We're now approaching the final steps of this series of articles about how technology eventually morphs into transformational market change, aka. innovation.
Last week, we ended up discussing what happens at the end of the journey, which is always a critical constraint appearing out seemingly of the blue (in reality, the unveiling of a critical resource that was already needed to begin with for this technology to scale fully in the market; e.g., energy production for AI )
🟢 My Big Technology Framework - Part 4. The bottleneck crunch
This follow-up to last week’s discussion about the Romanesco effect concerns how all this suddenly ends up producing not hundreds or thousands of innovations out of an invention but mostly just a few—the big ‘crunch’ after the expanding cone of incertitude. 🟢 My Big Technology Framework - Part 3. How
Philippe MEDA
This week, we'll discuss the three main types of disruptions that challenge or somehow 'betray' our current framework.
🔍
Please note I will be using the term 'disruption' as it is the most commonly used term, but the proper term should be 'rupture.' Clayton Christensen coined the term disruption to outline how some low-cost but effective innovations by smaller companies can initially appear inferior or only serve niche markets but eventually grow to dominate the industry. The term rupture is a broader term referring to how non-linear and seemingly sudden events change a market.
I've been asked many times to define what a disruption is (or, more properly, a rupture), and I now use this simple definition:
Rupture innovation is what the market never asked from you and suddenly now demands you provide as quickly as possible, at scale, and without ever wanting to pay a premium for it.
Let's dive into it:
