"Snake Oil for the Innovation Age: Christensen, Forbes, and the Problem with Disruption"
Basta avere pazienza. Prima o poi la pelle floscia di concetti senza contenuto ci passerà davanti trascinata dalla corrente del fiume. jc Snake Oil for the Innovation Age: Christensen, Forbes, and the Problem with Disruption September 16, 2015 A new study by Andrew A. King and Baljir Baatartogtokh in the MIT Sloan Management Review has marshaled the best evidence yet to show that Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation is deeply flawed. The study—which is put in its larger context in this insightful article by Evan Goldstein in the Chronicle of Higher Education—found that only 9 of 77 cases that Christensen used as examples of disruptive innovation actually fit the criteria of his own theory. Economists and business school thinkers have known that disruptive innovation was problematic for quite a while. For instance, the economist Kenneth Simon wrote a paper on the topic as early as 2009. But the dissent of these thinkers rarely entered public view, perhaps because speaking up would have gone against the academic code that forbids publicly attacking one’s own. […] Continua qui: http://leevinsel.com/blog/2015/9/16/snake-oil-for-the-innovation-age-christe...
Che ci sia difficoltà nell'applicare le lezioni dell'approccio alle situazioni presenti o future è di poco conforto a Kodak, Nokia, Digital Equipment, Blockbuster e tante altre aziende i cui prodotti e servizi, nonché modello di business non si sono adeguati a quello che la tecnologia ha permesso di fare ai loro concorrenti. David Orban "What is the question that I should be asking?" twitter, linkedin, etc: davidorban On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:02 PM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin@polito.it> wrote:
Basta avere pazienza. Prima o poi la pelle floscia di concetti senza contenuto ci passerà davanti trascinata dalla corrente del fiume.
jc
Snake Oil for the Innovation Age: Christensen, Forbes, and the Problem with Disruption
September 16, 2015
A new study by Andrew A. King and Baljir Baatartogtokh in the MIT Sloan Management Review has marshaled the best evidence yet to show that Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation is deeply flawed. The study—which is put in its larger context in this insightful article by Evan Goldstein in the Chronicle of Higher Education—found that only 9 of 77 cases that Christensen used as examples of disruptive innovation actually fit the criteria of his own theory. Economists and business school thinkers have known that disruptive innovation was problematic for quite a while. For instance, the economist Kenneth Simon wrote a paper on the topic as early as 2009. But the dissent of these thinkers rarely entered public view, perhaps because speaking up would have gone against the academic code that forbids publicly attacking one’s own.
[…]
Continua qui: http://leevinsel.com/blog/2015/9/16/snake-oil-for-the-innovation-age-christe...
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
Davide, criticare (fattualmente) CC e le sue esagerazioni non vuol dire che la disruption non esiste. jc On 19/09/15 16:11, David Orban wrote:
Che ci sia difficoltà nell'applicare le lezioni dell'approccio alle situazioni presenti o future è di poco conforto a Kodak, Nokia, Digital Equipment, Blockbuster e tante altre aziende i cui prodotti e servizi, nonché modello di business non si sono adeguati a quello che la tecnologia ha permesso di fare ai loro concorrenti.
David Orban "What is the question that I should be asking?" twitter, linkedin, etc: davidorban
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:02 PM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin@polito.it <mailto:demartin@polito.it>> wrote:
Basta avere pazienza. Prima o poi la pelle floscia di concetti senza contenuto ci passerà davanti trascinata dalla corrente del fiume.
jc
Snake Oil for the Innovation Age: Christensen, Forbes, and the Problem with Disruption
September 16, 2015
A new study by Andrew A. King and Baljir Baatartogtokh in the MIT Sloan Management Review has marshaled the best evidence yet to show that Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation is deeply flawed. The study—which is put in its larger context in this insightful article by Evan Goldstein in the Chronicle of Higher Education—found that only 9 of 77 cases that Christensen used as examples of disruptive innovation actually fit the criteria of his own theory. Economists and business school thinkers have known that disruptive innovation was problematic for quite a while. For instance, the economist Kenneth Simon wrote a paper on the topic as early as 2009. But the dissent of these thinkers rarely entered public view, perhaps because speaking up would have gone against the academic code that forbids publicly attacking one’s own.
[…]
Continua qui: http://leevinsel.com/blog/2015/9/16/snake-oil-for-the-innovation-age-christe...
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
participants (2)
-
David Orban -
J.C. DE MARTIN