> I suppose it's the circle of life in large, bureaucratic organizations. A decade (or a century) from now, another Frazer will come along and apply the same mindset to this structure -- and all the bureaucrats will be suitably impressed again.
Honestly, you don't want everyone to be constantly iterating and trying to drastically upend things to find a new global optimum. Beyond the fact that many people are not cut out to do it (most people aren't above average ;), there's a survivorship bias in these stories. You don't hear all the times that radical new approaches had terrible outcomes.
If you want to build an extraordinary competitive program doing A, you should absolutely be doing lots different from what everyone else does. But the typical program that eschews hard-gained wisdom will do worse. Basically, you're buying volatility in outcomes for a lower expected value.
Honestly, you don't want everyone to be constantly iterating and trying to drastically upend things to find a new global optimum. Beyond the fact that many people are not cut out to do it (most people aren't above average ;), there's a survivorship bias in these stories. You don't hear all the times that radical new approaches had terrible outcomes.
If you want to build an extraordinary competitive program doing A, you should absolutely be doing lots different from what everyone else does. But the typical program that eschews hard-gained wisdom will do worse. Basically, you're buying volatility in outcomes for a lower expected value.