Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lessons from Low-Cost Healthcare Innovations for the Base-of the Pyramid Markets: How Incumbents Can Systematically Create Disruptive Innovations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Lead Market India

Part of the book series: India Studies in Business and Economics ((ISBE))

Abstract

This study investigates the phenomenon of disruptive innovation at the base of India’s economic pyramid. We analyze firms’ ability to successfully drive disruptive innovations from within the organization through the lens of organizational ambidexterity. While consensus exists on the need for ambidexterity, the underlying mechanisms remain under-theorized. We seek to address this general gap in the research of organizational ambidexterity. This work looks at the mechanisms of ambidexterity at GE Healthcare to help explain its ability in successfully hosting sustaining and disruptive innovations from within its boundaries. This work contributes to the emerging disruptive innovation theory, by exploring organizational designs required by incumbent firms to deal with strategic challenges associated with disruptive innovations in the context of BOP markets. It also contributes to organizational ambidexterity theory by providing substantial empirical evidence from the GE Healthcare case to show how a company has adopted an ambidextrous design to deal with hosting contradictory innovation types.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    GE.com website investor relations.

  2. 2.

    www.gehealthcare.com

  3. 3.

    Online Interview http://www.ge.com/audio_video/ge/health/healthymagination_vision.html

References

  • Anderson, J., & Billou, N. (2007). Serving the world’s poor: Innovation at the base of the economic pyramid. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(2), 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2007). The economic lives of the poor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(1), 141–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandramouli, K. (2011). Family welfare statistics in India. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (2006). The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., Bohmer, R., & Kenagy, J. (2000). Will disruptive innovations cure health care? Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 102–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., Craig, T., & Hart, S. (2001). The great disruption. Foreign Affairs, March/April, 80–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., Grossmann, J. H., & Hwang, H. (2008). The innovator’s prescription: A disruptive solution for health care.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, March–April, 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker’s advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 24(2), 233–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, P. (2007). Bottom billion. Wiley Online Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 246–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2006). Dialogue on the effects of disruptive technology on firms and industries. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 2–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case-study approach. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, R. N. (1986). The attacker’s advantage. New York: Summit Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • GE. (2009). Michael Barber named Vice President, healthymagination. GE News Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • GE. (2010a). GE Healthymagination Annual Report 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • GE. (2010b). GE’s technology center celebrates ten years of innovation in India. GE News Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • GE. (2011). “GE Healthymagination Annual Report 2010”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindarajan, V., & Kopalle, P. K. (2006). The usefulness of measuring disruptiveness of innovations ex post in making ex ante prediction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 12–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindarajan, V., & Ramamurti, R. (2011). Reverse innovation, emerging markets, and global strategy. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3–4), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 4, 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halme, M., Lindeman, S., & Linna, P. (2012). Innovation for inclusive business: Intrapreneurial Bricolage in multinational corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 743–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, A. (2010). The next 4 billion: Market size and business strategy at the base of the pyramid. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. (2010). Taking the green leap to the base of the pyramid. In T. London & S. Hart (Eds.), Next generation business strategies for the base of the pyramid. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S., & Christensen, C. (2002). The great leap. MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall, 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. (2006). The innovator’s dilemma as a problem of organizational competence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howitt, P., Darzi, A., Yang, G. Z., Ashrafian, H., Atun, R., Barlow, J., et al. (2012). Technologies for global health. The Lancet, 380(9840), 507–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Immelt, J., & Govindrajan, V. (2009). How GE is disrupting itself. Harvard Business Review, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaiswal, A. K. (2008). The fortune at the bottom or the middle of the pyramid? Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 3(1), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (1999). The right way to restructure conglomerates in emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 77(4), 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemer, J., & Crooks, E. (2010). Rice to lead GE in emerging markets. New York: Financial Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • London, T., & Hart, S. (2004). Reinventing strategies for emerging markets: Beyond the transnational model. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 350–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London, T., & Hart, S. (Eds.). (2010). Next generation business strategies for the base of the pyramid. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan-Bansal, N., & Goya, M. (2009). Jeff Immelt: India will be a centrepiece in our growth. Forbes India.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, C. M., & OConnor, G. C. (2002). Managing radical innovation: An overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(6), 424–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A. I., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, M., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). Bottom-of-the-pyramid: Organizational barriers to implementation. California Management Review, 51(4), 100–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. New Delhi: Wharton School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. (2012). Bottom of the pyramid as a source of breakthrough innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy + Business, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Lieberthal, K. (2003). The end of corporate imperialism. Harvard Business Review, August, 109–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Mashelkar, R. (2010). Innovation’s holy grail. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 132–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangan, V. K., & Thulasiraj, R. D. (2007). Making sight affordable. Innovations, Fall, 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricart, J. E., Enright, M. J., Ghemawat, P., Hart, S. L., & Khanna, T. (2004). New frontiers in international strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(3), 175–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tellis, G. J. (2006). Disruptive technology or visionary leadership? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 34–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Times, T. E. (2010). We’ll now produce what India wants: John Flannery, GE India. The Economic Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari, R., & Herstatt, C. (2012). Assessing India’s lead market potential for cost-effective innovations. Journal of Indian Business Research, 4(2), 97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1147–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1331–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany

    Aditi Ramdorai & Cornelius Herstatt

Authors
  1. Aditi Ramdorai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cornelius Herstatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cornelius Herstatt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Technology and Innovation Management, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany

    Cornelius Herstatt

  2. Institute for Technology and Innovation Management, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany

    Rajnish Tiwari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ramdorai, A., Herstatt, C. (2017). Lessons from Low-Cost Healthcare Innovations for the Base-of the Pyramid Markets: How Incumbents Can Systematically Create Disruptive Innovations. In: Herstatt, C., Tiwari, R. (eds) Lead Market India. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46392-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation