On the second, I don’t think Christensen’s discussions on disruptive innovation necessarily rely on a choice of technology-driven innovation over customer-driven innovation. Rather, Christensen advises on investment strategy, organizational structure, values, operational process, etc., to allow innovation, whether customer or technology driven. Technology still requires a customer application, and customer problems may require technology solutions. I’m simply raising the question of whether a preferred place to start exists and whether it varies by company or industry stage of development.

If you’re referring to the first point, the challenge is balancing process and rigor against innovation. (I think we’ve had this debate before now). Semantically, I’d argue that implementation of Christensen’s recommendations in and of itself constitutes a form of “process” and “rigor.” That process might be “give innovators appropriate resourcing and freedom and get out of the way” and the rigor might be “no goals for now.” Again, the challenge is how much and when.

Ultimately, only a company’s performance over time are evidence of how well it innovates and executes. Intuit’s results will speak for themselves.