Over the years, I’ve been involved in many innovation projects that looked strong on paper.
Clear objectives, the right partners, a well-structured plan.

And yet, something often feels off by the time the project actually starts.

Not dramatically. Just enough to create friction. Small misalignments. Subtle doubts. A sense that the plan, while still valid, no longer fully fits the reality it was meant to address.

It often leaves teams with a vague feeling that something is wrong, without being able to clearly explain why.

I remember a moment where someone asked, just before the official kick-off:

“Would we still design this project the same way today?”

No one answered immediately.

That silence says a lot.

“By the time your project starts, the world has already moved on.”

The uncomfortable truth about innovation projects

Most innovation projects do not fail because of a lack of expertise, funding, or effort.

They struggle because they are built on assumptions that no longer hold by the time execution begins.

In many cases, the project plan is written months before the actual start.
Consortium building, proposal writing, evaluation, approval… it all takes time.

But the world does not wait.

Technologies evolve. Markets shift. Priorities change.

Just look at AI. What was considered advanced three months ago is often baseline today. New capabilities emerge, new expectations arise, and entirely new opportunities appear.

“We design projects for a world that no longer exists when they start.”

By the time your project starts, the world has already moved on.

The problem is not that this happens.
The problem is that most collaborations are not designed to deal with it.

Three patterns that quietly derail collaboration

What makes this even more challenging is that the drift does not happen in isolation.
It interacts with deeper collaboration issues that are already present from the start.

“Collaboration rarely breaks in one moment. It slowly drifts out of alignment.”

1. The illusion of alignment

At the proposal stage, alignment often feels strong.

The same words are used. The same objectives are written down.
Everyone agrees.

But agreement on paper does not mean shared understanding.

“Agreement is not the same as shared understanding.”

Different organisations interpret the same concepts in different ways.
A “prototype”, a “pilot”, a “validated solution”… they do not mean the same thing to everyone.

We assume others see the world like we do, while in reality they don’t.

This remains invisible until execution starts.
And by then, changing direction becomes difficult.

On paper, everything aligns. In reality, everyone nods and hopes for the best.

2. Too many stakeholders, too early

In an effort to create alignment, many projects bring all stakeholders together from the start.

Large meetings. Broad discussions. Inclusive conversations.

It feels right.

But in practice, it often creates noise instead of clarity.

“When everyone is involved, no one really decides.”

Generic statements replace real decisions.
Important differences remain unspoken.

What should have been a focused design phase turns into what I sometimes call a “polite chaos” session, without real progress.

It looks like collaboration. It feels like coordination. It behaves like confusion.

3. Contribution disguised as collaboration

Many innovation projects are presented as collaborative.
But in reality, they are structured around contribution.

Partners deliver their part.
They execute predefined tasks.
They fulfil their role.

But they do not co-own the direction of the project.

The difference matters.

A contributing partner delivers.
A collaborating partner co-shapes, challenges, and adapts.

“Partners who don’t co-own the path won’t adapt when it changes.”

When the context shifts, contributing partners continue executing the original plan.
Collaborating partners rethink it together.

When a static plan meets a moving world

Individually, each of these patterns creates friction.

Combined, they create something more structural.

A project that is:

• built on assumed alignment
• slowed down by too many voices
• executed by partners who do not fully co-own the outcome

…is not equipped to adapt when reality changes.

And reality will change.

Especially in innovation.

But there is another, often overlooked layer.

In many organisations, especially larger ones, the people who design the project are not the same as those who execute it.

The proposal is written by a core team.
They shape the vision, define the objectives, and build the narrative.

Months later, when the project starts, a different group steps in.

They inherit the plan, but not the full context in which it was created.
They read the document, but they were not part of the discussions, trade-offs, and assumptions behind it.

“You are not executing a plan. You are executing a past version of reality.”

So now you have:

• a plan based on past assumptions
• in a context that has already evolved
• executed by people who were not part of the original thinking

This is where many projects start to drift.

And it is frustrating, because everyone involved is trying to make it work.

Not because people are not competent.
Not because the idea is weak.

But because the collaboration model assumes continuity:

• continuity of context
• continuity of assumptions
• continuity of people

While in reality, none of these are guaranteed.

“The problem is not that the plan becomes outdated. The problem is that the collaboration cannot adapt.”

The longer this goes unnoticed, the more time and budget are spent on moving in the wrong direction.

What this means for your innovation efforts

If you recognise this pattern, you are not alone.

It shows up in:

• research projects where proposals no longer reflect current technological possibilities
• SMEs trying to balance innovation with rapidly changing market needs
• corporate environments where long approval cycles disconnect plans from execution

The impact is tangible:

• slower progress
• growing frustration between partners
• loss of engagement
• results that fall short of their original ambition

Or even worse:

Projects that technically deliver…
but fail to create real impact.

By the time misalignment becomes visible, correcting it is costly.

A different way to look at collaboration

Over time, one insight kept coming back.

Successful innovation is not about writing a better plan.
It is about designing a collaboration that can evolve.

Therefore, the issue is not execution failure, but a mismatch between how collaboration is designed and how reality unfolds.

That means:

• making assumptions explicit early
• creating real alignment, not just agreement
• involving stakeholders with intention, not all at once
• and most importantly, building shared ownership of direction

Good collaboration is not about control, it is about shared responsibility.

Because when partners co-own the trajectory, they can adapt it together.

This is also why many of these issues are not isolated problems, but recurring patterns we explore in common failure patterns in innovation collaborations.

The result when it works

“When collaboration evolves, innovation stays relevant.”

When collaboration is designed with adaptability in mind, something shifts.

• discussions become more focused
• partners stay engaged, even when things change
• decisions are made faster
• and projects remain relevant throughout their execution

The result is not just a better process.

It is stronger innovation.

Projects that evolve with the context instead of falling behind it.
Partnerships that deliver outcomes that go beyond what each could achieve alone.

If you recognise these patterns in your own projects and want to work on them, you can reach out via the contact page. I am glad to share ideas and examples.