Le timing du podcast est fantastique, les missiles fusent sur le thème de l'innovation ces temps-ci
A l'origine, un article au bazooka d'une historienne... d'Harvard paru mi Juin qui démonte le bon Clayton, pourtant son condisciple... http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/23/140623fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all
Disruptive innovation is a theory about why businesses fail. It’s not more than that. It doesn’t explain change. It’s not a law of nature. It’s an artifact of history, an idea, forged in time; it’s the manufacture of a moment of upsetting and edgy uncertainty. Transfixed by change, it’s blind to continuity. It makes a very poor prophet.
Christensen qui répond comme à son habitude en gentleman dans une interview pour Businessweek il y a trois jours
Une crème ce typehttp://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-20/clayton-christensen-responds-to-new-yorker-takedown-of-disruptive-innovation
If [Lepore] was actually interested in the theory and cared enough about it to walk 15 minutes to talk and let me know she’s doing this, I could have listed 10 or 15 problems with the theory of disruption that truly need to be addressed and understood. I could list all kinds of problems that we still need to resolve, because a theory is developed in a process, not an event. [Disruption] has never happened in the hotel industry, for example. And so if she’s interested and wants to help me—she’s just an extraordinary writer—and if she’s interested in the theory or its impact, I mean, come over! I would love to have you openly invite her to come do this, if she’s interested.
Et le FT qui met tout le monde d'accord ce matin http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/02675e74-fab1-11e3-8959-00144feab7de.html
Prof Christensen is no ideologue. He has developed his original idea, in a continuing and valuable attempt to understand how innovation works and how to realise its benefits. In the latest Harvard Business Review, he explains why strict adherence to financial measures of success drives investment away from the type of innovation that could increase jobs and growth.
The New Yorker article is a useful corrective for overzealous executives and consultants who took a 17-year-old idea and turned it into a religion. But complacent managers and smug strategists who think they can return to a golden age of known rivals and predictable markets should not take comfort from it.
lls devraient jouer un peu plus pour se détendre