El Dilema del Innovador http://www.resumido.com/es/libro.php/114 EDITORIAL Harvard Business School Press AÑO PUBLICACION 1997 PÁGINAS 225 The Innovator's Dilemma When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail By Clayton M. Christensen Christensen describe en este libro el resultado de su estudio: por qué empresas buenas perdían su dominio de mercado aún cuando seguían buenas prácticas de negocios escuchaban a sus clientes y se enfocaban en sus productos más rentables. Irónicamente estas buenas prácticas de negocios, que normalmente mejoran los productos y servicios, llevaron a que las empresas no respondieran ante nuevos productos y tecnologías. La razón: las nuevas tecnologías disruptivas, que requieren cambios radicales en producción y mercadeo, y que aún no han encontrado un mercado. Así, mientras el mercado crece, para el momento en que estas compañías respondan, ya es muy tarde para beneficiarse - las empresas más pequeñas han respondido primero y han tomado el liderazgo. Si las empresas entienden el problema, pueden lidiar con las nuevas tecnologías de forma productiva. Por ejemplo, pueden establecer empresas aparte (spin-offs) para moverse dentro de nuevos mercados. Un dilema que ocurre en todas las industrias En todo tipo de industrias, las buenas empresas fallan en mantener su participación de mercado, ya que los mercados y las tecnologías cambian. Le sucede a cualquiera, no importa si las industrias cambian rápida o lentamente, en cuál tecnología se basan, o si son manufactureras o de servicios. Las empresas buenas y bien manejadas declinan en muchos campos diferentes. Ejemplos: 1. Sears: fue una vez líder del mercado en ventas al por menor y era considerada una empresa muy bien administrada. Perdió su posición en el mercado cuando no respondió al aumento de descuentos en ventas al por menor y tiendas del hogar. 2. IBM: fue una vez la empresa dominante en Mainframes, perdió su posición cuando respondió lentamente al crecimiento de las minicomputadoras. Otros ejemplos en tecnología incluyen a Xerox, Apple y Digital Equipment. Sin embargo, este patrón de respuesta lenta y declive puede ser visto en muchos otros campos. El patrón descrito ocurre por la diferencia entre la tecnología sustentada y la disruptiva. Una tecnología sustentada mejora el desempeño del producto o servicio mediante pasos sostenidos y cambios incrementales. Por el contrario, la introducción y mercadeo de una tecnología disruptiva requiere un cambio radical. Las tecnologías de este tipo alteran la relación de una compañía con sus clientes y proveedores, perturban los arreglos financieros que las empresas han logrado para apoyar su actual mercado y tecnología. Es natural resistir a tales cambios. Las tecnologías disruptivas tienen varias desventajas: puesto que las tecnologías disruptivas generalmente abren una puerta para nuevos mercados y desarrollos . Pero conforme las nuevas tecnologías mejoran. Por ejemplo. Inicialmente.la demora pronostica un futuro declive en el negocio tradicional cuando la nueva tecnología despega. En lugar de pelear contra las tecnologías disruptivas. subestimaron a las motoscooters.1. su valor aumenta. pueden prepararse para un futuro de gran éxito. pequeñas.nuevos rivales que ya han desarrollado el conocimiento y los sistemas de mercadeo para competir en el nuevo y creciente mercado. . Los esfuerzos para nutrir estas nuevas tecnologías dentro de una gran compañía están generalmente condenados . atracción del consumidor y dominio. Establezca una empresa separada lo mas temprano posible. A corto plazo. que explote la nueva tecnología y desarrolle nuevos clientes en torno a ella. El hecho de que estos productos puede que no se vendan bien al principio hace que las grandes compañías se interesen aún menos en estos. 2. Las empresas de alto desempeño utilizan sistemas para eliminar las ideas que los consumidores no quieren. Es racional que las grandes empresas que se resistan a adoptar tecnologías disruptivas. un negocio nuevo e independiente. esperar hasta que estos nuevos mercados sean suficientemente grandes. 3. Establezca un negocio independiente La forma más efectiva de establecer una presencia en los nuevos mercados es creando una organización autónoma. Honda y Yamaha fueron las pioneras en las motos tipo scooter.las empresas que entran pronto tienen una clara ventaja. Atraen a un mercado mucho más pequeño. simples y fáciles de usar. Harley-Davidson y BMW. Las empresas que sólo se han enfocado en mejorar sus tecnologías sostenidas de pronto tienen nuevos competidores . Ofrecen menos ganancias ya que son más baratas.las presiones institucionales desalientan sus desarrollos. La estrategia que muchas grandes empresas utilizan. la base de clientes para el nuevo producto puede ser pequeña y el producto puede ser muy costoso. pero algunas veces puede que sea necesario no escuchar a los deseos inmediatos de los consumidores sino anticipar sus necesidades futuras. Estas empresas utilizan encuestas y análisis financieros de los nuevos productos. pueden aprender a aprovecharlas en vez de rechazarlas. no mejor. Una vez que los gerentes están conscientes de estas dinámicas. ya que inicialmente estas tecnologías son menos rentables y menos atractivas para el consumidor. como con cualquier cosa nueva y no completamente desarrollada. quienes fabricaban motos poderosas. Es racional favorecer las tecnologías sustentadas Otra barrera para la pronta implementación de una tecnología disruptiva es que su desempeño será incierto. Pero esta estrategia facilita el camino para que la participación de mercado decline mientras que las nuevas tecnologías ganan rentabilidad. sus costos caen y los clientes descubren nuevos usos para estos – en consecuencia. adoptar una tecnología de este tipo resultará en un producto de peor desempeño. hasta que éstas sean ampliamente aceptadas. de este modo estas marcas perdieron su oportunidad de crecer en un nuevo e importante mercado. por lo general no es exitosa . 5 pulgadas mejoró y su mercado creció. cuando nuevos competidores empezaron a producir el disk drive. resuelve problemas. las nuevas empresas más pequeñas que apenas entran en el nuevo mercado no tienen este tipo de costos o restricciones . las empresas establecidas no ven el desarrollo de las nuevas empresas como una amenaza. aceptar la tecnología disruptiva se hace no sólo deseable. En la red de valor de los disk drives.25 pulgadas. Ese año. Seagate se opuso . Pero conforme estos mercados crecen y la tecnología mejora. Por otro lado.no se reajustó a la tecnología disruptiva. buscar la manera de mejorar la tecnología ya existente cuesta menos que cambiar a un nuevo sistema. las firmas emergentes están ya establecidas en la red de valor que rodea a la nueva tecnología. ya que los nuevos mercados son muy pequeños. Los primeros drives.5 pulgadas. las otras firmas tomaron el liderazgo y Seagate fue eclipsada. el drive de ocho pulgadas se había vuelto el estándar micro-computador. desarrollados por la IBM entre 1952 y 1956. Posteriormente. En otras palabras. eran del tamaño de grandes refrigeradores. ¿Por qué? Porque el mercado inicial para su disk drive de 5. necesario para sobrevivir. Para el momento que esto ocurre. Otros casos de estudio . y la computadora depende de la arquitectura del sistema de información utilizado. Estos sistemas. el estándar actual. Los drives se volvieron rápidamente más pequeños y más poderosos. los sucesores son usualmente excluidos y no pueden ganar una participación significativa en el mercado. En 1984.25 era más grande y podía leer más megabytes que el nuevo más pequeño.Caso de estudio: La industria del Disk Drive La industria del Disk Drive (Unidad de disco) fue moldeada por cambios rápidos en la tecnología. sino en algunos casos. red que provee el contexto en el cual la compañía “identifica y responde a las necesidades de los clientes. hacen que sea difícil para una empresa cambiarse a una tecnología disruptiva. de 3. la producción de un disco depende de la arquitectura del disk drive en el que será usado. Un cambio en un componente afectaría toda la red de valor. permitiendo así que Seagate se volviera el líder del mercado. otros sistemas de proveedores y distribuidores están haciendo y distribuyendo los mismos productos. cada empresa forma parte de una “red de productores y mercados” a través de la cual hace y distribuye sus productos. Para 1980. cada un podía almacenar hasta cinco megabytes de información. los consumidores comienzan a cambiarse y abandonan su compromiso con la vieja tecnología. la tecnología del drive de 3. Usted no tiene chance cuando llega tarde Inicialmente. Redes de valor Toda empresa es parte de una “red de valor”. Mientras operan juntos. proporciona insumos. Los fabricantes establecidos de drives de 8 pulgadas se resistieron a éste nuevo formato. Consistían de 50 discos de 24 pulgadas. estructura de mercado y distribución. el cual a su vez depende de la arquitectura de la computadora.están en una mejor posición para explotar las tecnologías disruptivas. reacciona a competidores y lucha por las ganancias”. mutuamente dependientes. Seagate Technology introdujo el disk drive de 5. El desafío es complicado por los costos: dentro del sistema interdependiente. Pero con el tiempo. usted luchará contra creencias fundamentales y sostenidas durante mucho tiempo acerca de cómo las organizaciones deberían funcionar para tener éxito. los fabricantes de palas mecánicas usaban una tecnología basada en cables. cuando la fabricación mediante minimills (minifábricas o molinillos) se hizo comercialmente viable. sus fábricas integradas fueron sacadas del mercado y Nucor Steel tomó el liderazgo. ya que después de todo. mientras que las nuevas ofrecían menos servicio a menor precio . Hacer caso a lo que los consumidores desean. S.El proceso descrito ocurrió en muchas industrias. la segunda cadena de tiendas de variedad más grande del mundo. una nueva tecnología. El antiguo líder del mercado anterior . Las grandes empresas que utilizaron las tecnologías disruptivas siguieron estos cuatro pasos esenciales: 1. las empresas exitosas quieren que sus recursos se enfoquen en “actividades dirigidas a las necesidades de los consumidores.S. arrebatando participación a las tiendas tradicionales y a las tiendas de variedad. preste atención al potencial futuro de la nueva tecnología para atraer una nueva y creciente base de consumidores.esa era su tecnología disruptiva. Empresas como Nucor Steel. Algunos principios que usted tendrá que combatir incluyen: 1. fue introducida entre 1947 y 1965. Los gerentes o dueños de compañías. Las lecciones Estos ejemplos de declive y surgimiento nos enseñan una lección: las empresas deben ser capaces de responder ante las tecnologías disruptivas .S. Dos docenas de nuevas empresas introdujeron productos con la nueva tecnología y llegaron a dominar el mercado. En este caso. Kresge. y que las ayudan a competir en los mercados sustanciales”. que prometen ganancias más altas. deben darse cuenta que a veces son presionados para no incursionar tecnologías disruptivas. Todos estos principios son ciertos. Esto desafía las medidas generales de cómo evaluar el desempeño. Para ese entonces. Las viejas empresas ofrecían servicio a altos precios. lograron producir acero tipo Molten a partir de pedazos de desecho en forma mucho mas efectiva que las grandes fábricas de acero integradas. Acero: Un proceso similar ocurrió en la industria integrada de acero a mediados de los sesenta.deben tomar los pasos necesarios para anticipar los desarrollos tecnológicos. 2. 4. por los años ochenta.Bucryus Erie . algunos ejemplos: Excavación: en la industria de excavación mecánica. en cuanto a cómo utilizar sus recursos. Asigne el trabajo de desarrollo y comercialización de las nuevas tecnologías a una empresa que esté . Usted no conoce de antemano sobre los últimos usos o aplicaciones de las tecnologías disruptivas. compitió exitosamente creando una empresa aparte llamada K-mart. Los pequeños mercados no son importantes. en las etapas de inicio. De esta forma. Como resultado.no construían fábricas con nueva tecnología porque sus recursos estaban invertidos en la vieja tecnología. Steel y Bethlehem Steel. la excavación hidráulica. hágalo pronto. Sin embargo. Puede que no haya suficiente demanda para la nueva tecnología. Las empresas estables se resistieron a la nueva tecnología. dueñas de las fábricas de acero integradas .terminó por caerse. la cual se volvió una tienda de descuento muy exitosa. Si usted tiene que entrar en un campo emergente. Las grandes compañías como U. para aceptar y nutrir estas tecnologías. 3. que son tecnológicamente posibles. motivo por el cual mejorar la tecnología sostenida parece costo-efectiva y popular con los clientes. Ventas al detal: las tiendas de descuento se apropiaron del mercado de ventas al detal. y que aprendan tanto a identificar como a aplicar el potencial disruptivo de las ideas innovadoras. su empresa podría establecer una pequeña unidad de trabajo interna o una empresa pequeña separada para que explore las opciones. Los autores presentan nueve preguntas fundamentales. Las 9 preguntas de la solución del innovador . 3. Asimismo.interesada en hacerlo. buena parte de las empresas no consigue tales resultados porque ni sus estructuras organizacionales ni el segmento del mercado que suelen considerar más rentable responden a la innovación de un modo deseable. Resumen ejecutivo de La solución del innovador En su aclamado libro “El dilema del innovador”. Así pues. 4. 2. Puede adquirir. De hecho. relacionadas con el tema de la innovación. Esté preparado para “fallar pronto y de una forma poco costosa” a lo largo de repetidas pruebas de ensayo y error. una empresa pequeña que esté comenzando en el nuevo campo. en lugar de ser destruidas por ellas. Sin embargo. presentan un esquema general que deben seguir los innovadores al momento de plantear la creación de un nuevo negocio. es preciso que las compañías entiendan la naturaleza de los fenómenos y procesos ligados a la innovación. ya que se enfocan demasiado en sus clientes más rentables. Reconozca la posibilidad de fracaso. cualquiera sea su origen en la empresa.crear disrupciones. Busque maneras de identificar o desarrollar nuevos mercados que valoren los productos basados en estas tecnologías disruptivas. Christensen explicaba cómo los líderes de una industria son cegados por innovaciones disruptivas. que debe formular y responder cualquier organización resuelta a crecer de un modo rentable a través del tiempo. se ocupa de mostrar como las empresas pueden llegar al lado opuesto del dilema . por ejemplo. Asigne el proyecto en una organización “suficientemente pequeña como para entusiasmarse con pequeñas oportunidades y triunfos”. Introducir innovaciones disruptivas constituye el modo más eficaz de mantener el crecimiento de una organización. Ahora. mientras busca un mercado para estas nuevas tecnologías. ] Disruptive technology From Wikipedia. conveniencia.. Innovaciones sostenidas: productos que se van mejorando con el tiempo para satisfacer las demandas de los clientes de alta categoría dispuestos a pagar más por un mejor producto. Para determinar si una idea es o no [. el líder del mercado prevalecerá mientras se introduzcan “innovaciones sostenidas”. el líder siempre será superado por los nuevos participantes del mercado.. puesto que su modelo de negocios cobra un mayor sentido. más barato) y que llaman la atención de nuevos clientes. pero que ofrecen otros beneficios (simplicidad. the free encyclopedia ..Hay nueve decisiones importantes que los gerentes deben tomar para generar crecimiento exitosamente. Busque un producto que sea disruptivo: [. En términos generales.. Cómo derrotar a nuestros más poderosos competidores y sacarles ventaja? Es posible dividir la innovación en dos categorías: 1. Pero en circunstancias disruptivas. y propiciar el crecimiento: 1. la innovación de productos disruptivos sigue un patrón consistente. Con el fin de desarrollar sus propias soluciones al dilema del innovador. 2.] El patrón de la innovación Independientemente de cuál sea la tendencia industrial o comercial. Innovaciones disruptivas: productos que no son tan buenos como los que ya están disponibles. it was not a disruptive innovation. "evolutionary"). (E. The theory Christensen defines a disruptive innovation as a product or service designed for a new set of customers.g. The concept of disruptive technology continues a long tradition of the identification of radical technical change in the study of innovation by economists. and unimportant to. the automobile) Evolutionary An innovation that improves a product in an existing market in ways that customers are expecting. because early automobiles were expensive luxury items that did not disrupt the market for horse-drawn vehicles. and the development of tools for its management at a firm or policy level.e. "Generally.g. (E."[4] .g.e.. fuel injection) Disruptive An innovation that creates a new (and unexpected) market by applying a different set of values. He describes the term further in his book The Innovator's Dilemma. (1997) In his sequel. a "sustaining" innovation does not have an effect on existing markets.[2] • History and usage of the term The term disruptive technologies was coined by Clayton M. They offered less of what customers in established markets wanted and so could rarely be initially employed there. It is the strategy or business model that the technology enables that creates the disruptive impact. Although the automobile was a transformational innovation. The market for transportation essentially remained intact until the debut of the lower priced Ford Model T in 1908 by making higher speed. However.Types of Innovation[1] Sustaining Revolutionary or discontinuous An innovation that creates a new market by allowing customers to solve a problem in a radically new way.. disruptive innovations were technologically straightforward. For example. In contrast to "disruptive" innovation. the mainstream. typically by lowering price or designing for a different set of consumers. The Innovator's Solution. The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect. "transformational") or "continuous" (i. (2003) Christensen replaced disruptive technology with the term disruptive innovation because he recognized that few technologies are intrinsically disruptive or sustaining in character. Christensen and introduced in his 1995 article Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave[3]. Sustaining innovations may be either "discontinuous"[1] (i. They offered a different package of attributes valued only in emerging markets remote from. motorized transportation available to the masses. consisting of off-the-shelf components put together in a product architecture that was often simpler than prior approaches.. Transformational innovations are not always disruptive. Christensen's evolution from a technological focus to a business modelling focus is central to understanding the evolution of business at the market or industry level. the lower priced Ford Model T) A disruptive innovation is an innovation that disrupts an existing market. (E. Christensen's contemporary emphasis on the applied business model rather than the technology itself was developed by Henry Chesbrough's pioneering notion of Open Innovation. which he co-wrote with Joseph Bower. The article is aimed at managing executives who make the funding/purchasing decisions in companies rather than the research community. broadcast radio and television have seen a decline in their listeners/viewers. in 1981.[8] For example. Once the disruptor has gained foot hold in this customer segment. at some point the performance of the product overshoots the needs of certain customer segments. In low-end disruption.[4] However. The incumbent will not do much to retain its share in a not so profitable segment.[4] was an "innovation" only in the sense that it was new. well managed companies that are responsive to their customers and have excellent research and development. To get higher profit margins. The Linux operating system (OS) when introduced was inferior in performance to other server operating systems like Unix and Windows NT. thereby gaining a foothold in the market. But the Linux OS is inexpensive compared to other server operating systems.Christensen argues that disruptive innovations can hurt successful. the disruptor is focused initially on serving the least profitable customer. it seeks to improve its profit margin. as this market grew and the drives improved. the disruptor needs to enter the segment where the customer is willing to pay a little more for higher quality. the incumbent is squeezed into smaller markets than it was previously serving. assembled from technologically inferior "off-the-shelf" components. This type of customer is not willing to pay premium for enhancements in product functionality.[6] "Low-end disruption" occurs when the rate at which products improve exceeds the rate at which customers can adopt the new performance. These companies tend to ignore the markets most susceptible to disruptive innovations. 5. a disruptive technology may enter the market and provide a product which has lower performance than the incumbent but which exceeds the requirements of certain segments. "New market disruption" occurs when a product fits a new or emerging market segment that is not being served by existing incumbents in the industry. 8 inch drives were not affordable for the new desktop machines. Broadcasting companies have had to look for innovative ways to Podcasting Broadcast Radio & TV "time-shift" their content so that consumers can watch or view media when an where they desire. To ensure this quality in its product. the disruptor needs to innovate. the cause of this instability was a repeating pattern of disruptive innovations. who is happy with a good enough product.8% of the worlds 500 fastest supercomputers.[7] Examples of disruptive innovations Innovation Disrupted market Notes With the advent of podcasting. because the markets have very tight profit margins and are too small to represent significant growth.25 inch hard disk drive However.25 inch drive. And then finally the disruptive technology meets the demands of the most profitable segment and drives the established company out of the market.[5] How low-end disruption occurs over time.[8] . After a number of such encounters. According to Clayton M.25 inch drives (used disk drive in desktop computers). 8 inch hard disk The hard disk drive market has had unusually large changes in market share over the 14 inch hard disk drive drive past fifty years. Christensen distinguishes between "low-end disruption" which targets customers who do not need the full performance valued by customers at the high end of the market and "new-market disruption" which targets customers who have needs that were previously unserved by existing incumbents. the companies that drive manufactured them eventually triumphed while many of the existing manufacturers of eight inch drives fell behind. Christensen's research. After years of improvements Linux is now installed in 87. Therefore. The simple 5. and will move up-market and focus on its more attractive customers.25 inch hard 8 inch hard disk drive 8 inch drives (used in mini computers) were "vastly superior" to 5.5 inch hard disk 5. 3. At this point. they lowered the cost of entry to the publishing Traditional publishing publishing business.[citation needed] A LED is significantly smaller and less power-consuming than a light bulb. However. the market for minicomputers became much larger than the market for Minicomputers. and economies of scale eventually enabled them to match.[citation needed] Offset printing has a high overhead cost. and nearly-instantaneous review quickly CMOS video Photographic film eliminated 16 mm high speed film systems. Lisp of their introduction in the 1970s. due to sonic booms. the music industry phased out the single. glass etc Light-emitting diodes Light bulbs The Concorde aircraft has so far been the only supersonic airliner in extensive commercial traffic. Hence steamships originally only competed in traditional shipping lines' "worst" markets. high-cost CDs. medium.and later long-distance transports were relocated to road traffic. the market for main frames and mini-computers was seriously Personal Workstations. and then surpass. Nevertheless. The loss of speed was compensated by flexibility. rail is still preferred for large-scale bulk cargo (such as minerals).or threephase at 20-50 A for film cameras). except for high-budget motion pictures. but very low unit cost compared to computer printers. Later models could be used for indoor lighting. which were initially free. In the early 21st century. and superior quality. but a higher investment and operating cost than road traffic. Quality and resolution are no longer major issues and shutter lag is much less than it used to be. cable-operated excavators are still used excavators excavators in some cases. and cameras based on them had less duration (record time). which explains Western Union's decision. The advantage High speed of rapid setup time. had lower resolution. rail systems often become more attractive and make a comeback. However.In the 1990s. Supersonic flight is also banned above inhabited land. 240 V single. vs. This low end disruption eventually undermined the sales of physical.[citation needed] The first steamships were deployed on inland waters where sailing ships were less Steamships Sailing ships effective. the functionality of the older dedicated publishing systems. buses and trucks were used for local transportation in suburban areas. highresolution digital video recording has replaced film stock.000. wood and glass. The Concorde service was withdrawn in 2003. Although they were not at all competitive at the time computers processors. have improved Computer printers Offset printing in speed and quality. Eventually. they have become increasingly useful for creating documents in limited issues. as well as the lack of the need to develop Digital photography. This market was filled by peer-to-peer file sharing Downloadable CDs.their main advantages were electric insulation and low cost. But as printers.[citation needed] Automobiles Rail transport At the beginning of the 20th century. plastics can be used for nearly all household items previously made of metal.[10] vertically integrated steel By using mostly locally available scrap and power sources these mills can be cost Mini steel mills mills effective even though not large.com. Continuing advances have overtaken 35 mm film and are challenging 70 mm film applications. where they often replaced streetcars and industrial tracks. The convenience of small memory cards and portable hard drives that Originally. The first cars. New forms had advantages such as transparency.[citation needed] When first introduced. The first optical LEDs were weak. especially laser printers. and then by online retailers such as the iTunes Digital Media music store and Amazon. Short-distance telegraphy barely existed as a market segment.[citation needed] Early digital cameras suffered from low picture quality and resolution and long shutter lag. wood. mainly for large excavations. Word disrupted by personal computers. high speed CMOS sensors were less sensitive. [citation needed] Private jet Supersonic transport Plastic Metal. Similarly. instead of on the higher profit margin seagoing routes. it catered to a small customer segment. DVDs technologies. When urban density increases. and only useful as indicator lights. CMOS-based cameras also require less sensors power (single phase 110 V AC and a few amps for CMOS. which could later afford small private sub-sonic jets. photography Cameras for classic photography are stand-alone devices. Telephones were only useful for very local calls. This left consumers with no means to purchase individual songs. Since rail has always been faster than contemporary road vehicles[citation needed]. In the same manner. now these pictures. by the mid 1980s they had improved exponentially machines and could compete directly with the more expensive machines.[citation needed] When Western Union infamously declined to purchase Alexander Graham Bell's telephone patents for $100. Digital cameras have a high power consumption (but photography increasingly all chemical several lightweight battery packs can provide enough power for thousands of pictures). elasticity and combustibility. mainframes.[citation needed] Early desktop-publishing systems could not match high-end professional systems in Desktop either features or quality. As highways expanded. it is viable for passengers in populated regions like Western Europe. and future ones will probably be strong enough to serve as . and some railways closed down.[11] Minicomputers Mainframes Minicomputers were originally presented as an inexpensive alternative to mainframes and mainframe manufacturers did not consider them a serious threat in their market. their highest-profit market was long-distance Telephones Telegraphy telegraphy. As rail traffic has a lower ton-kilometer cost. editing in the camera. south and east Asia and the Northeast Corridor. instant hold hundreds or thousands of pictures. also helped.[9] Hydraulic excavators were clearly innovative at the time of introduction but they gain Hydraulic Cable-operated widespread use only decades after.[citation needed] Bakelite and other early plastics had very limited use . rail (including streetcars) was the fastest and most cost-efficient means of land transportation for goods and passengers in industrialized countries. This tripped the development of a new discount category in the market which was later entered by the large discount retail chains with own branded offerings leveraging their distribution power in the lower tier of the market.[citation needed] Synthesizers were initially low-cost. MVNOs) first focused on a lowdistribution-cost-through-internet sales model. too. but did not adapt digital technology. innovations like low-priced mobile-internet tariffs were brought to market. Incandescent light bulbs are being phased out in many countries. which are now more expensive to produce) and IP/Internet telephony. low-weight alternatives to electronic organs and acoustic pianos.ca/iejll/angus Review Essay--The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail by Clayton M. but during the early 2000s these (and other planar technologies) largely replaced the dominant cathode ray tube (CRT) technology for computer displays and television sets. They are often difficult to recognize. [12] Business implications Disruptive technologies are not always disruptive to customers.ucalgary. since they compare so badly with existing technologies or products. and often take a long time before they are significantly disruptive to established companies. Today's synthesizers feature many automated functions and have replaced them for home and hobby users.. etc). Indeed. and failed to compete with digital competitors. where the replacement technology does not.[citation needed] Mobile Discount / No Frills Operators (MDOs aka. possible mainly because of sentimental and aesthetic value. since it would involve competing with their existing (and more profitable) technological approach.[citation needed] Facit AB used to dominate the European market for calculators. invest in small firms that might adopt these innovations. and sometimes cannot practically replace all of the non-obvious attributes of the older system (sustained operation through municipal power outages. Examples include digital photography (the sharp decline in consumer demand for common 35 mm print film has had a deleterious effect on free-riders such as slide and infrared film stocks. existing businesses are often reluctant to take advantage of it. can be subtly disruptive. In later times.[citation needed] The first liquid crystal displays (LCD) were monochromatic and had low resolution. rather than prominently so. the higher degree of obviousness that the service may be life-safety critical or deserving of higher restoration priority in catastrophes. Even if a disruptive innovation is recognized. Classical light bulbs for lower light indoor use remain. Disruptive technologies.Digital synthesizer Electronic organ and piano Mobile Telephony Mobile Discount Operators LCD CRT Digital calculator Mechanical calculator street lights. They were used in watches and other handheld devices. http://www. Christensen recommends that existing firms watch for these innovations. 3(25) . Christensen. and continue to push technological demands in their core market so that performance stays above what disruptive technologies can achieve. it is often entirely rational for incumbent companies to ignore disruptive innovations. national security priority access. and the deceptively small market available for a disruptive innovation is often very small compared to the market for the established technology. although CRT technologies have improved with advances like true-flat panels and digital controls only recently. although some lamps using other technologies have designs resembling light bulbs. as Christensen points out and studies have shown. These failures include projects that are cancelled or run grossly over budget. it would seem to make sense that companies that are innovative and pioneer new technologies will pave the path to corporate success.. and therefore it is the responsibility of the organization to pursue the development of new technologies (disruptive technologies) that will meet their needs. to carefully study market trends and to systematically allocate investment capital that promises the best return. Sustaining technologies are new technologies that companies adopt to improve product performance. they lose their position of leadership. considers the possible explanation that these failing firms. services and processes. Clayton M. $43. the business community would aggressively argue against Christensen's view since current business theory suggests that the customer is "king". In the past. Is this plausible? On a superficial level. difficulty arises in planning and budgeting for these projects given the amount of uncertainty surrounding their ability to help companies increase profitability. Though simple in principle. Without the ability to project market acceptance for these technologies. Christensen defends his argument by identifying two types of technologies. Christensen counters this argument by suggesting that the customer does not always know what he / she wants or needs. or to even identify which market should receive these technologies.ca Western Management Consultants Christensen. and they are recognized as tools that result in worse product performance in the short-term. Intel. The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. 225 pages. it is the research and development technologies (or disruptive technologies) that present more risk. initially) desired by a firm's most profitable customers.95 (Cdn. Disruptive technologies. thus resulting in their eventual demise. which mainstream customers in major markets value. Disruptive technologies emerge less frequently. and typically are not (at least. the practice of pursuing more long-term objectives for future competitive advantage is quite difficult to adopt because it requires a higher degree of risk tolerance than most firms feel comfortable with. and all decision-making should be aimed at meeting the customers' needs. but ultimately bring more value to the customer and the market in the long-term. both of which can impact on a company's success.Catherine L. the notion of the disruptive technology suggests that firms must be willing to take the risk of pursuing breakthrough innovations in order to gain strategic dominance in fast moving industries and markets. 1997. one must question which firms will be willing to keep up with the fast rate of technological change and invest in disruptive technologies. although as well run as one could expect. However. In assessing this proposition as it applies to a corporation. Christensen suggests that the pursuit of short-term objectives at the expense of more strategic and forward thinking long-term objectives results in a company losing the competitive advantage. Nonetheless. This makes it highly unlikely that companies focusing on high return products and high customer value will invest in disruptive technologies that may be value-added in the future. in the future. However. increase revenue and improve customer loyalty. 1998). the purpose of new technology is to create business opportunity. and the needs of others. A disruptive technology is embraced initially by the least profitable customer in a market-the innovator. Inevitably. sustaining and disruptive. Apple and multiple Silicon Valley start-ups making the headlines due to their successful pursuit of new technologies. One cannot dispute the value of sustaining technologies. however. Harvard Business School Press. Christensen. Given this high failure rate with IT projects. Angus angus@wmc. These are characterized as tools that serve to improve the performance of established products.) ISBN 0875845851 This book presents a somewhat radical proposition by suggesting that well managed and successful companies are failing because of the things they are doing right in confronting new markets and technological change. As well. The question that must be asked is whether schools are also failing because of the decisions they are making with regard to technology adoption? Christensen's radical stance suggests that because firms choose to listen to their customers' demands. it becomes increasingly difficult to gain senior management support for an innovative project. firms have been focused on pursuing IT . Does it make sense that firms present a low risk tolerance in the pursuit of new technologies? With companies like Microsoft. The author. especially when Canadian research shows 30% of all IT projects in Canada fail (Anne McKague. many companies will continue to be risk adverse when it comes to Information Technology (IT). On a deeper level. given that they meet the customers' needs. Clayton M. a parallel can be made to an educational environment. Technologies which serve to create business opportunity are described as disruptive technologies. (Book). to invest aggressively in new technologies. not to improve the level of automation of existing products. may be faulted in their method of decision-making. are difficult to embrace given that they are first commercialized in emerging or insignificant markets. I believe Christensen has laid out a suitable framework to follow in an effort to catch the wave of innovation. Achieving this end depends on the vision of leaders in an organization. 3. (1998. I believe Christensen is asking for management teams to shift their paradigm of success to a more strategic and longterm focus. eliciting resource allocation to the product. Anne. In assessing the set of rules or strategies Christensen suggests for capitalizing on the phenomenon of disruptive innovation. With the existence of these challenges. speeding along faster than anyone can plan for it.projects that lower costs. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. how do firms manage to harness the value of investing in disruptive technologies? Christensen recommends a series of four key strategies in order to enable a successful pursuit of innovation in new technology: 1. Stakeholders must be willing to adapt to change. and a low tolerance for risk? Given that the critical variable in successfully executing Christensen's framework is buy-in. in successfully implementing this framework is establishing buy-in for the vision across the organization. Companies should plan to fail early and inexpensively in the search for a market for disruptive technologies Companies look for new markets to adopt a disruptive technology.Results of studies are in and the results are all bad. rather than operating based on an operational and short-term focus. References Christensen. McKague. rather than focusing the entire organization's efforts on new and uncertain projects. This alignment process applies equally to corporations as well as educational institutions. 4. a new method of promoting organizational change must be pursued. Harvard Business School Press. Small sub-organizations should be given the autonomy to pilot disruptive technologies." Because schools often rely on the principal and administration to spearhead new initiatives and directions of growth. This can be partially explained by the fact that the ultimate uses for disruptive technologies cannot be known in advance. resistance to change among staff. enables increased customer demand. Clayton M. Commentary . small markets don't solve the growth needs of large. how is this generated within the schools? How can proactive technology leaders have an impact in their schools? Should their efforts to generate buy-in be targeted at the teaching staff or the administration? How can the trend of low risk tolerance and resistance to change be reversed to promote new vision within a school? The need to develop buy-in and promote a new technology vision in a school may require leadership from "within" rather than leadership from "above. buy-in to new initiatives and be willing to adopt a new vision for innovative technology in the classroom. Computing Canada. December). the opportunity for innovative technology may be limited if the administrators are not technology-focused. how is the pursuit of innovative technology successfully implemented in schools where barriers exist such as restrained budgets. established companies. which has made it more challenging for firms to be forward looking and focus on innovations that will be long-term revenue generators. companies need to create alignment between their vision for the future and their short-term decision-making processes. as well as the fact that with disruptive technologies. and challenge it along the way? With the pace of change in technology. rather than trying to fit the disruptive technology into the sustaining technology market. Will the leaders in a company be proactive rather than reactive to innovation? Will they search out opportunities and take responsibility for the investment. With the technology experts advancing from within the ranks. pursuing large markets. From an educational perspective. The critical variable. Aligning disruptive innovation with the "right" customer. however. and investing exclusively in high performance / high margin products. 2. Disruptive technologies should be matched with a customer base that wants them (no matter how small). one must question whether it is feasible for organizations to act outside the traditional model of listening to customers. . The success of a new strategy as radical as the one suggested by Christensen is dependent upon the individuals within the organization internalizing and promoting this new vision.