Posts

Why Your Company's Innovation Process is Broken (And Three Things You Can Actually Do About It)

Three weeks ago, I watched a perfectly good engineering manager get torn apart in a "brainstorming session" that was about as creative as a tax audit. The poor bloke had spent six months developing what was genuinely a brilliant cost-saving initiative, only to have it shot down by committee members who'd never set foot on a factory floor.

That's when it hit me. We're not failing at innovation because we lack ideas. We're failing because we've turned innovation into a bureaucratic nightmare that would make Kafka weep.

I've been consulting for Australian businesses for seventeen years now, and I can tell you this much: your innovation process isn't just broken—it's actively killing the very thing it was designed to foster. And frankly, most leadership teams are too busy patting themselves on the back about their "innovation labs" to notice they're solving yesterday's problems with tomorrow's buzzwords.

The Problem Nobody Wants to Admit

Here's what's really happening in your innovation meetings. Someone throws out an idea. Within thirty seconds, three people have explained why it won't work, two have mentioned budget constraints, and one well-meaning soul has suggested forming a subcommittee to "investigate the feasibility."

Innovation dies in committees.

I learned this lesson the hard way back in 2019 when I was working with a mid-sized manufacturing company in Adelaide. They'd spent $150,000 on an innovation platform—one of those fancy digital suggestion boxes that promises to "democratise creativity." Know how many ideas got implemented in the first year? Zero. Not because the ideas were rubbish, but because they'd created a seventeen-step approval process that would challenge the patience of a Buddhist monk.

The real kicker? Their best innovation that year came from a forklift driver who jerry-rigged a solution during his lunch break. No platform, no committee, no approval process. Just someone who saw a problem and fixed it.

Why "Best Practice" is Often Worst Practice

Every second company I walk into these days has copied someone else's innovation framework. Usually Google's or 3M's or some other Silicon Valley darling that operates in a completely different universe than your average Australian business.

Here's the thing about copying best practices: they're best for someone else's context, not yours.

Take the famous "20% time" concept. Sounds brilliant in theory—let employees spend one day a week on passion projects. In practice? I've seen it fail spectacularly in three different organisations because they tried to measure and manage that 20% time like every other KPI. They turned creative freedom into another performance metric.

The irony is delicious, if you're into that sort of thing.

The Three Things That Actually Work

After watching countless innovation initiatives crash and burn, I've identified three approaches that consistently deliver results. Not because they're revolutionary, but because they're refreshingly simple.

1. Stop Asking Permission, Start Asking Forgiveness

The most innovative companies I work with have embraced what I call "micro-rebellion." They give people small budgets—sometimes as little as $500—and complete autonomy to spend it on improvements. No approvals, no committees, no business cases.

A logistics company in Brisbane gave their warehouse staff $300 each to improve their work environment. Within three months, they'd reduced processing errors by 22% and improved workplace satisfaction scores across the board. The solutions weren't earth-shattering—better lighting here, ergonomic improvements there—but they worked because the people closest to the problems were empowered to solve them.

2. Fail Fast, But Actually Mean It

Everyone talks about failing fast these days, but most organisations are still terrified of failure. They want innovation without risk, which is like wanting children without pregnancy—technically possible, but you're missing the point entirely.

Real innovation requires real failure tolerance. Not the sanitised, PowerPoint-friendly version where "failure is a learning opportunity," but actual acceptance that sometimes good people with good ideas will produce absolute disasters.

I worked with a tech startup in Melbourne that allocated 15% of their development budget specifically for projects that might fail. Not "challenging projects with uncertain outcomes"—projects that might legitimately crash and burn. The psychological safety this created led to breakthrough innovations they never would have attempted under traditional risk management approaches.

3. Kill the Innovation Theatre

This might be the most important point, and it's definitely the most uncomfortable one.

Most innovation processes are performance art designed to make executives feel innovative without actually changing anything meaningful. The suggestion boxes, the hackathons, the innovation challenges—it's all theatre unless it's connected to real decision-making power.

I've seen companies spend more on their annual innovation showcase than they allocated for actually implementing innovations. That's not innovation; that's corporate entertainment with a fancy budget line.

The companies that get innovation right treat it like operations, not events. They embed experimentation into daily work rather than quarantining it in special sessions.

The Australian Context Nobody Talks About

Here's something that drives me mental: every innovation framework assumes you're operating in Silicon Valley's ecosystem of venture capital, risk tolerance, and failure celebration. That's not Australia.

We're a country that values steady performance over flashy breakthroughs. That's not a weakness—it's a strength if you design your innovation approach accordingly.

Australian businesses excel at incremental innovation, the kind that improves efficiency and reliability rather than disrupting entire industries. There's nothing wrong with being the company that makes things work better rather than the one that invents the next social media platform.

But we've been convinced that real innovation has to be revolutionary. Rubbish.

Some of the most valuable innovations I've seen have been embarrassingly simple. A mining company in Western Australia increased safety compliance by 31% by redesigning their reporting forms to take thirty seconds instead of five minutes. Not exactly Nobel Prize material, but it prevented injuries and saved money.

What Success Actually Looks Like

Successful innovation isn't about having the most creative brainstorming sessions or the fanciest digital platforms. It's about creating conditions where good ideas can survive contact with organisational reality.

This means shorter decision cycles, clearer authority levels, and accepting that most innovations will be incremental improvements rather than game-changers. It means measuring implementation rates alongside idea generation. It means treating innovation like a muscle that needs regular exercise, not a special occasion that requires formal ceremonies.

Most importantly, it means admitting that your current process probably isn't working and having the courage to try something simpler.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Here's what nobody wants to hear: the biggest barrier to innovation in most Australian companies isn't lack of creativity or insufficient resources. It's management behaviour that punishes risk-taking while demanding innovation.

You can't have both risk aversion and breakthrough thinking. You can't demand innovation while maintaining approval processes designed to prevent mistakes. You can't celebrate creativity while promoting people based on compliance.

Choose one or the other, but stop pretending you can have both.

Moving Forward (Without Another Committee)

If you're serious about fixing your innovation process, start with these questions:

How many good ideas died in your approval process last year? How many innovations came from your formal innovation program versus random employee initiatives? How much time do your best people spend on innovation bureaucracy versus actual innovation?

The answers might be more uncomfortable than you expect.

But here's the thing about innovation: it's not actually that complicated. Give smart people problems to solve, resources to experiment with, and permission to try things that might not work.

Everything else is just expensive theatre.

Further Reading: