Sep 26, 2026 · 54 min · 12 segments
"A good idea and a bad idea look very similar early on." David J Bland David Bland, founder of Precoil and lead author of Testing Business Ideas with Alex Osterwalder, helped DuPont and its…
David BlandGuest
Aidan McCullenHost
The way I'm trying to approach it is not deferring too much of your critical thinking to AI and have it more as a sparring partner, not so much as a, "Hey," like, "generate all the risk for me and the tests for me." I, I think there's some intentional friction that needs to occur when, when we're adopting AI.
The culture's kind of a reflection of the work, you know, what you do day to day.
I, I feel strategy is like a series of integrated choices, and the way you approach strategy is going to impact your culture.
And [chuckles] it's just, you know, these companies, I think the ones that struggle-- I, I don't want to call it innovation theater, 'cause I don't think...
That almost says, "Oh, they're intentionally doing this to make it look good, and they don't want change to happen." I don't think that's the case.
And heads of innovation, I've met a lot of heads of innovation over the years, and often they're like the, they are the friction, you know.
They are the one challenging things and saying we should be doing these things differently, and they need to be able to navigate organizational politics and policy and everything and, and still nudge the company in that direction.
I almost liken it to whiplash in a way, 'cause imagine you're at a manufacturing company.
You have seen so much over the years of, well, this leader said everything was Six Sigma, and we have to do that, and this leader came in and said, "That thing's trash.
We're doing this innovative process." And you get sort of jaded, I think, over time of, "Oh no, here's yet another new framework.
Oh boy, we get to do that for two years." And, uh, I feel like when you look at these traditional companies that have been around for a long time, you know, their employees have been around for decades and, and it's almost like, "Okay, well, we'll see where this one takes us." But I, I think it's...
I don't know if there's a better word, 'cause it's not as quick as whiplash, but it definitely occurs, and I just see it cycle through leadership in, in different companies.
That technique, I think, is becoming-- It's fewer and far between when you actually create something and then go find a use for it and make money.
I think what happens more often is you run out of runway or leadership runs out of patience, and it's really tough.
It's really building this almost, like, capability inside your company to do it instead of trying to just run a workshop here and there and hope it has an impact.
The way I'm trying to approach it is not deferring too much of your critical thinking to AI and have it more as a sparring partner, not so much as a, "Hey," like, "generate all the risk for me and the tests for me." I, I think there's some intentional friction that needs to occur when, when we're adopting AI.
The culture's kind of a reflection of the work, you know, what you do day to day.
I, I feel strategy is like a series of integrated choices, and the way you approach strategy is going to impact your culture.
And [chuckles] it's just, you know, these companies, I think the ones that struggle-- I, I don't want to call it innovation theater, 'cause I don't think...
That almost says, "Oh, they're intentionally doing this to make it look good, and they don't want change to happen." I don't think that's the case.
And heads of innovation, I've met a lot of heads of innovation over the years, and often they're like the, they are the friction, you know.
They are the one challenging things and saying we should be doing these things differently, and they need to be able to navigate organizational politics and policy and everything and, and still nudge the company in that direction.
I almost liken it to whiplash in a way, 'cause imagine you're at a manufacturing company.
You have seen so much over the years of, well, this leader said everything was Six Sigma, and we have to do that, and this leader came in and said, "That thing's trash.
We're doing this innovative process." And you get sort of jaded, I think, over time of, "Oh no, here's yet another new framework.
Oh boy, we get to do that for two years." And, uh, I feel like when you look at these traditional companies that have been around for a long time, you know, their employees have been around for decades and, and it's almost like, "Okay, well, we'll see where this one takes us." But I, I think it's...
I don't know if there's a better word, 'cause it's not as quick as whiplash, but it definitely occurs, and I just see it cycle through leadership in, in different companies.
That technique, I think, is becoming-- It's fewer and far between when you actually create something and then go find a use for it and make money.
I think what happens more often is you run out of runway or leadership runs out of patience, and it's really tough.
It's really building this almost, like, capability inside your company to do it instead of trying to just run a workshop here and there and hope it has an impact.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.