Understanding the Theory of Disruption

Here is my understanding of Christensen's Theory of Disruption:  Christensen and his colleagues have claimed that stable businesses are aware of technological innovations, but their business plans and schemas do not facilitate the pursuit of technological innovations or ideas as they emerge.   Why not?  Newer technologies and innovations cost money, and this lowers profit margin.  Innovations are often not profitable in the beginning stages and their development and phases of implementation can take vital resources away from current projects that are making money in real time.  In other words, the current production or services being provided would have to be detracted from, and this generates a fear that the competition would use this degradation to grab a larger portion of the market share.  Therefore, Christensen states that the “value networks” of a business place little to no value on the disruptive innovations.  However, start-up companies possess different “value networks,” and seek to replace existing “value networks.”  New products and services replace the “old.”   This causes existing businesses to panic and attempt to keep up in order to not fade into bankruptcy. 

I have seen an example of this in schools over the past 10 years.  When I began teaching everyone was dependent on the overhead projector.  We had notes on transparencies that went onto the overhead projector.  Over time PowerPoint emerged, then the projectors connected to PCs came along, and now we have PCs connected to Smart Boards as well as projectors.  The ability to link from PowerPoint notes to the internet as well as have an interactive Smart Board which can be engaged by students.  This process of disruption took time and was met by resistance.  However, this disruption has led to progress and an easing in the access to multimedia use within the classroom.