EXAMPLES Anyone can be the creator of Disruptive Innovation, but only a few do. To prove that ANYONE can create Disruptive Innovation in any field, here are three examples; one from a big Global company and two from small agro-related companies where I am involved. EXAMPLE 1 - Computers Old: Mainframe computers – cost $ millions and are complicated, suitable to use by a few rich and specialized organizations. Disruptive: Laptop computers – cost $ hundreds, are easy to use and are suitable to use by many people. EXAMPLE 2 – Agriculture; Crop protection (e.g., for fruit flies) Old 1: Sterile Insect Technique, SIT – Expensive, complicated, unavailable, and inaccessible by many, only partially suitable for the few rich or well-financed organizations or countries. Key points: * Development time and cost per “new” pest - decades and tens/hundreds of $ millions, with complicated/costly infrastructure (production factory, etc.). * Maintenance - requires a weekly complicated and costly application and daily operation of the sterile flies’ factory. * Limitations – not so effective in low/high temperatures and rainy conditions. Unsuitable for small-scale orchards or where the pest population is high (which is the typical case). * Effectiveness – after +70 years in use, SIT is still unavailable for most fruit flies, with low efficacy for the few available. Ineffective in the presence of more than one fruit fly species. Not a stand-alone solution. * Farmers' income increase/decrease – unchanged for decades. Old 2: Pesticide sprays – costly, dangerous, using poisonous chemicals, complicated application, ineffective for many fruit flies, and mainly used by well-financed professional farmers (3%). Key points: * Development time and cost per “new” pest - decades and hundreds of $ millions. * Maintenance - Requires a weekly (or more) application using costly and complicated machinery, i.e., tractors, sprayers, and water. * Limitations – ineffective in low/high temperatures, windy and rainy conditions, tall trees, and many limitations due to being poisonous, which makes it unsuitable for area-wide pest management. * Effectiveness – after +100 years, sprays are still ineffective for most fruit flies of economic importance. Not a stand-alone solution. * Farmers' income increase/decrease – unchanged for decades. > While using Old 1 and Old 2 crop protection approaches, suitable for a few wealthy professional farmers (about 3%), most small-hold farmers experience – (a) A high level of yield loss, including by the #1 fruit fly pest, Bactrocera dorsalis (30%-80%). (b) A need for post-harvest treatment before export. (c) Enormous export challenges due to infestation and chemical residues. (d) Farmers' income is not rising as they suffer persistent poverty. ** Developed economies suffer too from high infestation (i.e., over 5%) when encountering most fruit flies, for example - Bactrocera oleae (in Europe) Bactrocera dorsalis (USA) Bactrocera tryoni (Australia) Disruptive Innovation: Biofeed's GCFR technology (the Freedome solution) – Broadly accessible, available, and inexpensive for organizations/countries wishing to develop a new pest control solution for farmers. Key points: * Development time and cost per “new” pest –1% to 5% versus Old 1 and Old 2. * Maintenance – zero maintenance. No need for infrastructure, machinery, and skilled personnel. * Limitations – effective at various agriculture climate environments; high/low temperatures, rainy, humid, dry, windy. Suitable for low/high plants. Pest-specific (harmless to humans/non-target), has zero chemical residues, unlimited by proximity to people/settlements, and is suitable for small and large-scale pest management projects. * Effectiveness – reduce infestation by 90% - 99.9% versus Old 1 and Old 2, effectively control multiple species, typically a stand-alone solution in 99% of cases (i.e., making sprays redundant). * Farmers' income increase/decrease – typically by over 50% in the first year. Bonus: At the end of the column is a fruit fly management comparison table of system approach solutions for mango growers. The Biofeed system is an integral part of the Dream Valley business model.
EXAMPLE 3 – Agriculture, Fresh Produce Value & Supply Chains, FPVSC (e.g., Mangos for export from developing economies) Old value chain: Input providers, financing institutions (banks), traders, service providers (logistics, packing, etc.), exporters, importers, and supermarket chains. Key points: * The number of links in the Old value chain – long, with many loosely coupled parties/links. * Long FPVSC - increases inefficiency, creates negative added value due to increased cost of technology/service by each chain-link. * Supply and value chains are fragmented with an inherent conflict of interest. * The ecosystem is fragmented, fluid, and unstructured. * Easiness level for farmers to deal with the FPVSC - not easy at all. * Small hold farmers’ access and availability of state-of-the-art technologies and services – none! * The internal motivation of the Old value chain – to sell as much as possible technologies and services at the highest possible price while reducing financial exposure (in conflict with farmers' interest in buying at a low cost). * Alignment of business interests with farmers – low (inherent conflict of interests). * Inputs provider income – paid up-front before delivering the inputs. * Exposure to farmers’ negative business results – low to not existing. * Need for trust building - low. * Long-term interest in small-hold farmers’ success – low. * Creating and adding value and differentiation – little; mostly price-oriented. * Ability to reach global premium markets – low. * Contribution to the national export increase – little, if any. * Contribution to small-hold farmers’ income increase – small-hold farmers' income decreased by 50% in the past ten years. * The business model used - payment per technology or service provided. Not a novel model. * The enabling or innovative technology – none. Disruptive Innovation: Dream Valley – End to End (E2E), dedicated complete value-supply chain for small-hold farmers. The E2E FPVSC starts with supplying farmers’ inputs and then marketing their produce to end-buyers, e.g., supermarkets. | 
