What overcomes the power of innovation?
A lot of correct words and wonderful thoughts are devoted to the description of success conditions for innovation. But the question of the nature of resistance to innovation , in my opinion, is unfairly bypassed. A lot of funny and sad continuations come from the vagueness of ideas: the inventors rely on the power of ideas, investors expect proposals with obvious advantages, successful implementers call the replication of the existing innovations ...
It seems to me that there is no other force hindering innovation, except the force of inertia of consciousness. Accordingly, the only subject with which the innovator needs to interact is the consciousness of those around him.
In our time there are still bona fide wipers. And many times more - always somewhere late citizens who have absolutely no leisure to walk on the sidewalks. Whether they remembered from the school bench that the hypotenuse is shorter than the sum of the legs, or intuition tells them that, but at the slightest opportunity, they shorten their way by crossing the lawns along the shortest line. Bona fide janitors regularly sweep the resulting paths. From such care, the paths become even deeper, and on rainy days they turn into slush. What do hurried citizens do? Quite naturally, they begin to go around the slush on the grass. The paths are getting wider and wider, the work of the street sweepers is getting bigger and bigger, and the sidewalks are getting dirtier and dirtier. Sometimes the combined efforts of rushing citizens and conscientious janitors bring lawns to extinction. How to save lawns?
An obvious problem has two equally obvious solutions that differ only in their degree of radicalism. A liberal decision to rush citizens is to sprinkle the path with gravel or any available bulk material that will make it level above the lawn. Janitors still have to sweep it, but with it the puddles will disappear and it will cease to grow in breadth. The radical decision is to dig up all the trampled down space and repeat the digging at the first traces of hurrying citizens. Hurry will be struck in the rights, but the work of the janitors will be seriously diminished. Why don't janitors do this?
We can assume that these obvious solutions do not come to the janitors? Not. Several times he tried to ponder. Reaction: from misunderstanding what is being said to insult - you will still teach me ...
')
Here is an example that K.E. Tsiolkovsky in the article "Genius among the people." “ Suppose a thinker enters railways. Before them were highways, waterways and others, even more primitive. Coachmen, roadkeepers, employees, owners of sailing ships, innkeepers, some workers, etc., should suffer from the implementation of the ideas of the thinker. The stagnancy of thought, and the vulgar ideas of others, prevent them from penetrating into new trends and making an impartial assessment to them. Suffering and suffering: someone wants to be above them, smarter. Do not administrators know what to do? If the railways were needed, they themselves would introduce them. And then someone insignificant, unknown makes them bother their brains, and without that tortured. They are reproached for short-sightedness, omission. Workers break new cars. Begin fierce attacks on innovations . "
In my opinion, K.E. Tsiolkovsky gives an absolutely accurate explanation of the nature of resistance to innovation. Not the lack of technical, material or intellectual means, not the lack of other resources stops the thinker's undertakings. On the contrary, - the presence and even surplus - the discontent of "people hurt for living" - the force that prevents transformation .
If you are inclined to delve into the analysis of the state of technology and the economy in the era of the introduction of railways, to find the absence of reliable steam engines, cheap iron and other absences, then spread your logic to the example of conscientious janitors. What absences will you find there?
It seems to me that there is no other force hindering innovation, except the force of inertia of consciousness. Accordingly, the only subject with which the innovator needs to interact is the consciousness of those around him.
Why wipers sweep the path?
In our time there are still bona fide wipers. And many times more - always somewhere late citizens who have absolutely no leisure to walk on the sidewalks. Whether they remembered from the school bench that the hypotenuse is shorter than the sum of the legs, or intuition tells them that, but at the slightest opportunity, they shorten their way by crossing the lawns along the shortest line. Bona fide janitors regularly sweep the resulting paths. From such care, the paths become even deeper, and on rainy days they turn into slush. What do hurried citizens do? Quite naturally, they begin to go around the slush on the grass. The paths are getting wider and wider, the work of the street sweepers is getting bigger and bigger, and the sidewalks are getting dirtier and dirtier. Sometimes the combined efforts of rushing citizens and conscientious janitors bring lawns to extinction. How to save lawns?
An obvious problem has two equally obvious solutions that differ only in their degree of radicalism. A liberal decision to rush citizens is to sprinkle the path with gravel or any available bulk material that will make it level above the lawn. Janitors still have to sweep it, but with it the puddles will disappear and it will cease to grow in breadth. The radical decision is to dig up all the trampled down space and repeat the digging at the first traces of hurrying citizens. Hurry will be struck in the rights, but the work of the janitors will be seriously diminished. Why don't janitors do this?
We can assume that these obvious solutions do not come to the janitors? Not. Several times he tried to ponder. Reaction: from misunderstanding what is being said to insult - you will still teach me ...
')
Ideas rejected by experts
Here is an example that K.E. Tsiolkovsky in the article "Genius among the people." “ Suppose a thinker enters railways. Before them were highways, waterways and others, even more primitive. Coachmen, roadkeepers, employees, owners of sailing ships, innkeepers, some workers, etc., should suffer from the implementation of the ideas of the thinker. The stagnancy of thought, and the vulgar ideas of others, prevent them from penetrating into new trends and making an impartial assessment to them. Suffering and suffering: someone wants to be above them, smarter. Do not administrators know what to do? If the railways were needed, they themselves would introduce them. And then someone insignificant, unknown makes them bother their brains, and without that tortured. They are reproached for short-sightedness, omission. Workers break new cars. Begin fierce attacks on innovations . "
In my opinion, K.E. Tsiolkovsky gives an absolutely accurate explanation of the nature of resistance to innovation. Not the lack of technical, material or intellectual means, not the lack of other resources stops the thinker's undertakings. On the contrary, - the presence and even surplus - the discontent of "people hurt for living" - the force that prevents transformation .
If you are inclined to delve into the analysis of the state of technology and the economy in the era of the introduction of railways, to find the absence of reliable steam engines, cheap iron and other absences, then spread your logic to the example of conscientious janitors. What absences will you find there?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/143152/
All Articles