Information Systems Integration – Tony Messina

Modern Prosthetics revolutionary or disruptive?

In class, we talked about disruptive technology and how a something can be “revolutionary” rather than disruptive. Prostheses have been around for a long time however in the past they were merely just imitations of missing body parts. These imitations did not function as your regular body parts and did not enable the wielder to operate like they once did. Modern prosthetic devices are lightweight and strong. They are made from newer materials such as advanced plastics and carbon fiber. The materials allow the prosthetics to be more controllable with functions such as gripping and walking. Newer prostheses are even enabling bionic movements with motors and sensors. However, is this technology only revolutionary or disruptive? Since most prostheses are covered by insurance, would people more likely to opt into bionic prostheses and eventually make it a norm?

2 Responses to Modern Prosthetics revolutionary or disruptive?

  • I wouldn’t classify modern prosthetics as disruption because it doesn’t qualify for low-end or new-market disruption. New prosthetics are better quality than old ones, so they wouldn’t tie into low-end disruption. On the other hand, the creators of modern prosthetics are also not changing the market of people who require prosthetics either, so they wouldn’t classify as new-market disruption. Instead, I would think modern prosthetics to align most with sustaining innovation because its creators are taking old prosthetics from established markets and increasing quality and capability.

  • I agree with Adriana in that it is not disruptive. The new technology involved in prosthetics is revolutionizing the industry and I do believe that bionic movements with sensors and motors will be the new norm at some point but only once insurance companies begin to cover their use on a regular basis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *