Why? The book describes a common real life business situation and explains it really well.

The thesis has no predictive power, no explanatory power. Merely descriptive.

That "change is inevitable and we all better adapt or die" is somewhere between axiomatic and cliché.

What is "innovation"? How do you define it? (Am honestly asking.) How do we get more of it? (I know this is an area of active research.)

I forced myself to reread and revisit Christensen a year or two back. I may not have looked hard enough, but I didn't find any evidence that he'd updated or expanded his thesis, corpus. IIRC, no mention of Everett's diffusion of innovation, of thesis from Design Rules: the Power of Modularity (an adjacent topic), no engagement with ongoing innovation research.

FWIW, my still poorly formed hunch is that "innovation" is where policy meets the cost learning curve meets financial accounting. With maybe a dash of rentier capitalism.

But I'm noob. Not an academic, not an economist. Deep down on my to do list is to learn how DARPA (and others) places their bets, their emerging formalisms (like technology readiness levels), how emerging tech makes the jump from govt funded to private finance (VC).

Enough of my babble. In closing, I'd like to read some case studies for the two most "disruptive technologies" of our times: solar and batteries.