TL;DR
Christensen’s framework for disruptive innovation gave me language for something I’ve lived through multiple times: watching well-run organizations miss obvious threats because their rational decision-making processes are optimized for current customers and margins. This book reinforced my conviction that I need to allocate resources to seemingly inferior solutions that serve unmet needs, even when the ROI doesn’t pencil out on traditional metrics.
About the Book
“The Innovator’s Dilemma” introduces the counterintuitive concept that successful companies fail not due to poor management, but because they make rational decisions that serve their best customers and highest-margin products. Christensen shows how disruptive innovations start by serving overlooked market segments with simpler, cheaper solutions that established players dismiss as inadequate. The book’s central message is that sustaining innovations improve existing products along dimensions that matter to current customers, while disruptive innovations eventually overtake markets by redefining what customers value—creating a fundamental strategic dilemma for incumbent leaders.
Key frameworks include the distinction between sustaining vs. disruptive innovation, the concept of performance trajectories, and why resource allocation processes in successful companies systematically reject disruptive opportunities.
Where This Resonates With My Experience
Face Up to the Truth & Adapt Plans
“The processes that define how resources get allocated become the processes that define how the company grows and changes.”
This hit me hard because I’ve seen this resource allocation trap firsthand when evaluating AI initiatives. Two years ago, I had to defend investing in basic automation tools for customer service while our enterprise team pushed for more sophisticated ML models that would serve our highest-value accounts. The enterprise solution had clear ROI and executive sponsorship, but I knew the simpler tools would eventually scale to handle more complex queries. I learned the hard way that if you don’t intentionally allocate resources to seemingly inferior solutions, your organization’s processes will systematically kill them. This book gave me language for something I already observed: rational resource allocation can be strategically irrational.
Ruthlessly Prioritize
“Small, emerging markets cannot satisfy the growth needs of large companies.”
This reinforced a principle I learned through failure. Three years ago, I dismissed a request to build simple workflow automation for small business customers because the market size didn’t justify dedicated engineering resources. Those customers eventually moved to competitors who started with basic solutions and evolved upmarket. Christensen’s framework helped me understand why I was wrong: I was measuring the opportunity by current market size rather than trajectory. Now I have a rule: if a simple solution serves an unmet need, I allocate 15% of engineering capacity even when the immediate ROI is unclear.
Proactively Manage Risks
“Companies whose investment processes demand quantification of market sizes and returns before they can enter a market get caught in this trap.”
This changed my thinking on how I evaluate early-stage technology investments. I used to require detailed market analysis and ROI projections for new initiatives, which systematically killed anything disruptive. I’ve learned that demanding precision upfront is a risk management failure, not a strength. Now when evaluating nascent technologies, I focus on learning velocity rather than prediction accuracy. If we can run experiments cheaply and learn quickly, I’m comfortable with uncertainty.
Build Towards Clear Dates & Deliver in Increments
“Generally, disruptive innovations were technologically straightforward, consisting of off-the-shelf components put together in a product architecture that was often simpler than prior approaches.”
This reinforced something I’ve observed: breakthrough solutions often look embarrassingly simple in retrospect. I’ve seen teams over-engineer solutions because they’re uncomfortable shipping something that feels “too basic.” But Christensen’s examples show that disruptive innovations succeed precisely because they’re simpler, not despite it. This gave me confidence to push back when engineering teams want to add complexity “just in case.”
Where I Push Back
I’m more skeptical of Christensen’s implied timeline certainty. The book suggests disruption follows predictable patterns, but I’ve seen too many “disruptive” technologies fail to achieve market dominance despite checking all the boxes.
“Once two or more firms have mastered the current generation of technology, competition drives them to develop the next.”
This assumes competitive dynamics will consistently drive improvement along predictable trajectories. But I’ve witnessed entire categories where technical progress stalled despite competition—mobile payments took over a decade longer than Christensen’s framework would suggest. The model underweights regulatory friction, customer inertia, and ecosystem effects that can extend timelines dramatically.
I also push back on the book’s treatment of customer feedback. Christensen argues that listening to existing customers leads companies astray, but I won’t dismiss customer input that systematically. I’ve seen too many “disruptive” products fail because they solved problems customers didn’t actually have. My rule is: ignore customer solutions but double down on understanding their problems. The tension isn’t about listening to customers; it’s about interpreting what they’re really telling you.
How This Influenced My Leadership
-
I now intentionally allocate resources to “good enough” solutions that serve unmet needs, even when they don’t meet our technical standards for existing products. If it solves a real problem simply, I’ll fund it at small scale.
-
I’ve changed how I evaluate competitive threats—I now track startups serving segments we’ve written off as “too small” or “too simple.” These often become our biggest competitive risks within 3-5 years.
-
I communicate more explicitly about innovation horizons with leadership and teams. Sustaining innovations get 70% of resources with clear ROI expectations. Disruptive experiments get 20% with learning goals, not revenue targets.
-
I won’t compromise on running parallel experiments when facing potential disruption. If I see simpler solutions gaining traction in adjacent markets, I’ll fund our own version even if it cannibalizes existing products.
-
My personal heuristic: If a solution is “too simple” for our current customers but solves a real problem for non-customers, it deserves 6 months of experimentation budget.
Who Should Read This
Product leaders managing portfolio decisions across multiple customer segments will find this immediately applicable. Engineering executives who struggle with technical debt vs. innovation tradeoffs need this framework. Any leader responsible for long-term strategy while delivering quarterly results should read this—it provides language for defending investments that don’t show immediate returns.
This is essential for leaders in mature organizations where resource allocation processes naturally favor incremental improvements over breakthrough opportunities.
Rating
Strong Alignment—This book reinforced core principles I’ve learned through expensive mistakes and gave me frameworks to defend resource allocation decisions that seem irrational in the short term but are strategically necessary.