[This is an excerpt of an email discussion we are
having regarding the pace and effect on incumbent carriers of the migration to
VOIP. In a previous post I had stated
that, "While I agree that the disruption of and eventual replacement of ALL
forms of wired communications with wireless digital communications, as all good
disruptians know, "disruptive technology" can sometimes take place
over decades." Of course, this generated the standard objection: how can a
technology evolution that takes decades be called "disruptive." Since
this happens so frequently, I'm posting this answer to this FAQ on my blog so I
can just link to it in the future.]
Both "disruptive innovation" and
"sustaining innovation" (Christensen's terms) are kinds of evolution.
And both may happen relatively quickly or relatively slowly. What distinguishes
disruptive innovation from sustaining innovation is clearly laid out in Christensen's
book. I highly recommend EVERYONE read it. There are many aspects that
distinguish the two; most of which I highlight in my Disruptive SOA Trends
pitch--an homage to Christensen, which I'd be happy to send to anyone.
But the easiest way to tell if an innovation is
disruptive (and hence the reason Christensen calls it by that name) is to
examine its impact on the market, i.e., whether the dominant companies in a
market remain the dominant companies after the transition to the new technology.
If they are, then it was "sustaining" technology because it
"sustained" the common business model of the dominant incumbents. But
if most of the dominant companies are wiped out by the new technology, then
it was disruptive technology because it disrupted the common business model of
the dominant incumbents.
That is why Christensen's research on the
excavator market is much more interesting than his research on the hard drive
market. In the excavator market, the dominant incumbent cable-driven excavator
manufacturers had thirty years to adapt to the new hydraulic excavator
technology and they still failed to do so. Thus virtually all of them
disappeared when the cable excavator disappeared from the market.
Christensen's fundamental question was to
understand why seemingly well run companies that dominated a technology market
would often be unable to adapt to new market conditions and as a result, cease
to exist, or at least lose their dominance. His theory of the two different
types of technical innovation and their differing impact on dominant business
models was his answer. And one of his fundamental insights, often
overlooked, is that adaptiveness, is NOT about being able to change quickly;
it's about being able to change at all. Some companies have plenty of
time--decades--to see a new technology growing in the market, and yet they fail
so do what is necessary to adapt their business model to it!
Thus, the adjective "disruptive" is not
being applied to the technological innovation itself, but to the impact it has
on the business models of the dominant firms in a market. When you hear
"disruptive technology" think
"disruptive-to-the-business-models-of-market-leaders technology". If
you look at it this way then the answer to your question ("If a change in
technology occur [sic] over a period of say 30 years can it really be called
disruptive") is a definite yes. And vice versa: a technology change
occurring in five years can be sustaining.
So as to Telstra, the question is whether or not
after the decades it takes to migrate the market to VOIP, Telstra will end up
dominating that market, or cease to exist because of it.
4:36:22 AM 
