Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are often presented as one of the technologies most likely to transform the transportation industry. Their potential to integrate multiple transportation modes—including rail, buses, cycling, walking and shared mobility—could contribute to the development of genuinely smart and connected transport systems (Lim & Taeihagh, 2019). Yet an important theoretical question remains: Are autonomous vehicles truly a disruptive innovation, or are they better understood as a revolutionary innovation?
The distinction matters because the terms disruptive, revolutionary, radical and incremental innovation are frequently used interchangeably, despite describing different patterns of technological and market change. Applying established innovation theories and lessons from industries such as computing, telecommunications, healthcare, photography and transportation provides a more nuanced way of understanding the potential impact of AVs.
Understanding Innovation: From Incremental to Revolutionary Change
Innovation does not occur in a single form. It can be understood as a continuum ranging from evolutionary or incremental innovation to revolutionary or radical innovation (Christensen, 1997; Hill & Jones, 1998; Tidd et al., 1997; Trott, 1998; Veryzer, 1998).
Incremental innovation involves improvements to existing products, services or processes. The basic technology and market structure remain relatively stable, while firms seek to improve performance, reduce costs or respond to changing customer expectations. Examples include improvements in fuel efficiency, smartphone cameras, aircraft engines and conventional vehicle safety systems.
Revolutionary innovation, by contrast, involves a substantial technological or conceptual departure from existing solutions. Such innovations may create entirely new products, services or technological capabilities. Tushman and Anderson’s work on technological change, cited by Thomond and Lettice (2002), associates radical technological change with major shifts in technological trajectories.
The distinction can therefore be expressed simply: Incremental innovation improves an existing system; revolutionary innovation can fundamentally change the technological basis of that system. However, revolutionary innovation and disruptive innovation are not synonymous.
What Is Disruptive Innovation?
The concept of disruptive innovation is most closely associated with Clayton Christensen (1997). Christensen’s theory focuses not simply on whether a technology is technologically revolutionary, but on how it enters and transforms a market.
In the classical disruptive innovation model, an entrant initially targets customers who are underserved by established companies. The new product may offer lower performance on dimensions valued by mainstream customers, but it provides other advantages such as affordability, convenience, simplicity or accessibility.
Over time, the entrant improves its offering and moves toward the mainstream market. Established firms can consequently face competitive pressure from an innovation that they initially considered unattractive or insignificant. This creates an important distinction: A revolutionary innovation is defined primarily by the magnitude or nature of technological change, whereas disruptive innovation describes a particular pattern of market entry and competitive transformation. Consequently, a technologically sophisticated invention is not automatically a disruptive innovation.
The Difference Between Radical and Disruptive Innovation
Consider the difference through examples. The development of the jet engine represented a major technological transformation in aviation. However, describing every jet-engine development as disruptive innovation would be misleading. The technology initially operated within an established aviation industry and did not necessarily follow the low-end or new-market trajectory associated with Christensen’s original theory.
Similarly, the development of the smartphone involved major technological integration. Smartphones combined computing, telecommunications, cameras, navigation, internet connectivity and numerous other functions. Their emergence radically changed how consumers interacted with digital technology.
Yet the smartphone story also illustrates why technological radicalness and disruption should be separated. Different firms and products followed different competitive trajectories. Some innovations created new markets, while others displaced existing products such as standalone cameras, GPS devices and MP3 players.
Thus, the technological novelty of an innovation and its disruptive effect on incumbents are analytically distinct questions.
Why Autonomous Vehicles Appear Revolutionary
Autonomous vehicles possess several characteristics associated with revolutionary innovation.
Traditional automobiles require a human driver to perform essential tasks such as perception, decision-making and vehicle control. AVs seek to automate some or all of these functions through combinations of artificial intelligence, sensors, high-definition mapping, connectivity, computing and automated control systems.
This potentially changes the automobile from a product that primarily provides privately controlled mobility into a component of an automated mobility system. The implications extend beyond the vehicle itself. AVs could interact with:
- public transport networks;
- rail systems;
- buses;
- cycling infrastructure;
- pedestrian networks;
- ride-sharing services;
- logistics systems;
- intelligent traffic management;
- smart-city infrastructure; and
- mobility-as-a-service platforms.
Lim and Taeihagh (2019), for example, emphasize the potential relationship between AVs and broader smart transportation systems. This systems-level character strengthens the argument that AVs represent revolutionary technological innovation rather than merely another incremental improvement to automobiles.
But Technological Sophistication Does Not Make AVs Disruptive
The strongest argument against classifying AVs as disruptive innovation comes from Christensen’s original framework.
A central feature of classical disruptive innovation is that the entrant initially offers a relatively simple or lower-performance solution to customers who are overlooked by established firms. The product subsequently improves and moves upward into mainstream markets. AVs do not obviously fit this trajectory. Autonomous driving systems require sophisticated combinations of sensors, artificial intelligence, computing power, software, connectivity and vehicle technology. Development and deployment can require substantial capital investment, testing and regulatory approval. Rather than initially providing a simpler, cheaper and lower-performance alternative to mainstream transportation, AV technology has generally been associated with high technological complexity. This creates a theoretical problem. If an innovation enters the market as a technologically advanced and expensive solution aimed at demanding customers, it does not neatly correspond to Christensen’s original low-end disruption model. Therefore, simply observing that AVs could transform the automobile industry is insufficient to establish that they constitute disruptive innovation.
Lessons from the Personal Computer Industry
The history of computing provides a useful illustration of disruption. Early computers were large, expensive and primarily accessible to governments, universities and large organizations. The emergence of personal computers changed the economics and accessibility of computing by bringing computational capability to a much broader group of users. Later developments—including laptops, smartphones and cloud computing—further altered the industry. The important point is not merely that these technologies were technically innovative. Their significance also came from changes in customer segments, business models, accessibility and industry structure. For AVs to demonstrate a comparable disruptive trajectory, researchers would need to identify an underserved or previously excluded transportation market that autonomous mobility can serve more effectively than incumbent transportation providers.
The Photography Industry: A More Complex Example
Digital photography provides another important example. Traditional film photography involved physical film, chemical processing and established distribution networks. Digital cameras changed the technological foundation of image capture and storage. Eventually, smartphones incorporated increasingly sophisticated cameras and made digital photography ubiquitous. The competitive consequences were enormous for traditional film businesses.
However, the history also demonstrates that technological disruption is often a process rather than a single event. A new technology can coexist with an established technology for years before changes in costs, consumer preferences, complementary infrastructure and business models produce major market consequences. The same principle may apply to AVs. Autonomous vehicles may currently coexist with conventional vehicles and public transportation. Their eventual market effect will depend not only on technological capability but also on regulation, cost, consumer acceptance, infrastructure and business models.
The Telecommunications Industry
The telecommunications sector further demonstrates the difference between revolutionary and disruptive innovation.
Mobile phones represented a significant technological shift from fixed-line communication. Later, smartphones transformed mobile phones into multifunctional computing platforms.
The important competitive changes were not caused simply by improved technology. New entrants and business models altered how consumers accessed communication, information and digital services.
For AVs, a similar transformation could occur if autonomous mobility becomes integrated with digital platforms and mobility services. For example, transportation could increasingly be purchased as a service rather than through individual vehicle ownership. Under such circumstances, the potentially disruptive element might not be autonomous driving technology itself, but the business models and transportation ecosystems that emerge around it.
AVs and Mobility-as-a-Service
This distinction is particularly important when autonomous vehicles are considered alongside Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS). Instead of treating transportation as a collection of independently operated modes, MaaS seeks to integrate different forms of mobility into a coordinated system. An individual could potentially combine: walking → autonomous shuttle → rail → autonomous taxi → cycling within a single journey. In this scenario, AVs become one component of a broader mobility ecosystem. The disruptive potential would therefore depend on whether this ecosystem changes how transportation is produced, accessed and consumed. If consumers increasingly purchase mobility rather than automobiles, traditional automobile manufacturers, dealerships, taxi operators, parking providers and other established businesses could face changes to their existing business models. This is different from saying that the AV itself is inherently disruptive.
The Automobile Industry: Incremental Innovation Before Autonomous Driving
The automobile industry already provides numerous examples of incremental innovation. Manufacturers have continuously improved:
- fuel efficiency;
- braking systems;
- airbags;
- navigation systems;
- driver-assistance technologies;
- infotainment;
- electric powertrains; and
- vehicle connectivity.
Advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), for example, can be understood as part of an evolutionary trajectory toward greater vehicle automation. Autonomous driving could therefore be viewed as the culmination of a long sequence of incremental improvements combined with a potentially radical technological transition. This demonstrates an important point: an innovation can contain both incremental and revolutionary elements.
Electric Vehicles Provide a Useful Comparison
Electric vehicles (EVs) offer another useful comparison. Electrification represents a significant technological shift in vehicle propulsion. However, EVs still perform the fundamental transportation function of moving people or goods from one location to another. In many respects, an EV remains a vehicle purchased, owned, operated and maintained within an established automobile market. Autonomous vehicles potentially go further because they could change the role of the driver, the ownership model and the organization of transportation services. For example, an autonomous vehicle operating within a shared fleet could potentially provide mobility without requiring individual ownership.
Consequently, electrification and automation represent different dimensions of transportation innovation. They should not automatically be classified using the same innovation category.
Could AVs Become Disruptive?
Although AVs may not fit neatly into the original definition of disruptive innovation today, this does not mean that they can never produce disruptive outcomes. The classification could change depending on how autonomous mobility enters the market. Imagine two possible trajectories.
Trajectory 1: Premium technological innovation
AV technology initially appears in expensive vehicles marketed to affluent consumers. Established automobile manufacturers develop increasingly sophisticated autonomous systems and integrate them into existing products. Under this trajectory, AVs look more like revolutionary or radical innovation within the existing automobile industry.
Trajectory 2: New-market mobility
Autonomous shuttles and shared vehicles provide affordable transportation to communities poorly served by conventional public transport. Their performance may initially be limited, but they offer greater accessibility and convenience. Over time, the technology improves and expands into mainstream transportation. This trajectory has characteristics more consistent with disruptive innovation. The distinction therefore depends less on the label attached to AV technology and more on its market trajectory.
A Broader Innovation Framework for Autonomous Vehicles
A useful way to conceptualize AV innovation is to examine four dimensions:
| Dimension | Key question for AVs |
| Technological change | How fundamentally does automation change vehicle technology? |
| Customer segment | Does AV mobility initially target mainstream or underserved users? |
| Business model | Does it preserve vehicle ownership or create new mobility services? |
| Industry structure | Does it strengthen existing firms or create new competitors and ecosystems? |
This framework illustrates why the question cannot be answered simply by observing that AVs are technologically advanced. A genuinely disruptive trajectory would require evidence of changes in market access, customer segments, business models and competitive structures, not merely evidence of technological sophistication.
Regulatory Barriers and the Innovation Trajectory
Regulation is another important factor. Autonomous vehicles operate in a safety-critical environment. Governments must address questions concerning testing, liability, cybersecurity, data, insurance, road infrastructure and human-machine interaction. Consequently, technological development alone does not determine market adoption. This differentiates AVs from some digital innovations that can be introduced relatively quickly through consumer markets. Autonomous vehicles must operate within physical infrastructure and regulatory systems. The result is that AV innovation is simultaneously a technological, institutional and infrastructural transformation.
Are Autonomous Vehicles Revolutionary, Disruptive or Both?
The most defensible interpretation is that autonomous vehicles should not automatically be classified as disruptive innovation simply because they have the potential to transform transportation.
Under Christensen’s original conception, disruption is fundamentally about a particular competitive process: an entrant initially serving overlooked or underserved customers, often with a product that performs differently from mainstream alternatives, followed by improvement and movement toward the mainstream. AVs, at least in their technologically sophisticated form, do not inherently follow this pattern. They can instead be characterized as radical or revolutionary technological innovation, particularly because they introduce a fundamentally different approach to vehicle operation and potentially reshape the wider transportation ecosystem.
However, the eventual deployment of AVs could generate disruptive innovation if autonomous mobility services enter through underserved markets, develop new business models and progressively challenge incumbent transportation providers.
The distinction can therefore be summarized as follows: AV technology may be revolutionary by nature, while particular AV business models or applications may become disruptive through their market trajectory. This distinction avoids treating revolutionary and disruptive as interchangeable concepts.
Conclusion
Autonomous vehicles represent a significant technological development with the potential to transform transportation systems. Their ability to connect with rail, buses, cycling, walking and other modes could contribute to integrated smart mobility systems (Lim & Taeihagh, 2019). Nevertheless, technological radicalness does not by itself establish disruptive innovation. Christensen’s theory requires attention to the direction and mechanism of market disruption, particularly the role of underserved customers, initially lower-performance offerings and subsequent movement toward mainstream markets. By contrast, revolutionary innovation is primarily concerned with the magnitude of technological change. Viewed through this distinction, AVs currently have stronger characteristics of revolutionary or radical innovation than of classical disruptive innovation. Yet this classification is not necessarily permanent. If autonomous mobility develops through underserved markets, new customer segments, shared mobility and innovative business models, particular AV applications could subsequently follow a disruptive trajectory.
The future of autonomous vehicles should therefore be examined not only through the question “How advanced is the technology?”, but also through the more important strategic questions: Who adopts it first? Which customers does it serve? What business models does it enable? And how does it change the competitive structure of transportation? Those questions provide a stronger theoretical basis for determining whether AVs ultimately become a revolutionary technology, a disruptive innovation, or a combination of both.
References
Christensen, C.M. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C.M. (2002) ‘The rules of innovation’, Technology Review, 105(2), pp. 33–38.
Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E. and McDonald, R. (2015) ‘What is disruptive innovation?’, Harvard Business Review, 93(12), pp. 44–53.
Hill, C.W.L. and Jones, G.R. (1998) Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach. 4th edn. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Lim, H.S.M. and Taeihagh, A. (2019) ‘Autonomous vehicles for smart and sustainable cities: An in-depth exploration of privacy and cybersecurity implications’, Energies, 12(8), 1464.
Thomond, P. and Lettice, F. (2002) ‘Disruptive innovation explored’, in Proceedings of the 9th International Product Development Management Conference. Sophia Antipolis, France.
Thomond, P., Herzberg, T. and Lettice, F. (2003) ‘Disruptive innovation: Removing the innovator’s dilemma’, in Proceedings of the 10th International Product Development Management Conference. Brussels, Belgium.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (1997) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Trott, P. (1998) ‘Innovation management and new product development’, Financial Times Management.
Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P. (1986) ‘Technological discontinuities and organizational environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), pp. 439–465.
Veryzer, R.W. (1998) ‘Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), pp. 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1540304.
Veryzer, R.W. (1998) ‘Key factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new products’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), pp. 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1520136.