Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Study 2: Lessons from GE Healthcare: How Incumbents Can Systematically Create Disruptive Innovations

  • Chapter
Frugal Innovation in Healthcare

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

Abstract

Addressing the vast, fast-growing, four-billion-people-strong market segment poses unique challenges to MNCs and also requires new thinking in the field of international strategy. Companies seeking to serve the Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) segments have to deal with market creation issues, working in informal economies with institutional voids, with broader and diverse set of partners as well as internal organizational barriers.

GE Healthcare provides a rich case study of an incumbent that has been creating several disruptive innovations targeted at emerging markets for the past years. This chapter will look at organizational structures and processes that GE Healthcare has in place, which enable it to create disruptive innovations systematically. The study aims to contribute towards building disruptive innovation theory, where questions pertaining to selective success and failure of incumbents to create disruptive innovations remain unanswered. Literature on disruptive innovations recommends incumbent firms to create a separate entity for commercializing disruptive innovations. However, scholars have been calling upon firms to explore new markets and exploit existing opportunities simultaneously by being ambidextrous.

The ability to successfully drive disruptive innovations in a sustained manner from within the organization will be analyzed through the lens of organizational ambidexterity. The manifestation of ambidexterity is the company’s ability to initiate multiple innovation streams, in this case sustaining innovations and disruptive innovations. This work will look at the mechanisms of ambidexterity at GE Healthcare to help explain its ability in successfully hosting both sustaining and disruptive innovations from within its boundaries.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
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, Healthymagination, MAC, Marquette, Lullaby are all Trademarks of GE.

  2. 2.

    For information about GE’s healthymagination see: www.healthymagination.com/; Accessed on 15.11.2013.

  3. 3.

    See the following papers and newspaper articles. 1. Bahree, M (2011). “GE Remodels Businesses in India”, The Wall Street Journal, Apr 26th 2011. 2. Economist (2009) Lessons from a frugal innovator. Apr 26th 2009. 3. Immelt & Govindarajan (2009) “How GE is disrupting itself.” Harvard Business Review.

  4. 4.

    www.gehealthcare.com; Accessed on 15.08.2014.

  5. 5.

    Interview available online on GE’s official website: http://www.ge.com/audio_video/ge/health/healthymagination_vision.html.

References

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Dutta, R. (2010). India requires 100 PET CT Centres. Express Healthcare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economist. (2009, April 18). Lessons from a frugal innovator. The Economist.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • GE. (2009). GE 2009 Annual Report.

    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 

  • GE. (2013). GE Annual Report 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C., & Birkenshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741–763.

    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, 49(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 

  • Hart, S., & Christensen, C. (2002, Fall). The great leap. MIT Sloan Managment Review.

    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 

  • Immelt, J., & Govindrajan, V. (2009). How GE is disrupting itself. Harvard Buisness Review, 87(10), 56–65.

    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 

  • Karamchandani, A., Kubzansky, M., & Lalwani, N. (2011). Is the bottom of the pyramid really for you? Harvard Business Review, 89(3), 107–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (1999). The right way to restructure conglomerates in emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 77, 125–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., & Rangan, K. (2012). Healthymagination at GE Healthcare Systems. Harvard Business School Case Study.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemer, J., & Crooks, E. (2010, November 9). Rice to lead GE in emerging markets. Financial Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: Conceptualization and empirical examination. The Journal of Marketing, 62, 13–29.

    Article  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 Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan-Bansal, N., & Goyal, M. (2009a). Jeff Immelt: “India Will Be a Centrepiece in Our Growth”. Forbes India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan-Bansal, N., & Goyal, M. (2009b). GE has its finger on the Indian pulse, at last. 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 

  • Mitchell, W. (2008). Transforming a successful company: General Electric’s organizational strategy Duke University.

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy & Business, 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Lieberthal, K. (1998). The end of corporate imperialism. Harvard Buisness Review, 76, 68–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • Sinha, V. (2010, June 1). We’ll now produce what India wants: John Flannery, GE India. The Economic Times.

    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 

  • 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 

  • 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 (2nd ed.). 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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ramdorai, A., Herstatt, C. (2015). Study 2: Lessons from GE Healthcare: How Incumbents Can Systematically Create Disruptive Innovations. In: Frugal Innovation in Healthcare. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16336-9_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation