One Must-Read Article

Scoring the Disruptive Dozen

In 2013, McKinsey named twelve technologies that would reshape the economy by 2025. That year has passed—time to grade the forecast.

I have written about McKinsey’s disruptive technologies report before, and it remains one of the most-read pieces I have ever published. So let me do something I could not do the first time around. Back in 2013, the McKinsey Global Institute named 12 technologies it believed would transform the economy by 2025, with a combined potential impact of between $14 trillion and $33 trillion per year. That target year has come and gone. We are no longer guessing about their forecast. We can grade it.

So here is the report card — each of the twelve marked hit, slow burn, or miss — followed by the one thing that matters more than any single grade.

The Hits

Mobile internet — Hit. They called this the single most disruptive technology on the list, and they were right. The smartphone reorganized commerce, media, and daily life more completely than almost anyone in 2013 fully priced in. If you want a lesson in trusting a strong signal, this is it: the obvious call was also the correct one.

Cloud technology — Hit. Quietly, this may be the most load-bearing entry of them all. Nearly every company your size now runs on infrastructure it does not own, and the shift became so complete that we stopped noticing it. The best disruptions end up invisible.

Internet of Things — Hit, with an asterisk. Sensors and connected devices did proliferate across industry and logistics exactly as predicted. The asterisk is that the consumer version never became the world-changing story; the real impact hid inside supply chains and factories where customers never see it.

Energy storage — Hit, and the sleeper. This one outran its own billing. Battery costs fell faster than the report dared assume, and storage quietly became the hinge the entire energy transition now turns on. When someone tells you a forecast was too optimistic, remember that the errors run both ways.

The Slow Burns

Advanced robotics — Slow burn. Real, and advancing, but nowhere near the timeline the excitement implied. Robots got better at specific tasks; the general-purpose machine reshaping every factory floor stayed further out than the 2013 enthusiasm suggested.

Autonomous vehicles — Slow burn, and the cautionary tale. No entry better illustrates the gap between demo and deployment. In 2013 the self-driving car felt imminent. More than a decade later it exists in limited pilots and narrow geographies, not in your driveway. The last ten percent of a hard problem often costs more than the first ninety.

Next-generation genomics — Slow burn. Sequencing did get dramatically cheaper, roughly on schedule. But the leap from cheap data to transformed medicine has been slower and messier than the promise, because biology does not yield to Moore’s Law.

3D printing — Slow burn. It peaked as hype, cooled, and then found a real but narrower home in prototyping, aerospace, and specialized manufacturing. A useful pattern: many technologies do not fail; they simply resize to their actual best use.

Advanced materials — Slow burn. Graphene and nanomaterials delivered incremental, unglamorous gains rather than the revolution the headlines wanted. Genuine progress, invisible to anyone not buying the materials.

The Misses

Renewable energy — Miss, in their favor. The 2013 report was skeptical that renewables would live up to the hype. They under-called it. Solar and wind costs collapsed faster than almost any mainstream forecast, and the technology outran the very caution the analysts applied to it. A reminder that expert skepticism is still a prediction — and it can be wrong too.

Advanced oil and gas recovery — Miss, overtaken. Fracking was a genuine disruption when the report was written, but its moment has already crested. Listing it captured the recent past more than the coming future, which is the easiest forecasting trap of all.

Automation of knowledge work — Right category, wrong shape. This is the fascinating one. The report saw software taking on knowledge tasks, but it imagined structured systems handling defined work. It did not imagine machines that write, reason, argue, and create. They pointed at the right door and completely missed what would walk through it.

The Thirteenth Technology

Which brings me to the real story, the one hiding in the gaps between the grades. The single most consequential technology of the last decade — the one now reshaping nearly every business I write for — is not on the list at all. Generative AI appears nowhere in the 2013 dozen. The nearest entry, automation of knowledge work, was framed as something far tamer than what actually arrived.

And this was not a careless list. Smart, serious people built it, including some of the best economic minds around. About the twelve things they could see, they were mostly right. What they could not do — what no forecast can do — was see the thing that wasn’t on anyone’s radar yet. Prediction takes the trends you can already see and extends them forward. It misses the thing that changes the game entirely.

Here’s My Take

That is the lesson worth carrying out of this, and it is not “experts are unreliable.” It is subtler and more useful. The next disruption that reshapes your business is unlikely to be one you successfully predicted. So the goal was never to forecast it. The goal is to build a company resilient enough to absorb a disruption it did not see coming — because the history of this list says one always does.

Grade the dozen however you like. The most important entry is the one that was not there.