First in a series of articles. In this article, I write about the unacceptable rate of failure. If you have a solid invention that you worked hard to pitch — your chances of getting it funded are 1 in 30; chances of not failing: 1 in 400; chances of moderate success 1 in 1000. Investors have a 92% chance of losing their investment; their chances of making a return that justifies this risk…none. The numbers are bad, and they have nothing to do with the actual invention, the market, or the selection process. It’s avoidable. We can do better.
Too often, people like me enjoy looking down at Industry Executives as they misuse “professional” innovation terminology. For example, when they overestimate their innovation as radical/disruptive/game-changing/breakthrough, or when they talk about disrupting themselves, without realizing that disruption is a bad thing. Dang! here I go again.
The truth is that if I take a hard look at my own superiority, I must admit that it is misplaced.
Terminologies, taxonomies, 2x2 Johari windows, and other organizing innovation schemes are analytical. They are based on an organizing pattern that a theoretician/practitioner identifies. …
Innovation professional / ~20 yrs experience w/ multinationals and tech startups / Tinker. Thinker. Storyteller / concept architect / product / strategy