I wrote a longer response earlier. There’s a few links to other, mostly negative, responses but I think it’s a good article especially when it sticks to the “cult of the innovators dilemma” vs refuting the book itself.
Yes, my impression is that the refutation of the book is pretty weak and conflates the broscience interpretation of the book (which Clay Christensen is not that happy about either) with what the book is actually saying. It’s a bit of a straw-man argument.
It’s really interesting how the “disruption” narrative has become so popular but failed to predict the iconic example of disruption - the iPhone. Maybe we don’t really understand what’s going on.
It kind of reminds me of how magic has historically been used in some cultures. Maybe sailing your boat during a storm is dangerous but you’ve got to do it and someone comes along and says “perform this spell and you’ll be safe.” It’s a way for people to manage feelings of uncertainty.
I imagine individuals running large companies must feel the same way. They look at the history of businesses and see successful companies who fall victim to shifting and chaotic market forces. The process almost seems unpredictable…
I think the disruption narrative provides an explanation for why this happens and a prescription for how to avoid it. Whether its prescriptions are well-founded is kind of orthogonal to its function.
Yeah, it’s cargo-cult MBA nonsense. It lacks predictive power, but wraps itself in a scientistic gloss perfectly congruent with modern economics. It’s a self-justifying fairy tale adopted by people with charting software and a deep-seated envy of Real Science. IOW, crap.
I wrote a longer response earlier. There’s a few links to other, mostly negative, responses but I think it’s a good article especially when it sticks to the “cult of the innovators dilemma” vs refuting the book itself.
Yes, my impression is that the refutation of the book is pretty weak and conflates the broscience interpretation of the book (which Clay Christensen is not that happy about either) with what the book is actually saying. It’s a bit of a straw-man argument.
It’s really interesting how the “disruption” narrative has become so popular but failed to predict the iconic example of disruption - the iPhone. Maybe we don’t really understand what’s going on.
It kind of reminds me of how magic has historically been used in some cultures. Maybe sailing your boat during a storm is dangerous but you’ve got to do it and someone comes along and says “perform this spell and you’ll be safe.” It’s a way for people to manage feelings of uncertainty.
I imagine individuals running large companies must feel the same way. They look at the history of businesses and see successful companies who fall victim to shifting and chaotic market forces. The process almost seems unpredictable…
I think the disruption narrative provides an explanation for why this happens and a prescription for how to avoid it. Whether its prescriptions are well-founded is kind of orthogonal to its function.
Yeah, it’s cargo-cult MBA nonsense. It lacks predictive power, but wraps itself in a scientistic gloss perfectly congruent with modern economics. It’s a self-justifying fairy tale adopted by people with charting software and a deep-seated envy of Real Science. IOW, crap.