Platinum Author
Disruptive innovation involves changing the goal posts for existing organisations. It has the potential for relatively small organisations to make strong gains even against larger players with entrenched positions. The means by which this happens are two fold:
Firstly, the innovation serves a customer segment that is unattractive to an incumbent. Normally, this will be either because margins are too thin to make it a decent proposition to go after the customer, or else the functionality provided by the supplier is much greater than the customer can afford. In this case, a disruptor with a small cost base can enter the market with something that is perfectly adequate the low-end customer and use this as a beach-head for expansion upward. Incumbents are generally unable to respond because their cost bases (and operational structures) are optimised to serve their customers at the high end of the markets. This is the model that was pioneered by South West Airlines and Ryan Air.
Secondly, disruptive innovation occurs if an incumbent supplier provides has an offer which is much more powerful and expensive than the customer actually needs. Here, the customer is forced to pay a premium for features they don't need, so an entrant is able to get a foot hold by offering something that does way less for a much better price. The incumbent, meanwhile, isn't able to respond, because they are forced to offer all the capabilities they have to satisfy their high end, most valuable customers. This, in fact, is the scenario Microsoft finds itself in with its Office product... most users only use 20% of the features available, but are forced to pay for them all.
Of course, it is sensible for innovators to start some disruptive projects. However, there are a few things it is critical to make clear before the team does so. The first is that disruptions do not generate decent returns overnight. It can sometimes take years for market level changes to affect established organisations. Therefore an innovation team that wants to be disruptive must ensure it has enough successes under its belt to keep alive until its projects start to show decent returns. Frankly, most innovation programmes are cancelled after 18 months because they haven't shown decent returns in time, and most disruptions take much longer than that to occur.
The second reason care must be exercised is the temptation of disrupt an internal business operation. Inevitably, innovators will spot such internal opportunities they know will have positive benefits for their organisations. The problem, though, is that those who are accountable for those business operations today will be forced to fight the innovators to keep them off their turf. Doing anything else is accepting that they will be out of business themselves.
This is completely rational. Most line of business managers spend their waking hours working out how to stop anyone disadvantaging their businesses. It is sensible behaviour for managers in this position to ensure that the status quo is maintained.
On the other hand, innovators are all about designing new futures. This will inevitably involve disruption at some point.
The key to success, of course, is an innovation team is mature and with a long history of success behind it before it starts doing disruptive things. It needs to have this track history because it must prove that what it is doing is actually a positive outcome for the organisation. Otherwise, powerful stakeholders will have few choices but to do everything they can to "take out" the "cowboys"
About this Author
Could disruptive innovation be a tool for your organsiation? If so, review James A Gardner's free online innovation book [http://www.littleinnovationbook.com/ruletwo15.html] that has further advice you may find useful.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_A_Gardner
