Total Innovation Podcast

34. Expected Value - Chapter 10

• The Infinity Loop • Season 3 • Episode 34

Share episode

In this episode, we explore chapter 10, Lines of Trust, which takes us beyond governance and into the invisible systems that make innovation work or fall apart. Freya and her team have built structure. The XV model, the fit radar, the S-curve, and a new three-tier governance system. On paper, it's perfect. But in practice, something's missing. 

When one small decision crosses an unseen line, Freya discovers what no framework can capture, that governance only works when people believe in the intent behind the decisions. 

This chapter explores how trust becomes the hidden infrastructure of innovation. We'll see how Freya learns to map the sensitivity lines that exist between people and functions like HR, finance, IT, legal, and how she builds a trust layer that connects structure to belief. It's a story about what happens when logic meets emotion, when process meets perception, and how the true power of innovation lies not in control, but in connection.

SPEAKER_01:

Welcome back to the Total Innovation Podcast and to another chapter from the Expected Value Book. In this episode, we explore chapter 10, Lines of Trust, which takes us beyond governance and into the invisible systems that make innovation work or fall apart. Freya and her team have built structure. The XV model, the fit radar, the S-curve, and a new three-tier governance system. On paper, it's perfect. But in practice, something's missing. When one small decision crosses an unseen line, Freya discovers what no framework can capture, that governance only works when people believe in the intent behind the decisions. This chapter explores how trust becomes the hidden infrastructure of innovation. We'll see how Freya learns to map the sensitivity lines that exist between people and functions like HR, finance, IT, legal, and how she builds a trust layer that connects structure to belief. It's a story about what happens when logic meets emotion, when process meets perception, and how the true power of innovation lies not in control, but in connection.

SPEAKER_00:

Chapter 10. Lines of Trust.

SPEAKER_01:

Freya could see the tension before the meeting even started. This wasn't how she'd imagined the first full portfolio governance board session would feel, especially after all the careful work they'd done to establish the three-tier governance model.

SPEAKER_00:

The governance test.

SPEAKER_01:

The slide on screen was simple, an updated prioritization table showing a reshuffle of three key projects. Two had been paused, and one, a mid-stage workforce AI concept, had been quietly advanced by Freya's team over the past few weeks. It had XV momentum, solid fit, clear S curve positioning. And yet, something was off. What's the governance path you use to green light this one? The CTO asked, tapping the name of the advanced project. Freya paused. We processed it through the team level threshold, she said. It's under budget, had favorable early data, and met all our progression criteria. But it's touching employee privacy data, right? Rosie, the CTO replied. Freya blinked. Yes. But it's anonymized and in sandbox. And it triggered a flag from HR compliance. We flagged it two weeks ago. Freya glanced at Axel, then back at the board. The silence was suddenly louder than the debate.

SPEAKER_00:

The invisible boundaries.

SPEAKER_01:

After the meeting, Freya walked slowly back to her office. Axel followed, saying nothing. She closed the door behind them, leaned against it, and sighed. We followed our process. Axel sat down. Yeah, but the process didn't account for how it felt to them. She nodded, then dropped into her chair. It wasn't about breaking rules, it was about crossing lines they didn't know they'd drawn. And those lines weren't in the playbook. They lived in relationships, in perception, in power. Freya knew they'd need to update the decision thresholds, clarify the escalation logic, and probably revisit how risk categories were surfaced, but none of that would fix the more important thing trust. Governance only works when people believe in the intent behind the decisions. They had structure now, but structure wasn't the same as belief.

SPEAKER_00:

Beyond governance.

SPEAKER_01:

Freya realized they had built a governance system that looked good on paper, but didn't account for the human element of decision making. The three-tier model, clear decision rights, and structured processes weren't enough if people didn't trust the decisions being made within that system. This wasn't a technical problem, it was a relational one, and it couldn't be fixed with another framework or process document. This challenge, connecting formal systems to human perception, exists in any field where data-driven decisions meet organizational complexity. In professional sports, data analysts have discovered that the technical quality of their analysis matters far less than their ability to translate insights effectively. As one analyst put it, what matters more than anything is the interface, the point at which the data behind the game and the individuals who define it meet. For innovation governance, this interface isn't just a communication challenge, it's a trust challenge. When stakeholders don't trust the intent behind decisions or don't see themselves in the process, even the most elegant governance structures will fail. The team needed what Axel later termed the trust layer, the invisible but essential foundation that determines whether governance structures actually function as intended. Without this layer even the most elegant governance designs become empty bureaucracy or worse, active sources of friction. The trust layer operates at multiple levels. One trust in process. Do people believe the governance system is fair, consistent and appropriate? two Trust in intent. Do stakeholders believe decisions are being made with the right motivations and values? three Trust in judgment. Do people have faith in the capability of decision makers to make sound choices? four Trust in communication. Do stakeholders believe they'll hear what matters when it matters? Freya had focused on designing the governance structure, but had underinvested in establishing these trust foundations. The incident with the Workforce AI project revealed this gap starkly.

SPEAKER_00:

Tracing the challenge lines.

SPEAKER_01:

This insight led to a deeper understanding of why the workforce AI project had triggered such tension. It wasn't simply touching employee data, it was perceived as encroaching on HR's responsibility to protect employee privacy and well-being. The HR team saw themselves as stewards of the challenge of creating a positive, protected employee experience, and any initiative affecting that domain triggered a territorial response regardless of formal governance thresholds. Each function owns certain challenges, Freya realized, and they expect to be involved when those challenges are addressed even if our governance process doesn't explicitly require it. This challenge-based view of organizational dynamics revealed invisible but powerful lines of perceived ownership that cut across formal structures. Finance owned the challenge of resource optimization. ET owned the challenge of system security and integrity. Legal owned the challenge of risk management. Mapping these challenge ownership lines became a critical extension of their governance model, not replacing it, but providing the essential context for how it would actually function in the complex human system of the organization.

SPEAKER_00:

Mapping the trust lines. The next day, Freya invited the HR manager for a coffee.

SPEAKER_01:

Not a formal meeting, no agenda, just a conversation. I didn't loop you in because I thought it was small, Freya said, but I realize now it didn't feel small to your team. The HR manager shrugged. It's not that I need to control it, but when something touches the people experience and we just want a voice. Not a veto. A voice. Freya nodded. That's fair. They talked for half an hour, not about the project, but about how decisions travelled, who got heard, when things felt open, when they didn't. When the HR manager left, she said something that stuck with Freya. I trust the system. I just need to see myself in it. That afternoon Freya met with Axel. They redrew the governance model, not by budget thresholds or maturity stages, but by sensitivity lines. They created a secondary map. People sensitivity. Brand sensitivity. Strategic exposure. Each line had a default signal point, a person who didn't have to approve decisions, but who must be consulted if a line was crossed. It wasn't about slowing things down, it was about acknowledging what mattered to others. Trust, Freya realized, wasn't earned in speed, it was earned in consideration.

SPEAKER_00:

The anatomy of trust breakdowns.

SPEAKER_01:

As Freya and Axel dug deeper into the patterns of trust friction, they identified several common trust breakdown points that their governance model hadn't accounted for. 1. Invisible stakeholding. The Workforce AI project had crossed into HR's domain without appropriate recognition of their stakeholding. While it technically met financial governance thresholds, it touched on areas where HR had strong institutional ownership, employee data, workplace experience, talent management. This revealed a pattern. Many initiatives crossed functional boundaries in ways the governance model didn't capture. The resulting friction wasn't about territorial defense but about legitimate stewardship concerns being bypassed. two. Risk perception asymmetry. Different functions naturally perceive risks differently based on their responsibilities and perspectives. Legal sees compliance and liability risks where innovation sees opportunity. IT sees security and integration risks where business units see simplicity. Finance sees resource risks where product teams see market potential. HR sees people risks where operations sees efficiency potential. The governance model had treated risk as a universal language when in reality it was deeply contextual. What seemed like a minor risk to the innovation team could represent a major concern to another function based on their specific responsibilities and risk aperture. three communication timing mismatches. Trust breakdowns often occurred not because stakeholders were excluded from decisions, but because they were informed too late to meaningfully contribute. The appearance of being presented with a fate accompli even when unintentional created resistance and resentment. Different stakeholders had different timing needs. Some needed early conceptual involvement. Others needed detailed technical engagement. Still others just needed advance warning before public announcement. The governance model had standardized communication timing when it needed to be tailored to stakeholder needs. four. Reciprocity imbalances Trust in organizations operates on principles of reciprocity, the expectation that consideration and support flow in both directions. Freya realized that some functions felt innovation frequently needed their support but rarely offered support in return. HR, for instance, was often asked to help with resource allocation, change management and communications for innovation initiatives, but felt innovation rarely engaged with HR's own priorities and challenges. five. Expertise Acknowledgement Gaps. Finally, trust suffered when stakeholders felt their domain expertise wasn't adequately valued or incorporated. The Workforce AI project had made assumptions about HR processes without deeply engaging with HR experts who understood the nuances and complexities involved. This pattern repeated across other domains, assumptions about customer needs without marketing involvement, technical architecture decisions without IT input, financial projections without finance consultation. Understanding these patterns helped Freya see that trust wasn't just a matter of following procedures, it was about recognizing and respecting the legitimate concerns, expertise, and perspectives of diverse stakeholders. AI as trust facilitator. The tension around the workforce. AI project had highlighted a challenge, but Freya also saw an opportunity. Could AI itself be used to strengthen the trust layer? Working with her technology team, she developed what they called trust signals, an AI powered system that scanned innovation initiatives for potential sensitivity line crossings, identified key stakeholders with relevant domain expertise or stewardship interests, suggested optimal engagement approaches based on the nature of the initiative and stakeholder preferences, tracked engagement quality and trust patterns over time. The AI doesn't replace human judgment about when and how to involve others, Freya explained to her team. It augment our awareness of potential trust issues we might miss. The system worked by analyzing past initiatives and identifying patterns where stakeholder concerns had emerged. For example, if an initiative mentioned employee data, even tangentially, the system would flag HR as a potential stakeholder with a specific reference to past projects where similar terms had led to stakeholder concerns. It went beyond simple keyword matching by understanding contextual relationships between concepts and stakeholders. The system proved particularly valuable for identifying non-obvious stakeholders, those whose domains were indirectly affected by an initiative, but who might have valuable perspectives or concerns. It also helped surface patterns of engagement that might create trust issues over time, such as consistently late involvement of certain functions. One junior innovation manager noted, before the trust signal system, I never would have thought to involve regulatory affairs in our customer data platform. The AI flagged potential data residency issues I hadn't considered, which would have caused major problems later. The approach was particularly valuable for new team members who hadn't yet developed the institutional knowledge to navigate complex stakeholder landscapes. It democratized the who should I talk to expertise that previously resided only with experienced innovation leaders. Most importantly, it shifted the burden of stakeholder identification from reactive, waiting for someone to complain, to proactive, identifying potential concerns before they became issues. This fundamental change dramatically reduced trust breakdowns and improved decision quality.

SPEAKER_00:

Building the sensitivity map.

SPEAKER_01:

Based on these insights, Freya and Axel developed a more sophisticated approach to stakeholder engagement that went beyond formal governance thresholds. They created what they called a sensitivity map, a visual tool that identified specific domain sensitivities across the organization and the corresponding consultation triggers. For each sensitivity domain they established the following one the sensitivity line What specific conditions or characteristics trigger heightened stakeholder interest? two the signal person Who should be consulted when the sensitivity line is crossed? Three the engagement mode How that consultation should occur, review, workshop, co-creation.

SPEAKER_00:

Four the timing requirements.

SPEAKER_01:

When in the process this engagement needs to happen. Five the information package. What specific information stakeholders need to provide meaningful input. For example, the HR sensitivity domain included Sensitivity lines including the use of employee data, changes to workplace experience, talent processes, organizational design impacts. HR business partner or chief people officer, depending on scale, engagement mode, early review for awareness, co design for significant impacts. Timing requirement, run in the concept stage for major initiatives, design stage for minor ones. Information package to include use case, data requirements, employee impact, change implications. Similar maps were created for other key domains legal slash compliance, technology slash security, finance slash risk, brand slash marketing, customer experience and operations. This approach transformed stakeholder engagement from a binary involve don't involve decision to a nuanced understanding of how, when, and why different functions needed to participate. The sensitivity map connected directly to the XV framework, particularly the confidence dimension. By involving the right stakeholders at the right time with the right information, the team could more accurately assess confidence across various dimensions, from technical feasibility to organizational capability. Trust became a critical enabler of accurate confidence scoring and therefore of accurate X V calculation.

SPEAKER_00:

Open innovation and the Trust Challenge.

SPEAKER_01:

As Freya's organization expanded its use of open innovation, the trust challenge took on new dimensions. Trust wasn't just an internal issue anymore, it extended to relationships with external innovators, solver communities, and ecosystem partners. Open innovation creates new trust bridges we need to build, Freya explained to the Portfolio Committee. We're asking external partners to share their best ideas and capabilities, but they'll only do that if they trust our process and intent. The team identified several critical trust dimensions unique to open innovation. External contributors needed confidence that their ideas would be respected and fairly compensated. The team developed clear IP frameworks for different collaboration types and transparent processes for how contributions would be evaluated and rewarded. two process transparency Open innovation partners needed visibility into how decisions would be made and when they would receive feedback. Freya's team created explicit timelines and decision criteria for external submissions, with commitment to communication even when the answer was no. three Implementation Commitment Many organizations were known for sourcing external ideas but rarely implementing them, creating collaborative theatre rather than genuine co-creation. Freya established dedicated implementation pathways for promising external solutions with accountability for moving them forward. four reciprocal value For sustainable open innovation relationships, both parties needed to receive value. The team designed collaborative models that explicitly articulated benefits for both the organization and external partners beyond immediate financial transactions. These trust foundations dramatically improved the quality of open innovation engagements. External partners reported greater willingness to share premium ideas rather than generic ones, and the implementation rate for externally sourced solutions increased from less than 30% to over 70%. When external partners trust your process, Axel observed, they give you their best work, not just what they're willing to risk.

SPEAKER_00:

From consultation to collaboration.

SPEAKER_01:

As the sensitivity map took shape, Freya realized it needed to go beyond simple notification or consultation. True trust required genuine collaboration, bringing stakeholders in as partners rather than just reviewers. She established a set of collaborative practices for working across sensitivity lines. Co-design sessions. For initiatives crossing major sensitivity lines, co-design sessions brought innovation teams together with domain experts from affected functions. Rather than developing solutions and then seeking approval, these sessions started with shared problem framing and collaborative solution development. A critical insight emerged that when stakeholders were involved in shaping solutions from the beginning, they became advocates rather than gatekeepers. Cross-functional rapid testing. Another practice involved conducting small scale experiments with cross-functional teams. Rather than waiting until ideas were fully formed to engage stakeholders, these rapid tests brought diverse perspectives into the earlier stages of validation. For example, a supply chain innovation concept might include operations, finance, and customer service representatives in early prototype testing, ensuring multiple perspectives informed the learning process. This approach aligned perfectly with the S-Curve framework they had already established. During the emergence phase of the curve, cross-functional testing helped build more robust confidence assessments. During acceleration, it ensured that scaling approaches addressed diverse stakeholder needs and concerns. Embedded domain experts. For major initiatives crossing multiple sensitivity lines, Freya established embedded expert roles, domain specialists from key functions who joined innovation teams part-time. These individuals served as bridges between their home functions and the innovation team, providing real-time feedback while keeping their departments informed. This approach prevented the common pattern of stakeholders feeling blindsided by innovations that appeared without warning in formal review processes. Reciprocal innovation support Perhaps most importantly, Freya established practices of reciprocal support. Innovation teams began actively offering their expertise and resources to help other functions with their own challenges and priorities. This included Design Thinking Workshops for HR's talent initiatives, rapid prototyping support for finance's efficiency projects, experiment design assistance for legals, compliance innovation. These reciprocal exchanges transformed the relationship between innovation and other functions from transactional to collaborative, building the foundation for lasting trust.

SPEAKER_00:

Value realization Through Trust.

SPEAKER_01:

Freya began to recognize that trust wasn't just a facilitator of innovation, it was a critical accelerator of value realization RV. When stakeholders trusted the innovation process and felt genuine ownership, implementation happened faster and with greater fidelity to the original vision. Trust isn't a nice to have, she explained to her team. It's the difference between expected value on paper and realized value in practice. This connection between trust and value realization manifested in several ways resource mobilization. When functions trusted the innovation process, they more willingly contributed resources and expertise during implementation, often beyond what was formerly required. Barrier removal. Trusted innovations faced fewer bureaucratic hurdles. Stakeholders who felt ownership actively worked to clear obstacles rather than imposing additional checks. Change adoption. Solutions developed through trusted processes had significantly higher adoption rates. End users were more willing to embrace change when they believed the process that created it had considered their needs and concerns. Feedback quality. Stakeholders provided more honest, actionable feedback when they trusted that it would be valued and acted upon. This improved solution quality and accelerated learning cycles. The impact on XV to RV conversion was measurable. In a detailed analysis of 12 significant innovations implemented over the past year, those with high trust scores, measured through stakeholder surveys, showed an average XV to RV conversion rate of 85%, compared to just 47% for those with low trust scores. Despite similar initial XV calculations, the high trust initiatives delivered nearly twice the realized value. Freya began including trust metrics alongside value measures in portfolio reviews. For key initiatives, they track stakeholder confidence, engagement quality, and process satisfaction, recognizing these as leading indicators of successful value realization. We used to see stakeholder resistance as an implementation problem to overcome, Freya told the portfolio committee. Now we see it as a trust deficit that should have been addressed much earlier. This perspective transformed how the team approached value creation not as a linear process from idea to outcome, but as a collaborative journey that required trust at every step to convert expected value into realized results.

SPEAKER_00:

The Trust Rebuild Process.

SPEAKER_01:

With a clearer understanding of trust breakdown patterns and a more nuanced approach to stakeholder engagement, Freya turned her attention to rebuilding trust where it had been damaged. She recognized that trust recovery required deliberate, consistent action, not just new processes or apologies. Freya developed a three-phase approach to trust recovery. Phase one. The first step was genuinely acknowledging where trust had been broken and understanding the impact from stakeholders' perspectives. This wasn't about defending decisions or explaining governance models, it was about listening and validating concerns. Freya held one on one conversations with key stakeholders whose trust had been compromised, focusing not on solutions, but on understanding. She asked questions like how did this situation? Affect you and your team? What specifically felt most problematic about how this unfolded? What would have made a meaningful difference in your experience? These conversations revealed that the core issues were often not about the decisions themselves, but about how they were made and communicated. Phase two Visible Adjustment The second phase involved making visible concrete changes to address legitimate concerns. These weren't token gestures, but substantial adjustments to how innovation governance operated one updated decision templates that explicitly prompted consideration of sensitivity lines two. Revised escalation protocols that incorporated domain sensitivity alongside financial thresholds. three communication guides that addressed timing and context needs for different stakeholders. four. Training programs for innovation teams on working effectively across functional boundaries. What made these changes effective wasn't just their content but how they were developed, collaboratively with the stakeholders most affected, ensuring the solutions actually addressed root concerns. Phase three. Consistent practice The final and most important phase was consistent practice over time. Trust couldn't be restored through a single conversation or document. It required a pattern of reliable, respectful engagement that proved the initial breakdown was an exception, not the rule. Freya focused on creating visible trust moments, opportunities to demonstrate the new approach in action. Proactively engaging HR early in the next people related innovation, visibly incorporating legal's input into a compliance adjacent initiative, transparently adjusting plans based on IT's security concerns. Each of these moments became a small but significant trust deposit, gradually rebuilding confidence in the innovation governance system. Using AI to surface lead user innovations. As trust across functional boundaries strengthened, Freya discovered an unexpected benefit, greater visibility into lead user innovations happening throughout the organization. These were informal solutions developed by employees to address their own challenges, often containing valuable insights but typically invisible to formal innovation processes. Every function has people solving problems in creative ways, Axel observed. But those solutions rarely make it into our innovation pipeline because people don't think of them as innovations or don't know how to scale them. This insight connected directly to the lead user theory that had influenced their confidence assessment approach earlier. Just as lead users in markets developed solutions to meet needs before mainstream products existed, lead users within organizations were creating their own solutions to workplace challenges ahead of formal initiatives. The team developed an AI-powered system to help identify and elevate these lead user innovations. The system scanned internal collaboration platforms, support tickets, and process exception reports for patterns suggesting improvised solutions. Analyzed communication networks to identify local innovators who others frequently consulted for unofficial workarounds. Created contextual prompts within workflow tools that encouraged employees to share their homegrown solutions. We're not just looking for formal submissions to our innovation platform, Freya explained. We're trying to uncover the invisible innovation that happens every day when people are just trying to get their work done better. This approach uncovered dozens of valuable innovations that would have remained siloed in their originating functions. A customer service representative had created an unauthorized but highly effective response template. A finance analyst had developed a sophisticated Excel model that dramatically improved forecasting accuracy. A facilities manager had implemented an energy saving approach that could be scaled across all locations. The key to surfacing these innovations wasn't just the AI technology, it was the trust layer that made people willing to share their unofficial solutions without fear of criticism for working outside standard processes. When people trust that their innovations will be respected and credited rather than co-opted or criticized, they're much more willing to share them, Freya noted, and that unlocks enormous value that would otherwise remain hidden. The four trust principles As the new approach to innovation governance took root, Freya distilled what they had learned into four core trust principles that guided how they operated. One Transparency before decisions The first principle was radical transparency before decisions were made. This didn't mean overwhelming stakeholders with information, it meant providing meaningful visibility into what was being considered and why early enough for genuine input. This principle manifested in practices like publishing the innovation portfolio dashboard with access for all leaders. Sharing upcoming decision points in advance of governance meetings, making decision criteria explicit and visible, documenting and sharing the rationale behind major portfolio decisions. two respect for domain stewardship The second principle acknowledged that different functions had legitimate stewardship responsibilities over key organizational domains HR for people, legal for compliance, finance for resources, IT for technology infrastructure. This stewardship wasn't about vetoing innovation but about ensuring that innovation occurred responsibly within these domains. The principle was embodied in practices like involving domain experts early in relevant initiatives, incorporating domain specific risk considerations into assessment frameworks, recognizing and valuing specialized expertise in decision processes, co designing solutions that respected domain constraints while enabling innovation three. Mutual value creation. The third principle focused on ensuring that innovation collaboration created value for all involved parties, not just for the innovation function. This required understanding what success looked like from different stakeholders' perspectives and designing initiatives to deliver on multiple dimensions of value. Practices supporting this principle included explicitly mapping how initiatives address different functional priorities, measuring and communicating value creation across stakeholder domains, designing solutions with multiple beneficiaries in mind, celebrating success from diverse perspectives. four. Relationship before process The final principle acknowledged that even the best processes couldn't replace the fundamental importance of relationships. Trust ultimately existed between people, not between functions or in documents. This principle shaped how the team approached governance through practices like investing in relationship building outside formal governance settings, personalizing engagement based on individual stakeholder styles and needs, addressing tensions directly through conversation rather than process changes, recognizing and celebrating collaborative behaviors even in challenging situations. These principles weren't just philosophical statements, they became practical decision guides when navigating complex governance situations. When faced with a question about how to handle a particular initiative or stakeholder, the team would return to these principles to determine the appropriate approach.

SPEAKER_00:

Measuring trust evolution.

SPEAKER_01:

One morning, as Freya walked into the office, Axel handed her a printed dashboard. It showed five key metrics from the past two months. Average X V Delta. Ideas paused before funding. Resource reallocation shifts. Number of escalations. Percentage of decisions made without her direct input. The last number stood out. 67%. She looked up at him. You good with that? he asked. She smiled, not the tired smile of someone stepping away, the proud smile of someone watching something they built come alive without them. I'm great with that, she answered. As the trust layer of the governance model matured, Freya recognized the need to measure progress in this domain just as they measured other aspects of innovation performance. But trust metrics presented a unique challenge. How do you quantify something as intangible as trust? Working with Axel and the governance board, she developed a multifaceted approach to measuring trust evolution one process metrics. The first set of metrics focused on how the governance process was functioning included Decision Velocity Time from proposal to decision Escalation rate percentage of decisions requiring higher level intervention decision stability percentage of decisions revisited or reversed. Autonomous decision percentage decisions made at appropriate level without unnecessary escalation. These metrics provided objective indicators of how smoothly the governance system was operating with improving trends, suggesting growing confidence in the process. two relationship indicators The second set focused on relationship quality between innovation and key stakeholder functions, including cross functional collaboration frequency, voluntary joint initiatives, stakeholder initiated engagement, request for innovation involvement, innovation representation in other functional forums, informal consultation frequency, casual advice seeking across boundaries. These measures track the health of relationships that underpinned effective governance, showing whether stakeholders were actively choosing to engage rather than simply complying with requirements. Three perception assessment The third approach involved regular, structured assessment of stakeholder perceptions through quarterly trust pulse surveys measuring confidence in innovation governance stakeholder interviews exploring specific friction points and improvement opportunities decision retrospectives capturing experiences from different participants' perspectives anonymous feedback channels for surfacing concerns. These assessments provided direct insights into how the governance system was experienced by those involved, revealing subjective perceptions that might not be captured in process metrics. four value realization tracking The final measurement dimension focused on shared value creation including documented value delivered to different stakeholder domains, joint success stories highlighting multi-stakeholder benefits innovation contribution to other functional priorities reciprocal support metrics innovation assistance to other functions. These measures reinforce the mutual benefit aspect of trust, demonstrating that effective governance created value beyond the innovation function itself. Together, these metrics created a comprehensive picture of trust evolution. They weren't consolidated into a single trust score, but maintained as a dashboard that showed progress across multiple dimensions, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of organizational trust. The system was put to the test when the marketing team proposed a customer analytics initiative that crossed several sensitivity lines. Rather than waiting for resistance to emerge, they applied the trust signal system, which identified three stakeholder domains with potential concerns. By engaging them early with appropriate information packages, they incorporated valuable perspective, addressed legitimate concerns, and built momentum rather than resistance. The initiative moved from concept to pilot in half the time of similar previous projects.

SPEAKER_00:

The gradual transformation.

SPEAKER_01:

The real evidence of success wasn't in metrics but in the subtle shifts in how innovation functioned within the organization. The legal team began proactively reaching out to explore compliance-friendly approaches to emerging technologies. HR partners started bringing workforce challenges to innovation sessions, seeking collaborative solutions. Finance representatives transitioned from questioning innovation investments to suggesting portfolio optimization approaches. IT architects moved from late stage reviewers to early stage co-creators of technology innovations. These shifts weren't dramatic or sudden, they emerged gradually through consistent application of the trust principles and practices Freya had established. The number that stood out on Axel's dashboard, 67% of decisions made without Freya's direct involvement, was perhaps the most meaningful indicator. It represented not just delegation but distributed ownership, stakeholders across the organization taking responsibility for innovation decisions within the governance framework. This wasn't Freya's personal achievement. It was evidence that the system itself had taken root, that trust had become embedded in how innovation operated rather than depending on any individual's effort or influence. And that was the ultimate goal. Governance that worked not through control but through shared commitment to responsible innovation, a system that would sustain even as individuals came and went.

SPEAKER_00:

The lasting impact.

SPEAKER_01:

As Freya reflected on the evolution of their governance approach, she recognized that the integration of trust principles had fundamentally changed how innovation was positioned within the organization. Innovation was no longer seen as a disruptive force that needed to be controlled or contained, nor was it viewed as a separate function operating by its own rules. Instead, it had become a collaborative capability, one that worked with and through the organization's existing strengths and stewardship responsibilities. This shift created a foundation for sustainable innovation at scale, innovation that could move with appropriate speed without creating unmanageable risks or tensions. It allowed the organization to be both bold and responsible, experimental and accountable. The lines of trust they had established weren't constraints, they were connections, pathways for information, expertise, and shared purpose to flow between innovation and the broader organization. And that flow didn't just enable better governance, it enabled better innovation, innovation informed by diverse perspectives, strengthened by specialized expertise and aligned with organizational capabilities. In the end, the most valuable outcome wasn't the governance model itself, it was the culture of collaborative innovation it enabled, one where ideas could move forward not despite organizational complexity, but because of the collective intelligence it contained. That was the power of governance built on trust. Not control, but connection. Not compliance, but commitment. Not process, but partnership. And that made all the difference. Too long didn't read Formal governance structures aren't enough. Innovation also requires trust. When Freya's team advances a project that crosses an unwritten sensitivity line for HR, they discover the importance of mapping stakeholder concerns beyond formal thresholds. By developing the sensitivity map, establishing four trust principles, transparency before decisions, respect for domain stewardship, mutual value creation, and relationship before process, leveraging AI to identify potential friction points, and creating reciprocal value across functions, they transform governance from a mechanical process into a relationship based system. This trust layer accelerates value realization, unlocks lead user innovations, and enables genuine collaboration rather than mere compliance.

Head Shot

Simon Hill

Host