Use of scripts:“The Paradox of Innovation: How Great Firms Fail In today’s reading, we explore three interconnected stories that illustrate how even well-managed companies can fall victim to disruption. We’ll look at the hard disk drive industry, the excavator market, and the rise of steel minimills—each showing us how adherence to traditional strategies and customer demands can lead to failure when faced with disruptive technologies. Our first story begins with the disk drive industry, where innovation was relentless. In the late 1970s, companies like IBM and Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) dominated the market with large, high-capacity disk drives for mainframe computers. These companies had a reputation for being responsive to customer needs, always improving their products to meet demands for greater storage capacity. And yet, as smaller 8-inch drives emerged, serving the rapidly growing minicomputer market, the industry leaders dismissed this innovation. Their customers, large computer manufacturers, didn’t want smaller drives—they needed larger, more powerful ones. However, the smaller drives fit perfectly into minicomputers, which were cheaper, smaller, and faster than mainframes. “Good companies failed not because they weren’t innovative,” the book reminds us, “but because they innovated in the wrong direction.” By the time the established players realized their mistake, it was too late. Companies like Seagate and Quantum had already cornered the minicomputer market. This story teaches us a critical lesson: listening solely to your best customers can sometimes blind you to new opportunities. To avoid this pitfall, companies must actively explore smaller, emerging markets even if they seem unprofitable at first. The next story builds on this, demonstrating how even successful adaptation requires careful alignment with market trends. As the disk drive market shifted, a similar story was unfolding in the world of mechanical excavators. Bucyrus-Erie, a leader in cable-actuated power shovels, held a dominant position in the market for years. Their machines were strong and reliable, perfect for large construction projects. However, in the 1960s, hydraulic technology began to emerge, offering smaller, more efficient excavators that could handle tasks the old cable systems could not. While these hydraulic machines initially couldn’t match the power of Bucyrus-Erie’s products, they were cheaper, faster to deploy, and better suited for smaller projects. Much like in the disk drive industry, Bucyrus-Erie’s customers weren’t interested in these new machines, as they didn’t fit the needs of major construction projects. The company continued investing in its traditional, high-performance products. “They didn’t see the change coming until it was too late,” the book notes. The failure of Bucyrus-Erie teaches us that even the most established market leaders must be open to seemingly minor technological shifts. By waiting until hydraulic machines matched their traditional products in power and efficiency, Bucyrus-Erie lost its competitive edge. The key lesson here? Companies must be willing to invest in technologies that may seem less powerful but meet the needs of smaller, emerging markets. This brings us to the steel industry, where small innovations would once again topple giants. In the steel industry, the rise of minimills in the 1980s dramatically shifted the landscape. Traditional steel mills, operated by companies like U.S. Steel, produced high volumes of high-quality steel, serving customers in industries ranging from construction to automotive manufacturing. These large integrated mills had massive economies of scale, allowing them to produce steel at a low cost per ton. But minimills, which initially produced lower-quality steel from scrap metal, posed a new challenge. Like the earlier examples, minimills were ignored by the big players because their products didn’t meet the high standards required by major industries. However, minimills were able to produce steel much cheaper, appealing to smaller, less demanding markets. “The big players didn’t see the real threat,” says the book, “because they were too focused on their best customers.” Over time, minimills improved their processes and began to produce steel of higher quality, eventually overtaking the traditional mills in several key markets. By the time U.S. Steel recognized the potential of minimills, the smaller players had already dominated the lower end of the market and were moving upward. The steel industry’s transformation shows that disruptive innovations don’t have to be radical at first—they just have to fill a niche that the bigger players overlook. Companies must pay attention to these small competitors and invest in technologies that, while initially inferior, have the potential to reshape the market. These stories reveal a clear pattern: well-managed companies often fail because they become too focused on their largest customers, ignoring new, disruptive innovations that begin in smaller markets. The key takeaway is that companies must balance their attention between their current, profitable customers and the emerging technologies that might seem insignificant today but will drive the future. Disruptive innovations tend to start small and appear irrelevant to mainstream markets, but as they improve, they can overthrow even the most established leaders. Finally, share a sentence from the book to end today’s reading: “The very decision-making processes that lead to success for a company are often what create the barriers to its ability to adapt to disruptive changes.” ” Title Usage:“The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail · It is at once a satisfying intellectual solution to a long-standing business puzzle and a practical guide for executives and investors.” Content in English. Title in English.Bilingual English-Chinese subtitles. This is a comprehensive summary of the book Using Hollywood production values and cinematic style. Music is soft. Characters are portrayed as European and American