Hi Nick,

I think this fellow would agree with you: Technology: Enabler versus
Disruptor
<https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/technology-enabler-versus-disruptor-brad-couper>.


It is not the business model that is necessarily disrupted, but the way
that the model is executed through the use of emerging or existing
technological innovations: a better "mousetrap" so to speak  What gets
disrupted is the market share profile; what occurs then is sometimes call a
"shakeout."  The computer shakeouts of the '80s come to mind for me,
especially with the advent of the personal computer ... and now the
shrinking and even wearable mobile computing platforms.

But, you are rights in saying that the new competing execution strategies
for identical business models are *enabled *by newer, more clever
technology integrations that can *disrupt *existing market shares in those
markets.

So it is not enablers *versus *disrupters; it is more that enablers [i.e.,
the better mousetrap] enable disruption, which is what I think you are
saying.

Well, that's my $0.02 anyway. 🤐

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
>
> Dear Friammers,
>
>
>
> A close friend of mine has gone to work in marketing for a Startup
> Incubator in Another City.  I have been perusing the website and I notice
> frequent use of the word “disruptors”, as if disruption was a goal in
> itself.  This puzzles me.  I have always thought of technology as
> “enabling’ and have thought of its disruptive effects as a kind of
> collateral damage that needs to be mitigated.  Now I recognize that one of
> the properties of a really good technology company is the ability to
> respond quickly to disruption, and to provide solutions and open up
> opportunities for those whose lives are disrupted.  And I realize that if I
> owned a technology company, I might want to produce disruption in order
> that I might supply “enablors” to the disrupted.  But isn’t it a case of
> industrial narcissism to MARKET oneself as a disruptor, a kind of
> “preaching to the choir”, rather than outreach to potential purchasers of
> one’s technology?  Or is my thinking “oh so 20th Century.”
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Reply via email to