One reason might be that great innovators don't naturally gravitate towards middle management (or management consulting), so the metrics are flawed out of the gate.
Do you have evidence for this claim? I think metrics are absolutely invaluable for innovation.
What is innovation but throwing 100 things at the wall and seeing which two of them stick? And to quickly get a sense of which things have stuck to the wall, metrics are the only reliable way.
It probably depends on the type of innovation. If you are trying to do things differently, metrics are invaluable — most modern internal innovation teams use metrics to build and manage an idea funnel.
However, if your innovation strategy is to do different things, you will likely be focused on market differentiation, customer development etc. Common practice is to refer to AARRR metrics for this, but it’s not like metrics themselves are the main focus.
rch|4 years ago
dwaltrip|4 years ago
kqr|4 years ago
What is innovation but throwing 100 things at the wall and seeing which two of them stick? And to quickly get a sense of which things have stuck to the wall, metrics are the only reliable way.
smugglerFlynn|4 years ago
However, if your innovation strategy is to do different things, you will likely be focused on market differentiation, customer development etc. Common practice is to refer to AARRR metrics for this, but it’s not like metrics themselves are the main focus.