English Hacking

카오틱스에서 원용하는 여러 이야기 가운데, 빼놓을 수 없는게 바로 크리스텐슨 의 disruptive technologies/innovations 겠죠. 이 이야기는 그의 1995년 HBR 기고문 Disruptive Technologies 에서 시작하여, The Innovator’s Dilemma 및 The Innovator’s Solution 등의 책에서 나옵니다. 한 마디로 말하면, 진화나 유지가 아닌 현상의 파괴를 가져오는 기술이랄까…

Christensen distinguishes between “low-end disruption,” which targets customers in a market segment who do not need the full performance valued by customers at the high end of the market, and “new market disruption,” which targets customers who have needs that were previously unserved or insufficiently served.” (Chaotics, p. 22)

이보다 조금 더 흥미로운 이야기는 왜 이런 기술이 기존의 기득권층을 무너뜨리는 효과를 낳게 되느냐는 점에 대한 코틀러 등의 설명인데,

In disruptive technology battles, disrupters usually win against older technology incumbents in the industry. One reason is an asymmetry in financial incentives. A disrupter may see a huge opportunity, whereas the incumbent sees a much smaller one. Initially, the incumbent may actually find being disrupted even a bit pleasant, especially if the disruption causes the company’s most unprofitable and troublesome customers to leave the market first. As its own profit margins improve, the incumbent may even be tempted to ignore the encroaching competition. The disrupter continues to make quiet innovations to its technology until it reaches a level sufficient to capture the core market from the incumbent.
Another reason disrupters usually win against incumbents is the fact that the larger, successful incumbent companies are organized into product divisions, whose managers will keep a close eye on their known rivals’ offerings to ensure that their own products retain their edge. This inherent weakness of many incumbent companies is exacerbated by traditional silo behaviors within companies. Such behaviors occur not just between product divisions, but within each product division as well. The silos do not communicate: R&D doesn’t communicate enough with design and development, production, marketing and sales, and business development. This silo effect has dire consequences and leads to the business operating like a slow-moving ship instead of a fast moving speedboat. Collaboration across disciplines is essential. The disrupters, however, do not care about products as much as they care about those customers who aren’t using the incumbent’s products. The disrupters want to see what needs these potential customers have that are not being adequately fulfilled.
When attacked by a disrupter, the first reaction by executives in incumbent technology companies is usually to protect their high-paying positions and their well-worn, comfortable business models. The typical response: Close your eyes and maybe it will go away. Occasionally it does go away, but usually it does not, and then the chaos really kicks in: Scramble to cut staff. Argue and debate. And make it as difficult as possible for the customer to actually adopt the new technology. Incumbents typically do everything in their power to put off the day of technological reckoning because their biggest problem is that they must bear the burden of supporting the older technology and the business model built around that technology, while at the same time experimenting with, building up, and transitioning into the new business model structures. Meanwhile, the technological disrupters do not bear this double-cost burden. For disrupters, everything is fluid and relatively low-cost. And while the incumbents are fighting to make sense of the chaos in which they are so deeply mired, the disrupters are aggressively plowing forward with the winds and waves of turbulence at their backs. (pp. 24 – 25)

왠지 모르겠지만, “왜 다윗이 골리앗을 이기는가?”라는 질문은 아주 강한 매력이 있죠. 많은 사람이 이 문제에 답해 보려고 하구요. 근데, 골치아픈 것은 가끔씩 누군가는 이 문제를 “왜 다윗은 골리앗을 이길 수 밖에 없는가?”라는 문제로 바꾸는 경향이 있더라구요. 이 둘은 분명히 다른 문젠데 말이죠…