In the 1990’s, big-thinking business guru Clayton Christensen was a colossus in the world of business theory. His “Innovator’s Dilemma” and theory of “disruptive innovation” were at the heart of the Internet revolution.
He introduced a new metaphor:
Apple's "system design" vs Dell "assembled components"
to suggest that health care needs a "system design",
rather than "more assembled components".
This metaphor has some potential!
I would suggest more precise and accurate comparisons,
Apple iPod/iPhone vs (Dell) Windows Pocket PC,
and Apple iPad vs Windows tablets.
and even MacBook Air vs Netbook PCs.
The more Apple does "systems design" the more successful products it makes!
Apple is using many common components like other computer companies,
with a twist: Apple controls whole system, including software.
PC/Windows provides universal software, and making many compromises...
"Something for Everybody vs Everything for Somebody"
While Apple's "systems design" does produce generally more usable products,
they usually do come with higher price, not lower,
and society does need to reduce health care expenses.
Is the metaphor lost?
No, just the opposite!
Here is are keys for answer: iPod, iPhone, iPad
Tablet computing was a "holy grail" of computing for a very long time,
and Microsoft was for long time attempting to "squeeze" Windows.
It didn't work!
It required re-thinking and solving specific problem very well.
I still have a Dell Axim x50v, with almost same components as iPod Touch, that was released 3 years (2004) before Apple's product (2007), at almost the same price. Dell has a beautiful VGA screen, 600Mhz ARM processor, any port and protocol one can think of, programmable...
And it didn't sell! What went wrong? No "systems design".
Here one example: when battery gets empty, all installed programs are LOST.
Need to re-install them, all. No kidding, full re-install,
including re-calibrating screen by using provided pen, not fingers.
Apple has prepared "just right" package of technology,
hardware, software, online store, and marketing, that "just works"
Enough to capture 90% of US market at one point,
and prepare for success of iPhone and iPad...
...
Finally, iPad has demonstrated that tablets could be useful,
if they do not try to be general-purpose computers as Windows tablets are attempted for years and failed. While windows tablets are "premium" and expensive products, thus limiting its reach, iPad is a focused, and highly optimized for its purpose:
apps and simple web browsing, instant-on, long battery life.
Even a full year after iPad launch, and with huge sales, there are no comparable product on the market! Most attempts to make similar "generic" products come more expensive than Apple's "systems design" device.
...
Christensen has suggested another useful key-phrase,
need for "health-care" instead of "sick-care" focus.
I guess it would mean "systems design" approach,
Apple-like simplified and integrated, solving a few problems well,
rather than many "good enough"...
What would that look like? A good question...
