Hi Andreas,

Thank you for the thoughtful comments and the wonderful questions. I’m not sure that I have answers to them but I will do my best.

In terms of the transitions from Q2 (how should we organize) to Q3 (how should we respond) and whether or not “Do Nothing” should sit alongside “Pursue a Double up or Double down strategy” my instinct is “technically yes but practically No.” What I mean by that is that if an organization answers Yes to Q1 (Is disruption happening?) then every instinct of executives and decisions makers will be to take action. This is because, by the time executives can confidently observe and acknowledge that disruption is happening, they are on a burning platform and business metrics such as revenue, profit, and market share are declining. This pushes them to action which is where Qs 2 and 3 kick in and why “Do Nothing” ceases to be a practical or realistic option.

I also think that the AND in Q2 is critical. It is possible that a company could need to only innovate what it does (customer, value proposition) OR how it does it (architecture) but not both. In that case, the company is able to keep one foot on solid ground (e.g. do new things in the same ways or do the same things in new ways) which is why the Buy Up strategy likely seems more expensive and less urgent and therefore less appealing.

With regards to your question about Waves, I’m not sure I totally understand what you’re asking, but here’s how Events and Waves are discussed in the book. In Christensen’s theory (demand-side), disruption is the result of an event, typically the introduction of a new technology (e.g. digital image capture and the film industry) and that event follows a predictable pattern (disruptor enters at the low-end of the market with a good-enough technology to satisfy non-consumers). In Henderson’s theory (supply-side), disruption is more likely to happen in series of waves. In her research on the photolithographic alignment industry, she found 4 waves of disruption, none of which affected price but they all affected how the aligners were manufactured and assembled. Throughout these waves, new entrants slowly gained market share while incumbents lost EXCEPT for one — Canon. Canon was able to “buck the trend” and hold onto its market share because it pursued an integrated approach to innovation. You can read more about this in Gan’s HBR article: https://hbr.org/2016/03/the-other-disruption

Hope this helps, answers your questions, and provides further food for thought