Clayton Christensen recognized that he hit a home run with The Innovator’s Dilemma. A smart man, he swings at a similar pitch the next time around. With Michael Raynor (previously a student of Christensen’s) as a co-author, Christensen wrote The Innovator’s Solution. Where Dilemma was more description, Solution adds prescription. In other words, what the hell do you do to avoid the “dilemma” since — as both books underline — smart managers and good companies are predisposed to facing this challenge of innovation.
There are various answers and theories, all of which are aimed at the manager trying to “create and sustain” growth. The authors don’t pretend it all boils down to the 13 main points they call out at the end of the book, but it’s certainly useful to have a vocabulary for shared discussion. Two ideas from the baker’s dozen continue to resonate with me:
- Be patient for growth, impatient for profit.
- Grow while things are going good… otherwise it’s too late.
I’ve been part of a growth-focused company that cared not a whit (at first) for profit (read: Snap.com/NBCI). I also believe that things are looking up at work, which is exactly why it’s time to find areas which will move from fringe to commonplace over the next 2-3 years. In the phrase that Solution repeats several times, with appropriate allusion to Wayne Gretzky’s immeasurable talents, “Skate to where the money will be, not where it is.” (Thereabouts, if not exact words.)
I finished the book a few weeks ago. While I was reading it, I noted that Jay Small thinks print newspaper design is ripe for disruption. He posits that perhaps website design can be the disruptor, although there are various points of view out there now about how stale news website design already feels. I’ve heard people at work lament the loss of some of the flexibility and convention of print layouts! That grass really is greener!
I strongly encourage people to read this book. I’m not a business-book junkie, so maybe I lack the experience to fully place it within the ‘pantheon’ of its type, but I appreciated that it was (a) clearly written (b) well-researched (c) avoided over-simplifying and (d) aims for greatness without claiming greatness. At a few points throughout, the authors note that few companies ever disruptively innovate more than once. Even once is impressive, so twice is something to shoot for, indeed.