I think we information-pushers (public relations folk and journalists) need to be careful that, when talking or writing about new technologies, we don’t use disruptive and destructive interchangeably. 
A couple of years ago the concept of digital disruption was scary. It now seems that it helps some industry sectors transform, more quickly than in the past, and to benefit consumers.
It’s easy to see how Uber, long term, is going to improve taxi transport. But once the taxi sector has undergone a transformation will Uber just become another taxi company in an industry delivering a better service? So is Uber more shock therapy than destructive?
Will the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) be destructive for existing NGOs, or will it simply demand they provide a more customer-centric approach to disability care?
When we faced disruption at a university with the arrival of MOOCs (massive open online (free) courses) we first, and nimbly, set up a separate company to investigate and hopefully capitalise on the new opportunity. We then stopped that because we foresaw it was going to cannibalise our core business of providing education on campus. Other universities like Harvard now use MOOCs as a teaser to encourage students to enroll in the ‘real thing’. We’re now not so sure MOOCs are either disruptive or destructive.
And public relations?
And in our own industry, along with marketing and advertising, the disruption is social & digital. If we’re not nimble we’re out of business – destructive. But for most it’s excitingly disruptive, and the customer benefits.
So far it seems managing disruptive (rapid) change is helping us all by forcing companies to get their act together, by prioritising:
- a nimble board, with at least some directors that have specific relevant expertise
- a flexible and ICT savvy CEOs and management
- a change-oriented, idea-centric culture
- courage to try and succeed/fail
- a culture to regularly plan and review.
That’s for starters.
