Agh I wish people would either read some of Christensen&#x27;s work, or even the basic Wikipedia article, or else stop using the word &#x27;disruptive&#x27; in this context. It&#x27;s diluting a concept which used to have a very specific meaning, and has rapidly changed to mean nothing, through misuse.<p>This article starts off by almost calling people out, saying that people use &#x27;disruptive&#x27; in the wrong way, but then it proceeds to make the same basic errors.<p>There are a few key characteristics of a disruptive innovation. One is that incumbents don&#x27;t notice the changes due to market myopia. Were competitors to the vacuum unaware of the technical leaps possible due to technology? I will bet not. Another key characteristic is that it causes competitor value-networks to change. What value network changed by vacuums being adopted? The hitting-rug-with-stick value network? How much value flows through this network? Did the sweeping brush value network change? No, everyone still has a sweeping brush even now. All that happened was that consumer demands changed and a new product was adopted. But wasn&#x27;t it still an amazing leap in technology? Yes! It was a &#x27;radical innovation&#x27;!<p>&quot;Disruptive&quot; does not mean &quot;big change&quot;. It doesn&#x27;t mean 
&quot;impressive&quot;. It doesn&#x27;t mean &quot;unexpected competition&quot;. In this case, it doesn&#x27;t mean &quot;society changed over the course of a century as a new industry was created due to ancillary technological improvements&quot;.<p>It certainly doesn&#x27;t mean &quot;normal dynamics of industry and competition&quot;, which is how most people seem to inexplicably use it.