Porter vs. Christensen
Michael Porter and Clayton Christensen are two renowned business strategist who offer similar industry understandings, with different strategy implementation. In each one of the strategist’s works, the main differences that separate themselves apart are their views between sustained businesses strategy and the alertness of large industries toward disruptive technology. Porter and Christensen strike some similarities that are seen through some of their perspectives on an industry market. Regardless of how Porter or Christensen approach strategy implementation, both strategist goals seek to outline the most effective framework in which companies can achieve highest potential profitability against rivals.
Porter’s strategy …show more content…
He defines disruptive technology as insignificant products emerging in small markets that offer small margins of profitability, but bring different value proposals to a market that wasn’t previously available. Christensen then identifies capabilities of an organization that are crucial for sustained success. He generates a framework from an industries capabilities that hinge on resources, processes, and values. Each of these three elements must be thoroughly analyzed by management to successfully implement strategies that promote the traditional model of sustainability. From Christensen’s exploration of the traditional framework, he is able to identify why successful companies eventually fail. He proposes that the traditional method of managing capabilities are the reason behind the failure large corporations run into. He states that “the very management practices that have allowed them to become industry leaders also make it extremely difficult for them to develop the disruptive technologies that ultimately steal away their markets” (Christensen. 265). Because of large corporation’s singular views within a market of established profitability, small emerging markets are able to undermined large corporations once the hidden disruptive technology matures. According to Christensen, since technological progression moves faster than consumer demand, larger companies dismiss these
Michael Porter and Clayton Christensen are two renowned business strategist who offer similar industry understandings, with different strategy implementation. In each one of the strategist’s works, the main differences that separate themselves apart are their views between sustained businesses strategy and the alertness of large industries toward disruptive technology. Porter and Christensen strike some similarities that are seen through some of their perspectives on an industry market. Regardless of how Porter or Christensen approach strategy implementation, both strategist goals seek to outline the most effective framework in which companies can achieve highest potential profitability against rivals.
Porter’s strategy …show more content…
He defines disruptive technology as insignificant products emerging in small markets that offer small margins of profitability, but bring different value proposals to a market that wasn’t previously available. Christensen then identifies capabilities of an organization that are crucial for sustained success. He generates a framework from an industries capabilities that hinge on resources, processes, and values. Each of these three elements must be thoroughly analyzed by management to successfully implement strategies that promote the traditional model of sustainability. From Christensen’s exploration of the traditional framework, he is able to identify why successful companies eventually fail. He proposes that the traditional method of managing capabilities are the reason behind the failure large corporations run into. He states that “the very management practices that have allowed them to become industry leaders also make it extremely difficult for them to develop the disruptive technologies that ultimately steal away their markets” (Christensen. 265). Because of large corporation’s singular views within a market of established profitability, small emerging markets are able to undermined large corporations once the hidden disruptive technology matures. According to Christensen, since technological progression moves faster than consumer demand, larger companies dismiss these