... in the traditional (christensen) sense I mean. My example in the earlier post had been countered by thiyagi. So I'm investigating it further.
To use christensen's three tests for disruptiveness:
1. Does the innovation target customers who in the past haven’t been able to “do it themselves” for lack of money or skills?
- in a top-down disruption I guess it is not the lack of money or skills which matter, but the fact that the market is so niche/high-end that it is ignored by incumbents.
2. Is the innovation aimed at customers who will welcome a simpler product?
- in a top-down disruption, is it a simpler product we are looking at? It is a product targeted at specific needs. I'm not sure whether the "simple" description would apply here. IPod - simple ?
3. Will the innovation help customers do more easily and effectively what they are already trying to do?
- maybe the top-down disruption does follow this test.
So, I'm not sure that the top-down disruption that Nicholas Carr postulates follows the traditional disruption tests of Christensen. Christensen, for one, was only looking at one form of disruption - the bottom-up type; maybe the tests don't encompass a top-down one ??