The following text was also published under the vignette “\u00c5sikten” in Entr\u00e9 No 4, 2015:<\/p>\n\n
Researchers Greg Stephens and James Burley have calculated that out of 3 000 ideas for new products in the manufacturing industry, around 300 are usually selected for closer examination.\nOf these, 125 receive funding for early development.\nIf you thought the sifting was over here, just wait.\nFour ideas eventually get proper development resources.\nFewer than two will become something that can be launched on the market.\nIn the end, only one<\/i> product idea succeeds commercially, that is, makes money back with a profit. <\/p>\n\n
Innovation is closely linked to risk.\nThus, the odds are one in 3 000 for an idea to succeed in the manufacturing industry.\nIn the pharmaceutical industry, it takes around 6 000-8 000 ideas to succeed.\nSo innovation projects fail more often than you think.\nWhat does this mean?\nTwo things: <\/p>\n\n
1. We must keep a thousand fires burning.\nIn general, we humans are very bad at predicting the future, at least if you ask scientist Philip Tetlock.\nHis life’s work is to follow up on experts’ predictions about what will happen in the future.\nHe has made 28 000 separate predictions.\nThe result?\nWe might as well throw darts at the various options: experts do worse than chance.\nHowever, they have an overconfidence in their own ability to guess correctly, especially if the guess is in their own area of expertise. <\/p>\n\n
The fact is that innovation takes place in a chaotic, so-called low validity environment<\/i> where it is virtually impossible to determine cause and effect.\nSometimes the product that seemed to have every chance of success fails.\nSometimes the upstart company comes out of nowhere and blows past the competition.\nWhat is the solution? <\/p>\n\n
Because innovation is unpredictable, we need to keep a thousand fires burning.\nStart small innovation projects and let them fail early.\nHopefully, some fire will take hold and make up for all those that went out along the way. <\/p>\n\n
2. We have to beat up Jante.\nIn Sweden, we have difficulty separating people from performance.\nWe like to think that our value as people is linked to how we perform.\nThere is also a social function – most of us want to be seen as successful and thoughtful in the eyes of others. <\/p>\n\n
If we link this to risky innovation work, only those people who can handle failure on a regular basis will engage in innovation.\nBut we can no longer rely on innovation to be fixed by enthusiasts – everyone must contribute to an organization’s ability to innovate. <\/p>\n\n
How can we get better at failing?\nFirst, we need to understand that innovators take risks and have the right to fail<\/i>.\nSecond, we need to cultivate the idea that mistakes lead to learning.\nResearch has shown that winning teams do not learn much because they are not given the opportunity to question their assumptions and ways of working.\nFor losing teams, learning is on steroids – provided someone is interested in picking up the pieces. <\/p>\n\n
When something goes wrong, invite colleagues and ask for their analysis.\nBe open, humble and authentic.\nSomeone has to start daring to fail – and it might as well be you. <\/p>\n\n