Disruptive Environmental Innovation?
I watched PBS Nova "car of the future" last night which I had recorded earlier. The show focused on reducing carbon emissions and included pretty standard stuff - bio-fuels, hybrids, reducing weight, hydrogen, plug-in hybrids, etc. What really hit me though was the section on plug-in hybrids and the contrast between the people at Tesla Motors and the group developing G
M's Volt, both plug-in electric cars (which I think will emerge as the winner of all the alt-fuel options). The Tesla is not only a very cool car (left), but if successful, it might represent the perfect example of how the theory of disruptive technology and the environment collide.
The theory of disruptive technologies or disruptive innovation was developed by Clayton Christiansen of Harvard and made popular in his book "The Innovator's Dilemma." The theory (in my words, not his) is that big companies add lots of features and cost to their products and move up-market, building infrastructure and culture to support this along the way. Innovators come in down-market with new technology, lower cost and eat the big guys' lunch, and the big guys can never switch gears and compete because of that infrastructure and culture.
In the Nova episode, the founder of Tesla says something like "we want to be the next big car company. Isn't that crazy?". But is it?
Replace "environment" with "cost" in the disruptive innovation theory and maybe it is not. Perhaps innovative companies can compete solely on the environmental impact of their products, because they can build entire culture and infrastructure at much lower cost than existing companies. Think about the cost of change that GM must incur to switch. Think about old-school Detroit manufacturing and contrast it with Tesla, who started in Silicon Valley because they recognized that the software and firmware are the most important elements of the car.
Will Tesla be the next GM? Probably more important to you, is what young, innovative company might be out there right now planning environmentally sound products at low cost that compete with you?
M's Volt, both plug-in electric cars (which I think will emerge as the winner of all the alt-fuel options). The Tesla is not only a very cool car (left), but if successful, it might represent the perfect example of how the theory of disruptive technology and the environment collide.The theory of disruptive technologies or disruptive innovation was developed by Clayton Christiansen of Harvard and made popular in his book "The Innovator's Dilemma." The theory (in my words, not his) is that big companies add lots of features and cost to their products and move up-market, building infrastructure and culture to support this along the way. Innovators come in down-market with new technology, lower cost and eat the big guys' lunch, and the big guys can never switch gears and compete because of that infrastructure and culture.
In the Nova episode, the founder of Tesla says something like "we want to be the next big car company. Isn't that crazy?". But is it?
Replace "environment" with "cost" in the disruptive innovation theory and maybe it is not. Perhaps innovative companies can compete solely on the environmental impact of their products, because they can build entire culture and infrastructure at much lower cost than existing companies. Think about the cost of change that GM must incur to switch. Think about old-school Detroit manufacturing and contrast it with Tesla, who started in Silicon Valley because they recognized that the software and firmware are the most important elements of the car.
Will Tesla be the next GM? Probably more important to you, is what young, innovative company might be out there right now planning environmentally sound products at low cost that compete with you?
Labels: environment, innovation, technology
posted by Michael DiPietro at
7:09 AM
|
0 Comments
