« A Growing Backlash Against the Relentless Advances in Technology? | Main | From Mass Production to Mass Individualism »

July 09, 2014

Comments

dinesh vadhia

Enjoyed both articles written by a practitioner. It is interesting that books, articles and blog posts are typically aimed at understanding and helping out the incumbent. An alternative view is that we should foster the disrupters more and bring the change to society and business faster.

James Drogan

Vadhia makes an interesting comment in "...foster the disrupters more and bring the change to society and business faster."

Suppose we did this. What are the consequences? Can the human accommodate increased disruption, change, and shorter cycle times?

There are limits (frequency and intensity) to the human's natural ability to hear sound. My hypothesis is that similar limits exist with respect to the human's natural ability to accommodate change.

Tim Walters

Well, the first good reason why gurus and authors address the incumbents is that they generally have a lot more money, and are (or can be) motivated to spend it in order to understand the disruption. Moreover, I'm not at all sure that whether we authors and analysts "fostered" or favored the disruptors that it would make any appreciable difference in the pace of change.

In fact, I've noticed that commentators (James McQuivey, Larry Downes, Jill Lepore, and, maybe, Dinesh Vadiha [with all due respect!]) tend to (over)emphasize the role of the human actors, the disruptors. One of the things I like about some of John Hagel's work (partially replayed by Irving here) is that it helps us grasp the systematic aspects of disruption. Speaking only of digital disruption, my correction to the "subjectivist" view is to emphasize that *digital is itself a/the disruption* -- even when it is not embodied in the form of those sneaker-wearing, scooter-driving, coffee-guzzling disruptors that so frighten Lepore.

The comments to this entry are closed.