In Christensen's definition of disruption there's nothing about "excruciating pain". It's about serving non-consumers, then getting better. A key idea is you don't confront a competitor head-on, but begin in markets that they don't care about, with a product that's not as good, in their customers' opinion, and so doesn't threaten them.
> Disruptive innovation, a term of art coined by Clayton Christensen, describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves ‘up market’, eventually displacing established competitors.
> An innovation that is disruptive allows a whole new population of consumers access to a product or service that was historically only accessible to consumers with a lot of money or a lot of skill. Characteristics of disruptive businesses, at least in their initial stages, can include: lower gross margins, smaller target markets, and simpler products and services that may not appear as attractive as existing solutions when compared against traditional performance metrics.
> Because companies tend to innovate faster than their customers’ lives change, most organizations eventually end up producing products or services that are too good, too expensive, and too inconvenient for many customers. By only pursuing “sustaining innovations” that perpetuate what has historically helped them succeed, companies unwittingly open the door to “disruptive innovations”.
http://www.claytonchristensen.com/disruptive_innovation.html [see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology#The_theor...]
Far from being excruciatingly painful, the disrupted incumbent is often at the height of their success, well-respected and well-liked, and doing a great job at serving their customers. For example, just before Digital's fall (the puzzle that Christensen wanted to understand in his PhD) it was a highly lauded company. How could Digital get killed? he implored.
To me, this article's use of "disruption" is a signal of quality that says: this is not a rigorous article. It seems to be using disruption in its common dictionary meaning, to shake things up. But when writing on technology adoption and startups to a seasoned audience, one would expect an awareness of the technical meaning. Although, to be fair, it does seem that many people in startup circles use the term extremely broadly (as if it meant "to compete with" or "to beat"). I agree with the article on that point.
A counterpoint to this entire comment: fortune favours the brave, not the meticulous.
> Disruptive innovation, a term of art coined by Clayton Christensen, describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves ‘up market’, eventually displacing established competitors.
> An innovation that is disruptive allows a whole new population of consumers access to a product or service that was historically only accessible to consumers with a lot of money or a lot of skill. Characteristics of disruptive businesses, at least in their initial stages, can include: lower gross margins, smaller target markets, and simpler products and services that may not appear as attractive as existing solutions when compared against traditional performance metrics.
> Because companies tend to innovate faster than their customers’ lives change, most organizations eventually end up producing products or services that are too good, too expensive, and too inconvenient for many customers. By only pursuing “sustaining innovations” that perpetuate what has historically helped them succeed, companies unwittingly open the door to “disruptive innovations”. http://www.claytonchristensen.com/disruptive_innovation.html [see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology#The_theor...]
Far from being excruciatingly painful, the disrupted incumbent is often at the height of their success, well-respected and well-liked, and doing a great job at serving their customers. For example, just before Digital's fall (the puzzle that Christensen wanted to understand in his PhD) it was a highly lauded company. How could Digital get killed? he implored.
To me, this article's use of "disruption" is a signal of quality that says: this is not a rigorous article. It seems to be using disruption in its common dictionary meaning, to shake things up. But when writing on technology adoption and startups to a seasoned audience, one would expect an awareness of the technical meaning. Although, to be fair, it does seem that many people in startup circles use the term extremely broadly (as if it meant "to compete with" or "to beat"). I agree with the article on that point.
A counterpoint to this entire comment: fortune favours the brave, not the meticulous.