Sustaining vs. Disruptive
One distinction deserves its own unit because it explains why great, well-run companies get toppled by seemingly inferior newcomers. Clayton Christensen's theory of disruptive innovation is among the most important - and most misused - ideas in the field.[1] The key is the difference between sustaining and disruptive innovation.
Makes a good product better along the dimensions mainstream customers already value. Incumbents usually win here - they are motivated and well-equipped to serve their best customers.
Starts simpler, cheaper, and "worse" on traditional measures - serving overlooked or non-consumers - then improves until it upends the mainstream. Incumbents usually miss it.
The innovator's dilemma
Here is the trap that gives the theory its name. Disruptive products start out worse, cheaper, and lower-margin - so serving them looks irrational to a well-run incumbent. Listening to your best customers, protecting your margins, and investing where returns are proven - all the "right" managerial instincts - push you to ignore the disruption until it is too late. The incumbent does everything right and still loses. That is the dilemma.
A tiny startup offers a crude, cheap version of what you sell, aimed at customers you don't even want. Your team says 'ignore it'. What's the disruption-aware move?
Is there a 'crude, cheap' newcomer in your market that your organisation is dismissing? Track its trajectory - is it climbing toward your mainstream?
Sources
- Christensen, C., The Innovator's Dilemma, 1997.
- Christensen, Raynor & McDonald, "What Is Disruptive Innovation?", HBR, 2015.
- Christensen, C. & Raynor, M., The Innovator's Solution, 2003.