The Dilemma of Disruption
One of the problems when considering Disruption Technology or Innovation is that it can be either too loose or too tight a definition.
It’s too loose when we call Brexit and Trump disruption, but it ought to have been predicted by governments in charge. It wasn’t true disruption, it was sheer negligence and lack of care for disenfranchised people. This is making excuses and pretending that it was entirely unpredictable. Maybe Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee to support Trump was disruptive, but that’s another story.
We call many improvements in services disruption when such improvement can be predicted and represents a logical step up in services, which really ought to happen if people are doing their jobs diligently and intelligently. An example is “platforms” or “portals” for providing services, compared to individual websites. Disruption should be unpredictable, have an “Aha” moment and revolutionary, although retrospectively we ought to have seen it coming but didn’t. It also tends to be ingeniously simpler, not more complicated.
It’s too tight when we expect disruption to be dramatic with sea change in the market environment. E.g., the advent of digital cameras versus film, ultrasound of foetuses versus feeling for the head with hands. Yet this is not necessarily so. The changes might be subtle, yet make major impact. E.g., the Government Technology Agency’s “OneService” structure which did a simple thing – integrating data across public agencies rather than trying to integrate disparate systems which was a much simpler and less costly solution, but which was very effective.
Ideas can be simple, yet revolutionary. E.g., Snugli: Ann and Mike Moore were parents like every other parent in America, who wanted to keep their babies close to them and yet have hands free. So, they invented and popularised the baby harness called the Snugli, which has since been mimicked all over the world.
Therefore, we need to firstly not make disruption sound so difficult that people are put off trying to be entrepreneurial. Secondly, we should not make it so simple that the threshold is very low to declare something disruptive. That would be complacent and self-congratulatory.
The essence of disruptive innovation is social entrepreneurship. Like business entrepreneurship, this requires passion, a highly driven motivation to make a change out of the status quo. It requires the ability to visualise a future outcome in spite of difficulties and obstacles, to push on regardless of disappointment, to take risks that can be very personal, to achieve what seems impossible.
This seems a very high bar. Who then can be a true social entrepreneur? Who has the personality, the gumption, the tenacity, the passion to tough it out, especially in a socio-economic environment that rewards risk avoidance more than risk taking? Coaching someone who aspires to be an entrepreneur quickly reveals one. If the coach himself feels exhilarated, inspired, even exhausted by the energy pouring forth, we have an entrepreneur!
The Dilemma of Disruption
The Dilemma of Disruption
One of the problems when considering Disruption Technology or Innovation is that it can be either too loose or too tight a definition.
It’s too loose when we call Brexit and Trump disruption, but it ought to have been predicted by governments in charge. It wasn’t true disruption, it was sheer negligence and lack of care for disenfranchised people. This is making excuses and pretending that it was entirely unpredictable. Maybe Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee to support Trump was disruptive, but that’s another story.
We call many improvements in services disruption when such improvement can be predicted and represents a logical step up in services, which really ought to happen if people are doing their jobs diligently and intelligently. An example is “platforms” or “portals” for providing services, compared to individual websites. Disruption should be unpredictable, have an “Aha” moment and revolutionary, although retrospectively we ought to have seen it coming but didn’t. It also tends to be ingeniously simpler, not more complicated.
It’s too tight when we expect disruption to be dramatic with sea change in the market environment. E.g., the advent of digital cameras versus film, ultrasound of foetuses versus feeling for the head with hands. Yet this is not necessarily so. The changes might be subtle, yet make major impact. E.g., the Government Technology Agency’s “OneService” structure which did a simple thing – integrating data across public agencies rather than trying to integrate disparate systems which was a much simpler and less costly solution, but which was very effective.
Ideas can be simple, yet revolutionary. E.g., Snugli: Ann and Mike Moore were parents like every other parent in America, who wanted to keep their babies close to them and yet have hands free. So, they invented and popularised the baby harness called the Snugli, which has since been mimicked all over the world.
Therefore, we need to firstly not make disruption sound so difficult that people are put off trying to be entrepreneurial. Secondly, we should not make it so simple that the threshold is very low to declare something disruptive. That would be complacent and self-congratulatory.
The essence of disruptive innovation is social entrepreneurship. Like business entrepreneurship, this requires passion, a highly driven motivation to make a change out of the status quo. It requires the ability to visualise a future outcome in spite of difficulties and obstacles, to push on regardless of disappointment, to take risks that can be very personal, to achieve what seems impossible.
This seems a very high bar. Who then can be a true social entrepreneur? Who has the personality, the gumption, the tenacity, the passion to tough it out, especially in a socio-economic environment that rewards risk avoidance more than risk taking? Coaching someone who aspires to be an entrepreneur quickly reveals one. If the coach himself feels exhilarated, inspired, even exhausted by the energy pouring forth, we have an entrepreneur!
Send us a message