\n
<\/p>\n
In 1985, Intel was in trouble. Japanese competitors were dominating the memory chip market that Intel had helped invent. Inside the company, leadership debated what to do. During one conversation, Andy Grove, then Intel\u2019s president and COO, asked<\/a> CEO Gordon Moore a deceptively simple question: \u201cIf we were replaced tomorrow, what would a new CEO do?\u201d Moore didn\u2019t hesitate. \u201cHe would get us out of the memory business.\u201d<\/p>\n The two men looked at each other and realized something uncomfortable. They already knew the answer; they just hadn\u2019t acted on it. Intel exited the market that had defined its identity and doubled down on microprocessors, a decision that reshaped the company and ultimately the technology industry.<\/p>\n The lesson wasn\u2019t just about strategy. It was also about the strategic courage to say no. But that only matters if it creates room for something better.<\/p>\n Most organizations celebrate experimentation. But after years working with large innovation portfolios, one pattern has become clear to me. The limiting factor isn\u2019t the supply of ideas: it\u2019s the ability to choose between them and identify the right process to take the winning one forward.<\/p>\n Every organization accumulates projects that once looked promising but never quite gain momentum. The technology works, but the market is uncertain; or the prototype impresses internally, but scaling would take years.<\/p>\n These projects rarely fail outright. Instead, they linger as \u201czombie projects,\u201d shuffling along year after year, absorbing talent, leadership attention, and budget without ever becoming a real business.<\/p>\n Over time, they quietly drain the most valuable resources innovation needs, starting with leadership attention. And because every dollar and person-hour you commit to these ideas is unavailable elsewhere, you must prove that the idea is worth it.<\/p>\n Large organizations are especially vulnerable to this dynamic. Not because they lack capability, but because scale changes incentives. Ending a project can feel like admitting a mistake.<\/p>\n Multiply that behavior across dozens of teams and the result is predictable. Innovation portfolios become crowded. Decision cycles slow down. Resources are spread across too many bets.<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, only a small fraction of corporate innovation pilots ever reach scale, with roughly 95% of new product launches ultimately falling short<\/a>.<\/p>\n The problem is not statistical. It has more to do with not having the structure in place that allows you to filter ideas properly.<\/p>\nInnovation needs judgment<\/h2>\n
The hidden cost of not deciding<\/h2>\n
Why resource allocation matters more than you think in innovation<\/h2>\n