In The Innovator's Dilemma, Clayton M. Christensen examines why highly successful corporations often fail when faced with disruptive technological changes. He provides evidence from diverse sectors, such as disk drive manufacturing, excavation equipment, and steel production, to demonstrate that the very management practices leading to success can also cause a firm's downfall. By prioritising the needs of current customers and focusing on high-profit margins, established leaders frequently overlook emerging, low-cost technologies that eventually overtake the market. The text highlights how smaller entrants gain a foothold by serving niche sectors before their technology matures and displaces industry giants. Ultimately, the source argues that organisational structures must adapt or create independent units to survive these shifts in the competitive landscape.The central theme of the sources is that well-managed companies often fail specifically because they follow "good" management principles when faced with certain types of technological change. This paradox is known as the innovator's dilemma: the logical, competent decisions that lead to success are the very reasons why industry leaders eventually lose their positions.Key Concepts Explained in Simple Terms1. Sustaining versus Disruptive Technologies• Sustaining Technologies: These are innovations that improve the performance of established products for existing customers in major markets. They give people a better version of what they already have. For example, making a hard drive hold more data is a sustaining innovation.• Disruptive Technologies: These are innovations that initially result in worse product performance according to the standards of the main market. However, they offer a different package of benefits—they are usually cheaper, simpler, smaller, and more convenient. Because they don't meet the needs of a company's best customers at first, they are often ignored by leading firms.2. Value Networks• Think of a value network as the "economic neighborhood" in which a company lives. Each neighborhood has its own set of rules about what is valuable. For example, the mainframe computer "neighborhood" valued massive storage capacity, while the portable computer "neighborhood" valued small size and low power consumption. Companies become very good at surviving in their specific neighborhood but find it hard to move to a new one with different rules.3. Performance Trajectories• Technology often improves faster than what customers actually need. Eventually, a technology that was once "not good enough" (the disruptive one) improves to the point where it satisfies the needs of the mainstream market. At that point, the mainstream customers switch to the newer, cheaper, or more convenient product, and the old industry leaders are toppled.4. Resource Dependence• This theory suggests that customers and investors effectively control how a company spends its money. Because a company must satisfy its customers to survive, it will naturally pour its resources into the products its current customers want, rather than "risky" disruptive technologies that those customers cannot use