Interesting article. I think however that the author would need to
elaborate a bit more for his argument to be persuasive. To wit: he
claims that Christensen's predictive accuracy is 84 percent. But
that statistic seems to be describing "real-world predictions about
business survival or failure" -- not necessarily predictions about the
survival or failure of institutions like academia. Certainly
Christensen's work acts as a healthy reminder to keep our eyes on the
low end of the market. But can his theory really be used as a crystal
ball that can divine our academic futures? And can one hang an entire
strategy around it? As Ms. Dragas found out after her ill-advised
ouster of President Sullivan at UVA, maybe not so much. (c.f Anatomy
of a Campus Coup
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Steve Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks for sharing this. The following was posted as part of a Breakthrough
> Models Academy discussion this summer. I found the first article
> particularly interesting as a former executive at Intel actually applied
> Christensen's theory to predict business survival.
> Christensen had reason to believe Disruption Theory was predictive, but I
> wanted to knowhow predictive – exactly. Was it 10 percent predictive? 21
> percent? 55 percent? 98 percent? As a manager in the trenches of Intel, this
> was the specificity I needed before deciding if Disruption Theory was
> useful. Those details were the gap between theory and practice.
> Nearly a decade later, highly refined versions of these Disruption-based
> models had produced more than 3,400 blind, real-world predictions about
> business survival or failure. These predictions informed more than $100
> billion in organic growth, venture capital, stock trades and acquisition
> investments. When the models predicted survivors, they were right 66 percent
> of the time. When they predicted failures, they were right 88 percent of the
> time. Adding all survival and failure predictions together, the total gross
> accuracy was 84 percent.
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Martin Ringle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> If you are searching for something truly refreshing to read this weekend
>> (or at any time), here's an article from the New Yorker this past June that
>> does a magnificent job of casting a different light on the mega-trend of
>> "disruptive innovation." It's well-researched, well-written, and sure to
>> make you pause and reflect. Enjoy!
>> "The Disruption Machine: What the Gospel of Innovation Gets Wrong", Jill
>> Lapore, New Yorker, June 23.
>> Martin Ringle, Chief Information Officer
>> Reed College, Portland, OR 97202
>> 503-777-7254 email: [log in to unmask]
>> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
> Steve Smith
> Director, eLearning and Media
> Linn-Benton Community College
> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.