Unleash the Unexpected for Radical Innovation

Breakthrough inventions arise unpredictably. Better exploration can identify surprising opportunities.

Reading Time: 10 min 


Permissions and PDF

Patrick George

The accelerometer chip — a small but radical innovation — is ubiquitous in today’s digital devices. These speed and orientation sensors tell our phones whether they’re being held in portrait or landscape mode, deploy airbags in our cars, and track our forehands when we play virtual tennis. They also help sense when the earth starts to shift before earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. But while it is easy to recognize the significance of this innovation retrospectively, its true impact didn’t become apparent until many of today’s most valued applications were developed. This gradual unveiling of an innovation’s potential over time is a surprisingly common pattern — so common, in fact, that companies need to craft their innovation management systems with this phenomenon in mind.

Here’s how the accelerometer made its mark. In the early 1980s, an R&D scientist at Analog Devices learned of a new invention in the world of integrated circuits that incorporated mechanical devices within their designs. Today, we know that innovation as microelectromechanical system, or MEMS, devices. The scientist was intrigued enough to invite the inventor, a professor at a nearby university, to give a talk to Analog’s R&D group. He then began to experiment with design and generated ideas with colleagues on packaging such a device on a circuit board, the benefits the technology could provide, and how such systems could be manufactured at scale. He expected that there would be uses in the automotive industry, a sector attractive to Analog because automobiles were becoming increasingly dependent on smart electronic systems. Eventually, the team demonstrated the potential of these new devices to sense changes in speed and showed how they could be produced economically, and thus the accelerometer chip was born.

Over the next 10 years, the company searched for applications in the automotive market.



1. P.M. Norling and R.J. Statz, “How Discontinuous Innovation Really Happens,” Research Technology Management 41, no. 3 (May-June 1998): 41-44.

2. M.P. Rice, G.C. O’Connor, and R. Pierantozzi, “Implementing a Learning Plan to Counter Project Uncertainty,” MIT Sloan Management Review 49, no. 2 (winter 2008): 54-62; and R. McGrath, “Seeing Around Corners: How to Spot Inflection Points in Business Before They Happen” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2019).

3. C. O’Reilly and A.J.M. Binns, “The Three Stages of Disruptive Innovation: Idea Generation, Incubation, and Scaling,” California Management Review 61, no. 3 (2019): 49-71.

4. G.C. O’Connor and M.P. Rice, “New Market Creation for Breakthrough Innovations: Enabling and Constraining Mechanisms,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 30, no. 2 (March 2013): 209-227.

5. D. Krackhardt and J.R. Hanson, “Informal Networks: The Company Behind the Chart,” Harvard Business Review 71, no. 4 (July-August 1993): 104-111.

6. J. Xavier, “75% of Startups Fail, but It’s No Biggie,” Silicon Valley Business Journal, Sept. 21, 2012, www.bizjournals.com; and D. Gage, “The Venture Capital Secret: 3 out of 4 Start-Ups Fail,” The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 20, 2012, www.wsj.com.

7. N.C. Thompson, D. Bonnet, M.J. Greeven, et al., “Why Innovators in China Stay Close to the Market,” MIT Sloan Management Review 64, no. 1 (fall 2022): 28-32.

8. Rice, O’Connor, and Pierantozzi, “Implementing a Learning Plan,” 54-62; and R.G. McGrath and I.C. MacMillan, “Discovery-Driven Planning,” Harvard Business Review 73, no. 4 (July-August 1995): 44-54.

9. G.C. O’Connor, A.C. Corbett, and L.S. Peters, “Beyond the Champion: Institutionalizing Innovation Through People” (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2018).

Reprint #:


More Like This

Add a comment

You must to post a comment.

First time here? Sign up for a free account: Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.

Comment (1)
This is an interesting article and research study. 

Quiet surprised (if not shocked) to see that innovators predicted the success of their ventures completely wrong. 

But, more so surprised as well (just like authors!) - that internal innovation is more accurate and more successful compared to external innovation efforts. This contradicts insights we have seen over the last 2 decades proving the benefits of 'open innovation' model. 

Unfortunately, I can't identify any of the authors on LinkedIn!!

It would be great to see some more underlying data that led to their conclusion of a 1.5-point difference AND also the exact scores for each of the 15 management practices mentioned in the article.