Cracking Frontier Markets

Clayton M. Christensen; Efosa  Ojomo; Karen  Dillon

Article | Harvard Business Review | January–February 2019

Cracking Frontier Markets

by Clayton M. Christensen, Efosa Ojomo and Karen Dillon

Abstract

Executive Summary:
With emerging-market giants such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China experiencing slowdowns, investors, entrepreneurs, and multinationals are looking elsewhere. They’ve been eyeing frontier economies such as Nigeria and Pakistan with great interest—and enormous trepidation. Can one find serious growth opportunities amid extreme poverty and a lack of infrastructure and institutions?
The answer, the authors argue, is yes. The key lies in market-creating innovations: products and services that speak to unmet local needs, create local jobs, and scale up quickly. Examples include MicroEnsure, which has made insurance affordable for 56 million people in emerging economies, and Galanz, which has brought microwave ovens to millions of Chinese consumers previously considered too poor to buy such an appliance.
What’s more, the essentials of development can be “pulled in” by market-creating innovators—and over time, governments and financial institutions tend to offer their support.

Keywords: Emerging Markets; Market Entry and Exit; Growth and Development Strategy; Demand and Consumers; Innovation and Invention; Development Economics;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Register to Read

Citation:

Christensen, Clayton M., Efosa Ojomo, and Karen Dillon. "Cracking Frontier Markets." Harvard Business Review 97, no. 1 (January–February 2019): 90–101.

Nypro is the world's leading injection molder of precision plastic parts, operating a global network of 21 plants. Nypro's strategy is for each plant to offer identical capabilities, because its customers are global companies with worldwide sourcing needs. The case describes the way Nypro manages product and process innovation across the global plant network.

Article | Journal of Management Studies | November 2018

Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research

Clayton M. Christensen, Rory McDonald, Elizabeth J. Altman and Jonathan E. Palmer

The concept of disruptive innovation has gained considerable currency among practitioners despite widespread misunderstanding of its core principles. Similarly, foundational research on disruption has elicited frequent citation and vibrant debate in academic circles, but subsequent empirical research has rarely engaged with its key theoretical arguments. This inconsistent reception warrants a thoughtful evaluation of research on disruptive innovation within management and strategy. We trace the theory’s intellectual history, noting how its core principles have been clarified by anomaly-seeking research. We also trace the theory’s evolution from a technology-change framework—essentially descriptive and relatively limited in scope—to a more broadly explanatory causal theory of innovation and competitive response. This assessment reveals that our understanding of the phenomenon of disruption has changed as the theory has developed. To reinvigorate academic interest in disruptive innovation, we propose several underexplored topics—response strategies, performance trajectories, and innovation metrics—to guide future research.

Keywords: disruptive innovation; innovation metrics; competitive strategy; systemic industries; technology trajectories; Disruptive Innovation; Theory; History; Competitive Strategy; Research;

Citation:

Christensen, Clayton M., Rory McDonald, Elizabeth J. Altman, and Jonathan E. Palmer. "Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research." Special Issue on Managing in the Age of Disruptions. Journal of Management Studies 55, no. 7 (November 2018): 1043–1078. View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard

After 20 years of growth unprecedented in the sports apparel industry, Under Armour finds itself with a new record to beat: making the leap from $5 to $10 billion in sales—a feat only accomplished to date by competitors Nike and Adidas. At the heart of this challenge is how Under Armour can maintain its brand’s authenticity while adding new products that fuel future growth. The case traces the evolution of Under Armour’s brand and describes how the company chose to extend or not extend its brand into adjacent categories and markets in the past. Now Under Armour needs to decide on their next steps. Should the company focus on its core markets? Should it stretch the brand into more adjacencies? Or should it consider something more radical, like app-related sales through subscriptions and wearable technologies?

Faculty & Research

Cracking Frontier Markets

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author