Talk:Disruptive innovation

Biased and out of date
I am new here, so sorry if I get the process wrong. I came to this page to see if I could use the entry in my course. I cannot. The current version of the page is both biased and out of date. With the exception of Lepore, no disconfirming evidence for Christensen's theory is provided. In full disclosure, I wrote two of those articles, but there are many more. I knew Clay, considered him my friend, and debated the theory with him. I don't think he would approve of this page.

If you would like, I can edit the page, but if this page is being controlled by people with a personal interest in protecting the theory, I won't waste my time. As is revealed by this old article on disruption, most academics know the theory's limitations, so the harm done here is to the unsuspecting and uninformed (https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-undoing-of-disruption/).

Andrew King https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-useful-is-the-theory-of-disruptive-innovation/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190218031222id_/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0a25/aff9e2ece8b67a4779682f8e476d3b8a382d.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfAndrewaking (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue?
The section that discusses theory seems a bit inappropriate for an encyclopedia with words such as "simplistic", "wrong". It seems the author is trying to prove someone is wrong in the wrong place and way (not an editorial). I know nothing about the topic and don't want to research further for an encyclopedia correct approach. 2601:4C0:4180:4DD:24D8:BEFB:2A62:EFF7 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

New article needed: Digital disruption
It’s a term frequently used by the newspaper industry, but is applied to many different areas. Guest houses —-> Airbnb, taxis —-> Uber, high street shops —-> online selling, etc.

This article doesn’t cover this and in any case the term doesn’t relate directly to the way in which online everything has affected so much of life. But I’m putting this here in case anyone with inspiration and the time feels like creating it. Boscaswell  talk  10:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant sections
The "potential opportunities" and "potential threats" sections aren't relevant here - they just list pre-existing knowledge which is not innovation... I think it would be better to just delete the sections rather than speculate on the "disruptive innovation" of free trade, as if nobody has thought of that before - either include it if the places where it's been applied (EU, etc?) were disruptive enough, or exclude it. 1rre (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)