Bezos: For better or worse, it is really not a part of our culture to look at things defensively. We rarely say, “Oh my God, we’ve got to do something about that existential threat.” Maybe one day we’ll become extinct because of that deficiency in our nature. I don’t know. We look at things through a different lens. We say, “Oh, here’s this incredible phenomenon called social networking. How can we be inspired by that to make our business better?” I hope we find something.

I really, really like this philosophy of Jeff Bezos. Start with your customers, weave new ideas into that. Do not rush headlong into doing something out of competitive reaction.

Good framework for considering an innovation. How does it compare to incumbents? Can it pass the 9x benefits test?

This is missing the point. The problem isn't that some designers are losing work to 99designs. The problem is that spec work devalues the entire design industry. reply

23 points by run4yourlives 4 hours ago | link No, actually you are. I hate to break it to you but you as a seller do not get much of a say on what value your product has in the marketplace. This is as true for design as it is for anything else. The value of a product is exactly what buyers are willing to pay for it. Saying things such as "spec work devalues the entire design industry" suggests clearly that your definition of value is not in line with your customer's definition. When this is the case, you basically have two options: 1. Demonstrate an increased value to the customer that you bring that they are willing to pay for, or; 2. Lower your price to compete. Walling off your industry to preserve profits that aren't in line with the real value of the product might be desirable but it is unsustainable in the long run in today's modern world. Ask the music industry.

I love this exchange on Hacker News. Why? It encapsulates the way disruption feels in a market. The incumbents fight hard against new models. But the market is ultimate arbiter of what holds value, and what models make sense. Just ask the integrated steel mills.

Still, doesn't make it any less painful for the incumbents.

Make it very clear that good, small ideas matter.

This is so important.  One of the things I heard over and over was “If your product isn’t a billion-dollar idea, then it’s not worth Google’s time.”  This message sucks.  What you’re saying is “your great idea that might make millions per year is less important than a small tweak to ads or search”.  Even if it’s true, you need to foster innovation of much lesser initial impact.

Google acquisitions of companies in the $5-50mm range means that at some level, small businesses are valued.  Make this very clear.  It sucks to have someone say “your $5mm idea isn’t big enough” on the one hand, and then watch Google buy up companies for $5mm each. This is bad precedent.

From an article about Google. I found this passage fascinating. First, the reluctance to take on small ideas inside Google. Sounds like Google has fallen into the trap that bedevils large companies. Namely, that only big, HUGE impact ideas are worth any focus.

Second point is that Google may not put much stock in its employees' small ideas, but will quickly snap up start-ups whose addressable market isn't all that big.

Large companies need to get out of the Innovation Olympics Syndrome (only BIG ideas matter). As this post illustrates, it's a morale killer.

Now that you’ve defined what you want to disrupt, the next step is to identify the assumptions that seem to influence the way insiders (and often outsiders) think about your situation. In other words, what are the clichés — the widespread, hackneyed beliefs that govern the way people think about and do business in a particular space. If you pay attention, you’ll notice that clichés are everywhere. (You’ll also notice that, almost by definition, they’ve lost their ingenuity and impact.)

In the soft-drink industry, for example, some of the product clichés are as follows: Soda is inexpensive, it tastes sweet, and it’s advertised as aspirational. (For example, if you want to be like [celebrity spokesperson], you have to drink Mountain Dew.) In the rental car business, the prevailing interaction clichés include the following: Face-to-face interaction with a service agent, completing a lot of paperwork, and renting vehicles by the day.

Start by getting online and identifying a handful of direct competitors in the industry, segment, or category you’re focused on. Do a little research on each competitor and make a list of the clichés that keep everyone doing the same thing, competing the same way, or operating with the same set of assumptions. The quickest and most efficient way to do this is to explore company websites, examine their advertising, and read what people are saying about the companies and their products on blogs and other social media platforms (such as Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon).

Nice piece by Luke Williams (frog design fellow, NYU Stern adjunct professor) on Mashable. The article's focus is on disrupting the incumbents in industries.

However, several examples here aren't so much disruption, rather they're about establishing a market niche. But doing so is an important first step in ultimately disrupting an industry.

Example of a niche that ultimately disrupted? NetFlix (taking down Blockbuster).

I find merit in this passage from the paper:

"Complex adaptive systems constantly seek to adapt to the environmental circumstances in which they find themselves. Thus they are able to undertake short term exploitation activities as required and to invest in longer term exploration as needed. Their activities are determined by the conditions in which the system finds itself, and it responds in a self-organizing reaction. A CAS does not ‘differentiate’ between the long term and the short term - it simply self-organizes appropriately. It engages in multiple activities of different types. The message here for organizations is not to take too rigid a stance in approaches to innovation, but to respond flexibly as internal and external environments demand."

The quote builds on a counterargument that a balanced approach to radical vs. incremental innovation is a necessary strategy. Through the complexity of the organization emerges a "what's needed" approach to innovation.