Arvind Kejriwal's Disruptive Innovation

Here is an excerpt from the famous book The Innovator’s Dilemma by Professor Clayton Christensen. I couldn't help but notice the similarities with the current upheaval happening in the Indian Political Scene. I am reproducing the original here - annotated with my comments (in bold italics).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do well-managed companies(well established parties) fail? He concludes that they often fail because the very management practices(votebank politics) that have allowed them to become industry leaders(big parties) also make it extremely difficult for them to develop the disruptive technologies(new approaches) that ultimately steal away their markets(voters).

Well-managed companies(parties) are excellent at developing the sustaining technologies(at sustaining their votebanks/corporate liasons) that improve the performance of their products(that help them retain their vote banks/corporate funds) in the ways that matter to their customers(customers). This is because their management practices(politics) are biased toward:

1. Listening to customers(votebanks/corporate sponsorships)

2. Investing aggressively in technologies(formulating policies) that give those customers what they say they want

3. Seeking higher margins(As Nitin Gadkari had famously quipped - chaar kaam hum unke karte hain, chaar kaam wo hamaare karte hain)

4. Targeting larger markets rather than smaller ones(targeting big industrialists/ highly polarized voter bases)

Disruptive technologies(revolutionary politics), however, are distinctly different from sustaining technologies(politics). Disruptive technologies change the value proposition in a market. When they first appear, they almost always offer lower performance(win lower seats/attract few members) in terms of the attributes that mainstream customers(voters/fundraisers) care about. But disruptive technologies have other attributes that a few fringe (generally new) customers(voters/industrialists) value. They are typically cheaper, smaller, simpler, and frequently more convenient to use(cleaner/mostly free of corruption). Therefore, they open new markets(they make voters out of non-voters). Further, because with experience and sufficient investment, the developers of disruptive technologies will always improve their products’(parties') performance, they eventually
are able to take over the older markets(existing mindsets). This is because they are able to deliver sufficient performance on the old attributes(foreign policy/Kashmir), and they add some new ones(anti corruption).

Principles of Disruptive Technology
1. Companies(Parties) Depend on Customers(Castes based voters) and Investors(Reliance/Tata etc) for Resources.

In order to survive, companies must provide customers and investors with the products,services, and profits that they require. The highest performing companies, therefore, have well developed systems for killing ideas that their customers don’t want. As a result, these companies find it very difficult to invest adequate resources in disruptive technologies—lower margin opportunities that their customers don’t want—until their customers want them. And by then, it is too late.

2. Small Markets Don’t Solve the Growth Needs of Large Companies
(Small Markets = Small votebanks such as urban middle class voters - who don't even vote)

To maintain their share prices and create internal opportunities for their employees, successful
companies need to grow. It isn’t necessary that they increase their growth rates, but they must
maintain them. And as they get larger, they need increasing amounts of new revenue just to
maintain the same growth rate. Therefore, it becomes progressively more difficult for them to
enter the newer, smaller markets that are destined to become the large markets of the future. To
maintain their growth rates, they must focus on large markets.

3. Markets(votebanks) That Don’t Exist Can’t Be Analyzed

Sound market research and good planning followed by execution according to plan are the
hallmarks of good management. But companies whose investment processes demand
quantification of market size and financial returns before they can enter a market get paralyzed
when faced with disruptive technologies because they demand data on markets that don’t yet
exist.

4. Technology(Corruption) Supply May Not Equal Market Demand

Although disruptive technologies can initially be used only in small markets, they eventually
become competitive in mainstream markets. This is because the pace of technological progress
often exceeds the rate of improvement that mainstream customers want or can absorb. As a
result, the products that are currently in the mainstream eventually will overshoot the
performance that mainstream markets demand, while the disruptive technologies that
underperform relative to customer expectations in the mainstream market today may become
directly competitive tomorrow. Once two or more products are offering adequate performance,
customers will find other criteria for choosing. These criteria tend to move toward reliability,
convenience, and price

There is a similar article here :

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/kejriwals-disruptive-innovation/article4218038.ece