Popular discussion of the enduring popularity of print often obfuscate the business issues of managing a company that is transitioning from print to digital.
Organizations need to encompass multiple perspectives on where a business is headed. It’s usually the case that the staff is not in agreement on that direction, but that could be a very good thing.
Jill Lepore’s dismissal of Clayton Christensen misses the point. Disruptive technology and Christensen’s method of identifying it are very real elements of the marketplace, though the truth of this is often obscured by some of the silly advocates of disruption.
Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation is critically examined by Jill Lepore in the New Yorker. If he is wrong, why is the idea of disruption such a compelling one?
While we usually think of innovators as visionaries with big ideas that challenge the very assumptions of the way we conduct our lives, many innovations seem to happen almost by accident. The challenge is how to make these accidents occur more often and to benefit from them.
The journals business has not been disrupted and does not appear likely to be disrupted for some time. Journals publishers continue to dominate the institutional market and are seeking to coopt Gold OA services.
Gladwell tackles Anderson, Nielsen tackles Christensen. Both provide useful insights for publishers today.