Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Theory (Disruptive Innovation (Because disruptive products do not appeal…
Theory
Disruptive Innovation
Because disruptive products do not appeal to the best customers paying the highest prices, they are almost always introduced by new entrants rather than the dominant incumbents of an industry.
Example: in order to get in for an initial outpatient PT evaluation, most my patients (even those in desperate need of getting in ASAP) will wait up to 3 weeks and sometimes longer. MovementX is an app-based platform that links qualified/vetted "contract" PT's to patients on-demand. It eliminates the wait list, gives patients flexibility and convenience. This is a great example of the "Uberfication" of physical therapy in a high-paced, high-demand, patient-centered environment. My organization is going to fall behind to disrupters like this unless we adapt - much like other industries (i.e. automobile and transportation industries)
Disruptive products drive down costs for the consumer - in order to improve access, people are often times willing to sacrifice some quality for a lower cost
My organization is very "high-quality" focused, meaning that we place an emphasis on providing healthcare at the highest possible quality no matter the cost. One example is our use of PT vs PTA ratio - PTA's (physical therapy assistants) are paid substantially less but can, for the most part, provide the same service. They're not trained to make significant clinical decisions however most patient interactions don't require changes in the plan of care, they merely require monitoring. If we were able to provide more services that were delivered by PTA's (vs their Doctoral PT counterparts) at a lower cost, we would be maintaining quality and decreasing cost... the next questions would be how do we translate those savings to the customer?
Bottom line in regards to the application of Disruptive Innovation Theory in my organization: We are not the disruptors and, in fact, we are the vary institution that is at risk of losing market share to new, innovative organizations that are disruptors.
“Disruption” describes a process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources is able to successfully challenge established incumbent businesses. Specifically, as incumbents focus on improving their products and services for their most demanding (and usually most profitable) customers, they exceed the needs of some segments and ignore the needs of others.
-
Discontinuous Innovation
A radical change in the system or rules necessitates 'creative destruction', leaving no option but to adapt radical shifts in process or product
This form of innovation, I would argue, is virtually impossible in both the organization and industry in which I work. There are too many players in 'the game' with too big a stake - if the changes don't work it might mean more than just the death of an organization, it might subsequently lead to life and death of individuals.
As a counterpoint, discontinuous innovation is the basis of disruptive innovation - the new players in the game are making radical changes, not incremental, and hense re-framing the way we think about that industry. #
-
-
-