
Why NonExperts are Better at Disruptive Innovation - aespinoza
http://singularityhub.com/2012/07/13/rethinking-the-concept-of-%e2%80%9coutliers%e2%80%9d-why-non-experts-are-better-at-disruptive-innovation/
======
DenisM
The article's author failed to provide any evidence to support his key premise
"Non-Experts are Better at Disruptive Innovation". It would be nice to have a
_substantial_ discussion on this interesting topic.

~~~
ippisl
Usually , a disruptive innovation is a combination of a new technology and a
new business model. Being an expert in the old technology or business model
becomes less helpful.

At the beginning you mostly don't compete on the same customers.With time,
when you start competing on the same customers, you can hire experts.

~~~
DenisM
Yes, it's a compelling narrative. Where's the evidence though?

The problem with the narrative is that I can come up with an opposite
narrative: "fresh perspective is important to come up with a new direction,
but only an insider has the skills/experience/connections/market
knowledge/capital/etc to finish the new direction, therefore all innovation is
done by insiders". Now we have two compelling narratives, both of which cannot
be true at the same time. We're not advancing our understanding of the
innovation process.

It's all empty rhetoric until the evidence is laid out.

