As always, thanks for your input.

- Greg

Buggy whips are a common example. Sears built its reputation and customer base on rural lower-income people who found it convenient to order from catalogs. WalMart took this market from them, but wouldn’t have succeeded as greatly as they did if Henry Ford hadn’t started making a auto for the masses.

Sears didn’t react because their well-trained and s(t)olid management misread the situation. The same is true with Big Blue and PCs. They didn’t want to soil their hands and have to grub in the commodities type of marketing. The market is the same all over. Some of today’s highly respected giants will lose their luster and market share. It’s inevitable. It’s business. Neil Mahoney

No, it applies to all industries – discount stock brokers and tax accountants for instance who disrupted the marketplace by targeting people who were over-served by conventional models.

It’s actually very tough for established companies to continue to service their current customers and also target over-served or non consumers.

- Greg

An informative post. Just happened to read. Is the disruptive innovation is restricted only to manufacturing or services? Can it not be applied in say infrastructure? Just wondering.

While in the media segment in the creativity domain this may work wonderfully (vodafone ad with the Pug, for instance) , why it is not seen often even in established companies? Are they are wary of this phrase or not acknowledge it?

It’s an interesting question, but I don’t think Apple is a disruptive innovator. They create premium functionality and charge a premium price. That makes them a very, very, good innovator, but not a disruptive innovator.

In effect, they do disruptive the marketplace, but not the business model. They just force everybody to catch up with them.

- Greg

1. Over-served market where functionality surpasses actual need.
2. Non-consumers who would accept lower functionality for other attributes, such as service, price, convenience, etc.
3. An innovation which would be disruptive to all incumbents (i.e. not sustaining to any).

Would the Apple iPhone then count as disruptive innovation?
There is/was definitely an over supply of mobile phones, many with complicated features that people did not want or use.
While the iPhone does have the capacity to run complicated applications, by customising the interface it can be kept simple. Also the touch screen interface is intuitive and attractive to people who are overwhelmed by too many buttons/menus/features.
The phone itself was disruptive to all incumbents with competitors having to create similar phones to combat the iphone and keep their market share.
What do you think?
John

Integrating disruptive innovation is notoriously difficult, but you’re right. It can be done.

- Greg

It’s an interesting question. I guess the answer is that people continue to study business after Henry Ford for the same reason that people study Physics after Einstein or Genetics after Watson & Crick.

There are some people who are interested in expanding human knowledge, and I am thankful for them.

- Greg

I have worked in forecasting and innovation for 45 years. I think I make fewer mistakes than most. One reason is that I mistrust all gurus. Better to ask lots people – and not just customers – what they would like to buy if only it existed. And instead of counting replies, figure out if the most outlandish requests can, with time and money, actually be developed and delivered.

Quantitative methods have always failed to spot trends until they are well established, not to speak of big opportunities that are not yet on any market or even on the drawing boards. One day some academic may actually notice.