Innovation
November 17, 2025
A pragmatic lens on innovation
Treated as a strategy, not an event, it can generate positive impact and even fiscal incentives
In recent years, the word innovation has become almost ubiquitous. It is present in speeches, events, reports, and business strategies. Even with so much visibility, there is still a gap between talking about the subject and actually innovating. The difference lies in how each organization views the topic. Some embrace the term and call themselves innovative. After all, given the relevance of the subject, this adds value to the brand. However, the adjective “innovative” should be recognized by concrete actions that qualify an organization or individual to receive it, not self-proclaimed.
For many of these companies and people who consider themselves innovative, the question remains: how much do they truly understand about innovation? This question reveals, beyond the practical difference between discourse and action, the very difficulty of talking about the subject, from defining what, in fact, constitutes innovation. In this column, I propose to take a more pragmatic look at the subject, bringing the idea of innovation closer to what can actually be measured, structured, and delivered.
Structuring and managing an innovation process brings gains to the entire chain in which the organization is inserted. Innovating goes far beyond having good ideas or creating inspiring spaces. It is about generating value from a real demand, pain, or real opportunity — whether through a product, process, business model, or public policy that produces a positive impact. Still, this discourse may sound intangible. We talk about creating something new, but “new” can have different interpretations depending on the context.
Therefore, institutions dedicated to research and development sought to formalize the concept. The Oslo Manual — a global reference from the OECD — defines innovation as “the implementation of a new or significantly improved product, process, marketing or organizational method”. It may not seem like much, but this conceptual clarity is the first step to take the subject out of the realm of discourse.
Cognitive scientist Lera Boroditsky, a professor at the University of California San Diego (USA), demonstrates in her studies that the way we speak shapes the way we think. If within an organization people do not share a clear definition of what they call innovation, their actions will inevitably also be confused. Before any plan or tool, it is necessary to align the vocabulary — and this initiates the innovation culture. Contrary to what many imagine, innovating in practice does not start with technology. It starts with culture.
Innovation is not just creating. It is diagnosing, planning, executing, and proving results. Several references help to understand this breadth. The aforementioned Oslo Manual, the Frascati Manual (focused on research and development), and the international standard ISO 56002, which defines guidelines for innovation management systems, provide solid foundations. In Brazil, Pintec (Research on Technological Innovation), from IBGE, understands innovation as “a new or substantially improved product (good or service)”, while BNDES adopts the Oslo Manual concept “improvement of competitive position, through differentiation or productivity gain”.
These definitions serve as the basis for public policies, calls for proposals, and tax incentives. Understanding what qualifies as innovation and what does not is fundamental to accessing real opportunities. It is important to remember that creativity and innovation are not synonyms. They are parts of the same process. Creating means generating the input — the raw material. Innovating is transforming that input into a result. Innovation happens when new ideas generate value.
All these definitions seek to characterize whether something is, in fact, innovation, preventing the concept from being appropriated vaguely. Although innovation can take different forms — incremental, disruptive, social, or technological —, its meaning depends on the context and intention. There is scientific, business, institutional, and even communicational innovation. The problem is when the concept becomes empty, turning into mere aesthetics: colorful spaces, inspiring slogans, and speeches about “thinking outside the box.” Pedro Chamochumbi, innovation manager and co-founder of AiX, often says that organizations that truly innovate act in a structured, intentional, and measurable way. They know what they are doing, why they are doing it, and how to measure the result. On the other hand, those that just talk about innovation stop at the discourse: creative slogans, one-off events, relaxed environments. Everything seems innovative — until someone asks: “and the result?”.
Looking at innovation pragmatically means understanding that it is not enough to have ideas — it is necessary to have direction. Innovating sustainably requires method, strategy, and clarity about what one wants to change. It requires investments and well-structured plans, capable of generating tangible results and preparing the organization for different futures. Those who treat innovation merely as a label will hardly access incentive policies, funding notices, or R&D opportunities that generate revenue.
Context
The process begins with the ability to read the context of the organization. It is about identifying opportunities, challenges, bottlenecks, talents, and skill gaps — and, above all, interpreting the data that reveals these points. Only then is it possible to define the innovation strategy and portfolio, connecting projects to corporate goals and real business demands. But strategy without execution, measurement, and continuous improvement is not innovation. Well-implemented innovation is a living system, sustained by constant learning and value delivery.
For this system to work, clarity of purpose is needed. People need to understand the why and the what for of innovation — and this cultural alignment depends directly on leadership. It is leadership that transforms vision into practice, mobilizes people, strengthens collaboration, and sustains the environment of trust necessary for the new to emerge. It is this coherence between purpose, culture, and leadership that ISO 56002 proposes when treating innovation as a management system with method, metrics, and continuous learning. When this culture consolidates, innovation ceases to be a punctual action and becomes part of the organizational structure — a way of thinking, learning, and growing.
Still, it is common to see companies investing time and resources in numerous “innovation” initiatives without direct relation to corporate strategy. And the question is worth asking: how much do these initiatives really contribute to the bottom line — the final financial result? Looking at this coherence is what differentiates strategic actions from just another internal fad.
When the journey is clear, it is possible to see paths for fostering, partnerships with universities, and R&D practices that, although less glamorous than creative spaces, bring concrete results. Not only financial, but of reputation, impact, and relevance. And it’s worth saying: there is no problem in creating inspiring environments — they have their value. The problem is when they become the only symbol of what should be a structured process.
According to Chamochumbi, the difference between success and frustration in innovation projects lies in the ability to structure adequate and eligible proposals, with technical clarity, defined objectives, and measurable impacts. It is not enough to have a good idea. It is necessary to understand the rules of the game, demonstrate viability, governance, and return.
Brazilian scenario
The Brazilian scenario is promising. According to the Global Innovation Index 2023, Brazil ranks first in innovation in Latin America and 49th globally, with highlights in patent, trademark, and digital service registrations. Laws and programs such as the Lei do Bem, Lei da Informática, FINEP, EMBRAPII, and PIPE/FAPESP enable companies to transform R&D projects into competitive advantages. When well-structured, these projects capture resources and generate financial, reputational, and social results.
It is important to remember that different funding agencies adopt distinct definitions of innovation. Therefore, many organizations have created the role of innovation manager — a strategic figure who understands the ecosystem, masters methodologies, monitors calls for proposals, and connects the company with scientific and technological institutions. Specialized agencies, such as AiX, also operate in this field, helping organizations structure robust and sustainable innovation systems. More than generating ideas, this role creates conditions for them to become reality — transforming potential futures into concrete actions in the present.
But before any notice, tool, or investment, it is necessary to build a safe environment, where thinking differently is not seen as a risk, but as an opportunity. The innovation process is daily and depends mainly on leadership. They are the ones who define the purpose, mobilize people, guarantee resources, and give coherence to the system. Being a manager or innovation leader means dealing with resistance, resource limitations, and pressure for results, and yet preserving the experimental spirit that provokes the new. It is living between two worlds: the strategic and the operational, the discourse and the delivery. Looking through a pragmatic lens is what allows these leaders to structure more consistent journeys connected to the organizational strategy. Because innovation is not an end. It is the means that guarantees desirable futures.
| To access the references of this text click here. |
Who wrote this column
Lucas Tangi
