Watching the reactions of the national political parties to the emergence and methods of the AAP, I was reminded of The Innovators Dilemma by Clayton M. Christensen.
As I understood it, the basic thesis of the book is:
1. Not that large established corporation cannot innovate, its just that they prefer to, or "have" to, innovate for their established customers.
2. Not that they do not have people who understand the new market realities, they just cannot get around people who have careers invested in the current way of doing business.
3. When it first emerges, a disruptive product is never considered a serious contender. The target market is considered insignificant.
4. A disruptive product is not based on new invention. The technology is available to all. The big companies too know about it. They just have very powerful internal vested interests that prevent its exploitation (Think Xerox and all the technologies developed at Xerox's PARC. Think IBM and the IBM PC and DOS. Think British Army, Horsed Cavalry and the Tank. ...)
5. A market exists that is just not considered viable by the current players. Their revenue models do not justify it; neither do their costs.
I could go on and on but the above should suffice to show what the established players are up against. Its not AAP. The established parties are crippled by their past. The 160 years of the Congress is a shackle.
One of the great "what-if"s of current times: What if, instead of depending upon a bunch of clever lawyers, Rahul Gandhi had walked out of 10 Jan Path and cast his lot with the Anna Movement? ... Asking too much I suppose:-(
No comments:
Post a Comment