An All-American Triathlete's Approach to Successful Innovation

Near the end of a hot race in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, David Kaufman stopped thinking about the finish line. He chose a stop sign, then a tree, then a driveway. Each became a smaller target he could still reach. He finished third and qualified for the Escape from Alcatraz triathlon alongside his brother.

It sounds like a story about never giving up. Yet the more interesting lesson in his conversation with Dr. Christian Mühlroth is knowing when to stop. At Resideo, where Kaufman is Senior Director of Strategic Initiatives, persistence only helps if the opportunity still makes sense.

“I am an endorphin junkie with a competitive problem.”

The competitive streak is unmistakable. His approach to innovation, however, depends on testing assumptions before turning enthusiasm into a larger commitment. For R&D leaders, that means judging progress by what a team learns, including evidence that an idea should go no further.

Choose the problem before choosing the solution

Kaufman uses swimming, cycling and running to explain ideation, incubation and scaling. But his most useful observation comes before the first discipline begins. A triathlete prepares the starting position through training, equipment, nutrition and knowledge of the course. Entering the water in the wrong place can make the race harder than it needs to be.

Innovation has a starting position too. A team can become attached to an application or technology before understanding what a customer needs. Kaufman argues for becoming attached to the problem instead. What is frustrating the customer? What would a useful response need to accomplish?

That understanding shapes requirements and helps people assess competing ideas. Without it, a prototype may demonstrate technical ingenuity while leaving the business question untouched. Before asking how quickly the team can build something, an R&D leader needs to know what the building is supposed to prove.

Give incubation permission to change the answer

Kaufman describes market, operational and technical validation as essential parts of incubation. An attractive idea may face established competitors, weak differentiation or a market too small to justify the effort. A proof of concept may work but reveal costs that do not fit the intended selling price.

These findings belong in the investment decision. They are not inconvenient details to leave until development is well underway.

He also describes exploring ideas through a company-protected AI tool, then drawing on market intelligence and customer conversations. AI helps investigate the opportunity. It does not remove the need to check assumptions against evidence beyond the conversation with the tool.

For R&D teams, the useful distinction is between developing an idea and defending it. An incubation should have a question to answer. When the evidence changes, the recommendation should be allowed to change with it.

Kaufman describes a conclusion that teams need to be comfortable reaching:

“We incubated that thing and it just didn’t make sense.”

An incubation that reaches that conclusion has done useful work. It has exposed a reason to reconsider before the organisation makes a larger commitment.

Your best experts already have jobs

The right people are rarely waiting for an innovation project to arrive. They already have responsibilities, deadlines and managers who need their time.

Kaufman connects access to those people with senior leadership support and alignment with marketing. Participation does not always require a full-time reassignment. Sometimes an incubation needs a specific contribution from someone whose expertise can resolve an important uncertainty.

This makes resourcing more precise than simply asking whether a project has a budget. Which assumption needs testing? Who can help? Has their contribution actually been agreed?

Portfolio balance matters as well. Kaufman describes lower-risk opportunities alongside adjacent and more transformational work. Smaller successes can demonstrate that the approach works and create confidence in opportunities that need longer. They do not make the uncertainty of those larger bets disappear, but they help leaders maintain support without demanding the same timetable from every project.

Recognition tells people which behaviour counts

Stopping an idea is easy to include in a process diagram. It is harder when the team believes cancellation will be treated as personal failure.

Kaufman discusses plans to recognise ideas that are discontinued for sound reasons. The distinction matters: the intention is to acknowledge disciplined learning, not to celebrate every unsuccessful outcome. If people expect punishment for disappointing results, they have a reason to hide problems or avoid uncertain work altogether.

Recognition at Resideo also has a physical form. Kaufman shows an innovation award with collectible elements representing contributions and achievements. It makes participation visible and gives people something tangible to build over time.

The broader question is what the organisation rewards. Proposing ideas, testing assumptions, helping colleagues and delivering outcomes all matter. If recognition only arrives at the final launch, much of the work that makes a good decision possible remains invisible.

Bring in the expertise before you need rescuing

Asked what advice he would give his younger self, Kaufman offers a practical answer:

“Seek expert help earlier.”

He connects this to the coaching and support required to compete in triathlon. Determination matters, but it cannot replace expertise.

At the next R&D review, choose one promising incubation and identify its largest unresolved assumption. Is the team involving somebody who can challenge it, or mainly gathering support from people who already believe in the idea?

A stronger investment case would be a useful result. So would a well-supported decision to stop. Kaufman’s race story is about reaching the next manageable target. His innovation story adds a question worth asking before taking that step: does the evidence still justify the destination?