Disruptive Technologies PLUS THE Innovation Dilemma

Disruptive technology was initially presented in Clayton Christensen article Disruptive Systems: Finding the Influx (1995) that was co-wrote with Joseph Bower. [1] In view of business and technology fields, as reviewed by Clayton Christensen, disruptive technology is a technology in the beginning in a kind of simple request, then improves and dominates dramatically in the marketplaces, where the market segments do not expect. Disruptive technology typically improves in a manner that by being more affordable and designed for various disciplines of consumers. [2] Instead of allowing consumers with lots of money or lots of skills to utilize it, disruptive technology was created where allow "whole new populace of consumers" to utilize it, gain access to its services. [3]

For leaders of the existing marketplaces, disruptive technology makes potential hazards on them. It is because it competes with the prevailing leaders of the marketplace in this unexpected trend. Market leaders of the existing markets sometimes neglect to contend with disruptive technology since they do not be expectant of disruptive technology can improve and dominate significantly in the market segments. Generally, disruptive technology dominates the existing markets by getting into a fresh market where the older technology does not follow. In additional, it improves and makes improvements in its performance until finally displace the marketplace incumbents. [2]

There are lots of types of disruptive technology such as personal computers, digital memory credit cards, digital photography, and Liquid Crystal Shows (LCD). Computers displaced the initial mainframes pcs. The dominating of digital storage area credit cards has displaced the floppy disks that have been widely used before. [4]


[1] Bower, Joseph L. & Christensen, Clayton M. (1995). "Disruptive Technology: Finding the Wave" Harvard Business Review, January-February 1995

[2] http://en. wikipedia. org/, Wikipedia, Disruptive Technology (accessed on 6 January 2010)

[3] http://www. claytonchristensen. com (accessed on 6 January 2010)

[4] http://en. wikipedia. org/, Wikipedia, Types of disruptive inventions (seen on 6 January 2010)

What is ecological technology? How exactly does it differ from disruptive technology? (1/2 to 1 page)

Sustainable technology increases established products performance without updating them. Lasting technology is usually produced by well-established company which often holds a control position in the related industries. Generally, almost all of the new solutions and innovations improve the performance of products. The term ecological technology was released by Clayton Christensen in 2003

"What all sustaining technology have in common is that they increase the performance that mainstream customers in major markets have historically appreciated. " [1]

In general, lasting technology does not create side-effect on the prevailing markets. Sustainable technology can be labeled into two categories: Cutting edge or Evolutionary. For Ground-breaking technology, customers are permitted to deal with issues in a radically signify while for Evolutionary technology, products in an existing market are better in such techniques customers expect. [2]

Sustainable technology aspires to preserve the organization's concentration, and ecological technology usually satisfies current customers' needs, while disruptive technology will not initially enhance the focus of a business. They sometimes don't have a market when they are created. Because of the difference between incumbents and entrants in conditions of technology adoption, since sustainable technologies are well established alongside the domination of strong players in their marketplaces, an entrant may choose to begin with alternative technology. Besides, disruptive technology have lower gross margins, smaller size of concentrate on market segments and simpler products, which permit them to carry out by either firm. [3] Nevertheless, in comparison with disruptive technology, products of lasting technology are usually regarded as too expensive to be adopted and preferred rather than too cheap that no-one want to adopt and favor. [4]


[1] Christensen C. 2003. The Innovator's Problem, Harper Collins Press

[2] http://en. wikipedia. org/, Wikipedia (utilized on 7 January 2010)

[3] http://www. claytonchristensen. com (utilized on 6 January 2010)

[4] Xiao Huang - Greys Sosic 2008. Sustaining vs. Disruptive Technology: Industry Equilibrium under Technology Development, Marshall College of Business, University or college of Southern California, LA, CA 90089

Managers in successful, on-going business are more comfortable with which type of technology - disruptive or lasting? Describe your answer. Illustrate it with samples. (One web page)

Instead of disruptive technology, lasting technology which assists the present customers and puts emphasis on incremental improvements is convenient to develop and maintain from the point of views of managers who are doing on-going and successful business.

Since nearly all advances are sustainable solutions, with the established solutions, developed good reputation of the organizations and relationship with the customers in the mainstream markets, it is no doubt that professionals in on-going business will feel convenient in those sustainable technologies. [1]

In the mainstream markets, there are enough suppliers willing to develop and support the new technology and customers to buy it. Inside the computer industry, as a administrator of Intel Company, it is convenient to allow them to perform continuous progression on the handling vitality of Intel's built in potato chips as a lasting technology since there are enough suppliers such as Tenco Gadgets Co. and IT Market Web to aid their development and large sets of mainstream customers to buy them. [2] To be a manager within an organization, a well balanced and ecological market is recommended.

In the medical care industry, applications which are being used to control the resources and traditional supply string are usually regarded as sustainable applications. It is only the improvements and improvements in the prevailing functions for the mainstream customers such as the large private hospitals. Suppliers of these applications are the large clinic suppliers and Radio Rate of recurrence Identification (RFID) consultants. [3] Using the large supports back of, managers are much used to favor sustainable technology.

Sometimes, if a business chooses to look at disruptive technologies instead of sustainable technologies, speedy technology advancements may overshoot the mainstream markets. This is a significant perplexing problem for a administrator in an group. Taking the company of graphics credit cards - Nvidia as an example, the introduction of systems and products were good primarily. [4] However, a big difference to their customers' need was finally come to when the number of polygons rendered per second was increased speedily every successive improvement.

From the perspective of managers within an on-going, successful business, lasting technology is more preferred generally.


[1] http://www. hartnall. com (accessed on 9 January 2010)

[2] http://www. alibaba. com/suppliers/Intel (accessed on 9 January 2010)

[3] Karen Crooker, Dirk Baldwin, Suresh Chalasani, RFID Technology: Applications in the Health care Industry, Western Journal of Scientific Research, 2009

[4] http://en. wikipedia. org/, Wikipedia, Nvidia (reached on 9 January 2010)

What does Christensen mean when he asserts that many great companies went out of business because they were too focused on satisfying their customers' stated needs? How do the example of Digital Equipment Corporation (December) be used to illustrate this aspect? Explain your answer. Illustrate with additional samples. (1 - 2 Webpages)

Many great companies were too focused on gratifying their customers stated needs, actually, they do not have much complications on succeeding this objective in order to build up their lasting technology. It really is hardly for professionals in a good business to pursue in worse margins. But this is the problem, these were too focused on their high-end markets and the low-end disruptive solutions market segments sometimes do not make sense to them. That's why DEC's market leaders and engineers looked at Personal computers as underpowered toys. However, DEC finally went out of business. [1]

DEC's PDP and VAX products were considered the most popular minicomputers for both methodical and engineering sectors through the 1970s and 1980s. [2] Their management team was considered as the best team on the market. However, the emergence of microcomputers got destroyed DEC finally. This is the problem with their business model. The mainstream market for December was customers who brought high-end minicomputers at high margins. These computers were wealth to buy powerful computer systems. In contrast of DEC's minicomputers, microcomputers were mass produced to customers who were expected to use low-cost computers with little help from the manufacturers at low margins. Initially, microcomputers cannot meet up with the high-end marketplaces but over a successive improvement, they attained the most strenuous markets.

The reason of the collapse of DEC as opposed to the microcomputers businesses such as Apple, Dell was that DEC was too focused on their high-end marketplaces and may not develop new marketplaces for their products. December was required by those microcomputers firms to focus on their high-ends markets and customers where the margins were regarded as better and even more profitable. However, after improvement of microcomputers performance, most of the microcomputers could do the most careers as well as the minicomputers do. The imagine December was finally over and the most-demanding market was low cost microcomputers eventually. [3]

The other example was Eastman Kodak which skipped out the portrait digital photography revolution. In the past, Kodak dominated the chemically based photographic process markets. Their only competitor was japan company, Fuji, but actually didn't make too much danger to Kodak at that time.

In the past, Kodak acquired put hundreds huge amount of money into a chemically structured system which focused on satisfying their mainstream customers needs. Nevertheless, an introduction of a disruptive technology - digital photography revolution got made a huge punch to Kodak chemically based mostly photographic process business. Portrait digital photography technology was made in Japan. If the first Japanese VHS and Betamax camera systems were available in the markets, Kodak's Polaroid chemically founded system no longer made sense when compared to portrait digital photography. Nevertheless, Kodak's performed nothing and attempted to dismiss this tidal influx approaching with them. Finally, they skipped the chance of digital photography revolution and lost hundreds huge amount of money of investment which was equal to billions us dollars today. [4] Although portrait digital photography was developed finally in Kodak nowadays, Kodak had to pay an enormous price for his or her delay in portrait digital photography revolution. The digital change required a series of layoffs and facilities closure, chopping 12, 000-15, 000 jobs across the world. A 20%-25% decrease in its labor force was took place since 2000. [5]

In conclusion, refer to Christensen and the types of DEC and Kodak illustrated in the last paragraphs it is not a good practice for successful, on-going companies too focused on satisfying their existing customers explained needs. They ought to develop their wider field of views into a new market and make significant preparation to resist the tidal influx from others disruptive systems.


[1] http://www. alumni. hbs. edu/bulletin/1999/april/qanda. html (utilized on 10 January 2010)

[2] http://en. wikipedia. org/, Wikipedia, Digital Equipment Corporation (accessed on 10 January 2010)

[3] http://www. datasentinel. com/files/dataSentinel (accessed on 10 January 2010)

[4] http://www. articlesbase. com/, Stock Research - Eastman Kodak And The Power Of Disruptive Solutions (seen on 10 January 2010)

[5] http://en. wikipedia. org/, Wikipedia, Eastman Kodak (utilized on 10 January 2010)

Explain how lowly disruptive systems can ultimately exceed successful existing dominant solutions in sales, specialized capability, and success. Illustrate your answer, using either the exemplory case of computer drive technology, vitality shovel technology, or metallic production technology. (1 - 2 webpages)

In low-end disruptive technology, at the beginning, disrupters aim to serve the least profitable customers who are satisfactory with good enough products. These kinds of customers do not intend to pay lots in bettering the features of the merchandise. Later, the disrupters make an effort to improve their profit percentage by seeking customers who are going to pay little more for better quality of the products. Therefore, the disrupters are required to innovate. It's quite common for incumbents make an effort to be away from not so profitable margin and move to serve more appealing customers. After successive encounters, the incumbents are pressed out into a smaller market. Finally, the disrupters reach the most profitable markets and expel the founded organizations from the markets. [1]

Taking computer drive drives technology for example, NAND Display is a typical low-end disruptive technology. [2] NAND Flash has a great effect on computer safe-keeping business because of technological and monetary aspects. For the intended purpose of low storage request, FAND Flash is really cheaper than the hard disk drives. In conditions of arbitrary I/O operations, FAND Adobe flash has an increased performance than hard disk drives. A single NAND SSD can have a 10-30K random I/O functions per second (IOPS), while an individual hard drive can only have 250 IOPS. With the marketplaces where customers fascination with low safe-keeping capacity rather than high storage space capacity, FAND Adobe flash is much less expensive than hard disks. To be able words, FAND Adobe flash has squeezed hard disk drives from the low-storage business market.

The cost of mechanical components of a hard disk is just about $20, as the drive controller costs around $3. [2] The smallest capacity of a hard disk is a single platter and additional platters provide incremental capacity. Say, the tiniest capacity platter of today's 2. 5" hard disk drive is 160GB and capacity will increase over time when technical capabilities improve.

The cost of a single NAND Adobe flash chip is generally between $1 and $8, depending on performance and thickness. Currently, a 4GB NAND chip using multi-level cells (MLC) costs around $7 as the controller is the same of this in hard disks. [2] For certain capacities, say lower storage space capacity, NAND Adobe flash actually costs less than the minimum cost of a hard disk drive. This is the reason behind why USB safe-keeping drives usually take up the utilization of NAND Adobe flash.

Now, it can be explained that below the cross-over point, FAND Flash is much less expensive while above the cross-over point, hard disk drives are much more cost effective. However, it is of great importance that we should be pointed out that the shifting of the cross-over point towards a higher storage space capacities.

Moore's legislations has an extended history in the use of computers. The capabilities of several gadgets are strongly related to Moore's laws, including the safe-keeping capacity. [3] NAND Adobe flash which is made of semiconductor is benefited from Moore's regulation. Using the improvement of performance of semiconductor, the storage space capacity of FAND Flash has exponentially increased, so the hard disks do. Therefore, FAND Adobe flash won't squeezed hard disk drives out of high-storage capacity. Nevertheless, the cross-over point is moving towards an increased storage capacity, say today it is just about 16GB but four years later, it is just about 64GB, and eight years later, the cross-over point might even reach to around 400GB. [2] As a result, the low-end market of FAND Flash is expanding consistently. The market segments below the cross-over point of FAND Display are growing while placing the markets of hard disks below cross-over point into pressure and reduced. It offers us an implication that whenever the cross-over point surpasses the amount of storage space capacity needed, people will proceed to choose the cheaper one computer ram storage disk, this is the FAND Adobe flash. Therefore, hard disks will finally be out of business.

In realization, taking the example of FAND Display and hard disk drives in computer drive technology, low-end disruptive systems can ultimately exceed successful existing dominating technologies.


[1] http://en. wikipedia. org/, Wikipedia, Disruptive Technology (utilized on 12 January 2010)

[2] http://www. realworldtech. com/, NAND Flash: A Classic Disruptive Technology by David Kanter, 30th December 2009 (reached on 12 January 2010)

[3] http://en. wikipedia. org/, Wikipedia, Moore's laws (reached on 12 January 2010)

For each of the following types of employees in an effective company, clarify why individuals in these categories are hesitant to champion disruptive technology in their company:

  • Senior exec (1/2 to 1 page)
  • Middle professionals (1/2 to 1 page)
  • Sales people (1/2 to 1 page)

Senior executive

From the idea of views of older executives, the change of the developed mature organizational set ups is irrelevant plus they found difficult in changing their mature organizational set ups. A director in a worldwide grocery business said that

"One of the most difficult issues I face is going into the board room and asking for changes in our operations and set ups, because the original manuals were written by three main board users about 15 years back. " [1]

In additional, when consider the investment of new technology, older professionals have to ensure that the investment in new technology is appropriate. This technology should keep monitor with the existing technological systems. It really is a difficult job for senior executives to write off previous investment and invest into a new technology. However, it is the most crucial decision they have to make.

Middle managers

In a maturing business, middle managers usually have a tendency to become too comfortable on their normal works. They are not willing to champ disruptive solutions since it is not worth to allow them to taking chances outside their comfort zone. They aren't willing to champion disruptive technology since it is not worth for them to take hazards outside their comfort zone. A lot of the middle professionals are too centered of their disciplines to give their work projects. They aren't willing to take chances to identify ideas or technologies outside their disciplines. In additional, they find that it is of the great challenge to control and lead an interdisciplinary team. [1]

In a maturing firm, because the knowledge has been gathered for many years, this knowledge developed from past encounters is the routines and conducts for middle professionals to follow. From the point of views of middle managers, it does not make any sense to discard this knowledge. Middle managers are usually unwilling to remove their routines and habits.

Sales people

Similarly, sales people in a maturing group are hesitant to champ disruptive systems in their organization. As they are employed to market their products and technologies predicated on their major disciplines, it isn't comfortable and will not make sense to sell new solutions to customers who are out of the current disciplines. [2]

A well and steady relationship between sales people and clients is developed and proven in a maturing company, it is difficult for them to sell new technology or the sudden disruptive technologies to their long-term customers without support indeed.

From the point of views of sales representatives, disruptive technology are new technology which must explore a new market of customers. To be a sales people, they are reluctant to develop relationship with an urgent group of customers, sometimes, it is problematic for these to find clients if the disruptive technologies are not successful. They don't want to take risk to explore into those unpredicted region.


[1] http://www. allbusiness. com (reached on 15 January 2010)

[2] Albert Harold Rubenstein, Eliezer Geisler, "Installing and taking care of workable knowledge management systems", Greenwood Posting Group 2003

What can organizations do to encourage the fostering of disruptive technology? (One page)

From the management point of views, there are several managerial suggestions for organizations to encourage the fostering of disruptive technology. These suggestions for organizations are reviewed in this posting.

First, it is of great importance for organizations to learn that options aren't limited. Organizations should not "be set in the bottom", where just gratify their current customers' needs. They should keep searching for options, although taking the probabilities randomly is a bit risky. However, taking the opposite point of views, it will probably be worth to keep discover options to defend the risks from other disruptive systems. [1]

Second, a knowledge-based firm must be developed constantly in nowadays marketplaces. Organizations should look further, be proactive and also have a wider view of views. The inner and external surroundings in an group should be meticulously monitored. Once there's a quick change or hazard come from, the organization can respond to the change properly for both inner and external surroundings. Executive management should be vibrant, keep monitor with the change of business ecosystem such that they can set up the correct and latest organizational strategies to guide the organizations. [1]

The third target is the organization's framework which has a great impact about how the company can react to change properly. Actually, organization structure is the most important factor to look for the operation of an business. A proper executive authority and management programs can hardly be successful if there is no flexible firm structure which responds and adopts effectively and proficiently to the changes. [1] Leaders at the professional level should have a clear brain on the business set ups and the implications of that structure in order to build up and foster a disruptive technology efficiently, enhance the competitiveness of the organization in the marketplaces.

In additional, it is important to analyze the partnership between radical research and the proven business units. Creating some distance between these two is crucial. Organizations should aware that there is a potential threat of creating a ecological product rather than a disruptive product, if the business units are permitted to affect the end product too much. [1]

Eventually, regarding to Bower and Christensen's article, Disruptive Technology: Getting the Influx, a potential disruptive technology may also be considered as upsetting by traditional task management systems. [2] Therefore, the systems should encourage employees to truly have a wider perception of view. Employees at all degrees of the organizations should be interested about advance technologies for both outside and inside their industries. In order to be successful, goals and worth should be integrated into the organization's guiding concepts.


[1] Dr. LEE, TERADYNE Circumstance, BUSA 541. The JKF Group, 12th Oct 2002

[2] Bower, Joseph L. & Christensen, Clayton M. (1995). "Disruptive Technology: Capturing the Wave" Harvard Business Review, January-February 1995


Let's say you have been asked to write a book overview of The Innovator's Dilemma by a leading scholarly business journal. This will be an in-depth overview of roughly five webpages length (single space). Inside the review, you must do the next:

  • Highlight tips raised by Christensen
  • Discuss how Christensen's views are groundbreaking, in the sense that each goes against a lot of what we've been trained by business schools (e. g. , Do whatever you can to satisfy the customer)
  • Discuss how Christensen's insights show you a significant reason that organization's resist change
  • Discuss possible weaknesses of Christensen's procedure - for example, is there technologies and/or areas of business and administration where his viewpoints don't make sense? (Hint: The answer is 'yes'. )
  • Use the publication review as an possibility to showcase your individual views (the best publication reviews always do this)

A booklet review on Clayton Christensen's e book, The Innovator's Dilemma

In this publication, Christensen has highlighted some key points about the term disruptive solutions. Sometimes, it could be called disruptive enhancements. Disruptive technologies or innovations were regarded as technologies or improvements overturning the existing order in an industry.

Initially, customers who were not served by the existing market were the key target of disruptive solutions and innovations. Under successive capacity or performance improvements, the low-end inventions squeezed out the incumbents in the mainstream market segments. Christensen criticized incumbents weren't hypersensitive to the disruptive systems and incumbents usually focused on satisfying the needs of the mainstream customers. In general, incumbents did not act in response sensitively to avoid the threat brought from others disruptive technology until it were too overdue to do anything, say an organization finally went out of business. Sometimes, professionals weren't comfortable rather than enthusiastic about those low margins. These were not willing to develop disruptive technologies or enhancements as they considered exploring a fresh market was taking a risk.

Christensen have explained the real reason for why organizations collapsed and failed in their business regardless of being the most notable position in the marketplaces, to be able to develop the best and capable sustainable improvements and technology in their industries. That is a issue of their business design. Sustainable solutions improvement had not been the explanation for the leaders went of business in an industry. At the time being, they developed their potential and capability to compete in their high-end market. Nevertheless, it was talked about by Christensen that these were sustainable technology and innovations that have been already utilized by the best organizations in the industries.

Following an "s-curve", increasing performance had been expected by their customers. Together with the well established associations with clients, well developed reputation, sufficient money and more advance technological ability on the market, leaders usually didn't fail. Before introduction of disruptive technology, the story had changed. Disruptive solutions were a good nightmare of professionals. In the in contrast, disruptive solutions are so much cheaper, where they explored and opened a new market in which the mainstream incumbents didn't consider to explore. But at this time the speed of improvement of performance of the disruptive solutions and innovations surpasses the users' requirements, they surpassed the high-end and mainstream technologies and innovations inevitably.

Christensen's views were revolutionary because of technical and ground breaking business. He brought up that great organizations succeeded because they paid attention to their customers' needs and invested aggressively in the solutions and improvements. Nevertheless, at the mean time, great businesses failed with the same reason, listened to their customers and put their great work to satisfy their customers. It had been revolutionary set alongside the traditional concept of business institutions, which sold the concept of doing all the better to satisfy your visitors. Christensen did research on the history of drive drive industry. He confirmed the reasons behind why the key established drive markers were not able to reach the 8-in. drive market. It really is as a result of delay of tactical commitment to enter the rising market.

Christensen's insights experienced revealed a significant reason great established organizations in the market segments resist to changes. Christensen experienced pointed out that since founded organization's structure and organizations working together were facilitating the design of its dominating technologies and innovations, the organization's framework and the organizations learning to interact could be affected and could not design new products. Organizations required completely different technological functions called radical change. Actually, established firms were sensitive, aggressive and progressive in terms of these sustainable systems and innovations. But the explanations why they resisted changes were the problem of downward vision and freedom in conditions of Christensen's trajectory map. Finding changes and new technology markets for every of the businesses seemed to look once when they were first founded and then evidently lost finally. This resistance to changes stored going frequently.

Despite there were much supportive commentaries on Christensen's way regarding the issue on disruptive technologies and improvements, but nothing is perfect. There have been some weaknesses of his approach. It looked like that Christensen's view did not consider the entire socio-political environment and human being factors in reality.

In this book, the large built in steel mills companies displaced by those mini-mills metallic industries was considered as an example by Christensen. Christensen put emphasis on how mini-mill first getting into the reduced margin marketplaces and then squeezed out the integrated mills when mini-mill technology, performance and quality better. Nevertheless, the relieving effects of labor-management relationships weren't considered in this case by Christensen. He did not consider if the unions want to accept new labor guidelines requiring more flexible job descriptions. Whether management ready to adjust pay scales with workers who were been trained in and in a position to perform jobs was not considered. However, definitely, Christensen did not consider the effects of labor-management relationships. Furthermore, for the example of replacement of vapor shoves by hydraulically handled equipment, one question should be asked, "Were labor unions, and management, averse to retraining equipment providers who had many years invested in becoming adept in operation and use of, a particular technology?"

In general, because of human characteristics, people contacted to stay away from changes, especially unforeseen changes from disruptive systems. However, disruptive systems required people to accept and adopt the changes. It didn't a must for people being unwilling to disruptive technology. There were small portions of folks who going after the latest systems and placed cost into lower level of consideration. We were holding the first teams of people to accept disruptive solutions. Taking personal computers for example, actually, these were expensive and did not have way too many functions when they were first launched in 1970s. (Wikipedia, 2010) A lot of people did not discover the utilization of computers at home. But with those groups of men and women who like chasing after the latest technology, eventually, prices went down and performance of personal computers climbed up. In the long run, people began to use personal computers in home and workplaces.

Christensen in his publication stated that disruptive technologies came from a low cost margin and displaced the high-end margin. However, Christensen's disruptive systems or innovations did not always make sense. For samples, atomic bomb was surely disruptive, but it had never been low cost margin and it performed are expensive of money. Electric operated vehicles would displace gasoline vehicles, but it never cost at low margin. (John Dvorak, 2004)

Finally, from my point of views, although Christensen talked about that we ought not miss out the boats of disruptive solutions by too centered on gratifying customers' needs

"Our conclusion is that a primary reason why such businesses lose their positions of industry authority when confronted with certain types of technological changebecause they listen closely too carefully with their customers" (Christensen and Bower, 1996)

I believed there was some misinterpretation on their conclusion. Indeed, to begin with, we should make discrimination between current customers and potential clients. Actually, being too centered on customers did not mean an exclusive give attention to current customers in line with the term called "customer compelled"

"a company may become essentially twisting over backward to fulfill every whim of current customers, even at the expense of the company's short-term and long-term performance a customer-oriented firm can provide current customers and stay vigilant for un-served appearing marketplaces" (Day, 1999)

Furthermore, actually, organizations which put their targets future customers rather than current customers acquired a greater degree of radical product innovation and solutions. (Chandy and Tellis, 1998) For me, the organizations and companies explained in Christensen's reserve were referred to as developing a superficial understanding of their customers' needs. In fact, a business which put great give attention to their customer should understand the potential demands of its customers. Presently, an comprehensive toolkit for learning deeply into customers' requirements (Aaker, Kumar and Day, 2000) and new techniques like empathic design (Leonard and Rayport, 1997) were produced by many general market trends scholars continually.

Christensen suggested that incumbents should set up an independent corporation for undertaking the disruptive technology and enhancements. I asked a question myself, is creating an unbiased organization the best method to go after disruptive systems? Christensen argued that for professionals to be thinking about the tiny market for disruptive systems, how big is the organizations should be matched with how big is the opportunity appropriately. There have been only three incumbents reached the successful business with disruptive systems in the whole background of the hard disk industry as mentioned in his book. However, only two out of three resulted from setting up an independent corporation for undertaking the disruptive solutions.

Hewlett-Packard and Schwab were two organizations doing their business on producing inkjet printers and developing online trading respectively. At the beginning, an independent company was set up by Hewlett-Packard to go after disruptive technology. Nevertheless, the disruptive technologies business bended into the mainstream business eventually when it grew greater in level and became more profitable to control satisfactory resources. For Schwab, another corporation called e-Schwab was founded. Unfortunately, e-Schwab was finally integrated into Schwab to be able to solve the channel issue between both of these organizations. Gulatin and Garino (2002) concluded that a separate organization brought the business to stop co-operation in purchasing, information showing and customer support. Organizations creating an independent organization to follow disruptive systems and innovations required to pay a trade-off. Actually, it was still a questionable issue on which one was the ultimate way to pursue disruptive technologies, the mainstream organizations or separating 3rd party divisions. Research should be achieved on this issue in the future.

In conclusion, key points stated by Clayton Christensen were mentioned. I hope this publication review on Clayton Christensen's publication, The Innovator's Issue, will encourage more research and review by business scholars and attract more attention in these areas regarding disruptive technology and innovations in the foreseeable future.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)