Disruptive Innovation Theory Framework

https://ik.imagekit.io/beyondpmf/frameworks/disruptive-innovation-theory-framework.png
The Disruptive Innovation Theory Framework primarily addresses strategic friction by providing a framework for smaller companies to challenge established incumbents. It focuses on market positioning and business model innovation to overcome existing market dynamics.

The Disruptive Innovation Theory Framework, developed by Clayton Christensen, outlines how new entrants in a market can disrupt established players by creating simpler, more accessible, or more affordable products that initially target a niche segment. Over time, these innovations move upmarket and disrupt the status quo, forcing traditional companies to adapt or exit. This framework is used to understand market dynamics, guide strategic planning, and foster innovation that capitalizes on overlooked segments.

Steps / Detailed Description

Identify the market segments that are overlooked by incumbents. | Develop a simpler or more affordable product that meets the needs of this segment. | Gradually improve the product to appeal to more demanding customers. | Scale the innovation to other markets and segments as it gains traction. | Continuously innovate to stay ahead of competitors who may imitate the disruptive strategy.

Best Practices

Thoroughly research and understand the target segment. | Maintain flexibility to adapt the product as market needs evolve. | Secure sufficient funding to sustain operations until the disruptive product gains sufficient market share.

Pros

Enables smaller companies to compete with industry giants. | Focuses on untapped market segments, leading to new opportunities. | Encourages continuous innovation and improvement.

Cons

Risk of failure in untested markets. | Potential for incumbent pushback or aggressive competitive responses. | Requires significant investment in innovation and market development.

When to Use

When entering a market dominated by large players. | When there is a clear opportunity to serve an underserved segment of the market.

When Not to Use

In highly regulated industries where changes are slow. | When the market is saturated and highly competitive with little room for innovation.

Related Frameworks

Lifecycle

Scope

Scope not defined

Maturity Level

Maturity level not specified

Time to Implement

2–4 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Months
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
Less Than 1 Day
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Days
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
2–4 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Days
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
3–6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
3–6 Months
Less Than 1 Day
3–6 Months
1–2 Months
3–6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
3–6 Months
Less Than 1 Day
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Days
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
Less Than 1 Day
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
Less Than 1 Day
3–6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Months
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
Less Than 1 Day
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
3–6 Months
Less Than 1 Day
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months

Copyright Information

Autor:
Clayton Christensen
1995
Publication:
Harvard Business Review