A Systematic Review of the Debate and the Researchers of Disruptive Innovation

Abstract

Despite the popularity of the term “disruptive innovation”, its applications have taken on different meanings. Clayton Christensen is a prominent author in the field but his approach has not been applied in a consistent manner. To elucidate the use of the term in business studies, this paper employs a bibliometric approach to provide a descriptive analysis of researchers and their relevant works in the network formed by the related literature, in addition to distinguishing and grouping associated authors. The results suggest a dissimilarity of objectives between two subgroups using the term “disruptive innovation”, and the discussion about Clayton Christensen’s specific meaning of the term seems to make sense to only one of them.

Full text

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2019. Volume 14, Issue 1
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 73
A Systematic Review of the Debate and the Researchers of Disruptive Innovation
Carlos Tadao Kawamoto1* and Renata Giovinazzo Spers1
Abstract: Despite the popularity of the term “disruptive innovation”, its applications have taken on dierent meanings. Clayton Christensen is a
prominent author in the eld but his approach has not been applied in a consistent manner. To elucidate the use of the term in business studies,
this paper employs a bibliometric approach to provide a descriptive analysis of researchers and their relevant works in the network formed by the
related literature, in addition to distinguishing and grouping associated authors. e results suggest a dissimilarity of objectives between two sub-
groups using the term “disruptive innovation”, and the discussion about Clayton Christensen’s specic meaning of the term seems to make sense
to only one of them.
Keywords: disruptive innovation; disruptive technology; innovation; disruption
(1) Economics, Business and Accounting School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
*Corresponding author: carlos.kawamoto@usp.br
Submitted: August 31st, 2018 / Approved: December 6th, 2018
Introduction
e terms “disruptive innovation” and “disruptive technology” have
gained prominence in recent years, with academic interest eviden-
ced by special editions of reputed journals dedicated to the theme
of disruption, such as the Journal of Management Studies, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management and Technological Forecasting and Social Change, as
well as by the terms’ inclusion in management and innovation text-
books (e.g., Garud, Kumaraswamy & Langlois, 2003; Besanko, Dra-
nove, & Shanley, 2004; Trott, 2008; and Hill, Jones, & Schilling, 2015).
e terms are usually associated with Clayton Christensen, whose
academic papers obtained high citation grades and whose books
achieved great commercial success. In 2011, e Economist magazine
included Christensen’s 1997 book, e Innovator’s Dilemma, among
the six classics in management literature of the past y years.
Despite Christensen’s accomplishments, the concept of disruptive in-
novation generated well-known controversies in the eld of manage-
ment studies (Hopp, Antons, Kaminski, & Salge, 2018a). An innova-
tion that causes disruption in a market is not necessarily a disruptive
innovation as Christensen denes it (Schimidt & Druehl, 2008). If,
on the one hand, media success or sales gures do not necessarily re-
present the truth about the development of Christensen’s work, then
some criticisms seem extreme, in terms of both the theoretical quality
of his work and the originality of his contribution. e debate over
the validity of Christensen’s approach has been intense over the past
decade, with exalted condemnations or nonconsensual modications
of the theory by some authors (e.g., Markides, 2006; Daneels, 2004;
Markides, 2013; and King & Baatartogtokh, 2015). Above all, the dis-
cussions manifest the existence of a dispute in this eld of knowledge.
An important and possibly related fact about some of the criticisms
is that, even with the frequent use of the term, the theory’s concepts
are not always applied in a consistent manner. It is not unusual
for the expression “disruptive innovation” to be employed with a
radical meaning that is distant from what was intended by Christen-
sen. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), for example, disruptive innovation “has a sig-
nicant impact on a market and on the economic activity of rms in
that market. is concept focuses on the impact of the innovations,
as opposed to their novelty” (OECD, 2005, p.58). Famous examples
such as Uber, which has already caused signicant changes in the taxi
industries of several cities around the world and is frequently referred
to as a disruptive innovation, does not t into the concept proposed
by the theory’s authors (Christensen, Raynor, & McDonald, 2015). In
another example of imprecise use, Souza and Takahashi (2012) disre-
garded the possibility of new market disruption when they stated that
“the evolutionary trajectory of the performance of a disruptive inno-
vation makes it eventually competitive in the main market (otherwise
it is not a disruptive innovation)” (our translation, parentheses in the
original, p.123). e authors reduce the predictive qualities of the ap-
proach when they suggest that the theory can only be explained ex
post facto.
Semantic confusion is undesirable in scientic postulates. e conict
over the use of “disruptive innovation” in academic evaluations can
reduce the relevant by-products from research and, consequently, the
contributions to managers and their organizations. Hence, eorts to
reduce asymmetries in terminological understanding are welcome. In
English, where the word “disruption” already belongs to the language,
the confusion between Christensen’s sense and its popular meaning is
apparent and raises heated discussions among some authors. In other
languages that do not embrace the word “disruption” as a native term,
such as Spanish or Portuguese, the confusion should be less frequent
but still manifests itself and, therefore, the correct meaning must be
claried in specialized publications.
Attempts have been made to use bibliometric techniques to better
comprehend the development of the eld. From what is known, bi-
bliometric analysis was applied with a focus on disruptive innova-
tions in Pilkington (2009); Cândido (2011); Schiavi and Behr (2017);

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2019. Volume 14, Issue 1
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 74
Li, Porter, and Suominen (2017) and Hopp, Antons, Kaminski, and
Salge (2018b). Pilkington (2009) evaluated three hypotheses related
to the impact of Christensen, and showed the authors’ stable citations
growth over time, eventually expanding to other areas of research be-
yond the strategy and management of organizations. Cândido (2011)
assessed the evolution of the number of papers that contained the
term “disruptive innovation” as a keyword, in addition to its geogra-
phic and periodical distribution. As a project for a doctoral thesis,
the work can be considered less conclusive. Schiavi and Behr (2017)
investigated the term “disruptive business model”. e analysis is
descriptive but comprehensive, beginning with an initial selection of
1,661 articles and examining the 19 most relevant papers published
between 2004 and 2016 in detail. e authors veried the prepon-
derance of applied studies in relation to theoretical approaches and
suggest more bibliometric analyses as an extension of their study. Li,
Porter, and Suominen (2017) analyzed the dichotomy between the
concepts of “disruptive technology” or “disruptive innovation” (DT
or DI) and “emergent technology” (ET), identied a relationship bet-
ween DI and ET, and advocated for a harmonized approach to em-
bracing both concepts. Recently, Hopp, Antons, Kaminski, and Salge
(2018b) mapped disruption-related papers and concentrated on the
84 most researched topics, analyzing the temporal dynamics of the
eld and suggesting the consolidation of peripheral or dissociated to-
pics, together with the conciliation of terminologies.
Dierently from the cited papers, this review focuses on the discus-
sion between “disruptive innovations” as dened by Christensen and
all other types of innovation that, even if not adherent to Christensen’s
concept, were named “disruptive innovation”. We aim to analyze the
literature that applies the term and identify dierences and similari-
ties between authors and related papers. A bibliometric approach is
applied for the analysis of the delineated universe and helps to eva-
luate the prominence of Christensen in the selection, in addition to
distinguishing and grouping authors associated with other connota-
tions of the term.
Evolution of the innovation debate
e origin of studies on innovation with an explicit focus on organi-
zations is not entirely clear, with specic contributions coming from
dierent areas. From a wider perspective, if one looks at improve-
ments in productivity achieved through the use of machines and
new processes as innovations, the discussion has been going on since
the time of Adam Smith. In his classic e Wealth of Nations ([1776]
2007), Smith characterized the division of labor as a facilitator of ma-
chine inventions, which expanded productivity and production and
allowed greater economic development of contemporary societies.
In recent times, Schumpeter (1912) emphasized the importance of
entrepreneurial activities for technological development and con-
sequent economic growth. e author’s work is considered to be
an important reference in many studies directed at organizations.
Schumpeter’s ([1942] 2014) vision of the innovative process evolved
throughout his career, culminating in the recognition that resources,
processes, and routines available to large corporations in concen-
trated markets provide advantages for these companies to innovate.
Over the years, more rened constructs have been developed for the
benet of both countries and organizations.
Among the rst studies to mark the contemporary view of innova-
tion from an organizational perspective are Utterback and Aber-
nathy (1975) and Abernathy and Utterback (1978), which extended
the analyses beyond cases of an incremental nature that occur with
knowledge accumulation in established rms. e authors describe
radical innovations as those associated with the recognition of new
demand and the introduction of superior performance, without solely
seeking to reduce costs with standard technologies. Such innovations
would create recognized competitive advantages over the existing
supply (Porter, 1985). In recent decades, innovations have come to
be evaluated based on other dimensions, incorporating not only a te-
chnological aspect but also demand types (Abernathy & Clark, 1985;
Christensen, 1997) and a system facet (Henderson & Clark, 1990).
In the past, the one-dimensional view of innovation le gaps while
explaining the progress of some technologies and organizations; the-
refore, it seems that more sophisticated models are required.
Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation
e theory of disruptive innovation was developed in the 1990s by
Clayton Christensen while pursuing his Doctorate in Business Ma-
nagement from the Harvard Business School and emerged as an at-
tempt to shed light on why companies failed to identify that some
innovations with less embedded technology threatened their domi-
nant positions. is anomaly was articulated by Christensen and his
colleagues (e.g., Bower & Christensen, 1995; Christensen & Bower,
1996; Christensen, 1997; Christensen & Overdorf, 2000; Christensen
& Raynor, 2003; Christensen, Anthony, & Roth, 2004) with impor-
tant managerial lessons, including that paying exclusive attention to
the best customers and the current values in an established company
would increasingly disengage it from disruptive innovations and
could jeopardize its future growth.
For Christensen, Anthony, and Roth (2004), disruptive innovations
“either create new markets, bring new attractiveness to nonconsu-
mers, or oer more convenience, at lower prices, to lower-income
consumers in an existing market” (p.321). Additionally, domination
by a new entrant in a breakthrough movement in an established mar-
ket may occur, but it is not necessary to characterize an innovation as
disruptive in Christensen’s sense.
According to Christensen’s theory, rms that innovate in a radical or
incremental manner in a struggle to improve their overall quality in
order to further improve their products, usually pursue the attribu-
tes of a dominant design. Such rms practice so-called “sustaining
innovations” and compete to serve a class of unsatised consumers
who would pay more for improvements in features or attributes of
the product consumed. is group should comprise the majority of
rms and innovations. On the other hand, there are companies that
seek to serve satised consumers and accept or desire a lower quali-
ty or quantity of certain attributes. Such companies practice low-end
disruptive strategies. As an example, Christensen (1997) presents 3½-

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2019. Volume 14, Issue 1
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 75
inch oppy disk readers as low-end innovators over their 5¼-inch
competitors in the 1980s. Until that date, although the 3½ disks were
smaller than the dominant 5¼ disks, they did not meet the storage
capacity required by leading minicomputer and PC makers and were
thus produced by companies that served a limited and less protable
market comprised of the nascent laptop industry. Over time, through
incremental innovations, the 3½ oppy disks met the standard stora-
ge capacity required by the minicomputer and PC market, capturing
a signicant portion of the market from its 5¼ competitors. A similar
pattern was found in the previous period:
For example, the 8-inch oppy disk would store 20 MB when
it was rst introduced, while the primary oppy disk market at
that time was mainframe and required 200 MB disk. Not sur-
prisingly, leading computer producers rejected the architecture
of the 8-inch oppy disk initially. As a result, vendors, whose
mainstream products consisted of 14-inch disks with more than
200 MB of capacity, did not aggressively track disruptive pro-
ducts. (Bower & Christensen, 1995, p.45)
Finally, Christensen’s theory states that there are innovations that
bring new consumers to the market, previously untapped due to lack
of ability to consume or enjoy the good (or service) or insucient re-
sources. By making products and services simpler and cheaper, rms
enable the emergence of consumers requesting attributes that are di-
erent from those demanded by the conventional market. Firms that
practice such strategies are called new-market disruptive innovators.
e Sony Walkman is a typical example (Christensen, 1997), as it per-
sonalized music to people who walked or jogged and had no option
available except for portable radio alternatives. More recently, Kenya’s
Vodafone-Safaricom M-Pesa provided another example of a new-
market disruptive innovation when it started oering Short Message
Service (SMS) payment services at a time when more sophisticated
and faster technologies were available but did not reach a signicant
portion of potential consumers (Ngugi, Pelowski, & Ogembo, 2010).
Figure 1. Model of the Disruptive Innovation eory developed by Christen-
sen, Anthony, and Roth (2004)
Figure 1 summarizes the essential elements of Christensen’s theo-
retical model. e dotted lines are the evolutionary trajectories of
the attributes demanded by the average consumer, and the thick
arrows represent the technological evolution of dierent companies.
Company A is one that seeks to increase the supply of attributes
valued by its current customers, and its innovations are called sus-
tainable. Company B, on the other hand, innovates by reducing the
number of attributes in its products (low-end disruptive innovation)
and potentially, but not necessarily, achieves this goal in the future.
Finally, company C captures nonconsumers, who place more value
on a dierent set of attributes than the design favored by dominant
consumers (new-market disruptive innovation).
Christensen argues that his approach is subject to fewer observable
anomalies than previous theoretical constructs, especially with the
incorporation of its most recent advances. In Christensen (2006),
for example, the scope of the theory has been expanded and it now
considers changes in business models as innovation, preferring the
term “disruptive innovation” to the previous “disruptive technology”.
Since the second edition of his book, e Innovator’s Dilemma, in
the year 2000, Christensen has pointed out that resources, processes,
and values would delineate an organization’s innovative possibilities
by building up relevant knowledge applicable to rms threatened by
disruptors.
Criticism of Christensen’s approach
Christensen’s (1997) approach provided an important theoretical ad-
vance. It added constructs and lled gaps le by previous theories
of innovation. Even critical authors recognize the virtues of the ap-
proach and suggest that we do not abandon it (e.g., King & Baatar-
togtokh, 2015). However, similar to any theoretical construction, it
does not evolve without criticism.
Henderson (2006), for example, exposes the fact that the theory is ba-
sed on the cognitive failures of agents who do not identify disruptive
opportunities within the spectrum of indicators already consolidated
by the dominant design and their current clients. e author argues
for the rationality of the leaders of organizations that do not respond
to disruptive innovations, given the characteristics of competencies
already present in established rms. e decision to serve current
customers in the mainstream market, which provides the best prots,
rather than pursuing a disruption with a lesser probability of success
and lower protability, would be reasonable and consistent with the
empirical data. In reference to disruptive innovations that create or
rely on new patterns of market preferences, the author states that it is
“particularly dicult for established rms to respond eectively for
reasons that are embedded in rm competencies” (2006, p.9).
For Markides (2006), the theory developed by Christensen has been
mistakenly used in the analysis of dierent disruptive innovations.
Although Christensen and Raynor (2003) expanded the scope of
disruptive innovations beyond the technological context previously
outlined in Christensen (1997) to also encompass business model and
products, Markides (2006) emphasizes that disruptive innovations
may have some eects on competition that must be administered in
a manner dierent than that advocated by Christensen (1997). Mar-
kides’ argument is that there are dierent kinds of disruptive innova-
tions and that they should be treated dierently. e author explores

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2019. Volume 14, Issue 1
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 76
two phenomena present in the literature: innovation in business mo-
del and radical product innovation. According to Markides, these two
types of innovations threaten unprepared rms in a manner similar
to Christensen’s (1997) description, but inhibiting excessive proxi-
mity to customers, as suggested by Bower and Christensen (1995),
would not be the most appropriate approach to innovations that were
not purely technological.
While some authors argue that upmarket innovations that improve
the quality of a product or service may be disruptive innovations
(Markides, 2006), Christensen, Raynor, and McDonald (2015) re-
ject this idea and reiterate that disruptive innovations are exclusively
low-end or new market innovations. Improving what is already being
oered to the mainstream market is not a disruptive innovation in
Christensen’s sense, but rather is a sustaining innovation.
Bibliometric analysis
e evaluation begins with the selection of articles in the Web of
Science database from 1995 to 2017 that have the terms “disrupt* in-
novat*” or “disrupt* technolog*” in their titles, abstracts or keywords.
is method generated 876 papers and 2,299 authors, amounting to
11,941 citations, excluding self-citations. Because the set of articles
was also ltered based on the category of interest, (e.g., Business &
Economics), the selection was restricted to 333 publications by 675
dierent authors. As an additional lter, only articles with at least one
citation were kept, resulting in a sample of 266 articles in 82 journals
by 500 dierent authors. We restrict the sample further by selecting
the ten journals with the highest JCR indices, listed in Table 1, resul-
ting in a universe of analysis consisting of 140 articles.
Tab le 1. Search lters - Web of Science database
Codes Filters # papers # authors
(A)
Title, abstract or key-word contai-
ning “disrupt* innovat*” or “disrupt*
technolog*”
876 2.299
(B) Category: Business & Economics 333 675
(C) Number of citation > 0 266 500
(D)
Journals: (D1) Technological Fo-
recasting and Social Change; (D2)
Journal od Product Innovation Ma-
nagement; (D3) Harvard Business
Review; (D4) Technovation; (D5)
Research-Technology Management;
(D6) Research Policy; (D7) Techno-
logy Analysis & Strategic Manage-
ment; (D8) Creativity and Innova-
tion Management; (D9) International
Journal of Technology Management;
(D10) IEE Transactions of Enginee-
ring Management.
140 301
e temporal evolution of the publications in the universe of analysis
begins in 1995 with Bower and Christensen’s (1995) seminal article,
Disruptive Technologies - Catching the wave, in which the “disruptive
innovation” concept was still referred to by the term “disruptive tech-
nology”. Between 1995 and 1999, there were no articles in the sample.
e peak of representation occurred in 2013 with the publication of
17 articles. Table 2 summarizes the distribution of the number of pu-
blications in each journal in the research universe.
Table 2. Distribution of the number of articles by periodical and year of publication. Codes (D1) and (D10) follow as in Table 1
Journal
Publication year
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Tot a l
(D1) 42 7323 5245138
(D2) 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 16
(D3) 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
(D4) 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 13
(D5) 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 12
(D6) 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 11
(D7) 1 2 3 3 2 11
(D8) 1 2 3 2 1 9
(D9) 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 9
(D10) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Tot a l 1 1 2 7 1 9 3 2 12 11 6 11 12 11 17 12 10 10 2 140
Within this research universe, the core subjects selected were the 25
most cited articles, produced by 55 different authors, and represen-
ting more than 75% of the citations in the universe; that is, 3,215 cita-
tions out of a total of 4,281 from 140 articles. Then, after this selection
of authors and their co-citations, the metadata were submitted to
analysis, carried out with the support of the Bibexcel and Stata
software. The set of the 25 articles selected is presented in the ap-
pendix.

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2019. Volume 14, Issue 1
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 77
Assuming that authors can be identified with a single theoreti-
cal framework, the analysis of co-citations was made using the
authors of the 25 papers selected as units of analysis, resulting
in a total of 55 names. Based on these names and those pre-
sent in the co-citation list, a network was constructed and the
centrality and intermediation grades were calculated. The net-
work is visualized in Figure 2, which was restricted to authors
cited at least 300 times in the research universe and has distinct
coloration for each of the two groups formed: Group 1 in red and
Group 2 in green.
Figure 2. Author co-citation network
e clusters suggest that authors who are critical of some
Christensen`s ideas, such as Erwin Danneels, or even authors who
employ a concept distinct from that proposed by Christensen, such
as Michael Tushman, are in the same cluster (Group 2 (green)). On
the other hand, Group 1 (red) contemplates authors whose papers
focus more on the application of innovation management tools and
techniques, such as technological roadmaps, and who rarely discuss
the theoretical aspects common to other areas of investigation. e
centrality and intermediation degrees for the authors calculated in
the standard and normalized versions are presented in Table 3 and
show that Christensen has both high centrality and intermediation,
suggesting that the author not only concentrates attention but also
aids in the development of the network close to several pairs, even
from a dierent group.
Tab le 3. Grouping, degrees of centrality and intermediation of main authors
Author Group
Centrality
Author Group
Intermediation
Standard Normalized Standard Normalized
Christensen C 2 37 0.804 Walsh S 1 419.02 0.202
Bower J 2 36 0.783 Daim T 1 321.00 0.155
Danneels E 2 29 0.630 Lee J 1 315.51 0.152
Baker W 2 25 0.543 Christensen C 2 259.45 0.125
Daim T 1 22 0.478 Kirchho B 1 225.85 0.109
Lee C 1 21 0.457 Newbert S 1 178.10 0.086
Lee J 1 21 0.457 Phaal R 1 165.11 0.080
Johnson M 2 21 0.457 Robinson D 1 164.76 0.080
Gassmann O 2 19 0.413 Prusak L 2 151.36 0.073
Lee S 1 19 0.413 Baker W 2 147.35 0.071
Moreover, as this study took the approach of constructing groups by
author, it was not possible to glimpse the situation in which the same
author has works with distinct characteristics; for example, belonging
to dierent groups. is is the case of Steve Walsh, who possesses the
highest degree of intermediation. As an illustration of his importan-
ce, if one ignores the minimum node rule in each cluster, the author
emerges at the head of a third cluster. To cover more details about the
groups, the analysis continued with a focus on the keywords given by

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2019. Volume 14, Issue 1
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 78
the original set of 140 articles and the construction of their network.
e resulting map is shown in Figure 3, with a cluster-oriented cons-
truction and a minimum of 13 occurrences, chosen ad hoc to improve
visual representation of the network.
Figure 3. Keyword occurrence network
Figure 3 is in line with initial impressions that there is one group
(red) which is associated with the development of management tools,
such as the technology roadmap and is less concerned with discus-
sing the term “disruptive innovation” or its meaning as suggested by
Christensen. Disruptive innovations for this group are those that
oppose incremental or architectural innovations and are usually
taken as synonyms for radical or breakthrough innovations. is
group has been more frequently featured in the journal Technolo-
gical Forecasting and Social Change. On the other hand, the other
group (green) exposes dierent typologies of innovation that are
more associated with works that seek theoretical development in
management disciplines, but which are criticized for having a re-
trospective view. ey consist of texts written by Christensen and
colleagues but also by authors who discuss or criticize their con-
cepts (e.g., Daneels, 2004; Schmidt & Druehl, 2008). ey are part
of the business and management community, with major contribu-
tions made by the Harvard Business Review and the Journal of Pro-
duct Innovation Management.
As a nal point, based on the exercise carried out, a composition was
constructed with two major thematic groups related to disruptive in-
novations. is conciliation is presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Group composition of selected articles
Group Authors Associated terms Characteristics
Green
Bower J; Christensen C; Danne-
els E; Henderson R; Markides C;
O’Reilly C; Tushman M; Utter-
back J;
Creative destruction;
Business model innovation;
Technological discontinuities;
Radical innovation;
Incumbents
It seeks to explain and test determinants of innovations;
Related to the business and management community.
Engages, discusses or tests Christensen’s concepts.
Red
Daim T; Kosto R;
Lee S; Linton J;
Phaal R; Porter A;
Walsh S; Yoon B;
Technology roadmap;
Innovation management;
Technology planning;
Technology entrepreneurship;
Tech mining
Employs prediction or similar tools in innovation management;
Related to multidisciplinary communities.
Do not discuss Christensen`s concepts.
e Red subgroup is dedicated to assisting with the monito-
ring, planning, acquisition or employment of technologies, with a
multidisciplinary focus and strong inuence on engineering.
Although the use of the term “disruptive innovation” is associated

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2019. Volume 14, Issue 1
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 79
with radical events, the discussion about the conceptualization given
by Christensen is almost nonexistent. e Green subgroup has a grea-
ter adherence to the area of business and strategy and presents more
enthusiasm for theoretical constructions. It is common for this group
to test or discuss the conception of disruptive innovation proposed
by Christensen. e authors from this group do not always agree with
Christensen’s conceptualization, but it is in this group that eventual
discussions about the term tend to occur.
Final remarks
e understanding of dierent types of innovation is relevant to the
advancement of theoretical constructs and applications within or-
ganizations, an idea that has been accepted at least since Utterback
and Abernathy (1975), and disruptive innovations should not be an
exception. e present paper tried to map the main authors related
to the theme and their respective publications. For readers less fa-
miliar with the debate, this enables the selection of important papers
to obtain a better understanding of the insertion of Christensen into
the research universe. For more experienced practitioners and acade-
mics, the work provides a panoramic view of the eld associated with
disruptive innovation, with an explicit suggestion for further develo-
pment of the theory in the last paragraph.
Overall, the analysis showed that Christensen’s prominence in the
debate is evident. Even if a reader considers Christensen’s disruptive
innovation denition trivial, incomplete, or misleading, his name has
acquired distinction in the literature. In addition to his high degree
of centrality, he also has one of the highest degrees of intermediation.
Although simpler terminology and denitions may be preferred
(Hopp et al., 2018b), a semantic narrowing of the term “disruptive
innovation” seems to be necessary for the consequent development
of innovation theories. e narrowing of the concept has two advan-
tages. Firstly, it provides a clearer path to theoretical improvements.
More precise constructs may reduce undesirable ambiguities and help
us to better understand how rms cope with disruptive innovations
and introduce them. Secondly, it helps feed our hunger for knowled-
ge on disruptive innovation and facilitates the collection of data and
the production of missed quantitative-related studies. Along this line,
instead of looking for a term best suited to explaining the multiface-
ted phenomenon of disruptive innovations, it may be the case that we
are facing dierent phenomena and, if this is so, a dierent term is
desirable. Consequently, for those contemplating Christensen’s con-
cept of disruptive innovation, the use of alternative terminology such
as the “Christensen eect” (Christensen, 2006, p. 42) seems to be an
attractive suggestion for further development of the theory.
References
Abernathy, W. J., & K. B. Clark. (1985). Innovation: mapping the
winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3-22. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(85)90021-6
Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial in-
novation. MIT Technology Review, 80(7), 41-47.
Besanko, D., Dranove, D., & Shanley, M. (2004). Economics of strate-
gy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies:
Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43-53.
Cândido, A. C. (2011). Inovação disruptiva: Reexões sobre as suas
características e implicações no mercado. Working paper 05-2011.
Research Centre on Enterprise and Work Innovation. Faculdade de
Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade de Lisboa. Portugal. Retrieved
from https://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/6912/1/WPSeries_05_2011
ACC%C3%A2ndido-1.pdf
Christensen, C. M. (1997). e Innovator’s dilemma: When new te-
chnologies cause great rms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Christensen, C. M. (2006). e ongoing process of building a theory
of disruption. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 39-
55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00180.x
Christensen, C. M., & Bower J. L. (1996). Customer power, strate-
gic investment, and the failure of leading rms. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 17(3), 197-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199603)17:3<197::AID-SMJ804>3.0.CO;2-U
Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of
disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 65-76.
Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. (2003). e Innovator’s solution:
creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Christensen, C. M., Anthony, S. D., & Roth, E. A. (2004). Seeing what’s
next. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is dis-
ruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44-53.
Daneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A cri-
tique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Ma-
nagement, 21(4), 246-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-
6782.2004.00076.x
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Langlois, R. (2003). Managing in the
modular age: Architectures, networks, and organizations. Oxford: Blac-
kwell.
Henderson, R. (2006). e innovator’s dilemma as a problem of or-
ganizational competence. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
23(1), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00175.x
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation:
e reconguration of existing product technologies and the failure
of established rms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(special is-
sue: Technology, Organizations, and Innovations), 9-30.

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2019. Volume 14, Issue 1
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 80
Hill, C. W. L., Jones, G. R., & Schilling, M. A. (2015). Strategic ma-
nagement theory & cases: An integrated approach. Stanford: Cengage.
Hopp, C., Antons, D., Kaminski, J., & Salge, T. O. (2018a). Disrupti-
ve innovation: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and re-
search opportunities in the digital age. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 35(3), 446-457. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12448
Hopp, C., Antons, D., Kaminski, J., & Salge, T. O. (2018b). e topic
landscape of disruption research: A call for consolidation, reconcilia-
tion, and generalization. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
35(3), 458-487. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12440
King, A. A., & Baatartogtokh, B. (2015). How useful is the theory of
disruptive innovation? MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(1), 70-90.
Li, M., Porter, A. L., & Suominen, A. (2018). Insights into relationships
between disruptive technology/innovation and emerging technology:
A bibliometric perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Chan-
ge, 129(4), 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.032
Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 19-25. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00177.x
Markides, C. (2013). Disruptive reality: making the leap into deve-
loped markets. Business Strategy Review, 24(3), 36-43. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8616.2013.00970.x
Nugi, B., Pelowski, M., & Ogembo, J. G. (2010). M-Pesa: A case study
of the critical early adopters’ role in the rapid adoption of mobile banking
in Kenya. e Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Cou-
ntries, 43(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2010.tb00307.x
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCDE).
(2005). Oslo Manual: e measurement of scientic and technological
activities, 3rd Edition. OECD, Statistical Oce of the European Com-
munities. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Pilkington, A. (2009). Exploring the disruptive nature of disruptive tech-
nolo g y. Paper presented at the 2009 International Conference on Indus-
trial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Hong Kong.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining
superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Schiavi, G. S., & Behr, A. (2017). Modelos de negócios disruptivos: um
estudo bibliométrico da produção cientíca disponível em bases de da-
dos nacionais e internacionais. Paper presented at the 2017 Interna-
tional Conference on Information Resources Management (CONF-
IRM), Santiago de Chile. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/
conrm2017/19
Schmidt, G. M., & Druehl, C. T. (2008). When is a disrupti-
ve innovation disruptive? Journal of Product Innovation Ma-
nagement, 25(4), 347-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5885.2008.00306.x
Schumpeter, J. A. (1912). e theory of economic development. Cam-
bridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (2014). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Floyd,
VI: Impact Books. Original published in 1942.
Smith, A. (2007). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of
nations. Edited by Sálvio M. Soares. MetaLibri, v.1.0p. Retrieved from
http://metalibri.wikidot.com/title:an-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-
causes-of-the-wealthof.Original work published in 1776.
Souza, I. D. S., & V. P. Takahashi. (2012). A vision of the future
through prospective scenarios: A tool for the anticipation of
disruptive innovation. Future Studies Research Journal, 4(2),
102-131.
e Economist. (2011). Aiming high: we launch a quarterly review of
business books by considering six of the best. Business books. Retrieved
from http://www.economist.com/node/18894875
Trott, P. (2008). Innovation management and new product develop-
ment. New York: Prentice Hall.
Utterback, J. M., & W. J. A. Abernathy. (1975). Dynamic model of
process and product innovation. Omega – International Journal of
Management Science, 3(6), 639-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-
0483(75)90068-7

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2019. Volume 14, Issue 1
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 81
Appendix
Table A. Summary of selected articles
Reference Title Journal # Authors Citations
O’Reilly and Tushman (2004) e Ambidextrous Organization Harvard Business Review 2 602
Bower and Christensen (1995) Disruptive Technologies - Catching e Wave Harvard Business Review 2 527
Phaal et al. (2004) Technology Roadmapping - A Planning Framework ... Tech Forec & Social Change 3 355
Johnson et al. (2008) Reinventing Your Business Model Harvard Business Review 3 328
Danneels (2004) Disruptive Technology Reconsidered: A Critique ... Journal Of Product Innov Manag 1 256
Christensen et al. (2000) Will Disruptive Innovations Cure Health Care? Harvard Business Review 3 231
Walsh (2004) Roadmapping A Disruptive Technology ... Tech Forec & Social Change 1 144
Christensen et al. (2006) Disruptive Innovation For Social Change Harvard Business Review 4 142
Kosto et al. (2004) Disruptive Technology Roadmaps Tech Forec & Social Change 3 134
Song et al. (2008) Success Factors In New Ventures: A Meta-Analysis Journal Of Product Innov Manag 4 125
Baker and Sinkula (2007) Does Market Orientation Facilitate Balanced Innova-
tion ... Journal Of Product Innov Manag 2 122
Massa and Testa (2008) Innovation And Smes: Misaligned Perspectives ... Technovation 2 110
Walsh et al. (2002) Dierentiating Market Strategies For Disruptive … IEEE Transactions On Eng Manag 3 91
Lee and Park (2005) Customization Of Technology Roadmaps ... Tech Forec & Social Change 2 90
Lee et al. (2009) Business Planning Based On Technological Capabili-
ties... Tech Forec & Social Change 4 89
Prusak and Cohen (2001) How To Invest In Social Capital Harvard Business Review 2 88
Lee et al. (2013) An Integrated Service-Device-Technology Roadmap ... Tech Forec & Social Change 3 66
Daim and Oliver (2008) Implementing Technology Roadmap Process ... Tech Forec & Social Change 2 66
Zeschky et al. (2011) Frugal Innovation In Emerging Markets... Research-Technology Manag. 3 63
Robinson and Propp (2008) Multi-Path Mapping For Alignment Strategies... Tech Forec & Social Change 2 63
Schmidt and Druehl (2008) When Is A Disruptive Innovation Disruptive? Journal Of Product Innov Manag 2 61
Kosto et al. (2007) Global Nanotechnology Research Literature Overview Tech Forec & Social Change 3 58
Islam and Miyazaki (2010) An Empirical Analysis Of Nanotechnology … Technovation 2 57
Walsh et al. (2005) e Semiconductor Silicon Industry Roadmap... Tech Forec & Social Change 4 56
Sapsed et al. (2007) A Bridge Over Troubled Waters... Research Policy 3 53

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2019. Volume 14, Issue 1
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 82