The theories of glocalization states that there needs to be a unique approach undertaken by the companies in order to sell the products. The homogenous product will not be a successful strategy to sell goods. Clayton Christenson states that the most important aspect that needs to be factored by the companies is by using disruptive innovation techniques. There has been criticism regarding this notion stating that there is exclusion of important variables in the discussions and theories put forward by Christenson regarding disruptive innovation. However, as Christenson has stated that these theories need to be developed based on the subjective requirements of the situation. Other variables such as reverse innovation, infrastructure abilities, user requirement in the different geographical locations and the strategic management of the top leaders of the company need to be factored while understanding the nuances of disruptive innovation. Companies should use these basic variables as a formula to develop a commercially viable product.
Hence the managers who plan to bring in disruptive innovation need to strategically bring in changes for the company, address consumer needs and maneuver it according to the needs of the local markets where the operate (King & Baatartogtokh, 2015). In the 77 case study analysis done by Christenson, there are other motivating factors that have been in play by the companies. This essentially questions the notions of disruptive analysis (King & Baatartogtokh, 2015). There is a need to factor in other variables to create a disruptive paradigm. This would enhance the existing notions of glocalization and the disruptive innovation technology paradigm. In the case of product and market innovation, there should be newer variables considered. They are constrained innovation, necessities innovation and reverse innovation. Necessity innovation is the concept of development based on the consumer requirements and constrained innovation is development based on the resources available (De Waal, 2015). According to Govindarajan and Ramamurti (2011), the successful companies that have managed to incorporate the disruptive innovation are the companies that have been able to effectively apply the theories based on the geographical locations. It has been found that in the case of successful disruptive technology, the companies first experimented with the developing or emerging nations before applying it on a main-scale in the developed countries. The failure cost is relatively lower when the companies apply disruptive innovation.
Hence disruptive innovation can be implemented by leaders of the company or the managers being actively involved, considering user requirements, developing based on the resources available and by reverse innovations.
Managers need to create product and services that are based on the local needs of the people that will have global relevance. This paradigm shift is not an easy process and all these variable along with dynamic strategic management is mandatory for the creation of newer products.