Disrupting the Theory of Disruptive Innovation?

Clayton Christensen's theory about disruptive innovation has been studied by many researchers from many different angles and this week we look at an earlier article by Christensen and Michael Overdorf titled, "Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change".

Some 15 years later Christensen along with Michael Raynor and Rory McDonald were compelled to post a rebuttal to explain exactly, "How Useful is the Theory of Disruptive Innovation?" in response to another piece published only a few months prior called, "How Useful is the Theory of Disruptive Innovation" by Andrew King and Baljir Baatartogtokh.

Slaying sacred cows is an important part of the scientific process and King and Baartartogtokh raise some relevant points in their article; yet, in some ways they appear to be trying too hard to poke holes in an established theory.

One critique appears to be simply that "disruptive innovations" are rare.  I would argue that goes without saying but their point appears to be that it is even rarer than Christensen himself would believe as many of his original case studies don't appear to stand up to his model as well as it seemed.

However, there are a few points that King and Baartartogtokh suggest that seem to miss their mark. They cite legacy costs of established firms as being one of the problems with the original case studies but the idea that a firm is unable to respond to disruption or to develop a disruptive innovation themselves due to legacy costs is precisely the point.  Christensen explains that a companies capabilities and expertise in specific areas may actually hinder it's ability to shift directions and leaves it vulnerable to disruptive innovators.  The critique point of view seems to miss this by suggesting that companies who have the capability to respond but do not follow through for whatever reason seems to confuse "capability" with resources, which on their own are not enough to help a company break out of an old mold.

On the other hand, Christensen would argue that:

• Being "transformative" is not the same as being "disruptive" and that
• "Disrupt or be disrupted" is the wrong way to look at innovation as established firms can survive "disruptive innovations" (according to him) without being the disruptors themselves.  

There are many more questions we could raise about each of these 3 articles but I believe one of the real points Christensen is trying to make is that established firms can co-op disruptive innovations.  Although he doesn't consider the iPhone to be a disruptor, it may be said that Apple stole the momentum from Research in Motion's Blackberry, which may be the better example of a disruptive innovator in that market.  (Although, Blackberries may not fit the disruption model of entering at the low end of the market either, so this too may not quite be accurate.)

All-in-all, innovation is a hot topic that is likely to continue receiving a high degree of interest among academics and businesses alike.  Disruptive innovation is one piece of this puzzle that may prove to hold up in some ways while requiring some modification in others.  Regardless of it's accuracy or "usefulness" as some researchers question, it serves as a great starting point from which to debate, build new theory, and test hypotheses that have real world implications.