“Disruption” has become a popular business term, especially in the innovation realm. My company is working with a lot of corporate clients to help them identify disruptive opportunities and disruptive threats. I also enjoy passing that disruptive potential on to our clients who are startups and lone inventors.

So what is Disruptive Innovation?

Disruptive innovation requires looking beyond technology and new products to understand the barriers that are leaving the often unrecognized or unexpressed needs of nonusers and low-end users unfulfilled. It typically provides new levels of convenience, access, and cost effectiveness to people – often at the expense of some high-end feature. Companies often overlook the needs of many people who would welcome a “worse” product that made some aspect of life better for them.

You’re probably asking, “how can this be? No one would want a product that is worse, would they?” In fact they do! And that’s disruptive.

Kleenex® facial tissue and the Swiffer® mop are great examples of what Clayton Christensen of the Harvard School of Business has called “disruptive innovation:” an innovation that may be initially worse in terms of standard metrics of established products and customers, but which appeals to non-users or low-end users by offering improved convenience, lower cost, or other benefits not previously viewed as the basis for competition.

When the facial tissues were first available in the 1920s, many women used them to remove makeup and cold cream. Marketers at Kimberly-Clark responded, repositioning the product in the early 1930s as “the handkerchiefs you can throw away.” Women used them as a convenient replacement for the handkerchief, even though they weren’t as strong or washable, and that forever changed the handkerchief industry.

The disposable Swiffer mop also offers a “worse” performance relative to the durability and cleaning power of conventional dry and wet mops, but would convert many non-moppers and infrequent moppers into frequent floor cleaners!

The key here is that it’s all about the business model –not the technology itself—that determines whether the opportunity is disruptive or not. A given technology can be launched as a sustaining innovation aimed at mainstream users in a head-to-head battle with the previous incumbents in the market, or it can be launched in a way that draws in non-users and low-end users while motivating the incumbents to largely ignore your efforts since they aren’t feeling pain - until it’s too late.

That’s the kind of disruptive advantage that motivates the long-established giants to flee rather than fight, giving the market entrant a precious foothold from which to grow with further “sustaining” innovation.