Disruptive Innovative Network for Market and Value -myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theDisruptive Innovative Network for Market and Value. Answer: Introduction A disruptive based technology is a concept of innovation that assist by creating a new market and value based network and finally went on to disrupt of a present market and value related network. The work is utilised in technology and business literature associated to defines to innovation that improve the quality of product or services in methods that the market does not based on expectation. However, the word disruptive technology is used widely with disruptive innovation which seems a right term in many ways since few technologies are disruptive internally rather it is associated based on business model that the present technology (Christensen et al., 2015). In an organization there are many important question which must be answered by every company like how can one beat at the competition in the market or how to know in advance about the battles in the market with changing trends and customer needs. The concept of disruption has proven to be very consistent and effective kind of strategy for causing intense competition to flee from number of entrant attackers rather fighting back. Another important question here is how business ideas in disruptive strategy can be shaped in right manner. Objective and scope The objective of the report is to understand the concept of disruptive innovation and its contribution in business in current time. There are number if leaders of small or big companies that are praising it as their guiding stars and for many executives at large with strong establishment companies like Intel, Salesforce.com and many more. Ironically, the disruption theory is under a lot of danger of becoming a part of victim of its own success. The concept of broad dissemination, the theorys core topics have not understood properly and it comes under the basic tenets in frequent manner and it can be misapplied (Christensen et al., 2016). In addition, it is also important for the refinements in the theory over past twenty years that appear to have completely overshadowed by overall popularity of the first form of formulation. As an outcome, the theory is also sometimes highly criticized for the disadvantages that have already been addresses properly. Literature review The dilemma of innovator can be identified in various stages or the help of three essential elements based on disruption as depicted below in the figure. Initially, each market there is level of improvement that consumer can use as well as absorb which are represented by the dotted sloping line which goes upward in the chart. For instance, the automobile based organization keep providing a new and improved engine however one cant just use all the performance that they make it available which comes under the hood (Christensen et al., 2016). There are number of factors like traffic jams, safety concerns, speed limits and safety issues constrain on how much performance can be used rightly. The chart depicts the customers ability to use the improvement as a single line. In real life, there is wide distribution of consumers that are around the media and there are so many lines in the market which indicated by the curve of distribution at the right. Consumers are also highest or highly demanding tiers that can never be completely ok with the best that is present and it also covers the least demanding tiers that can be over satisfied with little quantity. On an average, the dotted line in the graph shows the technology that is sufficiently good to serve the present mainstream set of customers and their needs (Guttentag, 2015). Secondly, in each market there is distinct and separate set of trajectories for improving the innovative companies that provides as they introduce a new and improved set of products. Thus, an organization whose product are positioned in square manner on so many mainstream consumers with the current needs that might overshoot what those consumers are able to use in future. This further happens since the organization keep looking to make better products that can sold for high profit margins for not so satisfied consumers in highly demanded tiers of the market. To properly visualize the whole process, it is important to think back in time of 1983 when so many people started using the PCs specifically for work processing. There are number of typists often had to stop the work to let the Intel chip inside to catch up with speed of typing. The third most critical component of the model is based on distinction that exist between sustaining and disruptive based innovation. There are sustaining based innovation that specifically target the current demand with high end consumers with better performance that what was available previously (Pinkse et al., 2014). There is sustainable based innovation that are incremental by nature for yearly improvement that all good organizations can grind. There is other sustainable innovation that breakthrough products. It never mattered on how technology is challenging for the innovation but the setting of competitors always wins the war of sustaining the technology. Since the strategy also entails the making of a better product that one can sell for high profit margins to the best consumer and the establishment where competitors have the strong innovation to fight sustaining battles. And it is important to have the right resources to win in future (Horn and Staker, 2014). The concept of d isruptive innovation on the other hand never really tries to bring better products to loyal consumer in the current market. Instead, there is a disruption which completely redefines the overall trajectory by discussing products and services that are not as good as current present products. However, disruptive technologies also provide advantages based and simple with high convenience and less expensive products that can attract the new or at times less demanding consumers. It is also important to understand that when the disruptive product properly gain a foothold in new or low-end markets along with improvement cycle starts. And since the pace of technologies further progresses with outstrips the customers capacity to use it and the previous average technology eventually improving enough to intersect the needs of more demanding consumers (Horn and Staker, 2014). The concept of disruption also has a paralysed impact on the leaders of industry and with right resource allocation with processes designed as well as perfected to support sustaining innovation and are constitutionally unable to answer. They are always highly motivated to go upward in the market with less motivated people to defend new market that the disruptors find good looking deals. This phase or phenomenon is called as asymmetric motivation. It is associated with core of the dilemma of innovators and the beginning of solution of innovators (King and Baatartogtokh, 2015). Disruption at work The overall disruption is also integrated with steel mills defined by Minimills which is further reviewed in a brief manner in the book of The Innovators Dilemma. In historic language, most the worlds steel has come from huge integrated mills that do every possible thing from reacting to iron ore to limestone and many more. The overall cost was about eight billion dollars to build a new integrated kind of mill in present manner. The concept of Minimills on the other hand, melt scrap the steel in electric kind of arc with furnaces that are approximately twenty meters in diameter as well as ten meters tall (Baiyere et al., 2015). Since one can produce the molten steel which is cost effect in a way small chambers and minimills doesnt require the huge scale rolling operation that are needed to handle the output of effective blast furnace and therefore it is called as minimills. It is important to understand here that steel is a commodity and one can think that every possible integrated steel organization in the world will adopt in aggressive manner for the straightforward with low cost minimill technology. One can easily discuss about something that makes so much sense that has been very challenging for many integrated mills. The concept first became technologically right in the mid-1960. Since, the companies melt the scrap of many varying chemistry in the electric arc based furnaces along with the quality of the steel that minimills can produce first was poor (Baiyere et al., 2015). Also, the only place that accepts the output of minimills was based on concrete and reinforcing bar market. The discussion for rebar are usually loose by nature and therefore this was an ideal place for products of low as well as variable or changing quality. Since the minimills were attacked with the rebar market along with integrated mills that were happy to get rid of the current style of commodity based business. Since the differences occurs at the cost structure and the options for the sake of investment that can face and the rebar market seem very distinct to disruptor. For the current integrated manufacturer, gross profit margins on rebar usually hovered with approx. seven percent and the complete product category accounted just for four percent of industry tonnage. It was less attractive of any kind of tier of the market in which one can invest to develop (Osiyevskyy and Dewald, 2015). Therefore, as the establishment of minimills as a foothold in the market along with integrated mills that were reconfigured the rebar lines to make highly profitable products. On the other hand, there was twenty percent of cost based advantage and the minimills have further enjoyed the attractive profits of competition which is completely against th e current integrated mills for rebar until 1979 specifically when minimills finally succeed in driving with last integrated mill out of the rebar set of market. As per the past record, pricing statistics shows that prices is based on rebar then collapsing by more than twenty percent. In minimill can also compete against the prohibitive cost and integrated mills. Conclusion The concept of disruptive innovation will keep expanding as well as refining the basic theory of disruptive innovation along with much work that lies in future. For instance, there are number of universally impactful answers to many disruptive threats that also remain completely elusive. The current set of belief in the system of companies should develop a separate set of division that functions under the protection of many senior leadership to rightly explore a new kind of disruptive model (Reinhardt, 2013). There is time, the method works and there is time when it doesnt. In specific cases, a failed response to disruptive threat cannot be part of lack of clarity with insufficient executive level attention and wrong financial investments. Such issues that come up with an incumbent and an entrant level have yet to be completely specified and how best to meet the issues is still needs to be discovered. The theory of disruption does not completely explain everything about the concept o f disruptive innovation. It is important to understand that there far too many cases that are in play and each element of will help in rewarding for further studies (Parry and Kawakami, 2017). However, there is a cause for hope along with empirical tests that shows that using the theory of disruption makes people measurably right and accurate as per the prediction of which fledgling the business. The community is growing and researchers continues to manufacture or develop disruptive theory and integrate it with other approaches and one will come to an even better clarity of people assisting companies by innovating in a successful manner. Reference Baiyere, A., Donnellan, B., Hevner, A., Smith, C. and Stikeleather, J., 2015. DISRUPTIVE INNOVATIONS and IT_x000D_ A Wicked yet Empowering combination. Christensen, C.M., McDonald, R., Altman, E.J. and Palmer, J., 2016.Disruptive Innovation: Intellectual History and Future Paths. Harvard Business School. Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E. and McDonald, R., 2015. Disruptive innovation.Harvard Business Review,93(12), pp.44-53. Guttentag, D., 2015. Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector.Current issues in Tourism,18(12), pp.1192-1217. Horn, M.B. and Staker, H., 2014.Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. John Wiley Sons. King, A.A. and Baatartogtokh, B., 2015. How useful is the theory of disruptive innovation?.MIT Sloan Management Review,57(1), p.77. Osiyevskyy, O. and Dewald, J., 2015. Explorative versus exploitative business model change: the cognitive antecedents of firm?level responses to disruptive innovation.Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,9(1), pp.58-78. Parry, M.E. and Kawakami, T., 2017. The Encroachment Speed of Potentially Disruptive Innovations with Indirect Network Externalities: The Case of E?Readers.Journal of Product Innovation Management,34(2), pp.141-158. Pinkse, J., Bohnsack, R. and Kolk, A., 2014. The Role of Public and Private Protection in Disruptive Innovation: The Automotive Industry and the Emergence of Low?Emission Vehicles.Journal of Product Innovation Management,31(1), pp.43-60. Reinhardt, U.E., 2013. The disruptive innovation of price transparency in health care.Jama,310(18), pp.1927-1928.