- Architectural Innovation
- Discontinuous Innovation
- Disruptive Innovation
- Radical Innovation
- Sustaining Innovation
- Incremental Innovation
With each innovation type, I attempt to capture what the authors had written about their innovation type and break down the innovation type into the dimensions which are described in an earlier blog - 27 Questions to Ask When Analyzing Innovations. In addition, I ordinal scale each dimension from 0 to 5. With 0 indicating that the innovation type either is not dependent on a certain dimension or the answers to the questions are negative.
The innovation type that is covered in Part Two is . . .
Discontinuous Innovation
- Author: Julian Birkinshaw, Rick Delbridge and John Bessant
- Book/Article: A leap into the unknown, Managing the Challenge of Discontinuous Innovation
- Author: Michael L. Tushman and Philip Anderson
- Book/Article: Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments
From The Author
“Technological change is a bit-by-bit, cumulative process until it is punctuated by a major advance. Such discontinuities offer sharp price-performance improvements over exiting technologies” (Tushman and Anderson). Discontinuous innovation “involves the development of competencies and network linkages with other firms that take it away from its existing trajectory of development. . . [and it] assumes some form of abrupt change in the business environment that makes it necessary or possible for the firm to break out of its exiting trajectory of development” (Bessant, Birkinshaw, and Delbridge).
The Invention
- Element Change – 5
A discontinuous innovation represents a major technical advance. Although the authors do not specifically state whether or not the advance takes within the elements or the system, they do give examples such as the automobile, plain paper copier, transistors, and turbojets.
- Systems Change - 5
A discontinuous innovation represents a major technical advance. Although the authors do not specifically state whether or not the advance takes within the elements or the system, they do give examples such as the automobile, plain paper copier, transistors, and turbojets.
- Performance - 5
The authors (Tushman & Anderson) classify discontinuous innovations into two classes. The first is Competence Enhancing discontinuity and the second is Competence destroying discontinuity. In the case of Competence Enhancing discontinuity the invention dramatically outperforms the current invention as it dramatically alters previously obtainable price/perform ratios.
- Benefit - 5
In the case of Competence Destroying innovations the invention introduces some benefit that was previously unobtainable. A benefit that gives new entrants competitive advantage.
- Target Customers - 0
The authors do not write about this dimension.
- Need Creation - 0
The authors do not write about this dimension.
- Value Network/Industry Shakeup - 5
Competence Destroying innovations disrupt industry structure (Tushman & Anderson). “Skills that brought product class leaders to preeminence are rendered largely obsolete; new firms founded to exploit the new technology will gain market share at the expense of organizations that, bound by traditions, sunk costs, and internal political constraints, remain committed to outmoded technology” (Tushman & Anderson).
“Competence destroying discontinuities are so fundamentally different from previously dominant technologies that the skills and knowledge base required to operate the core technology shift. Such major changes in skills, distinctive competence, and production processes are associated with major changes in the distribution of power and control within firms and industries.” This redistribution of power and control within industries results in new players, new relationships and thus a dramatically new value network.
In competence enhancing discontinuities the opposite is true. The invention builds on the industry’s know how and relationships, which are strengthening as the incumbents consolidate leadership while the industry sees an increase in barriers to entry.
Tushman and Anderson break up each class of discontinuity into either product or process. “Competence destroying process discontinuities represent a new way of making a given product. . . Competence destroying process breakthroughs may involve combining previously discrete steps into a more continuous flow (eg. float glass) or may involve a completely different process” (Tushman & Anderson 9).
- Market Size & Growth - 4
Sales variability decreases in the case of competence enhancing innovations as small firms drop out of the industry and entry barriers are raised (Tushman & Anderson). Sales variability increases in the case of competence destroying innovations as incumbents experience drop in sales and new entrants experience dramatic growth.
If you look at your first sentence in From the Author, it says "punctuated by..." But, here "A discontinuous innovation represents a major technical advance," you don't seem to realize that major or minor has nothing to do with it being punctuated.
ReplyDeleteA discontinuous innovation looks large, because its success generates an entire value chain, where a continuous innovation looks smaller because it resides in an existing value chain. You have no way to judge at the front-end what the back-end view will look like. So calling it large or small is a yet to be known judgment that cannot be made yet, and provides no direction.
Innovations are always divergent or convergent. They are positioned as continuous or discontinuous based on market punctuation signaled by the apparent lack of a market.
Take object-oriented programming (OOP). It was a revolution, but when it entered the market it did so, because it was framed as an extension of functional programming. If you look, you will find recent books on object thinking by authors wanting to recover the radical roots of OOP. PUTS and GETS are a sign that it's not radical OOP.
The authors of the books you've based this on got it wrong. Radical innovation is only a leap into the unknown when you go about it the wrong way. The old safety rule about not diving into a pond stands, but it perfectly safe to wade into the pond. You can stage gate it, but you have to know how.