7-Point Disruptive Innovation Test (With Scoring Sheet)

What Is the Christensen Disruptive Innovation Test?

Disruptive innovation describes a process where a simpler, more accessible product takes root at the bottom of a market and eventually displaces established industry leaders. To qualify as disruptive under Clayton Christensen’s framework, an offering must target non-consumers or low-end customers, use an enabling technology, deploy an asymmetric business model, and improve over time to capture mainstream demand. If your product simply delivers a better, faster, or more expensive version of an existing tool to current mainstream buyers, it is a sustaining innovation, not a disruptive one.

Sustaining innovation refers to any product enhancement—whether an incremental feature tweak or a major engineering breakthrough—that helps incumbent firms sell higher-margin products to their most profitable, existing customers.

When Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen co-authored an analysis in Harvard Business Review, he noted that roughly 80% of projects labeled as disruptive are actually sustaining upgrades. Pitch decks routinely claim market disruption simply because an engineering team built a faster database or a cleaner user interface. In reality, launching a sustaining product against an entrenched market leader sets a startup up for a direct war of resources. Incumbents almost always win sustaining battles because they have deeper balance sheets, established distribution channels, and an urgent incentive to protect their revenue.

Disruptive Market Entry Flow:
[Unserved or Low-End Segment]
       |
       v
[Simple, Low-Cost Product]
       |
       v
[Rapid Technological Improvement]
       |
       v
[Overtake Incumbent in Mainstream]

When founders mislabel a sustaining upgrade as disruptive, they target the wrong buyers at launch. Entering the top of a market forces a new venture to match the incumbent’s feature set immediately, requiring heavy capital expenditure before reaching product-market fit. In a study of 200 new ventures published in Christensen’s The Innovator’s Solution, businesses pursuing a disruptive strategy generated a 37% success rate, compared to just 6% for those pursuing a sustaining strategy against established giants.

To evaluate whether your concept fits this model or needs recalibration, explore our analysis of Understanding Disruptive Innovation Theory and check the Disruptive vs. Sustaining Innovation Comparison. Teams building early-stage products can also apply Lean Startup for Disruptive Innovation to test customer demand before scaling spend.

Before you commit capital to product development, you need a reliable method to test your product against Christensen’s structural requirements. The 7-point scoring test below evaluates your target audience, technological trajectory, and business model to determine your true odds of market disruption.

Table of Contents

• What Is the Christensen Disruptive Innovation Test?
• The Diagnostic Matrix: Disruptive vs. Sustaining Innovation
• The 7-Point Christensen Disruption Checklist
• How to Score and Interpret Your Product Idea
• Case Studies: Scoring Classic and Modern Products on the 7-Point Test
• The Payoff Asset: Your Printable 7-Point Product Scoring Sheet & Action Plan
• Sources & Further Reading

---

The Diagnostic Matrix: Disruptive vs. Sustaining Innovation

Sustaining innovation is the process of improving existing products along the performance dimensions that mainstream customers already value. Most product roadmaps focus entirely on this category. If your product idea adds features for your current top tier of buyers, you are pursuing a sustaining path.

To determine whether your concept will provoke a retaliatory price war or open a protected flank, you must map it against three distinct innovation vectors. The diagnostic table below outlines how these models differ across market variables identified in Clayton Christensen’s research at Harvard Business School.

Strategic Dimension	Sustaining Innovation	Low-End Disruption	New-Market Disruption
Customer Target	Most profitable, demanding mainstream buyers	Overserved customers at the bottom of the existing market	Non-consumers who previously lacked money or skill
Pricing Model	Premium pricing; defends high gross margins (typically 40% to 60%)	Lower price per unit; relies on low operating overhead	Low entry price; monetizes through simple recurring access
Performance Metric	Year-over-year gains in speed, capacity, or reliability	"Good enough" performance paired with simpler operation	Convenience, accessibility, and basic baseline reliability
Incumbent Response	Aggressive defense and rapid feature matching	Relief; willingly cedes low-margin market share	Ignores initial entry; considers the segment economically irrelevant

For an in-depth breakdown of these category mechanics, review our guide to Understanding Disruptive vs. Sustaining Innovation.

The Upward Flight: Why Incumbents Choose to Flee

Established companies rarely fail because of poor execution. They fail because their resource allocation processes work exactly as designed. In their landmark 1995 article in the Harvard Business Review, Joseph Bower and Clayton Christensen demonstrated that incumbent executives systematically allocate capital to proposals with the highest projected operating margins.

When a low-end competitor enters an industry with a lower-cost business model, the incumbent faces a rational financial choice:

1. Match the entrant’s low prices to defend a segment generating a 12% gross margin.
2. Reallocate capital toward higher-tier products that yield a 38% gross margin.

Corporate finance logic pushes the incumbent upmarket every time. This flight creates an asymmetric motivation: the entrant wants to capture the bottom tier, and the incumbent wants to abandon it. By retreating, incumbent management reports an immediate increase in average gross margin, while leaving market volume unprotected. You can analyze these competitor behavioral traps in our breakdown of Disruptive Innovation Strategy.

The "Good Enough" Performance Threshold

Disruptive products do not need to outperform the market leader on day one. They only need to clear the minimum performance baseline required by ordinary users.

Incumbent vendors continuously add features to justify annual price increases. Over time, their products deliver more capability than mainstream buyers can actually absorb, creating a gap known as performance overshoot.

When an entrant matches the basic requirements of the bottom 80% of users while offering lower costs or greater convenience, mainstream volume shifts rapidly. To see how these mechanics apply across diverse sectors, explore our analysis in Disruptive vs. Sustaining Innovation Comparison.

Once you understand which market vector your idea targets, you must score its specific business model attributes against verifiable criteria. Next, you will run your concept through the 7-Point Christensen Test to calculate your final Disruption Readiness Score.

The 7-Point Christensen Disruption Checklist

Clayton Christensen and Michael Raynor established in The Innovator’s Solution that true disruption follows a predictable, repeatable pattern. If your product does not meet specific structural conditions, it is an incremental improvement rather than a market disruptor.

Non-consumption refers to a situation where potential customers do not buy or use a product because existing market options demand too much money, specialized equipment, or technical training to access.

Use this 7-point checklist to evaluate whether your concept possesses real disruptive potential or if you are entering an expensive head-to-head battle with entrenched incumbents.

       [Disruption Test]
              |
              v
   1. Target Non-Consumers?
              |
              v
    2. Low-End Foothold?
              |
              v
    3. Enabling Tech?
              |
              v
   4. Asymmetric Margins?
              |
              v
   5. Incumbent Flees?
              |
              v
    6. "Good Enough" Fit?
              |
              v
    7. Upmarket Path?

1. Non-Consumption Target

Does your product serve people who previously lacked the money, time, or technical skill to participate in the market?

Disruptors expand markets by pulling in non-consumers rather than stealing customers immediately. In 1981, personal computers from Apple and IBM did not compete directly with $250,000 corporate mainframes. They targeted accountants, small businesses, and hobbyists who could never afford mainframe time.

If your initial user base previously used no formal solution at all, incumbents will ignore you. That neglect gives you time to build scale. To identify these unserved segments early, apply JTBD for Disruptive Innovation to analyze what workarounds people rely on today.

2. Low-End Foothold

Does your offering appeal to overserved customers who find existing market solutions overly complex or expensive?

Incumbents routinely over-engineer products to capture top-tier accounts willing to pay premium prices. Christensen’s research at Harvard Business School showed that steel mini-mills like Nucor gained market dominance by starting with cheap steel rebar, a low-margin product that integrated mills happily abandoned.

If mainstream customers currently pay for features they use less than 10% of the time, an entry-level opening exists. Review our guide on Disruptive Innovation Strategy to map where premium pricing has outstripped customer requirements.

3. Enabling Technology

Is your product powered by a technology that reliably improves performance over time at a decreasing unit cost?

Software-as-a-Service and solid-state storage disrupted legacy categories because their unit economics improved predictably every quarter. In 2006, Amazon Web Services launched Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) with simple compute instances, charging $0.10 per hour. As hardware costs fell and software virtualization matured, AWS moved upmarket to power global enterprise workloads.

Without a underlying technology that gets faster and cheaper, you cannot climb from the low end into premium market segments. If you want to systematically analyze your product’s underlying mechanisms, explore TRIZ for Product Innovation.

4. Asymmetric Business Model

Can your product operate profitably at gross margins or unit prices that established incumbents cannot sustain?

An asymmetric business model allows you to generate profit from price points that would cause a traditional competitor to lose cash. When Intuit introduced Quicken in 1984 for $49.95, established accounting software vendors charged upwards of $400. Intuit sustained that discount through high-volume direct sales and low overhead.

Compare your unit economics directly with public incumbent balance sheets. If you require a 70% gross margin to survive while the market standard is 75%, you lack an asymmetric advantage. You need a model that delivers profitability at a 30% to 40% gross margin.

5. Incumbent Motivation Asymmetry

Does adopting your product concept represent a margin-diluting, commercially unattractive move for market leaders?

According to a seminal study published by the Harvard Business Review, incumbent leaders are commercially rational actors who flee low-margin markets to protect their quarterly earnings. When Netflix launched its DVD subscription service in 1999, Blockbuster earned roughly 16% of its revenue from late fees. Matching the Netflix flat-fee subscription required Blockbuster to intentionally eliminate its most profitable cash flow stream.

If responding to your launch forces a competitor to cannibalize their most profitable division, their executive leadership will choose retreat over defense.

6. "Good-Enough" Baseline

Does your product solve the primary problem reliably without attempting to match the incumbent’s full feature set?

Disruptive products often perform worse on traditional metrics during early releases. In 2008, early versions of Google Docs lacked 75% of the formatting tools in Microsoft Word, but Docs offered real-time browser collaboration for $0 per month. That single capability made it completely adequate for everyday writing tasks.

Validate your core workflow with Lean Startup for Disruptive Innovation methods before spending capital on parity features. Ensure your minimal feature set executes the baseline task with zero friction.

7. Upmarket Trajectory

Can your product architecture scale into higher-margin tiers without re-architecting your baseline cost structure?

Disruption occurs when a product moves up the performance curve over 2 to 5 years while keeping its low-cost engine intact. Salesforce began in 1999 selling simple contact management to small sales teams at $50 per user per month. It steadily added enterprise security, analytics, and custom workflow logic without building costly on-premise installation teams.

Evaluate historical Examples of Disruptive Innovation to see how winners maintained simple architectures while expanding their total addressable market.

Before calculating your product’s total potential score across these 7 points, you need a precise weighting method to distinguish between low-end disruptors and standard sustaining products.

How to Score and Interpret Your Product Idea

A disruptive innovation is a product or business model that enters at the bottom of a market or creates an entirely new market, offering simpler, cheaper, or more accessible performance that established leaders overlook.

In The Innovator’s Solution, Clayton Christensen and Michael Raynor analyzed 77 fast-growing companies and found that ventures pursuing a sustaining strategy had a 6% success rate, while those pursuing a disruptive strategy achieved a 37% success rate. That is a 6x difference in market survival.

A sustaining innovation is an improvement to an existing product that targets a company’s current, most profitable customers with better performance or higher quality.

To evaluate your concept against Understanding Disruptive Innovation Theory, score your idea across the 7 criteria below. Award 1 point for every clear "yes" backed by verifiable user data, and 0 points for any "no" or "unproven assumption."

The 7-Point Christensen Scoring Rubric

1. Targeting Non-Consumers: Does the product target people who currently lack the money, skill, or access to buy existing solutions? (1 = Yes, 0 = Targets existing mainstream buyers)
2. Overshot Customers: Does it appeal to low-end customers who find existing market offerings too complex or expensive for their basic needs? (1 = Yes, 0 = Targets high-end power users)
3. Simpler and Lower-Priced Footprint: Is the initial version simpler, cheaper, or more convenient, even if it lacks high-end features? (1 = Yes, 0 = Matches or exceeds current market performance specs)
4. Asymmetric Business Model: Can you earn acceptable margins at price points that would bankrupt the incumbent? (1 = Gross margins sustainable at 30% to 50% lower price points, 0 = Cost structure mirrors the incumbent)
5. Incumbent Motivation to Flee: Will the market leader view your entry as low-margin noise and happily retreat upmarket? (1 = Yes, leader cedes the segment; 0 = Leader defends the segment aggressively)
6. Enabling Technology or Process: Do you have an architectural, modular, or software advantage that improves rapidly over time? (1 = Scalable performance trajectory, 0 = Linear labor-heavy scale)
7. Distinct Value Network: Do you sell through alternative distribution channels or reach buyers outside traditional retail/enterprise procurement? (1 = Novel channel, 0 = Competing for shelf space or standard RFP lists)

Interpreting Your Score

SCORE BRACKETS
+------------------------------------------+
| Tier 1: 6-7 Points                       |
| Pure Disruption (Low incumbent defense)  |
+------------------------------------------+
                    |
                    v
+------------------------------------------+
| Tier 2: 4-5 Points                       |
| Hybrid Risk (Head-to-head collision)    |
+------------------------------------------+
                    |
                    v
+------------------------------------------+
| Tier 3: 0-3 Points                       |
| Sustaining Trap (Incumbents will win)    |
+------------------------------------------+

Tier 1: Genuine Disruption (6 to 7 Points)

Your concept hits the classic footholds described in Clayton Christensen’s research in Harvard Business Review. Incumbents like Oracle or Intel historically ignored low-margin entry points because their corporate resource allocation processes prioritized 40%+ gross margin accounts. You have room to capture low-end market share, refine the product, and march upmarket over a 24 to 36-month timeline.

Tier 2: The Hybrid Risk (4 to 5 Points)

You built a product that is partially disruptive but still competes on dimensions incumbents care about. When Intuit launched QuickBooks in 1992, it did not challenge full-featured corporate accounting packages. It offered 20% of the functionality at 10% of the price to small business owners who used pen and paper. If your 4-point product takes on an incumbent’s core feature set, the incumbent will match your features within 6 to 12 months.

Tier 3: Sustaining Innovation Vulnerability (0 to 3 Points)

Your concept is a sustaining product improvement. You are building a better mouse trap for an incumbent’s best customers. As Christensen documented in his study of the 1980s disk-drive industry, incumbents win sustaining battles 100% of the time because they have deeper capital reserves, existing distribution, and established customer relationships. To understand these dynamic differences, review our Disruptive vs. Sustaining Innovation Comparison.

Strategic Pivots: Elevating from Sustaining to Disruptive Positioning

If your product scored 4 points or below, do not launch head-to-head. Execute one of these three strategic pivots before committing capital:

• The Feature-Stripping Pivot: Remove 50% of the complex features built for power users. Cut the price by 70% and market the simplified tool to non-experts who hire freelancers or use spreadsheets. Apply Lean Startup for Disruptive Innovation methods to find the minimum baseline performance these non-consumers need.
• The Unserved Job Pivot: Shift your marketing from mainstream buyers to a neglected segment with unusual constraints. When mini-mills like Nucor entered the steel market, they did not sell structural beams. They sold cheap reinforcing bars (rebar) to construction firms where quality tolerances were low.
• The Delivery-Model Pivot: Keep the underlying core technology, but change how users access it. Shift from a $50,000 upfront annual license sold to IT executives to a self-serve $20-per-seat monthly subscription adopted by individual employees.

Now that you know your numerical baseline, apply the deep-dive evaluation questions below to test each point against real customer interview data.

Case Studies: Scoring Classic and Modern Products on the 7-Point Test

Sustaining innovation is a product improvement that makes an existing product better for an established company’s most profitable customers by adding performance or features along traditional metrics. When you evaluate your own product pipeline, testing real historical cases clarifies whether your concept will blindside an incumbent or run straight into a well-funded defensive response.

1. Netflix vs. Blockbuster: The Perfect 7/7 Disruption Score

In 1997, Netflix launched a mail-order DVD service that incumbents initially ignored. According to Blockbuster’s 2000 financial filings, late fees accounted for roughly $800 million—nearly 16% of the company’s total revenue. Blockbuster’s business model required customers to visit physical stores and penalised them for keeping movies past a strict deadline.

Low-End Wedge (1997)
- Mail-order DVDs
- Slow delivery (3-5 days)
- No late fees, unserved fringe
      |
      v
Upmarket Shift (2007)
- Instant digital streaming
- Original content (2013)
- Incumbent collapse (2010)

Netflix scored a full 7 out of 7 on the Christensen rubric. It started with an inferior product on the speed dimension (mailing DVDs took 3 days versus Blockbuster’s instant shelf access), which attracted a low-end customer segment that cared more about selection and zero late fees than immediate viewing. As broadband penetration crossed 50% of US households in 2007, Netflix moved upmarket into video streaming, destroying Blockbuster’s store-network cost structure. For a deeper breakdown of how to identify these patterns early, review our guide on Spot Disruptive Innovation: Find Your Next Big Opportunity.

2. Apple iPhone: Sustaining to Handsets, Disruptive to PCs

When Apple released the iPhone in June 2007 at a launch price of $499, Clayton Christensen told BusinessWeek that the device would fail because the smartphone market was already established. He classified it as a sustaining innovation to existing mobile phones produced by Nokia, Motorola, and Research In Motion.

Christensen later revised his assessment. The iPhone was not a low-end disruption to the mobile handset market because it entered at the premium end. Instead, it was a new-market disruption against personal computers and standalone consumer hardware.

The iPhone pulled non-computing moments into mobile digital access and wiped out standalone markets for point-and-shoot cameras, handheld GPS devices, and pocket audio players. Applying JTBD for Disruptive Innovation reveals that consumers hired the device not just to make phone calls, but as a pocket computer that eliminated multiple single-purpose tools.

3. Uber: Why Christensen Classified It as Sustaining Innovation

In a 2015 analysis published in the Harvard Business Review, Clayton Christensen, Michael E. Raynor, and Rory McDonald stated that Uber did not fit the classic definition of disruptive innovation. Uber did not originate in a low-end foothold or create a new market from non-consumers.

Uber launched in San Francisco in 2010 as UberBlack, a premium town-car booking service. It directly targeted the core customer base of traditional taxi fleets with a superior customer experience: frictionless app payments, mapped vehicle tracking, and guaranteed clean cars.

Because Uber began by offering a better service to mainstream customers at a competitive price, incumbents reacted aggressively with regulatory lobbying and legal challenges. Sustaining entrants provoke immediate incumbent retaliation; true disruptions grow quietly in ignored market corners before mainstream competitors notice the threat. You can examine this strategic difference in detail in our comparison of Disruptive vs. Sustaining Innovation Comparison.

Now that you have seen how market leaders score against classic criteria, let us examine the complete 7-point scorecard template and calculate the exact pass threshold for your own concept.

The Payoff Asset: Your Printable 7-Point Product Scoring Sheet & Action Plan

Non-consumption is a market condition where prospective customers lack the money, technical skill, or direct access required to buy and use an existing product or service.

When you build a product for these non-consumers, incumbents ignore you because the initial revenue looks negligible. In Clayton Christensen’s research documented in The Innovator’s Solution by Harvard Business Review Press, new-market disruptive ventures achieved a 37% success rate, compared to just 6% for sustaining ventures launched into established markets.

Use the evaluation sheet below to calculate your idea’s disruption score before committing engineering resources.

#	Christensen Test Criterion	Weight	Score (1–5)	Risk Trigger (Flag if Score ≤ 2)
1	Non-Consumption Foothold: Targets buyers who currently cannot access or afford existing market options.	20%	[   ]	Target market is already saturated with feature-rich incumbent tools.
2	Overshot Segment: Offers a simpler, "good enough" solution to customers paying for features they do not use.	15%	[   ]	Incumbents offer equal simplicity at a lower price point.
3	Asymmetric Motivation: Incumbents are happy to surrender this margin profile or customer tier rather than fight.	20%	[   ]	Incumbent leadership considers this use case core to their quarterly revenue.
4	Enabling Technology: Leverages a tech stack that gets systematically cheaper or faster every 12 months.	15%	[   ]	Product relies on bespoke, manual services that do not scale computationally.
5	Alternative Value Network: Reaches customers through a distribution channel incumbents cannot copy without channel conflict.	10%	[   ]	Relies on the same enterprise sales reps or retail distributors as incumbents.
6	Job-to-be-Done Alignment: Solves one specific functional friction point with zero configuration overhead.	10%	[   ]	Requires a multi-week onboarding process or heavy user training.
7	Upmarket Scalability: Contains a clear technical path to improve quality without matching incumbent cost structures.	10%	[   ]	Architecture cannot handle complex enterprise workloads later.

Scoring Guide: Multiply each score by its weight and sum the results. A score of 4.0 to 5.0 indicates a pure disruptive vector. A score of 2.8 to 3.9 indicates a hybrid model requiring structural adjustments, which you can refine using an established disruptive innovation strategy. A score below 2.8 means you are building a sustaining product that invites direct, fatal competition from well-funded incumbents.

The 5-Step Validation Sequence for Low-Scoring Points

If your scoring sheet uncovers points rated 2 or lower, run this validation sequence across 14 business days. Do not write production code or hire sales staff until each step clears its threshold.

[Day 1-3] Smoke Test Non-Consumption
        |
        v
[Day 4-6] Incumbent Reaction Audit
        |
        v
[Day 7-9] 50% Margin Stress Test
        |
        v
[Day 10-12] Concierge Job Prototype
        |
        v
[Day 13-14] Channel Bypass Pilot

1. Smoke Test Non-Consumption (Days 1–3): Allocate $300 to search ads targeting users searching for workarounds to standard industry software (e.g., "how to do X in Google Sheets"). Route clicks to a single landing page offering your simple tool. Require an email signup and a brief survey. A conversion rate below 8% means you have not found genuine non-consumption.
2. Incumbent Reaction Audit (Days 4–6): Interview 3 former sales directors from the market leaders. Pitch them your pricing and feature set. If they say, "Our leadership would cut prices to kill that," your asymmetry score fails. If they say, "Our reps would laugh at deals that small," your wedge is viable.
3. 50% Margin Stress Test (Days 7–9): Cut your projected retail price by 50% in your unit economics model. Identify which line items break. If your cost of goods sold (COGS) exceeds 35% of this reduced price, re-architect your delivery mechanism using automated cloud services or self-serve onboarding. Apply JTBD for disruptive innovation to strip unnecessary operational complexity.
4. Concierge Job Prototype (Days 10–12): Deliver the core job manually for 5 target users over 48 hours. Measure whether they achieve their intended outcome faster than their current manual workaround. Track the specific metric that matters to them, such as task completion time dropping from 45 minutes to 3 minutes.
5. Channel Bypass Pilot (Days 13–14): Test customer acquisition through an unorthodox channel, such as an open-source directory, developer Discord community, or niche trade forum. Secure at least 15 active beta commitments without using direct sales calls or paid outbound LinkedIn campaigns.

How to Pitch Disruptive Metrics to Boards and Investors

Traditional investment committees judge new proposals using sustaining metrics: gross margin percentage, immediate total addressable market (TAM), and average revenue per user (ARPU). Disruptive concepts look terrible under these traditional lenses. A proposal targeting non-consumers shows a small initial TAM and depressed early margins.

To secure funding, reframe your metrics around speed of learning and asymmetric market entry. As detailed in the classic Harvard Business Review analysis of disruptive innovation by Clayton Christensen, Michael Raynor, and Rory McDonald, disruption is a process where entrants move upmarket from initial footholds.

SUSTAINING METRIC (Wrong)       DISRUPTIVE METRIC (Right)
TAM ($5B existing market)  -->  Foothold Velocity (40% MoM user growth)
High Initial Gross Margins -->  Gross Margin Dollar Velocity per Capital Dollar
High Day-1 ARPU            -->  Payback Period under 60 Days on Low CAC
Enterprise Feature Parity  -->  Job Completion Rate (>90% in <5 minutes)

Pitch three distinct proof points to your board or investors:

First, present your Foothold Velocity. Show that user adoption inside the low-end or non-consuming segment is growing by at least 25% month-over-month. Highlight that your customer acquisition cost (CAC) is a fraction of the incumbent’s sales expense because you acquire users where incumbents do not look.

Second, demonstrate your Gross Margin Dollar Velocity. Prove that while your margin percentage may start at 40% compared to an enterprise incumbent’s 80%, your automated delivery model turns capital over 4 times faster. Show the math: a low-margin product with rapid self-serve adoption generates more net margin dollars per invested capital unit over 18 months than an enterprise product bogged down in 9-month sales cycles.

Third, present your Upmarket Roadmap. Show the specific technical advances that will let you increase performance over the next 24 months without adopting the incumbent’s overhead structure.

Take your scoring sheet from this section, tally your numbers, and run Step 1 of the validation sequence before your next product sprint planning meeting.

Sources & Further Reading

Every score you assign on a 7-point checklist depends on distinguishing between disruptive threats and simple product upgrades. Clayton Christensen and Michael Raynor spent 8 years analyzing commercial growth patterns to explain why established incumbents systematically ignore low-margin market entrants.

A sustaining innovation is an incremental improvement to an existing product that targets a company’s most profitable, demanding customers with better performance, higher features, or premium pricing rather than creating a new market.

In their 2003 study across 77 new ventures, Christensen and Raynor documented that 37% of disruptive businesses surpassed $50 million in revenue within 6 years, compared to only 6% of ventures pursuing sustaining strategies. If your product idea targets existing market leaders head-on using their own performance metrics, you face a 94% historical failure rate before you write a single line of code.

Featured image by Thirdman on Pexels