To innovate in business is to multiply experiences. It is also going fast and taking advantage of chess teaching to start afresh on new, healthier foundations. There is no need to dwell on long and artificial preliminary studies. No. We have an idea and we test it. It does not work ? It does not matter, we change the direction and in any case this experience generates new ideas. All this to say that if to innovate in business it is essential to have freedom of decision and initiative, it is just as important to benefit from a recognized right to error.

Innovation, how does it work?

In a recent book published by Peter Thiel, he has demonstrated how to innovate within business. With this book, the author demonstrates, with supporting examples, that experts on innovation follow a process based essentially on experimentation:

1) Experiment very quickly

We do not wait to finalize, we test quickly in real with selected and prepared customers who will quickly give their opinions.

2) Test imperfect ideas

As a result, we know full well that the idea is not deep enough but we avoid unnecessary preparations, simulations, the truth is in the commercial field.

3) Analyze failures quickly to take a small step forward

This is the recipe: we analyze all the returns. We put aside our value judgments and our attitudes of contrition. We remain "RATIONAL". And we study the why and how.

4) Take risks

The goal is simple to improve and leave for a new experience!

Still according to the author, all the great breakthrough innovations are in fact only the product of the long succession of a multitude of small bets.

- How about we try this? - Failure! - It does not work! - Let's go back to the problem and try something else - Right now!

Manybusiness gurus suggest itis totally impossible to predict which idea will be successful. This is the fundamental rule of industrial innovation. We must therefore try, correct, start over by taking advantage of the teaching to try something else, another way.

Those who have the seed of innovation , and each of us can develop it, do not hesitate to quickly experiment with imperfect ideas, and to place prototypes in real conditions that are far from being fully validated.

The visionaries? They do not exist !

In fact, according to the book by Peter Sims, there aren't really any great visionaries. They are above all actors - in the etymological sense, therefore women and men who act - who dare to engage in a series of small bets, and benefit from the teaching of each of the attempts.

The innovators' approach

An original approach for anti-conformists. According to the case : either they adopt an iterative approach and start from the results of the experiment to progress and improve the prototype being created,either they bend the approach a little, or they give up without regret and quickly reorient themselves. This is where their strength lies. The lessons of failure are not always immediately noticeable.

Some falsely persist in pursuing their efforts down a dead end, persuaded to hold the truth, while dynamic innovators waste no time and seek another more profitable path. They also have the intelligence to run several experiments at the same time. If the old morality has taught us not to run several hares at the same time, it is indeed by not respecting this adage that innovators manage to innovate ...

It's no longer about looking for a supposedly great idea, sketching it out, then preparing plans and applying a rigorous method to achieve the desired result.

In this specific case of the innovators studied by the author, we do not know the result with precision. We start very quickly, we observe, we continue or we start again.

A rather Cartesian approach

The Cartesians that we are will not be destabilized by the process. Under the appearances of improvisation, rigor and a sense of analysis are essential qualities for experimenting and rationally analyzing the results.

It is enough just to be a little more pragmatic than a theorist, and to listen to his intuitions. They are good advice when it comes to interpreting incomplete results