Today there are two “parties” of the Market that act in different directions of Innovation (Sutanining and Disrultive), but apparently
there is no real awareness
of what the two ways of Innovation actually represent
(the only fundamental contribution is the Clayton Christensen’s book in “Competing Against Luck”, in which he corrects his initial thesis: but the importance of this text seems not to have been understood).
The fundamental question is that:
1) THE DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION OF WHICH MOST OF THE “EXPERTS” SPEAKS (DISTUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES), IS NOT THAT DESCRIBED BY C. CHRISTENSEN (it is the first version of C. Christensen, which he radically revised to the point of contradicting the first) .
Or
there are no more “Disruptive technologies”,
but products that
constitute a “Job to be done” for the Customer
2) THE NEW VERSION OF THE DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION IS CONFIRMED BY THE FACTS.
.
It is not that C. Christensen had made a mistake with the first version: in that phase of the Market – the 90s – the “Disruptive technologies” actually allowed to develop the most important innovations of the Market
These were mainly products based on new cheaper technologies that have allowed new Players to be successful with generations of cheaper products than those of the moment.
But
after two decades the Market has radically changed,
AND TECHNOLOGIES ARE NO MORE DISRUPTIVE IN ITSELF.
That is, “Disruptive technologies” no longer allow them to acquire a competitive advantage over current generations of products in the various sectors of the market.
Therefore
today it is necessary
to make leap again
in the definition of innovation,
taking Disruption to a different level from that of technologies:
it is necessary to bring focus
on the “human factor” of the product.
C. Christensen was right over 20 years ago, and has been right in recent years.
.
The new form of Disruptive Innovation is well described by Christensen with the term “Job to be done” in his book “Competing Against Luck”: in order to satisfy the new Demand the product must develop a service for the Customer which substantially improves the quality of life.
<see A hint to the qualities of Disruptive Innovation products (“Job to be done>
<see Guidelines [2]: WHAT IS and WHAT IS NOT Disruptive innovation >
The “Resistance” (to Disruptive Innovation)
The problem with the Market is that
established Business is unable
to adapt to Disruptive Innovation,
and therefore a mainstream culture develops
which opposes the nascent Culture of Disruptive Innovation.
<see °The misunderstanding on Innovation by Manager, Consultants and Pundits >
We read (increasingly often) that Disruptive Innovation is not what Business really needs. Or even we hear that the principles of Disruptive Innovation are false arguments, and are spread to create chaos in the Market, and weaken the established business.
That is, today there is a development of a “anti-disruptive innovation” denial culture (protectionism) in support of the status quo. <see The resistance to Disruptive Innovation >
That is a “Culture of convenience” that has been created (by the Media, Consultants, Professors, etc.) which allows Business Consultants and Managers with a Sustaining mindset to survive:
● protecting the strategies of the big Players of the Market (and Jobs of Managers)
● “selling” the pre-existent Culture: Business Consulting, Book, academic programs, ecc …
<see The basic misunderstanding on Disruptive innovation>
.
Today the Market needs business consulting to keep up with the times.
One of the main problems of the Market is that the philosophy underlying the current Business Consulting is wrong: in fact
today Business Consultants claim to
PROVIDE ADVISES ON THE DISRUPTIVE INNNOVATION
WITHOUT FOLLOWING,
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION.
<see Disruptive Business Consulting [1] – How disruptive Business Consulting changes >
the point of Disruptive Innovation
The lack of a culture (awareness) of Disruptive Innovation
The Market problem
is currently that most of the Companies
does not develop the innovation required by the new Demand.
<see Why does innovation fail today? The inability to understand in new Customer Needs>
Indeed
● there is no real culture of Distuptive innovation (but those who develop Disruptive Innovation – the new highly successful Startups – do it without talking about it).
<see There is no “Culture of Disruptive innovation”, but an Aptitude for innovation>
● most of the Campaigns whose success is thought to be due to Disruptive Innovation, in reality do not apply Disruptive Innovation at all.
<see Be careful: most successful companies are not real innovators (disruptive innovators)>
The validity of Disruptive Innovation is confirmed by the facts
Today it is possible to confirm, scientifically, the validity of the DisruPTive Innovation theory.
The proof is, among other things, in the answer to the two fundamental questions:
► Are successful startups developed today in the Disruptive Innovation mode?
In fact, the most successful Startups in recent years
are based on the DisrPTpive Innovation Rules.
► What kind of innovation do businesses that are in serious difficulty apply today?
If it is true that the success of Startups derives from the development of Disruptive Innovation, “the opposite” is also true:
it is increasingly evident how
established businesses
(the “Incumbents”)
are in serious difficulty
The need to clarify Disruptive Innovation
The problem of difficulties established Business (i.e. most of the current Market) derives from a basic misunderstanding: it realizes the need to develop radically innovative products, but in fact, the established Business continues to develop an obsolete form of innovation.
<see Introduction to the Disruptive Innovation: the concept of Innovation>
This situation arises mostly due to a lack of understanding of DisrPTpive Innovation. It is therefore necessary to analyze the question thoroughly in order to have an answer that provides practical indications for the Business:
● if the innovation of Incumbents has problems, what are these problems?
● if Disruptive Innovation works, what are the new Rules to apply?
<see Disruptive innovation in practice [1]: what are the criteria for evaluating Disruptive Innovation?>
.
The “TrendInsights’s Guidelines to disruptive innovation” was created precisely to clarify to the established Business what Disruptive Innovation actually is, and what the actions to be developed are at an operational level.
The Guidelines also offer tools – such as the Table for assessing Disruptive Innovation – for easily evaluate the response of a Business to the Rules of the DisrPTpive Innovation.
For an effective assessment of the quality of a product's innovation, the "TrendInsights's Guidelines to Disruptive Innovation" was developed, which offers:
1) an essential description of the meaning and methods of Disruptive innovation, and
2) a methodology for those who want to start a Disruptive Innovation business.
3) a Table summarizing the quality of the Disruptive Innovation for an assessment of business innovation capacity (usable both for developing a new Business and for analyzing Business already in progress).
<see "TrendInsights's Guidelines to Disruptive Innovation" >
<see The development of a “anti-disruPTive innovation” negationist culture (protectionism) in support of the status quo>
A hint to the qualities of Disruptive Innovation products
The criteria of the new form of Innovation (DisruPTive) are radically different from those of the previous form of innovation to the point that
the factors what were success factors
become today critical factors
(factors such as developing Technologies, Marketing of “narratives”, Monopoly, Cronysm, etc …). <see Table for assessing Disruptive innovation>
Basically the traditional qualities of the product – lost in the last few decades – are back in vogue (quality as product durability, or deeper gratifications than those of current gadget products).
The new generation of products solves important life problems
<see Disruptive innovation in practice [1]: what are the criteria for evaluating Disruptive Innovation>
More specifically:
► it is no longer a question of improving a current generation of products, but of inventing new ones (for example, no longer improving “performance”; the focus goes from technology to the human being: new products develop a service for the Customer – “Job to be done”).
<see Why current Design (and hi-tech) and disruptive innovation are incompatible (the “Human factor”)>
► it is literally a question of creating new market sectors, following a “revolutionary” rule: identifying non-consuming niches, and transforming them into market sectors.
► in order to develop the new business it is necessary first of all to radically change oneself: mindsets and structures (so radically that established companies cannot do it internally, but must create spin-offs).
<see Why the big companies cannot innovate within them >
.
Some problems of established business:
● One of the problems of the current Market (of Incumbents) is that in it, at the same time, the Customers are Over-served and Under-served.
With current products,
Customers are
over-served in terms of technical performance,
but they are
UNDER-SERVERD FROM THE POINT OF VIEW
OF THE QUALITIES REALLY USEFUL TO THEM
<see The Over-serving/Under-serving problem of the Incumbents>
● another problem is that create ruinous consequences for the established Business that develops a false Disruptive Innovation is that related to Hybrid Innovation (Sustaining/Disruptive).
That is,
in a radically new strategy,
when even just a part of the “old rules” is introduced,
conditions are created for this strategy to be a failure.
Basically
it is useless to adopt some Disruptive innovation keypoints if you do not change the root your own Business.
<see The failure of Hybrid innovation (Disruptive + Sustaining Innovation)>
The topics above are developed in the Articles of the TrendInsignts site. And in particular in the Collection of Articles (see index below):
► Guidelines for Disrutpive Innovation; and
► Disruptive innovation in practice.
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION IN PRACTICE (Collection of Articles)
1. WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION? <see>
Chapters:
● The redefinition of the term Disruptive by its "inventor"
The essence of Disruptive Innovation it's not disruption (disorder, destruction); but it is THE "USEFUL VALUE" THAT THE PRODUCT DEVELOPES FOR THE CUSTOMER
● The two opposite meanings of the term Disruptive
Today the term disruptive indicates negative effects of disorder, destruction. But Disruptive Innovation is a great benefit for Business and Customers
● The causes of the current disruption
The paradox of Disruption is that it is the Incumbents who created it, depriving the market of the qualities needed to satisfy the Demand
● The need to develop new Business Rules
In order to develop an innovation capable of satisfying the new Demand it is necessary to understand what the qualities required for this Demand are
● A hint to the qualities of Disruptive Innovation products
The differences between the qualities of the two forms of innovation are radical: traditional product qualities and deeper forms of gratification are recovered.
2. THE “RESISTANCE” TO INNOVATION <see>
Chapters:
Today we read (increasingly often) that Disruptive Innovation is not what Business really needs. But the validity of Disruptive Innovation is verifiable (primarily by analyzing the facts). Chapters:
● The verifiability of the disruptive innovation validity
● The two fundamental questions about the validity of Disruptive innovation
● The absence of Startups of breakthrough success of Sustaining innovation
● The media essence of the success of Sustaining innovation
● The "resistance" to innovation
3. THE CHARADE OF THE DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION <see>
Companies are prisoners of the same narrative with which they deal with customers.
The incumbents have created a cultural dimension of "abstractness" that allows Marketers a "persuasion through fiction" to purchase (which induces the Customer to purchase products that have little or no use for it).
And now the Incumbents themselves live in this "mental bubble" (of abstract ideas), for which they are convinced by the "experts" (Managers, Consultants, Professors, etc.) to follow ways of developing strategies that they are disconnected from actual reality (ie to purchase a "product" lacking in quality for them).
GUIDELINES FOR DISRUTPIVE INNOVATION (Collection of Articles)
A Guideline illustrating which are the Rules followed by the Disrutpive Inovation Business.
It contains a Table that illustrates the Keypoints of Disruptive innovation, so that we can easily evaluate the response of a Business to the Rules of the Disrutpive Innovation.
Articles:
1. Basic Q&A on Disruptive innovation <see>
Aimed at a clarification of the negative and positive keypoints of Disrutpive Innovation: ● what are the causes of the current crisis, and ● what Disruptive innovation actually is in its specific aspects.
► Why we cannot get out of the current market crisis? / Why you cannot work on causes of problems? ► Some causes of the failure to change ► The change: some characteristic / Why the need for a disruptive innovation?
2. WHAT IS and WHAT IS NOT Disruptive innovation <see>
Aimed at a clarification of what are the specific errors committed by the failing strategies. And what are key factors of the winning alternatives
► Considerations on models and roles of the new Business ► Overcoming the concept of Leader and follower ► Considerations on the form of innovation / The difference between the innovation models (sustaining/disruptive) ► The change of the business paradigm and mission / Purpose of business / Comparison between Disruptive and Sustaining Innovation: the case of “electric bikes”
3. Table for a assessments of Business innovation capacity <see>
SUMMARY TABLE OF KEYPOINTS OF THE TWO DIFFERENT FORMS OF INNOVATION (Disruptive / Sustaining), with which it is possibile TO ASSESS WHICH FORMS OF INNOVATION ARE PRESENT IN EVERY BUSINESS.
