“Disruptive technology” seems to be an overly used term nowadays, but is quite precise to the meaning. “Disruptive” is meant to be uncomfortable, both externally and internally. Google is a classic example of fully embracing disruptive innovations many of which might be perceived as un-noteworthy in the beginning. Many of Google’s services were originated from its famous “80-20” rules: 20% of each employee’s time they get to work on their personal project. This includes various blockbuster products such as Gmail. Google even has an exclusive lab called “X” devoted to crazy ideas that do not seem to project any practical value in the short term. By creating an environment that embraces innovations and tolerates countless failures, Google has brought the world one after another innovation nonstop. Google has long been so much more than just search. Today, it represents the largest mobile operating system, the largest video platform, smart home, and many more.
On the contrary, companies that executed flawlessly on their existing businesses but never dared to jump outside of their comfort boxes have shrunk dramatically, such as Yahoo.A quite bizarre example that flashed through my brain while reading the cases, was actually Apple. Apple’s strategy requires laser focus on the few things that one can count in one hand, and the company was never really the first mover on anything. Yet, the company has been one of the most valuable companies on this planet. Is Apple embracing “disruptive technologies”? Absolutely. Every of the company’s products is equipped with several disruptive features compared to the industry. However, the room for error is minute for such strategy, as one misstep or mist on the future of electronics may cause snow slide effect to the whole company.
I have strong resonance when I read that schools prepare students for sustaining innovation but not disruptive innovations. The main body of established companies are elite students from established business schools. However, in business schools every decision always has to be based on customer feedback. I have experienced this education strongly when I was an undergraduate of marketing major at Emory University. The process would go something like this: “because customers have these feedbacks, and we are doing exactly these things next”. In the end after a polite presentation, the professor is happy, while the “product” was just a soul-less feature lists. No one would ever think if he/she would ever use it by any chance. The essence of innovations were never quite covered by institutions, and is certainly much more than a slogan on the wall.
On the contrary, companies that executed flawlessly on their existing businesses but never dared to jump outside of their comfort boxes have shrunk dramatically, such as Yahoo.A quite bizarre example that flashed through my brain while reading the cases, was actually Apple. Apple’s strategy requires laser focus on the few things that one can count in one hand, and the company was never really the first mover on anything. Yet, the company has been one of the most valuable companies on this planet. Is Apple embracing “disruptive technologies”? Absolutely. Every of the company’s products is equipped with several disruptive features compared to the industry. However, the room for error is minute for such strategy, as one misstep or mist on the future of electronics may cause snow slide effect to the whole company.
I have strong resonance when I read that schools prepare students for sustaining innovation but not disruptive innovations. The main body of established companies are elite students from established business schools. However, in business schools every decision always has to be based on customer feedback. I have experienced this education strongly when I was an undergraduate of marketing major at Emory University. The process would go something like this: “because customers have these feedbacks, and we are doing exactly these things next”. In the end after a polite presentation, the professor is happy, while the “product” was just a soul-less feature lists. No one would ever think if he/she would ever use it by any chance. The essence of innovations were never quite covered by institutions, and is certainly much more than a slogan on the wall.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.