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.
As of 2026, Highline Beta argues that traditional innovation systems often stall due to rigid checklists, advocating instead for flexible progression paths that emphasize validated learning.
Innovation systems frequently falter when they prioritize structured checklists over genuine progress, leading to stagnation and reduced entrepreneurial thinking. Highline Beta suggests replacing these checklists with progression paths, which define necessary outcomes at each stage without dictating the methods to achieve them. A real-world example demonstrated that this approach led to faster progress, clearer learning goals, and higher team engagement.
Traditional innovation systems often stall because they rely on rigid checklists that treat all ventures the same, regardless of their maturity or risk level. These systems prioritize task completion over validated learning, leading to slow, linear progress and burnout among teams. Highline Beta highlights that this approach rewards activity rather than insight.
Progression paths are stage-based models that define what needs to be true at each stage of the innovation process, without prescribing how to achieve those outcomes. Unlike checklists, which require every task to be completed, progression paths allow for flexibility and encourage teams to focus on validated learning and evidence-based progress.
To implement progression paths, companies should craft a path for each stage of their innovation process. This involves setting the stage's intention, defining key assessment variables, prescribing recommended tools and methods, and establishing timelines and decision moments. Highline Beta emphasizes the importance of focusing on learning outcomes rather than task completion.
In a real-world example, Highline Beta helped a corporate partner replace a 30-item checklist with progression-based gates. This shift led to faster movement through early stages, clearer learning goals, higher team engagement, and increased credibility with leadership. The new system focused on validated learning, demonstrating that it not only felt better but also worked better.
———
Missed last week's edition of Beyond the Core? Find it here.
Too many innovation systems confuse structure with progress.
They create frameworks that look tidy but operate like compliance checklists.
We’ve seen the same pattern play out again and again: Each stage of the innovation process has a long list of required activities. Teams can’t move forward until every box is checked.
It feels organized. But it slows things down, kills momentum, and punishes entrepreneurial thinking.
We don’t believe in process for process’s sake.
We believe in progression paths, which are stage-based models that clarify and guide what progress looks like, while leaving room for flexibility, learning, and judgment.
Checklists might feel safe to leadership, but they often backfire. They:
In short: they reward activity, not insight.
Progression paths define what needs to be true at each stage without prescribing how to get there.
For example:
Each stage has clear criteria. But there’s room for teams to color outside the lines as long as the evidence is strong.
We recommend crafting one progression path for each stage of your innovation process, and following these steps:
One of our corporate partners had a 30-item checklist for early-stage ventures. No matter the context or signal strength, teams couldn’t advance without completing every item.
We helped them replace that with progression-based gates. The new system focused on what mattered most: validated learning.
The impact was immediate:
The system didn’t just feel better. It worked better.
Your innovation operating model should push ventures forward, not pin them in place.
Don’t ask: Did they finish the checklist?
Ask: Did they learn what they needed to earn the right to keep going?
That’s the difference between bureaucracy and momentum. And that difference is what unlocks real innovation.
