What are the Essential Characteristics of a Disruptive Product or Service?

I posed this question in an earlier blog (see September 30 post) and said I'd do more research on the subject. After asking the question to groups on LinkedIn, I found that two main sources of information were consistent: 1) check the wikipedia definition on the subject; and 2) Clayton Christensen basically is the father of the idea.

From the wiki definition:

A disruptive technology or disruptive innovation is a term describing a technological innovation, product, or service that uses a "disruptive" strategy, rather than an "evolutionary" or "sustaining" strategy, to overturn the existing dominant technologies or status quo products in a market. Disruptive innovations can be broadly classified into low-end and new-market disruptive innovations.

By contrast, a "revolutionary technology" introduces products with highly improved new features into the market. This is the innovation that most often replaces the incumbent [automobile - horse drawn vehicle]. In addition, a "sustaining technology or innovation" improves product performance of established products. Sustaining technologies are often incremental; however, they can also be radical or discontinuous.

Other than one angry commenter on LinkedIn (go figure), there were a few interesting comments. Particularly, I liked Jody Wilson's comment about Step - Stretch - Leap.

Surprisingly, however, what I didn't find (even after some serious googling) was a laundry list to check against if you wanted to build a disruptive product or service. What this confirmed for me is that the characteristic of disruptive is nothing that can be planned or programmed. Rather it is a whole combination of elements working together at the right time and in the right ways that produces a disruptive nature.

Ahh, the beauty of synergy -- where one plus one equals three or more.

-- David Kinard, PCM

Manage the Brand First, then the Product

In some recent discussions with a fellow marketer, we talked about the difference between brand management and product management. He being a staunch product guy came at the discussion from a technical and functional point of view. Myself, being more concerned about the experience, came at it from a more customer-centric perspective.

Certainly, both perspectives and their corresponding activities are important. Each suggests necessary objectives to move closer to company goals. But what struck me is where you start. I think it is from the brand, and here's why.

Traditional product management starts from technological possibilities which lead to concept generation, selection, and design. A more brand-centric approach requires you to first examine the value customers receive from using your products, their expectatations and desires, and what needs they have (known or unknown). This point of genesis requires, however, the company to be more customer attuned rather than engineering focused.

When you manage the brand first, you start with a business review: marketplace standing, competition, distribution, and the customer perspective (whether present customers, competitive, or emerging). Then, if you weave into the discussion the technological possibilities and map them to potential product use and product potential, your perspective is outwardly-focused when selecting options and designing functionality.

Sure, this approach isn't for everyone or every company...just those that want to move beyond vanilla and mediocre into the remarkable.

-- David Kinard, PCM