Are experts blinded by feasibility?
Are experts over-emphasizing time constraints and realization demands over novelty leading to favouring incremental improvements to more game changing ideas? Are experts more likely to do this compared to non-experts? And is it good or bad?
“Domain experts exhibit a feasibility preference, focusing first on the feasibility of a solution as the primary indicator of its quality, while discounting riskier but more novel solutions. This results in a tradeoff in which highly feasible but less novel solutions are judged as being higher in quality, shedding light into why experts prefer more incremental ideas over more radical but untested ideas.” — Jacqueline N. Lane, Zoe Szajnfarber, Jason Crusan, Michael Menietti, Karim R. Lakhani
The report goes on to suggest that over-indexing on feasibility compared to novelty might not always be beneficial to organizations:
“.. radical innovation draws on novel scientific and engineering principles that instigate fundamental changes in firms’ technological trajectories and competences to make major technical advances”
“Many established firms fail during periods of rapid technological change, often due to the inconsistencies between activities focused on productivity and cost improvements and those emphasizing radical innovation and flexibility.”
“.. these effects are strengthened in the context of high complexity problems that draw on multiple domains and require more effort and skill to solve and evaluate.”