The problem with the term “disruptive innovation” is that it’s easy for people who don’t understand it to assume they understand it and then use it all all kinds of innovation.
I like the term “expertise-destroying innovation” because it’s not as easily misunderstood.
I like the word ‘synergy’ for this, because people literally use it as a generic example of a meaningless business word, but—when not being abused—it actually has a very precise meaning. (Value created by combination; the part of the whole which exceeds the sum of the parts. You could almost translate it as “binding energy.” Or perhaps by analogy “binding value.”)
I didn’t really fully grasp the importance of the concept until I was spending some time thinking about the question: Why merge or spin off companies? Doesn’t a free-market merger or spinoff transaction result in trading a business for an amount of cash worth the same amount as the business? Synergy (or, I suppose, anti-synergy, though I’ve never heard the word used) -- binding energy, positive or negative—is the answer.
I am stealing this term because it does a good job of articulating specific effects and communicating magnitude at the same time.
How do you disentangle something like this from something that keeps the relevant expertise but heavily impacts scale, like a drop in cost below some critical threshold?
The problem with the term “disruptive innovation” is that it’s easy for people who don’t understand it to assume they understand it and then use it all all kinds of innovation.
I like the term “expertise-destroying innovation” because it’s not as easily misunderstood.
I like the word ‘synergy’ for this, because people literally use it as a generic example of a meaningless business word, but—when not being abused—it actually has a very precise meaning. (Value created by combination; the part of the whole which exceeds the sum of the parts. You could almost translate it as “binding energy.” Or perhaps by analogy “binding value.”)
I didn’t really fully grasp the importance of the concept until I was spending some time thinking about the question: Why merge or spin off companies? Doesn’t a free-market merger or spinoff transaction result in trading a business for an amount of cash worth the same amount as the business? Synergy (or, I suppose, anti-synergy, though I’ve never heard the word used) -- binding energy, positive or negative—is the answer.
To me the word synergy means something very different.
The term “disruptive innovation” was coined by Clayton Christensen to have a specific meaning.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation
What does synergy mean to you?
I am stealing this term because it does a good job of articulating specific effects and communicating magnitude at the same time.
How do you disentangle something like this from something that keeps the relevant expertise but heavily impacts scale, like a drop in cost below some critical threshold?
If the old expertise still matters it’s likely that the established companies will be able to outcompete newcomers.
Intel for example develops microprocessors where there’s a lot of price drop from year to year but that doesn’t mean that there’s disruption.