The poll, so far, shows that most of you find extending Christensen to Cezanne convincing or intriguing.

But the comments overwhelmingly vote that Christensen’s theory per se is banal–ie, stating the obvious while masquerading as profound.

I’m coming around, guys, I am coming around.

And I’m very pleased: I’ve used the Hannibal Blog to test an idea and it appears to have failed the test, which is progress.

Perhaps you wrote it yourself, Andreas?

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14460051

It’s too late!
It was great!
‘Bye for now.

So dialectic is the ideal and this world is a miserable representation of it?

We’re back to self-reference. Does the barber shave himself? Remember, he is the only barber in the village and shaves everyone who doesn’t shave himself.

No wonder Cezanne rebelled. Now I know why I voted “Intriguing”.

Incumbent=Thesis
Disruptor=Antithesis
Disruption=Synthesis

Is this idea ridiculous, intriguing or convincing?

So don’t ignore the concept, just don’t credit Christensen for it. Because it really does describe the way the world works. For example : One time there were these incumbents called dinosaurs and they became complacent. They were so self-assured they ate everything in sight and ignored the little mammals running around between their legs . . .

Or if you are of a different mind, there was once an incumbent called God and this disruptor named Satan came along and created a whole new industry . . .

Let us know the results of the poll!

There is a vague distinction between the creative artist and a business. The creative artist believes he works for posterity; a business, particularly an old one, works mostly for security. Often a creative artist expects no reward or acceptance. The whole of business is based on reward for work done.

In time of war things are different. Do you listen to your diplomats or to your soldiers? Do you tinker with an existing set-up or do you battle it out? “Security” in this context is a misnomer. You cannot deal with life-or-death challenges according to your own established standards. Anyway, those standards may just be wrong, or partially wrong. Assuredness as to the near perfection of one’s own culture may blind us to the virtues, perhaps superior virtues, of another.

Starting a new business is very much like going to war. You know you have to go out there to survive and that you need a set of skills, people and equipment. Success in business breeds a sense of self- justification. It is a shock when a mouse, a little tiny mouse, threatens you.

[250words]

How did Hannibal’s elephants cope with mice, Andreas?

But I see an Ur-Story here, which is that the incumbent fails to adapt to changes in its environment. The incumbent lost its former flexibility because it became too big, and too much part of the crustaceous establishment. Thus it had stopped doing the sorts of things it did to become number one.

I think people as disparate as biologists and historians have long known this Ur Story (or dynamic).

Even the god of political conservatism, Edmund Burke, said in the 1800s, something to the effect that a state without the means of change was without the means of its survival. Burke obviously knew that the world outside the borders of any political entity is constantly changing.

As good an example as any of Burke’s observation was the Soviet Union.

I listened carefully to Christensen’s video, and I have to say that, for me anyway, he said nothing new. So I’ll repeat what I said in another comment: Christensen is banal (in my humble opinion). He is trying to re-invent the wheel.

I think I’m close to the 250 word (or is it 150 word?) limit, so I’ll stop.