Category: Linkage

Sunday Links

Thursday Links

Sunday Links

A few thoughts and associated links on the Great Disruption Debate of 2014, triggered by Jill Lepore’s scathing indictment of the theory of disruptive innovation in this week’s New Yorker:

  • The theory of “Disruptive Innovation” is a very narrow one, and pretty easy to understand: upstart companies produce cheaper, less-“featured” products that reach customers who otherwise could not afford the more expensive product or don’t need all of the features. Over time, the upstarts produce slightly better, slightly more expensive products, which eventually begin to compete with the incumbents’ products, and often overtake them – eventually. Hewing closely to this definition, AirBnB is a disruptive innovation (using technology to offer a theoretically cheaper, inferior product to a hotel room), but Uber is not (Uber is a better, more expensive offering to traditional taxis – though you could argue that Uber is actually disrupting the personal car)
  • Most individuals and companies opining about the need to “disrupt” this or that aren’t referring to the theory; the term has been watered down and broadened to include basically any type of innovation. The article both outlines this trend and exemplifies it; Lepore, for example, counts the financial innovations that helped stoke the financial crisis in 2008 (e.g., collateralized debt obligations, mortgage-backed securities) as “disruptive innovations,” but it seems fairer to count them only as “innovations.” Not all innovations are disruptive innovations, and not all “disruption” is disruptive innovation (Uber is certainly disruptive in the colloquial sense of the word)
  • Apropos of the point above: Taco Bell doesn’t really need a “resident disruptor” because it already churns out the cheapest, shittiest tacos available. In Christensen’s parlance, the Doritos Locos taco is a sustaining innovation (Taco Bell is making what is theoretically a “better” taco), not a disruptive one
  • The article misses the point when it comes to “disrupting” people-centric industries like education, health care, and journalism, arguing that these are not disrupt-able because they have non-financial “obligations” and are, therefore, not “industries.” This is simply uninformed. For example, Massively Open Online Courses, or MOOCs, are routinely derided for being a poor alternative to on-campus learning – and that’s the point. MOOCs are, so far, a cheaper, inferior substitute for on-campus learning – but they meet the needs of some people. Over time, they’ll get better and more expensive, and more people will use them. They are, definitionally, a disruptive innovation
  • Lepore weakens her argument by including a strange you-damn-kids-get-off-my-lawn paragraph about kids and their scooters and their jeans and their coffee machines – preferring, presumably, the cold professionalism of a sclerotic newsroom to a more comfortable working environment
  • Regardless of the virtues or vices of Lepore’s article, this interview with Clayton Christensen (author of The Innovator’s Dilemma and the man who has done the most for – and gained the most from – the theory) is really, really strange. Christensen, a professor at Harvard, is generally regarded as a pretty nice guy, but the interview is rambling, angry, and sees Christensen use the third person instead of the first
  • It was simply irresponsible journalism for Lepore to not interview Christensen for the article, as Christensen claims
  • Will Oremus wrote a very entertaining mini-rebuttal to Lepore’s article: “Lepore’s main point is that disruptive innovation isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. At least, that seemed to be her point up until the point where she started talking about journalism”

Sunday Links

Sunday Links

 

Wednesday Links

Friday Links

Thursday Links

Saturday Links

  • “The role of the Surgeon General is not legislative, but one of advocacy. In view of the existing empirical and scientific evidence, advocating for stronger gun control is a logical and justifiable conclusion.” – this, from The Lancet, is excellent. Dr. Vivek Murthy should be confirmed, and this shouldn’t be an issue. The only silver lining from this is that it’s increasingly clear that the NRA will eventually just flame itself out by refusing to compromise; some other more reasonable advocacy group will supplant it (in a normative world, anyway)
  • Philip Klein is right: get rid of the mortgage interest deduction! He and I come at the issue from different premises and stated preferences, but the conclusion is the same: it’s a regressive, dumb, wasteful policy
  • I viewed this headline with a lot of skepticism before I read the article, and it totally changed my mind
  • Terrifying quotes from a Kenyan counterterrorism official: “In this work you can’t go by the book.” “What do you do if no one gives you evidence?” he asked, then answering himself, “This is why there is Guantanamo Bay.” A constant reminder of how bad US ripples around the world
  • Complain all you want about the new FiveThirtyEight, but it’s analyzing decisions, admitting failure, and iterating – exactly what a nascent startup should be doing. Give it time
  • It’s laudable that policy experts are attempting to come up with ways to reduce R&D costs for the next generation of needed pharmaceuticals, but I think Uwe Reinhardt’s ever-so-slight pessimism is more on the mark: there won’t be an easy out to our cost issues, and our society – my generation – will be forced to make difficult decisions with trade-offs
  • Yes, rape culture is real
  • This is gross. Actually, it’s worse; it’s dangerous and irresponsible of Uber to allow drivers access to personal information of the riders
  • This is a long pull-quote but you should really read the whole thing:

    On my end, I’ve learned that there are times that I need to modify my own priorities and figure out with the patient what goals are achievable, at least at a given time. I’m also reminded how much more intriguing and challenging medicine is when we have the opportunity to delve in deep with a patient.

    By the “quality measures” scorecard, this patient will count as a failure on my watch, since I have not succeeded in normalizing his glucose — or his cholesterol or his blood pressure, for that matter. The objective, outcome-driven data would rate me as a better-quality doctor if diabetes fell off his radar again and he dropped out of my practice.

    Luckily for both of us, he continues to come to his appointments, and we both call that a success.

     

Friday Links