Innovative Challenges In Today’s Markets And Disruptive Technologies

Fundamentals behind Disruptive Innovation

The modern world has been swept by the wave of invention and innovation of new technologies. Since the industrial revolution started from the mid 18^th and 19^th centuries, the nature of production has changed very rapidly, which have affected the lifestyle of people in a massive way (Bloem et al., 2014). In every aspect of life, there has been significant influence of new technologies. The aim of all these new technologies is to make life easier and to fulfill that aim, the people are working non-stop to make further advancement in the technologies. Another phenomenon of this new century is the invention and implementation of digital disruption or disruptive technologies in many business and manufacturing sectors. This term was first coined by American scholar Clayton Christensen in 1995, and this is termed as one of the most influential business idea of the early 21^st century. Disruptive technologies are those that create new markets and new value networks and disrupts the existing value network and market (Cortez, 2014). In other words, digital disruption refers to the change, which occurs when the new digital technologies and the business models related to those technologies affect the value propositions of the existing goods and services in the market to their customers. Thus, Christensen, Raynor & McDonald (2016) highlighted that in this process of replacing the value proposition of the existing goods and services, the disruptive technologies displace or reduce the business share of the established market leaders, goods and services and the alliances.

The photography industry has evolved majorly in the past century. Since the invention of the first shutter camera, the nature of photography and the instruments kept on changing very rapidly over the past century. The camera has evolved and incorporated advanced technology with every new model and form. It started its journey as a big shutter box and now it is included in the mobile phones itself, which has reduced the popularity and usage of the big cameras (Kaplan, 2012). This change in the camera technologies can be explained as the application of digital disruptions or digital innovations. Every form of the camera technology has been replacing the existing one since the beginning. In recent times, as there are high-end digital cameras, known as Digital Single-Lens Reflex (DSLR) cameras, there are also smartphones, which provide multiple features in a small portable and powerful device. With every passing day, the smartphones are becoming highly advanced and providing high-end cameras that have features similar to basic as well as advanced level DSLRs. The DSLR cameras are also adopting advanced technologies and the smartphones are catching up in many ways. This research paper will explore the impact of disruptive innovations, that is, the high-end smart phones and its business models on the business and market of the DSLR cameras. This will also focus on the analysis of the situation by comparing it with the situation when DSLRs replaced the Kodak through digital disruptions.

The term disruptive innovation was developed by Christensen in 1995 in his article ‘Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave’. He aimed this term towards management executives, making the funding decisions in the companies. In the sequel of the article, Christensen replaced the term disruptive technology with disruptive innovation. He observed that there are a few technologies that have intrinsic disruptive nature, which creates a business model with disruptive impact (King & Baatartogtokh, 2015). This observation threw a light on the evolution of the business at industry or market level. Thus, disruptive innovation refers to an evolutionary journey of technologies and business models rather than to a product or service at one fixed point of time (Lepore, 2014).

Impact of High-End Smartphones on DSLR Cameras

Disruptive innovations have been influencing various industries for the past two decades. The business models introduced by these innovations have been quite revolutionary as they have changed the course of business of the existing industries. One of the biggest examples of the disruptive innovations is the inventions of smartphones. Apple CEO Steve Jobs introduced the first smartphone in the world in 2007. The mobile device incorporated touch screen and operating systems like the computers (Wilson & Watkins, 2014). This was a big revolution in the mobile business that started from United States to all over the world. IPhone disrupted the business for the other traditional mobile companies, such as, Nokia, and Motorola. These companies were forced to change their technology as well as business models to retain their market share. After iPhone, many companies, such as, Samsung, Google, HTC, and many lower budget mobile companies have moved into the smartphone technology. Over time, these phones have been incorporating many new features, such as, high-end cameras. The camera technology was started with VGA camera and now the companies are providing cameras for up to 16MP with dual lens, with many features similar to the DSLRs (Chesher, 2012). The phones are also affordable to people than any DSLR camera.

Similarly, in the photographic device market, Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Sony have captured the digital photography market with advanced digi-cams and DSLRs and led Kodak out of business. The disruptive innovations by these companies have changed the business model of the photography market, which was captured by Kodak earlier (Downes & Nunes, 2013). This creates the background context for this study. The researcher will explore different aspects of the disruptive innovations and business models in the smartphone and camera industries and its implications on the future of the DSLR cameras.

According to Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, the world is entering into an era of fourth industrial revolution (Weforum.org, 2018). In this revolution, the line between the digital, physical and biological spheres is fading away. The technological breakthrough in almost every field of study and business is happening at an exponential speed and it is changing the way of life, work and relationships of people. Disruptive innovations are a part of the fourth industrial revolution. Every industrial revolution has contributed significantly to improve the quality of life of people by introducing new technologies. The fourth one also aimed at giving the best of technologies to the world so that life becomes more convenient (Baiyere & Salmela, 2013). In every field of business and technology, this is getting reflected. The DSLRs are no exceptions. Over the years, the camera has gone through quite a few revolutionary stages that gave better experience to not only the photographers, but also to the common people. DSLRs are a digital upgradation of the Single Lens Reflex (SLR) cameras, which has made photography quite easy and affordable to people. This was a disruptive innovation since it changed the value proposition of the existing still-photography cameras. With time, as the DSLRs got more and more advanced, the old school shutter box and film cameras cease to exist. However, the mobile phone industry has launched many smart features in the high-end as well as low-end phones, which is also another type of disruptive innovation in the field of mobile technologies (?iutien? & Thattakath, 2014). These smartphones are also coming with high-end cameras that are parallel to many DSLRs. These have made photography within the means of many people who cannot afford to buy a DSLR. Thus, the problem that the research study will try to address is whether the disruptive technology in the smartphones is becoming a threat for the DSLRs, as the DSLR technology itself became a threat to the traditional 35 mm film cameras, which finally led them out of the market.

Evolution of Camera Technology and Digital Disruption

The aim of the research is to explore and analyze the impact of digital disruption or disruptive innovations in the field of photography devices and to throw light towards the potential outcome of the DSLR industry due to the innovation of the smartphones with advanced cameras.

The research objectives are:

• To explore the advantages and disadvantages of disruptive innovations in the smartphone industry
• To evaluate the challenges faced by the DSLR cameras from the advancements of the smartphones
• To evaluate the disruptive innovation business model adopted by the smartphone industry

The research questions are:

• What are the innovative challenges of today’s markets?
• What are the fundamentals behind disruptive innovation?
• How high-end smartphones imperil the DSLR cameras?
• What is the theory of business model?

H₀ (null hypothesis): Disruptive innovations through high-end smartphone cameras do not possess any threat for the existence of the DSLR cameras

H₁ (alternative hypothesis): Disruptive innovations through high-end smartphone cameras possess significant threats for the existence of the DSLR cameras

Disruptive innovations are emerging in almost every field of technology providing product or service to the people. It is an extension of the third industrial revolution, which is known as the digital revolution. In many other field of business, digital disruption has changed the way of doing business and delivering the value proposed to the customers. For example, Airbnb has introduced accommodation sharing in the tourist destinations (Guttentag, 2015), Uber has launched ride sharing, and Eatwith has introduced the concept of collaborative cuisine or food sharing. All these business models have resulted in a revolution in their respective fields. Similarly, in the field of photography and photography devices, there was a big revolution when the digital cameras emerged in the 1990s. Within three decades, the technological advancement has resulted in the rise of digital photography and fall in the traditional film camera business drastically. In the same manner, the smartphones are evolving very fast with very high-end features available at an affordable price. The research study will help in exploring the impact of disruptive innovation in the smartphones and DSLR camera industry and its potential outcome. The research study outcome is expected to understand the trend of the market in adopting the new advanced technology in the field of photography and how the DSLR industry can overcome the challenges created by the advanced smartphones.

 The purpose of this chapter is to present an in-depth insight about different dimensions of the research topic by exploring a vast amount of literature. The literature review is helpful in gaining an understanding about the disruptive innovations, its sustainability, equipments and ability required to adopt the innovations, its challenges and business models on the disruptive innovations. Firstly, a background study is presented by the researcher for introducing the topic and based on that, various literature are explored. Information regarding the digital camera industry will also be provided by the researcher by the knowledge gained from top 3 DSLR and top 3 high-end smartphones of the world to throw a light on different aspects of disruptive innovations and its implications in the digital camera industry. This would be followed by a conceptual framework and summary of the literature review.

Disruptive innovations are also sometimes termed as digital disruptions and disruptive technologies. The fundamental principle of all these terms is ‘disruption’. This refers to something, which is considered as a hurdle in achieving the organizational or individual goals (Baiyere & Salmela, 2013). Since, the working systems in the world have become highly digital, the disruption techniques are mostly prevalent in the digital systems. Hence, digital disruptions are those that occur in the digital systems or technologies. As stated by Christensen (2013), disruptive innovations lead to innovation driven growth of the businesses. The innovations that shake the traditional way of working of the businesses are termed as disruptive innovations. These are mostly technological improvement and are aimed at increasing the value proposition of any product or service to the customers. Thus, industries that are adopting these technologies aim at increasing the value proposition to increase their market share.

Disruptive Innovation and Its Implications

According to Flavin (2012), disruptive innovations are beneficial for any industry that wants to grow and capture a bigger market share by offering new values to the customers. This requires a change in the traditional way of business and the processes. Through disruptive innovations, the industries indulge in new process of doing business, which also helps in increasing the competitiveness. An innovation is often a breakthrough to the industry and it requires new strategies and equipment to implement that. Not necessarily every business within a single industry will adopt the innovation or can afford to have an innovative way of working or product (Moe et al., 2012). This might not lead to the desired outcome of offering the best value to the consumers. On the other hand, disruptive innovations shake up the whole industry, which enforces the obligation of increasing competitiveness and quality to retain the market share and expand in the market.

According to the explanation of the term ‘disruptive innovation’ by Christensen (2013), it describes a method or procedure in which, a product or service starts at the bottom of the market by applying simple tools or applications and overtime relentlessly moves up the market by implementing innovations and eventually displaces the established competitors. To describe the process in simpler terms, Cortez (2014) state that disruptive innovations are those that allow a smaller organization with fewer resources to replace an established and successful traditional business by targeting the ignored market segment. The incumbent firm focuses on more profitable areas and the smaller firm with less resources focuses on those neglected areas to establish a market share. While the larger business focuses on improving the products and the services for majority of the demanding customers, the smaller firm utilizes that time to gain a foothold at the bottom market with a new innovative technology. This often focuses on delivering better product or service at a lower price in the incumbent’s overlooked market. In this process, the smaller firm moves up in the market steadily until it delivers the performance, which is expected by the incumbent’s established customers while maintaining its initial innovation and strategies that led to its early success. The disruption occurs when the mainstream customers of the established business starts to consume the product or service of the smaller firm in bulk amount. This creates a hurdle in the business of the establish firm, that is, a disruption in their business and the smaller firm take the advantage of their innovation.

Two such examples of disruptive innovations are Netflix and Uber. Netflix started its business of renting the movie DVDs to the customers and then it moved its business into streaming on-demand videos online. Today Netflix is the market leader across the world for online movie and video streaming and they have started their own productions also (Gomez-Uribe & Hunt, 2016). The smartphone technology and internet service were used by Netflix to deliver their service in radically different ways than the traditional method. Due to good quality products and services offered at a lower price, movie lovers started to shift towards Netflix as it also provides the convenience of watching from anywhere and anytime and download option for offline watching.

Digital Disruption in the Photography Industry

On the other hand, Uber had not started from the bottom. It targeted the customers who use cabs. It has taken a complete opposite direction while entering the traditional market. Isaac (2014) highlights that Uber innovated the link between the smartphone apps and cab service, also known as ride sharing service. The willing cab drivers and customers get connected through a mobile app. The service is of high quality and is made extremely convenient with a price almost similar to the traditional cab service, which has made Uber a market winner. The demand for the traditional cab service has reduced drastically, which is a disruption for the old school cab business (Cramer & Krueger, 2016).

Thus, in the times of digital intervention and dynamic business and technological scenario, the businesses should always innovate to retain their market share. However, King and Baatartogtokh (2015) highlighted a useful aspect of disruptive innovation, by showing that 77 out of 79 industry cases stated in the study that the features of the theory of disruptive innovations, outlined by Christensen and Raynor, did not fit well in the industry cases through 4 key elements of the theory. They pointed out that the theory was not properly tested in the academics and in the business world. There are very few successful cases that can define any pattern or trend of disruptive innovations in the industries. At the same time, it was also highlighted that capabilities are required for responding to disruptive innovations. They stated that if the incumbent firms can increase their profitability by introducing new technology and products, they could also invest to develop new capabilities to fight the disruption and retain market share. King and Baatartogtokh (2015) also pointed out that in many industries, such as, in retail the disruption process might take decades, and it might affect one particular unit of a large incumbent firm, while the other units remain unaffected and the company survives. Hence, there can be a long period of coexistence between the disrupters and incumbents in the process of implementing disruptive innovations.

As stated by Mackenzie & DeCusatis (2013), sustaining innovation is the process of business followed by the incumbent firms, which gives rise to the scope for disruptive innovations. As said by Christensen, the upheavals in the industry occurs because the large firms focus on innovating for making their good products or services better for their existing consumers and not for targeting a new market. Sustaining innovation refers to an incremental innovation, which sustains an existing product or service. This is different from disruptive innovation. In the disruptive innovation, the innovators create new market and new value network and disrupt the traditional business of the existing established firms and eventually replace earlier technology, while in the sustaining innovation, the firms improve their existing product or services to more value creation. One of the classic examples of sustaining innovation is the improvisation of Macintosh by Apple. The Macintosh went through various innovations but it had a drab and unattractive look compared to the rival products of IBM. The company almost filed for bankruptcy. In 1998, Steve Jobs consolidated all the features and functionalities of all models of Macintosh into iMac G3, which not only led to success but also revitalized the brand across existing and new market (Wonglimpiyarat, 2012).

Downes & Nunes (2013) highlighted that companies must innovate faster than the evolution of the needs of the customers. In this process, the firms end up producing many products or services that might be too sophisticated or expensive or complicated for the mass. Thus, the sustaining innovations are pursued by the firms at the top tiers of their existing market as they could charge higher prices from the sophisticated and most demanding consumers and increase profitability. In this process, these companies make way for disrupters at the bottom end of the market. A disruptive innovation allows a huge population of consumers at the bottom of the market to avail the product or service that was accessible only to the top tier of the market.

Sustaining and disruptive innovations often creates a challenging situation for a firm when they face ‘innovator’s dilemma’. This refers to the situation when a firm faces the dilemma of whether to improvise the existing product or service and hold onto the existing or slightly better market; or to innovate a new product or service by adopting new technologies and business models to capture a new market segment. Avital et al. (2014) stated that to achieve long term sustainability in the industry, any firm should go for evolution and revolution, that is, disruptive and sustaining innovation. These measures are not alternative rather complementary to each other.

Christensen & Raynor (2013) described three types of innovations can occur in a business model. Those are sustaining innovation, low end disruptions and new market disruptions.

• As stated earlier, sustaining innovationrefers to the process of innovating and improvising the existing product or service for the existing market. This innovation enables the producer to sell enhanced quality products to their best consumers for higher profitability (Ng & Cumming, 2015). Performance improvements are provided in the attributes, which are highly valued by the most demanding customers.
• The new market disruptionsled to creation of new markets by targeting those customers who were initially unable to buy the high end products due to lack of money or skills.
• The low end disruptionsare meant for the over-served consumers from the low end of the mainstream market. When the incumbent companies provide high quality products or services for satisfying the customers in the high end market, they overshoot the demands and needs of the low end mainstream consumers. The less profitable market segments offer the opening space for the entrants (Katyal, 2013).

The disruptors target the low end and new markets for entering the industry with new innovation, and gradually move up the mainstream market by offering new product or service to the high end customers. Thus, they have to study the market opportunities and segments quite well.

The features of disruptive businesses in the initial stages may include lower gross profit margins, small size of the target markets, and simple product and services, which might not emerge as eye-catching as the existing products or services relative to the traditional performance benchmarks. The lower end of the market provides these scopes for the disrupters to enter the market. Chattopadhyay, Batra & Ozsomer (2012) point out that the disruptors should make strategies with ambitious goals and breakthroughs, build a risk taking organizational culture, integrate the social responsibilities into the business models, and implement the design thinking and data analytics for launching the disruptions.

When there is a disruptive innovation in the market, the incumbents face the choice of whether to embrace it or avoid it. In majority of the cases, it becomes wiser for the incumbent firms to embrace the innovations than to reject it. The resources and capabilities of the firms to adopt new technology is the most crucial matter in this regard. Embracing disruptive innovations implies increasing the value proposition for the established incumbents. According to Handfield et al. (2013), the incumbents should adopt the following steps to embrace the disruptive innovations. They should do thorough market research to gain knowledge about the low end market and the nature of the innovation and technology used. Next, they should invest accordingly for adopting the technology and modify the business models. Following that the production equipment should be changed if required. Osiyevskyy & Dewald (2015) stated that, when the change is in the market, the incumbents must accept the change and move forward by investing in the technology and business strategies. Denying the ongoing change would be a big mistake as Blockbuster and taxi operators did with Netflix and Uber respectively. The big firms do not necessarily scrap their old business model and start all over again to succeed; rather they might need some modifications in their strategies and products. They should identify their interest in maintain the Status Quo. Even if the change is threatening, the incumbents much accept that and work for the stakeholders (Petrick & Martinelli, 2012). Lastly, investment should be made in the right direction to explore the opportunities created by the disruptions and utilize those. Based on the needs, intellectual property should be developed and technological equipment should be enhanced for the incumbents.

Few successful examples for disruptive innovations are the rise of Netflix, Uber, Airbnb, iPhone, iMac and other apple products. Netflix started in 1998 as the world’s first online DVD rental store. By 2000, it had almost 300000 subscribers across the United States and currently it operates worldwide. In 2007, it expanded its business with streaming media along with Blu-ray and DVD rental service. The biggest rival of Netflix was Blockbuster. Video on demand by Netflix and Redbox automated DVD rental kiosks were the major reason for the downfall of Blockbuster (Gershon, 2013). Netflix eventually started online movie and various video streaming at a very affordable monthly subscription charge along with original productions and these have been termed as disruptive innovation in the video rental business. In 2017, Netflix earned revenue around US $11.7 billion while Blockbuster got defunct by 2010. Blockbuster did not purchase Netflix for $50 million in 2000 and ignored the innovations, which ultimately led to its death (Sheppard, 2017).

Airbnb swept the hospitality industry with its home and accommodation rental service. It has adopted a business model in which it arranges rental facilities like home stay, home or apartment sharing, hostel sharing for the tourists who want to travel and explore the destinations like the locals (Guttentag, 2015). It is a big revolution in the traditional hotel and tourism industry. Through this service, low budget as well as adventurous tourists can opt for having a feel of the local life at a lower rent instead of having the traditional experience of staying in a hotel while travelling.

Another big example of disruptive technology is the invention of smartphones. Steve Jobs revolutionized the mobile phone industry by introducing the first smartphone in the world, iPhone. It integrated the touch screen technology with the operating system of a computer and created huge disruptions for traditional mobile manufacturing companies like Nokia, Blackberry and many more (Xie & Liang, 2013). This phone also included a powerful back as well as front camera, with continuous upgradation and affordability, which is creating a challenge for the camera industry.

Amazon, the American e-commerce retail giant has been successful in launching the innovative e-commerce business, which created a big disruption to the traditional brick and mortar retail stores. Within a few years of its launch by Jeff Bezos, Amazon was successful to capture a huge international market, which started a new trend of online shopping. Along with that, in 2007, Amazon also introduced Kindle, a device for buying, downloading and reading e-books and online newspapers, magazines. This was also a revolutionary disruptive innovation which not only declined the sales of the traditional publishing houses, but also threatened their business in the long run (Wilson, 2014).

Like any other new technology and new proposition, disruptive innovations also have their own challenges. However, to survive in the modern, Curley (2015) suggests that companies must embrace disruptive innovations. They should either introduce it in the market or should follow the business techniques of the disruptors, like, GoCatch and Ola are doing in Australian ride sharing market, following the strategies of Uber. The challenges of embracing these new technologies can be internal or external or both. Some companies might have to adopt bold leadership to transform the core business, while some might have to reduce their product price by adopting lean production techniques. Hence, the businesses must follow the principle: “Innovate or die”.

The internal challenges include the strategic and cultural challenges along with the technological and investment capabilities. According to Börjesson, Elmquist & Hooge (2014), three major factors that influence the organizational performance are resources, processes, and the values. While embracing disruptive innovations, the organizations need to assess their resources and capabilities, the strategies and processes and the value of the business.

As stated by Petrick & Martinelli (2012), a company is based on its resources. That includes both the tangible, such as, equipment, people, cash and technologies, and the less tangible resources, such and the product designs, brands, information, relationships with suppliers and distributors and the customers. If a company lacks access to abundant high quality resources, it faces risk in coping with the change. Adequate capital and ability to improve technological infrastructure is one of the major internal challenges for embracing disruptive innovation. To implement a breakthrough business idea, firms must have the vision as well as adequate capital to invest in the new idea and supporting technology. As the technologies are being enhanced and innovated very rapidly, the firms must have the resource and capabilities to introduce the new products or services to the target market or to be able to adopt the changes in the market (Jobber & Ellis-Chadwick, 2012).

Processes refer to the patterns of communication, interaction, coordination and decision making within the organization. These are important functions required for transforming the resources into products and services with greater worth. To adopt a change, the processes need to be changed majorly, which many companies do not want to implement. This creates a challenge in the path for embracing innovations. Lastly, values include two approaches, the mission, vision and ethical values of the company and the value proposition of the goods and services to the target customers. Jeston (2014) highlights that, an innovation allows the companies to offer more value of the products, however, at the same time, the companies must maintain the corporate values, which often creates a challenge for the companies while adopting new technologies and strategies to innovate. In this process, as the companies add new features and functions in their products, their cost of production increases and this sometimes leads to a fall in the gross profit margin, making the strategy unattractive. Eventually the companies leave the initial market to sustain their profits and consequently their values change (Wessel & Christensen, 2012).

External challenges for embracing disruptive innovations include the social, economic and political condition of an economy. To be able to do a successful business, a stable political condition is required. Political unrest leads to social and economical unrest, which create challenges for new and existing businesses. Moreover, many large institutions are often supported by the government. When a disruptive innovation is introduced by a company for the lower end of the market and threatens the business of an incumbent firm, the government may create policies to provide support to the business of the incumbent firm. Thus, regulatory changes can be a big challenge for new businesses (Bergek et al., 2013).

As highlighted by Chattopadhyay, Batra & Ozsomer (2012), creating attractiveness to the target market and delivering the proposed value is a big challenge to the disruptor. If the target market rejects the new product after a few days of its launch, the disruptor will face a major setback. Sometimes, the companies face challenges from its own creations. For example, Kodak invented the digital camera which was a disruptive innovation itself. But as the other competitors arrived with improved cameras, Kodak did not innovate further in the fear of losing the century old business and led to its own death. Similarly, Blockbuster started with video renting business and refused to acquire Netflix in 2002, and failed to innovate. Eventually, it filed for bankruptcy in 2010 while Netflix has become the video streaming market giant (Gershon, 2013).

A growing and stable economy is beneficial for any kind of new business. A disruptive innovation also requires market stability and growth opportunities. People at the lower end of the market must have steady income to explore and accept the new innovative business; else the organization will face difficulties in growing its business (Handfield et al., 2013). For example, the global financial crisis of 2008-09 has led many new business ventures to be unsuccessful.

The other external challenges are environmental issues, scandals, technological advances, and movement of labor that can cause severe challenges for a disruptive innovation.

Christensen (2013) pointed out that disruptive innovation business models focus on the creating, disintermediating, reengineering, refining, or optimizing a product or service, role, function or practice, market, sector, category, or industry. To be successful, the companies must incorporate the disruptive thinking in all of the business and management practices and strategies for gaining distinctive and competitive value propositions. According to Wessel & Christensen (2012), the disruptive business models are mostly implemented by the transformational leaders, who want to take risk and explore new opportunities and bring prosperity to the business.

The disruptive innovation model designed by Christensen enables the companies to achieve attractive success and profits at lower prices, for lower end of the markets. Once the lower end of the market is captured, the companies move up-market where higher quality products are available and the profit margins are higher. This way the disruptors compete with the higher cost incumbents in the industry. The price falls for the total market resulting in the fall of profit for the incumbent firm.

There are three key elements in this business model. Firstly, rate of improvement of the market which the customers can support or utilize, secondly, sustaining innovations, and lastly, disruptive innovations (Downes & Nunes, 2013). The pace of the technological progress almost always crosses the customers’ ability in any market to utilize it. Hence, companies that offer more advanced products for the up-market, will overshoot the demands for the lower end of market, who could utilize it in the future. In this gap, the disrupters enter the market, offering a good quality product at a lower price, meant for the lower-market and eventually satisfy the needs and wants of the more demanding customers of the up-market (Markides & Sosa, 2013)

The digital camera industry is one of the growing industries of the world. The size of the industry was estimated at US $21.64 billion in 2016 (Hexaresearch.com, 2017). The industry is growing on the basis of technological advancements, such as, high definition (HD) technology for better picture quality and touch screen facilities. The high level of automation in the DSLR cameras has contributed in the growing popularity of the digital cameras. Along with that, the decreasing prices and digitalized features also resulted in growing demands.

The global digital camera industry is being influenced by a wide range of revolutionary trends pertaining to highly powerful lenses, photo accessories and many more features. The technology has become highly advanced in a very small span of time, since the first digital camera was introduced by Kodak. The type of lens and features have incorporated many new technologies and the companies make three general type of cameras, such as, basic or amateur level, semi-pro level and pro level camera (Phelan, 2017). Almost all the DSLR companies offer these product ranges.

The most common type of digital cameras are compact digital cameras, mirror less interchangeable lens cameras, DSLR cameras, bridge cameras, line-scan cameras, waterproof cameras, and digital range finders. Over the past few years, the digital cameras have been experiencing an evolution in terms of functionality and features, like, picture quality, wide aperture, color selection, zoom, macro level photography, and many more (Shu, 2016). The growing popularity of the digital cameras can also be attributed to the rising income level of consumers, lifestyle and desire to capture the moments of life and knowledge about the features and worth of cameras. Rising trend of tourism, passion and hobby for photography, cinematography, magazine photography, and digital channel photography have been influencing the growing sales of the digital cameras. Along with that, the increasing trend of uploading the pictures in the social media platforms, such as, Facebook and Instagram, is another significant reason behind the increasing popularity of the digital cameras.

The digital camera market is segmented using different categories, such as, segmentation by product, end-users and regions. Product category segmentation includes built-in lens camera and interchangeable lens camera, that is, SLR and Non-reflex cameras. The end user segmentation is categorized under professional and personal users, and regional segmentation divides the market by regions, such as, markets in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Central and South America and Middle East and Africa (Kriebel, 2013). In 2016, built-in lens cameras accounted for almost 52.1% of the global revenue (Businesswire.com., 2017), which falls mostly under the category of personal level of cameras. Canon and Nikon are the market leaders in professional and personal level DSLR cameras, followed by Sony. The Asia-Pacific market dominated the 2016 market for digital cameras due to rising customer base.

The top three players in the DSLR market are Canon, Nikon and Sony. These companies offer DSLR at various prices with various features, suitable for everyone, from beginners and amateurs to the professionals. Canon EOS 5D Mk IV, Nikon D810, Nikon D750, Sony Alpha99 II are some of the best high quality professional DSLR cameras in the market, while Canon EOS 60D, Canon EOS 70D, Canon EOS 800D, Nikon D3300, Nikon D5200 and many more are some of the most popular basic level DSLR cameras for the beginners (Phelan, 2017).

The smartphone industry has been evolving very fast too. The first handheld phone was introduced by Motorola in 1973. Since then, the device has gone through revolutionary changes, especially since the latter half of 1990s. Over the years, the phone evolved from a device with keypad to a device with touch screen and internet facilities, from only back camera with VGA technology, with high definition front and back camera with powerful lenses. The new generation of smartphones was introduced by Steve Jobs by launching iPhone in 2007. Since then, the definition of mobile phone has changed drastically. It is not only a simple mobile phone anymore; rather it is a mini computer that is able to do multitasking (Chesher, 2012). Almost all the companies are providing high quality cameras in their smartphones that has increased convenience of photography to every smartphone user.

The top three global smartphone companies are Apple, Samsung, and HTC, followed by Huawei, Google Pixel, and Motorola (Villas-Boas, 2018). These companies offer numerous smartphone models with different features and different quality of cameras. The high-end models offer high level cameras, with excellent lens quality and different features, like, wide aperture, HD photo and videos, and variety of filters. These phones have contributed majorly in meeting the basic level needs for photography in everyday life. Some of the smartphones have such advanced cameras, such as, iPhone 6S, Google Pixel, Samsung Galaxy S9/S9 Plus, and OnePlus, that even professionals are using those for high level and advanced photography. The phones are providing cameras up to 16 megapixel with dual lenses and 4x optical zoom, which is almost similar to any basic level DSLR camera, at a much lower price than the DSLR.

The incorporation of high-end digital cameras in the smartphones is a disruptive innovation by the smartphone companies. Apart from the camera and lenses, the photo apps have enabled the users to access many features, such as, HDR photography, landscape photography, portrait photography, wide aperture, that were initially available to the DSLRs only (Sandbye & Larsen, 2013). The highly advanced features are now available at an affordable price, which has captured the consumers at the lower end of the DSLR market, who could not afford to buy a basic or a professional level DSLR. The smartphone companies were able to meet their demand and also managed to capture some of the up-market, which has thrown a challenge to the DSLR companies (Sarwar & Soomro, 2013).

This chapter illustrates the methodology of the research that has been used to conduct the research study on the challenges and threats posed by the disruptive innovations used by the smartphones to the DSLR camera industry. In this chapter, different aspects of the research methodology will be described. The vision and thought process of the researcher adopted while conducting the study will be illustrated below. Research methodology consists of research philosophy or paradigm, research approach, design, strategy, data collection process, sampling and data analysis process. It represents the basic structure of the research study and the techniques applied by the researcher to answer the research questions. The researcher has collected both the primary and secondary data and analyzed those to fulfill the research objectives and get to the conclusion from the research hypothesis.

Disruptive innovations have been one of the biggest things in the modern world. The technologies are being updated and innovated continuously which increases value proposition to the customers for any product, service or business. Hence, due to these digital disruptions, the customers are getting benefitted mostly as the industries are becoming more competitive and providing better quality products or services at a cheaper price. This also helps in increasing the revenues of the company implementing the disruptive interruptions while creates immense challenges for the existing companies following the traditional business models. The research study focused on the application of disruptive innovations and business models in the smartphone industry offering high-end phone cameras and its potential impact on the DSLR camera industry. As the smartphones are now integrating super powerful camera technologies at an affordable price, it is creating a disruptive innovation business model challenging the DSLR market. The researcher has explored different aspects of this topic in the study. The users of high-end smartphones were consulted for the survey and collecting the primary data, as it helped in getting an idea about the perception of people regarding the benefits and costs of the integration of the high-level cameras in the high-end smartphones and the usefulness of the DSLR cameras. Since, not everyone can afford to buy a DSLR camera, and some can have both the high-end smartphones and a DSLR camera, the population of the study was chosen accordingly, who have at least high-end smartphones.

The researcher has collected secondary data on previous literatures on different aspects of disruptive innovations, the impact of smartphone cameras, and the average growth of the DSLR market in the past few years. Other online publications were consulted to get information about the popularity of the DSLRs compared to that of the smartphones. This data was helpful in validating the results of the primary data analysis. Although there are many factors that can influence the business performance of the companies, and the purposes of the devices are completely different, yet the data was helpful in providing an insight about the popularity of the different devices for the camera technology.

The researcher has conducted a comprehensive literature review that explored and provided an outline about the disruptive innovations, business models on these innovations and their impacts, sustaining innovations, different type of disruptions, equipment and ability required for embracing new technologies, internal and external challenges during implementation of the new technologies. As stated by Creswell (2013), this helps in gaining perspectives about the research topic and the subject. Data collection was done accordingly and analyzed with the knowledge gained from the literature. With the findings, the researcher has proceeded in answering the research questions.

The method of a research is comprised of many stages and selecting the appropriate research paradigm is the first step. The paradigm of research refers to the beliefs and assumptions of the researcher to carry out the research. Based on the source and nature of the knowledge and information, research paradigm is chosen. Various types of research paradigm or philosophy are used in the research papers, such as, positivism, pragmatism, interpretivism and realism (Silverman, 2016). In positivism, the focus is on the scientific and quantitative research. It follows logical and scientific method to answer the research questions. Pragmatism allows for adopting mixed method of research, that is, application of both the qualitative and quantitative research. Under interpretivism, the observational and interpretation skills of the researcher are important and qualitative approach is applied. This is the opposite of positivism. Realism allows for independence of the reality from the human mind and making assumptions of a scientific study for developing knowledge (Ryan, 2018). In the given study, the researcher applied the pragmatism philosophy, as both qualitative and quantitative analysis processes were required to analyze the data to get the findings.

Research approach is the second stage of the research methodology. It enlightens the direction or line of the study that is chosen on the basis of the objectives. There are three types of research approach, namely, inductive, deductive and abductive. The researcher is required to generate new theories from the obtained data under inductive approach of research. It is manly associated with qualitative study. Deductive approach enables the researcher to examine the research hypothesis on the basis of already established theories. As stated by Flick (2015), the hypothesis testing under deductive approach is done with an emphasis on finding causality against the theories. This is majorly applied in the quantitative study, although can be applied in the qualitative study also. The third type is abductive research, in which a potential conclusion is chosen from a set of possible outcomes of the research phenomena (Bryman, 2015).

In the given paper, the researcher adopted deductive research approach. The research hypotheses, formulated in the introduction chapter, were examined using quantitative methods. The secondary data was examined against the findings of the quantitative study. The findings were tested against the theories on disruptive innovations and business models. However, neither any new theory was generated like in inductive research, nor any particular solution was chosen from a set of solutions like in abductive research.

Research strategy refers to the basic plan of the researcher about how to conduct the study to answer the research questions in the correct direction and in logical manner (Bryman, 2015). Different types of research strategies are: surveys, case studies, experiment, ethnography, action research, archival research and narrative inquiry (Neuman & Robson, 2014). The most commonly used strategies under deductive approach are case studies, experiments and surveys. In the following paper, the researcher adopted the case study and survey strategy. This helps in obtaining useful first hand information from the subjects (Robson & McCartan, 2016). For the study on disruptive technology adopted by the smartphone companies and the potential challenges that it creates for the DSLR companies, the researcher chose to study the business growth of top three DSLR making companies and top three high-end smartphone companies. Secondary data was collected from these six companies and primary data collected from random smartphone users. All these data were analyzed to reach to a logical conclusion on whether smartphones are a threat for the DSLR cameras.

According to Lewis (2015), research design is the systematic process that describes the structure to be followed to answer the research questions in the most appropriate, effective and logical manner. The design depends on the basis of the nature of the study and determines the course of the study. The fundamental research designs are exploratory, explanatory, descriptive and evaluation research. Exploratory research aims to explore a completely new aspect for the research topic without any preconceived notion of the researcher, while explanatory research helps to explain the research phenomenon on the basis of established ideas or theories (Ioannidis et al., 2014). Descriptive research is a narrative research and evaluation research is used to measure the effectiveness of a program (Smith, 2015). In the given study, the researcher adopted the explanatory research design as the paper highlighted the impact of disruptive technologies in smartphones on the DSLR market. Inferences about the findings are made on the basis of established theories on business models and their implications.

The basic style of research can be two types, qualitative and quantitative. Descriptive, correlational, experimental and quasi-experimental are types of quantitative research, while qualitative research is mainly exploratory in nature (Salazar, Crosby & DiClemente, 2015). However, both types can be applied in a single research study. Following the pragmatism research philosophy in the current study, the researcher applied mixed methodology, that is, both qualitative and quantitative method of research under explanatory research design. Observational and descriptive study styles were chosen to check that if the variables have any relationship or not.

Data collection is one of the major parts of any research study. The outcome is solely dependent on the data and therefore the validity and reliability of the data is highly important (Robson & McCartan, 2016). Primary and secondary are the two types of data that are considered in a research study. The data, which is collected directly from the field of study and the people, potentially associated with the research topic is known as primary data, while the data, which is collected from published sources, is known as the secondary data (Neuman & Robson, 2014). The primary data collection method involves survey questionnaire, feedback forms, interview questions, checklists, appraisal forms and suggestion forms. On the other hand, the secondary data is collected from authentic sources, such as, books, peer-reviewed journals, newspaper articles, government reports, online publications, official websites, and annual reports of companies. As stated by Reynolds et al. (2014), primary data is helpful in getting information about the perspectives of the research participants regarding the research topic while, secondary data is helpful in analyzing and validating the findings from the primary research.

According to the chosen research strategy for the study, the researcher collected both the primary and secondary data on the perspectives on high-end smartphones with advanced cameras and DSLR cameras, from both the consumers and organizations’ point of view. Primary data was collected through a survey on the consumers of high-end smartphones, such as, iPhone, Google Pixel and HTC. Some of the consumers also owned DSLR cameras, from Nikon, Canon and Sony. For the secondary data, the researcher explored the official websites of the companies and their annual reports, newspaper articles, peer-reviewed journals and online articles.

The survey questionnaire was the primary data collection instrument for this study. It was designed using easy and comprehensible language and in a simple format. There were total of 12 questions, among which first 4 focused on demographic questions and the rest emphasized on topic oriented perspectives. All the questions were close ended, as close ended questions help to narrow down the scope of answers and that is easier to use for quantitative calculations (Mertens, 2014). The answers for the topic oriented questions were collected on a five point rating scale, such as, Likert Scale, with answer options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

In a primary research, where primary data is collected from a population, sampling is essential. In any research, studying the entire population is not possible, especially if the population size is large. Hence, sampling is done using appropriate technique to draw out a small subset from the large population, which has the same features like the population. Two types of sampling are probability and non-probability sampling. As stated by Best & Kahn (2016), each sample has random and equal chance of being selected under probability sampling, while under non-probability sampling, each sample has no particular probability of selection and it is based on the subjective judgment of the researcher. The researcher applied simple random sampling to draw a sample of size 50 from the customers of Irma, the supermarket and grocery retail chain in Copenhagen, Denmark, with the assumption that all the people generally possess a smartphone in today’s world, and some will also possess DSLR cameras. Simple random sampling is beneficial to reduce the sampling fluctuations and biasness in the data.

Following the research philosophy and approach of the study, the researcher implemented both the qualitative and quantitative method of data analysis. Quantitative method was applied on the primary data and qualitative method was applied on the secondary data. Quantitative data analysis process helps in getting the results through statistical tests and the outcomes are more scientific and logical (Myers, 2013). On the other hand, qualitative analysis focuses more on the words than the numbers gathered. For primary data analysis, SPSS version 20 was used. The responses of the survey were collected in ME Excel and were converted into numeric values, with 1 denoting strongly disagree and 5 denoting strongly agree. Response rate analysis, cross tabulation and chi square tests were performed on the data to get the strength of relationship between the variables. Thematic analysis method under qualitative analysis process was chosen for this study. Different themes were designed as per the research objectives. The secondary data on the business growth of the international DSLR market were analyzed under different themes and the outcomes of primary data were compared with those.

	Month
Task	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Making a strategy
Making a framework
Literature review
Primary data collection
Conducting survey
Secondary data collection
Data analysis
Presenting the findings and discussion
Providing the conclusion
Thesis submission

Table 1: Timeline for research

(Source: Author)

This chapter illustrates the findings from the analysis of the data collected for the research purpose and interprets those. The researcher has collected both the primary and secondary data to find out the impact of disruptive innovation introduced by the high end smartphone companies on the DSLR market. Mixed methodology of research was applied on the study. The primary data was analyzed using quantitative method and the secondary data was analyzed using qualitative method. The survey questionnaire had two segments, the first 6 questions addressed the demographic data and the latter 6 questions focused on the topic oriented questions. All the 12 questions were close ended. The survey responses were converted into numeric values for statistical calculations. Cross tabulation and chi square test were performed to find out the goodness of fit of the observed values (Lame, 2014). Thematic analysis was applied on the secondary data to validate the findings from the primary data. The findings and the explanations are explained below.

Demographic data represents the socio-economic characteristics of a population (Triola, 2013). In the given study on the high-end smartphones and DSLR cameras, it is important to know if the participants own both of the devices or any one of them. The age group and income level of the respondents are also important to make inferences about the affordability of DSLR cameras and high-end smartphones and with that the knowledge of people can be estimated. It also considered the frequency of usage of smartphone cameras and DSLR cameras. These questions were aimed at gaining an idea about the age, preference, affordability of the respondents in terms of owning and using smart phones and DSLR cameras. The questions started with whether the participants owned high-end smartphones with good cameras as well as DSLR cameras. Eventually, it made progress to other aspects of the research topic.

Do you use high-end smartphones with a good camera
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Yes	34	68.0	68.0	68.0
No	16	32.0	32.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

The first question asked the participants if they use high-end smartphones with good camera. It can be seen from the response that 34 out of 50 participants use high end smartphone that has a good camera and 16 responded negative. However, it can be said that they might have good smartphone but camera is not good. All smartphones have some unique features. One brand or model focuses on good sound quality, whether another focuses on high level photography and hence, provide powerful camera. Hence, the 16 people with a negative answer can have a high-level smartphone but the camera might not deliver the expected quality of pictures.

Do you own and use DSLR cameras
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Yes	29	58.0	58.0	58.0
No	21	42.0	42.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

Table 3: Possession of DSLR camera

The second question was based on the fact that not everyone can have or buy a DSLR camera. It is seen from the responses that 29 respondents have a DSLR camera while 21 people do not have a DSLR camera. Hence, it is expected that 21 respondents will not have much idea about the technical specifications of the DSLR cameras.

Age group
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	18-25 years	8	16.0	16.0	16.0
26-35 years	18	36.0	36.0	52.0
36-45 years	11	22.0	22.0	74.0
46-55 years	8	16.0	16.0	90.0
56 years and above	5	10.0	10.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

Table 4: Age group of the participants

Regarding the age group the researcher created 5 age groups with 18 to 25 years, 26 to 35 years, 36 to 45 years, 46 to 55 years and 56 years and above. It is seen that majority of the respondents, that is, 18 people belong to the age group of 26 to 35 years, followed by 11 people belonging to 36 to 45 years. There were 8 people within the age group of 18 to 25 years as well as 46 to 55 years and only 5 respondents were above the age of 56 years. This is helpful in getting an idea about the demographics of the society and the age group of the people at which they got the access to smartphones and DSLR cameras. This throws light towards the technological progress of the society and its accessibility to people.

Income level (annually)
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Less than 200000	6	12.0	12.0	12.0
200000-500000	24	48.0	48.0	60.0
500000 and above	20	40.0	40.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

Table 5: Annual income level of participants

Regarding the income level of the participants, three income groups were made, namely annual income less than €200000 per annum; annual income between €200000 and €500000 per annum and income of €500000 and above. It is seen that majority of the respondents, that is, 24 people have income between €200000 and €500000. 20 people have income above €500000 and only 6 people have less than €200000 as an annual income. It can be considered that people within the age group of 18 to 25 years might earn lower income. It can also be inferred that people with a higher income are more likely to buy both the high-end smartphones and DSLR cameras, and people with a middle group income has a possibility of having a smartphone, as that has become a necessity, but DSLR is a luxury, which not everyone will prefer to buy or afford to buy.  

How frequently do you use your phone camera in a month
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Less than 10 times	18	36.0	36.0	36.0
10-15 times	18	36.0	36.0	72.0
16-20 times	9	18.0	18.0	90.0
Almost daily	5	10.0	10.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

Table 6: Frequency of using phone camera in a month

To know the frequent usage of the mobile phone camera in a month, the researcher asked how frequently the users use their smartphone cameras. It is seen that 18 people said that they use it for less than 10 times a month, and another 18 people answered that they use it 14 to 15 times. 9 people answered that they use the phone camera for 16 to 20 times in a month and 5 people said that they use it almost daily. Usage of smartphone camera considers the usage of both the front camera as well as the back camera. Hence, it can be inferred that the percentage of people for high and low usage of phone camera is almost equal. Tastes and preferences of people regarding photography or simply taking pictures in everyday life determine the usage of phone camera.

How frequently do you use your DSLR camera in a month
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	0-1 time	23	46.0	46.0	46.0
2-3 times	12	24.0	24.0	70.0
4-10 times	12	24.0	24.0	94.0
More than 10 times	3	6.0	6.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

Next the researcher asked the frequency of using DSLR camera in a month. On this question, 23 people answered that it is used for 0 to 1 time. Among these 23 people, 21 people did not own a DSLR camera so their usage is considered to be zero. Rest 2 respondents of that group said that they have DSLR cameras but use it for 0 to 1 time in a month. 12 people said that they use their DSLR camera for 2 to 3 times on an average in a month while another 12 said that they use it for 4 to 10 times on an average in a month. Only 3 people responded that they use it for more than 10 times in a month. These people can be considered as photographers or professionals.

Do you know how to operate all the features of your smartphone camera
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Disagree	12	24.0	24.0	24.0
Neutral	11	22.0	22.0	46.0
Agree	22	44.0	44.0	90.0
Strongly agree	5	10.0	10.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

Table 8: Knowledge about phone camera features and functions 

On the question of whether the participants knew all the features and functions of the smartphone cameras, majority, that is, 22 respondents agreed and 5 strongly agreed. However, 12 participants disagreed, 11 answered neutral and none strongly disagreed. It can be inferred that generally people tend to explore the phone camera features, while a less percentage do not feel interested to explore that.

Do you know the all the features of your DSLR camera
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly disagree	7	14.0	14.0	14.0
Disagree	16	32.0	32.0	46.0
Neutral	10	20.0	20.0	66.0
Agree	12	24.0	24.0	90.0
Strongly agree	5	10.0	10.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

Table 9: Knowledge on the features and functionalities of DSLR camera

Regarding the knowledge of the features and functionalities of the DSLR camera, 7 people strongly disagreed and 16 respondents disagreed. The people who do not own a DSLR camera also belong to this group along with some who own one. It can be said that, the 21 people who have no DSLR will not know about the features and hence, it is possible that they disagreed in this questions. Some of them also answered neutral and fall within the group of 10 people who answered neutral. It is seen that among the people, who did not own a DSLR, 7 strongly disagreed, 6 disagreed and 8 answered neutral (Refer to Appendix). Among the rest, 12 people agreed and 5 people strongly agreed. 

The last four questions have focused on people’s perception regarding the specific aspects of the research topic. The responses on these questions aim to address the people’s views on the smartphone cameras and if those can challenge the DSLR market. The pattern of the responses are beneficial to understand the tastes and preferences of the consumers as well as market pattern, which will be useful in choosing the variables for further analysis.

Do you feel your smartphone camera can be a replacement of the DSLR camera
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly disagree	7	14.0	14.0	14.0
Disagree	12	24.0	24.0	38.0
Neutral	16	32.0	32.0	70.0
Agree	13	26.0	26.0	96.0
Strongly agree	2	4.0	4.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

Table 10: Views on whether smartphone camera can be a replacement of the DSLR camera

Regarding the views on whether the smartphone camera can replace DSLR camera in future, it is seen that, 16 people answered neutral, 13 people agreed and 2 people strongly agreed, while 7 people strongly disagreed and 12 people disagreed. Thus, it can be said that people have a balanced opinion about the efficiency or effectiveness of smartphone camera to be a good replacement of the DSLR camera. DSLR cameras of different brands have many levels, starting from the beginners and amateur level to the professional levels, which are made for different purposes with different specifications. Hence, the smartphone cameras can replace the basic level DSLRs but the professional level cameras have highly advanced features that have not yet introduced in the smartphones. Thus, people have a mixed opinion about DSLR camera by smartphone camera.

Do you prefer to use smartphone camera than the DSLR for everyday purpose
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly disagree	1	2.0	2.0	2.0
Disagree	6	12.0	12.0	14.0
Neutral	11	22.0	22.0	36.0
Agree	23	46.0	46.0	82.0
Strongly agree	9	18.0	18.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

Table 11: Preference to use smartphone camera than the DSLR for everyday purpose

When the respondents were asked about their preference on using the smartphone cameras than the DSLRs for everyday purpose, 23 people agreed and 9 people strongly agreed that they prefer to use the smartphone cameras than the DSLRs for regular or unplanned needs, like hanging out with friends or family. 11 people answered neutral, 6 people disagreed and 1 people strongly disagreed to this. Thus, it can be inferred that people do not want to carry a big DSLR camera for everyday purpose unless they are professional photographers or have any planned purpose for photography.

For any good photography purpose, do you like to use your DSLR camera
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Disagree	5	10.0	10.0	10.0
Neutral	23	46.0	46.0	56.0
Agree	13	26.0	26.0	82.0
Strongly agree	9	18.0	18.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

Table 12: Preference for DSLR camera for any good or planned photography purpose

Regarding the question of using DSLR camera for any good or planned photography purpose such as travelling, any event or hobby, 23 people answered neutral, 13 agreed and 9 strongly agreed while 55 people disagreed. None of the participants strongly disagreed. It is also seen that 21 people who do not own a DSLR camera answered neutral for this question (Refer to Appendix).

Do you feel that high-end smartphone cameras can create challenges and threats to the DSLR market
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly disagree	4	8.0	8.0	8.0
Disagree	17	34.0	34.0	42.0
Neutral	12	24.0	24.0	66.0
Agree	14	28.0	28.0	94.0
Strongly agree	3	6.0	6.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0	100.0

Table 13: Views on if smartphones can create challenges and threats for DSLR market

On the question that they think that if smartphone cameras can create threats and challenges for the DSLR market, the participants have a mixed reaction. 17 people disagreed while 14 people agreed, 12 answered neutral, 3 people strongly agreed and 4 people strongly disagreed. It can be said, that although the smartphone cameras are getting advanced, the two devices have entirely different purposes. Considering that, the respondents have given mixed reaction.

Cross tabulation has been chosen for performing statistical analysis on highly diverse categorical data, obtained from the survey (Lame, 2014). Whether disruptive innovations adopted by the high-end smartphones can challenge the DSLR market, the researcher analyzed the perceptions of the respondents, among whom, some have both smartphone and DSLR camera, while some have only smartphones. For this reason, the researcher decided to apply cross tabulation and chi square tests to find out the significance of the relationship between the factors and to test the research hypotheses.

Different combinations of cross tabulation are shown below which focuses on people’s perception about the phones and their potentiality for challenging the DSLR market. 

Do you prefer to use smartphone camera than the DSLR for everyday purpose * Do you use high-end smartphones with a good camera Crosstab
Count
	Do you use high-end smartphones with a good camera	Total
Yes	No
Do you prefer to use smartphone camera than the DSLR for everyday purpose	Strongly disagree	0	1	1
Disagree	4	2	6
Neutral	6	5	11
Agree	16	7	23
Strongly agree	8	1	9
Total	34	16	50

References 

Amazon.com. (2018). Canon EOS 5D Mark III 22.3 MP Full Frame CMOS. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Frame-Full-HD-Digital-Camera/dp/B00SMNZ0P2

Avital, M., Andersson, M., Nickerson, J., Sundararajan, A., Alstyne, M. V., & Verhoeven, D. (2014). The Collaborative Economy: A Disruptive Innovation or Much Ado about Nothing?.

Baiyere, A., & Salmela, H. (2013). disruptive innovation & information technology-charting a path. In 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) (pp. 1-11). RMIT University.

Bergek, A., Berggren, C., Magnusson, T., & Hobday, M. (2013). Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?. Research Policy, 42(6-7), 1210-1224.

Berry, M., & Schleser, M. (Eds.). (2014). Mobile media making in an age of smartphones. Springer.

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2016). Research in education. Pearson Education India.

Bestbuy.com. (2018). Nikon D810 DSLR Camera (Body Only) Black. Retrieved from https://www.bestbuy.com/site/nikon-d810-dslr-camera-body-only-black/7521025.p?skuId=7521025

Bloem, J., Van Doorn, M., Duivestein, S., Excoffier, D., Maas, R., & Van Ommeren, E. (2014). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Things to Tighten the Link Between IT and OT.

Börjesson, S., Elmquist, M., & Hooge, S. (2014). The challenges of innovation capability building: Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 31, 120-140.

Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Businesswire.com. (2017). Global Digital Camera Market Report 2017: Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecasts 2016-2022 – Research and Markets. Retrieved from https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180104005721/en/Global-Digital-Camera-Market-Report-2017-Industry

Chattopadhyay, A., Batra, R., & Ozsomer, A. (2012). The new emerging market multinationals: Four strategies for disrupting markets and building brands. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chesher, C. (2012). Between image and information: The iPhone camera in the history of photography. In Studying mobile media (pp. 106-125). Routledge.

Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.

Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2016). What is disruptive Innovation. The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2.

Christensen, C., & Raynor, M. (2013). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business Review Press.

?iutien?, R., & Thattakath, E. W. (2014). Influence of dynamic capabilities in creating disruptive innovation. Economics and Business, 26, 15-21.

cnet.com. (2018). iPhone 7 Plus ups photo ante with 2 rear cameras (hands-on). Retrieved from https://www.cnet.com/products/apple-iphone-7-plus/preview/

Cortez, N. (2014). Regulating disruptive innovation. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 175-228.

Cramer, J., & Krueger, A. B. (2016). Disruptive change in the taxi business: The case of Uber. American Economic Review, 106(5), 177-82.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Curley, N. (2015). Why companies should embrace disruption. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/why-companies-should-embrace-disruption/

Downes, L., & Nunes, P. (2013). Big bang disruption.

Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2014). Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT sloan management review, 55(2), 1.

Flavin, M. (2012). Disruptive technologies in higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 20(sup1), 19184.

Flick, U., (2015). Introducing research methodology: A beginner’s guide to doing a research project. Sage.

Fontaine, R. (2013, June). Innovative technology elements for large and small pixel CIS devices. In 2013 International Image Sensor Workshop (IISW), IISS.

Gershon, R. A. (2013). A case study analysis of Eastman Kodak and Blockbuster Inc. Media Management and Economics Research in a Transmedia Environment, Routledge, New York, NY, 46-68.

Gomez-Uribe, C. A., & Hunt, N. (2016). The netflix recommender system: Algorithms, business value, and innovation. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), 6(4), 13.

Guttentag, D. (2015). Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector. Current issues in Tourism, 18(12), 1192-1217.

Handfield, R., Straube, F., Pfohl, H. C., & Wieland, A. (2013). Embracing global logistics complexity to drive market advantage. DVV Media Group GmbH, BVL International.

Hershberger, A. E., & Hershberger, A. E. (Eds.). (2014). Photographic Theory: An Historical Anthology. Wiley-Blackwell.

Hexaresearch.com. (2017). Global Digital Camera Market Size, Share, Growth, Analysis, 2014-2025. Retrieved from https://www.hexaresearch.com/research-report/digital-camera-market

Hirsch, R. (2017). Seizing the Light: A Social & Aesthetic History of Photography. Taylor & Francis.

Interaction-design.org. (2018). Disruptive Innovation by Clayton M. Christensen. Retrieved from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/disruptive-innovation

Ioannidis, J. P., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., … & Tibshirani, R. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet, 383(9912), 166-175.

Isaac, E. (2014). Disruptive innovation: Risk-shifting and precarity in the age of Uber. Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy,[University of California, Berkeley].

Islam, N., & Want, R. (2014). Smartphones: Past, present, and future. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 13(4), 89-92.

Jeston, J. (2014). Business process management. Routledge.

Jobber, D., & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2012). Principles and practice of marketing (No. 7th). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Kaplan, S. (2012). Leading disruptive innovation. Ivey Business Journal, 76(4), 1-4.

Katyal, N. (2013). Disruptive Technologies and the Law. Geo. LJ, 102, 1685.

Kelly, D., Vatsa, A., Mayham, W., Ngô, L., Thompson, A., & Kazic, T. (2016). An opinion on imaging challenges in phenotyping field crops. Machine Vision and Applications, 27(5), 681-694.

King, A. A., & Baatartogtokh, B. (2015). How useful is the theory of disruptive innovation?. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(1), 77.

Kriebel, S. T. (2013). Theories of photography: A short history. In Photography theory (pp. 13-60). Routledge.

Lane, D. M. (2014). Introduction to statistics.

Lepore, J. (2014). The disruption machine. The New Yorker, 23, 30-6.

Lewis, S. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Health promotion practice, 16(4), 473-475.

Mackenzie, I., & DeCusatis, C. (2013). Sustaining innovation when outsourcing components in multi-technology, multi-component systems. Innovation, 15(1), 2-16.

Markides, C., & Sosa, L. (2013). Pioneering and first mover advantages: the importance of business models. Long Range Planning, 46(4-5), 325-334.

McDaniel, C., & Gates, R. (2013). Marketing research. Singapore.

Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage publications.

Moe, N. B., Barney, S., Aurum, A., Khurum, M., Wohlin, C., Barney, H. T., … & Winata, M. (2012, June). Fostering and sustaining innovation in a fast growing agile company. In International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement (pp. 160-174). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Myers, M. D. (2013). Qualitative research in business and management. Sage.

Neuman, W.L. & Robson, K., (2014). Basics of social research. Pearson Canada.

Ng, W., & Cumming, T. M. (2015). Sustaining innovation in learning with mobile devices: Key challenges. In Sustaining Mobile Learning (pp. 27-51). Routledge.

Ohlsson, J., Händel, P., Han, S., & Welch, R. (2015). Process innovation with disruptive technology in auto insurance: Lessons learned from a smartphone-based insurance telematics initiative. In BPM-Driving Innovation in a Digital World (pp. 85-101). Springer, Cham.

Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change: the cognitive antecedents of firm?level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 58-78.

Petrick, I. J., & Martinelli, R. (2012). Driving disruptive innovation: problem finding and strategy setting in an uncertain world. Research-technology management, 55(6), 49-57.

Phelan, D. (2017). 8 best DSLR cameras. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/gadgets-tech/cameras-accessories/best-dslr-camera-for-video-under-400-beginners-canon-nikon-sony-reviews-10419270.html

Reynolds, D., Creemers, B., Nesselrodt, P.S., Shaffer, E.C., Stringfield, S. & Teddlie, C. eds., (2014). Advances in school effectiveness research and practice. Elsevier.

Ryan, G. (2018). Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory. Nurse researcher, 25(4), 14-20.

Salazar, L. F., Crosby, R. A., & DiClemente, R. J. (2015). Research methods in health promotion. John Wiley & Sons.

Sandbye, M., & Larsen, J. (Eds.). (2013). Digital snaps: The new face of photography (Vol. 7). IB Tauris.

Sarwar, M., & Soomro, T. R. (2013). Impact of Smartphone’s on Society. European journal of scientific research, 98(2), 216-226.

Sheppard, J. (2017). Business Disruption: Technological Advancements and Their Appeal to Consumer Preferences.

Shu, L. (2016). How digital photography reinvented itself to become better than ever. Retrieved from https://www.digitaltrends.com/features/dt10-how-digital-photography-reinvented-itself/

Silverman, D. ed., (2016). Qualitative research. Sage.

Smith, J. A. (Ed.). (2015). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Sage.

Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Ricart, J. E. (2014). Business model innovation–state of the art and future challenges for the field. R&d Management, 44(3), 237-247.

Tallon, S. (2016). A pocket camera with many eyes. IEEE Spectrum, 53(11), 34-40.

Triola, M. F. (2013). Elementary statistics using Excel. Pearson.

Villas-Boas, A. (2018). The 20 best smartphones in the world. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-best-smartphones-in-the-world-2018-1

Want, R., & Schilit, B. N. (2012). Interactive digital signage. Computer, 45(5), 21-24.

Weforum.org. (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution, by Klaus Schwab. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/about/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab

Wessel, M., & Christensen, C. M. (2012). Surviving disruption. Harvard Business Review, 90(12), 56-64.