When a company launches a product that does not target its usual customers but rather a neglected segment, at a lower price and with reduced features, it is not simply innovating. It triggers a disruptive mechanism that can, in a few years, destabilize established leaders. This mechanism has a specific name, formulated by Clayton Christensen in the 1990s, and it is often confused with other forms of innovation, including its exact opposite.
Autonomous spin-off or internal project: what separates a successful disruption from a failure
We regularly hear about innovation programs launched within large groups. An internal lab, a dedicated team, a secured budget. On paper, the recipe seems complete.
Read also : Understanding the 5 Steps of an Explanatory Approach: Definition and Didactic Approach
In practice, the feedback is less enthusiastic. A study published by Harvard Business Review in January 2026 shows that internal disruptions mostly fail due to cultural resistance. Validation processes, short-term profitability goals, and pressure from existing customers hinder the development of products that, by nature, target a still marginal market.
The same study observes that the creation of autonomous spin-offs, detached from the parent company, shows a significantly higher success rate, noted in about 70% of the analyzed cases. The explanation lies in the freedom to target a non-profitable segment in the short term without having to report to historical divisions. To delve deeper into the theoretical framework and associated examples, one can refer to disruptive innovations on Info Entreprises which details Christensen’s original definitions.
You may also like : Effective Tips for Finding Someone by Their First Name and City Online
This operational observation changes the way we think about innovation strategy. Before asking what product to develop, one must ask what structure can support it.
Disruptive innovation vs. incremental innovation: two incompatible market logics
The most frequent confusion in companies concerns the difference between disruption and continuous improvement. Both create value, but not for the same players or on the same timelines.
What incremental innovation aims for
Incremental innovation improves an existing product for existing customers. A faster smartphone, software with an additional feature, a more fuel-efficient engine. The process is linear, controlled, and feedback is measurable quickly.
Established companies excel in this area. They know their market, have customer data, and continuously optimize their offerings. It is precisely this strength that makes them vulnerable.
What disruptive innovation aims for
Disruptive innovation targets a segment that dominant players deliberately ignore. The proposed product is often simpler, less performant by traditional criteria, but accessible to a population that did not have the means or skills to use the existing offer.
Christensen describes two trajectories. The first attacks from the bottom of the market (low-end disruption): a cheaper product, sufficiently functional. The second creates an entirely new market (new-market disruption): it reaches non-consumers. In both cases, historical players do not react immediately because the targeted segment does not interest them.
It is when the new entrant moves upmarket, year after year, that it eventually captures the customers of the leader. At this stage, it is often too late to react.
Concrete examples of disruption and its limits
To avoid repeating the same cases (Netflix, Uber) without analysis, let’s focus on what distinguishes a true case of disruption from a misclassified case.
- Chinese electric vehicles in emerging markets: since 2024, Chinese manufacturers have been capturing market shares in Africa and Latin America with low-cost models that Western manufacturers, positioned in the premium segment, do not address. This is a case of low-end disruption in the strict sense of Christensen.
- Uber and the transportation question: contrary to the common usage of the term, Uber does not fit the strict definition of disruption according to Christensen. The platform targeted the same customers as taxis, with a service perceived as superior from the start. We are rather talking about breakthrough innovation, which is not the same thing.
- Generative AI in health and finance: according to a McKinsey report published in March 2025, the adoption of generative AI-based solutions is progressing rapidly in these two sectors, particularly among SMEs. The dynamic resembles a new-market disruption, as it provides access to analytical tools that were reserved for large structures.
Regulated disruption in Europe: regulatory constraints as a strategic variable
A parameter that classic analyses often overlook is the impact of regulation on the speed of disruption. In Europe, the AI Act has imposed since August 2025 mandatory audits for disruptive innovations classified as high risk.
Specifically, a company developing an AI-based medical diagnostic tool must go through a compliance process before any market launch. In the United States, this type of constraint does not yet exist at the same level, which creates a gap in deployment speed.
This can be seen as a hindrance, but also as a filter. Regulated disruption favors players capable of structuring their development rather than those who rely solely on speed. Feedback on this point varies: some European SMEs see it as a competitive advantage (a mark of trust), while others view it as a slowdown that benefits American and Chinese giants.
This regulatory framework also alters the dynamic between disruptive innovation and incremental innovation. When the cost of compliance increases, the progressive improvements of an already certified product become strategically more profitable than launching a total disruption. The choice between these two approaches is therefore not solely technological: it depends on the regulatory system in which the company operates.
Distinguishing between disruption, breakthrough, and continuous improvement is not a theoretical exercise. It determines the structure to adopt, the market to target, and the timeline to respect. A company that confuses these terms risks investing in an expensive internal lab when a lightweight spin-off would have sufficed, or targeting a premium market when growth lies in a segment that no one is looking at yet.