L’innovazione per essere tale deve essere ribelle?

Qualche giorno fa ho intercettato in una delle mie newsletter del cuore un articolo della BBC in cui si racconta una storia di innovazione ribelle andata a buon fine.

In the 1980s, a group of young engineers at Nasa’s Johnson Space Center in Houston realised that the 1960s Apollo-era mission control set-up would struggle to handle the more complex challenges of flying the space shuttle. 

The engineers’ concerns fell on deaf ears; Nasa knew and trusted the Apollo-era systems, which had successfully sent humans to the moon. Undeterred, the renegade group – who subsequently called themselves ‘the pirates’ – began to code new software for the mission control sub-systems in their free time, using borrowed equipment from Nasa suppliers. Their system was based on commercially available personal workstations linked through a Unix network, in what the pirates felt was a more resilient and adaptive set-up. After several months, they physically brought their system into mission control to test it – but they were asked to leave by the flight controllers. 

‘Positive deviants’: Why rebellious workers spark great ideas

Sono partita scettica nella lettura, non mi convinceva l’idea che l’innovazione dovesse essere per forza ribelle.

Anzi – ho pensato – l’innovazione che rimane nel perimetro delle regole è più difficile ma più rapida da far digerire. E quindi migliore.

Alla fine della lettura mi sono però ricreduta: in fondo quello che intende la BBC non rientra nella mia personalissima definizione di ribellione, ma forse da iconoclasta certificata non faccio testo.

Rebels may have a bad reputation, but in the right environment, and with the right motivations, they can achieve amazing things. 

‘Positive deviants’: Why rebellious workers spark great ideas

Da leggere.

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato.