Clayton Christensen shows this through a series of extensively researched examples throughout the book. In reality the disruptive innovator will be most successful attacking the low-end of any market where the switching costs of technologies are lowest and the costs of change as perceived by customers is the lowest. At its most systemic level, this is why The Innovator's Dilemma is mis-titled. There is no dilemma, the disruptive innovator has no choice by to grow from the low-end of the market. Second, the real challenge is for the incumbent firms in a given market., The real dilemma is to seek out a strategy of cannibalizing one's own market or not. For the truly exceptional companies in the book who do this, they solve the paradox of innovation. The book shows that time and again, despite best efforts on the part of incumbent firms, they fail to get market share in emerging markets where significant cannibalization of their own sales is concerned (Gebhart, 1998). One of the most enlightening aspects of this part of the book is that...
This is one of the most valuable lessons from a pragmatic standpoint in the entire study of disruptive innovation. Due to these factors The Innovator's Dilemma is mis-titled.
References
Dereli, T., Durmusoglu, A., & Daim, T.U. (2011). Buyer/seller collaboration through measurement of beliefs on innovativeness of products. Computers in Industry, 62(2), 205.
Gebhart, J. (1998). The innovator's dilemma. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 101-101.
Lee, S.M., Olson, D.L., & Trimi, S. (2012). Co-innovation: Convergenomics, collaboration, and co-creation for organizational values. Management Decision, 50(5), 817-831.
Liyanage, S. (1995). Breeding innovation clusters through collaborative research networks. Technovation, 15(9), 553-553.
Ragu, S.P. (2009). P&G's logistics revolution: Co-creating value. IUP Journal of Operations Management, 8(2), 73-82.
