Concept Of Disruptive Innovation Research Articles

Back Bay Battery Simulation Reflective Essay

The success of an organization’s innovation strategy relies on a clearly defined innovation theme. In this article, the author will delve into the concept of disruptive innovation and explore how to achieve Horizon 2 ideas. Horizon 2 ideas involve extending the business’s current model and core competencies to reach new customers, markets, and even new business objectives in different segments. The business model extension under Horizon 2 focuses on the organization’s mid-term goals, typically taking 24 to 36 months to yield results. Drawing insights from the Harvard Business Review’s Back Bay Battery (BBB) simulation, this article presents the implementation of an innovation strategy within the BBB company. The aim is to assist the company in enhancing its business model and transitioning into the high-end market. The latter part of the article will shed light on the challenges associated with implementing this strategy in a real-world firm and the results it can deliver to the organization. Specifically, it will explore the effectiveness of the strategy in achieving disruptive innovation within the employee market, where the company intends to use the new business model to tap into new markets.

DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION IN HEALTHCARE: A REVIEW AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDAS

Disruptive innovation (DI) refers to a mode of low cost high ancillary performance innovation that starts at the lower end of the market and gradually moves up to eventually displace its incumbent counterparts. The concept of DI has become more and more popular in the healthcare sector. The paper studies how healthcare research has embraced the concept of DI in various areas within the healthcare sector. Areas of healthcare, where DI has been adopted as a management strategy, were identified in the last two decades, through initially shortlisting 157 papers and the final reviewed set of 117 papers. Through a multi-method approach comprising of co-word analysis, identification of themes, mapping of research work across these themes and geography, the study found that, although from a management perspective there are 13 major themes, the majority of the focus is on four major themes–healthcare delivery and services, healthcare administration, technology and equipment, and nursing and palliative care. Furthermore, the majority of the geography-specific research was conducted in developed countries, especially the USA. It was also observed that organisational strategies for successfully implementing DI in the healthcare sector are still in the nascent stage and the focus is mostly in the area of healthcare delivery and administration from the management perspective. Future research studies could aim at looking at the role that DI plays in the healthcare sector of the developing countries, as well as using DI in other areas of healthcare, rather than a few concentrated areas.

Disrupting the System: An Innovative Model of Comprehensive Care

Despite health care reform, our nation continues to struggle containing health care costs while meeting the needs of persons with behavioral health disorders and comorbid chronic care conditions. The purpose of this article is to propose that dually certified primary care and psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners may be the disruptive innovation that becomes the solution for improving the coordination and care for high-need patients while containing costs. The concepts of disruptive innovation, integrated care, and whole person care are discussed followed by an introduction to the innovative primary care and psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner’s role and its potential for health care system disruption. Finally, a call to nursing is proffered to seize current opportunities to meet the Triple Aim challenge by providing whole person care that is high-quality, cost-effective, and satisfactory to patients because it is truly patient centered and meets their needs.

Waves of disruption in clean energy transitions: Sociotechnical dimensions of system disruption in Germany and the United Kingdom

Academic and policy literatures are seeing a growing discussion about ‘clean energy disruption’. However, the term disruption often lacks definitional clarity. Departing from the concept of disruptive innovation and based on a review of firm-based management and socio-technical transitions literatures, we derive four dimensions of system disruption: technology, markets and business models, ownership and actors, and regulation. We apply these dimensions to analyse the status of disruption in two exemplary countries pursuing ambitious low-carbon energy transitions: Germany and the United Kingdom (UK). The views of a diverse range of actors are investigated regarding how disruption is unfolding and what is seen as disruptive in the energy sector. Our analysis draws on 28 expert interviews, supplemented with a review of empirical studies. We find that despite comparable shares of renewables in the two countries' electricity systems, the scale of disruption in Germany significantly exceeds that in the UK, covering all four rather than just two dimensions. We also find a greater awareness of and resistance to expected further waves of disruption in Germany, as compared to the UK. Finally, we discuss the implications of the notion of disruption for understanding and governing socio-technical transitions.

Ex-Ante Prediction of Disruptive Innovation: The Case of Battery Technologies

Battery technologies represent a highly relevant field that is undergoing conversions in the context of, for instance, battery electric vehicles or stationary power storage for renewable energies. Currently, lithium-ion batteries represent the predominant technology that has, however, a considerable environmental impact that could hinder the emergence of sustainable energy systems. Driven by these conversions, several authors claim that potentially disruptive technologies could occur. The concept of disruptive innovation has been highly regarded in research and practice, but has only been successfully regarded from an ex-post perspective. However, without the possibility to establish ex-ante predictions of disruptive innovation, several authors disregard the concept of having significant relevance for practice. In response to this research gap, the present paper attempts to establish an ex-ante prediction of potential disruptive innovation. The method is based on the disruption hazard model by Sood and Tellis, testing seven hypotheses regarding a potential disruption hazard of redox-flow batteries towards lithium-ion batteries. The paper finds that redox-flow batteries could represent a disruptive technology, but this evaluation is limited to an expert evaluation. The authors discuss this finding, as the technical characteristics of redox-flow batteries support its role as a potential disruptive innovation, concluding with implications, limitations as well as suggestions for future research.

Designing and making commercially driven integrated dictionary portals: the Diccionarios Valladolid-UVa

Integrated dictionary portals such as the Diccionarios Valladolid-UVa are reference tools prepared by the same team and equipped with Dictionary Writing Systems that consists of editors, databases, Web interfaces, management tools, and a kind of dictionary grammar which specifies a common structure for all the dictionaries of the portal. They were designed and are being constructed by the joint efforts of lexicographers, IT and domain experts, and a language technology Danish company. The project started in the year 2014, initially following Bergenholtz’s works in several commercially oriented Danish dictionaries. It has now been accommodated to new lexicographic insights and technological developments, and is on the road to “producing” around 28 integrated dictionaries as well as specific search devices, e.g. for searching Spanish Americanisms or specific translations of specific expressions. The project is based on the tenets of the Function Theory of Lexicography, Christensen’s concept of disruptive innovation, and assumptions on the economic potential of lexicographic data. For reasons of space and target readership, this paper will be mostly concerned with presenting the concept of typological individualization, i.e. offering specific data types for specific user types in specific situation types.

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations

AbstractEveryday experiences speak to the accelerated pace of innovation in this era of continual change. Sometimes, innovations enhance the value of existing products and services. At other times, they render existing business models obsolete, disrupt value‐networks, prompt providers to rethink who their customers are, and lead customers to rethink what they value. What does it mean to manage in such a world of disruptive changes, and how might we research this phenomenon? Together with the contributors to this special issue, we anchor, explore and extend the meanings associated with the concept of disruptive innovation. In particular, we discuss several perspectives on disruption – evolutionary, relational, temporal and framing – that culminate in a performative (as opposed to a predictive) approach to thinking about the phenomenon. In doing so, our intention is to open up the agenda for both researchers and practitioners.

Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research

AbstractThe concept of disruptive innovation has gained considerable currency among practitioners despite widespread misunderstanding of its core principles. Similarly, foundational research on disruption has elicited frequent citation and vibrant debate in academic circles, but subsequent empirical research has rarely engaged with its key theoretical arguments. This inconsistent reception warrants a thoughtful evaluation of research on disruptive innovation within management and strategy. We trace the theory’s intellectual history, noting how its core principles have been clarified by anomaly‐seeking research. We also trace the theory’s evolution from a technology‐change framework—essentially descriptive and relatively limited in scope—to a more broadly explanatory causal theory of innovation and competitive response. This assessment reveals that our understanding of the phenomenon of disruption has changed as the theory has developed. To reinvigorate academic interest in disruptive innovation, we propose several underexplored topics—response strategies, performance trajectories, and innovation metrics—to guide future research.

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations

Everyday experiences speak to the accelerated pace of innovation in this era of continual change. Sometimes, innovations enhance the value of existing products and services. At other times, they render existing business models obsolete, disrupt value-networks, prompt providers to rethink who their customers are, and lead customers to rethink what they value. What does it mean to manage in such a world of disruptive changes, and how might we research this phenomenon? Together with the contributors to this special issue, we anchor, explore and extend the meanings associated with the concept of disruptive innovation. In particular, we discuss several perspectives on disruption – evolutionary, relational, temporal and framing – that culminate in a performative (as opposed to a predictive) approach to thinking about the phenomenon. In doing so, our intention is to open up the agenda for both researchers and practitioners.

Disruptive Innovation: Intellectual History and Future Paths

The concept of disruptive innovation has gained currency among managers even while core concepts remain misunderstood. Likewise, foundational research on disruption has produced extensive citations and provoked vibrant debates, but empirical research in management has not kept pace. Such inconsistencies warrant deeper reflection and provide the impetus for evaluating research on disruptive innovation in management and strategy. We trace disruptive innovation theory’s intellectual history, noting both how core principles have crystallized through a process of anomaly-seeking research and how it has evolved from a technology change framework to a more expansive, causal theory of innovation and competitive response. The assessment reveals that while the phenomenon of disruption has not changed, our understanding has as the theory developed and was refined. Finally, to reinvigorate academic interest in disruptive innovation, we propose several new topic areas–performance trajectories, response strategies and hybrids, platform businesses, and innovation metrics–to guide subsequent empirical work.

Valley of the unicorns: consumer genomics, venture capital and digital disruption

Drawing on the sociology of expectations and sociology of conventions, this paper explores issues of worth and value in the bioeconomy, and the promissory character of contemporary capitalism. Arguing that the literature on biocapital has paid insufficient attention to geographical differentiation in capital accumulation strategies, this paper situates the consumer genomics firm 23andme in the entrepreneurial culture of Silicon Valley. The paper suggests that in Silicon Valley the relationship between moral worth and economic value is mediated through the concept of disruptive innovation, which functions as both ideological construct and a set of commercial practices utilized by the founders of start-up firms and the venture capitalists who invest in them. Analyzing 23andme’s status as a “unicorn” firm, the paper describes how the recent increase in private investment capital in Silicon Valley has led to a new model of business development for start-ups and considers its implications for corporate governance.

Assessing Airbnb as a disruptive innovation relative to hotels: Substitution and comparative performance expectations

Millions of tourists have used Airbnb accommodations, and Airbnb is frequently discussed in terms of its current or future impacts on hotels. The purpose of this research was to investigate such impacts by determining the extent to which Airbnb is used as a hotel substitute and to examine how Airbnb guests expect their accommodations to perform relative to hotels. Together, these analyses were intended to provide empirical insight into Airbnb’s status as a disruptive innovation. The study involved an online survey of over 800 tourists who had used Airbnb within the previous year. Nearly two-thirds had used Airbnb as a hotel substitute. When considering traditional hotel attributes (e.g., cleanliness and comfort), Airbnb was generally expected to outperform budget hotels/motels, underperform upscale hotels, and have mixed outcomes versus mid-range hotels, signalling some – but not complete – consistency with the concept of disruptive innovation. Numerous practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Defining Open Innovation

In the last installment of this column, I initiated a new series of topics aimed at defining the vocabulary of innovation management. The object is to look critically at the profession's terms of art, exploring their origins and mapping their limitations, to provide new clarity, and in the process restore some of their power. By looking at the terminology at the heart of innovation management and exploring how it has emerged and evolved, perhaps we can also get a glimpse of where innovation is heading. In the first entry in the series, we looked at the concept of disruptive innovation. This time, we're examining another concept whose usage has become confused and, at times, diluted: open innovation. Henry Chesbrough introduced the concept of open innovation in his 2003 book, Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Despite popular conceptions, Chesbrough didn't actually invent open innovation--his book is rich with examples of companies already doing it. Rather, he gave a name to the pattern and defined the paradigm: Innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology. Innovation combines internal and external ideas into architectures and systems whose requirements are defined by a business model. He refined that definition in a 2006 book he co-edited, Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm: Open innovation is the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively. The key in both definitions is the focus on an approach driven by the business model. As Gene Slowinski and Matt Sagal point out, in their 2003 book and in a 2010 RTM article, that approach must be supported by a set of tools and processes designed to facilitate the relationships--with universities, with researchers, with individual inventors, even with competitors--that are at the core of open innovation. Slowinski and Sagal's Want-Find-Get-Manage model, described in detail by Slowinski in Reinventing Corporate Growth, offers one framework for sustaining collaborative innovation. Chesbrough's assertion--in the books and in a series of journal articles between the two books (including two in the pages of this journal)--that open innovation would become absolutely essential was not wildly speculative; the precursors were clearly in place in the early 2000s. But he could not have predicted the changes to come in the few years after that first work, or the ways in which they would make openness both easier and more vital. Indeed, Innovation arrived on the cusp of revolutionary change. As markets became ever more dynamic and unpredictable, new technology platforms allowed knowledge to circulate ever more freely and far more widely. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Kickstarter all were born after open innovation. Wikipedia, Linux, Google's Raspberry Pi, and other open-source projects revealed the power of mass collaboration to create knowledge through unfettered sharing. And Red Hat and others showed that there was money to be made from open-source platforms. The crowd and the cloud became viable, even essential, tools. Wired magazine introduced the term crowdsourcing to the world in a 2006 article by Jeff Howe, and suddenly innovation had an entire new toolset. All companies had to do was figure out what to do with it. As Kevin Boudreaux and Karim Lakhani warned in a 2013 HBR article on the subject, Crowds are moving into the mainstream; even if you don't take advantage of them, your competitors surely will. All of these developments offered new tools for pursuing open innovation. But what many practitioners and researchers alike have done is conflate these new tools with open innovation itself, either treating crowdsourcing and open innovation as synonyms or suggesting some other kind of equivalence between the two concepts. …

Epital Health – a disruptive and research based approach to service transformation of health care systems

Introduction: Many telehealth projects and initiatives loose their pace when facing the barriers of traditional healthcare organization. During the latest years, the concept of disruptive innovation has received increased attention as a method to overcome barriers by introducing new whole system designs as alternative to existing systems. Aims and Objectives: The Epital Health (EH) project is a disruptive implementation aimed at redesigning the healthcare system within chronic conditions, based on co-creation and combined operation, development and research. It demonstrates how a citizen centered service transformation can take place resulting in provision of healthcare and secondary prevention of comorbidities, in a personalized and tailored environment. EH uses a disruptive approach to overcome organizational barriers and replace them by telehealth and –care services, to be controlled by the informed and active citizen in true collaboration with the health professionals. The Innovation: The EH technology is based on three major components, a health navigator which is a tablet-PC with apps comprising a video communication channel, a personal planner, a catalogue of relevant health services and a tool to monitor own condition, including relevant telemonitoring equipment. The citizen is connected to the 24/7 call center for direct assistance, sent assistance or referral to needed services, including specialists. This will result in instant home treatment in case of worsening conditions. An underlying it solution provides data storage, management and interpretation in order to follow the conditions of the connected users and assists in provision of services. Process: The project and results are used to continuously develop ways to empower citizens in relation to their health. All project iterations are driven by the goal of simultaneous progress in citizen experience, health outcome quality, and economy. Every design element is evaluated against a predefined empowerment model. There is a continuous pursuit of service orientation of healthcare provision, combined with decentralization and –specialization in the offering. EH is designed for scaling the number of participating citizens (exponentially), morbidities and services, in tune with growing operational experience amongst citizens as well as professionals and International Congress on Telehealth and Telecare 2013, London, July 01-03, 2013. 2 International Journal of Integrated Care –Volume 13, 20 November –URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-115733– http://www.ijic.org/ organization. The project is followed by a research consortium providing documentation of processes, evaluations and clinical evidence on the project iterations. Results to date: The staffed EH call center is implemented in a municipality in the Copenhagen Region. It has started with 5 COPD GOLD Level 3-4 patients included with home technology, and has until now within a year been scaled up to 50. Business cases are developed based on the designed scaling rates, the economic goals and predicted health outcome. Mobile clinical teams are in operation for active prevention of hospitalization. Conclusions: It is important to rethink needs and incentives for all the involved partners, including citizens, in order to enable collaboration under the radical changes, without feeling threatened by savings or reductions. It is a challenge to create a common language and understanding among actors, regarding how the patients turn into active citizens and even consumers in relation to their conditions. Providers must consider changing from a patriarchal behavior to a collaborative one, and accepting the existence of disruptive and competing alternatives within their healthcare system. These initiatives have large impact and promise – but must start small due to their disruptive nature.

Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector

This article explores the emergence of Airbnb, a company whose website permits ordinary people to rent out their residences as tourist accommodation. The company was just recently established, but it has grown extremely rapidly and is now selling many millions of room nights annually. This rise is examined through the lens of disruptive innovation theory, which describes how products that lack in traditionally favoured attributes but offer alternative benefits can, over time, transform a market and capture mainstream consumers. The concepts of disruptive innovation are used to consider Airbnb's novel business model, which is built around modern internet technologies, and Airbnb's distinct appeal, which centres on cost-savings, household amenities, and the potential for more authentic local experiences. Despite Airbnb's growing popularity, many Airbnb rentals are actually illegal due to short-term rental regulations. These legality issues and their corresponding tax concerns are discussed, with an overview of the current state of regulatory flux and a possible path for resolution. Thereafter, the article considers Airbnb's potential to significantly disrupt the traditional accommodation sector, and the positive and negative impacts Airbnb may have on destinations. Finally, numerous questions for future research are proposed.

Genomic pathology: a disruptive innovation.

237 ISSN 1741-0541 10.2217/PME.12.5 © 2012 Future Medicine Ltd Personalized Medicine (2012) 9(3), 237–239 “...genomic pathology [is] founded on the premise that sequencing the human genome is rapidly becoming so routine and inexpensive that it will inevitably find its way into fundamental aspects of healthcare – not only in disease diagnosis and management, but also disease prevention, risk mitigation and health maintenance.”

Innovación disruptiva cado del sector autopartes en San Juan del Río

In this paper we present concepts of innovation and its relation to the competitiveness, the concept of disruptive innovation, and the types and theories of it, in order to apply these concepts to asmall auto parts sector companies in order to detect the type of innovation that is implemented and if there is disruption in its business model. Also demonstrate the potential ofdisruptive innovation by allowing small businesses to large companies move as leaders neglect to certain sectors of the market, which is used by small businesses that provide these sectors, products at a low price.

Special topic: strategic innovations

Strategic innovations ‘‘... pose radically different challenges for established firms and have radically different implications for managers’’ (Markides 2006 p. 19). The discussion about strategic innovations started in the 1990s, as Christensen (1997) developed his theory about disruptive innovation. The theory focuses on innovations which offer a new set of attributes to create higher customer benefit compared to established technologies. Established firms, or respectively ‘‘incumbents’’, often neglect these kinds of innovations and show mal-adaptive reactions upon this challenge. Thus, established firms may find themselves within a dilemma, because they struggle to manage the switch from an ‘‘old’’ to a ‘‘new’’ technology and cannot make both coexist in the same organization (Markides 2006), even when the innovation is already adopted by the (newly created) market. Within the concept of disruptive innovation, Christensen and Raynor (2003) have further defined the two terms ‘‘low-end disruptions’’ and ‘‘new-market disruptions’’. Hereby, new-market disruptions are creating an entire new market and simultaneously offer a novel set of product performance. In contrast, low-end disruptions are innovations which are less expensive and often provide a quality lower than the industry standard. In a much broader sense, strategic innovations also comprise business model innovations (Chesbrough 2007). Business models determine the way of doing business in companies. The term ‘‘business model’’ is commonly used in daily business and is, almost as a buzzword, omnipresent in political or cultural discussions. The term itself has its origin in the spread of E-Commerce between 1996 and 2000. The main question in this field is how to create sustainable and innovative business concepts by changing the configuration of the business model building blocks (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010). In addition to that, existing firms