I definitely feel that the valley (in particular) is clinging to <i>process</i> over <i>result</i>, and this essay nicely uses data to skewer one of the major fetishized processes.<p>Of course, Christensen _was_ onto something (his model is illustrative in regards to DEC, and it is also an excellent explanation of the dreadful economics of hospitals). But his model was descriptive, not prescriptive.<p>What's a bit uncharitable about this essay is the condemnation of the widespread enthusiasm for Christensen outside 128 & the valley. If you work in one of the many legacy industries it's no wonder you look desperately for some life ring to cling to. It's unfortunate that the choice du jour doesn't actually tell you what to do.<p>Despite all that, this insightful essay is also a testament to how a liberal arts degree can be useful. Useful to me, as the reader of a good essay I mean -- for most people it sadly isn't useful to put much food on the table.
I agree with the key point that "Not everything is in the act of disrupting or being disrupted." There are businesses that can maintain incremental improvements for a long times, especially in services. The folks mowing my lawn and doing the dry cleaning don't seem to be in need of disruption as much as improvement. (ok - so I don't have a lawn, and my dry cleaner is ok, but the point is the same)<p>On the concept of Christensen cherry picking his cases... Well, that's what they do at HBS. They use the case method to explain things. It works for strategy, which is almost impossible to quantify anyway. (Too many moving variables, and the answers seem obvious afterwards) For proper economics, that's another story. Go to the University of Chicago instead.
The author had some valid points. i.e., Christensen cherry picked cases to support his theory. There are many cases which contradict the theory and she supplied some as convincing counter examples.<p>That being said, I don't really know what the point of the article was. She didn't offer an alternative, just kinda shrugged and said "you can't predict the future," which seems like a cop out. At least Christensen was trying to make sense of the world while she was basically just saying it is hopelessly chaotic so we should proceed with our lives and businesses with no plans because there is no way to predict anything. That seems horribly nihilistic. I mean, sure, Disruption Theory has some issues. But that doesn't mean you should do away with theory completely.