Defend the core
Growth was mostly about defending existing market position, protecting market share, and incrimentally improving market cap in a relatively stable environment, new market opportunities killed by "we don't do that here".
Corporate Innovation Guide
Why
Innovation
Fails:
A Practical Guide for Corporate Decision-Makers
Innovation does not usually fail because people are not creative enough. It fails because organizations apply the wrong methods, metrics, incentives, and structures to the wrong type of work - and then execute that mismatch very professionally.
TL;DR
Why does innovation fail?
Corporate innovation fails when companies do the wrong things the right way, the right things the wrong way, the wrong things the wrong way.
A company can run a disciplined process, assign talented people, create a budget, and still fail if the work is managed with the wrong processes, tools, and KPIs. Execution tools are useful for known problems. Innovation tools are needed when the company is searching for new customers, new business models, new capabilities - the disruptive opportunities of tomorrow that will potentially disrupt their own core of today.
Core Model
The Ways Innovation Fails
Corporate innovation usually fails in one of these ways: doing the wrong things the right way, doing the right things the wrong way, doing the wrong things the wrong way, or failing to simultaneously optimize the core of today and search for the new core of tomorrow.
| Failure pattern | What it means | Typical symptom | Better response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrong things, right way | The company executes flawlessly, but on ideas that have not been validated. | Well-managed projects with weak customer demand, poor strategic fit, or little evidence of value. | Validate the problem, customer, value proposition, and business model before scaling execution. |
| Right things, wrong way | The opportunity is promising, but it is managed with the methods for core business only. | Good ideas are slowed down by planning cycles, internal politics, reporting, wrong processes, wrong tools, and wrong KPIs. | Use customer discovery, Lean LaunchPad, MVP validation, and evidence-based KPIs. |
| Wrong things, wrong way | The company pursues weak ideas and also manages them with the wrong methods. | Innovation theater, low-quality pilots, weak ownership, and no meaningful learning. | Stop, reset governance, clarify the innovation thesis, and rebuild the program around speed & evidence. |
| Either/ Or, not AND | The company prioritises either execution of core of today or searching for the new core of tomorrow - not both at the same time. | Benefits are clear for the short term, but carries extreme risk to the business model in the long term. | Companies need to do both simultaneously to stay successful and resilient; Become an ambidextrous organisation. |
The context changed
The old game of growth no longer works on its own
Many companies still manage innovation with assumptions inherited from - and not updated since - the industrial age: stable markets, predictable planning, slow technology cycles, and failure meaning catastrophe. The new game is orders of magnitude faster, much less predictable, more automated, more AI-driven, and completely unforgiving to slow organizations.
Disrupt the core
Growth increasingly comes from creating and owning new markets before faster, smarter, and more agile competitors do. The new game is mostly about creating new markets at speed in a highly unstable environment - ad infinitum.
Failure is catastrophic
Traditionally organizations avoided failure because "we don't do it this way here", didn't know how to fail fast and fail small. Trying new things was also expensive, very slow - and potentially very damaging to your career.
Failure is part of process
Modern innovation assumes that some new things will fail. The goal is to fail smart, fail fast, building and learning as fast as possible, delivering measurable outcomes with no detrimental effects to businesss or carreers.
The diagnostic
The innovation failure pattern
The question is not whether your company is doing things well today. The question is whether you are doing the right things, in the right way, for the right type of innovation to be prepared for tomorrow today.
The right things, the right way
The organization uses the right method, governance, metrics, and structure for the specific innovation type. Execution is treated as execution, Search is treated as search - and the organisation is doing both.
The wrong things, the right way
The company runs an efficient and professional process, but the process is set up to solve unproven problems or optimizing for output instead of substance.
The right things, the wrong way
The company understands that innovation matters, but still tries to manage it with tools, processes, alignment-issues, roles, incentives, and metrics that are antithetical to innovation.
The wrong things, the wrong way
The organization labels activity as innovation at random without clear goals, processes, methodologies, governance, or meaningful metrics.
Outdated tools
Tools that helped the organisation with great execution in the past blocks innovation for tomorrow
Tools such as traditional growth matrices, strategy maps, waterfall project management, rigid org charts, and command-line decision structures were designed for predictability and execution. They become dangerous when they are used as the primary operating system for dealing with uncertainty.
Not built for uncertainty
Many legacy tools assume - falsely - that the future can be planned by extrapolating from what is already known - which is equivalent to magical thinking when dealing with known unknowns and clinical insanity when dealing with unknown unknowns.
Not built for speed
Heavy planning & approval cycles and rigid org charts make experimentation too slow to actually matter.
Not built for the job
Tools for managing the core today are not relevant for searching for the core of tomorrow. We need tools and processes for gathering direct evidence from customers, users, partners, and markets for effective evidence-based decisions.
Know what kind of innovation you are managing
Use horizons to separate execution from search
The Three Horizons metaphor helps corporate leaders distinguish between known work and unknown work. Horizon 1 is about executing and extending the current core. Horizon 2 and Horizon 3 are about searching for new business models, new capabilities, and disruptive opportunities.
The model is widely associated with McKinsey and the work of Mehrdad Baghai, Stephen Coley, and David White. Steve Blank later argued that the model remains useful as a taxonomy, but that its common time-based interpretation has a critical weakness: disruptive Horizon 3 ideas are no longer necessarily far in the future.
| Horizon | What it means | Primary question | Management logic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Horizon 1 | Executing and extending the current core business model. Known knowns. | How do we generate value today and improve what already works? | Execution, product management, operational excellence, business case discipline. |
| Horizon 2 | Extending existing capabilities into new customers, markets, or business model adjacencies. Known unknowns. | What can become tomorrow's growth engine? | Combination of execution and search, with evidence-based validation. |
| Horizon 3 | Creating new capabilities, disruptive products, or new business models. Unknown unknowns. | What could disrupt our core - and how do we build it before someone else does? | Search, experimentation, customer discovery, rapid learning, and portfolio governance. |
The Update
The Three Horizons today
Changing times require changing models: The Three Horizons model is still useful - but the classic timeframes it suggests are no longer relevant or helpful.
In its updated form, the model should not be used as a simple short-term, medium-term, and long-term timeline. It is more useful as a way to understand strategic distance, uncertainty, business model impact, required management approach, and the right evidence for decisions.
Read more about the updated Three Horizons modelMethodology
Different innovation types need different methods
Horizon 1 work can use traditional product management because the business model, customers, and operating assumptions are mostly known. Horizon 2 and Horizon 3 work require a search methodology because the most important assumptions are still unknown.
Use execution methods
Use scoping, business cases, development gates, testing, validation, and launch processes when the work extends known products, customers, channels, and capabilities.
Use search methods
Use Business Model Generation, customer development, agile engineering, Lean Startup, and Lean LaunchPad when the business model is uncertain.
Fail fast, learn faster
The goal is not failure for its own sake. The goal is to test hypotheses quickly enough that the organization learns before it overcommits.
Management KPI
Measure innovation by evidence, not politics or gut feelings
Corporate innovation programs often fail because use throughput, activities, and internal political enthusiasm instead of actual validated learning as guidelines for making decisions. For search work, the metric stack should connect hypotheses, experiments, data, scorecards, and readiness levels.
| Metric layer | What to track | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Hypotheses | Assumptions about customers, problems, value propositions, channels, revenue, partners, and delivery. | Innovation becomes manageable only when assumptions are explicit. |
| Experiments | Customer interviews, MVP tests, landing pages, concierge tests, pilots, pricing tests, and usage experiments. | Experiments turn opinion into evidence. |
| Data | Evidence from real customers, users, partners, stakeholders, and market behavior. | Data creates intellectual honesty. It shows what is true, not what is politically convenient. |
| Experiment scorecard | Weekly progress, learning velocity, evidence strength, and unresolved assumptions. | Scorecards make learning visible to leadership. |
| Investment Readiness Level | Progress from first-pass business model to market validation, MVPs, revenue model validation, value delivery, and metrics that matter. | IRL gives leaders a portfolio-level KPI for innovation maturity and risk reduction. |
Investment Readiness Level - IRL
What is the IRL?
The evidence-based metric for understanding real progress and risk in innovation.
Investment Readiness Level (IRL) is an evidence-based scale for measuring how ready, how mature a startup, venture, or innovation project is for investment, funding, acceleration, or further support. It helps investors, decision-makers, stake-holders, managers, accelerators, universities, corporate innovation teams, and startup support programs understand how much venture risk has been reduced through customer validation, MVP testing, business model validation, revenue model evidence, and relevant traction metrics.
Read more about using the IRL metrics to manage innovationOrganization
Search and execution must be separated - but connected
Horizon 1 daily operations and Horizon 2/3 disruptive innovation live in different worlds. One protects the core and follows rules. The other must move quickly, test assumptions, and sometimes challenge the core. If both are forced into the same structure, the search work for tomorrow always loses over execution of today - making meaningful change effectively impossible.
Protect innovation from daily operations
Give search teams room to operate outside the routines, incentives, and approval cycles of the core business - out of reach from middle management's business-as-usual interruptions.
Create gateways between worlds
Separate the worlds to enable innovation to thrive. Create clear gateways for plannability and transparency. Use governance, legal fast tracks, resource access, portfolio reviews, and handover paths.
Make innovation someone's job
Companies need senior innovation ownership, portfolio management, risk management, internal ambassadors who can unblock access to resources, and champions for supporting change accross the organisation.
Problems and solutions
Common corporate innovation failure patterns
Most innovation failure is not mysterious. It usually follows recognizable organizational patterns. The key is to name the pattern, understand the root cause, and apply the correct fix.
| Failure pattern | Problem | Practical solution |
|---|---|---|
| Shiny objects | Teams become enamored with new technology, abandon the core too early, or treat the existing product team as obsolete. | Do not demoralize the core team. Create a transition plan and make sure money, people, infrastructure, and handover pathways exist to cross the valley of death. |
| Only "now" | Leadership incentives focus only on current mission, current goals, and current performance. | Create senior innovation ownership, including corporate and divisional innovation leaders who understand Horizon 2 and Horizon 3 work. |
| Buzzword bingo | Innovation becomes a label for everything and anything in the company. | Use the horizons metaphor to define what kind of innovation is being discussed. Use lean and agile methods to accelerate learning, use the Lean LaunchPad program to implement an evidence-based structure and process. |
| Career killer | Risky projects are avoided because failed projects are politically dangerous and historically expensive. | Make failure part of the process by keeping experiments low-cost and fast. Reward learning, pivots, and honest evidence. |
| H1/H3 confusion | Daily operations lose sight of whether the goal is to improve what already works or discover something fundamentally new. | Use clear Horizon 1, 2, and 3 language to define the goal, method, metric, and governance model for each initiative. |
| No H3 incentives | Divisions and senior roles have no incentives, job descriptions, or strategies for supporting disruptive innovation. | Create meaningful incentives, written responsibilities, and integration tactics for Horizon 3 support across operating divisions. |
| No-go top-bottom | Top leadership says "go" and innovators are ready, but middle management kills the program through sabotage or benign neglect. | Communicate the shared mission, strategy, and tactical implementation. Update job specs, incentives, and support systems for innovation participation. |
| Sales department blocker | Sales blocks access to customers because they fear teams will pitch immature products or damage relationships. | Clarify that customer discovery is not selling. It is about understanding user problems, needs, current solutions, and future opportunities. |
| Engineering department blocker | Engineering treats innovation as a technology problem and talks only to familiar experts or a small group of known users. | Focus the organization on customer problems and total available market learning, not only technical feasibility or familiar internal opinions. |
| Legal department blocker | Legal treats all risks the same, blocking anything remotely risky. | Risk is relative and should be treated as such. Set up a clear legal dept fast-track, introduce context-aware, more risk-tolerant policies with transparent decision gates and due-dates. |
The Lean Launchpad
What is Lean Launchpad
The world's premier evidence-based support program for early-stage ventures from Stanford.
The Lean LaunchPad program, created by the father of the Lean Startup movement, Steve Blank, at Stanford and UC Berkeley, is a proven, hands-on innovation methodology for turning uncertain ideas into evidence-based business opportunities. Instead of relying on business plans, internal opinions, or stage-gate theater, teams use the Business Model Canvas, customer discovery, rapid experimentation, and weekly evidence reviews to test whether a new venture, product, or business model deserves investment.
Its credibility comes from scale: the National Science Foundation adopted Blank’s Stanford Lean LaunchPad class to create NSF I-Corps, and more than 2,500 NSF I-Corps teams have participated since inception, with nearly 1,400 startups formed and $3.16 billion in subsequent funding raised. The model has also spread across universities, government, science commercialization, healthcare, energy, and defense-related innovation programs, even including GOs like US National Institutes of Health, US Department Of Energy, and the US Department of Defence.
For corporate innovation managers and executives, Lean LaunchPad offers what most innovation portfolios lack: a disciplined way to reduce uncertainty before major spend, expose weak assumptions early, generate customer evidence fast, and focus leadership attention on the opportunities most likely to become scalable businesses. It is idealy suited for organizations that want to move beyond mere idea funnels and workshops toward a repeatable operating system for validated innovatoin and growth.
Learn more about the Lean Launchpad programPractical tool
Questions for corporate leaders to ask
Use these questions to quickly test whether your innovation effort is set up to learn - or just set up to look busy.
- Are we clear whether this initiative is Horizon 1 execution or Horizon 2/3 search?
- Are we using a method that matches the type of uncertainty?
- Have we written down the assumptions that must be true for this to work?
- Are teams talking to real customers, users, partners, and stakeholders?
- Are we measuring evidence, or only activity?
- Do innovators have protected time, resources, and decision access?
- Can sales, legal, compliance, and engineering support discovery without blocking it?
- Are incentives aligned with long-term innovation outcomes, not only current operations?
- Is there a clear gateway from experimentation into the core business?
- Do we know what happens when an experiment fails, succeeds, or needs to pivot?
Continue the series
Related guides
Innovation failure is easier to avoid when program design, processes, frameworks, education, portfolio metrics, and support are all in concert as one functional system; your innovation pipeline.
FAQ
Why Innovation Fails FAQ
Why does corporate innovation fail?
Corporate innovation often fails because organizations do the wrong things the right way, the right things the wrong way, the wrong things the wrong way, or they fail to prioritise both execution AND search for the long-term. The mismatch can be in the methods, tools, metrics, governance, personnel, incentives, or organizational structure.
What does it mean to do the wrong things the right way?
It means executing efficiently even though the way it is executed in itself is not appropriate for the type of innovation opportunity they are pursuing. A company can execute the process flawlessly and still fail if it applies the wrong execution paradigm to do the job.
Why are most traditional tools not helpful?
Traditional tools often assume predictability, long & linear planning, in a relative stable environment. They can support linear execution, but they were not built for customer discovery and interative non-linear experimentation, effectively offering no solutions to learning at speed.
What should companies use for Horizon 2 and Horizon 3 innovation?
Companies should use search and validation methods such as Business Model Generation, Customer Development, Agile Engineering, lean innovation, and use proven evidence-based methodologies like the Lean Launchpad. These methods help teams test hypotheses, collect evidence, learn, iterate, and pivot at speed.
How should innovation be measured?
Measure according to the innovation type. Horizon 1 can use execution metrics, while Horizon 2 and Horizon 3 need evidence-based metrics such as experiments, validated assumptions, customer discovery progress, and Innovation Readiness Level.
How can companies fix innovation failure?
Companies can improve outcomes by matching methods to innovation types, separating search from execution, creating clear governance and gateways, changing incentives, protecting customer access, and measuring evidence instead of activity.
Talk to us
Want help improving your innovation outcomes?
+ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES helps companies design better corporate innovation programs, choose the right methodologies, build evidence-based innovation pipelines, and create practical systems for moving from ideas to validated opportunities.
If your innovation efforts are stuck, scattered, or hard to measure, we can help you create more structure and design & execute a better operating model.
Let's talk about improving innovation outcomes