rely on subordinates for interpreta- computers, whereas the 2.

5-inch ment achievable in tbe technology

tion. But tbose interpretations can drive is used in notebook computers. against the trajectory of improve-
be misinterpretations. Conner Peripherals was the leading ment demanded in the market. Our
The people who monitor the flow maker of 3.5-inch products and bet is tbat the technology will move
of information on a daily basis are made a seamless transition to the faster than the market. The 1.8-inch
often studying certain trends. But 2.5-inch generation. It was the first drives will not catch 2.5-inch drives.
wben a request for information time in the industry's history that But they are very likely to invade the
comes to tbem, they know they are the leading manufacturer of one portable computer market.
expected to provide only what was kind of drive remained on top of the It is true tbat the market for 1.8-
specifically requested. They may not industry when a new architecture inch drives (whicb we believe are a
even associate the request with the emerged. But there is a reason why disruptive innovation) is small and
trends tbey are following. Conner is tbe exception. The leading commercially unimportant to the
The best time to appraise informa- manufacturers of laptop computers leading drive makers at this time.
tion is at tbe inception of a project, were also the pioneering manufac- But isn't that precisely the point?
wben a knowledge base ean sbow turers of notebook computers. And Every time something similar has
whether or not the project has any tbe metrics of performance tbey val- happened in the past, executives at
chance of success, but data requests ued did not ebange: Ruggedness, tbe leading companies bave done ex-
often come too late. And managers low power consumption, minimum actly what Marks says: They had the
could get better information if tbey pbysical size and weigbt, and capaci- new drives designed and ready to go
dropped tbeir retrospective metb- ty were important in botb laptop and but did not sell tbem aggressively.
ods. Tbey tend to ask, in essence, notebook computers. Hence, in tbis So start-up companies, wbich can
what has been done already: an ap- instance, Conner, by listening to its get energized about small markets,
proacb tbat is like driving a car by customers, followed them smoothly have pioneered each emerging mar-
looking in the rearview mirror. As across the architectural transition. ket in the history of the industry,
an information scientist, I have nev- The 2.5-ineh drive was a sustaining, while the established companies
er been asked wbat is going to bap- rather tban a disruptive, technology. have sat on the sidelines, waiting for
pen. No one can predict the future, We also agree that the makers of-, the emerging markets to get big
but certain trends are clear wben 3.5- and 2.5-inch drives bave stayed enough to be interesting. That is
closely followed. An information at the forefront of the industry in de- precisely the dilemma facing large,
professional who monitors a partic- veloping an array of additional sus- successful companies. Small markets
ular subject area on a daily basis taining technological improvements simply do not satisfy the financial
tunes in to trends. Managers could that have pushed the performance of and growth needs of large, estab-
find it profitable to tune in to the in-
3.5- and 2.5-inch drives to dizzying lisbed companies. But the lesson of
formation professional. heights. We do not in any way mean the past, if Marks and others facing
to minimize those impressive disruptive technologies can listen to
DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES achievements. But it bas always it, suggests that in a few years some
been the case that tbe leading drive of the most important customers of
The following is the response of au- makers bave invested aggressively today's leading drive makers will be
thors Joseph L. Bower and Clayton and astutely in radically new tech- eyeing 1.8-ineb drives made by start-
M. Christensen to a letter published nologies tbat addressed tbe next- ups. Today's start-ups will be tomor-
in the March-April issue of HBR generation performance require- row's formidable competitors.
about their fanuary-Februaiy arti- ments of their current customers.
cle "Disruptive Technologies: Catch- We agree that, at least for a very ERRATUM
ing the Wave." long time, the cost per megabyte of
1.8-inch drives will be inferior to Sumantra Ghoshal and Christo-
We appreciate the thoughtful that of 3.5- and 2.5-inch drives. But pher A. Bartlett note that they inad-
comments that Gary Marks, Conner in reminding us of that probability, vertently omitted a citation from
Peripherals, wrote in response to our Marks makes exactly the mistake their article "Changing the Role of
article on disruptive technologies. we warn against in our article. When' Top Management: Beyond Struc-
We agree with everything Marks evaluating whether a disruptive ture to Processes" (HBR January-
asserts and in fact believe the points tecbnology is strategically impor- February 1995). Tbe source of Andy
be makes support tbe contentions of tant, people should avoid comparing Grove's remarks on page 96 was
our article. the disruptive with the established Robert A. Burgelman, "Fading Mem-
There was no room in our article tecbnolo^yl Tbe establisbed tecb- ories: A Process Theory of Strategic
to consider tbe 2.5-ineb drive.^/The nology will nearly always look bet- Business Exit in Dynamic Environ-
3.5-incb drive was initially used in ter. Wbat is critical is to measure the ments," Administrative Science
large luggable and laptop portable trajectory of performanee improve- Quflneriy39 (1994), pp. 28-56. ^

172 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-June 1995