Essay Zone.com - Free essays!
REGISTER NOW!
Login to an existing account
     
GCSE essays
A Level essays
University essays
Forum
Why join?
Essay quality
FAQ

Search forums
About us
Contact us

 

 
How does Christensen & Rosenbloom’s notion of ‘disruptive technology’ (1995) develop our understanding of why successful firms fail? Free essay! Download now

Home > University > Business studies > How does Christensen & Rosenbloom’s notion of ‘disruptive technology’ (1995) develop our understanding of why successful firms fail?

How does Christensen & Rosenbloom’s notion of ‘disruptive technology’ (1995) develop our understanding of why successful firms fail?

You can download this essay for free. All you need to do is register and submit at least one of your essays to us.

Or you can purchase this essay for just $2 instantly without registering

Downloads to date: N/A | Words: 2821 | Submitted: 01-Dec-2011
Spelling accuracy: 96.8% | Number of pages: 17 | Filetype: Word .doc


This is what the first 3 pages of the essay look like

How does Christensen & Rosenbloom’s notion of ‘disruptive technology’ (1995) develop our understanding of why successful firms fail? essay previewHow does Christensen & Rosenbloom’s notion of ‘disruptive technology’ (1995) develop our understanding of why successful firms fail? essay previewHow does Christensen & Rosenbloom’s notion of ‘disruptive technology’ (1995) develop our understanding of why successful firms fail? essay preview

Description

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT essay on how Rosenbloom’s notion of ‘disruptive technology’ (1995) develop our understanding of why successful firms fail?

Preview

Strategic Management
How does Christensen & Rosenbloom’s notion of ‘disruptive technology’ (1995) develop our understanding of why successful firms fail?
The evolution of technology has helped many organizations prosper and reap the rewards of innovative thinking. Organisations have been able to form products or services in order to make the lives of their target market more efficient, enjoyable or offer it something completely new. Christensen and Rosenbloom (1995) discussed the notion of ‘disruptive technology’ and how it caused successful organisations to fail. The findings of Christensen and Rosenbloom’s text will be summarized, explaining the definition of disruptive innovation. These theories, along with theories from alternative literature will be applied to Nintendo Co Ltd (Nintendo), a leading player in the video game market. The analysis will begin with a brief history of Nintendo and will be followed by how Nintendo faced adversity due to innovations from its competitors and what they did to overcome this failure. This information will be backed up by marketing information, provided by Mintel, as well as additional web research. Finally, the analysis will be concluded, summarising the purpose of this text; why successful firms fail as a result of disruptive technology.
Christensen and Rosenbloom (1995) explain two reasons as to why successful organisations fail as a result of disruptive innovation. In addition to these two rules, they provide a third.
They begin by explaining that the market’s incumbent firms innovate in a manner which focuses on what their customers are happy with and develop the features of their existing product so that the performance increased. However, new entrants have the effect to destabalise these firms by introducing ‘radical’ technological innovations into the market, providing them with an ‘Attacker’s Advantage’
This gives way to the first of the three reasons of why businesses fail. The scale of technological capabilities of the incumbent and the new entrant is one reason why a successful firm might fail. Firms with a product categorise the product into two sections. These are: The core concepts of the technology involved and the design architecture of the product- how the product functions when all of the components are assembled. Depending on whether the technology in the componentry is improved or completely overturned and the design architecture is changed or unchanged, then different types of innovation can be classified. To better illustrate this concept, Henderson and Clark’s (1990) table is cited. It shows the different types of innovation depending on how the product has been altered.






Thus depending on the makeup of the core technological concepts and the design architecture, there is potential for a new technological paradigm. In an established technological paradigm, innovation only affects the components or the design architecture and not both. A change in product architecture, ...

Download this essay in full now!

Just upload at one of your essays to our database and instantly download your selection! Registration takes seconds

Or you can download this essay for $2 immediately without registering


Comments and reviews

Reviews are written by members who have downloaded the essay

No comments yet. If you download the essay you can review it afterwards.