The hypothesis that economic organization is the resultant of a series of historic accidents is intructive in that many organizational innovations appear to be the result of trial and error.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The more I draw and write, the more I realise that accidents are a necessary part of any creative act, much more so than logic or wisdom. Sometimes a mistake is the only way of arriving at an original concept, and the history of successful inventions is full of mishaps, serendipity and unintended results.
Organizations can get in the way of innovation, because if people are all bound up, and if they don't know if they get to make the decision or somebody else, and if they do, what happens to them, and so on and so forth.
It is the essence of innovation to fail most of the time.
Pure innovation is more gross than error.
Innovation is the central issue in economic prosperity.
Failure is inevitable; it happens all the time in a complex economy.
Innovation happens because there are people out there doing and trying a lot of different things.
If you look at history, innovation doesn't come just from giving people incentives; it comes from creating environments where their ideas can connect.
The paradox explored in my book 'The Innovator's Dilemma' is that successful companies can fail by making the 'right' decisions in the wrong situations.
Failure's inevitable. It happens all the time in a complex economy. And how did the economy produce all these amazing things that we have around us, computers and cell phones and so on? Well, the process was trial and error. There were a bunch of ideas, and the good ones grew and prospered, and the bad ones were pretty ruthlessly weeded out.
No opposing quotes found.