Teaching Mobile Payments 20 February Daniel Waldron As mobile money spreads across the world, more and more start ups plan to rely on digital payments to reach the holy grail of scale. Pitch decks talk about engaging clients remotely and transacting digitally, bypassing expensive face-to-face interactions.
Christensen and introduced in his article Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave,  which he cowrote with Joseph Bower. The article is aimed at management executives who make the funding or purchasing decisions in companies, rather than the research community.
He describes the term further in his book The Innovator's Dilemma. In his sequel with Michael E. Raynor, The Innovators dilemma Solution,  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 Innovators dilemmadescribed the dynamics of "business model innovation" in the Harvard Business Review article "Reinventing Your Business Model".
In the late s, the automotive sector began to embrace a perspective of "constructive disruptive technology" by working with the 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 a default 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. Online news site TechRepublic suggests to end using the term, and similar related terms, being that it is overused jargon as of 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. 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.
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.Apr 05, · Clayton Christensen and the Great Innovation Smackdown: Is setting up separate business units a solution to the innovator's dilemma?
The Innovator’s Dilemma is an interesting work written by Clayton M. Christensen in The book seeks to explain why certain businesses are successful in their ventures and why other firms fail in response to new technologies.
Apr 13, · Twenty civic innovators have been selected as the first class of Obama Fellows, officials announced. Two are from Chicago. The Innovator's Dilemma has 30, ratings and reviews.
Mal said: Chances are, you’re reading this review on an example of disruptive technology. An. Disruptive Innovation Disruptive innovation, a term of art coined by Clayton Christensen, describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market, eventually displacing established competitors.
Why you should listen. Daniel Kahneman is an eminence grise for the Freakonomics crowd. In the mids, with his collaborator Amos Tversky, he was among the first academics to pick apart exactly why we make "wrong" benjaminpohle.com their paper on prospect theory, Kahneman and Tversky examined a simple problem of economic risk.