A colleague recently pitched me on what he called an “innovative” way to improve our customer service. He spoke about a report found within one of our online systems—a report that contains useful information but that most of us ignore because obtaining it is far too cumbersome and time consuming. His idea? Have someone print out the report on a regular schedule and hand-deliver copies to each of us.

He was genuinely excited about this. And knowing his background, I understand how he got there. For him, this was innovation—a real improvement over the current state in which dozens of people burn time accessing and generating the document, if they even bother.

But honestly, from where I sit—immersed in technology, automation, and systems thinking—the suggestion looked like a solution from another decade. My first instinct was to dismiss it. Printing reports? Walking them around the building? In 2026?

Then I caught myself.

Who’s right here?

Well, quite clearly, we both are. Innovation isn’t a fixed point on a map that everyone sees the same way. It’s shaped by experience, context, and what you’ve been exposed to. For someone who’s never had easy access to real-time data, a printed report delivered reliably is a step forward. For someone who’s spent years watching organizations automate and regularly evolve far more complex workflows, it barely registers.

This got me thinking about how we talk about innovation—especially in organizations that don’t have research budgets, dedicated labs, or spare headcount to throw at shiny new ideas. In the public sector, conditions are even more constraining.

The word innovation is used quite regularly, but what does it actually mean when you’re working in a place where the answer to “Can we try something new?” is usually “With what people or money?”

What innovation actually looks like when you can’t spend your way there

Let’s set aside the shiny version of innovation involving whiteboards, venture funding, collaborative digital spaces, and teams dedicated to “disruption.” Most of us don’t work in that world. We work in places where budgets are tight, staff are stretched, and the idea of experimenting with anything is a luxury.

After considerable thought and countless hours working in the trenches of organizational operations, I’ve humbled my concept of innovation to be simply, positive changes in behavior.

Fundamentally, innovation is just a better way of doing something that creates real value for the people you serve or the people you work alongside. It doesn’t require a lab. It doesn’t require software. It requires a habit—a repeatable way of noticing problems, testing small changes, and learning from what happens.

This simple definition empowers organizations—even those without massive R&D budgets—to get better over time. The organizations that actually do are the ones where small improvements happen constantly, driven by people closest to the work.

How can we think different in ways that make that happen—without asking for permission, without waiting for resources, and without assuming that innovation requires anything more than curiosity and a little discipline?

The best ideas are probably already in the building

I’ve periodically seen leadership teams go offsite to ideate “innovative” solutions to issues that frontline staff could have diagnosed in ten minutes. Good ideas often die in that gap between where decisions are made and where the work actually happens. So credit to leaders who have the conversations, but how sad for their organizations that some of the best, most innovative ideas aren’t allowed in their brainstorming rooms.

The people who talk to customers every day know where the friction is. The people who process the paperwork know which steps are pointless or take longer than necessary. The people who answer the phones know what questions come up again and again. These aren’t insights that require a consultant to uncover. They’re sitting in plain sight, in the building, waiting for someone to ask.

So ask.

You don’t need a formal suggestion system or an innovation committee. You need a question and a willingness to listen:

• “What’s the most annoying part of your week?”
• “If you could change one thing about how we do this, what would it be?”
• “What’s something customers keep asking for that we don’t offer?”

Beyond asking the questions, the responsibility of leadership also includes making it safe to answer honestly. If people have learned that raising problems leads to defensiveness or consequences—or that they’ll be handed ownership of fixing whatever they mention—they’ll stop talking. Innovation dies in cultures where honesty feels risky or where raising an idea feels like an invitation to be set up to fail.

And listening well means capturing ideas in people’s own words, not translating them into management-speak or your own biased interpretation. It also might mean being willing to hear that something you already built, approved, or regularly just accepted as normal is not working. Can your ego handle that?

Customers are the other obvious source of innovative ideas. You simply need to give them your attention and your ear. What do they complain about? What do they ask for repeatedly? What workarounds have they invented because your process doesn’t work for them? Every complaint is a clue. Every workaround is an invitation.

Running experiments that cost almost nothing

Once you’ve identified a problem worth solving, the instinct in most organizations is to think it through to its most detailed element. Organizations will build a business case, request funding, and wait. Innovation dies in this process too.

An alternative is to run a small experiment—something so cheap and fast that it doesn’t require approval from anyone.

Here are a few simple experiments that require little or no budget:

• Change the conversation. Spend a week asking customers one specific question you’ve never asked before. Track what you hear.
• Tweak one step. Modify a single part of a process—a form, a script, a checklist—and see what happens.
• Test a message. Send two versions of the same email and see which one gets a better response.
• Offer a shortcut. Create a “fast lane” option for a specific type of request and see who uses it and how it works.

The point isn’t to find the perfect solution. The point is to learn something useful, fast. Each experiment teaches you something about the problem—and about whether your proposed solution is worth pursuing.

Before running any tests, think through the following simple questions:

1. What problem are we trying to solve?
2. What exactly are we going to try?
3. What would we expect to see if it’s working?
4. How long will we run this before we decide?

Keep the scope small. Days, not months. One person or a small group, not the whole organization. If the experiment works, you’ll have evidence to expand it. If it doesn’t, you’ve lost almost nothing.

Turning a good test into positive change

Experiments generate learning. But learning doesn’t automatically become action. I’ve watched teams run pilots, declare success, and then…nothing. The improvement sits in a slide deck somewhere; the old way continues, and customers and employees haven’t been served.

Instead, when something works, make it visible. Share results in existing forums—staff meetings, team emails, quick write-ups, your next internal newsletter. Frame it simply: Here’s what we tried. Here’s what happened. Here’s what we’re doing next. Give credit to the people who raised the problem and helped test the solution. Recognition builds momentum, and it signals that this kind of work is valued.

If leadership buy-in is required to expand the tested innovation, keep the ask small. A one-page story is more persuasive than a detailed proposal: problem, experiment, results, recommendation. Emphasize that you’ve already reduced risk by testing small. Scaling up is the safe next step, not the gamble.

And if you’re in a leadership role and willing to have faith in your employees, your job is simply to remove the blockers that kill experiments before they start. Simplify approvals for small tests. Protect a little staff time for trying things. Resist the urge to demand perfection or plot out a full strategy before anyone can try anything. These moves cost almost nothing, but they dramatically increase the number of ideas that make it from “what if” to “let’s find out.”

Building a rhythm that sticks

A single experiment is useful. A habit of experimentation becomes transformational.

The difference between organizations that improve steadily and those that stagnate isn’t talent or budget—it’s the rhythm of the behaviors. If you accept this article’s behavior-based definition of innovation, then it’s a short step to acknowledging that an organization can get better if it has a regular cadence for noticing problems, testing changes, and locking in what works.

Here’s a lightweight rhythm any team can adopt:

• Weekly (10–15 minutes): Pick one small thing to test, or check in on a test in progress. What are we learning?
• Monthly (30 minutes): Review what was tried in the past month. What worked? What didn’t? What should we try next?
• Quarterly: Choose one or two improvements to lock in as standard practice. Celebrate them—and the employees who brought them into the light. Then start fresh.

This isn’t complicated. It doesn’t require new software or a dedicated team. It requires a commitment to carving out a small amount of time, consistently, and protecting it from the gravity of day-to-day work.

Everyone has a role in this:

• Frontline staff bring the problems, help design tests, and report what actually happens.
• Leaders clear obstacles, set simple guardrails, protect time, and model curiosity instead of defensiveness.
• Customers—when invited—contribute feedback and sometimes co-design small changes.

Over time, the result is an organization that learns and enjoys happier customers and more engaged employees. Not because someone mandated innovation, but because the people doing the work now have a habit of making the work better. Innovation becomes part of your culture.

Worth questioning

I started this article thinking about my colleague’s suggestion—the one about printing reports. I almost dismissed it. But the more I considered it, the more I realized the real question about innovation wasn’t whether his idea was sophisticated enough. It was whether anyone in our organization has a reliable way to surface ideas, test them, and turn the good ones into change. It came down to whether the proposed change in behavior—my new definition of innovation—improved our condition.

If we don’t redefine the term in this new way, then even the best ideas—mine included—go nowhere. And if we do, then even modest, “walk the paper around the building” ideas get a shot at becoming something better than what we have today.

That’s the gap worth closing. Not the sophistication gap between my idea of innovation and his. The action gap—the one between having an idea and actually doing something with it.

Can we think different?

• What would it look like if the people closest to your customers had a reliable way to surface problems and test solutions—without waiting for permission, fearing ramifications, or hurting anyone’s ego?
• If you haven’t run a small experiment in the past month, what’s actually stopping you?
• What’s one thing you could try this week that would cost nothing and teach you something?

---