In the minds of many, the financial crisis has given innovation a black eye. Disruption theorist Clayton Christensen disagrees.
Clayton Christensen is best known for his ideas about how disruptive innovations can transform markets.
In this wide-ranging interview, he discusses topics ranging from the downturn’s effect on innovation to
opportunities to improve the U.S. health care system.
Christensen thinks the economic downturn will be good for innovation, because downturns force
innovators to adapt their strategies to the market quickly and inexpensively. What’s more, he notes that
resource constraints stimulate breakthrough thinking. And, despite the recent problems in the financial
markets, Christensen believes that, overall, innovation has been beneficial in financial services. He cites
historical financial innovations, such as no-load mutual funds and index funds, as examples of the way
disruptive innovations in financial services have benefited consumers. However, he also notes that there
are markets in which regulation is necessary–and the securities industry is one.
Christensen, who is the coauthor of a new book on health care, The Innovator’s Prescription, also
discussed how disruptive innovation might improve the U.S. health care system. He explains how disruptive innovation helps make goods and services inexpensive and accessible.
4 Comments On: Good Days for Disruptors
This interview suggests that prosperity can impede innovation by “insulating” the would-be innovators from market forces.
Does this mean that we should be able to see the best innovators in the organizations/countries with the least wealth?
Is successful innovation as simple as “exposure to the market” or are there other factors?
Ms.Kathleen Eason,
Adjunct Faculty on
Sabbatical
I like what is said, regarding,
“[There are] some markets where
the public good isn’t necessarily
served by capitalism. [I.E.]
Education is a market like that.”
Also, I share your wisdom in the
following: “I think it [Environment for Innovation]will
have an unmitigated, positive
effect on innovation.”
Just as important is why the above quote is a wisdom statment.
“If you give people a lot of
money, it gives them the privilege of pursuing the wrong
strategy for a very long time.”
Simply, prosperity is without
conscience. When the psychology of need is removed … positive
motivators are also removed.
Thus, you have a prosperity
reality that is also without
practical application because
it is viewed as boring and not
needed, in light of, the
“privilege of prosperity.”
If there is any doubt the
above statements are not true…
may I suggest a simple reading of
any daily news that gives front
page coverage to R.I.C.O.
activities that also believed
the “privilege of prosperity” to
be “fool-proof.”
There is an absence of moral
conscience when monies abound
and without the prerequisite of
redress of expenditures.
Thank You!
Giving people lot of money means in my opinion having almost unlimited resources. Thus, why innovate, current way is good enough.
Profit from wellness rather from sickness is a great idea which provides institutions a reason to innovate because at the moment people go to health care institutions when they are sick. Institutions making profit from wellness will persuade people also to think differently so the current sickness treatment institutions will have to think upside down for their survival.
Athula Dharmawardhana
I am searching for a previous article (which I read in the printed version of the magazine) which explained how when big companies innovate in an area in which some small companies are innovating, the big companies bring legitimacy to the new innovation.
I would appreciate it if someone could point me to this article.
My email address is: femialla_at_hotmail.com. (pls replace the ‘_at_’ in the email address with @)
Thanks
Femi Alla
http://www.linkedin.com/in/femialla