Tesla vs. Clayton Christensen's idea of technical disruption
Published on January 26, 2019 |
by Guest Contributor
26. January 2019 by Guest Contributor
Originally published on EVANNEX.
By Charles Morris
The words "innovation" and "disturbance" have been randomly thrown around the press so much that, as "awesome", they have lost most of their importance to the average reader. However, it is a large community of people who study these phenomena in little detail, and Dr. Clayton Christensen is one of their prophets. Recently, a doctrinal difference between Christensen and Elon Musk has catalyzed a lively theological debate.
 Two iconic characters in business disturbances, Elon Musk and Dr. Clayton Christensen (Photos: Wired UK / Nieman Reports ]] |
To simplify play, Dr. Christensen is an exponent of "low- end disruption ", while Tesla is an object lesson in" high end disruption ", the concept that innovation can begin at the high end of a market and later trickle down to the mainstream. In December, Elon Musk tweeted," Clayton is wrong. New technology is always Animal disturbance Technical disturbance occurs at * high end *, such as computers and cell phones. It takes many iterations and big economies of scale to achieve mass market affordability. "Far from being offended, Dr. Christensen replied," We praise you! "And invited Musk to join him for a talk on innovation.
Jay Gerhart, a performer of disruptive innovation theory and" a great fan of both these brilliant men, "sat down to unite their conflicting positions in an article published in Medium.
Apparently the current debate was triggered by an article in TechCrunch where Chandrasekar Iyer of the Clayton Christensen Institute claimed that Tesla's entry into China represents a "sustained innovation" (as opposed to a "disruptive innovation "), and that Tesla" enters an established market to compete with existing performance metrics, such as acceleration, style and luxury. "
 Elon Musk claims that Christensen has it back in terms of disturbances in the tea sector. (Twitter: Elon Musk ) |
As Gerhart points out, many have written about the phenomenon of high end disturbance, referring to Uber, Tesla, Apple, Garmin and Dyson as examples of transformative technologies and business models that started at the high end of the market and worked their way down. However, Shaye Roseman of the Harvard Business School has recently argued that advanced interruptions are "unlikely to occur" because the high ground battles favor deep wallets, and it is difficult to move down the market as you begin at the top.
Much of the disagreement among these theologians may have more to do with terminology than with real results. As Gerhart says, "I find many debates these days to be framed a bit too black and white. Dr. Christensen's theory has certainly released decades of debate since its introduction more than twenty years ago [and] has digital time introduced new , complex dynamics. "In an article from 2015, Dr. Christensen discussed that Tesla should be classified as a" sustained innovation "rather than a" high end disorder. "But can it be that the distinction is not so clear? "Is it possible that sustained innovation under special circumstances could have properties that have a transformative impact on established companies?" Gerhart asks.
Gerhart believes that the unique feature of Tesla's business model (and its CEO) can make it possible to have a transformational impact on the automotive industry while matching the definition of sustained innovation. He points out that Tesla's highly integrated approach, which has many similarities to Apple, gives it a significant near-time advantage over operators struggling to handle the transition to electrification.
Will the older car manufacturers rise the challenge? Ford, VW and others are currently making the right sounds, but it remains to be seen whether the promises in their press releases will lead to the volume production of compelling electric vehicles. Gerhart suggests that car manufacturers may need to set up separate divisions to compete effectively with Tesla.
Touching on an experience at BMW, Christensen discusses some of the disturbance dilemmas against businesses (YouTube: Implement Consulting Group )
No matter what page you take in the sectarian bias in the interference group, there is one thing everyone can agree on: "This will be a fascinating market to look at over the next few years."
@elonmusk – we praise all for you! I will love the chance to talk about innovation together … you are always welcome at my office.
– Clayton Christensen (@claychristensen) December 19, 2018
About the author
Guest Contributor are many, many people. We publish a number of guest posts from experts on a wide range of fields. This is our contribution account for the special people. : D
