there's something illogical about "disruptive innovation methodology"

how can something disruptive and innovative -- which I take to imply unpredictable novelty -- be methodological?

I take methodology to imply that something has become normalized; that it has become common enough and happened enough times that its practice can be systematically described as a method.

"Our scientific and engineering production pipeline makes 10 disruptive innovations every year! 100% satisfaction guarantee. invest now!"