The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth (Book Digest)

In "The Innovator's Solution," Clayton Christensen and Michael Raynor provide a framework for creating sustainable growth through disruptive innovation. The book addresses a critical challenge facing established companies: how to continue growing when core businesses mature and investors demand new sources of expansion.

It's also a great example of how to think about being on the right side of changes in technology and industry structure. Being on the right side of change opens up growth and profitability; being on the wrong side can mean poor results or even extinction.

These ideas are important for salespeople because one of the best ways to sell a strategic deal is to show how your product will help your customer drive and benefit from change rather than falling victim to it.

To do that, you have to understand where those changes come from.

The Growth Imperative

Companies face relentless pressure to grow. Investor expectations for growth are already priced into stock values, meaning companies must exceed growth projections to deliver above-market returns.

Many companies try to beat these expectations by investing in new business ventures, but these frequently fail.

These failures aren't random. They stem from systematic biases in how companies evaluate and resource new business opportunities. Middle managers typically support ideas with clearly defined, substantial markets that can deliver results within their tenure – naturally favoring sustaining innovations that serve existing customers rather than potentially disruptive new ventures.

This is problematic because sustainable growth comes from disruptive new ventures, not sustaining innovations.

Disruptive vs. Sustaining Innovation

Christensen and Raynor distinguish between two fundamental types of innovation that follow different rules:

Sustaining innovations improve product performance along dimensions historically valued by mainstream customers. These innovations help companies sell more products to their best customers at higher margins. Examples include cars with greater horsepower or computers with faster processors. Established companies almost always win battles of sustaining innovation because they have the motivation and resources to serve their existing customers better.

The problem with sustaining innovations is that the market eventually becomes over-served: The product is good enough and buyers won't pay more for higher performance. For example, most drivers don't need more horsepower past a certain point.

Disruptive innovations, by contrast, initially offer lower performance on traditional metrics but provide other benefits like lower cost or greater convenience. They typically start in new or low-end markets that established companies view as unattractive. Established companies struggle with disruptive innovation because their processes and values are optimized for sustaining innovations.

Over time, disruptive innovations improve and move upmarket. Buyers love their lower cost or greater convenience, enabling them to capture the market.

Types of Disruptive Innovation

The authors identify two distinct types of disruptive innovations:

Low-end disruptions target customers who are over-served by existing products and would prefer something less expensive or more convenient. Steel minimills are an example: they initially produced lower-quality steel at a 20% cost advantage, capturing the low-end market. Once minimills dominated they low-end market, they innovated improve quality and moved upmarket into more profitable segments.

This is what frequently happens with low-end disruptions: They start out in a corner of the market but they improve over time and eventually capture the bulk of the marketshare and profits.

New-market disruptions compete against non-consumption by allowing people who previously couldn't access a product to use it. Sony's transistor radios enabled people who couldn't afford vacuum tube radios to own one. Similarly, Canon's desktop copiers let office workers make copies near their desks rather than at a centralized facility.

These innovations create entirely new value networks rather than competing directly with incumbents.

Avoiding Commoditization

Commoditization is the bane of profitability. As technology improves, competitors catch up by acquiring capabilities that used to be hard to develop but are now simple to acquire. Products that stand still become commodities that have to compete on price and earn very little profit.

Commoditization happens in predictable ways and therefore good responses follow patterns. Typically, when one part of a value chain becomes commoditized, another part becomes decommoditized.

When a product is new, it's usually not good enough because the technology is at an early stage. When products aren't good enough, integrated producers who control the entire production process earn the most profits because they can optimize every component to maximize performance. iPhones are an integrated product: Apple builds the hardware, the operating system, and key components so they all work together seamlessly and create a differentiated product that consumers will pay more for.

But as products mature and exceed customer requirements, they become modularized and commoditized. Consumers don't care very much which product they use, leading to lower prices and lower profits. Windows PCs are an example of a modular product: The manufacturer bolts together standardized parts from many suppliers (processors, memory, operating system) to create a finished product.

At this point, profit migrates either to:

1. Manufacturers of components that still define performance (like Intel microprocessors in computers)

2. Parts of the value chain that still aren't "good enough" (like retail experience in clothing)

Companies should focus on tasks that customers define as important rather than on supposed "core competencies."

The key strategic decision is whether to pursue an integrated or modular approach:

• When products aren't good enough, use integrated solutions to maximize performance

• When products are good enough, focus on producing the performance-defining components or controlling the not-good-enough part of the value chain

The most successful companies maintain flexibility to shift their focus as industry dynamics evolve. IBM, for example, transitioned from computer assembly to value-added services when hardware became commoditized.

Building Organizations Capable of Disruptive Growth

A company's capabilities consist of three elements: resources (what they have), processes (how they work), and values (what they prioritize). While resources are relatively flexible, processes and values are much harder to change – yet these are precisely what determine whether an organization can pursue disruptive opportunities.

Established companies' values typically require high gross margins and large, clear markets. These values support sustaining innovations but kill disruptive ones, which often begin as low-margin products with unclear market potential.

Since organizations cannot simultaneously operate with multiple sets of values, creating disruptive innovations typically requires establishing autonomous organizations with their own processes and values.

- - -

If you liked this article, have a look at our other book digests in our series Required Reading for Salespeople. You can also check out the P.S.I. Selling Content Page for more insights on sales communication, strategy, and leadership.

Want to build a sales process that proves value and a team that can execute? Get in touch.

For more about the author, check out Mike's bio.