Going through a theoretical expercise to see how a system could be better can often lead to insights that seem better than the status quo.
But the status quo will often still win because it is the status quo.
Any unknown that may be better if it changed is not tested because the tried-and-true status quo already exists.
By nature, humans don’t like change.
Rational analysis of things that could be better are inherently skeptisiced and not acted on just because they require change.
Sometimes, change needs to be forced.
The perfect example of this would be that working remotely wasn’t a choice for most companies.
It required an external force and then we adapted and found that there were actually a lot of benefits.
In this case, it wasn’t a decision of whether the risk of changing was going to pay off.
It just had to be done.
If change has the potential to be better, the question to ask yourself is how do you mitigate the risk?
Can a sample set be tested? Is there a way to dip your foot in the water? Can there be a gradual change?