Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 6 – uploaded by Numair Nisar

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 3. Assessment form of the framework by Hang and Yu (Source: Hang and Yu, 2011)

Figure 3 Assessment form of the framework by Hang and Yu (Source: Hang and Yu, 2011)

Related Figures (8)

Figure 1. Timeline of evolution of Disruptive Innovation Theory (Source: Yu and Hang, 2010:436) Li, 2013). These sorts of market environments enable disruptive innovation resultsthat derive from the fact hat alterations in product design and business models o dramatically reduce costs and improve value for money are incremental to unlocking mass-market segments of low income customers. In addition, having a large number of customers who shop for the first time and don’t have particular pre-existing preferences and expectations, fewer legacy assets also suggests it is more likely to launch, test and improve disruptive innovations(Williamson et.al., 2013). There are examples to confirm the latter in developing countries like India and Brazil. However of the most characteristic examples of emerging markets where disruptive innovations flourish is China. Over the years as disruptive innovation gained interest for competitive strategy practices, it became meaningful in terms of research to examine how disruptive innovation occurs. In this sense, several researchers have looked into the concept to explore under which circumstances disruptive innovation happens for a company or organization. Although the latter has been substantially investigated, there is still a scarcity of research on the nature of innovation processes and assessment of the characteristics and success factors that can lead to disruptive innovation(Yu and Hang, 2010). Therefore we are left we insufficient understanding of the nature of R&D and opportunity for discovery and creation processes that would enable potential disruptive innovation.
Figure 1. Timeline of evolution of Disruptive Innovation Theory (Source: Yu and Hang, 2010:436) Li, 2013). These sorts of market environments enable disruptive innovation resultsthat derive from the fact hat alterations in product design and business models o dramatically reduce costs and improve value for money are incremental to unlocking mass-market segments of low income customers. In addition, having a large number of customers who shop for the first time and don’t have particular pre-existing preferences and expectations, fewer legacy assets also suggests it is more likely to launch, test and improve disruptive innovations(Williamson et.al., 2013). There are examples to confirm the latter in developing countries like India and Brazil. However of the most characteristic examples of emerging markets where disruptive innovations flourish is China. Over the years as disruptive innovation gained interest for competitive strategy practices, it became meaningful in terms of research to examine how disruptive innovation occurs. In this sense, several researchers have looked into the concept to explore under which circumstances disruptive innovation happens for a company or organization. Although the latter has been substantially investigated, there is still a scarcity of research on the nature of innovation processes and assessment of the characteristics and success factors that can lead to disruptive innovation(Yu and Hang, 2010). Therefore we are left we insufficient understanding of the nature of R&D and opportunity for discovery and creation processes that would enable potential disruptive innovation.
appear as unattractive to firms moving upward (Christensen, 2015).In its definition of disruptive innovation, the Oslo Manual refers to the work of Christensen and warns that “it might not be apparent whether an innovation is disruptive until long after it has been introduced”, a major challenge for analyzing disruptive innovation (OECD, 2005). What fable 1. Framework for classifying innovations (based on OECD Oslo Manual, 2005) is also important is that disruptive innovation applies to various types of innovation depending on (i) the type of innovation and (11) the degree of novelty as noted in Table 1 (OECD, 2005). The boundaries between the different categories are blurred and an innovation can lead towards one or the other end.
appear as unattractive to firms moving upward (Christensen, 2015).In its definition of disruptive innovation, the Oslo Manual refers to the work of Christensen and warns that “it might not be apparent whether an innovation is disruptive until long after it has been introduced”, a major challenge for analyzing disruptive innovation (OECD, 2005). What fable 1. Framework for classifying innovations (based on OECD Oslo Manual, 2005) is also important is that disruptive innovation applies to various types of innovation depending on (i) the type of innovation and (11) the degree of novelty as noted in Table 1 (OECD, 2005). The boundaries between the different categories are blurred and an innovation can lead towards one or the other end.
Figure 2. Types of Disruptive Innovations: Low-End and New Market disruptions (Source: Sauramo, 2014)
Figure 2. Types of Disruptive Innovations: Low-End and New Market disruptions (Source: Sauramo, 2014)
Figure 2. The process of New Market disruption (Source: Gilbert, 2003) that by the time traditional market leaders realize their customers turning to new products, market disruption has already occur (Insight Centre, 2015). Once this phenomenon happens, the features that characterize the new product and new entrants have already permanently reshaped the traditional market place (Insight Centre, 2015). According to Gilbert (2003), the explanation behind the slow rhythm for managers in established companies to recognize disruptions as opportunities related to how new markets are found outside their existing resource base. Stevenson cohorts with the latter in his definition of entrepreneurship as “the pursuit of opportunity without regard for the tangible resources currently controlled” (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). In this respect, Gilbert (2003) and Gilbert and Bower (2002) sustain that incumbent firms fail to acknowledge the potential benefit from using the new market and mistakenly assume that the disruption will harm and displace their established business. Disruptive businesses originally act in a space outside existing markets and this creates a dynamic area of new net growth (Gilbert, 2003). Gradually, with improved quality and decreased cost, the new product is more appealing to users of the old product, and the two ends of the market, the disruptive business and established business meet and merge (Halvorsen, 2014) as Figure 3. It is noteworthy
Figure 2. The process of New Market disruption (Source: Gilbert, 2003) that by the time traditional market leaders realize their customers turning to new products, market disruption has already occur (Insight Centre, 2015). Once this phenomenon happens, the features that characterize the new product and new entrants have already permanently reshaped the traditional market place (Insight Centre, 2015). According to Gilbert (2003), the explanation behind the slow rhythm for managers in established companies to recognize disruptions as opportunities related to how new markets are found outside their existing resource base. Stevenson cohorts with the latter in his definition of entrepreneurship as “the pursuit of opportunity without regard for the tangible resources currently controlled” (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). In this respect, Gilbert (2003) and Gilbert and Bower (2002) sustain that incumbent firms fail to acknowledge the potential benefit from using the new market and mistakenly assume that the disruption will harm and displace their established business. Disruptive businesses originally act in a space outside existing markets and this creates a dynamic area of new net growth (Gilbert, 2003). Gradually, with improved quality and decreased cost, the new product is more appealing to users of the old product, and the two ends of the market, the disruptive business and established business meet and merge (Halvorsen, 2014) as Figure 3. It is noteworthy
Figure 4. Case study One: the assessment (success)
Figure 4. Case study One: the assessment (success)
Figure 5. Case study Two: the assessment (success) 5.3 Case study Three engineers and craftsmen. The engineers and craftsmen. The previous approach succeeds to produce new designs in a significant little time at a low cost and approximately 10 times less that what their highest competitors would take for completing in several years (Wan et al., 2015).
Figure 5. Case study Two: the assessment (success) 5.3 Case study Three engineers and craftsmen. The engineers and craftsmen. The previous approach succeeds to produce new designs in a significant little time at a low cost and approximately 10 times less that what their highest competitors would take for completing in several years (Wan et al., 2015).
The Pearl River Piano Group, is the world’s largest maker of pianos with a 25% share in the global market. The firm owns the Ritmiillerbrand and supplies Steinway & Sons, founded in 1956 in Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.Unlike its Western competitors who use groups of two or three professionals for the four key components needed to create a new piano, (the resonance system, the keyboard, the pedal system, and the case), Pearl River employs a simultaneous engineering approach whereby uses large teams of approximately 20 people including designers, sales, testers, computer Figure 6 maps the above analysis from data derived into the assessment form. Similar to the cases of Huawei and Lenovo, the assessment form suggests that only affirmative answers exist in relation to the company which justify for its disrupting of other firms and overall success. There was no evidence of other significant factors that would affect the innovation.
The Pearl River Piano Group, is the world’s largest maker of pianos with a 25% share in the global market. The firm owns the Ritmiillerbrand and supplies Steinway & Sons, founded in 1956 in Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.Unlike its Western competitors who use groups of two or three professionals for the four key components needed to create a new piano, (the resonance system, the keyboard, the pedal system, and the case), Pearl River employs a simultaneous engineering approach whereby uses large teams of approximately 20 people including designers, sales, testers, computer Figure 6 maps the above analysis from data derived into the assessment form. Similar to the cases of Huawei and Lenovo, the assessment form suggests that only affirmative answers exist in relation to the company which justify for its disrupting of other firms and overall success. There was no evidence of other significant factors that would affect the innovation.
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved