Yes, it's a compelling narrative. Where's the evidence though? The problem with the narrative is that I can come up with an opposite narrative: "fresh perspect

Yes, it's a compelling narrative. Where's the evidence though? The problem with the narrative is that I can come up with an opposite narrative: "fresh perspective is important to come up with a new direction, but only an insider has the skills/experience/connections/market knowledge/capital/etc to finish the new direction, therefore all innovation is done by insiders". Now we have two compelling narratives, both of which cannot be true at the same time. We're not advancing our understanding of the innovation process. It's all empty rhetoric until the evidence is laid out.