The paper "The Meaning of Innovators Dilemma" is a great example of management coursework. The innovator’ s dilemma concerns how big firms fail despite doing all the right things in management (Christensen, 2013). Such companies stick to the same management practices that made them leaders. Many tech companies have suffered from the onset of disruptive technologies thus shrinking their profitability. In this report, the innovator’ s dilemma is explained. The report also uses the innovator’ s dilemma to explain why big firms fail. Clearly, Kodak succumbed to the wave of revolutionary digital and disruptive innovation despite doing everything right in management.
Finally, the report describes why Barnes & Noble will likely fail due to disruptive technologies. The Meaning of “ Innovator’ s Dilemma" In The Innovator’ s Dilemma, Christensen Clayton conceptualizes a theory concerning how large leading firms can fail while doing all the right things (2013). According to the author, the innovator's dilemma describes enterprises whose achievement and capabilities can become detrimental factors in the wake of changing innovations and markets. Therefore, innovator's dilemma illustrates a process in which well-run firms usually fail because of the same practices of management, which made them become dominant industry players.
These procedures also make it tremendously difficult for them to create disruptive innovations, which eventually pinch a portion of their markets. In an attempt to describe the innovator’ s dilemma, Christensen differentiates the disruptive technologies from the sustaining ones. Sustaining technologies comprises the innovations, which many companies are familiar with and which enhance the performance of products (Christensen & Raynor, 2013). The innovations include improving a product, which has left a footmark in the market. Many large firms are skillful at changing sustaining innovation challenges into success but face a challenge with disruptive innovations.
Disruptive innovations culminate in worse performance in the market in the near term. They are often simpler, cheaper, smaller, and more convenient in their use. Despite occurring less regularly, disruptive innovations could lead to the failure of leading firms based on their insistence on improving their sustaining innovations (Christensen, 2013). Given the less profitability experienced by businesses that use disruptive innovations in the short term, the leading companies find it difficult to build a case for investing in them regarding managerial interest or resources until it is too late.
Over time, disruptive innovations improve their performance attributes to the point that they venture into the established markets. Why Big Companies Fail The innovator’ s dilemma could explain one of the reasons why companies might have a harder time creating successful innovative strategy. The framework of failure grounds on the significant dissimilarity between the disruptive and sustaining innovations. The dilemma stems when firms are leading and find it necessary to guard their markets. The companies’ focus shifts from disruptive technology to sustaining technologies (Christensen & Raynor, 2013). Many big companies often enhance their sustaining innovations to guarantee the better performance of products.
All sustaining innovations often improve the success of established commodities alongside the performance dimensions, which the mainstream clients have valued through history. According to Christensen, most technological developments in a particular sector are sustaining in nature, and even the sustaining technologies that are regarded as radical have often led to the leading firms' failure.