DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION - die Theorie von Clayton CHRISTENSEN

I'm recording this video today a little out of order because Clayton Christians passed away a few days ago. The name may not mean much to you, but you probably know the theory of it, at least by name, it is not the theory of rubbing

innovation

. Disruption, that's what it is. At this time, an assassination attempt was something that was taking place everywhere, in all sectors and as important and widespread as the term is at the moment, it surprisingly dates back to a only person who told me about Clayton. Christians, today we have already passed away, what happens to this?

The only special thing about the theory of

disruptive

innovation

s is that Christians were the first to recognize that in certain situations long-established and successful companies are displaced by others and it is not because they are stupid, boring and phlegmatic and do not realize what I am doing. Rather, they are being kicked out because they are doing everything right. That sounds totally strange, I know, but that's the heart of the matter. Theory and they say in this video how exactly this happens. It is sometimes also known as the Jewish strategy with these

disruptive

innovations. Like in judo, you can use leverage, so to speak, to use the other's energy against yourself.

He is so intelligent that, in my opinion, he was a real candidate for the Nobel Prize in Economics if you chose this book. I'm interested in you writing this theory correctly for the first time, so there is also an article before, but I think the book is the one we have done in more detail, namely Welker's The Thai Woman. I've also just linked it below the video, it's worth it. If you are interested in this kind of thing, take it first. A closer look at their

theorie

s, so what's really going on there? Now he distinguishes between two types of innovations, so Christensen says there are systems technologies that support technologies and there are active technologies that destroy technology systems technologies which is something that comes from long-established companies that generally support your existing business model.

There is a big misunderstanding here. Many people believe that these supports of technology become small and simple. system technologies From a technical point of view, they are complex and difficult and things are different and large development departments are needed for them. A lot of training and a lot of experience are needed to be able to combine highly developed technologies. They are not easy at all and some of them can also be truly revolutionary technologies. Yes, that does not necessarily mean that each and every revolutionary technology is printed at the same time in a deeper way; On the contrary, most technologies that are really serious.

Innovations in a given market are enabling technologies and build on previous industry leaders, so to speak. Let's give an example of something like this, because in engine technology there are things like this, for example, if you look at what happens with engines all the time and how combustion engines are improved, then you will see that they are such complex issues, such difficult things would have been there. I'm just going to start a new company, I have practically no chance. It's not about competing with other companies like Audi or something like that. Yeah, that's one of those things, for example.

Let's take a typical example of supportive innovation, which is the CD versus the vinyl record. Yes, we had the music with the music. industry that distributed physical data carriers in the form of records and now the type of physical data carrier was simply changed and with it we received the CD, which, by the way, is a technically complex matter and that came with it, but that Business The model is still the same, the customer structure is still the same, the type of distribution is still the same, the fact that I have to physically distribute something is still the same, so in short, that's something that supported to this music industry. then and in no way did I attack it, even though it was an extremely high invention.

If you will, it's amazing that a digital record can suddenly store so much information and sound good or maybe in certain cases even better than a vinyl record, so that's a very clear case that these training technologies support technology and distinguish the ship in the disco innovations that existed at some point, that is, an mp3 download with mp3 files, all the valuable network and knowledge of the recording industry were suddenly destroyed. Suddenly it no longer has value because suddenly things were no longer sold physically because the pricing models had changed, so where before entire albums or complete CDs with many songs were sold, now suddenly you could buy the song individually;

In short, everything that was previously important in this industry for the industry and what they built as a business model, suddenly was no longer what was in demand, so to speak, and was devalued in some way, and that's how we got to the definition. of a disruptive technology, so the essential definition is a disruptive innovation, a technology that long-established companies cannot defend themselves against without destroying their traditional market. Yes, a technology that long-established companies cannot defend themselves against without destroying their traditional market. taken between the chairs, yes, they have a real problem because even if you see what happens when you get on the new train, you are destroying your old market and that is something that sells very poorly, so internally, yes, so try it. be the administrator of its owner.

Let's say, by the way, we have a really great idea, now we're going to destroy our existing market, so you usually don't get very good or very far, especially since you have to preserve it. In retrospect, we always know that a new market has actually developed, but you know at that time not at all, that means that they would have to go to their owners and, let's say, destroy them because our market is a. idea that maybe it can develop or maybe it can't and you already realize that with that you probably won't get much love and that's exactly what it is.

That's exactly the dilemma you find yourself in now, hence the title of the book, Innovators. So, you are an innovative company, you could also do this type of development without any problem. All the disruptive technologies being developed are technologically irrelevant to long-established companies. the problem is that you are destroying your market with it and that means that you have a problem on a completely different level and now let's take a quick look at what are the characteristics by which you can recognize such disruptive technologies. There are two characteristics that we are, namely, one. These disruptive technologies are usually simple technology, so from a technological point of view just wait for it, very often you are sold disruptive technologies during the development of the technological leap or something, the innovation leap is complete nonsense that does not corresponds at all to the von Christensen theory are generally disruptive innovations that are technically simple and that is why even those outside the industry can use this technology and it is logical that we, those of long standing, are not a problem, yes, It's a very easy thing, they can do it.

Long-established companies can always offer this immediately and Christians have excellent examples of this in their book, for example, it says that suddenly only the size of the disk was discussed on the market hard, yes, and of course, that was not a In long established companies there is no problem building hard drives of different sizes, other things happen and this other feature, yes, which is also important right now, It explains a little about why these disruptive innovations are so dangerous, but it sounds completely contradictory. It's intuitive that the other characteristic of disruptive innovations is that they must contain product deterioration, so I know that totally sounds like it.

It's crazy that we want product deterioration to ensure that a market can be attacked, but product deterioration is a very important characteristic of disruptive innovations because product deterioration means that the existing company cannot easily react to it, so Imagine you have a company like, say, a bank and you have completely secure payment transactions and now suddenly someone comes along and says we have a great innovation. We have secure payment transactions. Now you as a bank can't just say yes, it's a great idea, we're doing it here too. We also have secure payment transactions because that would contradict their entire business model and upset their former customers. and so on and the new ones can do that because they tell a different story.

They say we now have insecure payment transactions, but that only works for small ones, for example, payments and the way it happened is that someone can penetrate the seeing eye. your own market of the best and the best stands in front and says yes, I see that you are doing it, I also see that it has future potential but I cannot imitate it without destroying my current market and from the impression it is destructive, so It may not be a problem at all, you don't lose anything by it, but for the leader, of course, it is a big problem to destroy your own market, especially that you always have to keep in mind.

If it still is, I don't even know if the new market will really develop. You'll only know later. I would like to give another example of such disruptive innovations as those that Microsoft has achieved over the years. It's the future Time and time again it came from Microsoft, they just couldn't get a foot in the door and they just couldn't sell their weird tablets and suddenly Apple came along and sold a tablet, which is lousy and I just have to say it clearly in hindsight. The first iPad was really a terrible product because it couldn't play many websites, which couldn't play flash videos.

I couldn't connect a keyboard. Could not exchange data. simply through a USB memory. In short, it was a completely unusable product for Microsoft customers. Microsoft customers were usually business customers and they couldn't do anything with this Apple product, so Microsoft couldn't release a product like this. that since that would have been practically an absolute ban for its own customers and therefore Apple could merge with this product market that is completely different, Apple suddenly said that we are talking to completely different people, not Microsoft customers, these they were the For the first time, like other customers, these were the ones who were sitting on the couch and wanted to browse the Internet a little bit and then they didn't need to play any Flash videos because they wanted to write you a short email or something.

Once they were also addressed. by this move and we simply have to look at the deterioration of the product, which was not simply an oversight on Apple's part at the time, but rather a conscious feature that what was built in there is often overlooked in Apple products, so Apple is often seen as a company that always has great new products with great design and I know what, not everyone overlooks the fact that Apple products are almost always a disadvantage. If it's built in on purpose, just check out all Apple products and you'll notice that. in many places they simply force you to do things that you really didn't want to do and, in reality, there is always the same intention behind it, that is, to discuss a market.

So Apple was, so to speak, the master, yes, that Steve Jobs, especially in particular, was a master in the discussion. In this way, they created products that, thanks to this disadvantage, the built-in disadvantages of the Julius 30, outweighed the others. Yes, that's the cool performance it has. to see and that is the application of the theory of equal Christians are just the district even the innovation, then it is exactly the characteristic of which he said that it is an important preservation of an important characteristic of disruptive innovations and if you now ask about What can long-established companies react so badly to this?

I would like to use the Blackberry example again, so maybe you remember that Blackberry was, so to speak, the precursor to the iPhone, if you choose a little, it was also very widespread in At that time, it was also a business environment and there of suddenly the iPhone appeared and of course we saw the latest one. We have to take a look at what we have to do because he wants to, but we have to react again and. now the sales figures have to changeBlackberry, a year after the iPhone came out, look at what really happened to the sales figures, they have not collapsed and the answer is no, they have not collapsed, they have increased, that means that you, as management, you are getting the response that we seem to be doing Yes, I'm not entirely wrong, what actually happens a year later, two years after the introduction of the iPhone, now Blackberry is getting the response, our sales have increased again, which means thatyou get the answer all the time.

He is doing everything right and because you are doing everything right, because you continue to operate your current business correctly is exactly why you are giving the other company the opportunity to enter this market and succeed in the long term. I know how that turned out so you know in the long run the world suddenly looked different and like I said that's what's special about these disruptive innovations so it's a great idea that someone actually figured it out and formulated it in the future. The same way the Christians did. Like I said, the Nobel Prize would definitely be worth it and only in case you've lost track of things.

What is the most important characteristic of a disruptive innovation? The most important feature is that it has been established for a long time. companies can't defend themselves against it and how do you know if you are a long established company, if there is a potential innovation that you are currently exposed to or if it could become destructive. Take a look at the two important properties. Is it technically? Easy? If so, then suddenly make it the second place in the industry. Isn't it technically easy? So it's more of something that people need to do that is urgent in the industry and the next thing is that it contains.

It is a deterioration in the quality of this new product yes, then someone comes with a worse product than the previous one that is available and this way you may not be able to imitate it yourself. Yes, if these two features come. Together then at least we have an identified candidate for possible disruptive innovations, not all innovations that have these two characteristics are of course the reason. Yes, unfortunately that is also part of the problem. It is not known if it will always be discussed. long term or if it just has these characteristics so to speak low, for example the quality was too bad or something, then these two characteristics are the ones you should pay attention to if you are a long term user. timer, it is simply innovation and it is something that represents a deterioration in the product that was now my presentation of Clayton Kristens' book or the essential theory of it as I said, if you want to read it, the book is worth taking a look at.

Otherwise, subscribe to my video, stay true to me, and if you have any questions or comments about the discussion, I'll be happy to see you below. I'm happy about it, thanks for participating.