Lições sobre disrupção

Excelente artigo de Constantinos Markides na MIT Sloan Management Review deste Outono, "How Disruptive Will Innovations from Emerging Markets Be?":

"Numerous and less-well-known companies and entrepreneurs are currently serving billions of local consumers with low-cost products without significant competition from global corporations. But once the local entrepreneurs establish themselves in their home markets, they should also make the leap into more developed countries." (Moi ici: Ao ler os trechos que se seguem, pode-se fazer um exercício, olhar para as PMEs portuguesas como potenciais disruptores ao exportarem para novos mercados, e olhar para as PMEs portuguesas como incumbentes a reagir à invasão chinês durante a primeira década do século XXI) 

E se acontecerem, quão disruptivas serão essas movimentações?

"Just because a product is very inexpensive or targets non-consumers of existing technologies does not mean it is disruptive. To be disruptive, a product has to meet two conditions: First, it must start out as inferior in terms of the performance that existing customers expect, but superior in price.(Moi ici: Assim, quem começa a comprar esses produtos são não-clientes do mercado que existe. São agentes que aceitam o desempenho mais baixo por troca com um preço muito atraente)
...[then] it must become “good enough” in performance and superior in price.
...
What makes a product disruptive is how it develops over time and how incumbents respond to it. This has the important implication that you can never tell ex ante whether a product will be disruptive or not.
...
Will the emerging-market innovators continue to have a significant price advantage over competitors from more developed countries?
Will the emerging-market innovators succeed in closing the performance gap so that customers in more advanced economies come to see their products as “good enough”?"

Seguem-se alguns trechos carregados de sumo:

"If the source of the cost advantage is low labor costs or a reengineered product that requires fewer or cheaper components, incumbents can find a way of neutralizing these advantages.
...
A cost advantage is difficult to sustain over time, especially if incumbents cut their costs in an aggressive and committed way.(Moi ici: Estão a recordar as vozes que falam nos custos, nos custos, nos custos, no imperativo de reduzir salários?)
...
However, there is one source of cost advantage that is more sustainable than others. This is the business model of the disruptors. A cost advantage that comes on the back of a business model that is not only different from but also conflicts with the business model of the established companies is more sustainable than other cost advantages.
...
Business models are difficult to imitate. What makes the task even more difficult is the fact that the disruptors’ business models often conflict with the incumbents’ business models. (Moi ici: A solução muitas vezes passa por aqui, passa por inovar no modelo de negócio)
...
The existence of such trade-offs and conflicts means that a company that tries to compete in both positions simultaneously risks degrading the value of its existing activities.
...
a company could find itself “stuck in the middle” if it tried to compete with both low-cost and differentiation strategies.
.
When there are inherent conflicts between their traditional business model and the disruptor’s business model, incumbents will think twice before attempting to imitate the disrupting business model.
...
This suggests that a cost advantage that’s based on a different and conflicting business model is the disruptor’s best chance to make inroads against incumbents. (Moi ici: Raramente teremos vantagem por esta via)
...

Less obvious is the proposition that whether the disruptors’ products come to be seen as “good enough” depends not only on what disruptors do, but also on what incumbents do to influence consumers’ expectations of what is “good enough.” (Moi ici: Este ponto é muito interessante e, aqui as PMEs portuguesas podem fazer a diferença. E o calçado, o têxtil e vestuário, o mobiliário, e o agro-alimentar é exemplo disso, por exemplo) In particular, incumbents must continue to innovate in their products so that consumers in more developed countries continue to see a big gap between what the potentially disruptive product can offer them and what is available from the incumbents.

There are two major ways to do this. The first is to focus on the product’s existing value proposition and raising that to higher levels. Doing so will keep raising the bar on what is good enough and make life more difficult for disruptors.
...
The more successful the incumbents are in increasing consumers’ expectations of what is “good enough” in their markets, the less successful the entrants from emerging markets will be in disrupting them. (Moi ici: Aquilo a que chamo fazer batota ao apostar nos itens onde se pode ter uma vantagem competitiva. Velocidade, flexibilidade, design, ...)
In short, whether low-cost innovations from emerging countries end up disrupting markets in developed countries depends not only on whether the disruptors succeed in putting in place an innovative business model that supports their cost advantage but also on how aggressively the incumbents respond. For incumbents, knowing that much of their fate rests in their hands is half the battle won."