<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Evidence on MYLES — Strategy &amp; Innovation Consulting</title><link>https://myles-innovation.com/tags/evidence/</link><description>Recent content in Evidence on MYLES — Strategy &amp; Innovation Consulting</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0100</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://myles-innovation.com/tags/evidence/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Why 86% of ODI-Guided Products Succeed (And What That Means for You)</title><link>https://myles-innovation.com/blog/odi-success-rate-evidence/</link><pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate><guid>https://myles-innovation.com/blog/odi-success-rate-evidence/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="a-statistic-you-should-question--and-then-take-seriously"&gt;A Statistic You Should Question — and Then Take Seriously&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;86%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That is the product success rate that Tony Ulwick and die ODI-Praxis claim for products developed using the Outcome-Driven Innovation methodology. Compared to the commonly cited industry average of 17% — or, depending on the study, somewhere between 10% and 30% — the 86% figure is so dramatically different that it invites skepticism.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You should be skeptical. No claim this striking should be accepted uncritically, especially one that comes from the inventor of the methodology. Let me show you why, after examining the evidence carefully, I am convinced the directional claim is correct — and why the specific number, while not independently audited, is plausible given the mechanism behind it.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>