3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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.