Innovation Consultancy Insights

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

After spending three decades in the aerospace industry, I’ve seen firsthand how crucial it is for different sectors to learn from each other. We no longer can afford to stay stuck in our own bubbles. Take the aerospace industry, for example. They’ve been looking at how car manufacturers automate their factories to improve their own processes. And those racing teams? Their ability to prototype quickly and develop at a breakneck pace is something we can all learn from to speed up our product development. It’s all about breaking down those silos and embracing new ideas from wherever we can find them. When I was leading the Scorpion Jet program, our rapid development – less than two years to develop a new aircraft – caught the attention of a company known for razors and electric shavers. They reached out to us, intrigued by our ability to iterate so quickly, telling me "you developed a new jet faster than we can develop new razors..." They wanted to learn how we managed to streamline our processes. It was quite an unexpected and fascinating experience that underscored the value of looking beyond one’s own industry can lead to significant improvements and efficiencies, even in fields as seemingly unrelated as aerospace and consumer electronics. In today’s fast-paced world, it’s more important than ever for industries to break out of their silos and look to other sectors for fresh ideas and processes. This kind of cross-industry learning not only fosters innovation but also helps stay competitive in a rapidly changing market. For instance, the aerospace industry has been taking cues from car manufacturers to improve factory automation. And the automotive companies are adopting aerospace processes for systems engineering. Meanwhile, both sectors are picking up tips from tech giants like Apple and Google to boost their electronics and software development. And at Siemens, we partner with racing teams. Why? Because their knack for rapid prototyping and fast-paced development is something we can all learn from to speed up our product development cycles. This cross-pollination of ideas is crucial as industries evolve and integrate more advanced technologies. By exploring best practices from other industries, companies can find innovative new ways to improve their processes and products. After all, how can someone think outside the box, if they are only looking in the box? If you are interested in learning more, I suggest checking out this article by my colleagues Todd Tuthill and Nand Kochhar where they take a closer look at how cross-industry learning are key to developing advanced air mobility solutions. https://lnkd.in/dK3U6pJf

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

If Apple did all its hiring only from BlackBerry or Nokia, would the iPhone even exist in its current form? Unlikely. Innovation rarely thrives in echo chambers. So why do so many leaders insist on hiring only from within their own industry, especially in supply chain, where adaptability is everything? After 20+ years leading supply chains across FMCG, Foods, Automotive, and Medical Devices, I’ve seen a puzzling paradox: companies seek transformation but screen out the very people who could deliver those with cross-industry experience. Yes, every industry has its nuances. But supply chain fundamentals—demand planning, inventory optimization, risk management, supplier relationships—are highly transferable. More importantly, cross-pollination brings powerful perspectives. Here’s what they’re missing: ·       Pharma’s production efficiency is powered by automotive’s lean manufacturing. ·       Tech’s rapid launch cycles are inspired by fashion’s fast-cycle forecasting. ·       Food safety protocols strengthened through healthcare’s traceability standards. Still, most leaders default to familiarity over foresight. In a world defined by volatility and complexity, fresh thinking is a requirement. Leaders who’ve navigated multiple sectors bring the agility, curiosity, and strategic breadth needed to build future-ready supply chains. If you're hiring for growth, stop looking in the rear-view mirror. The future is being built by those who think across borders—and industries. Are you still hiring your supply chain team from your own industry or you build diverse teams mindfully? #SupplyChainLeadership #TalentStrategy #CrossIndustryThinking #FutureOfWork #SupplyChainTransformation

Have you ever considered appointing an “Innovator in Residence”? Many organisations invest heavily in innovation programs — but struggle with alignment, governance, and momentum once the workshops end. In startup accelerators, venture capital firms, and business schools, Entrepreneurs in Residence are seasoned founders and venture leaders who provide strategic guidance and oversight, helping new ventures scale with discipline. What if corporates, government agencies, or small-to-medium firms applied a similar model? Enter the Innovator in Residence — your corporate version of an Entrepreneur in Residence, delivered as a practical embedded innovation partner, bringing strategy, governance, and execution expertise directly into your teams. This is someone who works alongside your teams and leadership to: • Align innovation initiatives directly to strategic priorities • Bring executive-level portfolio visibility and decision discipline • Reduce risk through structured governance and clear evaluation frameworks • Lead quarterly strategy sessions and innovation portfolio oversight • Support teams through innovation projects and initiatives, offering guidance, mentoring, and coaching to ensure progress and results • Bridge the gap between strategy and execution, helping teams deliver tangible results • Build internal capability and embed innovation beyond one-off programs • Maintain momentum between major programs and leadership changes The result? Innovation becomes embedded, disciplined, and sustainable — supported by experienced, independent expertise. I’ve seen firsthand how this model helps corporate, government, and small-to-medium organisations accelerate pipelines, embed repeatable frameworks, and sustain innovation beyond one-off initiatives. If this idea resonates, or if you’re curious how an Innovator in Residence could work in your organisation, I’m happy to share what this looks like in practice. #leadership #innovation #strategy #transformation #organisationaldevelopment

Building a new startup in the wild, and building a new venture inside a large corporation and spinning it out are two different challenges. I've done both. I built startups and scaled them independently, but also build a few startups inside organizations, and after being on both sides of this entrepreneurial landscape, I find it amazing how people who are building or investing in startups not inside organizations, think they know it all about doing corporate business building. I think that founders and VCs should approach corporate business and venture building with humility. They both have overlapping and shared entrepreneurial challenges like customer discovery, iterating the business model, looking for product-market-fit, user acquisition and more - but that is the 30% of shared entrepreneurial challenge space. The other 70% are sets of challenge that are unique to each type of business building. When you build a new independent startup: - You have no resources and capital and need to find investors to back you up. - You need to convince co-founders and team members to join you. - You own 100% of the venture at first and have equity as leverage but no cash. - You have no strategic focus or anchor and need to pick what to solve out of many choices. - You have no constraints or risk of reputation because nobody knows you. When you are building a new corporate venture: - You might have a lot of resources but they might not fit to the type of venture you wish to build. - You need to navigate internal politics and find a corporate champion. - You might need to build in an area that aligns with your corporate strategy. - You might have internal funding, but you might own 5% of the company, you are co-founding. - You might have a team of 10, but most of them are corporate innovation tourists that make your progress slower. Founders on both sides, need some common critical entrepreneurial skills like focus, ambition, resilience and more, but they also be open to learn that building in the two different setups is a different challenge. Someone who build a startup independently, will meet tough and unique challenges when they go to building and spin-out a new company from a 500k people global corporation. Corporate innovators that decide to leave and build a new startup in the wile, will meet other challenges and will feel they are suddenly nobody's without the big brand that was behind them when they built internally. ✍ if you wish me to write more about this topic of corporate business building vs. startup building please like this post and add a comment with your thoughts.

Most companies are using AI for efficiency. Some are accelerating value creation. A great case study is how Colgate-Palmolive is driving innovation. Here are specific ways they are embedding GenAI across innovation processes to substantlly improve research and product development. These come from an excellent article in MIT Sloan Management Review by Tom Davenport and Randy Bean (link in comments). 💡 AI-Driven Product Concept Generation Accelerates Ideation By linking one AI system that surfaces consumer needs with another that crafts product concepts, Colgate-Palmolive can swiftly generate creative ideas like novel toothpaste flavors. This AI-augmented workflow produces a broader product funnel and allows rapid iteration, enabling more employees to participate in the innovation process under guided human oversight. 🔍 Retrieval-Augmented Generation Enhances Data Reliability The firm’s use of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) integrates company-specific research, syndicated data, and real-time trends from sources like Google search data. This approach minimizes the risk of hallucinations and ensures that responses are deeply grounded in verified, internal content—delivering more accurate market analysis and trend detection. 🤖 Digital Consumer Twins Validate and Refine Concepts Moving beyond traditional focus groups, the company has developed “digital consumer twins”—virtual representations of real consumer behavior. These digital twins rapidly test hundreds of AI-generated product ideas. Early evaluations show a high level of agreement between virtual feedback and actual consumer responses. This innovation speeds up early-stage concept validation and reduces reliance on slower, more limited human panels. 🔐 Democratizing AI Through a Secure Internal AI Hub Colgate-Palmolive’s AI Hub provides employees with controlled access to advanced AI tools (including models from OpenAI and Google) behind corporate firewalls. Mandatory training on responsible AI use, including guardrails and prompt engineering best practices, ensures that employees harness these tools safely and effectively. Built-in surveys and KPI tracking further enable the company to measure improvements in creativity, productivity, and overall work quality. 🌐 Bridging Traditional Analytics with Next-Gen AI for Measurable Impact By integrating traditional machine learning with cutting-edge generative AI, Colgate-Palmolive is not only boosting operational efficiencies but also driving strategic growth. This seamless blend supports tasks ranging from market research and innovation to marketing content creation—demonstrating a holistic, value-driven approach to adopting AI that is a model for other organizations.

Most corporate innovation labs don't survive long enough to matter. They launch with beanbag chairs and big promises, then quietly disappear two or three years later, leaving behind expensive furniture and the faint smell of failed ambition. One study put it plainly: fewer than half of corporate incubators meet their strategic objectives. The innovation lab for Ingenico, a France-based giant in the payments industry, has been running for twelve years. I spent time with Romain Colnet, who has led the lab through much of its lifecycle, to understand what made the difference. A few lessons: 1. The lab started with a genuine threat, not a trend. Ingenico makes payment terminals, i.e. those devices you tap your card on at checkout. When mobile payments began to emerge, the company asked itself a hard question: what happens if smartphones make our entire product line obsolete? That's where the lab came from, an existential fear. 2. Executive ownership, not executive cheerleading. Most innovation programs report to a well-meaning senior leader who offers warm words but limited intervention. Ingenico required that every project have a single owner at the executive committee level. This is someone who can say, "I want this on my roadmap" and mean it. 3. Venture thinking in a corporate body. The lab expects projects to fail. Venture capitalists understand that, on average, six out of ten investments will fail completely. Corporate innovation labs need the same mindset. Ingenico has learned to accept that some projects won't work out, but only after testing them in the real world. "You should always try your project in the field because that's where you learn the biggest amount of useful information," Colnet advises. "Most of the time it's not what you expected, which is perfect." 4. Patience about timing. Some ideas went on the shelf for years, then came back when the market caught up. That kind of disciplined restraint is rare. My full piece is in Forbes (Link in the comments) Heed this advice from Colnet: "You should not start a lab in companies that are not accepting that you sometimes do not succeed in what you're trying. Learning is part of the process. If companies are not willing to take risks, to be bold, to move fast and to get some people that are totally thinking differently from the company, then there's a low chance you will succeed."

Corporate venture made a comeback in September. I’m back with the latest VC trends from September, and A LOT of capital is flowing right now, over $4 billion was raised by VC funds in September alone. 40+ new funds launched & the median fund size was $100M. But the headline isn't the dollar amount, it's WHO raised and HOW they're deploying. (btw, in the report the more precise numbers are slightly different since the data used is from 28 Aug-27 Sept 2025) In the image below is a snapshot of the funds announced, showing: - fund name - fund size - geography - sector focus - stage - key LPs (The full table is in the report at the link below, hard to fit the whole one on here!) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 3 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐕𝐂: 1. CORPORATE VENTURE IS BACK Sanofi: $625M because biotech VCs stopped writing checks CoreWeave: Combining capital with compute resources Robinhood Filed for NYSE-listed fund giving retail access to private markets 2. HEALTHCARE SPECIALISTS DOMINATED 28% of all September funds focused on healthcare. Subspecialization is extreme - women's health, whole-person wellness, AI-driven biotech 3. EUROPE’S SHARE IS GROWING 31% of funds were Europe-based, with new activity outside the usual hubs. The US still led at 46%, but capital is spreading. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠: Standard Capital just closed a $425M inaugural fund and it is trying to reinvent Series A. It was founded in 2025 by Paul Buchheit (creator of Gmail, early OpenAI investor, longtime YC partner), Dalton Caldwell (YC managing partner), and Bryan Berg (early Stripe engineer). Their focus is exclusively leading Series A rounds in post–product-market-fit companies. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞: 𝘍𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 & 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 → eliminating the weeks of negotiation that slow founders down. 𝘍𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 → no board seats, no legal fees, and founders set their own valuation and round size. 𝘘𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘴 → backing ~5 companies per batch, 4x per year. 𝘖𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 → no warm intro required, anyone can apply. 𝘈𝘐-𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 → using AI to streamline research, diligence, and memo writing. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐘𝐎𝐔: • Founders Corporate VCs now offer compute, R&D access, and partnership opportunities traditional funds can't match so don't overlook them. • LPs Development finance institutions and strategic corporates are building infrastructure traditional LPs ignore. • Fund Managers The general sentiment - that if you can't offer strategic resources beyond capital, you're competing on price alone. PS: I compiled a 23-page report on September 2025 VC trends and patterns, check it out at the link below: https://linktr.ee/ivelinad

The McKinsey data reveals something crucial. Here's what 1,491 executives said about Gen AI adoption: Oversaturated AI Markets: → Marketing & Sales (42% adoption) → Product Development (28% adoption) → IT Functions (23% adoption) Everyone’s building here. Everyone’s competing. So where are the opportunity gaps? →  Manufacturing (5% adoption) → Risk & Compliance (11% adoption) → Supply Chain Management (7% adoption) → Strategy & Corporate Finance (11% adoption) The signal is clear: Low adoption = High opportunity. Let’s break it down: Manufacturing: → Only 5-13% adoption rates → Physical processes need AI integration Supply chain/inventory: → Averaging just 7% adoption → Logistics nightmares everywhere Risk, legal, compliance: → 11% overall adoption → Regulatory complexity = barrier to entry What This Means for You: Stop building the 500th marketing AI tool. Start solving real problems in: → Manufacturing optimization → Supply chain forecasting → Financial risk modelling → Compliance automation The Pattern I See: Industries with physical operations = lowest AI adoption. Industries with digital workflows = highest saturation. Bottom line: The sexiest AI opportunities aren't in the obvious places. They're in the boring, complex problems nobody wants to solve. Smart entrepreneurs target the gaps. Not the crowds. What industry do you think has the biggest untapped AI potential?