Over at IdeaFlow, Leslie Martinich has stumbled over another hunk-of-junk idea promulgated by self-styled social critic and genius, John Dvorak. His newest craziness is to dis Clay Christensen (The Innovator's Dilemma) and the idea of disruptive technology in general:

Leslie Martinich

[from Disruptive? Radical? Discontinuous?]

John Dvorak in "The Myth of Disruptive Technology" calls the "concept of disruptive technology" "the biggest crock of the new millennium."

He claims that "There is no such thing as a disruptive technology."

I grant that much has been made of disruptive technology, but I disagree with Dvorak's claim.

I consider the work done in this field in the last 5 years to be useful in conveying information to folks who might not have spent much time studying history. Innovations (new technologies) change (or disrupt) the way people do things. And they change (or disrupt) the way businesses operate.

And leaders are better off if they understand the dynamics of technology and change.

Other terms used to describe the same phenomena include "discontinuous" or "radical" innovations. And we can find the same sorts of dynamics at work, whether we use one term or another. There is plenty of wonderful research on this topic, starting perhaps with Schumpeter, with the even scarier term, "creative destruction."

The term "disruptive" has some intimidating connotations. Perhaps it serves to catch the eye of the business leader who did not read economic history to notice what happened with moveable type, the telegraph, and 18th century navigation aids.

Leslie is far too nice to state the obvious which is that Dvorak is an idiot. It is pellucidly obvious that technologies -- like the invention of the internal combustion engine or the written word -- are disruptive. They overturn the established order -- political systems, markets, social systems -- in unpredictable ways.

This is the same guy who I had the go around with last year on his dismissal of instant messaging, where he stated

"The always-on notion has led to the creation of numerous IM networks. Some analysts have even predicted the future of business would depend on IM. But why do we need to know when somebody is online? Just to say hi? Direct computer-to-computer links like IM are channels for future problems."

"to tell you the truth these VC phrases such as "value proposition" -- which is a completely meaningless phrase -- do nothing to help your argument.

combining these two words is nothing less than silly

I'm guessing that what you mean to use is "worth" as in I don't understand the worth of IM. This may be true. Or possibly I do understand it and reject it anyway. But instead of saying it simply you use the condescending language of Silicon Valley 20-something bullshitters trying to sound important. So how can I take this seriously?

To which I replied:

""Value proposition" is a well-understood marketing and management term, and my using it does not make me a bullshitter, 20-something or otherwise.

"Value proposition - 1. The unique added value an organization offers customers through their operations." [Carla O'Dell & C.Jackson Grayson]. "Value proposition: A clear, simple statement — resulting from a set of very disciplined choices — describing what a customer can expect from us in the way of goods and services (including quality, timeliness and innovation) and the price that customer is willing to pay." - Weyerhauser. Although I was applying the concept to a technology, the concept is the same.

I wasn't -- and still am not -- trying to be condescending, although I maintain that you don't agree with the (dare I say it) value proposition for IM."

So this is a guy with a history of trying to make his deadline by asking himself "what obviously important idea or trend can I dis now?" and thereby making his trollish readers happy. But when confronted -- which Renee is too highly-principled to do -- his arguments dissolve into mush: empty semantic arguments about adjectives not agreeing with nouns, or the like. He is the Jerry Springer of technology pundits.

So when he argues that the concept of disruptive technologies is spurious, it's just another case of backward-looking, venal, rabid anti-trendism -- a classic enemy of the future:

John Dvorak

One problem in our society is the increasing popularity of false-premise concepts that are blindly used for decision making. The amount of money squandered during the dot-com era because of "paradigm shifts" and "new economies" is staggering. People actually believed that all retailing would be online and that all groceries would be delivered to the home as they were in the 1920s, despite changes that make delivery impractical. Who cares about reality? We have a disruptive technology at work!

The concept of disruptive technology is not the only daft idea floating around to be lapped up obediently by the business community. There are others. But the way these dingbat bromides go unchallenged makes you wonder whether anyone can think independently anymore.

So, based on a logical fallacy -- because someone advanced the idea that a flawed business model was a new paradigm, therefore the idea of "new paradigm" is itself bankrupt -- he is off suggesting (again) that the concept of a "paradigm shift" (as introduced by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) is wrong-headed idiocy... I will leave that battle for another day, though.