Rafaela Ferreira Mani\u00e7oba, a business administrator and member of the research group, took part in some of the interviews. She observed that many participants were hesitant to talk about failures and reluctant to open up. Some expressed confusion (\u201cthe board never supported us\u201d), disappointment (\u201cthe directors said we could try it, but then complained about the costs and delays\u201d), and even uncertainty about their careers.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s good to have flexible planning and to be attentive to opportunities, says Andr\u00e9 Ferrarese, from Tupy<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u201cAn innovation director at a healthcare company was reassigned to a lower-ranking position in another department,\u201d says the researcher. \u201cShe felt punished because the proof of concept for a failed project had cost more than expected. The result didn\u2019t sit well with some people.\u201d<\/p>\n
Gomes and his team concluded that much of the discomfort and misunderstanding surrounding innovation efforts stems from a confusion between the concepts of error<\/em> and failure<\/em>. \u201cAn error is when I know what to do and what outcome to expect, but for some reason, the work doesn\u2019t turn out as intended,\u201d explains Gomes, who also serves as deputy director of Bridge: Ecosystem Management for Sustainable Transitions, one of the Research, Innovation and Dissemination Centers (CEPID) supported by FAPESP.<\/p>\n
\u201cFailure, on the other hand, occurs when I don\u2019t know what to do\u2014I form a hypothesis and test it, but the result falls short of expectations,\u201d he says. \u201cFailure is part of experimentation, when we don\u2019t yet know exactly what might happen or how long it will take to reach the desired outcome.\u201d His research shows that interpreting failure\u2014something often unavoidable\u2014as an avoidable error can lead to unnecessary punishment and discourage the pursuit of radical innovation. Differentiating between error and failure is the first of four stages in the radical innovation framework developed by the USP team (see table below<\/em>).<\/p>\n
\u201cUncertainty is always present,\u201d says Henrique Pereira, a business administrator and innovation manager at A\u00e7o Cearense, a steel, metallurgy, forestry, and logistics group based in Fortaleza (CE)\u2014this and other companies mentioned in this report did not participate in the USP study. \u201cA company we hired once took a long time to test a technology we were interested in and then asked us to put the project on hold for a few months. Even so, the capital lost to delays always generates learning\u2014at the very least, about what not to do.\u201d<\/p>\n
To avoid wasting time and resources, Pereira aims to test hypotheses quickly, evaluate the outcomes, and revise plans when things don\u2019t go as expected. \u201cOf our 24 furnaces, we use only three for experiments, and we never scale up a solution until we\u2019re confident it will work,\u201d he says. The group\u2019s companies take on the risks of innovation while focusing on survival by also producing simple, standardized products\u2014so-called commodities.<\/p>\n
Even when working hypotheses are correct, tests succeed, and production scales up smoothly, what the USP group refers to as a profound failure can still occur\u2014when problems emerge only years after a product developed through research has already been launched. This is what happened with the biotechnology company Gomes mentioned, and similar cases have affected automakers, pharmaceutical companies, and electronics manufacturers. Gomes cites Boeing and its 737-MAX models as an example. \u201cRecently, the company had to reengineer planes that had already been sold and in operation for years,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n
EVE\u2009\/\u2009Embraer<\/span>Representation of the air car designed by EmbraerEVE\u2009\/\u2009Embraer<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n
Opportunities<\/strong>
\n\u201cIt\u2019s obvious that not all innovation projects are going to succeed,\u201d says mechanical engineer Andr\u00e9 Ferrarese, Director of Research and Development at Tupy, who previously spent 21 years at Mahle, a major auto parts manufacturer, in both Brazil and Germany. \u201cIt\u2019s important to have flexible planning and stay alert to opportunities that arise along the way,\u201d he advises, recalling the case of the Post-it. Originally developed by 3M in the late 1960s as an industrial adhesive, the product was initially deemed a failure because it didn\u2019t stick properly. But someone eventually realized the lightly adhesive paper could be used as bookmarks without leaving residue. Secretaries began requesting it, reviving the once-dismissed innovation. Another classic example is Viagra, initially developed for heart disease but later repurposed for erectile dysfunction.<\/p>\nTupy, founded in 1938 in Joinville (SC), experienced something similar. While delivering biogas-powered generators to rural farmers, engineers noticed difficulties with operating the equipment and identified a business opportunity. Collaborating with other departments, they developed bioplants\u2014large units manufactured and managed by Tupy that process pig and poultry waste collected twice daily to produce fertilizer, electricity, and biomethane, which is used to fuel farmers\u2019 trucks.<\/p>\n
Today, the company runs a plant in Toledo, western Paran\u00e1, serving 27 farmers and 65,000 pigs. Two more are in the works: one in Divin\u00f3polis, Minas Gerais, to serve a poultry farm, and another in Seara, Santa Catarina, to process waste from 200,000 pigs and 1.7 million birds.<\/p>\n
After 30 years leading innovation teams at Aracruz and Suzano\u2014two major pulp and paper producers\u2014agronomist Fernando Bertolucci now heads the newly established consulting firm Inovitae in S\u00e3o Paulo. He reinforces the idea that achieving the desired outcome often takes time.<\/p>\n
At Suzano, he was involved in the development of a new product called fluff, made from short cellulose fibers derived from eucalyptus. Traditionally, fluff used in diapers was made with long-fiber cellulose from conifers, which channels urine to an absorbent polymer. \u201cWhen our product was ready in 2020, we sent it to diaper manufacturers, but the test results were disappointing,\u201d he recalls. \u201cIt wasn\u2019t exactly a surprise\u2014we had anticipated the issue but couldn\u2019t solve it alone. We needed input from potential customers to learn what to improve.\u201d<\/p>\n
Internal disputes and boycotts of new ideas occur all the time, warns Bruno Moreira, from Inventta<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Based on the diaper manufacturers\u2019 feedback, the team resumed research and, two years later, delivered a second version that met customer expectations. \u201cNow, short-fiber cellulose has properties comparable to long-fiber, but at a competitive price,\u201d Bertolucci says proudly.<\/p>\n
In 20 years of consulting on innovation project management, mechatronics engineer Bruno Moreira, of Inventta, a consulting firm based in Campinas, S\u00e3o Paulo, has observed a recurring pattern: innovation leaders often generate high expectations without providing their teams with the necessary resources to meet them. At one chemical company he worked with, the business directors showed little interest in investing in innovation. As a result, the projects became less ambitious, shaped by pressure for immediate results.<\/p>\n
Moreira addressed the issue by listening to all parties and helping implement a new management approach: each short-term project allocated 10% of its budget to supporting long-term initiatives. Within three years, the company succeeded in balancing simple and complex innovation efforts.<\/p>\n
Another frequent challenge: \u201cInternal disputes and boycotts of new ideas happen all the time,\u201d says Moreira. In one case, a student of his identified a solution that could save a logistics company millions of reais each month. The head of the department he presented the idea to scolded him and refused to move forward with the proposal, arguing that if he did, he might be fired for having missed a solution that a newcomer had identified.<\/p>\n
Raphael Gaillarde\u2009\/\u2009Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images<\/span>Viagra, designed for one use and used for anotherRaphael Gaillarde\u2009\/\u2009Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n
When leading discussions to evaluate projects that ended in disappointment, Moreira emphasizes that the goal is to learn from the experience and prevent future failures\u2014without assigning blame or allowing participants to do so. \u201cListening to critics is important,\u201d he notes. \u201cSometimes, they\u2019re right.\u201d<\/p>\n
In addition to listening, an innovation leader must communicate with everyone constantly. Ongoing dialogue is essential to ease pressure around deadlines and results, and to ensure that other departments are prepared to receive and carry on the work. \u201cMany projects never reach the market due to a lack of communication and alignment between the innovation, production, and marketing teams, which need to collaborate,\u201d says business administrator Anapatr\u00edcia Morales Vilha, of the Federal University of ABC (UFABC) and an advisor to FAPESP\u2019s Scientific Directorate in the field of innovation.<\/p>\n
Open communication also stops failures from taking hold. \u201cA couple of years ago,\u201d recalls Moreira, \u201ca company spent heavily on a project, and everything went wrong. The coordinator, who was from the board, didn\u2019t take the opportunity to assess what had happened. The silence created a deep sense of unease, solidified the belief that nothing more could be done, and led to resistance against any future innovation efforts.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bertolucci, of Inovitae, adds: \u201cInnovation only advances with a motivated team\u2014one that isn\u2019t afraid to speak up and say, \u2018That\u2019s not right,\u2019 \u2018You\u2019re mistaken,\u2019 or \u2018I made a mistake.\u2019\u201d Vilha sums it up: \u201cA culture of innovation cannot coexist with a culture of fear.\u201d<\/p>\n
Suzano | Paulo Altafin\u2009\/\u2009Ra\u00edzen | Eduardo Cesar\u2009\/\u2009Pesquisa FAPESP<\/span>Suzano\u2019s fluff pulp, Ra\u00edzen\u2019s ethanol production tanks, and a\u00e7a\u00ed, the base for Natura cosmeticsSuzano | Paulo Altafin\u2009\/\u2009Ra\u00edzen | Eduardo Cesar\u2009\/\u2009Pesquisa FAPESP<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n
Perspectives<\/strong>
\nIn addition to clarifying conceptual misunderstandings\u2014such as the confusion between error and failure\u2014and proposing strategies for innovation governance, the USP group is also exploring ways to encourage more companies to pursue bold, long-term innovation projects, rather than focusing solely on short-term results.<\/p>\n\u201cThere are still few companies engaging in radical innovation in Brazil,\u201d notes Gomes. He names a few examples: \u201cWe have Weg in the electric motor sector, Natura with cosmetics derived from Brazilian biodiversity, Ra\u00edzen with second-generation ethanol, and Embraer with the eVTOL [flying car]\u201d (see<\/em> Pesquisa FAPESP issues<\/em> 329 and 337).<\/p>\n
The challenge of promoting radical innovation isn\u2019t unique to Brazil. Renate Kratochvil, of the Stockholm School of Economics, conducted 117 interviews with 37 executives from large Swedish companies between 2019 and 2023. In an article published in January in Research Policy<\/em>, she shared her conclusion: \u201cStrategic leaders tend to favor incremental innovation over radical innovation\u2014not due to a lack of ideas, but because they fear failure.\u201d<\/p>\n
To avoid disappointment<\/strong>
\nBased on an analysis of innovative companies operating in Brazil, the FEA-USP team developed a model for managing failures in radical innovation projects, outlined in four stages in an article published in Research Policy<\/em>.<\/p>\nThe first stage is recognition<\/em>\u2014understanding that error and failure are not the same and adopting new approaches to planning and evaluating innovation projects beyond the usual metrics of cost, deadlines, and results. \u201cRadical innovation is a marathon,\u201d says Leonardo Gomes, who led the study. \u201cYou can\u2019t approach it with the mindset of a 100-meter sprint.\u201d<\/p>\n
The second stage is conceptual emancipation<\/em>, in which the innovation leader defines new ways of structuring and managing projects, embraces risk, and helps senior leadership develop patience with failure. \u201cThe innovation manager must manage the expectations of their team, other departments, and top executives, explaining that the project is uncertain and that it might not succeed,\u201d says business administrator Felipe Borini, a member of the USP team.<\/p>\n
The third stage is understanding<\/em>\u2014establishing clear rules to prevent and manage failures while building a network of allies both inside and outside the company who will support the new approach. \u201cPartnerships with other companies or research institutions must be built with care, clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of each party, because these are different worlds, with different rhythms and goals,\u201d notes Anapatr\u00edcia Morales Vilha of UFABC.<\/p>\n
At this stage, uncertainty and the need to tolerate setbacks become especially important, as it\u2019s difficult to predict competitor actions or market shifts. \u201cWhen a company fails, it still has the opportunity to recover and surpass those who may appear to be winning in the short term,\u201d says Gomes. \u201cYears ago, IBM introduced a new type of computer screen and built a factory for it. A competitor\u2019s screen turned out to be superior, but IBM responded by launching a third version\u2014and ended up dominating the market. Petrobras also demonstrated persistence and a capacity to learn, ultimately becoming one of the world\u2019s leading companies in deep-water oil exploration.\u201d<\/p>\n
The fourth stage is the incorporation<\/em> of new guidelines for managing radical innovation. This involves adopting practices tailored to the unique nature of such projects\u2014ones that allow space to learn from failures, delays, and unexpected costs. \u201cTo avoid pressure for immediate results, it\u2019s wise to balance the project portfolio with both radical and incremental innovations,\u201d suggests Ferrarese, from Tupy. \u201cThat way, you always have short-term outcomes to present to senior leadership.\u201d Projects that don\u2019t meet initial expectations might still hold value and could be revisited months or even years later from a new perspective.<\/div>\n
The story above was published with the title “We\u2019ve failed. What now?<\/strong>” in issue 352 of April\/2025.<\/p>\n
Project<\/strong>
\nCEPID Bridge: Ecosystem management for sustainable transitions (n\u00b0 22\/14561-3<\/a>); Grant Mechanism<\/strong> Research, Innovation, and Dissemination Centers (RIDC); Principal Investigator<\/strong> Jos\u00e9 Afonso Mazzon (USP); Investment<\/strong> R$4,670,920.14.<\/p>\nScientific articles<\/strong>
\nGOMES, L. A. de V. et al.<\/em> Transformation of the governance of failure for radical innovation: The role of strategic leaders<\/a>. Research Policy<\/strong>. Vol. 54, no. 1, 105108. Jan. 2025.
\nKRATOCHVIL, R. The process of framing innovation activities: How strategic leaders erode their ideas for radical innovations<\/a>. Research Policy<\/strong>. Vol. 54, no. 1, 105107. Jan. 2025.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"How to avoid failures in radical innovation projects","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":568331,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[169],"tags":[206,243],"coauthors":[5968],"class_list":["post-568326","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-technology","tag-biodiversity","tag-innovation"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/568326","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=568326"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/568326\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":569729,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/568326\/revisions\/569729"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/568331"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=568326"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=568326"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=568326"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=568326"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/RPF-inovacao-carro-aereo-2025-06-1140.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/RPF-inovacao-viagra-2025-06-800.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/rpg-gestao-da-inovacao-2025-06-montagem-1140.jpg\")