Should “Innovation without Disruption” be the Measure of all Things?
Should “Innovation without Disruption” really be the measure of all things, or are there circumstances when this no longer matters? Let’s look at HANA and inter-planetary settlers.
Should “Innovation without Disruption” really be the measure of all things, or are there circumstances when this no longer matters? Let’s look at HANA and inter-planetary settlers.
It is a bit contradictory, innovation without disruption. Sometimes you just need a huge disruption to be innovative.
So: disruptions run innovations!
Kind regards
Twan
Your video reminds me of the old Karen Carpenter song "Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft"
Innovation should take place wether it disrupts or not.
But at a certain point too much disruption can become annoying and it can become questionable if the TCO lowered as promised, for example:
Rolling out the scenario Solution Manager Diagnostics with the initial SMD (Solution Manager Diagnostics) agent and then finding out some months later that in order to use the newly released agent version you have to first throw all the agents in the garbage bin (removing filesystems, documentation, monitoring and so on) and then to implement the new agent you have to perform lots of action again (rolling out again, disrupting each managed system again, creating new filesystem structures, adding another new agent (host agent) per physical host, creating new documentation for support teams, setting up monitoring again and so on) becomes a huge effort.
In that perspective I would prefer such innovations to be "innovative without disruption". It's easier to get innovation without disruption approved by the customer given it doesn't create issues in other area's (implementation, complexity ...)
Kind regards
Tom