PYMNTS is all about igniting innovation, but that assumes that you’ve chosen the right ideas to ignite. New work out of London Business School provides some insight into how to decide which ideas are worth the price of the match needed to ignite them. Markus Reitzig, a blogger for MIT Sloan Management Review and an assistant professor of strategic management and entrepreneurship at London Business School, shares his thoughts here.

PYMNTS.com: What are some of the variables that impact how innovation proposals are reviewed? What can one do to increase the odds their proposal is implemented?

MARKUS REITZIG: I find that seven variables drive the likelihood of an idea to be processed further. Five of those the submitter cannot influence herself, but they will affect whether her proposal stands a chance to be considered further.

These are related to the organizational structure in which the submitter operates and her relations she has with the person who evaluates her proposal.

Her chances of being heard increase if she comes from the country (1) and business unit (2) as the evaluator does. Most importantly, however, her chances of the proposal being promoted further increase if she comes from the same site as the evaluator (3). This just shows how important it is to be able to communicate with and be known by the people making decisions. Moreover, if the evaluator of the idea sits in a big organizational unit, it is more likely s/he will pass the idea on to another colleague (4). That's a habit of people who have lots of peers around them and are used to delegating and sharing responsibility with others. However, that effect may be counteracted by the hierarchy that surrounds the evaluator. The steeper that hierarchy, the less likely the submitter's proposal will be passed on for further consideration (5). There may be two reasons for this: (a) the evaluator fears that s/he is evaluated negatively by her/his bosses, and/or (b) she simply doesn't care that much about what happens to the idea s/he evaluates, as its fate is likely out of her hands anyway in a hierarchical organization.

However, there are also two parameters you, as a submitter, can adjust yourself. You should (1) make sure to signal that you have thought through your proposal. Length is an important indicator here. Too little information makes the proposal sound immature/half-baked. Too much will just look unfocused. As always in life, it's important to find the optimum. In my data, it appears as if 250 words for an initial draft are just about right. Last thing you can do: come across as positive (2). Stress what your proposal does for the firm if it gets adopted, rather than painting the devil on the wall and emphasizing what can happen if no one cares. It looks like managers evaluating innovation proposals prefer to hear about great opportunities more than they like to be reminded of the dangers that can result from overlooking such opportunities.

Obviously, when I share these findings with you, keep in mind that they are obtained in the context of one large multinational firm. I did my level-best to exclude all alternative explanations, though.

PYMNTS: What is the biggest challenge for large organizations with regards to innovation campaigns?

REITZIG: In my experience: to avoid ending up in a "once bitten twice shy" situation. That captures the essence of the challenge.

Think of it this way: yes, based on all evidence we have, it is undisputed that firms need to innovate to sustain competitive advantages. And that's why you hear all the lip services to innovation, no matter who you listen to. And that's also why it is usually easily to launch the first campaign in a firm. So far so good.

However, the reality also is that innovation campaigns are very costly. They take time, money and managerial attention. And still, outcomes are uncertain, and only the fewest ideas will be breakthroughs in the end. All this is water on the mills of the in-house critics. And of the latter ones, there will be plenty, because new ideas always have the potential to shake up existing structures and challenge established routines - and there will be people who will hate exactly that.

So, a corporation that seeks to take innovation seriously, better makes sure to avoid - at least - the most obvious mistakes that will give internal critics the ammunition to moot further campaigns forever. By that I mean: do not waste resources. Take a little bit of time to think through the process to make it effective, so that you will have something to show for eventually.

I know that decisions in corporate daily life are often made on the fly, and that few managers I know of would ever read an article about a specific topic before they launch into execution. That's fine if the stakes aren't high, if they can learn along the way and if time is of the essence. But innovation campaigns are usually too big to be able to afford neglecting the fundamentals.

Here are the biggest three mistakes I have seen firms make:

a. Not thinking through the idea creation process. Bringing the wrong people together in the wrong way. Creating a lot of boredom and frustration among employees without producing any tangible outputs.

b. Not thinking through the filtering process. Amassing tons of ideas without having a clue how to weed through these ideas effectively.

c. Not committing the necessary resources to execution from the start. Making the whole innovation campaign look like a joke in hindsight, when it turns out that after months of work there are no means to move forward with proposals.

PYMNTS: In the article, you note delegating critical decisions comes with risks. Does this apply to corporate innovation initiatives as well?

REITZIG: Absolutely. Imagine that the top management of an automotive corporation solicits ideas for new business opportunities in the years 2020-2030. Now imagine what is likely to happen to ideas about fuel cell technology when these get evaluated by the head the combustion engineering department. I think you get the picture.

PYMNTS: What advice would you offer to managers who are new to the field of corporate innovation?

REITZIG: 1. Bury the hope that there is an “easy way out.” There isn't. It will be painful.

2. Don't throw up your hands in turn, and argue that it is a lost cause. It isn't. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to lose if you don't try, that's all we really know.

Once you have digested 1. and 2., familiarize yourself with the basics about innovation. Innovation encompasses the creation and exploitation of new ideas. So, you need to read up (or seek help on) understanding three topics:

a. how you create ideas effectively

b. how you assess them effectively with an eye towards exploitation, and

c. how you get them to market

Not more, not less.