In order to remain competitive in today’s businesses, the organizations must strive to meet the challenge of disruptive change in there project management process. This has implications that organizations must understand their strengths and weaknesses in mitigating the disruptive innovations in project management A better understanding of these factors and gaps will guide the organization to mobilize resources, plan their operations process and demonstrate value for their projects (Christensen, 2002). In the long run, project management process should create a culture that facilitates their productive innovation missions and goals.
Additionally, the project managers must ensure that the rights systems and in alignment to their strategy. Timely response to the resource allocation gaps is paramount when the project management process has a working feedback mechanism. The project should have the right staff at the various jobs and tasks so that maximum efficiency is attained (Christensen, 2002). How benign innovations disrupt entire industry. In the recent past, the press has been very innovative building business images with their ranking. The most respectable platforms are offered by Forbes, Fortune and business week among others (Christensen, 2002).
In their various interviews and prints, the media gave credit to successful managers and organizations or projects. Later, when the managers failed to deliver, the same press banded them negatively which also negatively impacted on the organization itself. Such negative media coverage is sometimes in bad taste because there are no project managers who have the process failure as their goal. All projects try to apply a model that breaks even with their goals at a bare minimum (Christensen, 2002). This has implications that a disruptive technology can push a noble innovation or project to failure.
Project managers need to operate at the point where the customers are satisfied by their deliverable in as much as the projected performances are leveraging on technology to show their continuous improvement (Christensen, 2002). In order to understand this concept, project manages need to avoid operation processes where performance resulting from the innovations of disruptive technology is valueless. However, if the effects of increment from the use of technology are guaranteeing a business breakthrough, then the project managers are advised to proceed.
In the end, benign innovations disrupt entire industry when they shift focus to simple customer goals from demanding performance customers over time. Why industry leaders lose out to the upstarts even when they created their own innovations. The PC industry is an example of a very innovative leader in IT. However, they are often faced with disruptive business models which render the strategy process difficult to comprehend for the bottom line customers in many cases. Generally, the PC industry has about 60% of customers who demand for top performance.
This customer base has over 150,000 technologies at their disposal at the moment. Yet, disruptive technology drops the demand for the industry bottom line customers from 40% to about 20% with just over 3, 000 technologies available(Christensen, 2002). The steel industry is also another example of leaders loosing out from their own innovations. An analysis of the steel quality innovation over the last three decades show that demand of customers has steadily decreased from 25% to over 4% potentially, yet the mini-mill steel firm has been expanding in their technology.
This has implications that the type o technology introduced was disruptive (Christensen, 2002). Similar outcome faced the disk drive industry. It is incumbent for upcoming organizations or projects to be aware of the available entry strategies in the technology industry based on proof. Ultimately, established markets with proved technology tend to have lesser customers, followed by emerging markets with proven technologies; established markets with proven technologies and last, emerging markets with unproven technology (Christensen, 2002).
The same trend is replicated with motivation from the earned and potential revenues where the established markets with proven technology had an average of $ 82. 6 per company. Compared to the emerging markets with new technologies which had revenue base average of $ 1,906 per company. In the end the emerging market performed better that the established markets which heavily rely on disruptive technology with the former attracting over $62,123 verses the later at $3,292. 9 respectively (Christensen, 2002). There is a list of disruptive innovators in the recent past.
They include Intel, Sun Micron, Dell, EMC and AT&T, among others. These companies have today become very successful in various industries like transistors, where their innovations were not considered a serious threat to the established companies in the same industry. The transistors technology disrupted the vacuum tubes technology (Christensen, 2002). The integral technology also disrupted the modular architecture and has a leading edge as long as the operations of the products are satisfactory to the customer.
The technology market also faces a series of disruptive technology such as cable modem, mobile wireless, fixed wireless and XDSL all striving to give the customer the most stable video products (Christensen, 2002). The healthcare industry has not been left behind in the disruptive technology process. The customers have a range of services from self, nurse practitioners, family physicians, to specialized treatment. The desire for the customer is to align to the health service that meets their most pressing needs in the coming years (Christensen, 2002).
The education sector is equally faced with disruptive technology as a paradigm shift from the traditional class based MBA to online MBAs. Intel, who are leading innovators have PDAs, Voice recognition technology. Other organizations in the same line are IBM and lately commercial banks. Conclusion There is evidence that disruptive technology enable the emerging organizations projects and markets to leverage over the established organizations because their products are more affordable and the task process are less technically demanding.
This realization can be used to justify why the standards of living are becoming relatively affordable with the emergence of technology like computing, xerography, angioplasty and others. These innovations were greatly opposed by the market leaders in their respective industries.
Christensen, C. M, (2002). The Opportunity & Threats of Disruptive Technologies. Harvard Business School. Retrieved on 5th August, 2009, Available at http://info. umuc. edu/mba/HBS/disruptechi/index. html