Clayton Christensen is an excellent speaker, but he presented a very “by the book” presentation – literally. Even the jokes he told were from The Innovator’s Solution. (If you haven’t read it – you should. Ideaflow posts on this book can be found here: http://www.corante.com/ideaflow/archives/cat_clayton_christensen.php)

But there were a couple of interesting points brought out in the Q&A period.

One line of questioning was about companies disrupting themselves on the “low end” by figuring out a way to make money at the lower end of the price point by developing a more basic product that performs the jobs that underserved customers want done. Christensen said that, while unusual, it has happened before: Intel stole back the lower end of the market with the Celeron.

One important point: The reason companies must set up a new, separate company to handle disruptions is that “the new game begins before the old game ends.”

The trigger that signals when it’s the right time to start this new game: There is never a one-size-fits-all answer. If you wait until the data is clear, you’ll miss it, said Christensen. One clue: “Do it as soon as there are customers. When you lose business at the low end, you have to be aware of it.”

If you are considering executing this strategy via acquisition: “When you see somebody there, buy them as soon as you can and keep them separate. Once it becomes obvious to the financial market[that they are a threat to you,] it’s too late.”

Regarding the fact that once actual data is available to signal the “new game,” one audience member asked, “Are the thousands of people in market research recognizing the ‘people doing jobs thing’ and asking about function, rather than just doing regular marketing research?”

Christensen’s response: “The concept has been around for a very long time, and yet there have to be processes in companies that cause them to lose focus on the job [customers want done] and focus more on using the data that is available. Understanding the consumer is a failed paradigm. I think we’ll see mass market research that will focus on jobs consumers want done.

In addition to innovation, our company does marketing research, so here’s my take: You could get at the “jobs customers want done” information by conducting qualitative research, not quantitative research. And not with conventional focus groups – try non-directive methods like depth interviews, or observational methods like ethnographic research, or even “desk” research – monitoring blogs, online and offline user groups, and so on.

If you do conduct focus groups, try some unconventional methods, and for sure don’t just come out and ask the group if there are by chance any jobs they need doing that aren’t getting done by any existing product. You have to get at their stories, and listen with a keen ear.

Once you’ve got some hypotheses, then and only then should you try to quantify them – not by traditional segmentation, but by trying to quantify how many other people may need to have these particular jobs done.