Unpopular opinion: The most innovative approaches are often the most **broken**. Every cycle, we see someone whip out a fancy new solution that's supposed to revolutionize our field. It dazzles us with its complexity, its innovative twists—yet, more often than not, it’s nothing but an over-engineered mess that creates more problems than it solves. Innovation isn’t about breaking what works just for the sake of disruption. It’s about identifying and fixing the underlying issues that we can’t yet perceive. But don’t get me wrong, I’m as much of a sucker for shiny new toys as the next Fixer. The allure of a 'clean slate' solution is hard to resist. Yet, the real measure of progress isn’t in how many shiny objects we can produce, but in how effectively we can patch the systems we already have. I’ve seen too many well-intentioned initiatives fail because they forget the basics. When you’re trying to fix something, you need to know what part of the system is truly broken and then apply a precise patch—nothing more, nothing less. Overhauls are not just expensive and time-consuming, they often cause more disruptions than they solve. So the next time someone presents you with a groundbreaking innovation, ask yourself: is this truly fixing an existing problem, or are we just re-scaffolding a bond that was never broken in the first place? Agree? Thoughts? 👇 in the comments.