The Effect of Disruptive Innovation in My Organization
What is disruptive innovation? Disruptive, as defined by The Free Dictionary, means “1. To throw into confusion or disorder 2. To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of 3. To break or burst; rupture” (“Disruptive,”n.d.). Innovation by the same source is defined as: “something newly introduced, such as a new method or device” (“Innovation,” n.d.). Putting the two words together we can conclude that a disruptive innovation would be a new method or device that interrupts, throws into confusion or ruptures existing methods or devices. This is precisely how Christensen, Horn, & Johnson define it in their book “Disrupting Class, How Disruptive Innovation will Change the Way the World Learns” (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2011). They begin by telling us what disruptive innovation is not: it is not a “breakthrough improvement” (p. 47). Instead a disruptive innovation is one that “ disrupts the traditional improvement trajectory by bringing to the market a product or service that actually is not as good as what companies historically had been selling”( p. 47). A disruptive innovation is not an improvement on a product that already exists. It is a whole new approach to a concept; a way of doing things differently and approaching people that we not originally involved. They discuss that disruptive innovations actually benefit people who had been unable to consume the product before because it was either too costly or too complex (p. 47). Scott Anthony describes them as transforming existing markets and creating new ones by playing the innovation game in a fundamentally different way (“How to Spot Disruptive Innovation Opportunities,” n.d. ).
According to Scott Anthony disruptive innovations generally occur when there is a market that has some type of “constraint that prohibits consumption”: when people lack skills or money which make it difficult to solve problems in their lives or when the solution to the problem takes more time than they can allow (“How to Spot Disruptive Innovation Opportunities,” n.d. ). Finding a way to eliminate those barriers can result in a disrupting innovation. Christensen et al. say that disruptive innovations begin at the “simplest end of the market, typically competing against nonconsumption” (Christensen et al., 2011, p. 85). Even if the idea or product you are releasing is not of good quality, the competition is against something that is not there; “something is better than nothing” (p. 86). Consumers will readily buy what will solve their problem in a simple, affordable manner if nothing else that meets those needs is available. In time the product will get better and better until “ultimately it performs well enough that it supplants the prior approach” (p. 85).
As referenced above, disruptive innovation is not improving what already exists. Sustaining innovation takes on that task. “Airplanes that fly farther, computers that process faster, cellular phone batteries that last longer, and televisions with clearer images are all sustaining innovations”( Christensen et al., 2011, p. 46). They help us do what we are already doing. They just help us do it better or faster. Quite often companies that are leaders in sustaining innovations are not interested in products or ideas that would be considered disruptive. For the industry leaders these innovations do not service their existing consumer base and are not as profitable as what they already have in place (p. 50).
Historically and recently we can find innumerable examples of disruptive innovations. The introduction of the personal computer versus mainframe computers is an example. PC’s allowed computers to become accessible to a vast market that was previously unable to own a computer. Cannon took on Xerox by developing tabletop copiers (Christensen et al., 2011, p. 86). Scott Anthony lists Google’s auction model, eBay’s online model and Nintendo’s Wii product all as disruptive innovations (“How to Spot Disruptive Innovation Opportunities,” n.d.). The phonograph and steamship were disruptive innovations in their day. Cell phones, Craig’s list, and face book would be added to the list as well. It is easy to recognize the innovations that have changed the game and not nearly improved what was already being done.
Learning about disruptive innovation is interesting but it becomes exciting to me as it is looked at as a catalyst for change in education. I don’t think there is much argument that our schools are in trouble. Reports like “A Nation at Risk” and the No Child Left Behind legislation identify that fact. Christensen et al. propose that the reason we have not improved education is that we are still trying to do old things in new ways (Christensen et al., 2011). They give the example of computers. They have not revolutionized or improved education because we are trying to cram them into our existing structures (p. 73). “Schools have crammed computers into the classroom to sustain and marginally improve the way they already teach and run their schools” (p. 73). Instead of trying to improve old methods and look at our unsuccessfulness by examining old paradigms, Christensen et al. suggest that we look outside of the structure of education and study how disruptive innovation can impact what we are doing in the schools (p. 6).
This book is already challenging me to think ahead to how disruptive innovation can impact education. The idea of “student-centric learning” (Christensen et al., 2011, p.38) using technology is exciting and one I want to explore. I believe this concept opens up the avenue to reach more students where they are at and allow them to move at a pace that would be intrinsically motivating. Through the disruptive implementation of computer based learning (p.45) schools can move to student centered learning. Currently, as Christensen et al. explain schools are integrated incorrectly. “Instead of viewing their task as enabling their students to do the job that they’re trying to do, educators operate as if the delivery of education (their product) is their objective” (p. 174). In order to change the way we do things at school, teachers and administrators will need to change what they envision as their task. They will need to move from “teaching to learning”. Perhaps that idea can be the first disruptive innovation. Once that concept is firmly entrenched, then exploring the optimal way to help students learn becomes a possibility. Moving from a “monolithic system of instruction to a learning environment powered by student-centric technology” (p. 107) might be an answer to that question.
Obviously this change will not come easily. It will necessitate revolutionary actions. The first barrier as Christensen et al. state, most disruptive innovation does not occur within existing structures (Christensen et al., 2011, p. 61). In addition one of the fundamental ways disruptive innovation succeeds as identified previously is by targeting nonconsumers. Obviously, public schools have no “untapped pool of nonconsumers” (p. 60). Charter schools could be an example of a separate unit outside the structure of public schools that might embrace this type of learning but does the possibility exist of embracing these schools as part of a district instead of competitors to the district (p. 226). This idea alone is disruptive. If these changes are to occur within the structure of the current schools it will take a strong leader that cannot rely on democracy to initiate the change (p.227). The decision will have to be made and implementation will not be negotiable. “Political and school leaders who seek fundamental school reform need to become much more comfortable amassing and wielding power because the other tools of governance will yield begrudging cooperation at best “ ( p, 234). This is in direct contrast to how schools presently operate. A second obstacle to implementation occurs because one of the fundamental ways disruptive innovation succeeds, as identified above, is by targeting nonconsumers. Obviously, public schools have no “untapped pool of nonconsumers” (p. 60). Thirdly, this type of disruptive change would require extensive teacher training as teachers would now have to be proficient in knowing how to customize individual learning environments for their students, and would have to be trained in identifying their unique learning style to optimize their learning experience (p. 247).
Even though it will prove to be a challenge, the idea of some type of disruptive innovation is probably what will be needed to change what is taking place in our schools. For so long we have kept trying to do the same things in better ways. Perhaps it is time to “change the game” (“How to Spot Disruptive Innovation Opportunities,” n.d.).
Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., & Johnson, C.W. (2011). Disrupting
class: how disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Disruptive, (n.d.) . In The Free Dictionary’s online dictionary. Retrieved July 11, 2011 from
http://www. the freedictionary.com/ disruption/
Innovation, (n.d.) . In The Free Dictionary’s online dictionary. Retrieved July 11, 2011 from
http://www. the freedictionary.com/ innovation/
ACU. (2011) [video]. How to Spot Disruptive Innovation Opportunities. Retrieved from:
