On reinvention
You either die a heretic, or live long enough to become part of the orthodoxy.
I'm reading a history of Xerox PARC - an organization so incredible that it was the source of an incredible amount of all the computing tech we see around us, including the "mouse" and "windows" and high speed text editors, and the laser printer., and object oriented programming.
PARC was a research lab Xerox had set up in the early 1970s and populated it with some of the craziest scientists and engineers around. And they built up the technologies and development programs against the odds and with incredible creativity.
And yet, by the end of the decade, this same set of people had dismissed the idea that integrated circuits (VLSI) would be a meaningful technology for serious computer systems. Or that video editing had any place in an "office of the future". Or indeed a bunch of other new and evolving ideas.
Why does this happen? Perhaps, at the start, there isn't a lot of accumulated legacy of work done pursuing any ideas. And hence any crazy idea can be worth pursuing. But as the years pass, the team collectively has too much at stake in any path they pursued, to even try a path that does not build upon the previous work.
And so it is perhaps why, when you set out to change or rethink how an industry works, you are not likely to be able to do it from within an incumbent. It has little to do with imagination or capability of the incumbent organization. Simply an outcome of the accumulated body of work.
Organizations that overcome this lethargy survive. Those that institutionalize aggressive experimentation, thrive.