Thanks to Mads for the encyclopedia. I have read the chapter from Christensen and the commentaries and have a comment on Hekkert’s.
http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/disruptive_innovation.html
When locating design(er) in Christensen’s two types of disruptive innovation, namely low-end and new-market, Hekkert says that
“It is the new-market disruptions that appeal to most designers – at least those strive to be innovative… designers should not follow a demand from the market. Rather they should push new markets by offering new meanings, new values in ways that people never imagined would be possible…to drive new- market innovations that may turn out to be disruptive”.
I was a bit taken aback by such a view. First, is it really true that the most ‘innovative designers’ find new-market disruptive innovation more appealing than low-end ones? Even if it is true, is it a good thing? The rhetoric of design(er)’s ability to create new ‘things’ that people never imagined or dreamed of has been around for a while. The first time I heard it came from Mies van der Rohe. This is certainly an aspiration that should not be denied or undermined. But what troubles me is that this aspiration and the drive toward new-market disruptions are seen as more valuable and appealing.
After reading ‘Disruptive Innovation for Social Change’ by Christensen et al (Harvard Business Review Dec 2006), I find Hekkert’s view even more problematic as it promotes a view that seems to favor new-market disruption over ‘catalytic innovation’.
I would be interested in hearing from others on the issue.
Best, Rosan
|