After so many years of watching organizations turn to the benchmark as if it were some kind of universal compass, I started to wonder when we stopped trying to create our own references. At what point did innovation stop being understood as an act of proposition and began to be treated as an exercise in adaptation. This change didn't happen all at once, but its effects are clear.
There is a fundamental difference between being inspired and copying, although in practice this border is often blurred. Inspiration presupposes interpretation, displacement, critical reading. Copying assumes security, predictability, cognitive effort economy. O benchmark, when it occupies a central place, pushes organizations to the second path, even when the speech insists on the first.
Creating references requires an active stance towards the future. It's not about guessing what's going to happen, but to formulate hypotheses about what could make sense. This formulation is not born from direct comparison with what already exists, but from the observation of emerging tensions, of still diffuse changes, of behaviors that begin to rearrange themselves. The benchmark rarely captures these initial moves.
Over time, I realized that many companies confuse innovation with updating. Update interfaces, speeches, processes, but continue to operate based on already consolidated external references. The result is a constant feeling of chasing, never to be paving the way. The innovation, in this model, becomes reactive.
Thinking about innovation as building references radically changes the starting point. Instead of asking who does it better, the question becomes what is not yet being done. Instead of mapping existing practices, seeks to understand gaps. Not just technical gaps, but gaps in meaning, of experience, of perceived value.
This approach requires a type of perspective that the benchmark does not develop.. Requires abstraction capacity, context reading, cultural sensitivity. It also requires a willingness to make mistakes in public, because creating references implies having no guarantees. There is no case to mention, there is no ready-made metric to use as a defense.
This is why many organizations resist this path. Creating references exposes decisions. Makes visible who chose, why did you choose, based on what premises. Copying dilutes this exposure. When something goes wrong, there is always the comfort of saying that it was already a market practice. When something goes right, merit is shared with the original reference.
Building references also takes time. Different from copy, that speeds up processes, creating something new demands maturation. Ideas need to be tested, adjusted, sometimes abandoned. The cycle is longer, more uncertain. In environments pressured by immediate results, This temporality is seen as inefficiency.
However, It is precisely these specific references that build real differentiation. Not that cosmetic differentiation, based on tone of voice or small details, but the one that redefines expectations. When a company creates a new way to solve a relevant problem, she doesn't just stand out, it repositions the entire field around.
I see this happen most often when organizations adopt futurecasting or foresight practices.. Not like academic exercises, but as strategic tools. Instead of just looking at competitors, look for signs of change in behavior, technology, culture. Instead of asking what works today, They ask what might make sense tomorrow.
These practices do not replace market analysis, but they change their role. The benchmark stops being north and becomes context. They inform, but does not determine. The decision comes from the vision, not the comparison. This shift is subtle, but deep.
Creating your own references also requires a more mature relationship with error. Not every bet will work. Not every idea will be sustainable. Failure stops being an exception and becomes part of the process. Organizations used to operating only within what has already been validated have difficulty with this logic.
There is an important gain when this change happens. The company starts to learn faster, because you learn from your own experiences, não apenas das experiências alheias. O conhecimento deixa de ser importado e passa a ser produzido internamente. Isso fortalece a capacidade de decisão no longo prazo.
Outro efeito relevante é o fortalecimento da identidade. Quando a inovação nasce de referências próprias, ela carrega a lógica, os valores e as contradições da organização. Não é algo enxertado, mas construído. Essa coerência é perceptível para quem está dentro e para quem está fora.
Isso não significa ignorar o mundo ao redor. Significa escolher como dialogar com ele. Em vez de copiar soluções prontas, reinterpretar problemas. Em vez de repetir formatos, criar linguagens. Em vez de seguir tendências, questionar por que elas existem e para quem fazem sentido.
A inovação que realmente transforma não surge da repetição bem executada, mas da proposição consistente. Surge quando alguém decide que não basta fazer melhor, é preciso fazer diferente, mesmo sem garantias. O benchmark, quando usado como ferramenta secundária, pode enriquecer esse processo. Quando usado como ponto de partida, tende a empobrecê-lo.
Construir referências é mais difícil, mais arriscado, mais trabalhoso. Mas é também o único caminho para sair da lógica da cópia permanente. Enquanto continuarmos tratando o benchmark como destino, continuaremos presos a um ciclo de inovação incremental, sempre eficiente, raramente relevante.
Talvez o desafio mais importante seja cultural. Aprender a valorizar perguntas sem resposta, decisões sem precedentes, ideias que ainda não cabem em apresentações bem formatadas. É nesse espaço, incerto e desconfortável, que novas referências começam a se formar.
The innovation, quando vista dessa forma, deixa de ser um reflexo do que já existe e passa a ser um gesto de criação. Um gesto que não pede permissão ao passado para imaginar o futuro.
Access the PDF with all the articles in this series at