I got into an interesting 100,000 ft level conversation recently that got me thinking about the companies and people I try to meet with on a regular basis.
Instead of using the normal categorizations, genres, descriptions, or wordy answers I normalized everything as disruptive.
It might be overused at this point but it boils everything down to a very easy to digest word that can described these audacious goals of entrepreneurs.
Image from ShutterStock
December 15th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
You may want to check out http://www.thedailyriff.com since it revisits Hacking Education – we named the participants the “The Disruptive Class”. Presently, it is the first post today with Dr. D. Rigour, Thought Leader Extraordinaire, leading the intro. Cheers! CJ
December 15th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Thanks for the link – coverage may have been limited due to people not
knowing about the event. Although it was not “open” like a conference we
did our best to expose all the findings and conversations and also opened it
up live via Twitter at the event. I agree that people could benefit from
sharing this information, but without the typical fanfare of promoting a
conference I am afraid events like these will go uncovered.
December 19th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Disruptive is fun, disruptive is interesting, disruptive makes us think.
But disruptive is rare and usually extremely expensive. It's hard to think of disruptive technologies or products or businesses that didn't take many millions of dollars to produce. Most of us don't have access to those resources.
What's wrong with doing something interesting, useful, new, but not transcendental?
December 19th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I think the playing field is being leveled and the access to resources we
have is greater than ever.
My caveat to all this is that I look at these things through my work which
is tied to venture capital, which by definition should be businesses that
are usually disruptive. There is no negative to interesting, useful, and
new but rather the small few that are truly disruptive are the ones that
make it to the funding finish line. Of course that is no where near the
real finish line – thats the race that comes after the funding process
I think most of the projects I work on are interesting, useful, new – but
few are fundamentally disruptive.
December 20th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Disruptive is fun, disruptive is interesting, disruptive makes us think.
But disruptive is rare and usually extremely expensive. It's hard to think of disruptive technologies or products or businesses that didn't take many millions of dollars to produce. Most of us don't have access to those resources.
What's wrong with doing something interesting, useful, new, but not transcendental?
December 20th, 2009 at 2:48 am
I think the playing field is being leveled and the access to resources we
have is greater than ever.
My caveat to all this is that I look at these things through my work which
is tied to venture capital, which by definition should be businesses that
are usually disruptive. There is no negative to interesting, useful, and
new but rather the small few that are truly disruptive are the ones that
make it to the funding finish line. Of course that is no where near the
real finish line – thats the race that comes after the funding process
I think most of the projects I work on are interesting, useful, new – but
few are fundamentally disruptive.