Stop misusing "Disrupt"(tgriff3.tumblr.com)
tgriff3.tumblr.com
Stop misusing "Disrupt"
http://tgriff3.tumblr.com/post/12580157798/disrupt-is-not-a-synonym-for-compete-in
12 comments
Put "have read book X" on the buzz list.
I know plenty of people who have not read TID and are doing it just right.
I know plenty of people who have not read TID and are doing it just right.
Let me get this straight: you're taking a stance against reading books? Fascinating.
Let me get this straight: you put words in peoples' mouths to create straw men that you sarcastically describe as fascinating?
Of course not.
This is true, but ultimately I blame Christensen for applying the word "disruptive" in a different way than its common meaning. Because people already know what "disruptive" and "technology" mean, they get rightly confused when "disruptive technology" means something more specific.
Exactly. Words should be based on their dictionary definitions, not necessarily some new idea a biz prof came up with.
In Christensen's defense I doubt he ever thought "disrupt" was going to be used so widely (and incorrectly). I would bet if he had to do it over again, he'd use a different, more specific term.
In Christensen's defense I doubt he ever thought "disrupt" was going to be used so widely (and incorrectly). I would bet if he had to do it over again, he'd use a different, more specific term.
From the perspective of a startup, the most interesting aspect of Clayton Christensen's concept of a disruptive business is that incumbents will choose not to compete with it (at least at first). Disruptive businesses are either "new market", in which case they don't steal the incumbent's existing customers, or "low-end", in which case they take the incumbent's worst customers and the incumbent doesn't care. An example of the latter is the early PC market. Incumbents like Digital Equipment Corp chose not to pursue it. High-end mainframes had higher margins and prices. They were happy to cede the bottom of the market to newcomers, whose products seemed hopelessly cheap and crappy. Of course, the low-end quickly improves and takes more and more of the market. By the time DEC recognized this problem, it was too late. Same with the Japanese cars and electronics (which were junky at first), or minimills in the steel industry.
Sustaining innovations are incremental improvements that fit within the incumbent's business model. The incumbent can easily and lucratively apply them to their existing customers.
The disruptive/sustaining distinction is important for startups because, "Incumbents almost always win battles of sustaining innovations. Their superior resources and well-honed processes are almost insurmountable strengths. Incumbents, however, almost always lose battles where the attacker has a legitimate disruptive innovation." (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/3374.html)
Christensen's disruptive/sustaining distinction is mostly lost in the press about innovation, where "disruptive" is used to describe either. That's life in the English language.
Incidentally, I think disruption is more about business models, which often, but not always, apply new technology.
Sustaining innovations are incremental improvements that fit within the incumbent's business model. The incumbent can easily and lucratively apply them to their existing customers.
The disruptive/sustaining distinction is important for startups because, "Incumbents almost always win battles of sustaining innovations. Their superior resources and well-honed processes are almost insurmountable strengths. Incumbents, however, almost always lose battles where the attacker has a legitimate disruptive innovation." (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/3374.html)
Christensen's disruptive/sustaining distinction is mostly lost in the press about innovation, where "disruptive" is used to describe either. That's life in the English language.
Incidentally, I think disruption is more about business models, which often, but not always, apply new technology.
It's a buzzword.
Somebody somewhere writes a modestly insightful article for a high-profile American magazine such as Vanity Fair or The Atlantic, giving a pop-science view of some research of theirs or by someone else. They give it a snappy title and the description has short punchy prose spiced with tasty anecdotes. Most importantly, they come up with an extremely simple but memorable summative word or phrase.
This article is widely mentioned in other major magazines, in newspapers and the interblogs. A publisher contacts the original article author, and 6-9 months later a padded-out version of the original article appears in print. It is hailed as "a total revolution in the way we think about X", with favourable coverage in the London and New York Review of Books, the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. It shoots up on Amazon for about a week, before slowly fading out.
But very few people actually ever read the book. Fewer indeed the article that spawned it. And nobody but nobody tries to find the original research. All that remains is the punchy phrase or summation.
Outsource.
Cloud.
Pivot.
10,000 hours.
Long tail.
Disrupt.
Before long the punchy phrase is everywhere. It becomes the subject of blog posts, gets worked into marketing copy and the titles of presentations. It is steadily diffused into the day to day lexicon so thoroughly that it passes beyond cliche into mere nothingness. It is beyond explication because it means anything and everything.
Eventually the punchy phrase loses its currency. It is old hat. Slowly the term fades from the interblogs, disappears from the marketing copy, drops out of the daily jargon.
Then, one day, somebody somewhere writes a modestly insightful article ...
Somebody somewhere writes a modestly insightful article for a high-profile American magazine such as Vanity Fair or The Atlantic, giving a pop-science view of some research of theirs or by someone else. They give it a snappy title and the description has short punchy prose spiced with tasty anecdotes. Most importantly, they come up with an extremely simple but memorable summative word or phrase.
This article is widely mentioned in other major magazines, in newspapers and the interblogs. A publisher contacts the original article author, and 6-9 months later a padded-out version of the original article appears in print. It is hailed as "a total revolution in the way we think about X", with favourable coverage in the London and New York Review of Books, the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. It shoots up on Amazon for about a week, before slowly fading out.
But very few people actually ever read the book. Fewer indeed the article that spawned it. And nobody but nobody tries to find the original research. All that remains is the punchy phrase or summation.
Outsource.
Cloud.
Pivot.
10,000 hours.
Long tail.
Disrupt.
Before long the punchy phrase is everywhere. It becomes the subject of blog posts, gets worked into marketing copy and the titles of presentations. It is steadily diffused into the day to day lexicon so thoroughly that it passes beyond cliche into mere nothingness. It is beyond explication because it means anything and everything.
Eventually the punchy phrase loses its currency. It is old hat. Slowly the term fades from the interblogs, disappears from the marketing copy, drops out of the daily jargon.
Then, one day, somebody somewhere writes a modestly insightful article ...
See also "agile", "lean", and the winner is: "synergy".
This is an unfortunate reality, as these words are all still useful in their original meaning and there are no replacement terms. So you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Use the word and people cringe. Don't use the word and you lose the power of expression.
Not that you can stop it, or should try to. Anyone who does is naieve about the way language evolves.
This is an unfortunate reality, as these words are all still useful in their original meaning and there are no replacement terms. So you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Use the word and people cringe. Don't use the word and you lose the power of expression.
Not that you can stop it, or should try to. Anyone who does is naieve about the way language evolves.
"Tipping point" is another one
Kind of like how "killer" now simply means "competitor".
I prefer "Craigslist" as a verb, as in "Netflix just Craigslisted's Blockbuster", meaning to destroy their revenue stream with new technology.
Err, Craigslist? Destroy with new technology? What about Craigslist uses even the slightest glimmer of new technology?
Craiglist single handedly turned the newspaper industry on end by offering free local classified ads online, which were previously a major revenue source for newspapers.
The tech doesn't matter as much as the effect - a tiny upstart company totally changed the business landscape of a large entrenched industry with a tiny staff and budget.
The tech doesn't matter as much as the effect - a tiny upstart company totally changed the business landscape of a large entrenched industry with a tiny staff and budget.
Oh, I thought you were talking about Craigslist vs. eBay.
You are disrupting the disrupt word.
But Silicon Valley is obsessed with finding the next big social wine store recommendation app with location-based realtime coupon analytics. You gotta go for the big ideas if you want to succeed.
It seems the author is simply objecting to the perception that you gotta call your idea disruptive if you want to succeed (regardless whether it is).
It's of course o.k. to call it that if it is, but if it is not-
It's of course o.k. to call it that if it is, but if it is not-
Stop telling me what words mean.
So long as you insist on using them incorrectly, no.
:)
:)
Languages evolve to align with how people use words, not the other way around, in the long run. This is why gay today is not gay centuries ago. Why brand names like Kleenex and Xerox can be acceptably used in everyday language without actually referring to those products.
Yes, languages evolve.
But "gay", "kleenex", and "xerox" (still) mean specific things, even if not what they originally meant, or if their scope has trivially increased. Gay=homosexual, Kleenex=tissue, Xerox=copier.[1]
The problem is when a word is diluted so much that it can mean any number of things, to the point where it's useless as a descriptor of anything because it's too ambiguous.
disruptive=?? Something that displaces an incumbent by changing the game entirely? Something that steals market share? Something that's just done much better than what was done in the past? Useless.
It would be as if "gay" was in as common usage for "happy and carefree" as it is for "homosexual". If you said "Bob is gay", it'd be entirely unclear what you meant.
[1] Although, interestingly, I find the latter two falling out of favor. I much much more often hear "tissue" or "copier"/"copy machine".
But "gay", "kleenex", and "xerox" (still) mean specific things, even if not what they originally meant, or if their scope has trivially increased. Gay=homosexual, Kleenex=tissue, Xerox=copier.[1]
The problem is when a word is diluted so much that it can mean any number of things, to the point where it's useless as a descriptor of anything because it's too ambiguous.
disruptive=?? Something that displaces an incumbent by changing the game entirely? Something that steals market share? Something that's just done much better than what was done in the past? Useless.
It would be as if "gay" was in as common usage for "happy and carefree" as it is for "homosexual". If you said "Bob is gay", it'd be entirely unclear what you meant.
[1] Although, interestingly, I find the latter two falling out of favor. I much much more often hear "tissue" or "copier"/"copy machine".
And if you're a tech entrepreneur and you haven't read "The Innovator's Dilemma," it's quite likely you're doing it wrong.