

Experts less likely to create disruption - nickler
http://www.inc.com/naveen-jain/why-non-experts-are-better-at-disruptive-innovation.html

======
nickler
The post, well written by Naveen Jain, is arguing a 'fresh eyes' theory, and
while it's wonderfully optimistic, I can't help but think it's somewhat naive.

Instead of attacking his position, however, I think it just needs a slight
correction.

Innovation and disruption comes from people aggressively seeking innovation
and disruption, regardless of their expertise. An innovator's expertise in
their field can be a crucial part of iterating through possible solutions,
previously failed attempts, and innovations in the pipeline. Imagine if
Edison, while doggedly pursuing the light bulb filament, hadn't had his
knowledge of current, metals, and energy.

Innovation is completely tied to a mentality of change, which I'll agree can
exist in anyone. Innovators can quickly learn that their capabilities aren't
up to the task and enlist experts to aid the project, or finance an
initiative, and even have the 'fresh eyes' that help to find a better
solution.

That being said, however, as we all preach time and again, it is in the
execution, not the concept, that a true disruption will be judged, and for
that, you need experts.

~~~
nickler
Disclaimer, I'm a lay person (marketing/business) with a tech company aiming
for disruption, however, the market we're disrupting is one I have deep
expertise in. I was smart/lucky enough to partner up with an expert on the
tech side to ensure the execution will keep up with the innovation.

