disruptive technologies that may underperform today, relative to what users in the market demand, may be fully performance-competitive in that same market

there is something about the way decisions get made in successful organizations that sows the seeds of eventual failure.

much of what the best executives in successful companies have learned about managing innovation is not relevant to disruptive technologies.

But the company is able to crank out high-quality work year after year because its core capabilities are rooted in its processes and values rather than in its resources. I sense, however, that these capabilities of McKinsey also constitute its disabilities. The rigorously analytical, data-driven processes that help it create value for its clients i

As a result, these companies find it very difficult to invest adequate resources in disruptive technologies—lower-margin opportunities that their customers don’t want—until their customers want them. And by then it is too late.

Simply put, when the best firms succeeded, they did so because they listened responsively to their customers and invested aggressively in the technology, products, and manufacturing capabilities that satisfied their customers’ next-generation needs.

a process that defines a capability in executing a certain task concurrently defines disabilities in executing other tasks.

Philosophies such as management by objective and management by exception often impede the discovery of new markets because of where they focus management attention.

When a threatening disruptive technology requires a different cost structure in order to be profitable and competitive, or when the current size of the opportunity is insignificant relative to the growth needs of the mainstream organization, then—and only then—is a spin-out organization a required part of the solution.