Home Fire Alarm Systems

As some of you know, I am a big believer in the concepts behind Clayton Christensen the innovator's dilemma , explaining how innovation disruptive almost always taken by surprise holders. A few years ago, I even made a two-minute video where I tried to explain briefly the innovator's dilemma (explanation later approved by Christensen himself). The basic idea, if you are not familiar with it, is that disruptive innovations coming to market, giving the impression of being "worse" than the old product, and therefore holders tend to ignore. I brush too horrible thin or too small or too weak or whatever, and focus on the "high end". That often do not take into account the trend lines are basic. The breakthrough innovation tends to improve their product at a much faster rate, and at some point, reach the level of quality, even if it is worse (or perhaps worse) offers traditional operators is in fact

> your needs. When you look at innovative markets through this prism, you can see what happens again and again.

So I read with great interest, a new piece by Larry Downes (a friend, and someone who has written here from time to time) and Paul Nunes Harvard Business Review on Big Bang disturbance, claiming that the innovative model of old dilemma may be outdated. This is due to a variety of factors, centered around the fact that the interruption comes fast than ever nowadays, often out of left field - someone that people do not even think he was a "competitor." It is a very good read that basically says that a combination of factors, including the ability to create new products and services in no time and require almost no resources has led to a world where many people innovative experiment quickly after the experiment, and some of those who catch the virus and go in a moment - often interrupting the current players who have never had the chance to see the breakup coming.

is a big piece that I recommend for people who are interested in the nature of disruptive innovation - but I'm going to push a point. I really do not see how this conflicts with or is different from the innovator's dilemma. It shows the same basic pass more quickly. The main argument Downes and Nunes used to argue that this is not so different emphasis on the innovator's dilemma, but focuses on how traditional operators must respond to disruptive innovations. In the past, it has been argued that if you understand the dilemma correctly, can detect early breakthrough innovations, then go to buy or quickly build a viable competitor. In practice, however, rarely

see that happen. The number of players inherited able to meet the breakthrough innovations remains a surprisingly small list. And I would say that part of this is because disruptive innovation always seems

of nowhere and always

seems

for much more quickly than the owners expected.

This does not mean that the main point of the article, however, shows how these things happen faster and faster, and a lot of it is because the ability to throw something out there
for fun

, instead of investing millions of dollars from the beginning with the idea that may never even work.

now in Silicon Valley companies, large and small, engineers and product designers met late into the night in what is popularly known as, ??hackathons ., In Their goal is to see what kind of new products can be improvised in a few days. You know, for fun. Innovators are not even trying to disrupt your business. You Aore just collateral damage.

Twitter, for example, began its commercial life humbly in 2007 by the Southwest Conference after its invention at a hackathon last year. The developers wanted to test sending text messages to multiple users simultaneously standard, an experience that requires almost no new technologies. Currently, the company has more than 200 million active users and half a billion tweets per day. Twitter has destabilized the entire ecosystem of news and information unpopular national governments.



Although I think the article is somewhat reduced, a large part of why these interruptions big bang can not succeed in this way has a lot to do with the that ideas can not only reach the market incredibly fast, but can also not fast
Find best price for : --Valley----Silicon--