[DanUCSB]

This is a really interesting question in the broader sense. In several ways it can be construed that this lends credence to the idea that sometimes, catastrophic failure is necessary in order to enact needed reforms/developments. Obviously, however, failure is a bad thing, something we avoid to the utmost.

This leads to a dilemma. Is failure a necessary component of change? I would say no, but it often acts as such. What can we do to avoid stultification and promote a continuous 'tip of the spear' mentality (especially at the above-my-pay-grade higher levels) without requiring a debacle to propel us? Sometimes disasters turn out, in the long run, to have beneficial effects; what can we do to get them, without the disaster?