3 ms·

Clayton Christensen Responds to New Yorker Takedown of 'Disruptive Innovation'

11 points by mathattack 12y ago

dusklight 12y ago
This rebuttal certainly makes me more inclined to believe the takedown piece. Disruption obviously happens but Christensen has made me less likely to believe he has any ability to predict when it is going to happen or why, or that he has anything useful to say about it.
epayne 12y ago
This comment from page three is interesting: "[Disruption] has never happened in the hotel industry, for example."
wsxcde 12y ago
Christensen has either inadvertently fallen into the DH4 [1] trap or is deliberately trying to cloud the central issue. What I would like him to do is address the key point that Jill Lepore made, which is that his theory of disruption doesn't have too much predictive power. The fact that he hasn't addressed this seems only to strengthen Lepore's argument. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- simonblack 12y ago
  The thing about the disruption is that it wouldn't happen if it were predictable. (If it were predictable, the companies would have done something different, and they wouldn't have been disrupted.) So, while predictions can be made, it won't necessarily pan out that they actually occur. The disruption is normally only really apparent in hindsight. In any case, the companies concerned were honestly trying to do their best, not their worst.
- mathattack 12y ago
  I think it's fair to say that you can't trade securities on his strategy. (He failed at it too) This is actually true of most business strategy. It's soft, and not actually scientific and predictive. Ironically, some strategists couldn't even keep strategy firms open. (Look at Michael Porter) Does this mean strategy should be ignored? No, but bold claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Hindsight to create cases and write books is 20/20.
clinton_sf 12y ago
I didn't give this article much weight -- Bennett called up Christensen on the telephone and got an emotional, ad-hoc response. This isn't a well thought out, polished, official response from Christensen. Hopefully we'll see one later on. I had to step back and think of examples that would qualify for what Christensen is talking about. I think I found a few, so I can't take Lepore's piece at face value.

11 points by mathattack 12y ago

This rebuttal certainly makes me more inclined to believe the takedown piece. Disruption obviously happens but Christensen has made me less likely to believe he has any ability to predict when it is going to happen or why, or that he has anything useful to say about it.

epayne 12y ago

This comment from page three is interesting: "[Disruption] has never happened in the hotel industry, for example."

wsxcde 12y ago

Christensen has either inadvertently fallen into the DH4 [1] trap or is deliberately trying to cloud the central issue. What I would like him to do is address the key point that Jill Lepore made, which is that his theory of disruption doesn't have too much predictive power. The fact that he hasn't addressed this seems only to strengthen Lepore's argument. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

simonblack 12y ago
The thing about the disruption is that it wouldn't happen if it were predictable. (If it were predictable, the companies would have done something different, and they wouldn't have been disrupted.) So, while predictions can be made, it won't necessarily pan out that they actually occur. The disruption is normally only really apparent in hindsight. In any case, the companies concerned were honestly trying to do their best, not their worst.
mathattack 12y ago
I think it's fair to say that you can't trade securities on his strategy. (He failed at it too) This is actually true of most business strategy. It's soft, and not actually scientific and predictive. Ironically, some strategists couldn't even keep strategy firms open. (Look at Michael Porter) Does this mean strategy should be ignored? No, but bold claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Hindsight to create cases and write books is 20/20.

clinton_sf 12y ago

I didn't give this article much weight -- Bennett called up Christensen on the telephone and got an emotional, ad-hoc response. This isn't a well thought out, polished, official response from Christensen. Hopefully we'll see one later on. I had to step back and think of examples that would qualify for what Christensen is talking about. I think I found a few, so I can't take Lepore's piece at face value.