Much of it was good, but some of it is just appeasement to management types who are focused on cost and schedule.
"Establish processes and ownership. Organizations should have a process for taking a promising idea and testing it out..."
Innovation is disruptive. Having a process seeks to minimize disruption. Indeed, most processes are there to block real innovation and constraint the energies into pre-approved areas of innovation.
Which do you want? Innovative change or a nice, controlled process so that things don't change?
The number one item -- in the side bar -- is brilliant. "Give employees the right to fail."
Epic advice. And almost impossible to follow, hence the appeasement item. Permission to fail means -- well -- failures and money "wasted". Cost and schedule shot in an attempt to improve.
There's an interesting juxtaposition with another article in the same issue. "When Good Projects Go Bad".
This: "Push for due diligence at the start of a project." This is the perfect way to stifle innovation.
I realize the two articles are almost unrelated, but they're side-by-side in the print edition. Any cowardly project manager knows that we can't really give people permission to fail. We need to have a well-defined process, perform due diligence, and then assure that all projects are either denied up front or are a ringing success.
It's easy to avoid the important lesson on innovation (innovation == failure) and focus on the appeasement words: "process" and "due diligence".