only kind worth pursuing. that may in a sense be true for startups, where the chances for success are to a large extent predicated on doing something substantially different. however, it is certainly not the case for established companies, for whom incremental, platform, complementary and process innovations form the basis for their day-to-day competitiveness. in my consulting experience, few companies are looking for disruptive innovations (and rightly so.) we only use the term where we feel it is genuinely approropriate for our client - which in many cases is not at all. i believe that "the innovator's dilemma" is a hugely important book and that christensen fully deserves the praise that he has received for it. the successors have too little added value for my taste - when reading them i always have the feeling that their content must be obvious to anyone who has understood and thought about the innovator's dilemma itself. all the best graham <a href="http://www.zephram.de" rel="nofollow"> Zephram Corporation, Germany</a> hi,

a nice summary of the christensen series of books.

i particularly enjoyed “Every proposed idea was labeled as disruptive. Who knows, some of those consultants might even have read the book.” :)

disruptive innovation is currently a huge bandwagon, which it seems is lucrative for bloggers/journalists/consultants to jump on. as a result, i can see two very popular, but also very misleading tendencies out there.

the first tendency is indeed to label every new idea which is not obviously a improvement on an existing product as “disruptive”. this makes you sound cool and “in the know”, even if it is miles from the truth.

the other tendency, which i believe is much more dangerous, is to suggest that disruptive innovation is now the only kind worth pursuing. that may in a sense be true for startups, where the chances for success are to a large extent predicated on doing something substantially different. however, it is certainly not the case for established companies, for whom incremental, platform, complementary and process innovations form the basis for their day-to-day competitiveness.

in my consulting experience, few companies are looking for disruptive innovations (and rightly so.) we only use the term where we feel it is genuinely approropriate for our client – which in many cases is not at all.

i believe that “the innovator’s dilemma” is a hugely important book and that christensen fully deserves the praise that he has received for it. the successors have too little added value for my taste – when reading them i always have the feeling that their content must be obvious to anyone who has understood and thought about the innovator’s dilemma itself.

all the best

graham
Zephram Corporation, Germany

]]>