No such thing! says
A disruptive technology is defined as a low-performance, less expensive technology that enters a heated-up scene where the established technology is outpacing people’s ability to adapt to it. The new technology gains a foothold, continues to improve, and then bumps the older, once-better technology into oblivion. Sounds good. The problem is that there is not one example of this ever happening….This concept only services venture capitalists who need a new term for the PowerPoint show to sucker investors.
My very, very smart friend Scott Butner (source of this item), observes ‘Normally I don’t like Dvorak, but have to admit I agree with him here. But then, I’ve decided that I’m more of an evolutionary than a revolutionaryámaybe because Darwin has, in hindsight, stood up to the last 100 years better than Marx.æ’
My perspective: I think Dvorak’s gone a tad too far here with his own absolutes (Dvorak? No! I’m shocked!) but not very. (But need to reread Christensen to see if Dvorak has represented him accurately.
Your thoughts?
PS: Dvorak goes on to say: One problem in our society is the increasing popularity of false-premise concepts that are blindly used for decision making….The concept of disruptive technology is not the only daft idea floating around to be lapped up obediently by the business community. There are others. But the way these dingbat bromides go unchallenged makes you wonder whether anyone can think independently anymore.
He got that right. (And not just about technology!)
