
The End of "Disruption:" Is that term even relevant anymore? - ohjeez
http://www.enterpriseefficiency.com/author.asp?section_id=1129&doc_id=264849&
======
VandyILL
I think the author misses the point on what is being disrupted. It sounds like
he thinks a law firm that adopts a better version of office is being a
"disruptive." He says that if a business is constantly open to change, then
what's the point of disruption? He confuses the role of adaptability and who
the disruptor is displacing.

Think about the first word processor compared to a typewriter. A company's
choice/ability to adopt the word processor didn't make them a disruptive
company. However, the word processor creator entirely disrupted the typewriter
company.

In the author's article, he references Office 365. Incorporating new features
of 365 as they role out does not make the 365 customer more or less
disruptive. What's disruptive is that 365 is attacking dropbox / google docs /
other service providers.

In fact, when the author asks is the term "disruption" relevent if businesses
become adaptable is kinda silly. Adaptable businesses open up opportunities
for more disruption. If a business is willing to take on new ways of doing
things then they are more likely to become customers of a new disruptive
product or service, whereas old non adaptable businesses would limit the new
product's potential client base / make it harder to find first adopters.

