Perpetual Betterising: A Grounded Upgrading of Disruptive Innovation Theory Resolving Co-dependent Socio-economic Main Concerns
Main Article Content
Abstract
Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation has a partial ancestry in classic grounded theory (CGT), anchored in the original methodological ideas of inductive theory-building, categorisation, formal theory, and modifiability. The locus of disruptive innovation theory resides at the nexus of sociology and economics. The inescapable sociological pedigree of this theory naturally lends itself to CGT analysis. Christensen’s theory cores out with a variable of perpetual betterising recurrently resolving co-dependent main concerns held by a firm’s dominant coalition and the recipients of organisation-created value. Christensen’s theory is upgraded by employing reconstructive processes to rid it of margins of error (conceptual-descriptive syncretism) and margins of terror (unintended imposition and pre-conceiving). Perpetual betterising is a multivariatised conceptual model. The categories comprising perpetual betterising lend themselves to threading together by a biological species evolution-invasion theoretical code. Through the lenses of perpetual betterising, this paper explores long-standing and current debates around disruptive innovation.
Downloads
Article Details
The Grounded Theory Review is an open-access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the international Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
References
Bennet, D. (2014, June 20). Clayton Christensen responds to New Yorker takedown of 'Disruptive Innovation'. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-06-20/clayton-christensen-responds-to-new-yorker-takedown-of-disruptive-innovation
Bettis, R.A., & Prahalad, C.K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 5-14. doi:10.1002/smj.4250160104
Blettner, D.P. (2008). The evolution of dominant logic in relation to strategic inertia in software ventures (Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Gallen). Retrieved from http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIdentifier/3374/$FILE/dis3374.pdf
Carlile, P.R., & Christensen, C.M. (2005). The cycles of theory building in management research. Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/publication%20files/05- 057.pdf
Charitou, C.D., & Markides, C. (2004, January 15). Responses to strategic innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/responses-to-disruptive-strategic-innovation/
Chesbrough, H. (1999a). Arrested development: The experience of European hard-disk- drive firms in comparison with U.S. and Japanese firms. Journalof Evolutionary Economics, 9(3), 287–329.
Chesbrough, H. (1999b). The organizational impact of technological change: A comparative theory of national institutional factors. Industrial and Corporate Change, 8(3), 447–85.
Chiutsi, N (2014, September 7). 76 percent of population has no access to banks. The Sunday News. Retrieved from http://www.sundaynews.co.zw/76-percent-of- population-has-no-access-to-banks-rbz-2/
Christensen Institute. (2015). Key concepts: Disruptive innovation. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/key-concepts/disruptive-innovation-2/#sthash.KjF83KDQ.dpuf
Christensen, C.M. (1993). The rigid disk drive industry, a history of commercial and technological turbulence. Business History Review, 67, 531-588.
Christensen, C.M., & Bower, J. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197-218.
Christensen, C.M., & Sundahl, D.M. (2001). The process of building theory. Retrieved from http://www.fce.austral.edu.ar/aplic/webSIA/webSIA2004.nsf/6905fd7e3ce10eca03256e0b0056c5b9/bf96a717669e617e0325791e00723573/$FILE The%20Process%20of%20Theory%20Building.pdf
Christensen, C.M. (2006). The on-going process of building a theory of disruption. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 39–55.
Christensen, C.M., & Carlile, P.R. (2009). Course research, using the case method to build and teach management theory. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(2), 240-251.
Christensen, C.M. & Raynor, M.E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston, MA: Harvard School Business Press.
Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E. & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive innovation
Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 246–258.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11, 47- 162.
Gambanga, N (2015, April 15). Zim telecoms stats from POTRAZ show decline in mobile revenue, internet penetration. Techzim. Retrieved from http://www.techzim.co.zw/2015/04/zim-telecoms-stats-from-potraz-show-decline-in-mobile-revenue-internet-penetration/
Gilbert, C.G. (2002). Can competing frames co-exist? The Paradox of threatened response.Retrieved from http: http://www.hbs.edu/research/facpubs/workingpapers/papers2/0102/02-056.pdf
Gilbert, C.G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741-763.
Gilbert, C.G. (2006). Change in the presence of residual fit, can competing frames coexist? Organization Science, 17(1), 150-167.
Gilbert, C.G. (2014, June 30). What Jill Lepore gets wrong about Clayton Christensen and disruptive innovation. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2014/06/30/what-jill-lepore- gets-wrong-about-clayton-christensen-and-disruptive-innovation/
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London, UK: Aldine Transaction.
Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G. (2003). The grounded theory perspective II: Description’s remodeling of grounded theory methodologies, Mill Valley, CA: Sociological Press.
Glaser, B.G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociological Press.
Glaser, B.G. (2006). Generalizing: The descriptive struggle. Grounded Theory Review, 6(1),1-27. Retrieved from http://groundedtheoryreview.com
Glaser, B.G. (2007). All is data. Grounded Theory Review, 6 (2), 1-22. Retrieved from http://groundedtheoryreview.com
Glaser, B.G. (2013). No preconception: The grounded theory dictum. Mill Valley, CA: Sociological Press.
Henderson, R.M., & Clark, K.B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing systems and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science+Quarterly, 35, 9-30.
Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Value innovation: The strategic logic of high growth. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 103-112.
Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: How to create uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lepore, J. (2014, June 3). The disruption machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong. New Yorker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine
Markides, C. (1997, April 15). Strategic innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/strategic-innovation/
Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of a better theory. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 19-25.
Porter, M.E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74, 61–78.
Prahalad, C.K. (2004). The blinders of dominant logic. Long Range Planning, 37, 171-179.
Prahalad, C.K., & Bettis, R. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485-501.
Tushman, M.L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organisational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439-465.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization Articles, 7(2), 225-246. Retrieved from http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/09-10-27-CoPs-and-systems-v2.01.pdf
Wenger, E. (2009). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept, Retrieved from http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/09-10-27-CoPs-and-systems-v2.01.pdf
Wessell, M., & Christensen, C.M. (2012). Surviving disruption. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/12/surviving-disruption
Zeigler, C.A. (1985). Innovation and the imitative entrepreneur. Journal of Economic Behavioral Organisation, 6, 103-121.