What separates organizations that consistently innovate from those that struggle to adopt?

I think the basic principle taught in any innovative discipline is the concept of innovation.

recording and learning from failures and so even the even the the success of innovation we just spoke about the the reason innovations are successive or built upon uh prior steps is because most of those prior steps were a failure of some type it's some it's often a failure of hypothesis like we just planned um planned for a future that never occurred or imagine variables that were found later to be irrelevant.

So, innovation cultures that not only record failures, but then learn from them by being publicly scientific communities, labs specifically, right? So chemistry, physics, biology are centuries-old disciplines where experiments were not only performed but recorded.

When a drug worked, when a machine worked or failed, when a mix of chemicals worked or failed.

It's the organizations that capture those failures, share those failures, and then learn from those failures that continually succeed.

What I often see is in a culture where failure is suppressed or worse penalized, innovation is nearly certain to die because nobody wants to be associated with being shamed for trying something.

Can you share a time when something didn't go according to plan and what experience taught you about building something meaningful out of that?

Very interesting.

You know, when we sold the idea of Startup City, we had said, This is a, we don't want to be funded forever.

We want to be funded for three years.

So these were, you know, public dollars, right? City, state, county are public dollars.

And we said, we want to be funded for three years.

We want to find a way to be a sustainable organization through revenues we create.

And so we had a series of hypotheses how those revenues would be created.

Why is preserving these stories important to you?