In the September 3rd, 2007 edition of Business Week I found an op-ed relating to disruption entitled Why "Good Enough" is Good Enough. I thought it was a pretty decent piece that correctly illustrated an important principle of disruptive innovation. Some of the reader comments, though, weren't as friendly. Ever one to stick up for disruption, I entered the fray with a response of my own. Business Week cut me off, however, at 1000 characters. I thought I'd post the full text of my response here:
The main idea expressed in this article, that "good enough technologies are succeeding, is spot on. I wish, however, that this article had done a better job of making clear what "good enough does and does not mean. I can see in the reader comments that some people are confused.
Saying that "Good Enough is good enough is not some pronouncement advocating that corporations abandon quality control efforts in favor of pedaling second-rate crap. It is not an argument against improving products. It is not a statement against being good to consumers.
Instead, saying that "Good Enough is good enough is a recognition that there are different jobs that consumers hire products to do and that sometimes companies "overshoot these customers needs with their products. Companies applying this thinking can hone in on what is really important to the consumer and tailor their products to those important jobs, making performance tradeoffs that can benefit you and me and all consumers, enormously.
Sure, it would be great if we didnt have to make those performance tradeoffs. I would love it if my Treo was 99.999% reliable and had voice quality as good as my home phone. But if getting there means that Verizon would have to spend billions and billions more building more and newer towers with better network technology, passing along every one of those charges to me every month, Ill keep what I have now. Good enough is good enough for me.
Of course, as time goes by, Ill continue to expect better and better service from my mobile phone. If Verizon and Palm dont improve their products and services, Ill buy a different phone and switch to a different carrier. The good news is that what is "good enough" changes. [Here I'll make my own editor's note: I'm not actually so sure that "good enough" changes, perhaps it is better to say that although I prefer my mobile phone to my landline, I'm still underserved by current mobile phones, and want them to improve along a sustaining trajectory until they reach where my true preferences and jobs are. -LL] There is still pressure on companies to keep up in order to beat competitors. But regardless of whether Verizon (and other carriers) improve, Im not going back to using only a landline phone. Mobility and convenience is too important to me. Im happy with the tradeoff "good enough gives me.
What are your thoughts on why "good enough" is good enough?
Thoughts on 'Why "Good Enough" is Good Enough'
Luke LangfordPosted by Luke Langford | Comments (2)
Discussion
Posted: Monday, August 27th, 2007 - 2:15 am EDT
From Luke Langford at Innoblog:
Saying that "Good Enough is good enough is not some pronouncement advocating that corporations abandon quality control efforts in favor of pedaling second-rate crap. It is not an argument against improving pr...
Posted: Monday, August 27th, 2007 - 3:26 am EDT
Hey Luke,
Great comment on the "good enough" article. I think most people don't get the concept of "disruptive innovation" as described by Christensen's theory. The problem, in my opinion, is that people always focus on what a product can't do well, rather than focusing on what it does (and for whom). Your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs provide the best explanations.
The biggest issue is in answering "how do you plan to use insert item here)?". For some, a product may never be good enough, but for others, it might just fit the bill. A perfect example is with computers - if you don't play graphics intensive video games, or do complex mathematical calculations, or other development work, a relatively inexpensive computer is "good enough" if you only want to email, surf the Internet, and do the odd task (track finances, write a few letters, etc).
From what I've experienced when trying to explain the concept of disruptive innovations, I get the sense that people always picture the most demanding customer's needs and don't think of expanding a market by focusing on non-consumers. Google's application product is a perfect example - people still eviscerate the office product because it doesn't match well with Microsoft's Office. But for many people, they don't need all the functions and features in MS Office. They just need something that allows them to do basic word processing and some calculations (spreadsheet). The price of free is tough to beat too. So, in this instance, it's good enough because it does enough of what people need and provides it at a cost that is acceptable.
Add a Comment:
Please log in to add to the discussion.