Innovation, exnovation and intelligent failure

Figures & data

Table 1. Seven key characteristics of intelligent failure (after Sitkin, 1992 and McGrath, 2010).

It is well-planned, thoughtful action not post hoc rationalization The outcomes are uncertain. The overall scale or potential impact is relatively modest so that it can be managed. It is carried out and dealt with promptly and efficiently. The context is familiar enough that effective diagnosis and learning can take place. (Sitkin, 1992, p. 243) Plus: Underlying assumptions are explicitly clarified and shared The assumptions are tested at specific checkpoints, identified in advance, to quickly identify divergence from plans. (McGrath, 2010)

Figure 1. The use of intelligent failure by the Metropolitan Police Service.

Table 2. Experimentation checklist for public service organizations (adapted from Thomke & Manzi, 2014, pp. 74–75).

Purpose	Does the experiment focus on a specific policy area, management action or stakeholder aspiration under consideration? In what ways and how is the experiment expected to create public value? What do policy-makers and/or practitioners hope to learn from the experiment?
Buy-In	What specific changes would be made on the basis of the results? How will the organization ensure that the results are not ignored? How does the experiment fit into the organization’s overall purpose, policies and stakeholder priorities, and learning agenda?
Feasibility	Does the experiment have a testable prediction? What is the required sample size? Can the organization feasibly conduct the experiment at the test locations for the required duration? Are there experts on hand who understand evidence-based practice who can help with design and findings?
Reliability	What indicators and measures will be used? Will they account for systemic bias, whether conscious or unconscious? Where a control group is used, do the non-tested characteristics of any control group match those of the test group? Is the research designed to collect the best available evidence given the context and risk level? Have any remaining biases been eliminated or reduced through statistical analyses or other techniques? Would others conducting the same experiment obtain similar results?
Value	In what ways will public value be created? Will any public value be wasted, destroyed or displaced? Has the organization considered a targeted rollout—that is, one that takes into account a proposed initiative’s effect on different service users or stakeholders? What elements of organizational performance are going to be most improved? Will the organization have a better understanding of what variables are causing what effects? Can the insights about the experiment be shared with other similar services and organizations?

Table 3. Suggested areas for further research.

Research area	Importance	Potential benefits to policy and practice
Processes and outcomes of intelligent failure in public sector organizations	Currently under-researched—could provide rich data to understand intelligent failure	How to practice intelligent failure in the context of risk and public scrutiny
Dimensions of innovation and intelligent failure	Is intelligent failure easier or harder to action in the context of incremental rather than radical innovation, and other dimensions of innovation?	Could help with planning innovations in particular contexts through deeper understanding of intelligent failure
Drivers and blockers of exnovation	To understand when, how and why exnovation is considered and enacted	Better balance between initiating and killing off innovations, leading to more realistic organizational change. Support the development of more effective policies and processes to create effective exnovation
Key processes of decision-making in intelligent failure and exnovation	To understand aspects of decision-making processes and decision-makers, including rationality and politics	Enhance policy and leadership effectiveness Enhance decision-making effectiveness at an organizational and sector level
Intelligent failure in public compared with private contexts	To gain greater insight into responses to failure in varied contexts and degrees of publicness	Support greater understanding of the impact and nature of failure in a public policy context
The relationships between intelligent failure, organizational learning and organizational performance	To understand whether intelligent failure always leads to useable learning. And does that learning lead to improved organizational performance?	Support the development of better organizational processes for organizational learning from innovation failure and using that learning productively

Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: the strategy of small losses. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 231–266.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McGrath, R. (2010). Are you squandering your intelligent failures. Harvard Business Review, 26 March [Online]. Available at: https://hbr.org/2010/03/are-you-squandering-your-intel.html (Accessed 26 February 2021.).

 Google Scholar

Thomke, S., & Manzi, J. (2014). The discipline of business experimentation. Harvard Business Review, 92(12), 70–79.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar