Tom Dalton :: Doer of Good

I ran across a blog entry that talked about "Disruptive Technology." The definition given there shared space with the author's echo of Dvorak's assertion that 'disruptive technology' is not a useful term.

I think Dvorak enjoys dismissing popular terms and concepts, and I agree that people have pulled the word far from its original context. However, in the sense that a disruptive technology is simply one that causes major shifts in the business models, companies, or ideas prevalent in a given industry, there are plenty of interesting examples of it.

Napster disrupted the music industry -- shook it from a complacent almost-monopoly, propmpted a hard and forceful response from the incumbent, and awakened consumers to renewed contemplation of intellectual property and the value of N'Sync and friends.

Historically, numerous other inventions have prompted similar disruptions within various established industries. Think affordable and viable personal automobiles, to the horse-and-buggy industry. Think the telegraph, the radio, TV, and the Internet. Each has prompted three, important changes:

1. Major disruption to the incumbent industry - forcing a "change or die" upon them

2. Economic pressure brought against the challenger - the incumbent struggling to avoid change

3. Public acceptance of the new technology, overriding pressure from the incumbent and (if not saving the actual innovator) leading to the diffusion of the the improvement

As a tactic to "make more money in business," the idea of disruptive technology is no more useful than the idea of marketing better or creating better products. As a framework for analysing the impact of various technologies, however, the concept of disruptive technology is very handy.

(And maybe it's useful to contrast disruptive technology with iterative technology? The innovations within an industry or market space that come, generally, from the incumbent companies and are smoothly integrated into the existing system. Great stuff, just not "disruptive" and not terribly advantageous for the little companies struggling to grow in that space.)