Thanks for reaching out. Be sure to check us out on LinkedIn for all of our current news and announcements.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
In the last edition of Beyond the Core we argued that innovation needs more bets, not fewer. But volume on its own is just noise. The thing that turns a pile of bets into a real portfolio is measurement. And most corporates measure innovation badly.
Quick version: if you can't define what "good" looks like at each stage, then every kill-or-continue decision becomes a popularity contest. The loudest voice wins. The most senior person wins. The project with the best internal champion wins. None of that is the same as the project most likely to work.
Prioritization without measurement is politics. That's the whole post, really. But let’s dig into the traps.
There are three measurement fails nearly every corporation falls into.
1️⃣ Vague metrics. When you can't define what good or bad looks like, everything becomes an opinion. "It's got potential." "The team's really excited." That's not data. That's vibes.
2️⃣ Activity metrics. Measuring what the team did instead of what the market told them. Interviews run, prototypes built, slides made. It rewards looking busy over actually learning. Motion isn't progress.
3️⃣ Stage-inappropriate metrics. Holding a six-week-old concept to profitability standards is absurd. So is asking a scaling venture to keep "validating the problem." Different stages, different questions.
That last one matters most. Almost every good innovation framework looks roughly the same under the hood: discover, validate, build and launch, scale. The names change. The shape doesn't. The skill isn't picking the framework. It's asking the right question at each stage and being honest about the answer.
Early on, you're not measuring revenue. You're measuring pain and desirability.
Do people actually have this problem? Do enough of them care?
At Highline Beta we'll look at things like:
Below 40% on those, it's a poor signal. In between, it's worth a look.
Later, the questions change -> Frequency of use.
The point of scoring isn't to turn discovery into a spreadsheet. It's to force the conversation and let you compare concepts side by side, on the same criteria, instead of by who told the better story in the room. When you line five concepts up against the same bar, the answer often gets obvious fast. One is excellent on desirability and market size. Another is poor on pain and saturated on competition. The data doesn't make the decision for you. But it makes the decision honest.
Measurement isn't bureaucracy. It's what protects you from your own biases and your org's politics. It's how you earn the right to keep going, or the right to stop.
Be objective. Be intellectually honest. Set the criteria in advance, before you're emotionally attached to the outcome.
Data tells you what to consider. Courage makes the call. The next post is about the courage part: how to actually kill your own projects without blowing up your team.
What's the worst "metric" you've seen used to justify keeping an innovation project alive?
