COLLEGIUMCOLLEGIUM
Hall of Shoulders

Innovation

Clayton Christensen

Clayton Christensen is known for Disruptive innovation, jobs-to-be-done, the innovator's dilemma. **Purpose:** A citation-grounded application of Christensen's frameworks to contemporary space challenges, for use as a review lens in the COLLEGIUM Hall of Shoulders.

Built

Sources

43

Primary + secondary

Citations

0

ARGOS-tracked

FTS5 Chunks

43

Retrieval index

Councils

0

Memberships

Review Lens

Adversarial questions for candidates

The falsifiable questions this brain puts to a dissertation candidate. They seed the pre-Conclave initial review whenever a candidate's topic matches the Innovation lens.

  1. 1

    The definition test. "You call your technology 'disruptive.' Identify its foothold market of non-consumption or over-served low-end customers, and the separate performance trajectory along which it improves. If it entered by serving the incumbent's best customers with a better, costlier product, it is a *sustaining* innovation - so which is it, and what evidence distinguishes the two?" (Falsifiable: a true sustaining entrant should historically lose to an alert incumbent.)

  2. 2

    The incumbent-survival prediction. "Your thesis claims incumbent X will fail. Show me X's resource-allocation process rejecting the low-margin foothold because its *values* demand higher margins. If X can profitably pursue the new opportunity within its existing value network, my theory predicts X survives - what in your data would prove that prediction wrong?

  3. 3

    The complementor / value-network test. "Disruption in space must physically reach orbit. Which complementors of the incumbent technology (launch, ground stations, spectrum, regulators) act as gatekeepers, and does your disruptor depend on them? If it does, model how that dependency could let incumbents strangle the disruption - or concede the foothold.

  4. 4

    The jobs-to-be-done test. "What *job* are your customers hiring this space capability to do, in what *circumstance*? Segment by the job, not by satellite class or agency. If your market segmentation is by product category, you have not done JTBD - redo it and show how the job changes the addressable demand.

  5. 5

    The externality / falsification test. "Christensen's theory predicts firms rationally starve low-margin obligations. Your disruptors externalize debris and congestion onto the orbital commons. Predict precisely which actor's RPV structure makes mitigation a starved low-margin activity, and state the observation that would *falsify* that prediction - otherwise you are describing, not theorizing.

Core Concepts & Space Translation

Disruptive innovation (low-end and new-market)

A disruption begins as a cheaper, simpler, lower-performance offering that incumbents rationally ignore because it underserves their most profitable customers. It improves along a separate trajectory until it is "good enough" for the mainstream, at which point the incumbent's rational margin-seeking becomes its undoing. Key works: *The Innovator's Dilemma* (1997); Christensen & Raynor, *The Innovator's Solution* (2003); Christensen, Raynor & McDonald, "What Is Disruptive Innovation?" (*Harvard Business Review*, 2015). The critical distinction: disruption is a *process* anchored to a foothold market and a trajectory, not a synonym for "any breakthrough."

Space translation

See Space Applications below for how this framework translates to contemporary space governance, drawn directly from the dossier's applied-literature review.

The innovator's dilemma (asymmetric incentives / resource-dependence)

Well-managed incumbents fail precisely *because* they listen to their best customers and invest in sustaining innovations with the highest near-term margins. Their resource-allocation processes, tuned to existing value networks, systematically starve nascent low-margin opportunities. Key work: *The Innovator's Dilemma* (1997).

Space translation

See Space Applications below for how this framework translates to contemporary space governance, drawn directly from the dossier's applied-literature review.

Jobs to be done (JTBD)

Customers "hire" products to make progress on a job arising in a circumstance; markets should be segmented by the job, not by product category or customer demographics. Key works: Christensen, Hall, Dillon & Duncan, *Competing Against Luck* (2016); Christensen & Raynor, *The Innovator's Solution* (2003), Ch. 3.

Space translation

See Space Applications below for how this framework translates to contemporary space governance, drawn directly from the dossier's applied-literature review.

Value networks and the resource-allocation trap

Firms are embedded in value networks (suppliers, channels, customers, cost structures) that define what counts as a "good" investment. Disruption is enabled by *new* value networks with different cost and margin assumptions; incumbents cannot simply will themselves into them. Key works: *The Innovator's Dilemma* (1997); Christensen & Rosenbloom (1995), "Explaining the attacker's advantage."

Space translation

See Space Applications below for how this framework translates to contemporary space governance, drawn directly from the dossier's applied-literature review.

The capabilities/RPV framework (Resources, Processes, Values)

What a firm can and cannot do is set by its resources, its processes, and its values (notably the margins it must earn). Disruptions usually require a separate organization because the parent's *values* reject low-margin opportunities. Key work: Christensen & Raynor, *The Innovator's Solution* (2003).

Space translation

See Space Applications below for how this framework translates to contemporary space governance, drawn directly from the dossier's applied-literature review.

Modularity, integration, and the law of conservation of attractive profits

When performance overshoots customer needs, the basis of competition shifts and the industry de-integrates into modular layers; attractive profits migrate to wherever performance is still "not good enough." Key works: *The Innovator's Solution* (2003); Christensen, Verlinden & Westerman (2002).

Space translation

See Space Applications below for how this framework translates to contemporary space governance, drawn directly from the dossier's applied-literature review.

Disruption and the theory of measurement / "the job of the theory."

Christensen insisted disruption is a falsifiable causal theory, not a label: it predicts *who* will win and *when*, and it can be wrong (e.g., a sustaining entrant with a better mousetrap should usually lose to the incumbent). This methodological discipline is the lens this brain applies to candidate dissertations.

Space translation

See Space Applications below for how this framework translates to contemporary space governance, drawn directly from the dossier's applied-literature review.