Try to pop the clutch on a paradigm shift. (Robert's Rule #28)

A lot is said about being a "disruptive force", especially in relation to technology. In fact, so much is said that often "disruptive force" becomes a buzzword thrown around without understanding, and when we're not talking about the next "disruptive" thing, we're calling something "revolutionary", which is equally buzz-worthy. So, let's take a look at what being disruptive or revolutionary really means.

In order for something to be revolutionary, i.e. bringing about a major/fundamental change, it must be disruptive, i.e. interrupt the normal course or unity. In philosophy terms, "disruptive" is a necessary condition for "revolutionary", and the greater the interruption, the more likely to bring about a major change.

One of the greatest factors against the degree of disruption necessary for something to become revolutionary is the inertia of prior changes. We see this in some degree in technology daily in attempts to overcome adoption of some previous (legacy) technology. In these cases, it is helpful to remember Newton's Second Law, namely F = ma (otherwise recognized as "force equals mass times acceleration").

When analogously applied to our general understanding of disruption, Newton's Second Law indicates that the force of the disruption is equal to the degree of change multiplied by the speed with which the change is introduced.

So the question becomes, as a practical matter, "how do we affect change?" The most direct answer is to see the constraints around which something was designed and change the environment in a way that those constraints no longer exist. Such change is disruptive, but it may not be enough. In answer to this, we can affect the "mass" of change by altering or removing multiple constraints, or we must adjust the speed with which change is introduced. In the early 1990s I started describing this manipulation of change as "popping the clutch on a paradigm shift" - which now seems a little dated and has lost some of the connotation it once carried considering the proliferation of automatic transmission automobiles, but I digress - a little.

Let's look at two examples of revolutionary changes. In our first example we see changes enabling broadband radio transmission, shrinking circuit board sizes, and shrinking battery size which increasing life and power - each a relatively minor, evolutionary disruption - which when combined have the "mass" necessary to affect change bringing about a revolution in communication with mobile phones. It is almost difficult to recall life before that revolution, as it didn't just introduce a new way to communicate, it allowed communication in such a way that the old way of communication no longer made sense. Gone are pay phones (previously a significant source of revenue for telecommunications companies) and landlines in several homes, and rural areas are more accessible. In our second example, if we look at the introduction of the Android OS, we can see that the speed with which it was introduced to the market really gave rise to the smartphone. Oh, there were other smartphones, but the market was relatively stable with Apple and RIM, and then the Android came along and now the smartphone market has exploded. That explosion has begun a revolution, and we are only seeing the beginning of the changes to come as a revolution in communication reshapes the world.

We, as technologists and engineers, want to be revolutionary; we want to build the better mousetrap or reinvent the wheel. Therein lies the rub - because truly revolutionary technology doesn’t just do something in a new way - it's not just disruptive - it does something in such a way that the old ways of doing it no longer make sense, so we must try to pop the clutch on a paradigm shift.