Study Question #1 – Worth 8 points

Disruptive innovation as described by Christensen is powerful because his theory is that small companies have an advantage over the big incumbent companies when the small companies are following a disruptive strategy. His theory is that big companies are not stupid, but handcuffed. Please describe a company that in your estimation is a low end disruptor (either from the past or that you think is presently disrupting their industry). Next describe why the big companies are handcuffed. Why won’t they, or why can’t they, compete head to head with the low end disruptor?

Study Question #2 – Worth 10 points

Disruptive innovation as described by Christensen is hard for large incumbent companies because oftentimes they are not structured to take advantage of potential disruptive opportunities. However, he makes recommendations for how large institutions could begin to behave in ways that make them better able to take advantage of disruptive opportunities as well as general recommendations as to how large organizations can take advantage of disruptive opportunities. So, using the example we discussed in class about a potential new market disruption of serving active duty military and government workers with Masters degrees on a large scale, how would you suggest that a large, existing, mainstream university move forward to take advantage of that market to be in a position not just to take nibbles, but to take large chunks of the market? Describe the bullet points of the plan you would present to the university president to attack this market. Think about the structure this new effort, staffing the effort, business processes, and scale of financing required as examples of elements in your plan.

N/B A page to each answer is fine.