Popularized by Clayton Christensen in The Innovator’s Dilemma (1997), the idea of a sudden rupture with the existing reality deliberately obscures the truth. Any innovation, even the most radical, does not emerge in absolute disruption but necessarily integrates into technological and social continuities. The environment consists of infrastructures, usages, and institutions that shape its evolution, acceptance, and proliferation. An innovation can never simply “impose itself” through its novelty alone! Consider the example of smartphones, which, despite their rapid rise, did not immediately replace traditional mobile and landline phones. Electric vehicles, rather than abruptly displacing internal combustion engines, illustrate a necessarily gradual shift dictated by charging infrastructures, economic models, and regulatory frameworks. The internet and online platforms have not annihilated commerce and traditional information systems. On the contrary, they have absorbed, modified, and reorganized them. Amazon, often cited as an emblem of disruption, has not eradicated physical commerce but has instead reshaped it by leveraging logistical and economic mechanisms. Similarly, the transition to digital media has occurred progressively, guided by evolving usages and economic models.

Likewise, the dissemination of artificial intelligence in industry will depend on adapting existing processes rather than outright substitution. It will have to negotiate with established structures, frequently complex, and integrate with prevailing forces. Far from immediately eliminating what came before, this innovation, however powerful, must embed itself within existing systems and transform them gradually.

The narrative of technological disruption is thus primarily a rhetorical device used by startups to attract investors, promising spectacular ruptures and equally speculative profits. The media amplify this illusion, favoring sensationalism over the complexity of reality. Yet, the adoption of emerging technologies and models rests upon three unavoidable inertias:

• Infrastructures, which require decades of adaptation.
• Usages, which evolve progressively and incrementally.
• Regulations, which structure and sometimes constrain innovation.

Adopting a systemic vision of innovation means understanding that progress does not occur through abrupt breaks but through successive adjustments and co-evolutionary dynamics. The primary challenge is therefore not so much the invention of new solutions as their effective integration into existing ecosystems. Rather than chasing after illusions of radical transformation, it is preferable to anticipate mutation trajectories, support the evolution of usages, and structure effective adaptation strategies.

Far from being an uncontrollable force that overturns everything in its path, innovation is a continuous, negotiated, yet inevitable process in which the new interweaves with the old to profoundly reshape reality. By adopting this approach, we can truly comprehend and master the dynamics of innovation. Following Jacques Ellul in The Technological System (1977) and The Technological Society (1954), I emphasize technological determinism. Indeed, once an innovation becomes possible, it tends to impose itself independently of initial intentions. Ellul further asserts that “innovations are systemic forces” that deeply transform societies, often irreversibly.

Disruption: More Philosophical Than Material

Disruption is more of a philosophical construct than a strictly material reality. The supposed technological rupture conceals the inevitable progression of the technological system. Far from being orchestrated by economic or political actors, innovation follows its own logic of expansion and inevitably asserts itself once it becomes technically feasible. Thus, disruption is primarily a narrative, an intellectual construct used to justify and rationalize transformations.

Several thinkers have critiqued the ideological construction of disruption. Lewis Mumford, in The Myth of the Machine (1967), challenges the idea that innovations appear autonomously and abruptly. He demonstrates that they are embedded within historical and political contexts that influence their conception, reception, and trajectory. This view aligns with the argument that disruption is typically a discursive artifact used to legitimize certain changes, rather than being their actual cause. Gilbert Simondon, in On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects (1958), proposes a theory of technological evolution based on the notion of progressive concretization (and concretion) of technical objects. He refutes the vision of innovation as a force that abruptly replaces the old, and instead emphasizes a continuum of successive adaptations. Bruno Latour, in We Have Never Been Modern (1991), questions the distinction between old and new, highlighting that innovations never entirely break from the past. Instead, they integrate into networks of practices and structures that limit the extent of radical transformations. Finally, Langdon Winner, in Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought (1977), supports the thesis that technology evolves according to its own often uncontrollable dynamics, thus reinforcing Ellul’s position on the inevitability of technological progress.

Disruption is, therefore, not a spontaneous and radical phenomenon but a narrative that conceals a continuum of progressive adaptations. It is not so much innovation that creates rupture, but rather the way it is perceived and presented by economic and political actors. By integrating this philosophical perspective, we better understand that innovation should not be considered an exogenous force imposed upon the world, but as an evolutionary phenomenon inscribed within historical and structural dynamics. This realization reinforces the idea that innovation, rather than being a mere lever for intentional change, is a structuring phenomenon that surpasses the will of the actors promoting it. While the myth of disruption exaggerates the speed and magnitude of transformations, it also obscures the reality of a system in which technology evolves according to its own internal logic, often beyond human control. It is therefore essential to adopt a critical and systemic vision of these phenomena, to anticipate and guide these transformations rather than passively endure them.

Role of Research in the Systemic Evolution of Innovation 

If innovation is a process of adaptation rather than rupture, then research plays a central role in structuring its trajectory. Far from being a mere generator of technological breakthroughs, research functions as a bridge between fundamental discovery and applied implementation. It provides the theoretical foundations necessary for gradual transitions while ensuring that new technologies integrate seamlessly into existing industrial, economic, and social frameworks.

Research, particularly applied research, serves as a regulating force that transforms potential inventions into structured evolutions. By anticipating emerging technological trends and assessing their systemic implications, research institutions enable controlled and efficient transitions. Instead of fueling abrupt paradigm shifts, research supports incremental innovation by refining, optimizing, and contextualizing new developments within pre-existing infrastructures and regulatory systems .

In this sense, research is not a catalyst for disruption but an architect of systemic adaptation. It enables societies to manage technological change in a way that minimizes unintended consequences and maximizes integration within functional ecosystems. Acknowledging this role allows for a more pragmatic and responsible approach to innovation, one that prioritizes sustainability, adaptability, and long-term societal benefit over myths of radical upheaval. 

Mustapha Derras