3 ms·

I came here to also disagree with the article. You -just- beat me to it and for similar reasons. One key mistake the author of this article made is how vast i

I came here to also disagree with the article. You -just- beat me to it and for similar reasons. One key mistake the author of this article made is how vast is an economy of potential collaborators versus the limited number of people extant within one company. And being in the same company is no guarantee that you will be motivated or -allowed- to be motivated to work to a shared goal. That last point is particularly addressed in "The Innovator's Dilemma." Large businesses got large by being very good at focusing on an established goal. A new goal is particularly unwelcome. I wonder what Clayton Christensen would make of Apple (Apple II->Mac, MacOS <6 -> System X OS, iPod [where did that come from to become a huge share of revenues?], iPhone). Steve Jobs seems to have been innovating despite what Clayton writes. I still think Clayton is right but how does Steve Jobs do it over and over?

mediaman 17y ago
I don't think Christensen claims that big companies can't generate disruptive innovation, only that there are immense organizational forces that gear it toward incremental improvements rather than disruptive improvements. The exceptions seem to occur with exceptionally headstrong CEOs who can see beyond who the existing customer is, and create products for markets that don't yet exist (or are at least immature). Jobs is an example of that. The problem is that headstrong CEOs with a fantastic ear for future markets are not a systemic business solution, or else there would be many more examples. And there's a more specific problem here. That Apple currently has a CEO like it does is due to a historical artifact. Had Jobs not been a co-founder of Apple, would he have been brought in as CEO? If not, would Apple's board have brought someone in similar to him? It's unlikely -- usually the top candidate is the "safe" hire who has demonstrated immense leadership in incremental business domination, not the rough radical. Eventually, Jobs will retire or pass away, and that historical artifact will no longer be relevant -- and the immense organizational forces Christensen describes will begin their work on Apple.
- gruseom 17y ago
  I don't think Christensen claims that big companies can't generate disruptive innovation In fact, he expresses the hope that his book will make it possible for them to do so. I distinctly remember going "What?!" when I read that. Who, besides a few big companies who would then monopolize the world, would want that? Luckily it's a fantasy.

mediaman 17y ago

I don't think Christensen claims that big companies can't generate disruptive innovation, only that there are immense organizational forces that gear it toward incremental improvements rather than disruptive improvements. The exceptions seem to occur with exceptionally headstrong CEOs who can see beyond who the existing customer is, and create products for markets that don't yet exist (or are at least immature). Jobs is an example of that. The problem is that headstrong CEOs with a fantastic ear for future markets are not a systemic business solution, or else there would be many more examples. And there's a more specific problem here. That Apple currently has a CEO like it does is due to a historical artifact. Had Jobs not been a co-founder of Apple, would he have been brought in as CEO? If not, would Apple's board have brought someone in similar to him? It's unlikely -- usually the top candidate is the "safe" hire who has demonstrated immense leadership in incremental business domination, not the rough radical. Eventually, Jobs will retire or pass away, and that historical artifact will no longer be relevant -- and the immense organizational forces Christensen describes will begin their work on Apple.

gruseom 17y ago
I don't think Christensen claims that big companies can't generate disruptive innovation In fact, he expresses the hope that his book will make it possible for them to do so. I distinctly remember going "What?!" when I read that. Who, besides a few big companies who would then monopolize the world, would want that? Luckily it's a fantasy.