The never-ending cycle of disruptive innovation

“Disruptive innovation” probably doesn’t mean what you think it means. The term was first coined by Clayton Christensen on his “The Innovator’s Dilemma” to mean when a company creates a simpler, cheaper offering of some product or service and wins customers that are overwhelmed by the more complex and expensive offerings of established players [1].

Let’s take the example of Salesforce. A disruptive innovation attacking Salesforce would be Pipedrive: a simpler, cheaper version of Salesforce’s CRM system (sales force automation??) that gets the job done fine but for less of a hassle.

Here, the concept of a “job” is important: a job, or job-to-be-done, is the actual progress a customer can make given a set of circumstances. Sales managers probably need more process, organization, data, and therefore buy a software product and some services to do that, which is Salesforce.

But Salesforce’s CRM offering now goes much further than a simple CRM: it does all sorts of things; it has all sorts of bells and whistles that cater to all different customer needs; it costs a lot and takes long to be implemented. Salesforce does all that to sustain its high price point for the offering. Salesforce overserves its core customers and bloats its offering to serve its tail.

If we take into account that Salesforce’s CRM is a multi-billion dollar business, that are opportunities for new entrants to build simpler, cheaper solutions that get the basic (maybe 80% of the) job done and cost half of the price, and can be implemented fast, and still build huge companies in the process, as Tom Tunguz noted.

That’d be a heck of a disruptive innovation.

Do disruptive innovations ever end? #

So, my point here is that companies will continue to be “disrupted” forever. Products will always be created to serve overserved customers. They will be simpler, and cheaper. These products will draw customers away from incumbents. These new entrants, that built the products, will grow, bloat their products to better serve their customers, and start to overserve a big part of them, and so on and so forth, ad eternum.

Some questions remain unanswered: does this phenomenon happen in all industries? It looks like it happens quite often in enterprise software.

[1] When we think of the word innovation, we think - at least I think - about something new. About a new solution to a problem. Big product innovations come to mind, like the Oculus Rift, for example.

But the concept can be expanded. There are smaller kinds of innovations as well, like adding heated seats to a car, or FaceID on iPhone. There are also other types of innovations, less related to a product or service and more related to how business is done, like ordering food through an app. Delivery isn’t new, neither are apps. But ordering food through an app was kinda “new” 5 years ago. Also, renting some stuff instead of buying, like the Software-as-a-service revolution in the early 2000s, was also a type of innovation. D2C is an example. Enough with that argument.

Disruptive innovation, under Christensen’s definition, can be seen as almost no innovation, as described above, at all. You’re taking a product and making it worse. And by doing so, you’re capturing overserved customers from an incumbent. Customers that are happy with a good enough product that costs less.


Now read this

Repost of an old post: Starting a Bank by Matt Mullenweg

I often get asked something along the line of, “If you weren’t leading Automattic, what would you work on?” There’s not a single answer to this question; the answer changes day to day. But I think if you asked me today, I’d say I would... Continue →