To undertand why it is so darn hard to change a success formula, one can look at history being replete with examples of victors sticking to their old success formula only be be outmaneuvered by rivals who simply play by another set of rules.
Since i delved into history particularly WWII i'll use that for examples:
French Sticking with Static Defensive Warfare
Victory with static defensive combat in WWI, made the french to construct the Maginot Line. We all knew what protection it offered the french during WWII. The germans simply bypass much of the line & attacked through the Ardennes forest.
Japanese Navy Obssession with Battleship Big Guns
Pearl Harbor attack was launched with carrier-based aircraft.
"The result shocked the USA & other leaders around the world. Aircraft, an auxilliary weapon had sunk the enormous battleships."Yet it took a hell of an effort by mastermind of the attack Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto to get the go-ahead. A large part of the japanese military establishment are convinced that battleship big guns are the way to go as that's the way the japanese navy beat the russian navy(a feat) making Japan a naval power.
Assasination attempts were made on Yamamoto's life when he suggested to change the 'big guns' formula. It should be lauded that Yamamoto himself was a naval gunnery officer & for him to switch to naval aviation is a feat itself. I learnt it from 70min video: Pearl Harbor: View from Japan [New window]
Imperial japanese navy obsession with big guns (old success formula) are best known for their construction of Yamato & Musashi which are the heaviest & most powerful battleships during WWII.
If the imperial japanese navy had emphasize more on aircraft carriers instead of being obsessed with super battleships, a different chain of events would occur......