The post, well written by Naveen Jain, is arguing a 'fresh eyes' theory, and while it's wonderfully optimistic, I can't help but think it's somewhat naive.<p>Instead of attacking his position, however, I think it just needs a slight correction.<p>Innovation and disruption comes from people aggressively seeking innovation and disruption, regardless of their expertise. An innovator's expertise in their field can be a crucial part of iterating through possible solutions, previously failed attempts, and innovations in the pipeline. Imagine if Edison, while doggedly pursuing the light bulb filament, hadn't had his knowledge of current, metals, and energy.<p>Innovation is completely tied to a mentality of change, which I'll agree can exist in anyone. Innovators can quickly learn that their capabilities aren't up to the task and enlist experts to aid the project, or finance an initiative, and even have the 'fresh eyes' that help to find a better solution.<p>That being said, however, as we all preach time and again, it is in the execution, not the concept, that a true disruption will be judged, and for that, you need experts.