tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post8932639193546226563..comments2023-11-13T04:55:40.769-05:00Comments on Tuttle SVC: Disruptive Innovation != The Inevitable March of ProgressTom Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08577165613934129833noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-15576336051351966382009-07-07T14:51:23.742-04:002009-07-07T14:51:23.742-04:00Hi Tom,
As usual, thanks for your thoughtful crit...Hi Tom,<br /><br />As usual, thanks for your thoughtful criticism and reflection. I am in Pennsylvania visiting family and thus don't have a copy of the book with me. However, I'll do my best to respond here from what I remember...<br /><br />As I think Michael Horn would concur, I'd guess that about 95% of my presentation was taken straight from his and Christensen's book (and from The Innovator's Dilemma). The folks that I know that both read the book and saw my presentation said that I did a good job of summarizing and staying true to the book. So I'm not sure I strayed too far from what Christensen and Horn said themselves...<br /><br /> I would encourage you to read Disrupting Class. It's an excellent thought piece and I think that whatever concerns you have about my presentation would be better grounded after you've actually read the book. Just to pick one instance, for example, neither Christensen nor I said that 'online learning' is the disruptive innovation. 'Personalized learning' is...<br /><br />It may be that some of the examples I chose to illustrate the concept of 'disruptive innovation' are somewhat off the mark. I'm admittedly not as fluent in the concept as Christensen is, of course. But I think I tried to stay true to the idea of 'game-changing' innovations. Although my memory may be off the mark, I believe Christensen used the tape-to-CD, mainframe-to-laptop-computer, and landline-to-cell-phone examples in the book.<br /><br />So read the book if you get a chance. And then let us know if you still feel the same way about my presentation afterward. <br /><br />Thanks! Hope you're having a great summer!Scott McLeodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08368435018346090846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-72355680882485385162009-07-05T11:24:05.350-04:002009-07-05T11:24:05.350-04:00Bill,
I just think that Christensen is right abou...Bill,<br /><br />I just think that Christensen is right about innovation in general, probably right about what's coming in post-secondary education, and stretches it a step too far in speculating about K-12. <br /><br />And Scott stretches it to fit his standard rap about school change.<br /><br />Even then, it isn't like I think there's no future for online learning. I just don't think it is particularly "disruptive" in K-12.Tom Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08577165613934129833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-76088114524962926242009-07-05T08:49:09.850-04:002009-07-05T08:49:09.850-04:00I listened to Scott's presentation again. Wrt ...I listened to Scott's presentation again. Wrt your second point I don't think he equates disruption of the old market with destruction of incumbents, eg. in one spot he talks about IBM going against the trend <br /><br />I think what both he and CC are saying is that disruption innovation is a natural law and that it is difficult (but not impossible) for incumbents to adapt<br /><br />Wrt your third point Clayton Christensen presents current education as a monolithic factory model in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaXmAmj1nb8" rel="nofollow">this 5 minute promotional video </a><br /><br />aside: Christensen also relies very heavily on multiple intelligences rhetoric (as a straw man to promote his individualised learning) which I regard as discredited<br /><br />I thought I noticed some earlier blogs which were critical of CC, so I'm confused about you highlighting the differences of two men in a leaky boat.Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-81694835993156222642009-07-03T23:08:33.145-04:002009-07-03T23:08:33.145-04:00Bill,
My point is that Christensen and Horn have ...Bill,<br /><br />My point is that Christensen and Horn have a very specific and narrow (and valuable) definition of "disruptive innovation" and that Scott is stretching it to the point where it isn't very useful.Tom Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08577165613934129833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-22126976175281568912009-07-03T20:56:48.119-04:002009-07-03T20:56:48.119-04:00First, we have to argue about "what is progre...First, we have to argue about "what is progress?" The opposable thumb was a neat disruption.<br /><br />The alan kay quote which follows this post implies that profound ideas about fundamentals have the potential to disrupt - that fundamentals are disruptive because they are often forgotten, so they are both sustaining and disruptive<br /><br />Marshall Berman points out that capitalism is nihilist - good things are destroyed as well and so it's hard to work out progress, eg. blogging and twitter enhances communication but destroys slow deep thinking, an important fundamental for progress <br /><br />Although many things are sustained I would argue that it is the coming into existence of new things and discernment the fundamentals (now and old) and fads that does represent progress. So I think your heading might be right for this particular case but wrong in general<br /><br />quibble: Linux disrupts MS but MS has a long way to fall<br /><br />Perhaps the problem with Christensen is that (cf Kay) he doesn't have a profound understanding of what and the how of learning - that this particular disruption (individualised technology mediated learning) is a good one but that he hasn't gone into it deeply enough? His theory sort of works for commerce where the goal is relatively simple (make a profit) but education is far more complex (businesses which fail disappear, children who fail don't)<br /><br />I wasn't sure whether you were criticising SM's inadequate representation of CC or whether there was an implied criticism of CC in there as well. Also important to note that there are other disruption theorists (eg. Schumpeter - "Creative destruction" and Marx - "Everything solid melts into air") and they might do it better<br /><br />I haven't read Christensen's books but have listened to some of his talks and reviews / commentary about his booksBill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-76062505759490429762009-07-03T10:19:24.857-04:002009-07-03T10:19:24.857-04:00Michael,
Thanks for your kind words. I haven'...Michael,<br /><br />Thanks for your kind words. I haven't read <i>Seeing What's Next?</i>, but like anyone who has spent time overseas, I'm pretty conscious of how un-innovative our wireless market is.<br /><br />Wes,<br /><br />I haven't actually read <i>Disrupting Class</i> either, but I have read <i>The Innovator's Solution</i>, but I assume Christensen & Horn discuss how for many students, college is a course and credential delivery system, with high overhead for things like dorms, gyms, dining halls, etc. The obvious opportunity for disruption is online delivery of courses and credentials with much lower overhead and no geographic constraint. Using an LMS at a regular college isn't disruptive. It's a value-add (when it is not an annoying distraction).<br /><br />As far as 1-to-1 and project based learning as being "disruptive," the only reason you'd want to make that argument is if you think it is a compliment to call something a "disruptive innovation." That "disruptive innovations are inherently better than "sustaining innovations." <br /><br />Technology enabled progressive education is a significant, expensive improvement of schooling. It doesn't fit the profile of a "disruptive innovation" but that's ok. <br /><br />You have to remember that "disruptive innovation" is usually about going cheaper, downmarket, looking for potential market segments that aren't being served at all. Despite what people outside the system might think (and of course there is <i>some</i> waste), there is <i>very</i> little space to undercut public education. It really is done on the cheap already.Tom Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08577165613934129833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-83483009306270483732009-07-03T08:49:28.268-04:002009-07-03T08:49:28.268-04:00Good thoughts and push back here, Tom.
Do you thi...Good thoughts and push back here, Tom.<br /><br />Do you think 1:1 computing can qualify as a disruptive innovation in schools, when student laptops are not totally locked down and a project-based approach is taken across the school?<br /><br />What do you see in the higher ed space that could be considered disruptive? I definitely see most university-level (and K-12 for that matter) uses of course management systems as sustaining rather than disruptive.Wesley Fryerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03502157354436518160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-27554391186721521932009-07-03T01:07:16.612-04:002009-07-03T01:07:16.612-04:00Good post. I enjoyed Scott's presentation in t...Good post. I enjoyed Scott's presentation in the way it boiled down some themes from Disrupting Class quickly, but I think you're right and raise some good and important criticisms of it. A fad does seem to be developing that conflates anything new or innovative as a disruptive innovation, which risks undermining the actual very specific meaning of the phenomenon. This is dangerous in a few respects.<br /><br />Also, have you read Seeing What's Next? It has a good analysis of why wireless was implemented in sustaining, not disruptive, fashion in the U.S. and hence we see the outcomes we have seen. I'm actually re-reading it right now.Michael B. Hornhttp://www.innosightinstitute.orgnoreply@blogger.com