Disruptive Innovation
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Disruptive Technological innovations
In terms of management and business, disruption is the process by which the limited resource capabilities of smaller companies can successfully challenge established and more prominent companies. Christensen et al. (2016), reveal that, mostly for profitability purposes, corporations that are already established fail to consider some of the market segment’s needs because they prefer to take care of the bigger companies. Small companies entering the established market, struggle for market upstream by providing products and services that the customers of larger and more established organization need while trying to maintain the objectives required in order to achieve successful market entry (Assink 2018, p. 34). The major focus in this video is on Essendon Food Solutions (EFS) as its case study and its business nature.
The Internal Perspective
Many challenges are often confronted by Essendon Food Solutions, especially within its perspective of internal organization that has a disruptive effect on the innovation of technologies. To begin with is the fact that the organization lacks team spirit within its base of human resources, purposed to articulate and to monitor the disruptive innovation promise. According to Christensen (2015), in his literature review, chances of an organization’s benefits will improve from such technologies when there is a specially dedicated team. Secondly, culture is the internal environment’s second aspect. It has an effect on the organization’s success with disruptive technologies. Many business organizations have a probability of resisting the disruption as it affects their business norms (Pierce 2016, p. 93). In particular, employees at EFS are refrained from questioning the leaders’ actions. Every employee’s success is when they reduce their curiosity about senior managers’ strategic decisions. According to Islam and Ekekwe (2019), it is imperative for EFS as an organization, to maximize on the necessity of disruptive innovation technologies by adopting strategies for effective management changes at all corporate leadership levels.
Further, the allocation of resources is a vital part of making a crucial determination of the effect of disruptive innovation technologies. On the same basis, sizable resource proportions should be dedicated to building projects for development and research. Thus, they would ensure techniques maximization. However, there is an insufficient dedication from the EFS team as the management is only after impressing stakeholders. In essence, Das et al. reveal that, as a recommendation, EFS should dedicate a portion of the planned resources of financial to fund development alongside research which benefits from disruptive technologies. Lastly, there are problems with EFS’s structure organization. The approach of top-to-down often offers a disruption of the required decision making speed. It also fails to include employees in the continuum of decision-making. Evans (2014), reveals that improving the information flow and encourage an approach that is to decision can only be achieved through the adoption of a horizontal organizational structure.
External Perspective
External factors that affect the benefits and understanding of disruptive technologies include; economic and regulatory conditions and relationships and commitments (Islam & Ekekwe 2019, p. 24). EFS is strongly committed to meeting the shareholders’ demands, including timely dividend payment for their shareholding. However, according to the standpoint of commitment and relationship, this approach constraint investing resources from being utilized in other development sectors of EFS. According to Christensen et al. (2015), as an organization, EFS might wish to consider the shareholders’ inevitable contributions to its capabilities for innovation before making a decision on its worth in the competitive landscape of business. From an economic and regulatory view, it is worth noting that regulations and culture cultures rarely support innovation. Therefore, it could derail the organization’s capabilities regarding the fulfillment of disruptive technologies. There are cultural and economic offsets in EFS, where the culture of the organization prefers tradition to new methods of working out kinds of stuff and that resources for development and research are limited. Henchoz & Mirande (2014), support the fact that in order to benefit from the situation, the organization should implement an innovative but supportive culture in diverse methods of carrying out duties while avoiding the traditionally set management standards.
Marketing Perspective
Marketing perspective strategically looks into the corporation’s establishment of emerging markets and uses the lead-user process to comprehend customer visit programs, the probable customers’ needs, and empathic designs. EFS lack the idea where the function gets intertwined into its fabric of the culture. Also, as a recommendation, EFS should be ready to use the program. It may require teams that are cross-functional, including marketing, development, and research, which is crucial in improving its knowledge about the dynamics of marketing. As a result, new marketing opportunities would be established.
Technological Perspective
The aspect of technology is in the identification of the continuum of the disruptive technology such as the company’s operations, like EFS. EFS would benefit from the TRIZ model by re-aligning its priorities in disruptive technology even though there is a lack of recommended evidence-based practice in the literature. Currently, Pierce (2016) affirms that, the priorities are skewed due to a traditional inclination.

Leadership Strategy
Competency in strategic thinking gives an essential framework for assessing the EFS leaders’ ability to back up disruptive innovative technologies. Three predictors have to be emulated by EFS leadership. The predictors include; cognitive ability, commitment, accumulation of work experience, and extraversion. However, the executives at EFS have inadequate expertise relevant to disruptive innovative technologies. Meanwhile, they only have similar microbiology training. In the process, they use their job experience as a base for decisions. This prevents them from identifying innovative thoughts.
Further, even though most employees have stayed at EFS for an extended period, they lack the required experience of disruptive technologies, especially in change management. Lastly, EFS’s administration lacks faith in the cognitive ability of fresh talents who have the ability to learn the methodology of delivering better results. It is evident because leaders come through the ranks, which is a demand in EFS.
Specific Resolutions
Cultural Perspective
There should be an effective change in management at all levels of EFS’s corporate leadership in order to make maximum use of the benefits of disruptive innovation technologies
Perspective of Shareholder
Essendon Food solutions should dedicate a portion of its financial resources towards funding sectors of development and research that would reshape it towards reaping from disruptive technologies
EFS should consider the shareholders’ potential contributions in their commitment to its capability in innovation before making a decision on its worth in the competitive business landscape.
Marketing Perspective
The company is advised to embark on the program while taking cross-functional teams, such as marketing, research, and development. As a result, it will lead to an improvement in its knowledge of the marketing dynamics leading to the establishment of new opportunities in the market.
HR Perspective
The organization should diversify its pool of human resources by avoiding over-relying on individuals having only microbiology experience. This would include the consideration of employees who are talented with management experience hence carry forward the policy for strategic development.

Assink, M., 2018. Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model. European journal of innovation management. 4(23), pp. 29-44.
Christensen, C.M., 2015. The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
Christensen, C.M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., and Sadtler, T.M., 2016. Disruptive innovation for social change. Harvard business review, 84(12), p.94.
Das, R., Banerjee, M., and De, S., 2019. Emerging Trends in Disruptive Technology Management for Sustainable Development. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Evans, N.D., 2014. Business innovation and disruptive technology: Harnessing the power of breakthrough technology… for competitive advantage. FT Press.
Henchoz, N., and Miranda, Y., 2014. Design for Innovative Technology: From disruption to acceptance. PPUR Presses polytechnics.
Islam, N., and Ekekwe, N., 2019. Disruptive Technologies, Innovation, and Global Redesign. In Disruptive Technologies, Innovation, and Global Redesign: Emerging Implications (pp. 1-11). IGI Global.
Pierce, T., 2016. Warfighting and disruptive technologies: Disguising innovation. Routledge.

Subscribe For Latest Updates
Let us notify you each time there is a new assignment, book recommendation, assignment resource, or free essay and updates