Search results

Disruptive innovation theory has attracted the interest of researchers and practitioners across many areas, resulting in the development of new business models and strategies. Despite the increasing scholarly attention, its definition has not yet been understood, the understanding of the term “disruptive” and the complex nature of this innovation has provoked some misinterpretations, and the meaning remains ambiguous. To address this confusion, this article undertakes a critical review of disruptive innovation in an attempt at providing a solid theoretical grounding.

The review examines the key issues of published articles, identified after conducting a search in the Web of Science scholarly database. The analysis highlights the basic definitions of disruptive innovation, showing its evolution, types and its characteristics. This article also examines the behaviours adopted by the actors associated with disruptive innovation (i.e. incumbents, entrants and customers).

Overall, this article finds that disruptive innovation has its own elements to be identified, requiring an in-depth analysis to avoid confusing with other innovation approaches. The findings suggest that disruptive innovation affects businesses and sectors in varied and complex ways because customers from low-end market and mainstream market appreciate this innovation. Further, its impact on practice is huge and incites further efforts in establishing a stronger theoretical grounding.

Our research contributes on the evolution of this theory, helping to better understand the phenomenon of disruption and can be used for different types of research settings.

Disruptive technology and innovation represent complex conflicts in nature. This paper aims to present an analytical review of the heterogeneity and conflicts that exist in the disruptive technology/innovation between the eastern and western countries using Chinese high-speed railways to illustrate disruptive innovation.

The emerging economy brings about other theoretical and practical conflicts. Qualitative analysis is conducted on Chinese high-speed railways to assess the validity of innovation characteristics using Professor Clayton M. Christensen’s theories of disruptive technology/innovation and conflict. The authors explore the conflicts that can accompany the introduction of disruptive technologies in the current platform and how appropriately this specific context can lessen these conflicts.

The study revealed that Christensen’s theories could be applied 100per cent to the Chinese context if the western disruptive innovation theory can meet the practical requirements of Chinese disruptive technology/innovation. Qualitative analysis showed that Chinese high-speed railways had experienced greater success with disruptive innovation mechanism. The authors conclude that while the Chinese market is critical in shaping the kind of innovations that are emerging there, many disruptive technologies/innovations in China have their roots in the low-end market and new market. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

There exists a research gap in the literature on the Chinese context. Conflict of disruptive technology and innovation within China and the characteristics of the Chinese high-speed railway prompt further research for scholars and practitioners.

Digital disruption no longer ensures the security or longevity of established firm structures and business models. Instead, it necessitates that firms reinvent their business models, including business processes, people, and technologies that align with the organizational goals. Despite the exponential growth of digital disruption, prior literature indicates that the concept of business model innovation is poorly understood in developing economies. Furthermore, little is known about how low-tech firms in developing economies should adapt and reinvent their business models to cope with and shape digital disruption as it unfolds. Grounded in two overarching theoretical frameworks, namely the theory of disruptive innovation and the resources–processes–values (RPV) framework, this chapter addresses this void in prior literature. Based on multiple case study analyses of 10 low-tech firms in diverse industries in Sri Lanka, the findings indicate that successful disruptive business model innovation in low-tech firms in Sri Lanka is predicated on an effective technology management strategy, suitable organizational structure, compatible organizational culture, and devoted corporate governance. Moreover, external influences like changing market dynamics, competition, and shifts in consumer behavior also significantly influence disruptive business model innovation of selected firms. This chapter acts as a springboard for future researchers by extending the theory of disruptive innovation and RPV framework to low-tech industries in developing economies.

Disruptive innovations have the potential to fundamentally change how businesses operate. This study aims to propose a five-step framework to help firms develop disruptive innovations and to offer a scale for evaluating their disruptive potential. This scale can also be applied to identify the disruptive potential of innovations introduced to the market by competitors.

The framework was designed on the basis of criteria chosen to identify the disruptive potential of innovations at early stages of development based on a theoretical understanding of disruptive innovation, its challenges and holistic consideration of innovation as a dynamic process. It consists of steps that could serve as a reference model during the process of developing innovations with disruptive potential. A case study is discussed in detail to demonstrate the applicability of the framework.

A simple yet comprehensive assessment framework for disruptive innovation has been developed, which can help develop innovations with disruptive potential in existing settings of incumbent firm. A case study of the Wii demonstrates that Nintendo could have planned its disruptive product using the proposed framework.

Most research works in this area have focused on difficulties experienced by firms facing disruption and failed to highlight its opportunities; this study argues that firms can intentionally create disruptive innovations. The results of this study offer firms a tool that facilitates a proactive approach, helping develop new disruptive innovations and identify those from competitors.

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the Disruptive Innovation Theory and on the disruptive potential of real estate crowdfunding (RECF) in the real estate finance industry, assessing whether RECF constitutes a potentially disruptive innovation to the real estate finance industry. Based on a review and synthesis of the literature, the paper advances an initial conceptual framework of core characteristics of disruptive innovations. This framework is used to examine the disruptive potential of RECF in the real estate finance industry.

This paper is a systematic literature review that synthesizes and analyzes relevant extant research articles retrieved from online databases.

Findings suggest that according to the theory of disruptive innovations, and the core characteristics of disruptive innovations, RECF is a potentially disruptive innovation to the real estate finance industry. RECF seems to generally align with the classic characteristics of disruptive innovations. A more comprehensive and systematic analysis, supported by empirical data, is necessary to evaluate whether and to what extent RECF constitutes a disruptive innovation to the real estate finance industry.

This study has only captured and reviewed articles published and available in database searches. RECF is a nascent field that has recently begun receiving academic attention.

Real estate plays an integral part in the economy, and the way it is financed has become an increasingly important issue following the Global Financial Crisis. This paper provides useful insights for assessing whether and to what extent RECF may be disruptive to the real estate finance industry.

RECF may potentially improve accessibility and affordability of real estate finance, thereby helping to address the problem of shortage of real estate project finance.

While RECF is portrayed in the academic and gray literature as a disruptive innovation, its disruptive potential is yet to be determined. This paper advances an initial conceptual framework of defining characteristics of disruptive innovations. This framework is used to evaluate RECF as a potentially disruptive innovation in the real estate project finance industry. This study forms a basis for future empirical examination of the disruptive potential of RECF in the real estate finance industry.

Disruptive technologies in the global logistics industry are often regarded as a threat to the existing business models of incumbents’ companies. Existing research, however, focuses mainly on whether technologies have disruptive potential, thereby neglecting when such disruptive transitions occur. To understand the timing of potential disruptive technological change, this paper aims to investigate the elements of the underlying ecosystem shaping these transitions.

Building on the established ecosystem framework from Adner and Kapoor (2016a), this paper constructs four categories of technology substitution to assess how quickly disruptive change may occur in the global logistics industry and defines key technology substitution determinants in logistics to emphasize the role of ecosystems for further consideration into disruptive innovation theory.

Based on the key determinants, this paper proposes first definitions of distinctive ecosystems elements linked to the three types of innovations, namely, sustaining innovations, low-end disruptions and new-market disruptions, thereby integrating ecosystems into Christensen’s (1997) disruptive innovation theory.

By developing a framework that conceptualizes the pace of technology substitution, this paper contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how logistics managers and academics can better predict disruptive transitions and develop strategies to allocate resources.

This paper aims to present an assessment framework which captures the essential characteristics and holistic success factors for disruptive innovation based on the original theory of Christensen, a number of clarifications as reported in the literature and a study of known, successful cases in the literature.

The framework was designed based on the improved understanding of disruptive innovation challenges and on the holistic consideration of innovation as a dynamic process. It consists of structured questions which could be used to guide detailed data collection and analysis needed to answer the key questions which constitute the assessment framework. They are grouped under market positioning, technology and other favourable drivers.

A simple yet comprehensive assessment framework for disruptive innovation has been developed. Two of the known successful cases, namely the steel minimill of Nucor and the 3.5 inch disk drive of Conner/Seagate, were presented in more detail to illustrate the use of this systematic framework in assessing the success potential of these cases of disruptive innovations in either the low‐end or new markets. A third and fairly new example, that of the limited mobile phone system/product of UTStarcom, was then presented to illustrate a case where the framework revealed reasons for potential failure. A fourth example of Google's web‐based office applications then illustrated how the framework might be used to study the disruptive potential of a new product.

This paper enables a more accurate and systematic assessment of disruptive innovation. The framework also has the potential to be further developed into a systematic tool for answering the question of whether the disruptive innovation theory could indeed be used to provide ex ante prediction of the success of a new disruptive innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate visually the knowledge structure and evolution of disruptive innovation. The paper used CiteSpace III to analyze 1,570 disruptive innovation records from the Web of Science database between 1997 and 2016.

Initially, this paper offers a comprehensive overview of papers, countries, journals, scholars and application areas. Subsequently, a time zone view of high-frequency keywords is presented, emphasizing the course of evolution of the study hotspots. Finally, a visualization map of cited references and co-citation analysis are provided to detect the knowledge base at the forefront of disruptive innovation.

The findings are as follows: the number of papers shows exponential growth. The USA has the largest contribution and the strongest center. The Netherlands shows the largest burst, followed by Japan. Journal of Production Innovation Management and Research Policy is the most important journals. Hang CC has the largest number of articles. Walsh ST is identified as a high-yielding scholar. Christensen CM is the most authoritative scholar. Engineering electrical electronic is the most widely used research category, followed by management and business. The evolutionary course of the study hotspots is divided into five stages, namely, start, burst, aggregation, dispersion and not yet formed. Eight key streams in the literature are extracted to summarize the knowledge base at the forefront of disruptive innovation.

This paper explores the whole picture of disruptive innovation research and demonstrates a visual knowledge structure and the evolution of disruptive innovation. It provides an important reference for scholars to capture the current situation and influential trends in this field.

The article explores what forms of disruption are prioritized by top executives of large manufacturing companies in Finland and what strategies they consider appropriate for the management of disruptive threats and opportunities.

The empirical study was based on interviews with top executives in some of Finland's largest manufacturing companies.

Based on the data, we identify exploitative and explorative strategies in four dimensions that executives consider important in anticipating and responding to disruptions: internal development efforts, stance on new entrants, ecosystems and institutional change. Due to the presence of multiple potential disruptions, which often generate conflicting demands, executives have to consider them simultaneously and balance between them when making strategic decisions. They therefore do not necessarily have a specific response strategy, but their aim is to develop their companies' capabilities so that they are well-placed to face the future with confidence.

The findings indicate that the executives envision a disruption landscape that is more complex than typically described in the literature. In addition, it answers the call for a more systematic understanding of incumbents' response strategies by linking different disciplinary views with well-grounded empirical data.

This article aims to understand the dynamics between disruptive innovations and innovation ecosystems, using disruption business models as a catalyst.

This study presents an integrative literature review and a theoretical framework in order to integrate the theories of disruptions and ecosystems.

The dynamics of disruptive innovation, within an ecosystem, as an essential driver of creating new markets. The effect of creative destruction from a disruption influences business models in a coopetitive dynamic that drives the ecosystem as a whole.

Limited to theoretical research and suggested the application of the proposed model in an empirical study.

Understand the formation of new ecosystems based on the occurrence of a disruption as a way for organisations to prepare for the arrival of this new market.

The contribution of this study is based on joining the literature of disruptive innovation and innovation ecosystem, pointing to a theoretical framework and a flow of Evolution and Adaptation to the Disruptive Ecosystem that integrates this complex dynamic.