4.1 Disruptive Innovation in Aircraft
Marcos Antonio de Lima Filho, PhD.
This chapter presents findings concerning the evolution of passenger aircraft design. Given the differences between consumer technologies and aviation, the results regarding smartphone design evolution are presented separately in the next chapter. Despite their extreme differences, both industries exhibit the same patterns of disruptive, directional, stabilising, and purifying innovations.
Through the analysis of production lists, 54,793 airframes were found to have been delivered to commercial airline customers between 1932 and 2020. This aircraft production data can be contrasted with a 2015 study sponsored by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), which examined commercial jet aircraft sales from 1960 to 2014 (Kharina & Rutherford, 2015). The researchers acquired a database from Ascend Online Fleets and isolated 35,985 jet aircraft with a passenger capacity exceeding 20 seats. When applying the same inclusion criteria (1960 to 2014, jet propulsion) to this study’s dataset, 34,733 jet aircraft are identified, marking a -3.5% difference. This variation was somewhat expected because: (1) The ICCT study considers aircraft with passenger capacity of more than 20 seats, while this thesis focuses on those with a minimum of 30 seats; (2) This research excludes airframes built for cargo transport, private jets, and military variants, whereas the ICCT study doesn’t specify if it adopted similar measures.
Despite these minor discrepancies, I think that a 96,5% match is a good sign of the validity of findings, data sources, and data collection procedures. Further data collection could narrow this gap, but it is doubtful that this will alter the grounded theory generated in this work. It would likely lead to more “descriptive accuracy with little or no abstraction” (Glaser, 2016).
Defining Disruption
In the grand scheme of Darwinian evolutionary theory and population genetics, disruptive selection basically means diversification. Disruption, in this context, represents diversification and a departure from an existing equilibrium. These evolutionary principles heavily influenced early research on disruptive innovation. Unfortunately, Clayton Christensen deviated from such evolutionary insights in his version of disruptive innovation. The discussion chapter into the development of the concept before and after Christensen’s contributions, and addresses critiques raised by scholars and practitioners.
To properly introduce the following research findings, I have to briefly articulate the concept of disruptive innovation applied throughout the data analysis:
Disruptive innovation is characterised by the introduction of a new qualitative trait (like a new material, component, feature, or form factor) into an existing architecture (like a product, system, or service), or the conception of a new architecture.
In developing this operational definition of disruptive innovation for data analysis, I drew upon the core ideas of Darwinian evolutionary theory and population genetics. This definition differs substantially from Christensen’s, which centres on a specific mechanism and strategic goal. His framework brings a strategic plan to oust or threaten incumbent companies by following a bottom-up market trajectory (as explained in Figure 2.8.2). Thus, to my understanding, Christensen’s definition of disruption is embedded with a prescription of what companies should do.
However, disruptive innovation has not always been thought to be like that. Rather than being prescriptive, Abernathy is more descriptive of what disruptive innovation is. For Abernathy and colleagues (1983; 1985), we can assess the disruptive impact of innovation in two primary areas: the technological domain and the market domain. Most Interestingly, these authors evaluated disruptiveness along a continuum. The definition put forward here reinstates this gradational notion of disruption, making it possible for us to evaluate that some innovations are mildly disruptive (like adding a new component), while others are exceptionally disruptive (like discovering a new market).
The introduction of new quantities (i.e., faster, smaller, bigger, more efficient, cheaper) would be more relatable to directional innovation. Despite their incremental nature, such improvements have also been crucial to the evolution of aircraft and smartphones, as reported in sections 4.2 and 5.2. In comparison, the introduction of new qualities is more relatable to disruptive innovation. Instead of improving/perfecting established designs, disruptive innovations offer new designs/new technological foundations. Disruptive innovations may also incorporate new features (i.e., new qualities), whereas directional innovations would modify existing features (new quantities).
Compare, for example, the introduction of a more efficient engine vs the introduction of a new type of engine propulsion. The first would have an incremental character, thus serving to preserve established knowledge, skills, and industrial capacity. In comparison, the Jet Era (which introduced turbojets and turbofans) had a lasting and profound impact on various aspects, including aircraft design, manufacturing skills, industry players, materials, and knowledge. The jet engine inaugurated a new era of aviation (Figure 4.1.1).
In my view, the introduction of new components or features (i.e., new qualities) should also be considered as disruptive innovation. When new design features are introduced, they often call for new parts, which in turn open up new market space and bring new suppliers into the productive chain. This introduction of new design features can be likened to the addition of new genes within a species’ genetic code, thus creating an evolutionary disruption. To put it simply, disruptions introduce new genetic information into an architecture, whereas directional selection focuses on adjusting existing ones.
Based on this understanding, the results reported in this section demonstrate how the evolution of passenger aircraft has been shaped by the adoption of various new components and features.
Emerging Disruptions in Aircraft Design
This section categorises emerging disruptive technologies in commercial aircraft into two distinct groups. Figure 4.1.2 depicts the three technologies that achieved over 40% diffusion in 2020, while Figure 4.1.3 illustrates emerging technologies that have not yet reached 40% diffusion. The future of these emerging disruptions in commercial aviation seems favourable, but whether they will achieve widespread adoption remains unclear. There are three key scenarios for this group:
A. Diffusion may raise above 40%;
B. Diffusion may stabilise at current levels;
C. Diffusion may decline, resulting in reduced diffusion or even extinction.
It is important to note that this 40% rate is arbitrary. I have done it here only to separate proven and successful disruptive innovations from emerging ones. It is also perfectly possible to sustain a disruptive and high-margin business model below 40% of market diffusion: Apple is an example of that. The company has followed a successful low-volume/high-margin strategy for several decades in various markets.
Last updated
