Disruption, and Disruption in HE
Through the other articles in this series on ICTs (information communication technologies) in Higher Education, I have argued that digital technologies’ presence in higher education is inevitable, rational, and irreducible wherever comparable technology is ubiquitous and routine, social and standard, and economically and practically necessary.
A cursory survey of the literature on disruption and innovation reveals that the agent of disruption and/or the form of innovation is typically technical/technological in nature. Seldom is disruption attributed to non-technical innovations, such as concepts and theories from science and industry, macro conditions, evolving social phenomena, and other facets of Zeitgeist. Much of the writing on disruption and innovation concerns industry and its interaction with markets and consumer expectation (e.g. Bower and Christensen, 1995; Leifer et al, 2000; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994).
Nevertheless, innovation/diffusion theories (such as that by Rogers, 1962) are likely informative. In Rogers’ model, an S curve describes the climb from “innovator” to “laggard”, with innovators being the earliest adopters of innovation and laggards being the last. Rogers’ S curve can easily be substituted by the classic product life-cycle bell curve, so offers little more than an alternative interpretation of a general pattern. Most theories of innovation diffusion/adoption are similar: they describe factors relating to adoption readiness and consumer categories separable by relative time of adoption – at some point, a new technology meets the needs of various categories of consumer, and eventually, diffusion across all categories occurs (Christensen, 1997).
The technical and commercial biases of diffusion theories notwithstanding, innovation has been theoretically associated with factors within the bricolage of the wider social and economic milieu. Schumpeter (1943) argued that innovation is the primary motor of economic advancement. Growth and continuity in business is contingent on readiness to adopt new products and processes, rather than immediate profits and lowered costs. Hence, strategic technology adoption yields long-term gains that are ultimately more differentiating and therefore superior. Schumpeter challenged the premises of Adam Smith, which are that advantage lies in presence of competition and absence of regulation. Schumpeter observed that Smith had overlooked the dynamic forces of markets. That is, Smith noted the significance of industrial and regulatory factors, but ignored consumer power and preference, which are socially/societally influenced. Arguably, all are contributory, but Schumpeter’s market sensitivity formula appears to prevail in the ethos of today’s most successful companies, such as Google, Microsoft, and Amazon, whose products prioritise user-friendliness, broad and targeted relevance, and customer-responsiveness, while functioning on highly technical systems that are largely inimitable, whether by scale or complexity/capability. If HE is to learn lessons from the successes of industry, this formula of market relevance-technology balance is likely of value.