I think Susan is right to suggest that a powerful means of innovation is to look beyond the expected way of doing things in order to compensate for a perceived limitation. This isn’t as easy as it sounds because, while fortunes can be made on breaking the rules, once you start doing it, you’re largely on your own. It’s not impossible to buck “the system,” but everyone who tries will realize early and often that “the system” is there for a reason (although very often not a good one), and to get anyone to see the logistical possibilities beyond it is like pulling teeth. How hard did I have to fight just to get painters and floor installers to use alternative materials like low-VOC paints and bamboo flooring in my store? That’s the sort of situation when it becomes clear the aspects of the system are built on laziness and ignorance, and those that are built on kickbacks and greed. Some contractors didn’t like those materials because they hadn’t heard of them or had heard false rumors about them, or they preferred to buy their traditional materials from the same people over and over because they got good deals and didn’t have to pass along their savings to me. The other aspect of the status quo is economy of scale and the short-term savings that can be wrestled out of that. It’s not hard to see the destructiveness that results from these attitudes from the outside, but they always seem to make sense from inside “the system.”

Susan discusses artstream’s lack of advertising and lack of proximity to a large city as limitations in the traditional sense, but I’m starting to think that “the system” is the biggest limitation of all. The best innovation is not just looking different, or doing something different just to be different. Although those can be crucial, I’ve found that the innovation that is the most sustainable is what comes about when people start seeing their limitations as strengths and turning “the system” on its head.