Frequently Asked Questions

Why do you say most innovation initiatives fail?

While external research shows varying failure rates such as 95% Harvard Business School estimates, all credible research confirms that most innovation initiatives fail. The specific rate depends on how you define innovation, which industries you study, and what counts as success.

Our research focused on breakthrough innovations across all industries over three decades.

We analyzed 11.6 million innovation case studies, and found that only 2% succeeded in their stated objective/compass. These are the successes that went on to create new categories of offerings and new revenue streams. The 98% that failed had strong execution frameworks, and in some ways may have experienced an incremental change or a positive learning from the effort. We are talking about doing a genuinely new thing that requires the humans to think differently, not incremental improvement. The 98% may have excelled in executed well defined plans but they failed at figuring out what to do when the playbook didn't exist.

What makes the 2% different?

The seven complex systems thinking capabilities, consistently present in the humans of the successful cases, is what made the 2% different. Those humans include:  Navigator (finding direction in ambiguity), Empath (understanding unarticulated needs), Plate Spinner (seeing what's missing in systems), Transcender (solving contradictions vs. compromising), Umbrella (protecting necessary complexity), Ninja (strategic timing), and Elephant (past/present/future context). These aren't innovation techniques, they're capabilities humans use when execution frameworks break down or aren't useful.

Can these capabilities actually be developed, or are people just born with them?

Both are true. Some humans have won the capabilities lottery and naturally see the world through theses lens and others may have had the capabilities until they reached a certain age and our cultural systems taught us those capabilities were not needed or requested. The research shows these capabilities were present in successful innovations probably because they got lucky or the leaders innately knew how to create a culture and team of 1%ers.

The NEPTUNE framework for developing the capabilities, for humans who don't naturally possess them today, is a new framework. We believe humans can reconnect with what they already have by reinforcing how today's culture requires an awakening of those capabilities. The old way is going to be handled by AI.  These capabilities need to develop through practice in real strategic challenges, not through training exercises. Just as developing the skills and habits of the past required you to apply the knowledge and see what happens, so does developing these capabilities.  Our approach is applied science. You work on actual business problems while building these capabilities. There is a big difference between reading how to swim and getting in the water and successfully swimming.

How is NEPTUNE different from execution frameworks like EOS, OKRs, or Agile?

Execution frameworks optimize how you do known work. They assume you know what needs to be done and the challenge is execution. NEPTUNE addresses a different problem. The problem of building capabilities to navigate when you DON'T know what to do yet. Both are valuable. Execution frameworks run your business efficiently. NEPTUNE helps you figure out what business you need to build when AI commoditizes execution.

What's the evidence that NEPTUNE actually works?

The evidence is in two parts: First, 30+ years of systematic innovation research showing these seven capabilities were present in the 2% of successful innovations. Second, decades of applying capability building approaches in real organizational transformations. (There is another body of evidence that we don't reference. Past recommendations have been presented to organizations by 1%er teams and those leaders found no value in the counter intuitive recommendation. Years later those recommendations emerged as a genuinely new thing in a competitive offering and took market share from the operationally excellent organization.) The NEPTUNE framework itself is new, it codifies patterns from research and practice. We're not claiming proven ROI metrics yet. We're offering a research backed approach to a problem most organizations struggle with or are going to struggle with in the future, building capacity for genuine innovation.

Who is this actually for?

Leaders, particularly lonely leaders who instinctually connect with the premise of the NEPTUNE framework and who are accountable for navigating strategic complexity where traditional approaches aren't working. If your challenge is executing a known strategy better, you don't need NEPTUNE, you need better execution discipline. If your challenge is figuring out what to do when AI is reshaping your industry, best practices no longer apply, or you're facing unprecedented complexity, that's where NEPTUNE applies. This is for leaders who say "yes" to doing new things.

Is this just another consultant framework?

Most consultant frameworks are based on a few client engagements and dressed up as universal truth. NEPTUNE is based on 11.6 million case studies analyzed over 30+ years, combined with 25+ years of real C-suite transformation experience. That said, the framework for developing these capabilities IS new. We're not claiming decades of proven NEPTUNE application. We're claiming research-backed identification of what capabilities matter, combined with practical experience building capabilities in organizations.

QUESTION 9

Why should I trust this over other innovation approaches?

You shouldn't just trust it. Read the research. Take the assessment. See if the seven capabilities resonate with your experience of what's missing in your organization. If you're skeptical, start with the book or intro workshop—low commitment ways to evaluate whether this fits your context. We're not claiming NEPTUNE is the only answer. We're claiming it addresses a specific gap: building meta-capabilities for navigating uncertainty, which becomes more valuable as AI handles execution.

QUESTION 10

What results should I expect?

Capability development isn't like process improvement—you don't get instant metrics. What you should expect: increased capacity to navigate ambiguity, better recognition of what's missing in complex systems, improved ability to move forward when precedent doesn't exist. Over time, this translates to more successful innovation initiatives and better strategic navigation. But if you're looking for "30% improvement in 90 days," this isn't the right approach. This is about building fundamental capabilities that compound over time.

Have more questions?

Reach out directly. We're happy to discuss whether NEPTUNE is relevant for your specific situation.