MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510364204

The other disruption

2016· article· en· W2510364204 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joshua S. Gans

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard business review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilemmaMainstreamBusinessDisruptive innovationInnovatorProduct (mathematics)MarketingSupply chainNarrativeCorporate identityNew product development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most managers are well versed in the defensive playbook for confronting disruptive innovation. Most commonly, they either acquire the new entrants or “disrupt themselves” by setting up autonomous units charged with developing their own new technology that can be rolled into their principal operations once the disruptive innovation begins to dominate the industry. But quite often, adopting a new technology requires companies to fundamentally change their mainstream operations—the way they manufacture and distribute their products. In these cases where the organizational model changes along with customer expectations and preferences, the playbook often falls short. In this article Joshua Gans of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management identifies three prescriptions for surviving “supply side” disruption: Companies must have an integrated organizational model, ownership of a product feature important to the end customer, and a broad and flexible sense of corporate identity. Though less commonly understood, supply-side disruption is arguably more dangerous than the kind described by Clayton Christensen in The Innovator’s Dilemma; indeed, disruption of a product’s architecture threatens a company’s very survival in a way that changes in customer demands do not. INSETS: How It's Made Matters.;A New Narrative.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard business reviewSame topicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207