The concept of Disruptive Innovation popularised by Harvard University professor Clayton Christensen has today become a ubiquitous phrase used in a wide variety of contexts, many of them being outside the formulation originally conceived. Over the years, a vast body of literature devoted to disruptive innovation has developed. In this review, we look at some of the major insights gained into the theory and its framework during the last two decades. This is followed by a specific look at disruptive innovation in the Indian context in literature.

2. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW:

We had observed during our preliminary investigations that there was a considerable gap between the understanding of the concept of Disruptive innovation as defined by Prof Christensen and the term as used in popular as well as in many scholarly literature. The application of the concept to Indian contexts appeared to be few and lacking in rigorous analysis on any defined framework. We undertook a comprehensive review of research on Disruptive Innovation with a view to understand the present state of knowledge and ascertain the gaps in knowledge as reflected in the literature. This review forms the basis of our ongoing research on the subject which we propose to elaborate and elucidate through our subsequent papers.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

For the purpose of this review, Social Science and Management databases like EBSCO and SCOPUS were comprehensively searched for primary and relevant research on disruptive innovation with specific focus on the building of the theory, its evaluation frameworks and its applications in the Indian context. Particular care was taken to ensure that our focus was kept on the specific identified areas. In order to capture a wide research base, dissertations were also reviewed through PROQUEST databases. Finally a comprehensive internet search was also conducted, specifically through Google Scholar and a number of primary sites.

This thorough literature search resulted in the short-listing of more than 200 relevant research papers, articles books and dissertations. This shortlist was critically examined for their direct relevance to the topic under study and was finally pruned to a most relevant 76 research papers, articles and books which form the core of our study reported in this paper.

4. THEORY OF DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION:

4.1. Conceptual Evolution:

The forerunner ideas of the concept of disruptive innovation can be traced at least as far back as Schumpeter’s idea of “Creative Destruction” as being the continuous process of replacement of existing products and processes through newer products and process innovations. Cooper and Schendel (1976) were interestingly close to Christensen’s later concepts, when they argued that technological innovations can create new industries and transform or destroy existing ones and further that such technological innovations were often pioneered by a new firm. Work on technological paradigms and technological trajectories [Dosi (1982)] and the capacity of innovations to influence the established systems of production and marketing [Abernathy and Clark (1985)] were also important contributions on similar lines.

The concept that disruptive technologies, primarily introduced by new and small companies, were a major cause for the failure of otherwise well managed and large incumbent companies, has been persuasively argued through a detailed analysis of the US hard disk drive industry [Bower and Christensen (1995)]. Soon the term disruptive technologies was generalized to disruptive innovations and Christensen’s bestselling book on the subject (1997) together with the earlier papers laid out the conceptual foundations for subsequent discourse on disruptive innovation. In his book [Christensen (1997)], examples were culled from a diverse set of industries to underline the widespread applicability of the proposed theory of disruptive innovation to understand a fundamental (and very well posed) question - why do seemingly well managed and successful companies suddenly fail?

It is important for managers to understand the processes that create successful innovations in organizations and how these processes can be tuned to prevent their own business from getting disrupted and in turn make disruptive innovations to work for their organizations [Christensen and Raynor (2003)].

4.2. The Theory Building Process:

On a review of the theory 20 years after its popular introduction, it was felt that disruptive innovation theory was today in danger of becoming a victim of its own success [Christensen et al (2015)]. The problem lies in the fact that the term disruptive innovation was being used too loosely to describe any situation in which any industry is shaken up and where the earlier incumbents falter or could falter. This was too broad a view that could lead to the undermining of the theory over time. In their article, they reiterate the basic tenets of the theory and explain its applicability through an example of Uber.

The confusion in what constitutes disruptive innovation as used in popular parlance and as defined by Christensen was highlighted by Schmidt and Druehl [2008] when they state that a disruptive innovation (i.e. one that dramatically disrupts the current market) is not necessarily a disruptive innovation (as Clayton Christensen defines this term). Following Christensen’s work, they had proposed a terminology and an innovation diffusion based framework to aid in understanding the disruptiveness of innovations.

The theory of disruptive innovation is still evolving and the theory building exercise is an ongoing process [Christensen (2006)]. He explains the theory building process in detail and asserts that there are anomalous examples to the basic framework of the theory and that any modifications to the theory should be able to resolve these anomalies. Christensen, like Intel chairman, Andrew Grove, believes that it would be better to call the phenomena as “Christensen Effect” since the word “disruption” had many connotations in English language which leads to the dilution of the theory’s scope and definition.

It has been opined that some of the premises of the theory are important and insightful, but it suffers from limitations like ambiguity in definition of a disruptive technology and the sampling logic to test its validity [Sood and Tellis (2010, 2011)]. The firms’ failure or success may not depend upon inanimate technologies but may be more due to (lack of) visionary leadership [Tellis (2006)]. Markides [2006] too feels that it is a mistake to use the same theoretical framework to explain all kinds of disruptive innovations. He argues that only when the concept of disruptive innovation is broken down into finer components, progress can be made.

The traditional interpretations of disruptive innovation almost solely lay the blame on the cognitive failures of senior management. This view has to be cautiously considered as it overlooks the crucial role played by the customers or market related competencies that shape the organizational response to disruptive innovations [Henderson (2006)]. Fundamental issues are raised with respect to the definition of disruptive technology, its predictive capacity, success of incumbents, customer orientation and commercialization. The apparent inability of Christensen’s formulation of the theory in ex-ante prediction of disruption is of particular concern [Danneels (2004)]. What makes a product disruptive is its temporal evolution and the response of the incumbents to it. Since this whole process is dynamic, one can never tell ex-ante whether a product will be disruptive or not [Markides (2012)]. But the argument that ex-ante prediction of disruption based on the theory is not possible is forcefully refuted by Christensen [2006].

There has been considerable unease with the way the theory has been built on the basis of selective cases [Tellis (2006); Lepore (2014); Sood and Tellis (2010, 2011)]. A historical analysis of 64 innovations in office products and consumer durables concludes that incumbents are not always beaten by newcomers and in particular, after World War II, it was large firms and incumbents who introduced a majority of the radical innovations [Chandy and Tellis (2000)]. Another analysis of 77 disruptive innovations listed in Christensen’s books [Christensen (1997) and Christensen and Raynor (2003)] based on four key elements of the theory of disruptive innovation found that only 7% of the cases exhibited all the four elements of the theory [King and Baatartogtokh (2015)]. This led to the suggestion that the complete theory of disruptive innovation can be applied only when specific conditions are fulfilled. A further conclusion drawn was that the theory of disruptive innovation can at best provide warnings but is no substitute for critical thinking and careful analysis by managers. However, this particular analysis was debated and the continued validity of the theory in understanding the fundamental question regarding failure of successful companies was claimed by Sampere, et al [2016].

A shortcoming in Christensen’s original theory was the emphasis on the “attack from below” mode of disruption without considering any other mode. An alternative scenario was proposed where a higher priced and higher performing innovation introduced in the upmarket section which later moves down to the mass market to create disruption of the incumbent [Utterback and Acee (2005)]. Govindarajan and Kopalle [2006] considered both low-end and high-end modes of disruptions and came up with a more precise definition of what constitutes disruptiveness and a measure for it. They utilise such ex-post measures of disruptiveness to come up with ex-ante predictions on which incumbents are better placed to develop disruptive innovations.

An important study into the underlying theoretical drivers of technology disruptions suggests a “preference asymmetry” which determines firms’ differential incentives for competing in new market segments [Adner (2002)]. This insight of asymmetric motivation was an important development in the process of understanding the causal mechanism underlying the process of disruption [Christensen (2006)]

While most researchers have moved away from a technology cantered viewpoint to a business process viewpoint for understanding disruptive innovation, there have been cautioning voices that the technological dimension of disruptive innovation is still an important aspect which cannot be given lesser importance [Chieh et al (2007)].

Criticism apart, most researchers have found the theory valid and quite useful in business strategy. In their book, Christensen and Raynor [2003] had proposed that businesses can use the theory advantageously to not only prevent themselves from getting disrupted, but instead use it to their advantage.

The theory has been gainfully used by several researchers in their studies. An analysis of incumbent response to innovations in three industrial segments – photographic equipment, Swiss wristwatch and US mutual funds - revealed that when faced with a “profit destroying” innovation, incumbents avoided the innovation even when faced with evidence that the innovation will succeed. On the other hand, when confronted with “profit enhancing” disruption, incumbents would take the lead in embracing it [Chopra and Baldegger (2014)]. This substantiates the asymmetric motivation factor as a causal mechanism for disruption.

The theory’s insights have been used to analyse how Kodak fell from its leadership position by not recognizing the disruptive digital photography technology [Lucas and Goh (2009)]. The case of Hasselblad, a reputed manufacturer of film cameras, highlights the complex incumbent firm’s characteristics that determine their response to a disruptive innovation and how firms can survive disruption through collaboration and acquisition [Sandstrom, et al (2009)]. Gilbert [2003] proposes disruptive innovation as a growth opportunity for companies with a focused study of the newspaper industry’s response to the internet and digital publishing and further exploring the theme with cases from the computer industry, heart care and semiconductor test equipment.

4.3. Facing Disruption Challenges:

Response of companies to disruptive innovations or how they should respond to one that may arise has been a matter of considerable research. Christensen and Raynor’s [2003] book on the subject is considered by many as a definitive guide in understanding and responding to disruptions. In their early work on the subject, Christensen, et al [2002] outlined the essential elements of the theory and described a process that companies can institute to build new disruptive business. They devise two “litmus tests” to help company executives decide disruption strategies and make business plans with improved chance of success.

A study of 98 companies led to 5 specific responses that companies resorted to when faced with disruptive innovations [Charitou and Markides (2002)]. They concluded that companies’ response to disruptive innovations depends upon two factors – motivation and the ability to do so. The first factor is an important attribute of the disruptive innovation theory. The second factor is interesting as it points towards a yet unclearly defined domain which has been hinted at by Christensen [2006] when he states that there could be another category of innovations (apart from disruptive and sustaining), which are unattainable for the incumbent leaders because the capital or technology requirements for adopting such innovations are simply beyond their reach.

Managers of innovative companies need to be “ambidextrous”, i.e. they need to explore new opportunities while at the same time exploiting the existing capabilities [O’Reilly and Tushman (2004)]. It is also suggested that disruptions can be averted by companies through any of the three responses – beat them, join them or outlast them [Gans (2016)]. In contrast to Milton Friedman’s argument that profits are the chief purpose of business, it has been argued that growth through innovation, particularly disruptive innovation, is the main goal of business today! [Ahlstrom (2010)]

To survive disruption, companies need to develop their own disruption before it is too late. For this, organizations should adopt a systematic process to develop their own path and pace of disruption as a more complete strategic response [Wessel and Christensen (2012)]. It is also important for companies to understand the factors that inhibit or enable them in facing disruptive innovations which could help them to devise appropriate strategy to tackle such situations [Assink (2006); Yu and Hang (2010)]. From an economics perspective, modelling based on vertical and horizontal differentiation shows that the threat of disruption depends upon several factors like technology, relative market segment sizes, price discrimination ability, etc [Adner and Zemsky (2005)].

Predicting or anticipating disruptive innovations have been of particular interest for obvious reasons for the industry and the government and considerable literature is available on the theme. While many researchers are still not convinced of the ex-ante prediction ability of the theory, it forms the basic theme of Christensen, et al’s [2004] book on the subject in which they explain which companies will win and which will lose based on the insights gained from the theory.

The National Research Council, on being tasked by the US government, set up a committee on forecasting future disruptive technologies to provide guidance and develop a system for forecasting disruptive technologies, their report being published by the US National Academy of Sciences [2009].

Researchers have proposed several novel ways for ex-ante identification of disruptive innovations. Literature based discovery through text mining offers a good starting point for identifying potential disruptive and discontinuous innovations [Kostoff, et al (2004)]. The interactions between the needs of customers and the capabilities of existing and potential technologies are insightful in understanding how technology substitutions occur, which leads to disruption [Paap and Katz (2004)]. Innovation rules or innovation evolution paths are proposed for discovering disruptive innovation opportunities. Market pull and technology-push scenarios are constructed to identify disruptive innovations using a set of innovation rules [Narasimhalu (2012)].

The word disruption is so popular today that respected consulting companies like McKinsey has frequently come out with processes and technologies, which they feel will be “disruptive” in the coming years [Rogers (2012); McKinsey Global Institute (2013)].

5. FRAMEWORKS FOR ANALYSING DISRUPTIVE INNOVATIONS:

An unfinished agenda of researchers today is to create a well structured framework for understanding and analysing disruptive innovations that is acceptable to a majority of the research community. Such framework should also enable ex-ante prediction of disruptive innovations. Researchers have proposed several frameworks, but none seem to have received universal acceptance yet.

Three “litmus” tests are proposed to check if an innovation qualifies to be considered disruptive in the new market segment and two “litmus” tests to check whether the innovation could prove to be a low end disruption [Christensen, et al (2002)]. Beginning from first principles, to be disruptive, a product must meet two conditions – start with inferior performance (for mainstream customers) but superior price and come up to “good enough” performance with superior price. Since the process is dynamic, one can never tell ex-ante whether a product will eventually end up being disruptive or not [Markides (2012)]. Govindarajan and Kopalle [2006] developed a scale for assessing the disruptiveness of an innovation. They test its reliability and validity using data from 199 SBUs of Fortune 500 companies.

Hang et al [2011] proposed a comprehensive assessment framework for disruptive innovation based on Christensen’s original theory with illustrative cases on which the framework is applied. Their framework is based on structured questions categorized into Market Positioning, Technology and Other Favorable Drivers They claim that their framework enables a more systematic and accurate assessment of disruptive innovation and can be potentially developed to provide ex-ante prediction of successful new disruptive innovations. This framework is subsequently applied to show its utility to analyse the R&D strategies used in 11 cases taken from India and China [Ruan and Hang (2013)]

Citing limitations of Christensen’s theory like circular definitions, inadequate empirical evidence and lack of predictive capability, a new schema generating seven hypotheses is proposed which is then tested with data from 36 technologies across 7 markets [Sood and Tellis (2010, 2011)]. Based on their framework, they reach conclusions which are at variance with Christensen’s theory like only 8% of technology disruptions and 25% of firm disruptions were caused by entrants using lower attack and that incumbents cause 50% of technology disruptions and 62% of firm disruptions.

In order to assess whether the electric vehicle company, Tesla can disrupt the market, Tom Bartman and his colleagues at Harvard Business School’s Forum for Growth and innovation proposed a framework of five questions which were posed and answered to suggest that Tesla is not a disruptive innovation, but a classic sustaining innovation [Mathew (2015)]. After reiterating the basic principles and tenets of the theory, Christensen et al [2015] taken the case of Uber and explained why it is a sustaining innovation as per the definition of disruptive innovation, in contrast to the popular refrain of Uber being a disruptive innovation

A complementary terminology and framework to that of Christensen’s is provided by Schmidt and Druehl [2008]. They proposed a three step framework to assess the innovation diffusion pattern and thereby the potential disruptive impact of an innovation on incumbents. A different line of thinking is to study market readiness for disruptive innovations [Klenner, et al (2013)]. They have proposed a framework for ex-ante detection of “disruptive susceptibility” in established value networks in their research.

Another option, with focus on emerging economies, is to combine the concepts of disruptive innovation with reverse innovation thereby providing a framework to look at new and disruptive technologies from emerging economies [Corsi and Di Minin (2014)]. Thomond, et al [2002, 2003] presentd what they term as a “pragmatic” new definition for disruptive innovation drawn from literature and also provided an overview of a conceptual framework.

We observe that researchers proposed several frameworks but still no clear and widely accepted framework exists, particularly for ex-ante evaluation of disruptiveness. This probably implies the still evolving nature of the theory as well articulated by Christensen himself [2006].

6. DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT:

As we saw in the foregoing sections, there is considerable literature on various facets of disruptive innovation in the context of the more developed countries, but when it comes to the emerging economies, particularly India, detailed analysis of innovations that are claimed to be disruptive in popular parlance is indeed scarce.

The literature, in the context of Indian innovations, abound in terms like “Jugaad Innovation”, “Reverse Innovation”, “Frugal Innovation”, etc but discussion on disruptive innovations is generally is limited to citing examples or describing a few well publicised Indian innovations like TATA’s Nano car, Godrej’s rural refrigerator “ChotuKool”, TATA’s “Swach” Purification System, and the like which are generally categorised as “disruptive” without the benefit of any serious analysis within any of the frameworks proposed by researchers.

Majority of available literature on Indian disruptive innovations can be broadly categorized into 4 sectors – Automobile; Healthcare; FMCG and Consumer durables, and; ICT and Energy.

6.1. Automobile Sector:

Virtually the sole example of “disruptive innovation” in the Indian automobile sector is TATA’s small car, Nano. There are plenty of references to this vehicle in literature.

Markides [2012] while considering the potential of emerging market innovations to become disruptive in more developed economies says the best example of this is Tata’s low cost car “Nano” introduced in 2009. Nano is also considered as one of the cases evidencing “lead market” tendencies from emerging markets like India [Tiwari and Herstatt (2011)]. The $ 2000 Nano is also cited by Prahalad and Mashelkar [2010] while explaining disruptive innovations by Indian innovators. Dyer, et al [2009] claimed that Tata’s Nano car may disrupt the entire automobile distribution system in India.

Pundir, et al [2013] while studying role of manufacturing strategies and innovation in achieving competitiveness in Indian automobile industry, they classified the Nano as a “disruptive innovation from India”. Ray and Ray [2011] analysed Nano through a framework that they developed incorporating modularity, architectural innovation and collaborative partnerships based on the concept of disruptive innovation.

Taking Tata’s Nano as an exploratory case for examining the application of lean principle applied product development, Lim, et al [2009] claimed it to be a new market disruption in a developing country. Jha, et al [2014] taken the case of the Indian car maker Maruti to analyse how it proposes to counter the disruptive innovations happening in the Indian automobile industry. Striking a different note, Birtchnell (2011) claims that “the Nano is more a revolution in cosmopolitan aesthetics and cost effectiveness than technological innovation. The Nano lacks the robustness of India's fleet of Hindustan Ambassadors to deal with rural roads”.

6.2. Healthcare Sector:

The Indian healthcare sector has indeed made several innovations, mainly on account of resource constraints and other India specific issues. But here again, the examples cited as disruptive are limited to a few repeated cases, most of which have not been sufficiently analysed for being labelled as truly disruptive.

GE is seen as creating disruptive technologies in healthcare like low cost PC based ultrasound machine and hand-held ECG devices in countries like India and China and through these innovations, GE is observing better business growth in these countries than elsewhere globally [Immelt, et al (2009)]. The case of GE’s Mac 400 ECG machine is considered as evidence of “lead market” tendencies from emerging markets like India [Tiwari and Herstatt (2011)].

The case of GE Healthcare in India is analysed to understand its ability to successfully bring out sustaining and disruptive innovations in the healthcare sector [Ramdorai and Herstatt (2017)]. They argueed that this is an example of the “ambidexterity” of GE Healthcare as proposed by O’Reilly and Tushman [2004].

India’s Aravind Eye Care System has also been a subject of much study. It has been analysed in the framework of a disruptive social innovation [Chee (2014)] and also to understand the underlying operating principles of their business models and innovations in Indian healthcare sector [Esposito, et al (2012)]. Esposito, et al [2012] have also studied Narayana Hrudalaya, Vaatsalya and LifeSpring in the same context.

6.3. FMCG and Consumer Durables Sectors:

In this sector, examples of Amul, Nirma, Chotu-Kool, Swach, etc are found in literature. But, again the lack of a framework based analysis of their disruptiveness (or otherwise) is observed.

Godrej’s portable, rural focussed refrigerator, Chotu-kool is considered as a disruptive innovation by many researchers [Markides (2012); Williams, et al (2012); Eyering, et al (2011); Tiwari and Herstatt (2011)]. Tata’s eco-friendly portable water purification system “Swach” is another example of rural disruptive innovation [Markides (2012); Ahlstrom (2010); Tiwari and Herstatt (2011)]. A village laundry service “Chamak” is considered another potential disruptive innovation [Eyering, et al (2011)]

Gopalakrishnan [2009] referred to reputed Indian FMCG brands like Nirma, Amul, Fair and Lovely and Tata Tea as ones that can be considered as disruptive innovations in the sector. In recent years, the Indian FMCG brand “Patanjali” has captured much attention (and market share). A case study highlighting how it’s disruptive marketing strategies are taking away sizeable market share from giants like Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL), PandG, Colgate-Palmolive, etc is presented [Gupta (2016)]

Taking several examples of “frugal innovations” from India and abroad, Rao [2013] argues that there is a strong tendency for such frugal innovations to disrupt incumbents.

6.4. ICT and Energy Sectors:

Over the last decade, India has recorded considerable growth in the ICT sector (including telecom and e-commerce) as well as the energy sector (particularly renewable energy). While there has been much discussion on various aspects of these technologies and their commercial and economic implications, analytic studies of their disruptive potential are scarce.

Indian mobile telephony industry has seen tremendous growth and competition. Companies like Airtel, Reliance, Idea and Tata-DoCoMo have come with innovative strategies to widen their customer base. Airtel’s 1 cent/minute telephone calls have been considered as an example of Indian innovators creating disrupting innovations as also a $20 million supercomputer produced by CRL/TATA [Prahalad and Mashelkar (2010)].

The low cost tablets, “Akash” and “Sakshat” introduced by the Government of India are also viewed as disruptive innovations in India’s school education system [Raman, et al (2014); Tiwari and Herstatt (2011)]. An exploratory analysis of whether Google’s modular smartphone ARA has the potential to be disruptive in India is undertaken by Khanra (2015).

E-commerce is another booming sector and it is radically changing the way business is traditionally conducted in India. This aspect has led many researchers to consider Indian e-commerce as a disruptive innovation [Mitra (2013); Chatterjee and Ghosal (2014)]. The disruptive influence of digital innovations and the response of India’s Mumbai based film industry, Bollywood, has been analysed by Stephanie, et al (2012).

The potential of wireless electricity becoming a disruptive innovation in an energy under-supplied country like India is discussed by Kumar, et al [2010]. In an interesting study, the solar powered electric rickshaw (soleckshaw) is claimed to be a disruptive innovation that has disrupted the rickshaw market in India [Chandran and Brahmachari (2015)].

7. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY:

Our research has revealed that the theory of disruptive innovation is still not clearly understood and is widely misinterpreted. We also find that in the last nearly 10 years, the focus of researchers has moved away from theory building process to application of the theory. While we believe this to be a natural way to move forward, anomalous observations should result in the refinement of the theory as Christensen himself feels, but this does not seem to be happening. One of the reasons for this could be that the fundamentals of the theory in the strict sense that Christensen defined it are still not well understood by many researchers, thereby impeding its useful application. Another serious implication that our review has brought up is that we are still without a clear and well accepted framework for evaluating the disruptiveness of an innovation either ex-ante or ex-post. As a corollary to these findings, we also found that the application of the theory to Indian contexts have in general been very cursory. We feel these implications of our study are serious issues that need to be addressed by further research to put the theory on a firm footing.

8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

Disruptive innovation is considered as one of the most influential management concepts of recent times. Since its introduction, it has had considerable influence on business strategy discourse in management literature. Such has been the use (or misuse) of the term that its originator, Prof Christensen feels that “the theory’s core concepts have been widely misunderstood and its basic tenets frequently misapplied”.

On a review of literature on disruptive innovation, we have found that Christensen’s apprehensions are well founded. We also found that the theory is far from complete and the theory building process is still under way. Considerable empirical research is still required to refine the theory and put it on firmer ground.

We find that there is still no widely accepted definition of what constitutes a disruptive innovation, though most researchers agree on few key points of the theory. It is also noticed that a generally accepted framework for analysing whether an innovation can be considered potentially disruptive or not, is still some way off. Predicting disruption is a goal yet to be achieved under the present theoretical framework.

In the Indian context, most innovations have generally been viewed from the angle of “frugal” or “jugaad” or “reverse” classifications. Wherever innovations are stated to be disruptive, most seem to be just (mis)usage of the word “disruption” of the sort Christensen was worried about. Serious analysis of Indian innovations in terms of their having disrupted incumbent firms or their potential to do so, in terms of Christensen’s definition, is lacking. This is a fertile area needing further research.

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

The authors wish to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments which helped in refining this paper. The first author wishes to thankfully acknowledge the support and guidance of Prof. Panneerselvam in this work.

10. REFERENCES:

1. Abernathy, W.J. and Clark, K.B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research policy, 14, 1: 3-22.

2. Adner, R. and Zemsky, P. (2005). Disruptive technologies and the emergence of competition. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 2: 229-254

3. Adner, R. (2002). When are technologies disruptive? A demand‐ based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 8: 667-688.

4. Ahlstrom, D. (2010). Innovation and growth: How business contributes to society. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 3: 11-24.

5. Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9, 2: 215-233.

6. Birtchnell, T. (2011). Jugaad as systemic risk and disruptive innovation in India. Contemporary South Asia, 19, 4: 357-372.

7. Bower, J.L. and Christensen, C.M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard business review, 73, 1: 43-53.

8. Chandran, N. and Brahmachari, S.K. (2015). Technology, knowledge and markets: connecting the dots—electric rickshaw in India as a case study. Journal of Frugal Innovation, 1, 1: 1-10.

9. Chandy, R.K. and Tellis, G.J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of marketing, 64, 3: 1-17.

10. Chatterjee, D. and Ghosal, I. (2014). E-Commerce In India Future And Its Perspective: A Study. International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Studies (IJSRES), 1, 4: 25-31.

11. Charitou, C.D. and Markides, C.C. (2002). Responses to disruptive strategic innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 2: 55-64.

12. Chee, M. (2014). Revisiting Disruptive Innovation through three highly successful social enterprise projects. Proceedings of 29^th International Business Research Conference, Sydney, Australia.

13. Chieh, H.C., Dan, Y.U. and Hin, C.K. (2007). An exploratory study on understanding the technological dimension in disruptive innovation. In The 5th International Symposium on Management of Technology, 17: 262-266

14. Chopra, A. and Baldegger, R. (2014). Deer in the Headlights: Response of Incumbent Firms to Profit Destroying Innovations. International Journal of Innovation in Management, 2, 2: 1-26

15. Christensen, C., Raynor, M.E. and McDonald, R. (2015). What Is Disruptive Innovation? Harvard Business Review, 12: 44-53

16. Christensen, C.M., Johnson, M.W. and Rigby, D.K. (2002). Foundations for growth: How to identify and build disruptive new businesses. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43, 3: 22-32

17. Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.

18. Christensen, C. and Raynor, M. (2003). The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business Review Press.

19. Christensen, C.M. (2006). The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. Journal of Product innovation management, 23, 1: 39-55.

20. Christensen, C. M., Scott D. Anthony, and Erik A Roth. (2004). Seeing What's Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change. Harvard Business School Press

21. Cooper, A.C. and Schendel, D. (1976). Strategic responses to technological threats. Business horizons, 19, 1: 61-69.

22. Corsi, S. and Di Minin, A. (2014). Disruptive innovation… in reverse: Adding a geographical dimension to disruptive innovation theory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23, 1: 76-90.

23. Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of product innovation management, 21, 4: 246-258.

24. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research policy, 11, 3: 147-162.

25. Dyer, J.H., Gregersen, H.B. and Christensen, C.M. (2009). The innovator’s DNA. Harvard business review, 87, 12: 60-67.

26. Esposito, M., Kapoor, A. and Goyal, S. (2012). Enabling healthcare services for the rural and semi-urban segments in India: when shared value meets the bottom of the pyramid. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 12, 4: 514-533.

27. Eyring, M.J., Johnson, M.W. and Nair, H. (2011). New business models in emerging markets. Harvard business review, 89, 1/2: 88-95.

28. Gans, J.S. (2016). Keep Calm and Manage Disruption. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57, 3: 83-95

29. Gilbert, C. (2003). The disruption opportunity. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 4: 27-33.

30. Gopalakrishnan, R. (2009). The post-recession challenge of innovation. Vikalpa, 34, 3: 73-78.

31. Govindarajan, V. and Kopalle, P.K. (2006a). Disruptiveness of innovations: measurement and an assessment of reliability and validity. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 2: 189-199.

32. Govindarajan, V. and Kopalle, P.K. (2006b). The usefulness of measuring disruptiveness of innovations ex post in making ex ante predictions. Journal of product innovation management, 23, 1: 12-18.

33. Gupta, R. (2016). Disruptive Marketing and Brand Building – A Case Study of Patanjali Ayurveda Limited. Advances in Economics and Business Management, 3, 2: 225-231

34. Hang, C.C., Chen, J. and Yu, D. (2011). An assessment framework for disruptive innovation. Foresight, 13, 5: 4-13.

35. Henderson, R. (2006). The innovator's dilemma as a problem of organizational competence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 1: 5-11.

36. Immelt, J.R., Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. (2009). How GE is disrupting itself. Harvard business review, 87, 10: 56-65.

37. Jha, H.M., Srivastava, A.K., Bokad, P.V., Deshmukh, L.B. and Mishra, S.M. (2014). Countering Disruptive Innovation Strategy in Indian Passenger Car Industry: A Case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 3, 2: 119-128.

38. Khanra, S. (2015). Disruptive Product Innovation through Modularity:Potential impact of ARA on Mobile Handsets Business in India. Advances in Economics and Business Management, 2, 14: 1422-1427

39. King, A.A. and Baatartogtokh, B., 2015. How Useful Is the Theory of Disruptive Innovation?. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57, 1: 77-90.

40. Klenner, P., Hüsig, S. and Dowling, M. (2013). Ex-ante evaluation of disruptive susceptibility in established value networks -When are markets ready for disruptive innovations?. Research Policy, 42, 4: 914-927.

41. Kostoff, R.N., Boylan, R. and Simons, G.R. (2004). Disruptive technology roadmaps. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71, 1: 141-159.

42. Kumar, A., Shankar, R., Momaya, K. and Gupte, S. (2010). The market for wireless electricity: The case of India. Energy Policy, 38, 3: 1537-1547.

43. Lepore, J. (2014). The disruption machine. The New Yorker, 23: 30-41.

44. Lim, C., Han, S. and Ito, H. (2009). Low cost disruptive innovation by an Indian Automobile Manufacturer. MMRC discussion paper series No 280.

45. Louie, G.G. (2009). Persistent forecasting of disruptive technologies. National Academies Press.

46. Lucas, H.C. and Goh, J.M. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18, 1: 46-55.

47. Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of product innovation management, 23, 1: 19-25.

48. Markides, C.C. (2012). How disruptive will innovations from emerging markets be?. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54, 1: 23-25.

49. Mathew, R.V. (2015). Tesla's Not as Disruptive as You Might Think. Harvard business review, 93, 7-8: 16.

50. McKinsey Global Institute (2013). Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business and the global economy.

51. Mitra, A. (2013). E-commerce in India - A Review. International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services and Management Research, 2, 2: 126-132.

52. Narasimhalu, A.D. (2012), Innovation Rules: A method for identifying disruptive innovation opportunities?. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings.The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).

53. O'Reilly 3rd, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard business review, 82, 4: 74-81.

54. Paap, J. and Katz, R. (2004). Anticipating disruptive innovation. Research-Technology Management, 47, 5: 13-22.

55. Prahalad, C.K. and Mashelkar, R.A. (2010). Innovation’s holy grail. Harvard Business Review, 88, 7-8: 132-141

56. Pundir,A.K., Mishra, R. and Ganapathy, L. (2013). An exploration of firm level competitiveness through choices in Manufacturing Strategy: The case of Indian four wheeler passenger vehicle companies. EuroEconomica, 32, 2: 49-61.

57. Raman, R., Vachhrajani, H., Shivdas, A. and Nedungadi, P. (2014). Low cost tablets as disruptive educational innovation: modeling its diffusion within Indian K12 system. Innovations in Technology Conference (InnoTek), May 2014 IEEE : 1-5.

58. Ramdorai, A. and Herstatt, C. (2017). Lessons from low-cost healthcare innovations for the Base-of the Pyramid markets: How incumbents can systematically create disruptive innovations. Lead Market India (pp. 119-144). Springer International Publishing.

59. Rao, B.C. (2013). How disruptive is frugal?. Technology in Society, 35, 1: 65-73.

60. Ray, S. and Ray, P.K. (2011). Product innovation for the people's car in an emerging economy. Technovation, 31, 5: 216-227.

61. Rogers, M. (2012). Energy = Innovation: 10 disruptive technologies. McKinsey on Sustainability and Resource Productivity, pp 10-15

62. Ruan, Y. and Hang, C.C. (2013), Disruptive innovation in emerging markets: strategies used in India and China. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013, 1, p. 12158). Academy of Management.

63. Sampere, J.P.V., Bienenstock, M.J. and Zuckerman, E.W. (2016). Debating disruptive innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57, 3: 26-27.

64. Sandström, C., Magnusson, M. and Jörnmark, J. (2009). Exploring factors influencing incumbents' response to disruptive innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18, 1: 8-15.

65. Schmidt, G.M. and Druehl, C.T. (2008). When is a disruptive innovation disruptive?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 4: 347-369.

66. Sood, A. and Tellis, G.J. (2010). Decoding Market Disruption: New Schema, Model, and Findings. Emory Law and Economics Research Paper, 10-68

67. Sood, A. and Tellis, G.J., 2011. Demystifying disruption: a new model for understanding and predicting disruptive technologies. Marketing Science, 30, 2: 339-354.

68. Stephanie, L., Sharma, R.S. and Ramasubbu, N. (2012). The Digitisation of Bollywood: Adapting to Disruptive Innovation. Media Asia, 39, 1: 3-16

69. Tellis, G.J. (2006). Disruptive technology or visionary leadership?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 1: 34-38.

70. Thomond, P., Herzberg, T. and Lettice, F. (2003) Disruptive innovation: Removing the innovators' dilemma. In British Academy of Management Annual Conference: Knowledge into Practice.

71. Thomond, P. and Lettice, F. (2002) Disruptive innovation explored. In Concurrent Engineering Conference Proceedings (No. 7, July).

72. Tiwari, R. and Herstatt, C. (2011). Lead market factors for global innovation: Emerging evidence from India (No. 61). Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.

73. Utterback, J.M. and Acee, H.J. (2005). Disruptive technologies: An expanded view. International Journal of Innovation Management, 9, 1: 1-17.

74. Wessel, M. and Christensen, C.M. (2012). Surviving disruption. Harvard Business Review, 90, 12: 56-64.

75. Williams, R., Omar, M. and Rajadhyaksha, U. (2012). The Value Flame at the Base of the Pryamid (VFBOP): Indentifying and creating a valuable market. Advances in International Marketing, 23: 267-279.

76. Yu, D. and Hang, C.C., 2010. A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 4: 435-452.

Received on 05.06.2017 Modified on 01.07.2017

Asian J. Management; 2017; 8(4):1370-1378.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2017.00209.8