Peter Newell helps mission-driven organizations solve the world’s toughest problems and he’s sharing his innovation pipeline with us in this interview.

Subscribe to the Podcast to receive alerts as new episodes post.

3 Key Points:

  1. Most organizations don’t have the innovation pipeline they need. Fast forward to minute seven.
  2. Not everyone is built for start-ups. Keep this in mind when hiring, because start-ups are stressful, to some extent by design. You have to build an environment with people who have different perspectives – different ethnicities, genders, backgrounds, the whole ball of wax.
  3. If you’re not failing, you’re not trying hard enough. If you aren’t pushing the limits (which will breed failure), critical failures are simply getting pushed down the road.

Time Stamped Show Notes:

0:55 – What does BMNT stand for?

2:28– What can business leaders learn from your military background?

5:05 – How can larger organizations maintain agility?

7:00 – What is the innovation pipeline framework?

13:12 – How do you deal with an inflection event, like, oh, I don’t know, COVID-19?

15:40 – How has your own business model changed due to COVID-19?

17:30 – What are leadership traits of successful innovation cultures?

20:50 – What differentiates great military leaders from business leaders?

23:35 – How do you prioritize problem-solving?

26:00 – How DO you learn from failure?

30:30 – How do organizations stay competitive beyond COVID?

32:13 – Do you have huge catalyst moments in your life?

35:10 – What are you most excited about for the year?

38:20 – Wrap-Up: Find Peter on Twitter: peteranewell

Full Transcript

Justin Gray:

Welcome to the Catalyst Podcast, where we seek out uncommon stories from today’s most innovative, and impactful business leaders. Catalysts get results. These are the secrets of their success. Hey, hello. Welcome. We are back on Catalyst, here. I’m your host, Justin Gray, CEO, founder, LeadMD, joined again today, interesting, my guest today is also connected to our guest last week. So it’ll be a nice continuous theme between a couple of colleagues. So with no further ado, I’ll introduce Peter Newell. Peter, thanks for joining us here on the podcast.

 

Peter Newell:

Thanks so much for the invite.

 

Justin Gray:

Absolutely. So Peter, you are the CEO founder of BMNT. Probably the first logical question is what does that stand for?

 

Peter Newell:

Okay. So BMNT is really is a nautical term, so it stands for Begin Morning Nautical Twilight, which from my backdrop you can tell what BMNT is. It’s literally that time in the morning before the sun comes up, where you can just start to make out shadows on the ground, and you could see enough to navigate. It’s a throwback as a reference to our time in the military, where we were accustomed to, for hundreds of years, that was a time if you were defending some place, like the guys in the fort, that’s the time when the Indians were creeping closer because they could see.

 

Peter Newell:

You always knew that at the end of BMNT, that’s when the attack was coming. So ultimately, what it represents is, it is either the time of greatest threat or the time of greatest opportunity, depending on what side of the battlefield you’re on. Now technology today has the same issue. It can either be your best friend, or your worst enemy. Same tech, depending on which side of the battlefield you’re on. So BMNT is the name we adopted for the company. Our focus has been on helping national security agencies and organizations find the right techs to help make the country safer.

 

Justin Gray:

Yeah. So I mentioned that we had a Steve Blank on the show last week. I understand you’ve done a good deal of work with Steve. You guys both have a military background. How do you see that experience, and that context, helping you within your current landscape, the consultative approach to making businesses more agile and more innovative?

 

Peter Newell:

Now, in effect, any large organization struggles with having to compress a timeline and making decisions, and reacting to changes in the market, that is massively prevalent on a battlefield. Particularly, so in the last 20 years where we’ve gotten to the point where personally any protagonist out there can find the technology and rapidly iterate on how to use it. Find a way to move it onto the battlefield, and rapidly scale it with rather devastating effects. We saw that with IEDs early in the war and Iraq, we saw later with what we call the EFPs or explosive form projectiles, which were very, very lethal. And we saw lots of different systems in Afghanistan.

 

Peter Newell:

As it turns out, terrorists at large, across the world, have always been rather gifted at coming up with novel ways of using basic technologies to gain an advantage in a specific point in time with devastating effects. So from a military standpoint, the speed at which tech is produced, adopted, and adapted is moving at a cycle faster than we can recognize there’s a new problem. Describe it to somebody, procure a solution, and get it to the battlefield. So the way it is today is we’re constantly behind. And when we do deliver something it’s usually late and obsolete, the day it hits the battlefield. That’s not unlike what the business world has to deal with too, it’s constantly changing environments. The customers are electronically changing.

 

Justin Gray:

And you also work with some organizations that we would oftentimes equate with a bit more of a laggard business. Any government entity is going to have a problem being as nimble as a startup, even startups struggle with exactly the problem that you’re addressing. I’m curious to get your take on those additional challenges in working with larger organizations, larger entities and entities that are really rooted in process as well.

 

Peter Newell:

Yeah. Let’s start with the culture of large organizations, which is Alex Osterwalder and Steve have both rooted successively on a largely Horizon 1 organizations focused on very efficiently using the resources they have to produce whatever product it is they put in the market. When they attempt to innovate it is usually done to the sides, or done to help make them more efficient. It’s not done to help them do away with a product line, and do something completely different. So the challenge from a cultural standpoint is innovation is always something that was done to the side out of sight of everybody else. It just kind of thrown over the wall, but that’s fine when you have time.

 

Peter Newell:

But as we’ve compressed the decision cycles you’re finding out that if companies fail to recognize the change in the marketplace, and very rapidly iterate on a potential solution to that, and actually deliver it, they don’t stand a chance of keeping up. Now, in the military it is particularly bad and hard to get through that because a very regimented culture designed to deliver a 100% of the product on a budget that’s half of what it needs to be to do what they have to. So coming up with a framework or an operating system that helps a culture adapt, and rapidly spin up on lots of different things. It’s particularly hard for both organizations.

 

Justin Gray:

And so how do you go about effecting that level of change, as you mentioned you’re not only just exponentially wide in terms of the organization, but also so many different strata and so many different layers to where you’ve got to take that innovation. Potentially, up a chain that just adds to that type of lead time that you mentioned there as well to where by the time we bring an innovation to market, whatever we’re trying to solve for has evolved even further. So how do you apply that framework within an organization like the military, or some of the other large government entities that you work with?

 

Peter Newell:

Well, I think you hit on it. The first is you have to have a framework. And what we’ve discovered working with Steve and working with Alex essentially created what we call the innovation pipeline, which it reflects how innovation happens in five phases. Starting with how you source problems, and technologies, and people, and ideas in mass. How do you find them all? And then the second phase is how you curate the unique collisions between the problems, the people, and the tech, and the ideas. And begin to form things that are worth investing time. And curing down to is this something really that’s investible for us to move forward? So the act of curation really is about ensuring that you’re articulating the problems correctly, and that your problem is correct. It’s ensuring that you actually understand the technology you’re looking at, and that you have the right kinds of people in the room and are accessible.

 

Peter Newell:

It’s also about prioritizing out of a hundred things you could do, if you only got time to do 10. What are the 10 best, most ready things you should focus on? Now, what lots of organizations struggle with is, let’s say innovation, is collecting a bunch of ideas, and throwing it on a platform. Which immediately clogs the platform. Or they say, we’re only going to work on our top priorities, regardless of whether they’re ready or not, which means something that’s really important it gets on the platform, but wasn’t curated to the point where it needed to be. And it just flounders when it gets there. Those two acts create what we call innovation exhaustion. The innovation teams are exhausted, beating their heads against the wall. And the organization that’s donating assets and capital to help that process go along, look at it and say, “I’m not getting anything out of this. I keep giving you people, and I keep giving you money, and I keep giving you time. And you’re not giving me back anything.”

 

Peter Newell:

So moving from the second phase of curation into what Steve Blank and Alex Osterwalder have done a really great job of writing about is the act of discovery. We use the two find walk through the business model canvas, or the mission model canvas to drive the activities around discovery. But the product of discovery is really data. We’re looking for real data to validate that we’re working on the right thing, that we have a viable solution and a feasible pathway to deliver that solution to somebody. And I just need to validate that I have that. If I leave the discovery phase with that then I move into incubation. The processing incubation is just like it is. Just like it sounds. We’re trying to do three things.

 

Peter Newell:

We come out with discovery and say, yes, this team, this tech working on this problem is worth investing time and money in. We’re moving it to the incubation stage, and what we’re trying to do is figure out how much money, time and energy does it take to advance the tech to a point that’s usable. How much time, energy, and money do I have to expend to ensure that the team I’m asking to deliver the tech has the asset they need to actually deliver and scale the solution. And then finally what we call adaptability is identifying not just the first customer, but also the one who’s going to scale it. And the mechanism by which we’ll do that. So we talk about technology readiness level, which is the tech the investment readiness level, which is about the team.

 

Peter Newell:

And then the adoption readiness level, which is about the customer. If you come out of incubation, knowing that you have an investable entity that you could put cold hard cash against, and you know why you’re doing it and what the expectation is. And then finally, you’re looking for an opportunity to transition, the last step, that entity out of your incubator, and out of your innovation system into the mainstream of the organization, or to conduct. That framework is called the innovation pipeline essentially becomes an operating system for innovation in an organization that everybody can understand. And it’s easy for you to articulate everybody’s role at each phase. What activities support the phase using what methodologies that produce what data, that help you make decisions about what moves from one phase to the next. Anecdotally I could tell you this, and I’ve done this.

 

Peter Newell:

If I want to transition 10 things a year, I need to have 40 things in incubation. And to get 40 things in incubation I need 160 things in discovery. Now to get there I need 640 things in curation. And to do that, I’ve got to have 2000 inputs coming in from someplace. Helping organizations understand the massive input they need to get the output they want is sometimes the hard part. That takes a lot of organization of the system.

 

Justin Gray:

So interesting when you look at a model like that, certainly through the lens of the current time. I always think of the analogy, best laid plans are only such until you get hit in the face the first time. I feel like every organization on the planet just got hit in the face really hard. When you think about that framework, and maybe even the pipeline that you described there. How do you deal with an inflection event like we’re seeing right now, where potentially we have to completely retool that entire pipeline based on a variable that is completely not foreseen such as COVID? I’m curious as to how you found that things like that stand up a when really the game changes overnight.

 

Peter Newell:

What I would say is if there was no pipeline to begin with, it’s intensely hard because you’re creating it out of thin air. In the organizations that we support that they’d already adopted the framework and the culture was moving that way, we simply compress the pipeline and increase the inputs of things. So where the pipeline is employed and used, they’re not struggling nearly as much with getting through it. Because everybody understands their role, and they simply increase the resources required to get something done. And the decision makers are showing up at the right time and right place, knowing what data points they’re looking for to make decisions about what moves next.

 

Peter Newell:

They are changing the risk factors, or how they weigh risk in others, they’re making decisions about moving things from one phase to the next, with a higher degree of risk than they normally would if they had more time to flush something out. But the data points are still there, and the discipline is still there. In other places where that hasn’t existed, it’s just intensely painful because you’re trying to teach an organization a new language upon which they will adopt a new culture, and put a framework to use. So what I would say is, for us in an organization that’s already functioning with a framework we show up as coaches, and firefighters, and troubleshooters to help the system work. And we’re capturing the data so they don’t forget things. In organizations where it didn’t exist, we’re actually running the pipeline for them. To completely change the roles for us is we’re the folks shouldering the load in those organizations.

 

Justin Gray:

Got it. And is that something that existed prior to this whole COVID event, to where there’s just some organizations where you have to come in and be that accelerator to help them get that structure, or is that something that’s newer in reaction to this?

 

Peter Newell:

No, and in fact in multiple different places, both nationally and internationally. There were places where conceptually, they understood the framework and they have different organizations doing different parts of it, both their blank and sourcing curation area. And they don’t have the data systems to allow them to short through lots of things and make the right pairings. Where we’ll step in and we will physically do that phase for them, and then hand them off something to work with. In other cases, fresh at the Defense Logistics Agency, we help them retool the existing framework focused on 3D scanning of parts for an eventual advanced manufacturing system, to suddenly using that advanced manufacturing system on the contracts vehicles that went with it, to procure a personal protective equipment that was being manufactured across the entire country. So sometimes it’s just you’re just going in and changing the gears to do something else.

 

Justin Gray:

So let’s talk a little bit about the role of leadership within a cultural shift like this, or even as a catalyst for a system like this working well and being efficient. You mentioned the notion of culture and innovation certainly is a cultural trait. You need someone that is setting that tone and ultimately creating that impetus. Like we’re going to do this as an organization, or as a company. What are some of those leadership traits that you’ve found are really important within cultures that really have become an innovative culture?

 

Peter Newell:

I think I’ve attacked that question from two ends. One is the leader looking down into an organization, there was a certain acceptance. And I call it that risk acceptant thing is if I want my organization to be innovative, and I want people in it to take risks. It’s up for me to explain the levels of risks that I am willing to defer to other people and let them take. And when you do that, you have to follow through with them, make a mistake, and their heart’s in the right place. You have to accept the blame for the mistake, not pass it down to the people doing it. You look at people and say, “Let’s learn the lesson and we’ll move on.” But as a leader, the blame stops with you. And your job then is to make sure you assist in doing the right thing.

 

Peter Newell:

It’s also very important as a leader, that you look at the people working in a system, if they are not performing and not adapting to the culture that you very rapidly cut them out. It’s like having a cancer. You just can’t afford lean or in an agile, high pressure, fast paced system like that to have folks in it who just don’t function well. Anybody who’s ever started a company realizes that being a startup founder, or somebody quitting a startup like function in an organization this large isn’t meant for everybody. It is intentionally, emotionally exhausting. It’s risky. It’s hard and it’s messy. And not everybody enjoys being in that kind of environment or thrives in it. So as a leader, looking at the system, you literally have to be able to look at that and say, “I needed the right types of people here.”

 

Peter Newell:

I think you also have to be willing to… Well, the best way to say it is you have to be willing to create an environment that not just respects diversity of thought, but actually expects a diversity of thought. And I kind of approached the diversity thing in this environment from the standpoint of if I really want diversity of thought, I need people from different backgrounds, but different experiences, with different opinions, which means they had to come from very different places. Men, women, racially, socially, economically, anything you can get that creates a melting pot of thought, and can synchronize itself and make decisions is what you’re trying to get to. And I think that tone and that culture also has to be set at the leadership level.

 

Justin Gray:

Yeah. Those different perspectives are so critical within a startup, and an innovative environment. I was going to ask you what the similarities were between military leadership, and business leadership in that regard. But it seems like that actually might be one of the biggest differences. Do you agree there?

 

Peter Newell:

Maybe I’m biased. I don’t see them as being radically different. My last command in the army, I commanded an organization of 3,500 people with another 1500 people attached to that, that covered an area the size of the State of South Carolina that was responsible for 150,000 security forces from another country. That’s a really large footprint, really large organization. I was reliant on 60 subordinate leaders who I didn’t get to talk to every day. And sometimes I get to talk to them every week to make decisions, to do analysis and come up with problems that had to be solved.

 

Peter Newell:

And it was my job to move the resources to them that they needed. It’s the same thing my job was to accept risk, and define to them what level of risk I was willing to tolerate for them just to make decisions without having to say, “Mother, may I.” And other cases where I would look at people and say, “No, that’s my choice. That thing right there is just my business. I have to make that decision and I have to accept the blame if it doesn’t go right. Take that away from you.” I think the leaders in those types of organizations, high pressure, high functioning have to create a culture that accepts subordinate learning in the process of growing into those roles, which means you have to do a lot of coaching, you have to do a lot of teaching.

 

Peter Newell:

But there also has to be a certain degree of emotional resilience of the leader of not acting out of emotion. And not letting subordinates act out of emotion, but actually, forcing yourselves into data-driven decisions about what’s really happening here. That doesn’t mean that you shoo using your good judgment based on your experience, which looks like instinct because leaders have to have instinct for what’s going on around them. And they have to flash, be able to act on something that they see either an opportunity or a threat that nobody in the room sees.

 

Justin Gray:

So applying some of those same concepts to what tends to be normally the beginning stages of innovation. Like problem identification and problem solving. Do you see a right and a wrong approach there in terms of problem solving? It sounds like some of that emotional response certainly fit into the wrong element. How do you understand which one of those problems are critical, and how you’re going to go about solving them?

 

Peter Newell:

Yeah. And I think that’s the first mistake is we immediately talk about solving problems versus understanding problems. And I’m a fan of Einstein’s writing on problems, and it goes, “If I had an hour I’d spend 55 minutes understanding my problem and five solving.” He’s actually thought more about it. But at the end of the day, in today’s world, the problems are so complex. Particularly, if you’re dealing with technologies and the environment and people, you suddenly find that most of our problems with technology are really sociology problems. And so the question becomes how quickly can you recognize that something new has happened, that’s creating a problem, articulate that problem in a manner that other people understand, and we’ll provide you feedback on. That will validate whether you’re actually working on the problem, or a symptom of the problem.

 

Peter Newell:

And then once you understand that, how do you use that as a catalyst to draw other people to it like a moth to flame. And get the right people working on it while you’re using the product that to start to grease the skids for a solution pathway. Notice, I didn’t use a word solving until I got to the far end of that. It really is about if you don’t focus on understanding the problem, you will waste precious assets, starting with time and human capital, working on and solving the wrong things. Even if you’re fast, it would just mean you solve the wrong thing faster. And the federal government is particularly bad at it.

 

Justin Gray:

So let’s talk about that element of certainly. We talked about the military, we’ve talked about entrepreneurship. Everyone has to deal with failure. And I’m curious to get your take on how you experience failure, what you take from failure each time. You mention a little bit about learning from failure and creating a culture that embraces that risk, and is open to learning from those items. And then I’m wondering how you teach entrepreneurs to deal with failure and what they should take away from those experiences, even based on your own experiences?

 

Peter Newell:

Yeah, I think there’s a… And I can talk to military and entrepreneurs in the same breath. I grew up in a special operations unit where there was an exceptionally high standard of performance and behavior and other things. Failure often got you fired. And it’s not to say fired, they just moved the next guy up in line because they were better at something. That sometimes breeds an environment where everybody’s afraid to fail. So it’s a dog eat dog world. In the better special mission units there was an impetus that says, “If you’re not failing, you’re not trying hard enough.” So in short and circumstances, in training, in the garrison environment where you’re expected to push your body, and your brain, and your team beyond the limits of what they’re supposed to be capable of doing in order to prevent yourself from failing at the crucial pull of combat. If you create an environment that doesn’t allow for that, you are simply pushing the risk downrange. That’s not a lie.

 

Justin Gray:

Especially when you’re talking about the stakes that you are.

 

Peter Newell:

Yeah, absolutely. And I think so many organizations are guilty of that. They’re so afraid in constrained environments to let anybody take any risk and fail. That they grow people who don’t know how to do it when it’s critically important. And that’s where critical failures come from. In entrepreneurship, you’re trying to grow people the same thing is you want them to fail early. You want them to stretch their minds, and their ideas, and challenge themselves up until the point to, “Okay, you got to move.” They have to make a decision. People who make the best decisions as entrepreneurs have had lots of failure.

 

Peter Newell:

The critical point is they’ve always learned from it. They are also very introspective, and they’ve learned about how they make decisions and the organizations they build, and what they should have done. And over time that experience makes them a much better entrepreneur but it’s not unlike building a leader in the military. I could go to a longer discussion about combat training centers. And how we take entire units and put them in a near combat environment with observer controllers, people who were there to watch. People with a notepad that says you gave an order and five hours later somebody said something else.

 

Peter Newell:

But they can actually, their job is to peel back the feelers in a unit so the unit… why they failed in a battle someplace and you could drive it all the way back to the pattern of failure for this issue started four days ago in this meeting and something. Entrepreneurs get that same feedback from investors, and from customers, and from all the things. Large organizations sometimes have forgotten about that. And they bred out a culture of learning from failure, learning from stretching, which means they breed people who are unwilling to go left or right, or where they’re supposed to be going. And for some organizations that works, but in most, not so much. Not in today’s world.

 

Justin Gray:

That’s what I was going to say. Certainly when you see an event like COVID taking place I think across the board, I haven’t seen any adverse scenario to this role in terms of the organizations that are pivoting, that are proactive, that are innovating on the fly, they’re listening to the customer and they’re reacting in a really intentional, and swift manner. How do you see that becoming just a standard motion for organizations? Is that something that you predict will come out of this situation? How do organizations stay competitive when there’s not this big bold, and that’s staring them in the face?

 

Peter Newell:

In many cases, it’s very hard for them because it’s always this competition for resources. And the first competition is for time. And then the second competition is for human capital. And the third one is for cash. And if there’s no catalyst driving that, the organization falls and then they’ll go down the pathway of, “Okay, we need to be more efficient.” They’re more effective at delivering X that’s our thing. And slowly you’ll watch the walls build, and the silos tighten up around certain activities to the point where we evaluate people on the performance of their silo, not on the transition of something from one silo to the next.

 

Peter Newell:

So in the outdoor or fast paced world, it’s like, if you created something that was expected to move through the pipeline and it sucked, and you tried to hand it to me, I’d hand it back. And over time somebody will look at it and say, “You’re no longer creating anything of value to the next site. Get out of the way. We’ll get somebody else to do that.” Versus you create something that’s perfect in your silo. And then hand it to me, and I’m expected to figure out how to use it. And that’s a failure model that starts then you can’t, it’s really, really hard to get out of.

 

Justin Gray:

So I’m curious most, most folks that are, have become really adept at responding to change, and to innovation. And there are often big learning moments in their own lives. I’m curious. Do you have any of those big catalyst moments that have taken place in your personal life, or business life where that’s, that’s become a fuel for this line of thinking going forward?

 

Peter Newell:

I’d love to say I get them every day. If I had a catalog of some of the big things, those aha moments where you’ve got a team working on something and they produce. There’s an answer or there’s a sudden we were moving this way, and we pivoted and went this way, and suddenly the whole world collapsed on something and tried to take it out of your hands. It’s those successful pivots that are like, “Oh my God.” But at the time they’re horrible. I laugh. I’ve got a picture every once in a while I show it to my team and they hate me for it. In 2015 BMNT was probably a 12 person company. I’ve been working with Steve Blank for about eight months. And I realized that this framework that Steve, and I had built around Hacking for Defense, really was the operating system for innovation in large organizations, but just couldn’t articulate that there was a business model for that.

 

Peter Newell:

And, literally, it was a team meeting right prior to the Christmas holidays. And I looked at him and said, “This is what we’re going to do. We’re going to figure out. How Hacking for Defense this framework works in a large organization.” That’s what it focused on. You can look at the picture and half of them have their arms crossed. One pushing back on the table, one walking out of the room. And it literally we’re, “No hell no, that’s not what we’re…” But just many years later, 50, 60 people in a company, double the income, double the growth every year. We still don’t advertise, and we still have more work to do than we can shake or stick out. And we have sped out this particular, I call it a niche, but we understand our role in and amongst all these other organizations, and how we operate as a third party and bondsman to the entire system.

 

Peter Newell:

So when I talk to people about pivots, it’s literally it’s to turn it around and make it pivot. It’s like, listen, if somebody in your team’s not throwing up on the corner, and somebody else isn’t mad and walking out the door, we’re not talking about a pivot.

 

Justin Gray:

Yeah. Great, great context, great perspective there. So as we start to wind down here, I always like to ask a couple of questions just to get your insight a little bit of a rapid fire element to it as well.

 

Peter Newell:

I’ll see if my brain can keep up with you.

 

Justin Gray:

For sure. I’m sure it can. And this is an interesting question to ask, certainly given the timeline in the time that we live in right now, but what are you most excited about for the rest of this year?

 

Peter Newell:

We’re, obviously, on the front side of several pivots, and it’s almost excited and terrified. We are doing some phenomenal work with British government right now, helping them apply this pipeline to how they will recover from COVID and actually get out. Likewise, we’re working with a number of defense organizations who have had some tremendous victories, have pivoted, and are doing great things for the country. That have opened up a number of new opportunities to better understand how fast you can flip the switch on innovation, and move channels from one place or the other. So you’re really going… There’s some great data and great lessons we’ve learned very quick.

 

Justin Gray:

What do you hate spending money on?

 

Peter Newell:

What do I hate spending money on? Things that don’t matter. So personally, from mentality, BMNT really didn’t skip a beat when COVID hit and we had to go on lockdown because we’ve always been a very distributed company. So I dislike spending money on facilities. I would rather pay for people to go see other people. And it’s like, as Steve says, “Get out of the office.” The best way to get out of the office is not to have one. So you have no choice. So I dislike paying for buildings and office and things. I would prefer to put that money into prompting social engagement, and actually doing work and gathering data.

 

Justin Gray:

Got it. And last one, what’s one thing that always seems like a good idea that never is?

 

Peter Newell:

Something I came up with. I sketch a lot. I particularly am focused on the organization of BMNT, not what BMT is today or next year, but what is the five year plan for the company? So I rift through a lot of things, and it can be a challenge for the company as I start talking to people, “Oh my God, he’s actually thinking about doing this.” There’s I would say thousands of pages of potential sketches that should never see the light of day.

 

Justin Gray:

That’s how innovation happens though. Well, Peter, I really appreciate you being with us here today. A lot of great insight, a lot of great stories, you guys are doing some super interesting work. So congratulations there. If people want to learn more about you, what’s the best place for them to connect?

 

Peter Newell:

They can hit our website at bmnt.com. And particularly at the bmnt.com/missionresults. It will take you to some of the examples over the past year of where we have applied the innovation pipeline and culture. And actually it talks about the result. There are great stories out there that you can pick up on and see what we do.

 

Justin Gray:

Awesome. You could also find Peter on Twitter, so connect with him there. Again, thanks so much for coming on and sharing your stories with us here today. Obviously, if you guys liked this video, please feel free to subscribe down below. You can check out these over on YouTube, also on our website at leadmd.com/bestpractices. And remember never miss an opportunity to be inspired.

Looking for more episodes? Check out more of our best practice podcasts!

Carilu-D-full-podcast.00_00_16_07.Still001

An interview with Carilu Dietrich on the state of B2B in 2021

If predicting the future were as easy as looking into a crystal ball, we'd all...
Jeff-Miller

How COVID-19 inspired an entrepreneur to build Helping Hands Community: Interview with Jeff Miller

Jeff Miller spent the last 10 years of his career at the intersection of technology...
Allen-Adamason-Title-Card-

How to Shift Ahead Through Change: Interview with Allen Adamson

A noted industry expert in all disciplines of branding, Allen Adamson has worked with consumer...