This XIM principle should be self-explanatory: we favor a bias towards action over exposition, especially with new ideas. This seemingly obvious advice for innovators reflects the evidence we see everywhere in corporate life of the opposite bias: too much discussion and too little action.
Corporate life unfortunately rewards early discussion of untested ideas. Once past its high-growth years, a corporation tends to favor exploitation over exploration in its structures, processes, and behaviors. Careers are advanced by controlling larger budgets, which proliferates the number of control-based roles, which increases the number of tollgates on action of all kinds. All activity happens in teams, and teams grow in the name of cross-functional cooperation (thank you, OD consultants of the '90s for that juicy oxymoron), again promoting talk over action. And so on: optimized business processes offer efficiency, but mostly create busywork; project reviews supposedly manage risk, but mostly contrive to leach the ambition out of development activities.
In this environment, it's easiest for innovators to share new ideas ab cogito - at the thought stage - before investing any time or money in development. If you gain support at the paper stage, your personal risk associated with possible future failure declines. Perhaps a manager will provide air-cover, or better yet, development funding. The down side is that innovators censor their own thinking to improve the odds of a warm reception; bold ideas get watered down to suit project selection criteria and existing target market needs. So much easier, more comfortable, less of an all-around nuisance!
Innovators, we implore you to talk less, at least early in the life of new ideas. Instead, blow on the sparks by doing the work of innovation: clarify the benefits of your idea to customers; figure out how to test the appeal of the idea, cheaply and quickly; identify any big technical barriers. Talk when the idea is in vitro, when you have data from your early inquiries, then the conversation becomes about how to grow it, not whether the "it" has any merit.
At any stage, bias your energies towards answering critical questions about demand for your idea, why it solves a customer pain point or upgrades their experience, over theoretical debates. It's harder, but your idea deserves it, and oddly enough it saves time in the long run - you spend less time debating theories and more time advancing viable innovations.
