Week5 Q&A Group2 03nov09

8/14/2019 Week5 Q&A Group2 03nov09

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/week5-qa-group2-03nov09 1/17

1

Week 5 Questions & Answers

Creative Destruction & Disruptive Innovation

Group 2 BlueSky Samurai

3 November 2009



2

Contents

1. Creative Destruction

1-1. What are the key features of Schumpeter‟s approach to innovation? .............................3

1-2. What are the main sources of discontinuities in his model?............................................4

1-3. What is the role of new combinations of knowledge?......................................................7

1-4. What do you understand by path dependency?..............................................................8

1-5. Why might disruptive technologies creep up on established companies?.......................9

1-6. What are the main characteristics of disruptive technologies?......................................10

1-7. What is the relationship between Schumpeter‟s discontinuities and Christensen‟s

theory of disruptive technologies?..................................................................................11

2. Disruptive Innovations

2-1. What are disruptive innovations?...................................................................................12

2-2. Why disruptive innovations are usually developed outside established companies

and outside established sectors?....................................................................................13

2-3. Identify some examples of disruptive innovations......................................................... 14

2-4. Why were they ignored by established players?........................................................... 14

2-5. In what sense can Sony be identified as a market disruptor?........................................14

2-6. How do you account for the slowing down of performance of Japanese companies

in the last 20 years?......................................................... ..............................................15

2-7. How is the development of small new companies important to the economic

prosperity of nations?..................................................................................................... 16

References ...............................................................................................................................17



3

1-1. What are the key features of Schumpeter’s approach to innovation?

What – Technological innovation

Schumpeter adopted innovation concept to explain capitalism and economic cycle in

association to the development of technology through creative destruction. Especially,

technological innovation is a key element which stimulates capitalism and 50 years growth

cycle. From the two tables below, we can see that scientific development and long term

economic growth cycles (i.e. Kondratieff wave) have similar steps.

Table 1: The process of scientific development (Source: ScienceDirect.com, 2004)

Table 2. Kondratieff wave (Source: Wikipedia, 2009)

Who - Entrepreneurs/large corporations

He focused on entrepreneurs and corporations (in his late works) as „risk-takers‟ who lead

creative destruction. They experiment with new technologies to achieve strategic



4

advantages and benefit from „monopoly profits‟3 until the market is reached to equilibrium by

imitators.

Why - Profit

It is the underlying motive of technology innovation that gives entrepreneurs (or corporations)

„strategic competitiveness.‟ If economic profit goes to „zero‟, original

entrepreneurs/corporations or someone else would emerge with new innovation to achieve

monopolistic profit in a new market. But, thinking about monopoly or oligopoly cases of

Korea, for example telecom industry, it seems that innovation is not the only driving force to

let them position for exclusive profit. To keep the profit, companies also do cartel other than

focusing on technological improvement.

How – Creative destruction4

The process of creative destruction is done by searching something new product, services,

or process. It is from new combinations of production requisites, old and new and also a

driving force of economic growth in capitalism. The Forbes survey shows that only 18% of

the top 100 U.S. companies in 1971 survived in 1987. It means the only companies that kept

changing for something new could benefit their economic profit in return.

In terms of Korean definition of innovation (renewing skin), it seems that the definition

implies the concept of creative destruction.

Cancer vaccine could be an example in this case. From Ji-young's experience in a

pharmaceutical industry, the cancer vaccine is considered as one of the innovative results

from creative destruction. By breaking the viewpoint of cancers (from treatment to

prevention), the company could develop new vaccine and get into the new market as an

'early mover.'

1-2. What are the main sources of discontinuities in his model?

In general, Tidd & Bessant (2009) discussed several sources of discontinuities as follows.

New market emerges: In general any market is said to evolve over a period of time.

But at certain times there a some specific markets which just come out from

nowhere and evolution of such markets can not be analysed or predicted using the

conventional market techniques. Most of the time big conventional payers may not

see these new markets as a potential, as they are focused on their exciting marketand also might think the new market is for a small segment of the society. One the



5

best example to highlight this point is to look at the emergence of Mobile phones

and relative use of SMS.

New technology emerges: For example, the upcoming refrigeration technology

between 1750 and 1850 caused discontinuity for the massive market of ice

harvesting.Adding further to this one can look at the trends in the Music industry.

The industry has come a long way from people buying huge gram-phones to

dowloading songs to listen to music. With internet becoming a dominat technology,

people would prefer to down load the songs directly and legally from the net rather

than go to stores and buy cassettes or CD's.

New political rules emerge: To explain this point one can look at the changes that

happened in Russia or the former U.S.S.R. With fall of communism and rise of

capitalism in Russia brought out a lot of changes and many established business

could not take into these changes and collapsed. The economy is Russia changed

from centrally planned to that of open market economy. Also one can think of

Apartheid and post apartheid South Africa and observe the changes.

Running out of road: At times established business leaders might have to make

radical re-orientation of their business in order to prevent their exciting products

from getting wiped out from the market. Kodak example better explains the concept

over here. With the advent of digital camera's Kodak which was a market leader

then took a bit hit and had to re orient itself to become the market leader again.

Sea change in market sentiment of behaviour: At times the public opinion or

behaviour changes suddenly with a certain new innovation. For example with the

advent of mp3 players and i-Pod, people quickly gave up using walkman's which

was very popular mode of listening music and shifted to i-Pods or MP3 players. With

this sudden change in the public sentiment, some market leaders like Sony and

others had to changes their strategy and a have a new plan to tackle the shift in the

market.

Deregulation: Whenever there is a change in the political set up of a place, there is

a possibility for the emergence of new markets. This is because there is a change in

rules and regulations. One example is the transformation of the Indian economy in

the late 90's. The Government of India, decided to change it policy from License Raj

to more liberal economy. With globalization happening, Indian IT companies like

Wipro, TCS, Infosys and many more took advantage of the setup and established a

strong software outsourcing and BPO market.

Fractures along ‘fault lines’: At times there are certain issues which are of a

concern to a very small segment but its not of a issue for the general public on the



6

whole.But with progress in time one sees the momentum picking up and there is

sudden awareness in the general public on the whole and the business have to

changes their strategy. At current there is a lot of debate happening on obesity and

use of junk food. This has changed the way established players like McDonald's and

other fast food joints are operating on. Also their is change in their marketing

strategies and also one can see that the fast food joints are coming up with ads that

highlight the calorie content and other health related stuff.

Unthinkable events: These refer to events which are not thought of before or the

ones which are not imagined or prepared for. The fall of the World trade centre and

subsequent war on terror changed the whole world and set up new rules in trading

and business. This was further changed with the attack on Iraq and the oil crisis

hitting the world. Also the current recession seen around the world has had a major

impact on how business all round the world are being run.

Business model innovation: In this case the established business models get

challenged by new entrants, who try to re define the solutions to problems faced and

set up new rules. One of the best examples to highlight this point is to study the

emergence of E-tailing brought out by Amazon. When Amazon started none of the

brick and mortar companies thought it would be a threat to their exciting markets.

But as time went by, one could see who e-tailing had redefined the retail markets.

Traditional brick and Mortar companies like Tesco, Wal Mart and Home Depot too

have come up with their own sites to retain their market share and also expand their

share into the emerging segment.

Shifts in technoeconomic paradigm: The industrial revolution and subsequent

entry of Steam engines and other innovations and also certain inventions brought

about changes in the market and technology used. In recent timers one can look at

the usage of internet and learn how this has brought about a change in the technical

and economical structure around the world. One can clearly see a paradigm shift in

trends with the advent of internet and also observe how older order got completely

replaced.

Architectural innovation: Changes happening in the system architecture and other

related changes result in rewriting the rules of the game for those involved at the

component level. Introduction of Photolithography in chip manufacture changed the

entire set up of the chip manufacturing industry. And now with the advent of Nano

technology and other improvements in the VLSI designs, one can see that changes

in chips manufacturing is happening at a rapid space and this is affecting the



7

hardware electronic industry as well. The shelf lives of electronic items are shrinking

day by day.

In a perspective of Schumpeter's innovation, technological innovation is emerged by re-

organizing such as process, market, resources, system for production. And this innovation

would impact the way to the new market, new supply system and it eventually leads to

discontinuity of economic cycle by repeating emergence/disappearance of market-leading

companies. From this point of view, the following would be considered as a trigger of

discontinuity towards economy growth.

New product which consumers didn't expect

New process system which other competitors didn't try

Opening up a new market

Conquest of new sources of supply

Carrying out a new organization

1-3. What is the role of new combinations of knowledge?

At times innovation involved combining knowledge from the past with that of the present or

future. It involved sharing of knowledge between different areas of expertise or sectors.

Creativity also plays an important role in Innovation. Having a creative mind allows one to

imagine the past ideas into future innovations. The extent to which spread of knowledge

happens across different sectors depends on the networks and how people collaborate with

each other. When people of a community share and collaborate with each other, sharing of

knowledge happens, it results in a good understanding and result can lead to a potential

innovation. Idea of combining knowledge from the past to the present or across different

sectors prevents lock in and this results in better technologies and better products. But if

there is some misunderstandings or if the network is not proper then problems might arise

and it results in lock in of ideas and differing objectives, finally in the end innovation gets

blocked.

As an example to highlight role of combination of knowledge, one can look at the worlds

cheapest car, i.e. Tata Nano. Tata Nano was ultimately product of Tata Motors, but other

Tata companies like Tata Consultancy services, Tata Steel and other Tata firms put in a lot

of effort. There was sharing of knowledge between expertise from different companies and



8

the end result of the worlds cheapest car, which has all the necessary components of a

regular car.

Also one can look at the launch of satellites by different countries. It takes a lot of sharing of

knowledge and expert opinions from people coming from diverse sectors. If there are some

miscommunications somewhere the end result will prove to be an unsuccessful launch.

1-4. What do you understand by path dependency?

Path dependence (in economy and social sciences) describes that any decision that an

individual or organisation faces in the present is dependent on decisions that were made in

the past, even if the external conditions of these decisions no longer apply. It describes

consecutive processes whose chronological sequence resembles a path, instead of being

independent from each other. Brian Arthur describes two approaches: "conventional

economics," which attempts to avoid path dependence, and "positive feedback economics,"

which makes use of it. When a process is dependent on initial conditions, e.g. when a

discontinuity is faced while taking into account the steady-state, there are three possible

outcomes:

1. The path dependency is not harmful to the innovation process. Although the

organisation is still bound to the previous path, the initial conditions prove to be

optimal (first-degree path dependence).

2. The given information and conditions lead to a choice that is not optimal, but it is not

visible at the time of decision-making. Retrospectively, a different decision would

have been better. The outcome might be costly to correct, but at the time the

decision seemed right (second-degree path dependence).

3. The given information and conditions lead to a choice that is not optimal, but it is

visible and therefore possible to achieve the desired outcome. But the opportunity is

not pursued. This scenario offers the highest availability of a feasible, successful

alternative and conscious denial at the same time (third-degree path dependence).

While these three possible outcomes might suggest that one scenario is better than another

one, it is important to recognize the importance of failures in discontinuity. As outlined below

in more detail (see 1-6.), disruptive technologies introduce a higher rate of failure and a

higher failure-tolerance at the same time. This is important because failures accelerate the

evolutionary process that eventually leads to a dominant design. This pragmatic "learning bydoing" approach contributes to the discontinuous market, even if individual organisations fail.



9

The knowledge that is being generated, possibly even more in failures than in success, will

be utilised by other players. This also shows that failure is absolutely vital for innovation. The

more organisations with different path dependencies take part in disruptive innovation, the

more elements contribute to the evolutionary process.

1-5. Why might disruptive technologies creep up on established companies?

The disruptive innovations are never taken seriously by established businesses and most of

the times the technologies are not judged to be disruptive. Most of the times these

technologies slowly creep into the established fold and completely change the picture of the

current usage of a particular product.

Tidd & Bessant describe the weight and inflexibility of established players as one of the

main reasons for not being prepared for disruptive technologies. This weight includes

existing processes, best practices and "tricks of the trade" in every day operation. Not being

able to let these habits go can be a threat to quick adoption of discontinuous innovation. The

duration to introduce a new innovation increases proportionally with the size of a company.

Furthermore, the more focused on an existing trajectory a company is, the harder it is to

change the company's direction without facing financial problems. In the worst case, a

company faces a 180° turn in strategy to keep up with a disruptive technology, which

ultimately alienates existing customers and eventually drives the company out of business.

All this of course assumes that a company recognizes a discontinuous innovation and takes

it seriously. It is common for established "thought leaders" of an industry to deny upcoming

trends because of their currently superior position. Something that questions "how business

is done" or "the rules of the game" (Tidd & Bessant 2007, p. 231) is oftentimes not taken

seriously.

Most of the times, as seen in the past, established companies cater to the needs of the

large majority or the core customers and don‟t satisfy the needs of the „lead users‟. Lead

users represent a niche market and they are the ones working at the frontiers of activity or at

the cutting edge. Usually the needs of a lead user are much more sophisticated compared to

a normal user of the same product. As the needs of the lead user are not met by exciting

technologies they may develop or look at disruptive technologies to cater to their needs.

Thus disruptive technologies come into the picture. They are usually costly compared to the

current exciting product and also at most times they are not developed perfectly. When a



10

disruptive technology comes in, it usually causes ripples only at very small end of the market.

Most of the times disruptive technologies comes from outside the established sector and are

never perceived to be a threat to the established set up. Disruptive innovations improve

faster than average customer demand, meaning that after a certain amount of time

disruptors are in the position to attack established firms, as the figure below illustrates.

Table 3: Disruptive Technology (Source: Christensen 2003)

One of the best examples to summarize the characteristics of disruptive technologies would

be to follow the evolutionary path of personal computers. Starting from mainframes, then

moving on to desktop computers then to laptops and notebooks, at each stage one can see

that the needs of small percentage of lead users results in a new product or technology andthe new product in sue course of time completely sweeps the market and makes the

established products redundant. In the coming future one might see projection mobiles and

computers which might completely outcast notebooks and laptops. The improvements in the

manufacture of micro-processors and chips helped at lot in improvements of PC technology.

With new developments happening in VLSI technology and faster transistors being produced

day by day, the future of PC is going to be highly sophisticated.

1-6. What are the main characteristics of disruptive technologies?

Some of the characteristics of disruptive technologies are:

Never perceived to be disruptive at the very beginning.

Very costly compared to the exciting products.

At the very beginning stages of invention it caters to needs of the niche market. It‟s

never meant for the usage of the average customer, whose happy with the current

product coming from an established business.



11

Its mainly meant for the lead users ,whose needs are much more than an average

user

Disruptive technologies are imperfectly developed and cater to a small percentage of

the market initially and for these reasons they are never perceived to be a threat to

the exciting technology.

In addition to these points, Tidd & Bessant define an archetype of discontinuous innovation.

Generally speaking, disruptive technologies temporarily introduce chaos to established

environments. There are no clear rules yet, they have to emerge over time. The tolerance for

ambiguity is higher because it is hard to tell which information is valid or helpful. The whole

process is path-independent, disruptive technologies introduce an ongoing "trial & error" to

markets. The selection environment, e.g. the market of choices to be considered is blurry

and early dismissal of options can lead to failure. This leads to the approach of taking

multiple bets at the same time, as it is hard to critically evaluate individual options. There is a

higher tolerance for failure in disruptive technologies, but keeping failures short is important.

The operating patterns are unclear, which can be an advantage for new players in a market,

as they do not have existing procedures to adhere to. Because a dominant design can

emerge from a variety of combinations, there are few strong ties in a discontinuous market.

As a result, it is necessary for players to keep a broad, peripheral vision, instead of focusing

on few selected elements. Disruptive technologies require for pragmatic solutions and quick

actions. The more flexible companies can switch between directions and experiment, the

higher their chance to come up with a solution that proves successful.

1-7. What is the relationship between Schumpeter’s discontinuities and

Christensen’s theory of disruptive technologies?

Schumpeter sees regular, radical discontinuity as a major economical driver. He considers ita cyclical, regular process of entrepreneurs starting radical innovation and then moving on to

the next challenge as soon as it settles down.

Christensen's disruptive technologies are described more like an autonomous phenomenon.

The disruption is not visible at first and eventually creeps up on organisations that are too

focused on their establishment. Disruptive technologies have different drivers that are not

necessarily, like Schumpeter's discontinuities, entrepreneurs or organisations. Disruptive

technologies can emerge from outside a specific segment, which is why it is oftentimes not

considered as a clear threat by organisations.



12

Both concepts are not necessarily different, they just take a different perspective. In fact,

they can cause each other.

On the one hand, disruptive technologies are likely to cause discontinuities, because

employing a new technology has severe influences on organisational and social aspects of a

market. The disruption is never restricted to the technology, it is only the starting point.

On the other hand, discontinuities can force a market towards disruptive technologies in

order to keep up performance. For example, the concept of taking transactions and

information channels to mobile phones has been around for a long time, but innovations did

not diffuse because technology (e.g. devices, bandwidth) did not match the requirement of

the processes. As soon as 3G and web technologies emerged as disruptive technologies,

the innovations could diffuse. In such cases, the concept of discontinuous innovations are

dependent on disruptive technologies that allow them to reach the performance required to

diffuse in a mass market.

2-1. What are disruptive innovations?

The disruptive innovation model from Clayton Christensen is a theory that can be used for

describing the impact of new technologies (revolutionary change) on a f irm‟s existence.

Clayton Christensen first coined the phrase “disruptive technologies” and introduced in his

1995 article Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave (Bower and Christensen, 1995).

He showed that time and again almost all the organizations that have “died” or been

displaced from their industries (because of a new paradigm of customer offering) could see

the disruption coming, and they had ignored because it did not seem relevant or important

enough to worry about – and by the time they realize this it was too late.

Table: Disruptive Technology Graph (Source: Wikipedia, 2009)



13

Companies have two basic options when they seek to build new-growth businesses. They

can try to take an existing market from an entrenched competitor with sustaining innovations.

Or they can try to take on a competitor with disruptive innovations that either create new

markets or take root among an incumbent‟s worst customers. According to Wiki (2009),

there are two distinct types of disruptive innovations: low-end and new-market disruptive

innovations. A new-market disruptive innovation is often aimed at non-consumption (i.e.,

consumers who would not have used the products already on the market), whereas a lower-

end disruptive innovation is aimed at mainstream customers for whom price is more

important than quality

2-2. Why disruptive innovations are usually developed outside established

companies and outside established sectors?

Based on background synthesic (2009), disruptive innovations creep up on established

businesses and are not taken seriously because:

They are often from outside the established sector and so not a clear competitive

threat

Initially may be developed to cater for a niche

Imperfectly developed and often only initially disrupt at the low-end of market

More costly than established products

Established producers are focused on the needs of existing core customers

By doing what good companies are supposed to do – cater to their most profitable

customers and focus investments where profit margins are most attractive – established

industry leaders are on a path of sustaining innovations and leave themselves open fordisruptive technologies to bury them. This happens because the resource allocation

processes of established companies are designed to maximize profits through sustaining

innovations, which essentially involve designing better and better mousetraps for existing

customers of proven market segments. When disruptive innovations (typically cheaper,

simpler to use versions of existing products that target low-end or entirely new customers)

emerge, established companied are paralyzed. They are almost always motivated to go up-

market rather than to defend these new or low-end markets, and ultimately the disruptive

innovation improves, steals more market share, and replaces the reigning product (TheGreat Disruption, 2009)



14

2-3. Identify some examples of disruptive innovations.

Amazon.com, low cost airlines are example of disruptive innovations, based on business

model innovation. Established business models are challenged by a reframing, usually by a

new entrant who redefines/reframes the problem and the consequent “rules of the game”.

And new entrants see opportunity to deliver product/service via new business model and

rewrite rules – existing players have at best to be fast followers

Mass production, industrial revolution: change takes place at system level, involving

technology and market shifts. This involves the convergence of a number of trends which

result in a “paradigm shift” where the old order is replaced

2-4. Why were they ignored by established players?

Unexpected directions: Disruptive technologies are particularly threatening to the leaders

of an existing market, because they are competition coming from an unexpected direction. A

disruptive technology can come to dominate an existing market by either filling a role in a

new market that the older technology could not fill or by successively moving up-market

through performance improvements until finally displacing the market incumbents, such as

digital photography has largely replaced film photography (Wikipedia, 2009)

Early stages: Often new companies emerge to exploit a disruptive innovation. Such

innovations can seem unpromising in the early stages of their development. However if they

go on to become successful they can form new markets in which established companies

lose their market leadership. For example, Edison‟s electric light led to the creation of a

whole new system for the generation and supply of electricity and its conversion into lighting.

This in turn required a whole infrastructure of companies to supply raw materials andcomponents for what became a new industry. It had a disruptive effect on the existing

market for lighting.

2-5. In what sense can Sony be identified as a market disruptor?

According to the Clayton Christensen, Thomas Craig, and Stuart Hart in the book The great

disruption;” Sony has not created a single new growth market of this genre. The company

has adopted a strategy that is very different from the one that led to the dynamic growth of

its first 30 years. Even though it now offers technologically innovative products such as its



15

Playstation and the Vaio line of notebook computers, they are sustaining innovations, not

market creating disruptive ones”.

As quoted by Rich Karlgaard; “In early 1955 when sony slipped a transistor into a cheap

pocket radio and invented a market. even in 1955 the established giants, the vacuum-tube

suppliers, felt un-threatened by the transistor. Tinny-sounding radios for teenagers, that was

a sideshow, not a real business. Of course, over the ensuing years Sony grew into a mighty

global brand. RCA faded into irrelevance”. with this product Sony was identified as a market

disruptor.

2-6. How do you account for the slowing down of performance of Japanese

companies in the last 20 years?

For the Japan companies, they follow strict well-managed rules, but they are beat by

disruptive technologies. For example, the Japanese companies has been repeating their

success approach in the automobile and radio products, domains the high-end market. They

soon grow up to big companies, but once they realize that there is not enough volume to

support them further to face the cap of market, they have to deal with the difficult situation.

Compare to American companies, the capital and employees of Japanese companies is not

as liquid as their competitors. Most of the employees choose to stay in the same company

for lifetime rather than set up their own business, thus the scale of company is difficult to

reduce. The Japanese companies are stuck in the market, they also lacks the innovation

support from the industry structure.

The Japan government applied certain policies such as near zero interest rate, but the policy

has been proved useless for the long term recession. Recently the change of Japan politics

situation may be seen as a first step of recovery, but the dispute of factions still needs to be

united.

Financial Services Minister Shizuka Kamei arranged several plans about a moratorium onsmall business loan repayments which would cause negative effects on banks‟ profit and risk

management. Not only the action would hurt the financial industry recover from the financial

tsunami, but he also halted the initial public offering of Japan‟s postal system. The delay of

IPO makes investors disappointed.

Another responsibility for the government is the waste of public-works projects. To build

unnecessary public structures such as dams and bridges, Japan has suffered from the

biggest public debt in the developed world which almost the twice in size of its economy.



16

2-7. How is the development of small new companies important to the

economic prosperity of nations?

A small new company has many different points against a big company, some of the

advantages are:

Efficient: With simpler system and fewer levels inside the company. A Small company

usually acts faster than a big company.

Liability: A new company usually has limited past liabilities. For a big company, it has to

consider the past promise to customers and other product lines. A new company owns more

freedom to do whatever it wants. Sometimes a big company has to halt the research of new

ideas because it would harm other products.

Flexible: A small new company usually more open mind to accept new ideas and adopt

innovations. Flexibility benefits to those rapid changing environment.

The effect to the nation: During a crisis, government sometimes has to save the big

company because it is too big to fall. The big company is involved with social relationship so

deep, that the government has to spend unnecessary resource to save it. The small new

company usually adopt new environment more efficient, and it offers the ideas to be true

which may be impossible in the big company. From the investor‟s view, the potential return

of small new company is more attractive.



References

1. Tidd, Bessant, 2009, Managing Innovation, 4th ed. Wiley, p.15

2. Kwon, 2007 [Online], Available http://kennykwon.org/30017446896 accessed 31 Oct,

2009

3. Tidd, Bessant, 2009, Managing Innovation, 4th ed. Wiley, p.32-36

4. Technological Innovation, 2006 [Online], Available

http://blog.naver.com/jisan1974?Redirect=Log&logNo=20022381059 accessed 2 Nov

2009

5. Tidd, Bessant, 2007, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, John Wiley, Chichester.

6. Christensen, C. M. 2003, The Innovator's Dilemma, Harper Paperbacks.

7. Arthur, W. Brian. 1990, Positive Feedbacks in the Economy. In Scientific American, vol.262, p. 92-99.

8. Schumpeter, J. A. 1976, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

9. Bower, Joseph & Christensen, 1995, Disruptive Technologies: Catching the

Wave, Harvard Business Review , January-February 1995

10. Disruptive technology, 2009 [Online] Available

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology#cite_note-Christensen2003-0 accessed

1 Nov 2009

11. Disruptive Technology, 2009 [Online] Available

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation accessed 1 Nov 2009

12. Inventionand and innovation – introduction, The Open University [Online] Available

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=254219 accessed 1 Nov 2009

13. William Pesek, `Japan's 20-year-long lost decade`

available http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/world-business/japans-20yearlong-

lost-decade-20091021-h7un.html , Brisbane Times , Last accessed 1 Nov 2009.

14. Clayton Christensen, Thomas Craig, Stuart Hart, „The Great Disruption‟ , Foreign Affairs ,

2001 Vol. 80, Issue 2.

http://kennykwon.org/30017446896



http://blog.naver.com/jisan1974?Redirect=Log&logNo=20022381059


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology#cite_note-Christensen2003-0


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation


http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=254219


http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/world-business/japans-20yearlong-lost-decade-20091021-h7un.html











Week5 Q&A Group2 03nov09

Documents

Transcript of Week5 Q&A Group2 03nov09