Why ‘Fail Fast’ Innovation Advice Is Wrong

Content provided by Phil McKinney. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Phil McKinney or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

Killer Innovations with Phil McKinney - A Show About Ideas Creativity And Innovation »
Why ‘Fail Fast’ Innovation Advice Is Wrong

2d ago 22:38

MP3•Episode home

The most popular piece of innovation advice in Silicon Valley is wrong—and it's killing great ideas before they have a chance to succeed.

I can prove it with a story about a glass of water that sat perfectly still while a car bounced beneath it.

My name is Phil McKinney. I spent decades as HP's CTO making billion-dollar innovation decisions, and I learned the hard way that following “fail fast” advice cost us billions and robbed the world of breakthrough technologies.

Today, I'm going to share five specific signs that indicate when an idea deserves patience instead of being killed prematurely. Miss these signs, and you'll become another “fail fast” casualty.

The Water Glass That Changed Everything

So there I was around 2006, sitting in Dr. Bose's lab at Bose Corporation, and he was showing me what honestly looked like just a regular car seat mounted on some automotive hardware. I'm thinking, “Okay, what's the big deal here?”

But then he activates the system and has his assistant start driving over these increasingly aggressive road obstacles. And here's what blew my mind—the car chassis is bouncing around like crazy, but the seat? Perfectly still.

Then Dr. Bose does something that I'll never forget. He places a full glass of water on the seat and tells his assistant to hit a speed bump at thirty miles per hour. The chassis lurches violently, but not a single drop of water spills.

And here's what should terrify every “fail fast” advocate—this technology took fifty years to develop. Dr. Bose began developing the mathematical model in the 1960s. Under today's quarterly Wall Street pressure, this project would have been killed a hundred times over.

When I asked Dr. Bose how he could invest in an idea for fifty years, he explained that keeping Bose private meant they weren't subject to the quarterly results pressure that often destroys patient innovation at public companies.

At HP, we were trapped in that system—and it cost HP billions.

How “Fail Fast” Destroyed Billions at HP

As a public company, we lived and died by quarterly earnings calls. Every ninety days, we had to show growth, and that quarterly drumbeat made us masters at killing promising ideas the moment they didn't produce immediate results.

Let me give you three examples that still keep me up at night:

WebOS: We acquired Palm for one-point-two billion dollars in 2010. Revolutionary interface, years ahead of its time. Killed it when it didn't achieve immediate dominance. Every time you swipe between apps today, you're using thinking we threw away.

Digital cameras: We literally invented the future of photography. Abandoned it the moment smartphones started incorporating cameras.

HP Halo: Immersive telepresence rooms with extraordinary meeting experiences. Sold to Polycom for eighty-nine million in twenty-eleven when quarterly pressures demanded focus. We bought Poly back for three-point-three billion in twenty-twenty-two. We paid thirty-seven times more to reacquire capabilities we built.

We weren't bad managers. We were trapped by the quarterly earnings system that makes “fail fast” the only option for public companies. And it was systematically destroying our breakthrough potential.

Visit Studio Notes over on Substack where I discuss how these quarterly pressures shaped our boardroom decisions and what we were really thinking.

Now, after making these billion-dollar mistakes, I had to figure out how to distinguish between ideas worth killing and ideas worth protecting. What I discovered changed everything—and it comes down to five things I now look for.

When I see all five, I know we've got something worth being patient with. Miss even one, and you're probably wasting your time.

The Five Things I Now Look For

First: Does the Math Actually Work?

Here's how to validate the science without being a scientist yourself.

Start with peer review. Has this been published in reputable journals? Are other researchers building on it? Red flag: if the only validation comes from the inventors themselves.

Next, bring in independent experts. Not consultants who'll tell you what you want to hear—find researchers who have no financial stake in your project. Share your core assumptions with them and ask them to identify any holes.

Look for mathematical elegance. Dr. Bose's suspension model was beautiful in its simplicity. Overly complex models with dozens of variables often hide fundamental flaws.

Here's your action step: Before investing serious money, get three independent technical reviews. If even one expert raises fundamental concerns about the underlying science, stop. No amount of patience fixes broken physics.

Second: Can You Actually Build the Pieces?

You need a dependency map. List every technology that has to work for your project to succeed. Then assess each one separately.

For each dependency, ask: Are we developing this ourselves, waiting for someone else to solve it, or hoping it gets solved by magic? If more than one critical piece falls in the “magic” category, you're not being patient—you're gambling.

Create realistic timelines for each component. Bose needed better actuators, smaller amplifiers, and faster control systems. They could systematically work on each piece. That's patient innovation.

But if you need breakthroughs in five unrelated fields simultaneously—like needing better batteries AND quantum computing AND room-temperature superconductors—that's not a plan, that's a wish list.

Your action step: Map your critical dependencies. If you can't draw a clear path to solving each one, either find a different approach or walk away.

Third: Will Anyone Actually Want This?

Don't just look at today's market—study how problems evolve and new markets emerge.

Start with pain-point analysis. What specific problem does this solve, and how severe is that pain? Bose started with car comfort but found its real market when truck driver health became a safety issue.

Look for regulatory drivers. Often, breakthrough technologies become valuable when regulations change. Environmental rules, safety standards, health requirements—these create demand that didn't exist before.

Study early adopters. Who are the customers willing to pay a premium for imperfect solutions? This is your proving ground. If you can't identify specific early adopters willing to pay above-market prices, your timing is probably wrong.

Your action step: Identify three specific customer segments who would pay a premium for an early version of your solution. If you can't name them specifically, you're not ready.

Fourth: Will You Have Time to Enjoy It?

This is about building defensible advantages that competitors can't easily copy.

Focus on system-level innovation, not just component improvements. Bose didn't just build better shock absorbers—they created an integrated electromagnetic system that required entirely different expertise.

Look for knowledge-accumulation advantages. The longer you work on something, the more you should know about it than anyone else. If competitors can hire away your key people and instantly catch up, you don't have a real advantage.

Consider manufacturing complexity. Technologies that require specialized production processes, custom tooling, or rare expertise create natural barriers to entry.

Your action step: Write down exactly why it would take competitors at least two years to match your solution, even if they threw unlimited money at it. If you can't make that case convincingly, keep working.

Fifth: Can You Actually Survive the Wait?

This is the make-or-break assessment. Most good ideas die here, not because the technology fails, but because the organization can't sustain the investment.

First, assess your funding horizon. How long can you sustain this before you need to generate revenue? Be brutally honest. Include the cost of delays, scope creep, and inevitable setbacks.

Second, evaluate the decision-maker's patience. Will the people approving your budget still be there in three years? Will they still believe in the project when competitors are winning quarterly battles?

Third, create protection mechanisms. This might mean dedicated funding that can't be raided for other projects, separate business units, or partnership structures that insulate the project from quarterly pressures.

Your action step: Calculate your true funding runway, including realistic setbacks and contingencies. If it's less than the time needed for fundamental breakthroughs, either get more patient capital or find a faster path to revenue.

These five assessments work in theory, but do they actually create billion-dollar returns in the real world?

The Seventy Billion Dollar Proof

Now here's the most compelling modern example—Dell's 2013 privatization. Michael Dell paid twenty-four-point-nine billion for one thing: freedom from the quarterly earnings pressure that was killing their long-term potential.

Dell explicitly stated the goal was “no more pulling R&D and growth investments to make quarterly numbers.”

And the results were remarkable. R&D spending went from one-point-one billion to four-point-four billion, Dell transformed from a declining PC manufacturer to an enterprise solutions leader, and by 2023, the investment had generated an estimated seventy billion dollar return.

One of private equity's most successful turnarounds, built on escaping the quarterly Wall Street system that makes “fail fast” the only option for most public companies.

Visit Studio Notes over on Substack where I share how Alex Mandl orchestrated this deal and what Michael Dell was really trying to accomplish.

Why This Really Matters

The Bose Ride system launched in 2010, and it's been improving the lives of truck drivers who were facing whole-body vibration problems that had no technological solution. Academic studies have shown significant reductions in driver pain, lower fatigue levels, and faster recovery times after long road trips.

One driver told researchers something that really stuck with me: “I thought I was going to have to quit my job. I was in crisis because my back was in such bad shape, but now I feel great I am driving full-time.”

If Dr. Bose had followed “fail fast” advice, that driver would still be in pain, and the advance would never have happened.

So here's my challenge to you—and it starts with looking at what's sitting right in front of you.

Your Innovation Challenge

Look at your current portfolio right now. Are there projects that passed mathematics validation but haven't shown commercial results? Projects where the ecosystem isn't ready but the fundamental science is sound?

Those might be exactly the innovations that deserve patience instead of “fail fast” pressure.

I use the seventy-twenty-ten model: Seventy percent core improvements that move quickly. Twenty percent on adjacent markets with moderate timelines. Ten percent transformational advances—your patient capital investments.

Patient innovation creates technological moats that rapid iteration cannot replicate. Once achieved, it often produces faster competitive advantage. You get overnight success after decades of systematic development.

The difference between companies that master this and those that don't comes down to asking the right questions.

The Questions That Change Everything

Instead of asking “How quickly can we bring this to market?” try asking “What needs to get better before this becomes real?”

Instead of asking “What's our quarterly burn rate?” try asking “What's the breakthrough potential if we actually solve this?”

Instead of asking “Why hasn't this shown results?” try asking “Does the math work, and what pieces need more time?”

The companies that master this balance will dominate the next wave of transformative technologies. In a world obsessed with speed, patient innovators are building the technologies that will define the next decade.

What opportunity in your organization deserves patience instead of “fail fast” pressure? That question will determine whether you're building the next major advance or killing it before it has a chance to succeed.

Visit Studio Notes over on Substack where I tell the complete story of that day in Dr. Bose's lab and the boardroom decisions at HP that we're still paying for today.

If this resonates, share your own patient innovation experiences in the comments. And remember: thinking better creates better ideas. Sometimes those ideas need time to become the advances that change everything.

To learn why fail fast innovation advice is wrong, listen to this week's show: Why ‘Fail Fast' Innovation Advice Is Wrong.

Get the tools to fuel your innovation journey → Innovation.Tools https://innovation.tools

276 episodes

#Creativity #Society #Business #MBA #Phil McKinney #Arts #Tech