Library
Seeing What's Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change · 14 of 15
Seeing What's Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change
Entrepreneurship MEDIUM

Disruption in Telecommunications

Seeing What's Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change Clayton M. Christensen, Scott D. Anthony, Erik A. Roth
telecom voip wifi co-option networked-industries decoupling case-study

Key Principle

IP-based protocol standardization decouples transport from services, creating entry points for specialist providers. But in highly interdependent networked industries, incumbents possess structural avenues to co-opt disruptive innovations that do not exist in less networked sectors. The telecom case is the book's sharpest corrective against assuming disruption inevitably topples incumbents.

The co-option test has two variables that must both be checked independently:

  1. Motivation -- Does the disruption sustain or destroy incumbent margins?
  2. Ability -- Does the incumbent's value network overlap with the disruptive one enough to provide transferable capabilities?

When both answers favor the incumbent, co-option is the default outcome.

Why This Matters

  • Telecom demonstrates that disruption theory is often misapplied as a prediction of inevitable incumbent overthrow. Cisco's router, wireless technologies, and VoIP all qualified as disruptive yet none toppled telecom incumbents wholesale.
  • The "death by a thousand cuts" model shows how cumulative pressure from many simultaneous entrants can matter even when no single disruptor succeeds alone.
  • The decoupling dynamic (transport vs. services) generalizes: any protocol layer that modularizes an interface creates entry points for focused attackers, but incumbents in networked industries can absorb those attackers if they act early.

Good Examples

  • VoIP co-option: Incumbent providers were "both motivated and able to co-opt IP-based technologies" (Ch. 10, p. 238). IP lowered operating costs while sustaining high-margin models. MCI and AT&T already controlled the world's largest data networks.
  • DoCoMo i-Mode vs. 3G cramming: Most 3G operators crammed not-good-enough technology toward demanding applications and wasted billions. DoCoMo targeted nonconsumers (teenage girls) with simple apps -- ring tones, Hello Kitty characters -- and built a platform for third-party experimentation. Result: ~40 million delighted i-Mode users by September 2003.
  • J-Phone camera vs. FOMA 3G: DoCoMo poured investment into FOMA streaming video; few signed up. J-Phone launched simple camera-phone photo sharing on existing networks and attracted hundreds of thousands. Simple beats sophisticated.
  • Cisco vs. IBM: Cisco's SNA-over-IP router was "good enough" despite lacking dedicated-line reliability. IBM's paradigm-specific capabilities created fatal lock-in. The 60%+ margins that delighted Cisco were "incongruent with IBM's values" (Ch. 10, p. 235).
  • WiFi co-option dynamics: T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T all experimented with WiFi in 2003 -- no asymmetric motivation existed. WLAN entrants needed bridging, account management, and transaction processing -- core incumbent competencies. Hot-spot providers became complements, then acquisition targets.
  • MSO telephony decision matrix: Circuit-switched primary line (sustaining -- avoid), IP primary line (cramming -- avoid), IP secondary line (low-end disruption -- pursue first), converged voice/video/data (new-market disruption -- pursue second).

Counterpoints

  • Volume dependency weakens the disruption shield: Telecom incumbents with massive fixed assets fight for every customer rather than fleeing the low end, unlike industries where incumbents willingly cede segments. This undermines low-end disruptors like Vonage.
  • Bundling is often illusory: Bundling only creates real advantage when both production interdependency (genuinely cheaper together) and consumption interdependency (used together) hold. Cable TV plus circuit-switched telephony fails both tests.
  • Regulation is a wild card: Government action (restricting unlicensed spectrum, licensing requirements) can dramatically alter disruption trajectories in ways exogenous to competitive theory.
  • Fringe threats from "strange places" (IM, gaming) occupy freestanding value networks with deep business-model asymmetry, making them harder for incumbents to co-opt -- but also harder to predict.

Key Quotes

  • "Further penetration of IP will enable a separation of the traditional, formerly necessary relationship between the transport provider and the service provider. We call this decoupling." (Ch. 10, p. 241)
  • "A widespread displacement could leave incumbents looking like hollowed-out shells of their former selves, relegated to providing 'naked transport.'" (Ch. 10, p. 242)
  • "Overshooting creates the motivation for specialists to enter. IP creates the possibility." (Ch. 10, p. 241)
  • "Most operators fell prey to the siren's call of cramming. Instead of embracing simple opportunities that would delight customers, they tried to cram a technology to meet the needs of the most demanding customers." (Ch. 10)
  • "Once again, a simple application that delighted customers succeeded, whereas a great leap forward failed." (Ch. 10, p. 265)
  • "Be wary of overestimating the chances that an innovation will overthrow incumbent leaders. Look at the co-optability of the innovation and the motivation of incumbents to fight the disruption rather than to flee it." (Ch. 10, p. 269)
  • "Death by a thousand cuts is a real possibility. And that would be a relatively good outcome." (Ch. 10)
  • "Companies that wait and see often cease to be." (Ch. 10)
  • "What is trivial today can be world-changing tomorrow." (Ch. 10)

Rules of Thumb

  1. Before betting on disruption in a networked industry, evaluate co-optability of the innovation and the incumbent's motivation to fight rather than flee. Overestimating disruption's power is the common error.
  2. Apply the co-option dual test: Disruption gets co-opted when the technology sustains incumbent margins AND the incumbent's value network overlaps enough to provide transferable capabilities. When either condition fails, displacement occurs.
  3. Enter via low-end disruption, then march up-market: "A company that establishes a disruptive foothold and marches up-market has a greater chance of reaching its destination than one that tries to make the jump all at once." (Ch. 10, p. 249)
  4. Platform strategy beats prediction: Build the platform and let third-party experimentation discover value, rather than predicting which applications customers will want.
  5. Assess threats as a portfolio, not individually: No single disruptor may succeed, but cumulative pressure from many simultaneous entrants can be fatal.
  6. When co-option is likely, optimize for acquisition: Develop complementary capabilities that make the entrant valuable to the incumbent's absorption effort.
  7. Watch the fringe: Innovations at industry edges (IM, WiFi, gaming voice) seem minor but evolve into major forces through completely different business models.
  8. Simple beats sophisticated: Bet on offerings that deliver immediate delight over those that deliver impressive specs. The customer hires the product for a job; spectacle is not a job.

Related References