Schumpeter defined creative destruction as the
process by which entrepreneurs continuously create value
while simultaneously destroying old values through the
development of disruptive technological innovations. Due to the
complex nature of fast changing technologies, the disruptiveness
of technological innovations can be difficult to characterize and
recognize. Firms that disregard the disruptive nature of technological
innovation could be supplanted by new entrants which
dominate the new technological paradigms.
For instance,
IBM disregarded the disruptive nature of the personal computer
(PC) and the once dominant computer giant gave way to the
two new entrants, Intel and Microsoft. Despite Christensen's
prominent work on the subject,disruptive innovations
do not always offer superior performance, but are still able
to invade the mainstream market. Utterback argues that
radical technologies invade the market in different ways.
While technological changes follow different patterns, both
Christensen and Utterback strive to explore the strategic
implications of technological evolutions.
A more systematic
research approach is needed to investigate the interrelationships
among technological innovation, technology paradigms
and the wider developmental environment.