 We often see individuals behaving in ways that don't benefit and seem to harm them and so that creates a research question. Now as long as those are individual people you might talk about fashion as an explanation, you might talk about them simply not having enough time to think about it or maybe the stakes aren't high enough and so you can explain it away. But then take this to firms and take it to strategies where the stakes are really high or take it to important technologies where stakes are really high and where they should be able to put their minds together and find the right solution. And now you're left with the same question only it gets harder to solve and that's when it gets really interesting. What is the aggregate effect of innovations? Well you're looking at 100 years of per person GDP in constant prices for one small European economy. Could this be possibly a result of harder and harder work or is there instead some accumulation of innovations in producing this result? Highly beneficial innovation really doesn't spread as quickly as you might think. Before it gets to a good rate of adoption more than a decade will pass. For example once an innovation is created in some place in an industry who will be the first ones to pick it up and to start using it and who will start using it after that. This was the case of large container ships that have revolutionized the container business. And so the innovation there is really just it's the thing itself and it's how you are going to use it in the market. And that appears to be enough to create doubts. Is it good or is it bad? You can prove that it's really good on the cost side but there's still enough uncertainty that it holds back even very rational managers who are in competition with others. Innovations are uncertain because it's not clear how they function in practice as opposed to in the lab. And this uncertainty means that what primarily drives the diffusion process is information from the current users of innovation reaching potential users of the innovation. Information reduces uncertainty, uncertainty reduction produces adoption. Yeah, fundamentally this is an issue of how quickly do we learn from our experiences and how accurately do we learn from our experiences. I mean the firm's strategies when they face an innovation directly result in improvements in what they can offer to the world if they're successful. So we want speed and we want accuracy but there's a trade-off between speed and accuracy. My suspicion is after having looked at innovations in a number of places and trying to find useful innovations to study looking at how they spread probably as a whole there's too much conservativism, things are a little bit too slow. And so we don't make mistakes as often as we should actually.