Why innovation cases stall, and how to get a decision

Most innovation cases don't stall because the idea is weak. They stall because nobody agreed upfront what must be true to say yes, the evidence answers the wrong questions, and the case is pitched in a language the board doesn't speak. Fix those three, set a date, and you get a decision: go, pivot or stop.

Ambition is not the problem. In BCG's 2024 innovation study, 83% of senior executives ranked innovation among their top three priorities, yet only 3% of companies qualified as "innovation ready". McKinsey found the same gap: more than 80% call innovation a top-three priority, fewer than 10% are satisfied with how it performs. Organisations want innovation. They just don't decide on it.

Why do innovation cases stall?

Three causes, and most stuck cases have all of them.

1. No mandate. Everyone supports innovation, but nobody agreed what it must deliver, what it may cost or who decides. So every case has to win the argument from zero. The symptom: "Interesting. Come back with more."
2. Thin evidence. The case rests on internal conviction and a polished slide deck. The team tested what it was curious about, not what the sponsor doubts. The symptom: "Not yet." And "not yet" is how good ideas die.
3. The wrong language. Innovation teams talk about users, prototypes and learning. Boards talk about risk, margin and capacity. Until the case speaks both, it gets applause instead of budget.

What does a stalled case cost?

More than its budget. A case that is "almost decided" for a year ties up your best people, blocks the next idea in the queue and slowly burns the credibility of the innovation team. A case that stops on evidence after ten weeks saves more than one that drags on for another year.

How do you get a stalled innovation case decided?

Five steps. None of them needs a new methodology.

1. Name the decision-maker. One person who owns the budget the case will need and can say yes. Not a committee. No sponsor at the table, no decision.
2. Agree the decision criteria first. Before any new research, write on one page what must be true for go, for pivot and for stop. This is the step most cases skip, and the reason they stall.
3. Test the riskiest assumptions against those criteria. Not everything, only what could kill the case. This is where design thinking earns its keep: interviews, prototypes and small experiments as evidence, not as theatre.
4. Translate the case into a business model. Value for the customer, value for the organisation, cost, risk and capacity. The CFO doesn't need to love your prototype. They need to see what it changes on their side.
5. Put a short decision file in front of the decision-maker on a fixed date. Three options, one recommendation, the evidence per criterion. Then ask for the decision in the room.

Is "stop" a failure?

No. Stopping on evidence frees budget and people for the next case. The real failure is the zombie project that nobody dares to end. A good decision process makes "stop" as respectable as "go".

Can you do this without outside help?

Often, yes: the five steps above work without a consultant. Outside help pays off when the politics are thick, when the innovation manager carries the responsibility without the mandate, or when the sponsor needs a neutral party to hold the line on the criteria.

That is what WAAI does. The Case Sprint takes one stalled case to go, pivot or stop in ten weeks, at a fixed price of €7,500, with the sponsor setting the criteria in week 0. Solo coaches the innovation manager one-to-one on their own case, ending in a pitch the sponsor can say yes to.

Questions people ask

How long should a decision on an innovation case take?

Weeks, not quarters. When the criteria are set upfront, ten weeks is enough for most cases.

Who should make the go/no-go decision?

The person who owns the budget the case needs next. A steering committee can advise, but someone has to decide.

What if management keeps asking for more information?

Ask which piece of information would change their decision. If the answer is none, the problem is the mandate, not the evidence.

Jan Van Caneghem is a designer and lecturer at Artevelde University of Applied Sciences, and the author of The book that helps you become the EPIC designer of our tomorrows (2022). Through WAAI Design he helps innovation managers and their sponsors in Belgium and the Netherlands get innovation cases decided.

Sources: BCG, Most Innovative Companies 2024 · McKinsey, What is innovation?