To put it simply I think the answer is yes, it not only has a future, it more than likely is the future. In order to compete and stay competitive large multi-national companies of all types, not just technology companies will have to forget the old mindset of trying things out in developed countries on wealthier target markets and begin to appeal to the less developed countries in order to capture a those that are currently non consumers. In many cases business leaders will not create business plans that exclude emerging markets, instead, they will often be the test market. These countries will often be the first to get that initial prototype of a product or idea and help company’s hone it’s effectiveness before bringing that product home. Most of this new way of thinking in terms of targeting a larger poorer potential customer base rather than a smaller more affluent demographic will lead those companies that “do it first” the distinct advantage. As a multi-national company, if you can find a market where there are constraints to consumption, find a way to disrupt current innovation in a way that lets you have first access with a product on a large group of people that nobody else is targeting, by the time competitors figure it out, the game will likely already be over.

I don’t know that I totally agree that disruptive innovation in this context equates to “radical” in every case. To do something differently is not radical all of the time just as technology can be different and accidentally create something totally new. I really feel it is important to keep in mind that poorer countries cannot usually consume the same product as richer countries. Reverse innovation that creates a product that the 5 billion poorer people can consume and later uses them to innovate and bring this product back for use by the 2 billion rich people will win in the end. This is provided that they didn’t go so big in their first few tries and failed that they cannot possibly recoup the R&D for getting it right. No, the answer is small wins. You do not have to give this market the whole bag of cookies so to speak, but maybe just one to see what the response is. Keeping the losses from trial and error small will be necessary. Ultimately, to make this worth while, yes, the innovation is/should lead to disruption and a significantly new and different way of doing things. So I think the changes that come about will tend to be classified more as a disruption that a simple adaptation. I would assume that these disruptions would be inclusive of many industries but I can see how healthcare and technology could potentially lead the way in my opinion. The trend is really making a new center of gravity within multi-national companies.