Explaining The Innovator's Dilemma... In Two Minutes With A Whiteboard
from the out-innovate-yourself dept
As you may recall from last month, UPS recently asked us to create a series of videos, where we explain some of the stuff we talk about here on Techdirt on a regular basis in under two minutes, using a whiteboard. The first video was about the economics of abundance and got a great response. The second video is now up, and it's an attempt to explain the Innovator's Dilemma, based on Clayton Christensen's must-read research. If you're unfamiliar with it, it explains how difficult it is for many companies to adapt to changing markets, and is a good framework for understanding both why some companies are so slow to adapt. More importantly, it provides a good system for thinking about your own company and understanding how to adapt and implement new ideas rapidly:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: clayton christensen, innovation, innovator's dilemma
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
simple enough :)
Nice and simple and well done though :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A perfect example is the phone: Even as new technologies have come along (computer networks, IM, texting) the use of the phone is still as strong as ever, and has yet to be innovated out of existance. In fact, the new developments in the phone business keep pushing phones. Even theoretically disruptive technologies like walkie talkie functions and such have not dethroned the idea of one on one phone discussion.
The horse and buggy thing is nice, but it is one example where the new technology won (after a very, very long time). New technology isn't always the winner (Kindle, anyone?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then it's not a disruptive technology. Problem solved.
A perfect example is the phone: Even as new technologies have come along (computer networks, IM, texting) the use of the phone is still as strong as ever, and has yet to be innovated out of existance. In fact, the new developments in the phone business keep pushing phones. Even theoretically disruptive technologies like walkie talkie functions and such have not dethroned the idea of one on one phone discussion.
Again, theory is not reality. If it's not disruptive, it's not disruptive. It doesn't change the lesson: which is to focus on making sure the consumer benefit remains maximized. That means understanding what the consumers actually want, not what the company thinks they want.
The horse and buggy thing is nice, but it is one example where the new technology won (after a very, very long time). New technology isn't always the winner (Kindle, anyone?)
No one said new technology always wins. There are a lot more failures than winners, of course. What I said was that you need to focus on the benefit to the users, so that when a disruptive tech *does* come along, you can respond to it properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Think "land lines" being phased out by "cell phone" being phased out by VoIP, i.e. data networks. The example provided was a generalization.
Furthermore, the "idea" of a phone discussion won't be phased out. The technology behind the idea will be.
Ideas are not technology. Same applies to Patents. Ideas are not Patentable otherwise you'd have writers applying for spaceship and timetravel patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not really, by your own definition, the existing business won't know a disruptive technology until it is successful. Effectively, by your definition, the incumbent is behind and probably already lost the war by the time they know what is actually the disruptive technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, I think you may be misunderstanding the video, and I apologize if I wasn't clear. The whole point is not to focus on the technology, but on providing the most consumer benefit. In that situation, you don't care what technology provides it, you just focus on serving the customer. In that way, you don't lose the war at all.
Sorry if that wasn't clear. Again, it's only two minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not sure ereader/ebook will ever compleatly knock off books. I've seen books from 200 years ago that still have all the information in them. Yes they took some care to keep that long. Also until battery tech improves to the point where the kindle will last weeks, I'll keep my books. Actually a lot of my "analog" portable devices are still winning over the digital ones simple because of the batteries.
P.S. I would really like my flying car that runs on the fusion of garbage. GOGO Mr. Fusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tiny quibble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tiny quibble
Oops! Fixed. Sorry about that... (at least it wasn't in the video!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tiny quibble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Onto my Facebook to educate my friends, it goes....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At a high level, what's the lesson?
That said, the 2 minute presentation was EXCELLENT. It helped me to focus on something that I'm trying to hone in my own career: a focus on the customer as your market.
After all, isn't that really the lesson here? If someone asks what I do, which of the following is the better response?
1. I architect technology security technology infrastructure for small businesses
2. I ensure that my customer's employees work in the most effective way possible
The first is how too many people see their jobs: they sell their product or services. But the second says it clearly: I protect my customers. If certain technologies go in and out of favor, that can affect the first. But if I am focused on simply protecting my customers, then I'll do whatever it takes to get that done, and my services will always be in demand (assuming I'm good at what I do). I no longer have to rely on specific products, I focus on the goal. If that means different products, fine. If that means I take some kind of additional non-product related action on my end, then I do that.
It's subtle but important. To me, it's a mentality thing. You can either have the focus be on the products you're offering, or on the customer. The latter seems to engender much more favorable responses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At a high level, what's the lesson?
Too late... already filmed. :) I don't remember exactly, but I don't think there are any people in the last one... Pretty sure it's people free...
That said, the 2 minute presentation was EXCELLENT. It helped me to focus on something that I'm trying to hone in my own career: a focus on the customer as your market.
Cool. Glad I could help.
The first is how too many people see their jobs: they sell their product or services. But the second says it clearly: I protect my customers. If certain technologies go in and out of favor, that can affect the first. But if I am focused on simply protecting my customers, then I'll do whatever it takes to get that done, and my services will always be in demand (assuming I'm good at what I do). I no longer have to rely on specific products, I focus on the goal. If that means different products, fine. If that means I take some kind of additional non-product related action on my end, then I do that.
Yup. Good summary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At a high level, what's the lesson?
"MUST be wearing an oversized darkened helmet."
.... they must wear a penguin suit!!! or a tuxedo ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent Mike!
Love it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great work Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Historically Poor Choice of Example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
In effect the non-disruptive tech was subsidized by state and federal governments until it was disruptive. So your example is a disruptive gov't pushing a new tech into faster adoption, not a tech that is purely disruptive. Even to this day your example is being subsidized by taxpayer funds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Historically Poor Choice of Example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Historically Poor Choice of Example
CanceledLegend claimed:
No it wasn’t. The US interstate highway system wasn’t built until the 1950s, nearly a half-century after the motorcar had started disrupting the horse-and-buggy industry. So there was no government subsidy until the motorcar had already become the preferred choice of transport for ordinary people. In fact, quite the opposite—remember the Red Flag Act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
=)
Ask yourself, how many people do you know that still have a land line? Can you even still send a telegraph? Remember the annoying commercials for long distance calls under a buck? I am sure we could make quite the list.
The phone companies that are still in business today are the ones who learned the lesson illustrated in this video. Even if they kicked and screamed the entire way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, this video uses both Christensen's work and Levitt's work as inspiration -- though I have to admit that I had come up with the same theory as Levitt before I ever heard of him, and then realized he came up with it ages before I did and thought "neat."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adapt
Exactly. That's why large companies are trying to kill the patent system with what they call reform so they don't have to adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: adapt
Staff3, I recognize that you make your living suing other companies for patent infringement, but this particular discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with patents. You might want to stop looking at everything through your unique set of glasses. The patent system is not everything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These are helpful
I am not sure if there are anymore of these coming out, but another topic that I don't think many people understand is Lots of data vs Good data. This seams to be an issue I run into and could use some outside opinions to help explain this to people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh and I love the videos too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Gerald Ford
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good job Mike and UPS
I'm new here at Techdirt and love your articles. When I read this, before getting to the video, I thought there's no real way to explain it effectively in 2 minutes. WOW GREAT job!.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
horseshit
hey Mikey, you don't look like punk anymore, more like an adult pig
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovator's Dilemna
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Videos available in non-Flash?
I'm using a computer that doesn't have Adobe Flash, but can play real videos quite nicely.
Thanx,
--Bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next?
After all, "employee" can't afford to spend too much and too long without getting something back. The real thing is that no one would jeopardize its title and salary on a Fairy tale unless company allows.
So what's next after knowing it?
Well, the big companies wait.
1. Wait for the technology to fail
Just read this article: Ahead of their time: Nine technologies that came early
http://www.networkworld.com/slideshows/2009/111009-technologies-ahead-of-time.html
2. Wait for a right time to acquire it to either continue the project or to kill the technology
Pharmaceutical industry has done many things like this.
So what should we do about it if we have a good innovation?
This is something I hope people can tell me. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100630/11220610024.shtml
Though wikipedia doesn't seem to directly indicate so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrafugia
It would be interesting to see how this develops and replaces the traditional automobile and how incumbents ensure that they, and not newcomers, are the ones that profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The dilemma is misnamed
The dilemma of the person or company that innovates is that the forces dominating the market (which often includes government) have a vested interest in the status quo. They do not want innovation.
The dilemma described was the non-innovator's dilemma: How do we recognize that an innovation is something we MUST pay attention to and then get a piece of it before we're consumed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovator's Dilemma is quite defendable
1. Their customers, who they often do consult, tell them that they are not interested in the innovation ( IBM’s clients who used big computers at the time told them they did not want PCs)
2. To supply the innovation usually requires different technologies and skills that the traditional supplier does not have ( slide rule makers could not make electronic calculators)
3. Traditional suppliers would have to supply BOTH the old products ( horse and carts) AND the new( cars) as they have many customers who still want the old technology, so their costs would double for probably not double the revenue, so they opt for the guaranteed income and profit, for the time being and let others risk their money. ( Kodak stayed with films and physical pictures for almost too long but they cash flowed in still to help their ROI on the investments in film processing.)
The Newspaper industry has managed to hold off the effects of the Internet pretty well for 15 years ( amazingly) and Murdoch will just buy the innovators ( he backed My Space instead of Facebook which says he is fallible, but he jumped in too early; at least he was prepared to move into the new industry).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]