(1) Catalytic innovation involves the process wherein companies and industries take actions within a particular society to create and enhance social changes on certain issues. It is said that “catalytic innovations can surpass the status quo by providing good enough solutions to inadequately address social problems. ” (Christensen et. al. , 2006, p. 96) (2) One important difference and distinction between disruptive innovation and catalytic innovation is its scope.
It has been mentioned that catalytic innovation mainly focuses on the issue of creating societal change. On the other hand, disruptive innovation caters to the creation of alternatives of goods and services. The two are similar due to its efforts to create changes in the status quo and market. “Catalytic innovations are a subset of disruptive innovations, distinguished by their primary focus on social change, often on a national scale. ” (Christensen et. al. , 2006, p. 96)
(3)There had been efforts in the health care sector to improve the services they give to ordinary people. This has been manifested by the creation of cutting-edge care facilities, insurance and walk-in clinics that offer cheaper and convenient opportunities for sick individuals. The success has been described by the article in the overall satisfaction gained by such walk-in clinics and the other two facets. One vital component of such success is the degree of patronage by the locals on such ideas.
Patronage is one clear indicator of preference and satisfaction compared to the original practices. (4) Microlending involves the process of giving capital to small and medium enterprises to start up their own businesses. Since the creation of microlending facilities, it has spurred growth and development among members of the middle strata of several societies. “In turn, microlending helps sustain borrowers who are paying back loans and creates an economic environment that attracts other lenders looking to start a new business.” (Christensen et. al. , 2006, p. 96)
Such benefits have paved the way for the development of social and economic status. (5) Microlending had a positive impact on KickStart because the initiative provided means and capital for small African farmers to acquire technological innovation and create better lives. By providing capital to these farmers, KickStart products somehow alleviated the way labor and work is done in the farms.
In addition, due to microlending mechanisms, KickStart was able to expand its market and continued to target small scale farmers with the pursuit of improving their harvests. (6) Analyzing the article, it can be argued that catalytic innovations fall under the bottom of the technology S-curve due to its capability to create changes in society and alter the status quo. Seeing this, it can be surmised they also have the possibility and potential of ‘segment-zero’ products due to its relative ease and capability to access a market not envisioned by the normal competitors.
Christensen, C.M., Bauman, H., Ruggles, R. and Sadtler, T.M. (December 2006) Disruptive
Innovation for Social Change in Harvard Business Review. pp. 94 – 101.