Disruption theory refers to the idea that new technologies, businesses, or ideas can cause significant changes and challenges to established companies or industries. It suggests that these disruptions can often come from unexpected sources and can have a transformative impact, leading to the displacement or decline of existing companies or practices.
Full definition
In fact,
disruption theory often doesn't make sense when it comes to understanding how companies succeed in the age of the Internet.
In fact,
disruption theory often doesn't make sense when it comes to understanding how companies succeed in the age of the Internet.
But Jobs decided to use the new technology on a phone, which from the perspective
of disruption theory looked unwise, since everyone already owned one.
In Harvard professor Clayton Christensen's well -
trodden disruption theory, as a market leader continues to improve its product, it goes beyond meeting the needs of what some customers actually want.
(Horn is co-author, with Clayton M. Christensen and Curtis W. Johnson, of Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns, the cardinal expression of
disruption theory in education; Staker is senior research fellow at the Christensen Institute.)
Now,
disruption theory states that given all these circumstances, the alternative supplier will steadily grow its market share — starting from the edges of the market and its least complex and lowest - value needs, then gradually working its way up and in to higher - value sectors as it develops and matures — until at a certain point, the established supplier fades away and the challenger becomes the new incumbent.
Ron's post suggests that it's time we take another look at this concept and begin to parse the difference
between disruption theory and on - the - ground practice in the legal world.
Even though Clayton Christensen, the creator
of disruption theory, incorrectly predicted that the iPhone would be a failure, he argued later that his mistake had not been due to a flaw in the theory itself, but to his having failed to recognize that the iPhone was disrupting the laptop industry, not the smartphone industry as he'd originally assumed.
Apple's original competitive advantage — the integration of hardware and software — is more durable than
disruption theory would suggest.
Followers of
disruption theory should have a different take.
One misreading of
disruption theory has been that disruption is good and sustaining innovation is bad (I suspect that's one reason for the gross overuse of the word disruptive).
Disruption theory does not fully explain everything that Jobs achieved.
Jordan seems to have fallen into the trap which Clayton Christensen has spoken of much less infrequently, than the other principles of
disruption theory.
Disruption theory is better used for predicting which fledgling businesses will succeed, not the shifts or transformations of established businesses.
Apple's original competitive advantage — the integration of hardware and software — is more durable than
disruption theory would suggest.
Nguyen Trieu went on to dismiss
the disruption theory by pointing out that what is happening around blockchain in the financial sector is not disruptive at all.