How can organizations master disruptive innovation three decades after Clayton Christensen first illuminated the concept? The real challenge goes beyond merely identifying disruptions—it involves scaling them effectively. To do so, organizations must uncover and understand the common pitfalls that hinder widespread impact.
I was invited to participate in a roundtable discussion on disruptive innovation at the recent Paris Defense Strategy Forum. Against a backdrop of heightened tensions and increasingly explicit references to the possibility of conflict in the near future, the issue of harnessing technology to gain military advantage is becoming central. Hence, the question that arose several times during the roundtable: how can we not only develop breakthrough innovations, but actually scale them up?
In many ways, however, the question of how to scale up a disruptive innovation is based on a flawed model: there is the invention phase (boss! boss! look, a disruptive innovation), then the experimentation phase (it works!), and finally the scale-up phase (everyone uses it). But it doesn’t work that way at all.
There is no such thing as a disruptive innovation in itself. A disruption consists of new practices in the broadest sense. What determines the disruptive nature of a technology, for example, is the way it is used. To take a historical example, in 1940 the French used the tank mainly to support the infantry, while the Germans created special units and built a new strategy around them. The French use of the tank was a continuation of their existing organizational model, while the German use of the tank was a break with the past because it invented a new model.
This example shows that technology in itself is not disruptive. You can have the best technology and almost completely neutralize its disruptive potential by using it in continuity with your existing model. On the other hand, a new model can multiply the impact of a given technology, even a commonplace or old one, tenfold. So it’s the model that matters, not the technology. In other words, the real impact factor is the organizational model invented for the technology, not the technology itself.
This also shows that while investing in new technologies is of course very important as a necessary condition for future breakthroughs, it is by no means sufficient to win. Kodak was the pioneer of digital photography, creating the first digital camera in 1975 and launching the first commercial camera in 1991, and yet it lost the war to the other players in the photo industry. Kodak was crushed by the digital revolution after leading and pioneering the technology without changing its business model to take advantage of it. In other words, the winners are not those with the best R&D.
This also shows that disruption can be achieved without new technology. The use of ultrasound in medicine since the 1950s has had a revolutionary impact on human health, but it was based on a scientific discovery made in 1911 in the context of submarine warfare. The technology was available for 40 years before the idea of a new application came about, thanks to the initiative of an imaginative doctor and electronics engineer.
So it’s really a question of mindset. Disruptive innovation is not an invention, a flash of genius, or a feat of engineering. Disruptive innovation is first and foremost a fresh look at something no one else is looking at. It’s a questioning of a mental model that everyone takes for granted, and the idea of an alternative model. As in “We could look at this differently”. So the key to disruptive innovation is the questioning of mental models, the ability to be surprised and skeptical in the face of false evidence, not excellent technique.
Three concrete implications
What are the implications for an organization that wants to develop disruptive innovations that have real impact? I see three: The first is that you have to think in terms of usage, not technology. A lot of disruptive impact can be achieved with existing technologies, or even without technology. For example, a different organizational arrangement can have a huge impact.
The second is that there needs to be deliberate work on the uses of a given technology. This is much more complicated than it sounds, for the following reason: most uses at the beginning will naturally be in continuity with the existing model. When a new technology comes along, we immediately ask ourselves how we can use it to improve our model, because that’s what we’re thinking about. “Protect the infantry” is the answer of the French officer who thinks of the tank in 1936. It’s not useless, but you have to know how to invent completely new uses. You need an entrepreneurial spirit capable of moving away from the dominant organizational models and, of course, a creative capacity to imagine alternative models.
The third implication is that even with the most innovative and disruptive uses, we can get stuck and remain at the small scale. Scaling up, getting the innovation into real use with real impact, requires appropriate organizational support and protection. This is a combination of a bulletproof vest and a launch pad. The bulletproof vest, because the innovation needs to be protected, because the very fact that it is a disruption makes it fragile within the organization; by definition it will clash with existing models. The launch pad, because we need to find the right framework for it to grow, probably by housing it in a more or less autonomous entity.
Disruptive innovation is not about creativity or technological excellence. It is a question of managing organizational models and mental models. Understanding this true nature is a prerequisite for success and impact.
🇫🇷 A version of this article is available in French here.
📬 If you enjoyed this article, don’t hesitate to subscribe to receive future articles via email (“I subscribe” in the upper right corner of the home page).
One thought on “Disruptive innovation: What are the conditions for real impact?”