Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation Theory: Origin and Development

In recent years, some transnational enterprises began expanding their business to Chinese low-income consumer market, and get good return. From the view of disruptive innovation, it indicates that these transnational enterprises have carried out disruptive innovation strategy in the Chinese market. Based on disruptive innovation and BOP market theory, this paper shows that the main factors which motivate transnational enterprises to carry out disruptive innovation strategy in Chinese market are: the nature and scale of the Chinese market, and how to avoid local enterprises to become “destroyer”. On the other hand, it is necessary to develop the disruptive innovation capability for transnational enterprises to tap the above market. Key words: Transnational enterprises; Chinese market; Base of pyramid; Disruptive innovation

Leading for constructive innovation: Preliminary evidence from China

This article aims to show how Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) can recognise and best respond to a disruptive innovation. A disruptive innovation creates a new business model using a new process and usually a new technology to offer a product or service with new features and/or lower cost and initially addresses a group of people who are either unserved or overserved by existing offerings. By contrast, a sustaining innovation may use the same technology, but enhance an existing business model. To illustrate this, we set out two case studies that each implement the same innovative model of work-focussed learning differently: one in an autonomous sub-unit of an HEI, while the other sought to embed the same model in existing faculty activities in another HEI. The theory of disruptive innovation (Bower and Christensen 1995) is set out and used to understand types of innovation, from sustaining to disruptive, and to identify the model of work-focussed learning as a disruptive innovation. We then used this to analyse the subsequent trajectories and different outcomes of the two case studies. Our aims then were (1) to show how disruptive innovation theory can be used to recognise different types of innovation and (2) to suggest the appropriate way to organisationally structure disruptive educational innovations as semi-autonomous enterprises. We also note potential constraints that government policy may place on HEIs attempting to respond to disruptive innovations.Keywords: disruptive innovation; business model; online distance education; organisational change; higher education(Published: 24 July 2015)Citation: Research in Learning Technology 2015, 23: 22494 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.22494

Market-oriented green innovation is receiving increasing attention. However, due to the dominance of traditional technologies and the underdevelopment of green technology capabilities, the speed at which green innovation enters the market is slow. Overcoming competitive disadvantages for latecomer green innovations has become a key issue to be solved. Disruptive innovation theory provides latecomers with opportunities for leapfrog development. Combined with the theory of disruptive innovation and green innovation, this study proposes a new model for market-oriented green innovation – disruptive green innovation. This study then attempts to develop a scale of disruptive green innovation. Through qualitative methods such as literature deduction, interview induction and expert screening, the initial items of disruptive green innovation are set up. Through quantitative methods such as pretests and large sample tests, the initial items are refined and analyzed. Finally, the scale of disruptive green innovation composed of seven items is developed. This study not only provides important theoretical guidance for the market strategy deployment of green innovation in China and clear measurement tools for follow-up research but also provides important practical enlightenment for green innovation to catch up in the fierce market competition.

The theory of disruptive innovation has had a profound effect on academic literature and management mindsets. Nevertheless, the processes that are required to develop disruptive innovations are not yet well understood. An essential part of creating disruptive innovations is gathering the right information on potential and current customers. The research questions that are addressed in this paper deal with the suitability of customer analysis methods for providing this information. The customer analysis model that is formulated in this paper summarizes the results of a literature review regarding the requirements of customer analysis for the success of disruptive innovations. With insights on context, customers, constraints and effects, the model reveals what information is needed to successfully shape the disruptive innovation process. Following the literature on disruptive and radical innovation, a group of eight customer analysis methods is selected and assessed. The analysis reveals that none of the existing methods can generate all of the required information. By combining and modifying the associated methods, the requirements of the proposed model and, by extension, the market can be met. Managers who follow the suggestions of this paper will develop a better understanding of current and potential customers and, therefore, unveil the potential of disruptive innovations.

A disruptive innovation strategy (DIS) entails innovation that makes customers embrace new value propositions shifting the basis of competition. Prevalent in fast-changing Internet and IT markets, DIS challenges incumbent firms and has the potential to transform industry structure. This article contributes toward rigorous DIS theory building with a system dynamics (SD) simulation model of disruptive innovation diffusion. The model shows disruptive innovation diffusion as a replicable process that can enable business growth for disruptive innovators. It builds on diffusion processes in marketing and epidemiology to show customer switching in the market segments that disruptive innovators exploit. Multiple computed scenarios examine the dynamic performance effects of disrupters' attack on high-end market segments and incumbent retaliation. Data from firm d, an entrant Internet-services provider, enable model calibration and examination of the strategic concerns of a real start-up firm, providing multiple insights into disruptive Internet-service innovation management.

The literature on disruptive innovation has convincingly explained why many established firms encounter problems under conditions of discontinuous change. Incumbents fail to invest in new technologies that are not demanded by their existing customers. This argument is grounded in resource dependency theory and the associated assumption that existing customers control a firm's internal resource allocation processes. While the problem of disruptive innovation has been convincingly explained, there is still a need for managerial solutions. We argue that a key reason why such solutions are lacking can be found in the asymmetric assumptions made in the original theory of disruptive innovation. Specifically, we identify two related forms of asymmetry. First, the focal (incumbent) firm is treated as a collection of heterogeneous actors with different preferences, incentives and competencies, whereas firms in the surrounding environment are treated as if they contained no such heterogeneity. Second, the theory of disruptive innovation describes incumbents as controlled by their environment, but has failed to recognize that the environment can also be influenced. In this paper we argue that a more symmetric theory of disruptive innovation – i.e. one that treats all similar entities in the same way – opens up for a range of interesting managerial solutions.

PurposeRecently, disruptive technologies (DTs) have proposed several innovative applications in managing logistics and promise to transform the entire logistics sector drastically. Often, this transformation is not successful due to the existence of adoption barriers to DTs. This study aims to identify the significant barriers that impede the successful adoption of DTs in the logistics sector and examine the interrelationships amongst them.Design/methodology/approachInitially, 12 critical barriers were identified through an extensive literature review on disruptive logistics management, and the barriers were screened to ten relevant barriers with the help of Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM). Further, an Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) approach was built with the inputs from logistics experts working in the various departments of warehouses, inventory control, transportation, freight management and customer service management. ISM approach was then used to generate and examine the interrelationships amongst the critical barriers. Matrics d’Impacts Croises-Multiplication Applique a Classement (MICMAC) analysed the barriers based on the barriers' driving and dependence power.FindingsResults from the ISM-based technique reveal that the lack of top management support (B6) was a critical barrier that can influence the adoption of DTs. Other significant barriers, such as legal and regulatory frameworks (B1), infrastructure (B3) and resistance to change (B2), were identified as the driving barriers, and industries need to pay more attention to them for the successful adoption of DTs in logistics. The MICMAC analysis shows that the legal and regulatory framework and lack of top management support have the highest driving powers. In contrast, lack of trust, reliability and privacy/security emerge as barriers with high dependence powers.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors' study has several implications in the light of DT substitution. First, this study successfully analyses the seven DTs using Adner and Kapoor's framework (2016a, b) and the Theory of Disruptive Innovation (Christensen, 1997; Christensenet al., 2011) based on the two parameters as follows: emergence challenge of new technology and extension opportunity of old technology. Second, this study categorises these seven DTs into four quadrants from the framework. Third, this study proposes the recommended paths that DTs might want to follow to be adopted quickly.Practical implicationsThe authors' study has several managerial implications in light of the adoption of DTs. First, the authors' study identified no autonomous barriers to adopting DTs. Second, other barriers belonging to any lower level of the ISM model can influence the dependent barriers. Third, the linkage barriers are unstable, and any preventive action involving linkage barriers would subsequently affect linkage barriers and other barriers. Fourth, the independent barriers have high influencing powers over other barriers.Originality/valueThe contributions of this study are four-fold. First, the study identifies the different DTs in the logistics sector. Second, the study applies the theory of disruptive innovations and the ecosystems framework to rationalise the choice of these seven DTs. Third, the study identifies and critically assesses the barriers to the successful adoption of these DTs through a strategic evaluation procedure with the help of a framework built with inputs from logistics experts. Fourth, the study recognises DTs adoption barriers in logistics management and provides a foundation for future research to eliminate those barriers.

Institutions of higher education seek innovative opportunities to keep up with changing student needs. Accordingly, frameworks such as Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation theory may appear attractive on the surface to improve advising practices, but a deeper under-standing of context and objectives is imperative to recognizing the applicability of such frame-works to practice. By clarifying what Disruptive Innovation is, and is not (i.e., sustaining innovation), it has been argued that the theory has been misunderstood and misapplied (Christensen et al., “What is Disruptive Innovation?”). A closer look reveals that in addition to benefits, the Disruptive Innovation framework also poses a number of challenges to advising. This study sets out to (1) clarify the theoretical framework of Disruptive Innovation and explore the relationship between Disruptive Innovation and advising; (2) examine the extent to which Disruptive Innovation theory can be applied in advising, via a case study; and (3) discuss the implications for Disruptive Innovation in advising.

ABSTRACTThis article provides an analysis on how disruptive innovation is spurred by the dynamics of digital and analogue networks in the sharing economy. The analysis builds on a free guided-tour company in Copenhagen. Data is collected in a bottom-up reiterative process, drawing on theories on disruptive innovation and network theory. Between 2013 and 2016, one of the free tour companies in Copenhagen was followed by means of participant observations, interviews with tour guides and interpretation of online documents. Results show that free guided tours based on tips alone and orchestrated within the frame of the sharing economy are not merely a product innovation. More importantly, they entail disruptive market innovations that circumvent traditional industry structures and ultimately produce disruptive organizational innovations where trust in network is the crux. Free guided-tour companies operate as communitarian organizations in extractive business models, and they are game changers in the field of guided tours, and ultimately in the field of tourism.

This paper combines the theory of disruptive innovation with Foucault's concept of the episteme, in order to analyse the extent to which the integration of Foucauldian analysis clarifies understandings of disruptive innovation; the process by which innovation happens; and its applications in higher education. The theory of disruptive innovation is summarized, as is the episteme, and the idea of skeuomorphic design is used to link disruptive innovation and the episteme, showing how innovation can happen. Disruptive innovation, the episteme and skeuomorphic design are applied to three, specific technologies – Second Life, the massive open online course and the virtual learning environment – arguing that all three offer little or no innovation. The paper contributes to studies on innovation in technology-enhanced learning by applying a novel theoretical framework with the potential for new and predictive insights. The paper links disruptive innovation with Foucault's concept of the episteme and with skeuomorphic design to argue for the emergence of a new, neoliberal episteme in which technology itself is central.

The term disruption has widely been used across industries to conjure the innovation concept and support such discussions in different contexts, but what disruptive technology means and what characteristics of disruptive technologies or innovations are. Based on Christensen’s (Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1997, [1]) theory of disruptive innovation and big-bang disruption of Downes and Nunes (Harv Bus Rev, 44–56, 2013, [2]), this paper deeps dive into the concept of disruptive technology and big-bang disruption to discover the main features of such disruptions. It looks at the two concepts to uncover the characteristics of such disruptions and signify their differences. It reveals a research gap to be further studied and proposes empirical research to validate whether the traditional technology adoption of Rogers is applicable to disruptive innovations, or the newly proposed model of Downes and Nunes (Harv Bus Rev, 44–56, 2013, [2]), is more valid. The missing link is the lack of having the right marketing strategy for products and services which were born based on the theory of Big-Bang Disruption. Hence, the paper looks at the academic literature and presents some of the most relevant scholars’ outlook on disruption concept. It proposes the methodological strategies and the approach for the future study, which is positivism. It discusses the research design that is “case study” and its method of measurement and concludes by the expected contribution.

The theory of disruptive innovation provides theoretical support for latecomer firms to achieve catching-up, in which value network is regarded as one of the important forces to drive disruptive innovation. However, little is known about how a latecomer firm changes its value network in the process of disruptive innovation to fulfill catching-up. To address this issue, it draws on the disruptive innovation theory and evolution perspective to investigate the evolution mechanism of latecomer firms’ value network in a disruptive innovation context. By using an exploratory case of Haier, a four-stage model is proposed to present the evolution process of value network matching with that of latecomer firms catching-up. Specifically, the evolution of value network is characterised as the changes in the configurations of value network, including value proposition, value subject, value activity, value relationship and value space, which are oriented by disruptive innovation context; and the catching-up process of latecomer firms in disruptive innovation context is divided into four stages, including the start-up period, fast-growing period, overall catching-up period and transformation period. It provides theoretical and practical implications for Chinese latecomers firms to fulfill catching-up through disruptive innovation.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the Disruptive Innovation Theory and on the disruptive potential of real estate crowdfunding (RECF) in the real estate finance industry, assessing whether RECF constitutes a potentially disruptive innovation to the real estate finance industry. Based on a review and synthesis of the literature, the paper advances an initial conceptual framework of core characteristics of disruptive innovations. This framework is used to examine the disruptive potential of RECF in the real estate finance industry.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is a systematic literature review that synthesizes and analyzes relevant extant research articles retrieved from online databases.FindingsFindings suggest that according to the theory of disruptive innovations, and the core characteristics of disruptive innovations, RECF is a potentially disruptive innovation to the real estate finance industry. RECF seems to generally align with the classic characteristics of disruptive innovations. A more comprehensive and systematic analysis, supported by empirical data, is necessary to evaluate whether and to what extent RECF constitutes a disruptive innovation to the real estate finance industry.Research limitations/implicationsThis study has only captured and reviewed articles published and available in database searches. RECF is a nascent field that has recently begun receiving academic attention.Practical implicationsReal estate plays an integral part in the economy, and the way it is financed has become an increasingly important issue following the Global Financial Crisis. This paper provides useful insights for assessing whether and to what extent RECF may be disruptive to the real estate finance industry.Social implicationsRECF may potentially improve accessibility and affordability of real estate finance, thereby helping to address the problem of shortage of real estate project finance.Originality/valueWhile RECF is portrayed in the academic and gray literature as a disruptive innovation, its disruptive potential is yet to be determined. This paper advances an initial conceptual framework of defining characteristics of disruptive innovations. This framework is used to evaluate RECF as a potentially disruptive innovation in the real estate project finance industry. This study forms a basis for future empirical examination of the disruptive potential of RECF in the real estate finance industry.

Disruptive Innovation and Creativity