You provide a good example of innovation happens at the intersection of ideas, and how network analysis can be a useful tool for understanding the phenomenon. The prevailing school of thought in innovation research is to view it as an emergent phenomenon, and there are parallels to be drawn between the interplay of individuals in an organization and the neurons in a biological brain.
You also demonstrate how employee participation plays a key role in organizational learning, which is a core concept in all areas of the field. By fostering the accretion of ideas from people at the sharp end, you shortened the path to a new organizational behavior formed by tacit knowledge of stowage procedures. This ability to respond to dynamic operating conditions has been identified as a strong indicator of long-term survival of organizations .
However, I think you underestimate the role of organizational inertia in explaining the resistance you met. Any entity is pressured by the neighboring nodes of an organizational network to persist with currently established behavior. This applies especially to management personnel who try to innovate. Ownership of an idea is one of the few forces powerful enough to break this pattern, again emphasizing the importance of broad participation for changes to take place. I’m reminded of how Mark Mallinger was frustrated in implementing TQM due to a misplaced sense of loyalty where middle management perceived that they needed to protect the organization from their bosses’ mistakes.
As for johnny two-cent’s input, it’s a fine example of bullshit. His words look like they form an argument of some sort, but on closer examination he just makes a bunch of claims without basis in the posted material, and proceeds to analyze them through a lens designed to reach hyperbolic conclusions rather than understanding.