

The Disruption Machine - vellum
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/23/140623fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all

======
gumby
I definitely feel that the valley (in particular) is clinging to _process_
over _result_ , and this essay nicely uses data to skewer one of the major
fetishized processes.

Of course, Christensen _was_ onto something (his model is illustrative in
regards to DEC, and it is also an excellent explanation of the dreadful
economics of hospitals). But his model was descriptive, not prescriptive.

What's a bit uncharitable about this essay is the condemnation of the
widespread enthusiasm for Christensen outside 128 & the valley. If you work in
one of the many legacy industries it's no wonder you look desperately for some
life ring to cling to. It's unfortunate that the choice du jour doesn't
actually tell you what to do.

Despite all that, this insightful essay is also a testament to how a liberal
arts degree can be useful. Useful to me, as the reader of a good essay I mean
-- for most people it sadly isn't useful to put much food on the table.

------
mathattack
I agree with the key point that "Not everything is in the act of disrupting or
being disrupted." There are businesses that can maintain incremental
improvements for a long times, especially in services. The folks mowing my
lawn and doing the dry cleaning don't seem to be in need of disruption as much
as improvement. (ok - so I don't have a lawn, and my dry cleaner is ok, but
the point is the same)

On the concept of Christensen cherry picking his cases... Well, that's what
they do at HBS. They use the case method to explain things. It works for
strategy, which is almost impossible to quantify anyway. (Too many moving
variables, and the answers seem obvious afterwards) For proper economics,
that's another story. Go to the University of Chicago instead.

------
klunger
The author had some valid points. i.e., Christensen cherry picked cases to
support his theory. There are many cases which contradict the theory and she
supplied some as convincing counter examples.

That being said, I don't really know what the point of the article was. She
didn't offer an alternative, just kinda shrugged and said "you can't predict
the future," which seems like a cop out. At least Christensen was trying to
make sense of the world while she was basically just saying it is hopelessly
chaotic so we should proceed with our lives and businesses with no plans
because there is no way to predict anything. That seems horribly nihilistic. I
mean, sure, Disruption Theory has some issues. But that doesn't mean you
should do away with theory completely.

~~~
ollieglass
The author's point is to critique the theory and bring thinking closer to
reality.

------
nn3
I really like well researched academic flames.

