Comments on: Success, then disruption, then failure

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:15:03 +0000

I should really read the other comments first, for I now see that my point has already been made. Apologies.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:11:27 +0000

I agree that Christensen’s idea applies beyond business. But is it really that original? It is, after all, remarkably similar to evolutionary theory. Take the business example for instance. The incumbent is simply not the best adapted to the environment (in this case the market). Because of this an upstart who is better adapted will steal market share and cause the incumbent to decline in power. And so the cycle continues.

By: Jason (collaborating with M80, representing Microsoft adn Windows Azure)

Jason (collaborating with M80, representing Microsoft adn Windows Azure) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:07:25 +0000

Fair enough. I agree that MS will have to offer it for free in order to compete with Google. Even charging $1/year would be a major market disadvantage – at least if the home user is a major part of the target market. However, it doesn’t have to hurt the Office group or lead to organizational tension. For a variety of reasons (including a richer feature set, not requiring network access, and the wish to store data only locally), Office will still sell. Even then, if sales of Office decline, there is still profit potential in free software-as-as-service offerings through advertisements (the main revenue stream for most of Google’s and Microsoft’s online services).

By: exuvia

exuvia — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:51:28 +0000

There is a saying in Spanish: “Rara vez el comedido sale con la bendición de Dios”

It is a rare occasion when the benefactor is able to leave with a blessing.

By: exuvia

exuvia — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:44:12 +0000

I suggest mediocracy, the rule, by numbers, of mediocrity in a democracy.

It is a mediocre marketplace in every sphere of life; religion, education, relationships etc.

We like to hang out with something we command and understand. It is daunting to step into a formula one.

Someone came up with the catchy reminder: Keep It Simple Stupid…

By: Richard Manchester

Richard Manchester — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:46:45 +0000

As usual, Mr Crotchety, you make me think deeper and laugh harder than I have ever thought or laughed before.

By: andreaskluth

andreaskluth — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:12:42 +0000

Well, it’s true that Microsoft has long been advised be Christensen on how to break the spell. But the power of his observation is that even incumbents who understand the threat of disruption can’t do much about it. Office Web Apps, for example: For Microsoft to make this new thing truly successful, it would have to give it away free or very cheaply and be prepared for its new product to kill Word and Excel. This would lead to organizational tensions (and a shareholder revolt) so that it cannot fully happen. Instead, the new product would be hobbled. A disruptor will provide it instead….

By: Jason (collaborating with M80, representing Microsoft and Windows Azure)

Jason (collaborating with M80, representing Microsoft and Windows Azure) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:09:19 +0000

Good stuff. You see this sort of thing happening outside of the business world as well. It occurs with political parties, non-profit organizations and even sports teams.

I think your examples of Microsoft and Apple are a bit premature, however. These companies are more competitive than they are given credit for, constantly watching market trends and potential competitors. Microsoft, for instance, watches Google like a hawk and takes even the smallest of Google’s test products seriously.
For instance, while Google is enjoying the growing success of Google Docs, Microsoft is preparing to release Office Web Apps.

By: Mr. Crotchety

Mr. Crotchety — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:01:17 +0000

Are you suggesting yoga as a spectator sport? I see yoga enthusiasts slither into Whole Foods from the nearby yoga studio, relaxed and glowing. What do they do in those classes? It seems like it might be more interesting than what I see on public television.

(Ka-ching. I just earned another $30 for that product placement).

By: Richard Manchester

Richard Manchester — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:21:54 +0000

Leaders are ousted … old things die. Natural selection.

By: andreaskluth

andreaskluth — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:43:17 +0000

Aha. In Chistensen’s examples it is NOT the case that the incumbents “…rest on their laurels and no longer work so hard, for they wish to smell the flowers.”

Instead, he studied companies that were fantastically managed when they were being disrupted, working harder than ever, at the top of their game in ever way.

And STILL they were disrupted. Because they saw the world differently than the disruptors, and couldn’t help it.

So it’s not a matter of success leading to sloth. It’s a dynamic unleashed by success.

By: andreaskluth

andreaskluth — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:40:44 +0000

That’s a good sanity check for me. I’d hate to trumpet something as a big idea when it is not.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:56:11 +0000

I don’t think Christensen has said anything new. Incumbents, having achieved success, rest on their laurels and no longer work so hard, for they wish to smell the flowers.

The challengers, by doing what the incumbents once did when they were on the rise, eventually displace the incumbents.

This dynamic is obvious anywhere we care to look, and applies to all aspects of life, whether involving individuals, corporations, nations, empires, you name it, and applies to any activity.

So Christensen, by elucidating the obvious, is banal.

By: Richard Manchester

Richard Manchester — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:29:47 +0000

… Master, isn’t this simply the market place? Why not set up a Yoga stall in a market? I have seen some visit for fun, neither spending nor buying.

By: Thomas Stazyk

Thomas Stazyk — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:33:56 +0000

I couldn’t agree more about business! And forgive me, but Christensen is a good example of a typical business guru with the latest neologism. What he’s describing is what happened to Swiss watches when the Japanese started making quartz watches. So his idea is a bit of a deja vu.

Not to be argumentative, but I don’t think that Christensen’s insights apply to other spheres of life. I don’t think they are even that widely applicable across all of business. For example, how does what he says apply to airlines (lowering cost and eliminating service is not innovation) or the automobile industry?

It is fun to try to come up with scenarios like rap music or reality TV being disruptors but it just doesn’t seem to work. Can’t wait to hear other peoples’ thoughts.