I was flying on Ryanair a few months ago when my seatmate referred to the plane as a “bus in the sky.” I'd never heard such an accurate description! If you haven’t flown Ryanair, let me describe it to you. My round-trip flight was $30 and included two carry-on bags. But, that is where the perks stop. You have to pay for everything else - and I mean everything. Forgot to print your boarding pass out at home? You pay for it. Want a drink on the plane? You pay for it. Want to recline your seat? That isn’t even possible. And I wish I was kidding about that last one!

Despite the drawbacks, I have flown Ryanair numerous times and will continue to fly them. Why? Because I can fly to three different places, on three different weekends, for the same amount of money as one ticket would cost me flying to any one of those places on another airline in Europe. And I’m not the only one who flies Ryanair.

So, looking at this from the lens of disruption, where does Ryanair fit? By addressing overserved customers with a low-cost business model, it fits under the “low-end” disruption category. But, it also has made flying possible for many people who couldn’t afford to fly to these places. While they had the same job-to-be-done as the more affluent market - i.e., getting from point A to point B - these consumers would normally take the bus, train, or rent a car. This approach to non-consumers in the airline market also causes it to fit in the “new-market” disruption category. 

That Ryanair was low-end disruption was fairly obvious to me, but the new-market disruption was something that only clicked when I thought about Ryanair as a “bus in the sky.” Ryanair isn’t just competing against other airliners; the bus, train, rental car, and non-consumers are also its competitors. Former non-consumers in the airline market now have an opportunity to fly to their destination instead of a different, generally cheaper means of transportation previously used. Given the option of an overnight bus ride to Paris from London or an approximately 1.5 hour flight for a similar, if not cheaper price, which would you prefer? That’s what Ryanair was banking on.

As Scott Anthony explains, what's even more impressive is that Ryanair has succeeded in a market that's typically tough to crack. It has learned how to make a profit by keeping ticket prices low, flights full, along with a whole host of other cost saving strategies as outlined in the article. Legacy carriers in the airline business can’t/won’t compete with its prices, and its competitors in other transportation markets can’t compete with the luxury of flying, thus Ryanair succeeds.

I know that for a cash-strapped student living in Europe, Ryanair has opened up the continent for me. I’ve done overnight buses, 37 hour train rides, and rented cars because they were cheaper. But with Ryanair I have been able to avoid many of those “great story” experiences and truly enjoy vacation, thanks to their disruptive strategy.

---

Want to learn more about disruption and other theories from Professor Christensen? Disruptive Strategy will equip you with the tools, frameworks, and intuition to make a difference.

---

Disruptive innovation has been a buzzword since Clayton Christensen coined it back in the mid 1990s. But with everyone discussing disruption when it comes to each new business or product that emerges, how can we distinguish between new entrants that pose a threat and those that are best ignored?

Here are four key things to remember when assessing whether the next new company is likely to disrupt your business:

1. The common understanding of disruption IS NOT disruption according to Christensen

Let’s start with the basic understanding of disruption. According to Merriam Webster, disruption is “to cause (something) to be unable to continue in the normal way: to interrupt the normal progress or activity of (something).” If this definition is applied to business, then really anything that enters a market and is successful can be seen as “disruptive.” But is this how Christensen defined the word when writing in the 1990s?

A great article by Ilan Mochari discusses the misuse of the word disruption when referring to business. As he clarifies, disruption is “what happens when the incumbents are so focused on pleasing their most profitable customers that they neglect or misjudge the needs of their other segments.” 

2. Disruption can be low-end or new-market

These differences are laid out in Disruptive Strategy with Clayton Christensen. Low-end disruption refers to businesses that come in at the bottom of the market and serve customers in a way that is “good enough.” These are generally the lower profit markets for the incumbent and thus, when these new businesses enter, the incumbents move futher “upstream.” In other words, they put their focus on where the greater profit margins are.

New-market disruption refers to businesses that compete against non-consumption in lower margin sectors of a market. Similar to low-end disruption, the products offered are generally seen as “good enough,” and the emerging business is able to be profitable at these lower prices. The main difference between the two types of disruption lies in the fact that low-end disruption focuses on overserved customers, and new-market disruption focuses on underserved customers.

3. Christensen’s disruption is a process, rather than a product or service

When innovative new products or services – iPhone, Tesla’s electric cars, Uber, and the like – launch and grab the attention of the press and consumers, do they qualify as disruptors in their industries? Writing in Harvard Business Review, Christensen cautions us that it takes time to determine whether an innovator’s business model will succeed. He cites Netflix as an example that didn’t threaten Blockbuster at first – its DVDs-by-mail service didn’t satisfy the needs of customers who wanted to get their hands on the latest new release instantaneously – but, in shifting to an on-demand streaming model, was able to siphon away Blockbuster’s core customers before the company could stage an adequate response.

Will the next hot new launch be a flash in the pan, or a formidable competitor? Keeping a close eye on the process – is that product or service evolving its business model to better serve customers’ needs? – will help you evaluate the extent of the threat.

4. Choose your battles wisely

If you are a current incumbent and want to be on the lookout for a possibly disruptive emerging business, the clarification of what disruption is certainly helps. Every fire that is started doesn’t necessarily need to be put out, nor will it threaten your house. If you treat every fire as dangerous because someone else calls it “disruptive,” you will soon discover that it isn’t possible to put them all out, and you will waste your resources in attempting to do so. The fires you have to worry about are the ones that truly threaten you, and understanding the correct meaning and application of the word disruption certainly will help you in identifying and targeting the truly disruptive fires.

Understanding disruption is also helpful if you are looking for opportunities to start or scale your business. An understanding of disruption, coupled with Christensen’s other theory of "jobs to be done" can help you create products and services that will be desired by customers, and if you play your cards right, will be left alone by incumbents. 

---

Want to learn more about disruption and other theories from Professor Christensen? Disruptive Strategy will equip you with the tools, frameworks, and intuition to make a difference.

---

Robert De Niro and I have a lot in common – we are both a little old to be interns. But, like in the movie, my internship at HBX was a fantastic experience. Since I was completing a MSc in Russian and East European Studies and then beginning an MBA three months later, I figured an internship at HBX would be a great way to spend my summer. Luckily, HBX thought so as well!

I decided to pursue an internship with HBX for a few different reasons. First, it was an opportunity to work at Harvard Business School and second, I was looking to gain experience working for a larger organization (I had started my own small business, but I don’t count that as formal working experience). In addition, I got paid (which was an extra bonus!), I was able to work in areas that I wanted to (marketing and product management), and I love Boston. To be honest, it couldn’t have worked out any better.

While I said that Robert De Niro and I have a lot in common, I am about half his age (that’s just a clarifier). Still though, while my fellow interns were (at most) 20 years old, it didn’t stop me from forming meaningful relationships with them and my with other coworkers. I became good friends with my fellow interns and coworkers, playing Checkers and Sorry at lunch every day (yes, HBX has board games), and grabbing dinner sometimes as well. I even played tennis once a week with a coworker (unless he bailed on me), and will stay in contact with a number of others. I felt welcomed from my very first day and I loved the atmosphere – it seemed far less stifling than I had imagined an office being. On top of that, everyone was willing to meet with me, introduce me to their specific fields, and help me understand what they do. Because of this, I was able to gain insight into the different facets of HBX and how they all work together, which I consider one of the greatest things I gained from my internship.

Another thing I loved about my time at HBX was that I felt like I was given meaningful projects that actually made a difference. Over the 2 ½ months I was there, I worked on changing the messaging of email workflows, ran the Instagram account, and helped design and carry out a variety of projects. I was also given a range of types of tasks: from more data-heavy to research-heavy to creative-heavy projects. I learned how to use Excel better, conduct market research, and craft messages. The unique part about all of these projects is that I had a say in them; it wasn’t just my colleagues giving me tasks that they themselves didn’t want to do. I felt like I added real value, and that was something I was not expecting from a summer internship.

On top of being given meaningful projects, I had access to CORe and Disruptive Strategy with Clayton Christensen for free. I was allowed to work through Disruptive Strategy at work and have been doing CORe at home in my free time. I feel like these have given me a better foundation of “the language of business” that most certainly are beneficial as I begin my MBA.

And then there was being in Boston. Who doesn’t love Boston? Having spent time here before, I knew that I wanted to get back if I could. While here, I went whale watching, took a trip to Maine, went to a Red Sox game, and ate some of the best food in the country. I had an opportunity to sit down with the Creative Director of HBX, speak with the videographers and photographers for HBX, and explore what a career in creative might look like. My time in Boston has not only provided me the work experience I was looking for but also opened doors to other exciting opportunities.

All in all it was the perfect summer – a meaningful internship at a world-class institution with incredible staff in my favorite city.

---

Taking the Disruptive Strategy with Clayton Christensen course was the first introduction I had to the idea of “jobs to be done.” Professor Christensen's theory essentially explains that people “hire” different products to do “jobs” that they need done. Sounds easy enough, right?

That’s what I thought, too. But, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I didn’t really understand it. Certainly, things in the course helped me better grasp the concept. I could explain the theory to you, give you examples, but I was still missing the deeper understanding of where I could apply it to my everyday life.

I finally had my “ah-ha” moment when I was riding with my mother in the car and watching her simultaneously put on makeup, drive, and talk on the phone. Here is what I learned from this terrifying experience.

1. Observe

You can’t find jobs to be done without observing people. This was my first lesson. Maybe it was the fact that I was scared for my life. Maybe it was because I have seen many women struggle to drive and put on makeup. Whatever the reason, it was in that moment with my mom where my time spent thinking about jobs to be done clicked.

The thought popped into my head, “how could I make this easier and safer?” Then I made the important connection, what was the job to be done here? Help me put on makeup and drive safely? It was the mindset of not taking an idea and then defining a job to be done, but rather observing people and asking the important question, “how could I make this easier/cheaper/better” that led to me seeing a job to be done that my mom could hire a product for.

2. Focus on the Job, Not the Product

Upon further reflection I realized that in that moment of terror and enlightenment, I wasn’t at all worried about the product. Jobs to be done isn’t about the product; that comes later down the line. I had been so focused on the development of the end product that I missed the bigger picture. Finding the product is the end goal in most brainstorming sessions and I think, because of that, we tend to miss the bigger picture: What job are we hiring for? The product will come once the right job is found. That is the truly difficult part.

3. It is a Process

This is a process, a way of thinking. First, I had to understand the theory. I spent time with it and the cases; I thought about it while I was walking around, trying to apply what I'd learned. But, it wasn’t until my understanding of – and mindset towards – the concept had changed that I finally witnessed it firsthand with my mom. I wasn’t contemplating the theory when I was watching her, I was just sitting there with my life flashing before my eyes. But the theory had become a part of my outlook on the world, part of me, and because of that I was able to make the connection.

Maybe jobs to be done is easier than I made it out to be, but for me there was a difference between being able to explain it and find a "job to be done" for already existing products, and identifying a job to be done in real life, from which a product could be developed.

Learn more about Professor Christensen's "jobs to be done" theory HERE.

---

Want to learn more about "jobs to be done" and other theories from Professor Christensen? Disruptive Strategy will equip you with the tools, frameworks, and intuition to make a difference.

---

If you haven’t heard of the 2016 Pokémon GO craze, you’ve probably been living under a rock (that was me until this morning, so if you are under the rock, you’re not alone). Yes, I said Pokémon. If you were a child of the '90s like me, you probably remember the game in some capacity.

“Gotta catch ‘em all” was the most used phrase in my second grade class; the video games took over, the cards exploded, and it was a big day when my brother opened a card pack that contained a holographic Charizard in it! But, around 2000 was the last time I heard of them until a new mobile app called Pokémon GO launched this week. The app uses phone cameras and GPS signals to create an augmented reality game where players move around the physical world trying to find and catch Pokémon that appear on screen. If you are as confused about the game as I was, The Guardian has a good primer on it.

What's amazing is how widely the game has been downloaded and played in the first week, including players who've never been into Pokémon or video games in the past. According to an article by Reuters featured on Fortune, in two days Pokémon GO added $7.5 billion to Nintendo’s market value, has surpassed Tinder for total downloads on Android phones, and boasts a daily active user rate that rivals Twitter’s. The average time spent playing the game is 43 minutes a day. That is 43 minutes of quite literally trying to catch ‘em all.

So why the sudden success? Why has Pokémon GO become such a phenomenon and captured the entire world's attention? I have been taking the HBX course Disruptive Strategy with Clayton Christensen, and there is an interesting concept at play here. Is it possible that Nintendo has nailed a difficult “job to be done” perfectly? Possibly.

People often complain about video games, saying: “they keep you inside” or “they are a time suck” or “it keeps me from getting exercise.” A common complaint about exercise is that it's boring or people do not want to pay for (or travel to) a gym.

While the video game industry hasn’t necessarily attempted to address those issues, the exercise community definitely has. There are Zumba classes, cheap gyms, and home workouts. Watches have been made to track steps and alert you when you are sedentary for too long. But, maybe Nintendo has finally found a way to make video games healthier and exercise more fun.

Is it possible that the “job to be done” here was: “help me avoid being unhealthy while playing video games” or “help me enjoy exercising”? If a company could nail these jobs perfectly, the success of whatever that product was would be monumental. Who wouldn’t want to buy/download/use or “hire” a product that makes video games healthy, or makes you actually want to get outside and be active for 45 minutes?

While this could be considered reading into it too much, and maybe I am, it is interesting to look at the success of the game thus far and note how it fills a job that most people would hire if it was nailed perfectly, to use Clayton Christensen’s wording. Well, Nintendo seems to have nailed this job perfectly, and, at least for the moment, is reaping the rewards.

---

Want to learn more about "jobs to be done" and other theories from Professor Christensen? Disruptive Strategy will equip you with the tools, frameworks, and intuition to make a difference.

---