Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts

Tuesday, 7 July 2015

Planned obsolescence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia/ Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

Jump to: navigation, search
For the 2011 book, see Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy.
Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence[1] in industrial design is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer functional after a certain period of time. [2] The rationale behind the strategy is to generate short-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as "shortening the replacement cycle"), until customers catch on and move to another product platform.
Firms that pursue this strategy believe that the additional sales revenue it creates more than offsets the additional costs of research and development and opportunity costs of existing product line cannibalization. In a competitive industry, this is a risky strategy because when consumers catch on to this, they decide to buy from competitors instead.
Planned obsolescence tends to work best when a producer has at least an oligopoly.[3] Before introducing a planned obsolescence, the producer has to know that the consumer is at least somewhat likely to buy a replacement from them. In these cases of planned obsolescence, there is an information asymmetry between the producer – who knows how long the product was designed to last – and the consumer, who does not. When a market becomes more competitive, product lifespans tend to increase.[citation needed] For example, when Japanese vehicles with longer lifespans entered the American market in the 1960s and 1970s, American carmakers were forced to respond by building more durable products.[4]


History and origins of the phrase[edit]

Further information: Phoebus cartel
In the United States, automotive design reached a turning point in 1924 when the American national automobile market began reaching saturation. To maintain unit sales, General Motors head Alfred P. Sloan Jr. suggested annual model-year design changes to convince car owners that they needed to buy a new replacement each year, an idea borrowed from the bicycle industry, though the concept is often misattributed to Sloan.[5] Critics called his strategy "planned obsolescence". Sloan preferred the term "dynamic obsolescence". This strategy had far-reaching effects on the auto business, the field of product design, and eventually the American economy. The smaller players could not maintain the pace and expense of yearly re-styling. Henry Ford did not like the model-year change because he clung to an engineer's notions of simplicity, economies of scale, and design integrity. GM surpassed Ford's sales in 1931 and became the dominant company in the industry thereafter. The frequent design changes also made it necessary to use a body-on-frame rather than the lighter, but less flexible,[clarification needed] monocoque design used by most European automakers.


Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence, by Bernard London, 1932
Origins of planned obsolescence go back at least as far as 1932 with Bernard London's pamphlet Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence.[6] The essence of London's plan would have the government impose a legal obsolescence on consumer articles, to stimulate and perpetuate consumption.
However, the phrase was first popularized in 1954 by Brooks Stevens, an American industrial designer. Stevens was due to give a talk at an advertising conference in Minneapolis in 1954. Without giving it much thought, he used the term as the title of his talk. From that point on, "planned obsolescence" became Stevens' catchphrase. By his definition, planned obsolescence was "Instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary."
The phrase was quickly taken up by others, but Stevens' definition was challenged. By the late 1950s, planned obsolescence had become a commonly used term for products designed to break easily or to quickly go out of style. In fact, the concept was so widely recognized that in 1959 Volkswagen mocked it in an advertising campaign. While acknowledging the widespread use of planned obsolescence among automobile manufacturers, Volkswagen pitched itself as an alternative. "We do not believe in planned obsolescence", the ads suggested. "We don't change a car for the sake of change."
In 1960, cultural critic Vance Packard published The Waste Makers, promoted as an exposé of "the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals".
Packard divided planned obsolescence into two sub categories: obsolescence of desirability and obsolescence of function. "Obsolescence of desirability", also called "psychological obsolescence", referred to marketers' attempts to wear out a product in the owner's mind. Packard quoted industrial designer George Nelson, who wrote: "Design... is an attempt to make a contribution through change. When no contribution is made or can be made, the only process available for giving the illusion of change is 'styling!'"

Types of planned obsolescence[edit]

Lifespan-limiting design[edit]

The design of all consumer products includes an expected average lifetime permeating all stages of development. Thus, it must be decided early in the design of a complex product how long it is designed to last so that each component can be made to those specifications. Since all matter is subject to entropy, it is impossible for any designed object to retain its full function forever; all products will ultimately break down, no matter what steps are taken. Limited lifespan is only a sign of planned obsolescence if the lifespan of the product is rendered artificially short by design.
A common method of deliberately limiting a product's useful life is to use inferior materials in critical areas, or deliberately suboptimal component layouts which cause excessive wear.[citation needed] Using soft metal in screws and cheap plastic instead of metal in stress-bearing components will increase the speed at which a product will become inoperable through normal usage and render it prone to breakage from even minor forms of abnormal usage. For example, small, brittle plastic gears in toys are extremely prone to damage if the toy is played with roughly, which can easily destroy key functions of the toy and force the purchase of a replacement.
Some products are powered by a battery (cell) that is soldered into the circuitry or enclosed in a sealed housing, instead of being easily replaced by a new battery. Although the product owner could resolder in a new battery, most owners will not bother or do not have the required skills. Some products contain rechargeable batteries that are not user-replaceable after they have worn down, so that consumers are required to pay for the manufacturer to replace the battery, or to buy a new product.
Planned obsolescence is sometimes achieved by placing a heat-sensitive component adjacent to a component that is expected to get hot. A common example is LCD screens with heat-sensitive electrolytic capacitors placed next to power components which may be 100 °C or hotter; this heat greatly reduces the lifespan of the electrolytic capacitor.[7]
The ultimate examples of such design are single-use versions of traditionally durable goods, such as disposable cameras, where the customer must purchase an entire new product after using them a single time. Such products are often designed to be impossible to service; for example, a cheap "throwaway" digital watch may have a casing which is simply sealed in the factory, with no designed ability for the user to access the interior without destroying the watch entirely.
Often the goal of such design is to make the cost of repairs comparable to the replacement cost, or to prevent any form of servicing of the product at all. In 2012, Toshiba was criticized for issuing cease-and-desist letters to the owner of a website that hosted its copyrighted repair manuals, to the detriment of the independent and home repair market.[8]

Style obsolescence[edit]

Obsolescence of desirability or stylistic obsolescence occurs when designers change the styling of products so customers will purchase products more frequently, due to the decrease in the perceived desirability of unfashionable items.
Many products are primarily desirable for aesthetic rather than functional reasons; the most obvious example of such a product is clothing. Such products experience a cycle of desirability referred to as a fashion cycle. By continually introducing new aesthetics, and retargeting or discontinuing older designs, a manufacturer can "ride the fashion cycle," allowing for constant sales despite that the original products remain fully functional. To a more limited extent this is also true of some consumer electronic products, where manufacturers will release slightly updated products at regular intervals and emphasize their value as status symbols.

Systemic obsolescence[edit]

Planned systemic obsolescence is the deliberate attempt to make a product obsolete by altering the system in which it is used in such a way as to make its continued use difficult. Common examples of planned systemic obsolescence include not accommodating for forward compatibility in software, or routinely changing screws or fasteners so that they cannot easily be operated with existing tools.

Programmed obsolescence[edit]

In some cases, notification may be combined with the deliberate disabling of a product to prevent it from working, thus requiring the buyer to purchase a replacement. Example: inkjet printer manufacturers who employ smart chips in their ink cartridges to prevent them from being used after a certain threshold (number of pages, time, etc.), even though the cartridge may still contain usable ink or could be refilled (with ink toners, up to 50% of the toner is often still full[9]). This constitutes programmed obsolescence, in that there is no random component to the decline in function.[citation needed]

Advantages and disadvantages of planned obsolescence[edit]

Further information: Waste hierarchy
Estimates of planned obsolescence can influence a company's decisions about product engineering. Therefore, the company can use the least expensive components that satisfy product lifetime projections.
Also, for industries, planned obsolescence stimulates demand by encouraging purchasers/putting them under pressure to buy sooner if they still want a functioning product. These products can be bought from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor who might also rely on planned obsolescence.[1] Especially in developed countries (where many industries already face a saturated market), this technique is often necessary for producers to maintain their level of revenue.
While planned obsolescence is appealing to producers, it can also do significant harm to the society in the form of negative externalities. Continuously replacing, rather than repairing, products creates more waste and pollution, uses more natural resources, and results in more consumer spending. Planned obsolescence can thus have a negative impact on the environment in aggregate. Even when planned obsolescence might help to save scarce resources per unit produced, it tends to increase output in aggregate, since due to laws of supply and demand decreases in cost and price will eventually result in increases in demand and consumption. However, the negative environmental impacts of planned obsolescence are dependent also on the process of production.[10]
There is also the potential backlash of consumers who learn that the manufacturer invested money to make the product obsolete faster; such consumers might turn to a producer (if any exists) that offers a more durable alternative.
One workaround for consumers can involve a consumer getting more tech-savvy about them so they can jury-rig them to work with newer equipment similar to a MacGyverism; additionally, upcycling the resources can offset the budget for home projects, whereas downcycling allows for more generalized purposes to live on. These consumer strategies can counter the setbacks.

Critics and supporters[edit]

Shortening the replacement cycle has many critics as well as supporters.
Philip Kotler argues that: "Much so-called planned obsolescence is the working of the competitive and technological forces in a free society—forces that lead to ever-improving goods and services."[11]
Critics such as Vance Packard claim the process wastes and exploits customers. With psychological obsolescence, resources are used up making changes, often cosmetic changes, that are not of great value to the customer.
Some people, such as Ronny Balcaen, have proposed to create a new label to counter the diminishing quality of products due to the planned obsolescence technique.[9] Others have defended planned obsolescence as a necessary driving force behind innovation and economic growth.[citation needed]
Supporters claim planned obsolescence drives technological advances and contributes to material well-being. They claim that a market structure of planned obsolescence and rapid innovation may be preferred to long-lasting products and slow innovation. In a fast-paced competitive industry market success requires that products are made obsolete by actively developing replacements. Waiting for a competitor to make products obsolete is a sure guarantee of future demise.
A different case can be made for monopoly markets, or possibly for some oligopoly markets, where planned obsolescence may occur at the expense of the consumer. Jeremy Bulow argues that "monopolists are shown to desire uneconomically short useful lives for their goods. Oligopolists have the monopolist's incentive for short lives as well as a second incentive that may either increase or decrease their chosen durability."[2]
This poses the following ethical dilemma: while planned obsolescence may help to accelerate innovation, economic growth and improve wellbeing of consumers, it is true that it may also create social costs by harming the environment. According to Joseph Guiltinan "Pro-environment product design and marketing practices and innovative government policies may alleviate the problem over time. However, given the current lack of understanding about consumer replacement and disposal behavior, it is questionable as to whether these practices and policies will be sufficiently informed to be effective."[10]

Planned obsolescence in software[edit]

Software companies are sometimes thought to deliberately drop support for older technologies as a calculated attempt to force users to purchase new products to replace those made obsolete.[12] Most proprietary software will ultimately reach an end-of-life point, at which the supplier will cease updates and support. As open source software can always be updated and maintained by somebody else, the user is not at the sole mercy of a proprietary vendor.[13] Software which is abandoned by the manufacturer support-wise is sometimes called abandonware.
Vendor lock-in through incompatibility, DRM, and hardware restriction can effectively expand obsolescence of a "part" to the "whole" product, although each of the parts could otherwise be general-purpose. A personal computer that due to deliberate restrictions can only run a specific operating system, which only allows playback of files from a specific source, becomes significantly less useful when the source is not available any more.

The Future of Planned Obsolescence[edit]

Planned obsolescence has been assumed a necessity when it comes to stimulating consumption, however, this practice has come into question. In the 21st century, the arrival of economic and environmental crisis has made a change in the consciousness of people. The need to maintain a minimum product renewal date does not mean that abuses have to be accepted such as the tons of waste that could be avoided.
After years of not taking this issue seriously, the French Assembly has taken a step forward. It has established a fine of up to 300,000 euros and jail terms of up to two years for those manufacturers planning the death of their products in advance. The rule is not only relevant because of the sanctions that it establishes but also because it is the first time that a legislation recognizes openly the existence of planned obsolescence. These techniques may include "a deliberate introduction of a flaw, a weakness, a scheduled stop, a technical limitation, incompatibility or other obstacles for repair", reads the text regarding what may be considered as planned obsolescence.
France is not the only government in which this kind of practice is being used. The European Union is also beginning to address this problem. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), an advisory body of the EU, has approved a dictum which totally bans planned obsolescence. This dictum also proposes additional measures to combat this practice. "We propose three lines of action. Firstly, companies can facilitate repair. Secondly, the use of social awareness campaigns to combat aesthetic obsolescence; the constant renewal of unused products, particularly clothes and telephones. And finally, the introduction of a labeling system which indicates the durability of a device, so the consumer has the possibility of choosing whether if he/she prefers to buy a cheap product or a more expensive, more durable product", explains Carlos Trias Pinto, president of the Consultative Commission on Industrial Change EESC, the group that developed the dictum. All in all, what is clear is that the movement against planned obsolescence Is strong in the EU which may also lead in the implementation of similar dicta in the rest of the continents as well.[14]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b "Computer Electronics: Blu-Ray". ComputerInfoWeb.com. 2008. Retrieved September 20, 2008. 
  2. ^ Jump up to: a b Bulow, Jeremy (November 1986). "An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence" (PDF). The Quarterly Journal of Economics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) 101 (4): 729–749. doi:10.2307/1884176. Retrieved April 9, 2013. 
  3. Jump up ^ Orbach, Barak (2004). "The Durapolist Puzzle: Monopoly Power in Durable-Goods Market". Yale Journal on Regulation, vol. 21, pp. 67–118. Retrieved May 18, 2008. 
  4. Jump up ^ Dickinson, Torry D.; Schaeffer, Robert K. (2001). Fast Forward: Work, Gender, and Protest in a Changing World. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 55–6. ISBN 0-7425-0895-1. 
  5. Jump up ^ Babaian, Sharon (1998). The Most Benevolent Machine: A Historical Assessment of Cycles in Canada. Ottawa: National Museum of Science and Technology. p. 97. ISBN 0-660-91670-3. 
  6. Jump up ^ Bernard London's pamphlet
  7. Jump up ^ http://htv-gmbh.de/media/pdf/presse/Testhaus_HTV_deckt_Sollbruchstellen_auf_%28Infosat_07_-_2013%29.pdf
  8. Jump up ^ The Shady World of Repair Manuals: Copyrighting for Planned Obsolescence | Wired Opinion | Wired.com
  9. ^ Jump up to: a b RTBF documentary "L'obsolescence programmée" by Xavier Vanbuggenhout
  10. ^ Jump up to: a b Guiltinan, Joseph Guiltinan (2009). "Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence". Journal of Business Ethics 89. 
  11. Jump up ^ "Planned obsolescence". The Economists. Retrieved 8 February 2014. 
  12. Jump up ^ "Idea: Planned obsolescence". The Economist. March 25, 2009. Retrieved May 29, 2011. 
  13. Jump up ^ Cassia, Fernando (March 28, 2007). "Open Source, the only weapon against 'planned obsolescence'". The Inquirer. Retrieved August 2, 2012. 
  14. Jump up ^ Lavadoras con muerte anunciada. (2014, November 2). Retrieved May 19, 2015, from http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2014/10/31/actualidad/1414761553_335774.html

Further reading[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Planned obsolescence.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_obsolescence&oldid=669015739"
on No comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, 28 April 2015

We have the technology to reduce earthquake deaths. So why don't we?


The following article has been posted here at the time of the great international operation to help the people of Nepal from their terrible earthquake. It claims that the technology exists to reduce deaths.   One reason why this has not transpired is because of a lack of finance. This is indicated in the article below along with other factors...

With Transfinancial Economics though such vital funding could also be more easily accessed than now. In TFE new money could be created electronically in full, or in part to fund technology which could reduce the death toll.  See http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

PS. Also mentioned in the article is the problem of corruption. One way round it would be that the people, and NGOs involved with spending money correctly, and properly would have special bank accounts that could be tracked electronically, and if fraud is detected the money could be deleted, or sent to a safe account. This is not a new idea as such, and is becoming common with mobile phones which can transmit money. But refinements to all this should be seen as necessary.

As for disaster areas in war torn countries, welfare agencies could receive greater, and greater military protection, and support from the UN troops, and make sure that aid gets to the right people, and the right places. The need for more troops (plus robot soldiers possibly) could be funded in full, or in part from a Facilitation Bank which would have  the power to create new money electronically.

As for finding the right places requiring aid in war torn areas, bribing people (notably terrorists) should be avoided as far as possible. Instead ideally, "mini" drones could be sent in advance of a convoy of aid to find those in serious need.

RS.
 

 
We have the technology to reduce earthquake deaths. So why don't we?
 
 
 Getty Images/ Article source Vox.com/Author Brad Plumer/ April 2015
 
 
We have the technology to reduce earthquake deaths. So why don't we? 
Earthquakes don't kill people. Buildings do.
You hear that line from seismologists whenever a deadly quake strikes. And it's become horrifically relevant again Saturday, after a 7.8-magnitude earthquake hit Nepal, leaving at least 4,000 dead (and counting).
The basic truth is that earthquakes are much, much deadlier in places where buildings are poorly constructed, unreinforced, and not designed to withstand shaking. Kathmandu, Nepal, was a gruesome example: observers told CNN that buildings in the city often aren't up to code. As a result, a shallow quake easily turned the city into rubble, trapping people underneath.
The tragedy here is that humans possess the technology to reduce earthquake deaths. Vulnerable regions like California, Japan, and Chile have taken steps to reinforce their buildings and dramatically reduce their risks over the past century. So why hasn't this happened in countries like Nepal or Iran or Pakistan, where experts have warned again and again that massive earthquakes are inevitable?
This difficult question was explored in an important 2013 paper in Science by Brian Tucker, founder of GeoHazards International.Often, he points out, it's a funding problem, particularly for poorer countries. In some cases, there might be unique obstacles at work (in Nepal, civil unrest made the task of retrofitting even harder). But, in many areas, there are psychological barriers — people simply aren't even thinking about preparing for earthquakes.
"The psychological reasons we don't prepare for earthquakes are often ignored," says Tucker, whose nonprofit has been working to reduce casualties from natural disasters. "Just as an example, we still find a lot of people who think of earthquakes solely as an act of god — and don't think about the very real ways to reduce risks."
Massive earthquake hits Nepal

Poor countries are falling behind at preparing for earthquakes

Take, for example, south central Asia. More than one quarter of the world's population lives here — in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Burma.
These countries all sit around the northern edge of the Arabian and Indian tectonic plates that are colliding up against the southern edge of the Eurasian plates. This is the same process that has created the soaring Himalayan mountains. But these sliding plates can also produce massive earthquakes in the area — like the one that devastated Nepal this week:
Everyone knows this is a seismically active zone. Massive earthquakes are basically inevitable. Yet throughout the region, buildings are often shoddily constructed and topple easily in earthquakes.
In a 2013 paper for Science, Roger Bilham and Vinod Gaur took stock of this problem. Throughout the region, contractors often fail to adhere to building codes. Oftentimes, what building codes do exist only apply to civic structures — not the places where people live. The result? In an earthquake these shoddy buildings collapse and lots of people die.
Tucker says there are lots of reasons for this:

1) Rapid population growth. For starters, the population is growing extremely fast in many developing countries — particularly as more and more people move to cities. "So when you have this tremendous demand to build hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings, it's very difficult to build good buildings at the rate that is needed," he says. The graph below shows that the number of people who live near earthquake zones in developing countries keeps soaring:
This was a factor in Nepal, where people were fleeing civil unrest in the countryside and moving to cities. That made the task of retrofitting buildings even more difficult.

2) A lack of funding. Funding is another problem, particularly for poorer countries. In his 2013 paper, Tucker notes that only about 1 percent of all disaster aid actually goes to prevention. The United States and other wealth countries give a fair bit of money to nations that have been devastated by earthquakes — we devote a lot less toward preventing them in the first place.

3) Corruption and weak governance. It's significantly harder for countries in earthquake zones with corruption problems to enforce their building codes. "You can't just retrofit buildings and enforce building codes," says Tucker. "You also have to fight corruption."

4) Complacency and other psychological barriers. This is another big one. Tucker notes that too many countries don't take the risk of earthquakes seriously enough. This is particularly true in poorer countries that often have more immediate concerns, such as poverty or even pollution. "Humans respond to threats that are personal and visible or rapidly changing," he says. "Earthquakes and climate change are examples of slow-moving problems that we just have not evolved to respond well to."
This complacency can take a variety of forms. For instance, Tucker recalls a meeting in the mid-1990s with a minister of Nepal, who told him that Nepal had no need to worry about another earthquake because "Nepal had already had its big one in 1934." (This despite earthquake experts warning that Kathmandu was extremely vulnerable.)
In other areas, he notes, religion can be a barrier — people view earthquakes as an act of god. "I've had people say that what I'm doing is blasphemous," he says. "That's just nuts."

Countries often only take action after tragedy strikes

Unfortunately, it often takes a tragedy before countries start taking the threat of earthquakes seriously.
In his 2013 paper, Tucker examines Chile and Haiti as a stunning exercise in contrasts. In 1960, a magnitude-9.5 earthquake struck Chile, after which the country embarked on a massive earthquake-safety program and enforcing new building codes. By contrast, Haiti did nothing during this period, lulled into complacency by a lack of seismic activity and hampered by constant political unrest and extreme poverty.
Then, in early 2010, two similar earthquakes struck the two countries. Only about 0.1 percent of Chileans affected by the magnitude-8.8 earthquake died. By contrast, 11 percent of Haitians affected by a magnitude-7.0 earthquake with similar shaking died . "In other words," Tucker wrote in his 2013 paper, "Haitian buildings appear to be 100 times as lethal as Chilean
buildings."

We may need public health campaigns for earthquakes

I asked Tucker what practical steps he would advise Nepal to take, now that it has had its own tragic wake-up call. He suggested two big ones. First, Nepal should start focusing on reinforcing schools. Not only is spending money on schools politically popular, but it also helps educate schoolchildren that earthquakes aren't a purely natural disaster — their risks can be reduce greatly.
Second — and this was surprising — he mentioned that foreign-owned luxury hotels were often a good place to start reinforcing buildings. The reason? It creates incentives for competitors to also start reinforce their hotels. And it provides jobs for masons and architects, who learn how to build buildings up to code.
Still, it's far better for countries to start preparing for earthquakes before tragedy strikes. And, on that score, our current method of dealing with earthquakes seems to be failing. Tucker suggests that earthquake experts may need to start trying public health-style campaigns — "similar to the ones that get people to use seatbelts or quit smoking."
In his 2013 paper, he noted that an earthquake campaign would have to have many facets — not just information, but also incentives to increase preparedness. "Publishing statistics on the increasing occurrence of lung cancer and auto fatalities was not sufficient; nor were photos of black, leathery lungs on cigarette packages or photos in driver education movies of gory accident scenes. Taxes, fines, and opprobrium were used. ... The earthquake
risk reduction community might find effective lessons, models, and tactics from studying those public health campaigns."
Importantly, however, he concludes that the world's current strategies for cutting down on earthquake risk aren't working. Twice as many people died from earthquakes in the decade between 2001 and 2012 as died in the previous two decades combined. And those deaths are only likely to increase in the future as more people move to seismically active areas.
"More of the same," he concluded, "is not enough."


on No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, 27 August 2014

Disruptive Innovation


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia /Blogger Ref Link http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

  (Redirected from Disruptive technology)
Jump to: navigation, search
Types of Innovation[1]
Sustaining
An innovation that does not affect existing markets.
Evolutionary
An innovation that improves a product in an existing market in ways that customers are expecting. (E.g., fuel injection)
Revolutionary (discontinuous, radical)
An innovation that is unexpected, but nevertheless does not affect existing markets. (E.g., the automobile)
Disruptive
An innovation that creates a new market by applying a different set of values, which ultimately (and unexpectedly) overtakes an existing market. (E.g., the lower priced Ford Model T)
A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually disrupts an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology. 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, typically first by designing for a different set of consumers in a new market and later by lowering prices in the existing market.
In contrast to disruptive innovation, a sustaining innovation does not create new markets or value networks but rather only evolves existing ones with better value, allowing the firms within to compete against each other's sustaining improvements. Sustaining innovations may be either "discontinuous"[1] (i.e. "transformational" or "revolutionary") or "continuous" (i.e. "evolutionary").
The term "disruptive technology" has been widely used as a synonym of "disruptive innovation", but the latter is now preferred, because market disruption has been found to be a function usually not of technology itself but rather of its changing application.[citation needed] Sustaining innovations are typically innovations in technology, whereas disruptive innovations change entire markets. For example, the automobile was a revolutionary technological innovation, but it was not a disruptive innovation, because early automobiles were expensive luxury items that did not disrupt the market for horse-drawn vehicles. The market for transportation essentially remained intact until the debut of the lower priced Ford Model T in 1908.[2] The mass-produced automobile was a disruptive innovation, because it changed the transportation market. The automobile, by itself, was not.
The current theoretical understanding of disruptive innovation is different from what might be expected by default, an idea that Clayton M. Christensen called the "technology mudslide hypothesis". This is the simplistic idea that an established firm fails because it doesn't "keep up technologically" with other firms. In this hypothesis, firms are like climbers scrambling upward on crumbling footing, where it takes constant upward-climbing effort just to stay still, and any break from the effort (such as complacency born of profitability) causes a rapid downhill slide. Christensen and colleagues have shown that this simplistic hypothesis is wrong; it doesn't model reality. What they have shown is that good firms are usually aware of the innovations, but their business environment does not allow them to pursue them when they first arise, because they are not profitable enough at first and because their development can take scarce resources away from that of sustaining innovations (which are needed to compete against current competition). In Christensen's terms, a firm's existing value networks place insufficient value on the disruptive innovation to allow its pursuit by that firm. Meanwhile, start-up firms inhabit different value networks, at least until the day that their disruptive innovation is able to invade the older value network. At that time, the established firm in that network can at best only fend off the market share attack with a me-too entry, for which survival (not thriving) is the only reward.[3]
The work of Christensen and others during the 2000s has addressed the question of what firms can do to avoid displacement brought on by technological disruption.


History and usage of the term[edit]

The term disruptive technologies was coined by Clayton M. Christensen and introduced in his 1995 article Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave,[4] 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. He describes the term further in his book The Innovator's Dilemma.[5] Innovator's Dilemma explored the cases of the disk drive industry (which, with its rapid generational change, is to the study of business what fruit flies are to the study of genetics, as Christensen was advised in the 1990s[6]) and the excavating equipment industry (where hydraulic actuation slowly displaced cable-actuated movement). In his sequel with Michael E Raynor, The Innovator's Solution[7] Christensen replaced the term disruptive technology with disruptive innovation because he recognized that few technologies are intrinsically disruptive or sustaining in character; rather, it is the business model that the technology enables that creates the disruptive impact. However, 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. Christensen and Mark W. Johnson, who cofounded the management consulting firm Innosight, described the dynamics of "business model innovation" in the 2008 Harvard Business Review article "Reinventing Your Business Model".[8] The concept of disruptive technology continues a long tradition of the identification of radical technical change in the study of innovation by economists, and the development of tools for its management at a firm or policy level.
In the late 1990s, the automotive sector began to embrace a perspective of "constructive disruptive technology" by working with a consultant David E. O’Ryan, whereby the use of current off-the-shelf technology was integrated with newer innovation to create what he called "an unfair advantage". The process or technology change as a whole had to be "constructive" in improving the current method of manufacturing yet disruptively impact the whole of the business case model resulting in a significant reduction of waste, energy, materials, labor or legacy costs to the user.
In keeping with the insight that what matters economically is the business model, not the technological sophistication itself, Christensen's theory explains why many disruptive innovations are not "advanced technologies", which the technology mudslide hypothesis would lead one to expect. Rather, they are often novel combinations of existing off-the-shelf components, applied cleverly to a small, fledgling value network.

The theory[edit]

Christensen defines a disruptive innovation as a product or service designed for a new set of customers.
"Generally, disruptive innovations were technologically straightforward, consisting of off-the-shelf components put together in a product architecture that was often simpler than prior approaches. They offered less of what customers in established markets wanted and so could rarely be initially employed there. They offered a different package of attributes valued only in emerging markets remote from, and unimportant to, the mainstream."[9]
Christensen argues that disruptive innovations can hurt successful, well managed companies that are responsive to their customers and have excellent research and development. These companies tend to ignore the markets most susceptible to disruptive innovations, because the markets have very tight profit margins and are too small to provide a good growth rate to an established (sizable) firm.[10] Thus disruptive technology provides an example of when the common business-world advice to "focus on the customer" ("stay close to the customer," "listen to the customer") can sometimes be strategically counterproductive.
While Christensen argued that disruptive innovations can hurt successful, well managed companies, O’Ryan countered that “constructive” integration of existing, new, and forward thinking innovation could improve the economic benefits of these same well managed companies, once decision making management understood the systemic benefits as a whole.
How low-end disruption occurs over time.
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.[11]
"Low-end disruption" occurs when the rate at which products improve exceeds the rate at which customers can adopt the new performance. Therefore, at some point the performance of the product overshoots the needs of certain customer segments. At this point, 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, thereby gaining a foothold in the market.
In low-end disruption, the disruptor is focused initially on serving the least profitable customer, who is happy with a good enough product. This type of customer is not willing to pay premium for enhancements in product functionality. Once the disruptor has gained a foothold in this customer segment, it seeks to improve its profit margin. To get higher profit margins, the disruptor needs to enter the segment where the customer is willing to pay a little more for higher quality. To ensure this quality in its product, the disruptor needs to innovate. The incumbent will not do much to retain its share in a not so profitable segment, and will move up-market and focus on its more attractive customers. After a number of such encounters, the incumbent is squeezed into smaller markets than it was previously serving. And then finally the disruptive technology meets the demands of the most profitable segment and drives the established company out of the market.
"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.

The extrapolation of the theory to all aspects of life has been challenged,[12] as has the methodology of relying on selected case studies as the principal form of evidence.[12] Jill Lepore points out that some companies identified by the theory as victims of disruption a decade or more ago, rather than being defunct, remain dominant in their industries today (including Seagate Technology, U.S. Steel, and Bucyrus).[12] Lepore questions whether the theory has been oversold and misapplied, as if it were able to explain everything in every sphere of life, including not just business but education and public institutions.[12]

Disruptive technology[edit]

In 2009, Milan Zeleny described the high technology as disruptive technology and raised the question what is being disrupted during this process. The answer, according to Zeleny, is the support network of high technology. [13] For example, introducing electric car disrupts the support network for gasoline car (network of gas and service stations). Such disruption is fully expected and therefore effectively resisted by support net owners. In the long run, high (disruptive) technology either bypasses, upgrades or replaces the outdated support network.
Technology, being a form of social relationship, always evolves. No technology remains fixed. Technology starts, develops, persists, mutates, stagnates and declines – just like living organisms.[14] The evolutionary life-cycle occurs in the use and development of any technology. A new high technology core emerges and challenges existing Technology Support Nets which are thus forced to co-evolve with it. New versions of the core are being designed and fitted into an increasingly appropriate TSN, with smaller and smaller high-technology effects. High technology becomes just regular technology, with more efficient versions fitting the same support net. Finally, even the efficiency gains diminish, emphasis shifts to product tertiary attributes (appearance, style) and technology becomes TSN-preserving appropriate technology. This technological equilibrium state becomes established and fixated, resisting to be interrupted by a technological mutation – new high technology appears and the cycle is repeated.
Regarding this evolving process of technology, Christensen said:
" The technological changes that damage established companies are usually not radically new or difficult from a technological point of view. They do, however, have two important characteristics: First, they typically present a different package of performance attributes—ones that, at least at the outset, are not valued by existing customers. Second, the performance attributes that existing customers do value improve at such a rapid rate that the new technology can later invade those established markets. "[15]
Joseph Bower[16] explained the process of how disruptive technology, through its requisite support net, dramatically transforms a certain industry.
" When the technology that has the potential for revolutionizing an industry emerges, established companies typically see it as unattractive: it’s not something their mainstream customers want, and its projected profit margins aren’t sufficient to cover big-company cost structure. As a result, the new technology tends to get ignored in favor of what’s currently popular with the best customers. But then another company steps in to bring the innovation to a new market. Once the disruptive technology becomes established there, smaller-scale innovation rapidly raise the technology’s performance on attributes that mainstream customers’ value. "[17]
The automobile was high technology with respect to the horse carriage, it however evolved into technology and finally into appropriate technology with a stable, unchanging TSN. Main high-technology advance in the offing is some form of electric car – whether the energy source is the sun, hydrogen, water, air pressure or traditional charging outlet. Electric car preceded the gasoline automobile by many decades and now it returns to people's life to replace the traditional gasoline automobile.
Milan Zeleny described the above phenomenon.[18] He also wrote that:
" Implementing high technology is often resisted. This resistance is well understood on the part of active participants in the requisite TSN. The electric car will be resisted by gas-station operators in the same way automated teller machines (ATMs) were resisted by bank tellers and automobiles by horsewhip makers. Technology does not qualitatively restructure the TSN and therefore will not be resisted and never has been resisted. Middle management resists business process reengineering because BPR represents a direct assault on the support net (coordinative hierarchy) they thrive on. Teamwork and multi-functionality is resisted by those whose TSN provides the comfort of narrow specialization and command-driven work. "[19]

High-technology effects[edit]

High technology is a technology core that changes the very architecture (structure and organization) of the components of the technology support net. High technology therefore transforms the qualitative nature of tasks of TSN and their relations, as well as their requisite physical, energy and information flows. It also affects the skills required, the roles played, the styles of management and coordination – the organizational culture itself.
This kind of technology core is different from regular technology core, which preserves the qualitative nature of flows and the structure of the support and only allows users to perform the same tasks in the same way, but faster, more reliably, in larger quantities, or more efficiently. It is also different from appropriate technology core, which preserves the TSN itself with the purpose of technology implementation and allows users to do the same thing in the same way at comparable levels of efficiency, instead of improving the efficiency of performance.[20]
Based on the framework, modern information and knowledge-based technologies currently tend to be high technologies with high-technology effects. They integrate task, labor and knowledge, transcend classical separation of mental and manual work, enhance systems aspects, and promote self-reliance, self-service, innovation and creativity.[21] In comparison, the “low” technologies, no matter how new, complex or advanced, are those which still require the dividing and splintering of task, labor and knowledge, increase specialization, promote division and dependency, sustain intermediaries and diminish initiative.
However, not all modern technologies are high technologies. They have to be used as high technologies, function as such, and be embedded in their requisite TSNs. They have to empower the individual because only through the individual can they empower knowledge. Not all information technologies have integrative effects. Some information systems are still designed to improve the traditional hierarchy of command and thus preserve and entrench the existing TSN. The administrative model of management, for instance, further aggravates division of task and labor, further specializes knowledge, and separates management from workers and concentrates information and knowledge in centers.
As knowledge surpasses capital, labor and raw materials as the dominant economic resource, technologies are also starting to reflect this shift. Technologies are rapidly shifting from centralized hierarchies to distributed networks. Nowadays knowledge is not residing in a super-mind, super-book or super-database, but a complex relational pattern of networks brought forth to coordinate human action.

Practical example of disruption[edit]

In practical world, the popularization of personal computers illustrates how the knowledge contributes to the ongoing technology innovation. The original centralized concept (one computer, many persons) is a knowledge-defying idea of the computing prehistory and its inadequacies and failures have become clearly apparent. The era of personal computing brought powerful computers “on every desk” (one person, one computer). This short and transitional period was necessary for getting used to the new computing environment, but was inadequate from the knowledge-producing vantage point. Adequate knowledge creation and management come mainly from networking and distributed computing: one person, many computers. Each person’s computer must form an access to the entire computing landscape or ecology through the Internet of other computers, databases, mainframes, as well as production, distribution and retailing facilities, etc. For the first time our technology empowers individuals rather than external hierarchies. It transfers influence and power where it optimally belongs: at the loci of the useful knowledge. Even though hierarchies and bureaucracies do not innovate, free and empowered individuals do; knowledge, innovation, spontaneity and self-reliance are becoming increasingly valued and promoted.[22]

Examples of disruptive innovations[edit]

CategoryDisruptive InnovationMarket Disrupted by InnovationNotes
CommunicationEmailPostal mailE-mail has replaced postal mail because it can send messages over vast geographical distances in mere milliseconds without wasting paper or requiring the spending of money for postage stamps.
TelephonesTelegraphyWhen Western Union infamously declined to purchase Alexander Graham Bell's telephone patents for $100,000, their highest-profit market was long-distance telegraphy. Telephones were only useful for very local calls. Short-distance telegraphy barely existed as a market segment, which explains Western Union's decision.[citation needed]
Computing hardwareMinicomputersMainframesMinicomputers were originally presented as an inexpensive alternative to mainframes and mainframe manufacturers did not consider them a serious threat in their market. Eventually, the market for minicomputers became much larger than the market for mainframes.
Personal computersMinicomputers, Workstations. Word processors, Lisp machines
Pocket calculator3.5 Standard Calculator[1]Equivalent computing performance and portable[5]
Digital calculatorMechanical calculatorFacit AB used to dominate the European market for calculators, but did not adapt digital technology, and failed to compete with digital competitors.[23]
SmartphonesPersonal computersSmartphones and tablets are more portable than traditional PC's.
Data storage8 inch floppy disk drive14 inch hard disk driveThe floppy disk drive market has had unusually large changes in market share over the past fifty years. According to Clayton M. Christensen's research, the cause of this instability was a repeating pattern of disruptive innovations.[24] For example, in 1981, the old 8 inch drives (used in mini computers) were "vastly superior" to the new 5.25 inch drives (used in desktop computers).[9] However, 8 inch drives were not affordable for the new desktop machines. The simple 5.25 inch drive, assembled from technologically inferior "off-the-shelf" components,[9] was an "innovation" only in the sense that it was new. However, as this market grew and the drives improved, the companies that manufactured them eventually triumphed while many of the existing manufacturers of eight inch drives fell behind.[24]
5.25 inch floppy disk drive8 inch floppy disk drive
3.5 inch floppy disk drive5.25 inch floppy disk drive
Bernoulli drive and Zip drive3.5 inch floppy disk drive
CDs and USB flash drivesBernoulli drive and Zip drive
DisplayLight-emitting diodesLight bulbsA LED is significantly smaller and less power-consuming than a light bulb. The first optical LEDs were weak, and only useful as indicator lights. Later models could be used for indoor lighting, and now several cities are switching to LED street lights. Incandescent light bulbs are being phased out in many countries. LED displays and AMOLED are also becoming competitive with LCDs.
LCDCRTThe first liquid crystal displays (LCD) were monochromatic and had low resolution. They were used in watches and other handheld devices, 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, although CRT technologies have improved with advances like true-flat panels and digital controls only recently.[citation needed]
ManufacturingHydraulic excavatorsCable-operated excavatorsHydraulic excavators were clearly innovative at the time of introduction but they gained widespread use only decades after. However, cable-operated excavators are still used in some cases, mainly for large excavations.[25]
Mini steel millsVertically integrated steel millsBy using mostly locally available scrap and power sources these mills can be cost effective even though not large.[26]
PlasticMetal, wood, glass etc.Bakelite and other early plastics had very limited use - their main advantages were electric insulation and low cost. New forms had advantages such as transparency, elasticity and combustibility. In the early 21st century, plastics can be used for nearly all household items previously made of metal, wood and glass.[citation needed]
MedicalUltrasoundRadiography (X-ray imaging)Ultrasound technology is disruptive relative to X-ray imaging. Ultrasound was a new-market disruption. None of the X-ray companies participated in ultrasound until they acquired major ultrasound equipment companies.[27]
MusicDigital synthesizerElectronic organ and pianoSynthesizers were initially low-cost, low-weight alternatives to electronic organs and acoustic pianos. Today's synthesizers feature many automated functions and have replaced them for home and hobby users.[citation needed]
Downloadable Digital mediaCDs, DVDsIn the 1990s, the music industry phased out the single, leaving consumers with no means to purchase individual songs. This market was initially filled by illegal peer-to-peer file sharing technologies, and then by online retailers such as the iTunes Store and Amazon.com. This low end disruption eventually undermined the sales of physical, high-cost CDs.[28]
PhotographyDigital photographyChemical photographyEarly digital cameras suffered from low picture quality and resolution and long shutter lag. Quality and resolution are no longer major issues and shutter lag is much less than it used to be. The convenience of small memory cards and portable hard drives that hold hundreds or thousands of pictures, as well as the lack of the need to develop these pictures, also helped. Digital cameras have a high power consumption (but several lightweight battery packs can provide enough power for thousands of pictures). Cameras for classic photography are stand-alone devices. In the same manner, high-resolution digital video recording has replaced film stock, except for high-budget motion pictures and fine art.[citation needed]
High speed CMOS video sensorsPhotographic filmWhen first introduced, high speed CMOS sensors were less sensitive, had lower resolution, and cameras based on them had less duration (record time). The advantage of rapid setup time, editing in the camera, and nearly-instantaneous review quickly eliminated 16 mm high speed film systems. CMOS-based cameras also require less power (single phase 110 V AC and a few amps for CMOS, vs. 240 V single- or three-phase at 20-50 A for film cameras). Continuing advances have overtaken 35 mm film and are challenging 70 mm film applications.[citation needed]
PublishingComputer printersOffset printingOffset printing has a high overhead cost, but very low unit cost compared to computer printers, and superior quality. But as printers, especially laser printers, have improved in speed and quality, they have become increasingly useful for creating documents in limited issues.[citation needed]
Desktop publishingTraditional publishingEarly desktop-publishing systems could not match high-end professional systems in either features or quality. Nevertheless, they lowered the cost of entry to the publishing business, and economies of scale eventually enabled them to match, and then surpass, the functionality of the older dedicated publishing systems.[citation needed]
WikipediaTraditional encyclopediasTraditionally edited general encyclopedias have been displaced by Wikipedia, the free, non-profit, community-edited online encyclopedia. Former market leader Encyclopædia Britannica ended print production after 244 years in 2012.[29] Britannica's price of over $1000, its physical size of dozens of volumes, its weight of over 100 pounds, and its update cycles lasting a year or longer were all annulled by Wikipedia. Microsoft's Encarta, a 1993 entry into professionally edited digital encyclopedias, was once a major rival to Britannica but was discontinued in 2009.[30] Wikipedia's lack of price, unlimited size and instant updates are the primary challenges for profitable competition in the consumer market.
TransportationSteamboatsSailing shipsThe first steamships were deployed on inland waters where sailing ships were less effective, instead of on the higher profit margin seagoing routes. Hence steamships originally only competed in traditional shipping lines' "worst" markets.[citation needed]
AutomobilesRail transportAt the beginning of the 20th century, rail (including streetcars) was the fastest and most cost-efficient means of land transportation for goods and passengers in industrialized countries. The first cars, buses and trucks were used for local transportation in suburban areas, where they often replaced streetcars and industrial tracks. As highways expanded, medium- and later long-distance transports were relocated to road traffic, and some railways closed down. As rail traffic has a lower ton-kilometer cost, but a higher investment and operating cost than road traffic, rail is still preferred for large-scale bulk cargo (such as minerals).
Private jetSupersonic transportThe Concorde aircraft has so far been the only supersonic airliner in extensive commercial traffic. However, it catered to a small customer segment, which could later afford small private sub-sonic jets. The loss of speed was compensated by flexibility and a more direct routing (i.e. no need to go through a hub). Supersonic flight is also banned above inhabited land, due to sonic booms. Concorde service ended in 2003.[31]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b c Christensen 1997, p. xviii. Christensen describes as "revolutionary" innovations as "discontinuous" "sustaining innovations".
  2. Jump up ^ Christensen 2003, p. 49.
  3. Jump up ^ Christensen 1997, p. 47.
  4. Jump up ^ Bower, Joseph L. & Christensen, Clayton M. (1995). However the concept of new technologies leading to wholesale economic change is not a new idea since Joseph Schumpeter adapted the idea of creative destruction from Karl Marx. Schumpeter (1949) in one of his examples used "the railroadization of the Middle West as it was initiated by the Illinois Central". He wrote, "The Illinois Central not only meant very good business whilst it was built and whilst new cities were built around it and land was cultivated, but it spelled the death sentence for the [old] agriculture of the West."["Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave" Harvard Business Review, January–February 1995
  5. ^ Jump up to: a b Christensen 1997.
  6. Jump up ^ Christensen 1997, p. 3.
  7. Jump up ^ Christensen 2003.
  8. Jump up ^ Johnson, Mark, Christensen, Clayton, et al, 2008, "Reinventing Your Business Model, Harvard Business Review, December 2008.
  9. ^ Jump up to: a b c Christensen 1997, p. 15.
  10. Jump up ^ Christensen 1997, p. i-iii.
  11. Jump up ^ Christensen 2003, p. 23-45.
  12. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Lepore, Jill (2014-06-23), "Annals of enterprise: The disruption machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong.", The New Yorker. Published online 2014-06-17 under the headline 'What the Theory of “Disruptive Innovation” Gets Wrong'. 
  13. Jump up ^ Zeleny, Milan. "High Technology and Barriers to Innovation: From Globalization to Localization". International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (World Scientific) 11: P 441. 
  14. Jump up ^ Oliver, Gassmann (May 2006). "Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda". R&D Management 36 (03): P 223–366. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00437. 
  15. Jump up ^ Christensen, Clayton (January 1995). "Disruptive Technologies Catching the Wave". Harvard Business Review: P 3. 
  16. Jump up ^ "HBS Faculty & Research". 
  17. Jump up ^ Bower, Joseph (May 2002). "Disruptive Change". Harvard Business Review 80 (05): P 95–101. 
  18. Jump up ^ Zeleny, Milan (January 2009). "Technology and High Technology: Support Net and Barriers to Innovation". Advanced Management Systems 01 (01): P 8–21. 
  19. Jump up ^ Zeleny, Milan (September 2009). "Technology and High Technology: Support Net and Barriers to Innovation". Acta Mechanica Slovaca 36 (01): P 6–19. 
  20. Jump up ^ Masaaki, Kotabe; Scott Swan (January 2007). "The role of strategic alliances in high-technology new product development". Strategic Management Journal 16 (08). doi:10.1002/smj.4250160804. 
  21. Jump up ^ Manyika, James (May 2013). "Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy". McKinsey Global Institute. 
  22. Jump up ^ Brown, Brad (March 2014). "Views from the front lines of the data-analytics revolution". McKinsey Quarterly. 
  23. Jump up ^ Sandström, Christian G. (2010). "A revised perspective on Disruptive Innovation – Exploring Value, Networks and Business models (Theisis submitted to Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden)". Retrieved 2010-11-22. 
  24. ^ Jump up to: a b Christensen 1997, p. 3-28.
  25. Jump up ^ Christensen 1997, pp. 61–76.
  26. Jump up ^ Christensen 2003, pp. 37–39.
  27. Jump up ^ Christensen 2003, p. 64.
  28. Jump up ^ Knopper, Steve (2009). Appetite for self-destruction : the spectacular crash of the record industry in the digital age. New York: Free Press. ISBN 1-4165-5215-4. 
  29. Jump up ^ Bosman, Julie (13 March 2012). "After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 April 2012. 
  30. Jump up ^ Tartakoff, Joseph. "Victim Of Wikipedia: Microsoft To Shut Down Encarta". paidContent. Retrieved 1 April 2012. 
  31. Jump up ^ "Concorde grounded for good". BBC News, 10 April 2003. 10 April 2003. Retrieved 4 May 2012. 

References[edit]

  • Christensen, Clayton M. & Overdorf, Michael. (2000). "Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change" Harvard Business Review, March–April 2000.
  • Christensen, Clayton M., Bohmer, Richard, & Kenagy, John. (2000). "Will Disruptive Innovations Cure Health Care?" Harvard Business Review, September 2000.
  • Christensen, Clayton M. (2003). The innovator's solution : creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business Press. ISBN 978-1-57851-852-4. 
  • Christensen, Clayton M.; Anthony, Scott D.; Roth, Erik A. (2004). Seeing What's Next. Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 978-1-59139-185-2. 
  • Christensen, Clayton M., Baumann, Heiner, Ruggles, Rudy, & Sadtler, Thomas M. (2006). "Disruptive Innovation for Social Change" Harvard Business Review, December 2006.
  • Mountain, Darryl R., Could New Technologies Cause Great Law Firms to Fail?
  • Mountain, Darryl R. (2006). Disrupting conventional law firm business models using document assembly, International Journal of Law and Information Technology 2006; doi:10.1093/ijlit/eal019
  • Tushman, M.L. & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 439-465.
  • Eric Chaniot (2007). "The Red Pill of Technology Innovation" Red Pill, October 2007.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Wikiversity has learning materials about Disruptive innovation
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disruptive_innovation&oldid=619444647"
on 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)