[Animats]

Not from these guys.

As for the "Beginner's Mind", read "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman". Feynman writes that bringing in someone who's good at a different field may be useful for getting new insights. Merely bringing in a beginner may not be as useful.

[SongofEarth]

I think here we can assume it's not someone completely ignorant in the field(they did mention "outsiders in analogous fields"), so it's really about someone with a good understanding of an adjacent field, whose skills and knowledge can often be applied to the field in question, like bringing a computer scientist to robotics or biology, not like asking an accountant to design a rocket.

[marcosdumay]

> a good understanding of an adjacent field

All fields share some amount of border. The amount varies, but there's no such binary thing as adjacent or not, and the important insight you need may come from absolutely anywhere.

[mdekkers]

Anecdotally, I was brought in to improve data processing for semiconductor manufacturing quality control. To say that wasn’t exactly my field is an understatement. Working with an amazing team that was open to change was a great experience and we managed to implement significant improvements for many aspects of the processes we looked at.

[svnt]

I think there is a critical balance between education and experience where a person has both sufficient capability and (critically) interest in using it, that enables this sort of thing.

Of course it also requires the opportunity to improve something, which is not universally present. Often the opportunities to improve stem from a recent change in organizational priorities, or the prior party’s lack of interest (instrinsic motivation) or incentive (extrinsic motivation), not necessarily their specialization or lack of understanding.

[fuzzfactor]

>Not from these guys.

Good call.

>Certainly, ideas cannot impact society without “effective placement,” but there would be nothing to “place” without them. They are the seed of all progress, the beginning of every great invention.

They're correct about this, but as I mentioned just recently the proper attitude can make a world of difference.

They're also correct about Intrinsic Motivation.

>They subsequently analyzed this information alongside the number of hours worked per week (a proxy for effort) and the number of patents issued in the past five years (a proxy for creative production).

>The authors found that effort and innovative production were much more correlated with intrinsic motivators. R&D scientists who chose their positions because they provided more independence and fulfilled their curiosity worked more hours and had more patents to show for it.

These are not very good metrics, nor even ideal test subjects, but still point toward the realistic conclusion. It takes a lot to hide this, unfortunately there is usually more than enough effective obscurity in place to conceal more widespread recognition.

>Nor are ideas abundant. Indeed, there is evidence they are growing rarer by the year.

Wrong.

Misguided research organizations are bound to be less effective than free-flowing creativity.

>What incentives encourage originality?

Real natural originality requires no incentive.

>Who should you hire to boost an organization’s innovation?

Someone who doesn't need any incentive to create, only to perform their best without undue limitations.

>And how do you harness the abilities of a collective?

If the collective has less-effective creativity than a single individual, you don't. You can't lead by committee.

Like I said, you don't harness this, you unleash it!

I think the best ideas come from people who do not have the resources to implement hardly any of them.

The ones that don't let that stop them, eventually do come across something sensible to implement and go forward with the resources they do have.

And continue not to let that stop them from the endless stream of new ideas which are still out-of-reach to take action about, including those that will certainly never come within reach. They're too busy taking action at the scale they do have. Like a train that can't be stopped.

The action they are taking may seem so small and insignificant, for so long compared to one of their more lofty but out-of-reach concepts, these are most often considered merely "idea people" with no big concrete accomplishments.

Usually those with the resources to build rails across the continent are often the least likely to seriously consider a small-scale model railroader to have anything worthwhile to offer. Far below the radar of someone or committee who is already in a position of moving & shaking in a more noticeable way at bigger scale, even when they recognize the need for new ideas other than their own.

Too bad.