Corporate Innovation Initiatives

Should you try Google’s famous “20% time” experiment to encourage innovation? We tried this at Duolingo years ago. It didn’t work. It wasn’t enough time for people to start meaningful projects, and very few people took advantage of it because the framework was pretty vague. I knew there had to be other ways to drive innovation at the company. So, here are 3 other initiatives we’ve tried, what we’ve learned from each, and what we're going to try next. 💡 Innovation Awards: Annual recognition for those who move the needle with boundary-pushing projects. The upside: These awards make our commitment to innovation clear, and offer a well-deserved incentive to those who have done remarkable work. The downside: It’s given to individuals, but we want to incentivize team work. What’s more, it’s not necessarily a framework for coming up with the next big thing. 💻 Hackathon: This is a good framework, and lots of companies do it. Everyone (not just engineers) can take two days to collaborate on and present anything that excites them, as long as it advances our mission or addresses a key business need. The upside: Some of our biggest features grew out of hackathon projects, from the Duolingo English Test (born at our first hackathon in 2013) to our avatar builder. The downside: Other than the time/resource constraint, projects rarely align with our current priorities. The ones that take off hit the elusive combo of right time + a problem that no other team could tackle. 💥 Special Projects: Knowing that ideal equation, we started a new program for fostering innovation, playfully dubbed DARPA (Duolingo Advanced Research Project Agency). The idea: anyone can pitch an idea at any time. If they get consensus on it and if it’s not in the purview of another team, a cross-functional group is formed to bring the project to fruition. The most creative work tends to happen when a problem is not in the clear purview of a particular team; this program creates a path for bringing these kinds of interdisciplinary ideas to life. Our Duo and Lily mascot suits (featured often on our social accounts) came from this, as did our Duo plushie and the merch store. (And if this photo doesn't show why we needed to innovate for new suits, I don't know what will!) The biggest challenge: figuring out how to transition ownership of a successful project after the strike team’s work is done. 👀 What’s next? We’re working on a program that proactively identifies big picture, unassigned problems that we haven’t figured out yet and then incentivizes people to create proposals for solving them. How that will work is still to be determined, but we know there is a lot of fertile ground for it to take root. How does your company create an environment of creativity that encourages true innovation? I'm interested to hear what's worked for you, so please feel free to share in the comments! #duolingo #innovation #hackathon #creativity #bigideas

Most “corporate innovation” still dies in a PDF. Here’s why: management-consulting projects are optimised for performative certainty, not shipping. You get rigorous market analyses, executive alignment, and beautifully formatted slide decks—but little that a customer can click, buy, or love. Venture builders flip that equation. They drop multidisciplinary teams into the trenches, launch minimum-sellable products in months, and tie their own upside to real-world traction. Faster feedback loops, shared risk, and a bias for doing over theorising. When a leading Chemicals company asked us to move beyond selling molecules, we didn’t produce a 200-page report. We co-built a smart-paint-shop SaaS that now lets operators resolve 80 % of routine issues on their own—while generating fresh, subscription-based revenue. Decks don’t do that; builders do. So before you green-light another “innovation” budget, run this gut check: - Outcome test – Will we measure success in pages delivered or customers converted? - Risk test – Does our partner win only if we win? - Speed test – Could we have something sellable in six months? If not, why? If your answers lean toward pages, fees, and eighteen-month timelines, you’re hiring thinkers when you need builders. Call to think Look at your next growth bet: do you need another slide deck, or something customers can actually buy? #CorporateInnovation #VentureBuilding #ProductMarketFit #B2B https://lnkd.in/e3t4HCzM

Over the past few years, I’ve seen a wave of “Agentic AI” frameworks sweep across consulting circles, each promising game-changing impact. The reality is that many of these branded methodologies serve more as theater than substance, distracting organizations from the actual levers of innovation. Real transformation requires more than clever packaging. It calls for critical thinking, clear-eyed assessment of real business needs, and a focus on outcomes over spectacle. We owe it to our clients and ourselves to cut through the noise, embrace what works, and question the value behind every well-marketed promise. It’s time for our industry to raise the bar—authenticity over theatrics, results over reputation, and substance over sizzle. Let’s challenge one another to lead, not just follow trends.

𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 is one of the most impactful paradigms in management research — and also one of the most misunderstood. Since Chesbrough coined the term in 2003, the idea that firms should deliberately open their boundaries to external knowledge has reshaped how companies innovate, how universities engage with industry, and how governments design innovation policy. But how well do we actually know the foundational literature? I have put together a list of 25 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧— spanning founding theory, empirical evidence, literature reviews, ecosystems, SMEs, users and communities, and practice. Academic papers and practitioner-facing pieces. The articles that shaped the field and continue to shape it. Starting today, I will share one article per day — from #25 down to #1 — with a short explanation of what each paper is about and why it still matters, for researchers and practitioners alike. 📌 #25 — Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler (2009), "A capability-based framework for open innovation" — Journal of Management Studies What is it about? This article extends Cohen & Levinthal's absorptive capacity concept into an open innovation framework. It identifies six interconnected knowledge-related capabilities — inventive, absorptive, transformative, connective, innovative, and desorptive — that firms need to manage knowledge flows across boundaries. It bridges dynamic capabilities theory with OI practice in a rigorous and comprehensive way. Why does it matter? For academics, it provided one of the most cited theoretical bridges between dynamic capabilities and open innovation. For practitioners, it offers a diagnostic checklist to assess whether their firm has the organizational capabilities required to actually benefit from openness — not just the strategic intent. Connective capacity has been central in understanding the success of OI, and desorptive capacity is still underexplored in the OI literature, but has been picked up by Rita McGrath and others. 🔗 Read it here: https://lnkd.in/eHWsPJ9z #OpenInnovation #Innovation #InnovationManagement #ResearchMatters #KnowledgeManagement #AbsorptiveCapacity

When corporate–startup partnerships fail, it’s rarely because the tech/product/strategy didn’t work. It’s because the trust didn’t. So, how can corporates and startups build trust so the value goes beyond capital? This was one of the key questions we discussed at the NeXTT Awards panel recently. If you want partnerships to deliver value beyond capital, the foundation has to be built before the deal on shared intent, aligned ways of working, and human connection. I’ve seen the most successful collaborations follow a simple rhythm: Build trust before the deal - be transparent about why you’re partnering, not just what you’ll get. Design for mutual wins - share KPIs, not just invoices. Reduce operational friction - fast-track decisions and simplify processes. Keep relationships human - senior sponsors and everyday champions matter more than quarterly reviews. Invest in the ecosystem together - co-create, share knowledge, and celebrate wins publicly. Because trust isn’t built in contracts. It’s built in conversations, in small acts of reliability, and in the sense that both sides are equally invested in the success of the other. When both sides feel heard, supported, and respected, that’s when value truly goes beyond capital. #Startups #CorporateInnovation #Trust #Leadership #Collaboration #BeyondCapital

I am constantly thinking about how to foster innovation in my product organization. Building teams that are experts at execution is the easy part—when there’s a clear problem, product orgs are great at coming up with smart solutions. But it’s impossible to optimize your way into innovation. You can’t only rely on incremental improvement to keep growing. You need to come up with new problem spaces, rather than just finding better solutions to the same old problems. So, how do we come up with those new spaces? Here are a few things I’m trying at Duolingo: 1. Innovation needs a high-energy environment, and a slow process will kill a great idea. So I always ask myself: Can we remove some of the organizational barriers here? Do managers from seven different teams really need to say yes on every project? Seeking consensus across the company—rather than just keeping everyone informed—can be a major deterrent to innovation. 2. Similarly, beware of defaulting to “following up.” If product meetings are on a weekly cadence, every time you do this, you are allocating seven days to a task that might only need two. We try to avoid this and promote a sense of urgency, which is essential for innovative ideas to turn into successes. 3. Figure out the right incentive. Most product orgs reward team members whose ideas have measurable business impact, which works in most contexts. But once you’ve found product-market fit, it is often easiest to generate impact through smaller wins. So, naturally, if your org tends to only reward impact, you have effectively incentivized constant optimization of existing features instead of innovation. In the short term things will look great, but over time your product becomes stale. I try to show my teams that we value and reward bigger ideas. If someone sticks their neck out on a new concept, we should highlight that—even if it didn’t pan out. Big swings should be celebrated, even if we didn’t win, because there are valuable learnings there. 4. Look for innovative thinkers with a history of zero-to-one feature work. There are lots of amazing product managers out there, but not many focus on new problem domains. If a PM has created something new from scratch and done it well, that’s a good sign. An even better sign: if they show excitement about and gravitate toward that kind of work. If that sounds like you—if you’re a product manager who wants to think big picture and try out big ideas in a fast-paced environment with a stellar mission—we want you on our team. We’re hiring a Director of Product Management: https://lnkd.in/dQnWqmDZ #productthoughts #innovation #productmanagement #zerotoone

#TeachMeTuesday How much innovation are we missing if we only look at the R&D line in financial statements? 👉 Result: a lot! 📄 In a newly published Research Policy article (👉 https://lnkd.in/enDMWuVA), Neophytos Lambertides, Marina Magidou, and Anna Emilia Maruska, Ph.D. , the authors ask a simple question: what if part of the innovation signal is hiding in plain sight — in what firms say, not only in what they report numerically? Evidence in the paper then shows that over 10% of firms reporting zero or missing R&D expenditures nonetheless exhibit clear signals of innovation activity. 🧠 What this implies for innovation measurement The results reinforce a broader message: innovation is increasingly intangible, distributed, and poorly aligned with traditional reporting categories. Relying narrowly on reported R&D risks underestimating innovation — especially in services, digital-intensive sectors, and firms innovating through processes rather than products. 🏛️ What could better measurement look like? Building on the paper’s contribution, three complementary directions stand out: 🔔 Systematic use of narrative disclosures to capture latent innovation activity beyond formal R&D 🔔Broader “total innovation investment” concepts, combining R&D with other innovation-relevant intangible expenditures 🔔 Richer output indicators, integrating patents with trademarks, designs, and market-based innovation signals 🌍 Link to global policy work These insights align closely with the measurement philosophy of the WIPO, which combines traditional and non-traditional indicators to better capture innovation in all its forms.

Most companies claim they embrace failure. But walk into their Monday meetings, and watch people scramble to hide their missteps. I've seen it countless times. The same leaders who preach 'fail fast' are the first to demand explanations for every setback. Here's the uncomfortable truth:  Innovation dies in environments where people feel safer playing it safe. But there's a difference between reckless failure and strategic experimentation. Let me show you exactly how to build a culture that genuinely embraces productive failure: 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 Stop asking "Who's fault was this?" and start asking: "𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨?" "𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘶𝘴?" "𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯?" 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 '𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬' Monthly meetings where teams present their failed experiments and the insights gained. The key? Leaders must go first. Share your own failures openly, specifically, and without sugar-coating. 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 "24-𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞" After any setback, give teams 24 hours to vent/process. Then require them to present three specific learnings and two potential next steps. This transforms failure from a dead end into a data point. Most "innovative" teams are just risk-averse businesses in disguise. They've mastered innovation theater, not actual innovation. Don't let your people think they need permission to innovate. Instead, start building systems and a culture that make innovation inevitable.

Watching young talent take bold risks made me think about the importance of nurturing an entrepreneurial mindset internally. Many organizations speak about innovation, yet their structures unintentionally restrict it. True entrepreneurship does not come from slogans or training sessions. It emerges when people are trusted to make decisions, take ownership, and challenge long-standing assumptions. When individuals feel responsible for outcomes rather than simply completing tasks, their entire perspective shifts. They begin to move with more confidence, think with greater ambition, and pursue ideas with the same determination you would expect from a founder. The biggest obstacle to internal entrepreneurship is unnecessary friction. Too many layers, slow approvals, and an environment that treats mistakes as failures quietly discourage initiative. In contrast, companies that allow space for calculated risk, value learning as much as results, and give teams visibility into the broader business naturally develop people who operate with a sense of ownership. The future belongs to organizations that enable this mindset. Leadership can emerge from any corner of a company when people are encouraged to question, explore, and build. Innovation becomes sustainable only when it is embedded in the culture, not imposed from above. Remember, real momentum begins when people shift from acting as employees to thinking as founders!

Treating #AI and #automation as a "Toy Story" is a dangerous game of corporate pretend. In the video, we see a miniature excavator clumsily dumping sugar into a cup—it is slow, inefficient, and creates a mess that someone eventually has to clean up. It’s a perfect metaphor for the "innovation theater" currently playing out in boardrooms across the globe. The Illusion of "Playing" at Progress In my three decades across the tech landscape—from the rigid logic of COBOL in 1998 to the fluid disruption of 2026—I’ve seen this pattern repeat. Organizations often mistake activity for achievement. When a company deploys a bot or a LLM wrapper just to say they have one, they aren't innovating; they are playing. Like the plastic excavator in the video, these "toy" implementations share three fatal flaws: The Sugar Spill: They create more technical debt and fragmented data than they solve. Precision Failure: Using a "cool" tool to solve a problem that actually required a fundamental process redesign. Human Friction: Technology should be invisible and empowering. When it becomes a clunky centerpiece that people have to work around, it’s a toy, not a tool. Moving from "Toy" to "Transformation" True strategy requires moving beyond the novelty phase. Disruption isn't about the tool itself; it’s about how that tool redefines the value chain. To move past the "Toy Story" phase, leadership must pivot toward three strategic pillars: Intentional Design: You cannot automate a broken process and expect a fixed result. You simply get a faster version of the same mess. Architectural Scalability: If your AI solution cannot scale without creating a massive "spill" of operational cost, it’s a gimmick. Governance as a Backbone: A toy doesn't need a safety manual, but enterprise-grade AI requires rigorous cybersecurity and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) frameworks. These are not "added features"—they are the foundation. The Opportunity Cost of Play In critical sectors—whether it's the semiconductor supply chain or building out India’s AI infrastructure—there is no room for play. The stakes are simply too high. When we treat AI as a toy, we don't just waste capital; we burn out our best talent and lose the narrow window of opportunity to lead in an era of total disruption. The video ends with the participants drinking their coffee, but the mess remains on the table. In the business world, that "mess" translates to lost ROI, stagnant growth, and eventual irrelevance. The #Strategist's View: Real transformation isn't about owning the shiny new toy; it’s about having the structural wisdom to know where the machinery actually belongs. The Question for Leadership: Is your organization currently "playing" with automation to satisfy a trend, or are you building the hardened infrastructure required for the next decade of competition? DC* Dinwins