Innovation in business: decision-making, budgeting and key factors for creating value
There are days when I leave a meeting and am left with a strange feeling. I’ve heard various organisations talk about innovation with the same conviction as if reciting a mantra: it’s important, it’s part of the strategy, we must innovate. And yet, when you try to bring the talk down to earth — to day-to-day operations, to the practicalities, to the decisions — there’s silence: almost no one has decided what innovating means in their context… or what they’re willing to change to make it happen.
That’s why I still believe thatinnovation shouldn’t be a matter of flip-flopping. It’s not a case of ‘yes today, no tomorrow’. It’s not something we do ‘when we have time’. It’s not a leap of faith. Innovation demands sustained commitment. It demands a methodical approach. It demands sacrifices. It demandsroutines. And it demands something even more uncomfortable: that the entire organisation takes a hard look at itself.
All too often, I see organisations taking pride in their R&D, their technological capabilities and their brilliant teams. And that’s fine by me. But I also see how those results end up sidelined, waiting their turn, stuck in a never-ending pilot phase or a proof of concept that never makes it into the business.
I want to be very clear about this:
‘Investing in R&D means generating results.’
‘Investing in innovation means successfully utilising and capitalising on those results.’
If there’s no adoption, if there’s no use, if there’s no real impact… there’s no innovation. There’s wasted potential. There are brilliant teams feeling frustrated. There’s technology waiting for someone to finally make a decision.
‘Innovation isn’t about having more ideas. It’s about making decisions’
Decisions that affect the entire organisation, not just senior management or the head of innovation or AI (which, these days, seem to be one and the same). Decisions in which quality, production, finance, marketing and sales are all aligned around a simple idea: if innovation is important, it shows in how we work… not in how we talk about it.
Decisions that require us to define the kind of innovation we want to drive forward. To choose which business or market challenges are worth tackling. To decide which projects to continue and which to halt. And even to accept that some day-to-day practices are no longer fit for the future we say we want to build.
And decisions that inevitably lead us to the elephant in the room: the budget.
Because innovation needs its own budget. Not ‘whatever’s left over’. Not a vague allocation that’s negotiated each year. Not ‘if a public call for proposals comes up, and if not, then next year’. An explicit budget for exploring, for experimenting, for embracing uncertainty.
I have written on previous occasions that innovation cannot be a stand-alone project or a silo. When we talk about capitalising on innovative outcomes, we are talking about people working towards a common goal, coordinated departments, and companies that operate within an ecosystem that embraces this philosophy.
That is why it is so crucial to involve, right from the start, those who will benefit from the investment in R&D: those who will use the technology, those who will implement the new process, or those who will sell the new service. Innovation is not simply ‘delivered’ at the end: it is built together with them from the very beginning.
Because those who make decisions about innovation are shaping their future. Making decisions about innovation means deciding today what you will protect tomorrow… and what you are prepared to leave behind. It means accepting that the present cannot be the only criterion. It means understanding that challenging the status quo is not a threat: it is essential to staying relevant.
And, by the way, not making a decision is also a decision. Not setting aside a budget is deciding to put the future on hold. Not involving those who will use the results is deciding that they probably won’t be used. Not defining what innovation means in your organisation is deciding that everyone can interpret it however they like… and that, in the end, nothing of significance will happen.
The question isn’t whether your organisation talks about innovation.
The question is whether the management team is really deciding their future.
Is your company ready to innovate?
Before we talk about innovation, it is worth asking ourselves a few uncomfortable questions. Not to assess the rhetoric, but the reality:
Is there a specific, fixed budget for innovation, or does it depend on whatever funds are ‘left over’ or on one-off calls for proposals?
Is the entire organisation, from senior management down to operations, aligned with clear innovation objectives?
Are R&D results being turned into practical solutions, or do they remain at the pilot stage and never make it to market?
Are those who will use, integrate or sell the solution involved from the outset, or are they only brought in at the end?
Is the actual impact of innovation measured, beyond the number of projects or ideas generated?
If several of these answers leave you feeling unsure, the problem is probably not a lack of ideas… but a lack of decision-making
👉 If your organisation wants to move from talk to real innovation, get in touch with our team and let’s work together on solutions that make a difference
The energy transition is rapidly transforming the power system. The increasing integration of renewable energy sources, the growing deployment of rooftop photovoltaic systems, and the electrification of new uses such as electric mobility and heating are changing the way electricity is generated and consumed. These changes are introducing new challenges for distribution grids, which must now manage increasingly variable and decentralized energy flows.
In this context, grids may experience situations such as congestion an voltage issues, especially in networks with a high share of renewable energy sources.
As a result, new challenges have emerged in the management of the energy system. ranging from maintaining the balance between supply and demand to dealing with grid congestion and voltage issues. These situations can affect the quality of the electricity supply and limit the grid´s ability to integrate new consumers or generators.
Main problems in the electricity distribution network
Distribution network congestion
A high share of renewable generation, data centres and other large loads can saturate the existing infrastructure, limiting the possibility of establishing new connections and even causing operational restrictions or the disconecction of previously connected elements.
Undervoltage
System overloads, equipment demanding large amounts of electricity and/or networks with long supply distances can cause the voltage to fall below acceptable levels.
Overvoltages and voltage spikes
Increases in voltage, even when they occur over very short periods of time, can damage electrical components and electronic equipment connected to the grid.
Distorsions and harmonics
The presence of non-linear loads can distort the electrical waveform, compromising the quality of the power supply.
One of the most effective ways to mitigate these issues is to incorporate flexibility or demand response mechanisms into grid operation. In this context, enabling the system to shift or adjust certain loads can help prevent many of the events that may compromise grid operation.
Regardless of the solution adopted to mitigate these issues, the first step is to detect or anticipate them. For this reason, prediction tools play a key role in this context.
Advanced algorithms for predicting network issues
Within the european project PISTIS, CARTIF has developed a prediction algorithm capable of forecasting grid events such as congestion, undervoltage and overvoltage. The algorithm has been designed as a non-linear optimization problem that answer two key questions: whether an event will occur and whta demand adjustments, and at which nodes, would be required to avoid it.
Among all the solutions that satisfy the constraints of the optimization problem, the algorithm selects the one that implies the smallest possible deviation from the forecasted demand. If, at any node in the network, the required adjustment exceeds a predefined threshold, an event is considered to occur, since the forecasted demand would not be compatible with operating within the established limits.
CARTIF’s solutions for energy flexibility
Apart from the activities carried out within the PISTIS project, CARTIF has also been involved in several initiatives related to energy flexibility and demand response. For example, in theCERFlexproject, CARTIF (together with CUERVA) developed algorithms for the prediction and control of flexible electrical loads in rural energy communities and tools to support peer-to-peer energy exchange. In GeMICE (in collaboration with Ignis), CARTIF contributed to the development of a digital platform for the management of energy communities and the creation of internal energy markets for renewable energy sharing. In the GEDERA project, coordinated by CEMOSA, CARTIF worked together with other entities on a multi-agent architecture for smart grids aimed at the prediction, planning and management of flexible loads in buildings, with a particular focus on the smart charging of electric vehicles. Finally, CARTIF is also involved in the ongoing European projectENFLATE(GA 101075783), which focuses on enabling flexibility provision across different sectors through data-driven services and digital solutions.
The aforementioned solutions are key to improving grid management and adapting electricity networks to the new challenges they face, while facilitating the integration of renewable energy into the energy system. In this context, CARTIF will continue working to support the transition towards more sustainable and efficient energy systems.
Discover CARTIF’s capabilities in optimising electricity grid management and integrating flexibility solutions
In my previous blog post, we discussed nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) as essential nutrients, their role in agriculture, and why recovering them from waste is not just a good idea but almost a necessity; today, we’re going to take it a step further.
Because, of course, none of what we’ve been discussing comes out of nowhere. It’s not just a matter of research, nor is it solely about sustainability—it’s also a matter of regulation. And this is where the new European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) comes into play.
But before we dive into the regulatory details, let’s do a quick “refresher”—but I promise there won’t be a test at the end 🙂
In the previous post, we saw how traditional fertilizers rely heavily on non-renewable resources, how Europe is highly dependent on imports, and how their intensive use can also lead to significant environmental problems such as eutrophication. Given this situation, we discussed nutrient recovery as a key solution within the Circular Economy: recovering N and P from agricultural and livestock waste and wastewater to produce sustainable fertilizers, such as struvite.
And not only that, but we also mentioned that at CARTIF we have been working in this area for years. A clear example is the European WalNUT project, a project under the Horizon 2020 program that we at CARTIF have coordinated and which just concluded last February after more than four years of work. During this time, technologies have been developed and validated for nutrient recovery from various sources: municipal wastewater, industrial wastewater, and even brine from desalination plant effluent.
WALNUT team at the final evento on Brussels
As a grand finale, an event was held in Brussels where the consortium members presented the main results achieved during the project. But it wasn’t just a technical presentation; it also provided an interesting forum for discussion, where industry experts analyzed the importance and implications of the new wastewater directive. And this is where all the pieces begin to fall into place.
Because what used to be innovation is now becoming a necessity.
The New European Wastewater Directive: Background and Objectives
The new Directive (EU) 2024/3019 on urban wastewater treatment is precisely about that: changing the game. The previous regulation, from 1991, focused heavily on something basic but fundamental: collecting and treating wastewater to prevent direct impacts on rivers, lakes, and coastal areas. And hey, it worked pretty well. But 30 years later, the context has changed radically.
But today, the socioeconomic context is very different from that of the early 1990s, and it is no longer enough simply to “treat” wastewater. Now we must do it better, on a larger scale… and with a different mindset. One of the most significant changes is that the new directive broadens its scope. More small towns will have to properly treat their wastewater, which means bringing solutions to rural or scattered areas as well—where this has traditionally been more challenging.
But what’s really interesting is what we might call a “shift in philosophy.” Among other things, the directive introduces the treatment of micropollutants, such as emerging pollutants, which include pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. Yes, those very compounds we use every day and which, until now, went largely unnoticed at wastewater treatment plants. To remove them, it will be necessary to incorporate advanced treatment methods, which represents a significant technological leap.
“The directive introduces, among other things, the treatment of micropollutants, such as emerging pollutants, which include pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.”
In addition, the “polluter pays” principle is being strongly emphasized, shifting part of the cost of these treatments to the industries responsible for those pollutants. This change, beyond its economic implications, sends a clear message: water management is everyone’s responsibility.
And now we come to one of the aspects that ties most closely to what we discussed in the previous post. The new UWWTD no longer views wastewater treatment plants merely as treatment facilities, but as true resource recovery plants—or what are commonly known today as urban biofactories or biorefineries.
These are true technological hubs for transformation, focused on wastewater treatment, but also on the generation of energy, reusable water, and, yes, nutrients as well. In fact, the directive explicitly promotes the recovery of phosphorus and other resources, fully aligning with the principles of the circular economy. In other words, what was once considered waste that needed to be managed is now understood as a raw material that must be utilized.
Opportunities for Innovation: From the WalNUT Project to the Future of the Industry
Does that ring a bell? Exactly.
Everything we’ve discussed regarding nutrient recovery, struvite, or technologies like those developed by WalNUT fits perfectly into this new framework. And that’s not all. The directive also sets energy neutrality targets for wastewater treatment plants, promoting the production of renewable energy. In other words, it’s not just about recovering nutrients, but also about closing the energy cycle.
In short, we are moving from wastewater treatment plants to urban biorefineries or biofactories.
So, without making much of a fuss, but with a pretty powerful paradigm shift.
The challenge? Enormous. Adapting infrastructure, adopting new technologies, financing investments, training staff, and so on.
The opportunity? That’s huge, too.
Because this entire regulatory framework only serves to reinforce an idea that we had already been observing in research (and also in projects like WalNUT): the future of water management lies in waste recovery, resource recovery, and integration into circular economy models. And along that path, what seemed innovative just a few years ago… is now becoming essential.
When we enter a cathedral, stroll through a monastery, or visit a castle, we rarely think about everything that is happening “inside” them. We do not see how moisture slowly rises through the walls, how increasingly frequent and abrupt temperature changes generate invisible stresses, or how a millimetric crack can eventually become a striking fissure over time. And yet, that is often where the deterioration of heritage begins.
Preserving our historic buildings is not just about restoring them when a crack appears or cleaning them when a façade looks worn. Above all, it is about anticipation. It means understanding what is happening to them before the problem becomes evident. With this idea in mind, the Comprehensive Intelligent Monitoring and Predictive Risk Assessment Model for Cultural Heritage Assets (MIMER-BIC, Spanish acronym) was developed by the Cultural Heritage Area of CARTIF.
This model is based on something we can all agree on: to know what is happening to someone, we must first listen. And if that “someone” is something as valuable as our historic buildings, listening means measuring. Sensors record temperature, humidity, light (infrared, visible, and ultraviolet), air quality, crack growth, wall inclination, vibrations, the presence of insects that attack wood, the number of visitors, or even potential intrusions. However, the real innovation lies not in placing sensors, but in transforming that data into useful information. The model converts all these measurements into clear indicators and risk indices that, on a simple scale from 0 to 100, reveal whether a building is in a stable condition or requires priority intervention.
MIMER-BIC model graphic representation
Thanks to this methodology, it is possible to detect whether the indoor environment is endangering paintings or altarpieces, whether a structure is undergoing abnormal movements, whether excessive visitor numbers are affecting the microclimate, whether a weather event could accelerate external deterioration, whether a fire is starting, or whether someone has entered a restricted area. The focus is no longer on reacting once damage is visible, but on preventing it in advance and, above all, doing so with sound judgment.
Behind this advancement lie many years of research. The CARTIF team has worked intensively in different technologies such as:
3D surveying
HBIM
Preventive conservation
Structural analysis
Risk modelling
Advanced sensorization
Artificial intelligence applied to heritage
Yet this journey has not been undertaken alone. Close collaboration with companies in the sector (where the role of TRYCSA has been particularly noteworthy) has been key to ensuring that the model did not remain on paper but became a practical reality. Their hands-on experience, technical expertise, and commitment have made it possible to test, refine, and transform the methodological proposal into an effective and applicable tool.
The result is an original model with its own methodology (from the definition of architectural-functional typologies and major families of pathologies to the formulation of synthetic risk indices), protected under intellectual property regulations. This protection is not merely a legal formality: it is recognition that we are facing a pioneering proposal with high scientific and technological value for the heritage conservation sector. A model developed in the region of “Castilla y León”, yet with a clearly global vocation and positioned at the forefront of applied research in cultural heritage.
“We are facing a pioneering proposal with high scientific and technological value for heritage conservation sector”
At a time when climate change, tourism pressure, and limited resources are testing conservation capacities, having tools that enable prioritization, planning, and decision-making based on objective data is more necessary than ever. The MIMER-BIC model represents precisely that: a new way of caring for what belongs to us all, combining expert knowledge, technology, and collaboration between research and industry. Because, in the end, preserving heritage is not only about keeping old buildings standing. It is about protecting stories, memories, and a shared identity. And doing so intelligently today is the best guarantee that they will still be there tomorrow.
Through scalable, inclusive and efficient energy communities
Local Energy Communities has been consolidated as a key tool to boost a fairer and more participatory energy transition. Beyond producing renewable energy, they enable citizens, SMEs, and administrations to collaborate in generating and managing energy, prioritizing social and environmental benefits over economic ones.
The advantages are clear:
They promote shared investments from a bottom-up approach.
They drive a just transition, addressing energy poverty and social inclusion.
They increase renewable penetration and the reliability of the multi-energy system.
They open the door to innovative models such as flexibility or P2P exchange.
In Spain, the ecosystem is showing significant growth: in 2024, 200 new CELs were established, reaching a total of 659. However, most continue to focus on photovoltaic self-consumption, while areas such as mobility, rehabilitation, storage, and thermal technologies remain in the minority. In addition, many have fewer than 50 members, which limits their scale.
“A total of 659 CELs have been established in Spain, the last 200 of which were established in 2024, but many have fewer than 50 members, which limits their scale.”
This context shows remarkable progress, but also a decisive challenge: citizen participation.
In this context, the Urban-MOME Network poses a key question: how can digital tools improve the scalability, participation, and efficiency of energy communities? Answering this question involves going beyond technology and understanding people’s needs, barriers, and motivations.
Creating a CEL is not just a technical challenge. There are barriers in terms of knowledge, governance, financing, and stakeholder involvement. As has been rightly pointed out: “A CEL without members is not a community.” Generating interest, consolidating a driving force, and maintaining collective motivation are essential. Without active participation, the energy community loses its transformative capacity.
Digital tools for understanding, participating and deciding
In this context, digitization becomes a strategic element. Digital tools can facilitate understanding of the various solutions available, visualize economic and environmental impacts, and support transparent participatory processes.
Among the most relevant are:
energy analysis, prediction, and management tools
savings measurement and verification systems
environmental footprint visualization and emissions reduction
gamification strategies to encourage proactivity
platforms to support collective decision-making
These tools translate technical complexity into understandable information, helping citizens understand not only how much they can save, but also the social and environmental impact of their participation.
LocalRES: flexible tools for everyone
The LocalRES project positions Renewable Energy Communities as key players in leading decarbonization through citizen participation and awareness.
As part of the project, an energy planning tool has been developed that allows communities to catalog assets, design future scenarios, and assess impacts on costs, emissions, sustainability, and energy security.
Its main innovation is its dual approach: supporting experts and decision-makers with a global vision, while enabling citizens to visualize individual decisions (such as installing heat pumps or solar panels) and understand their impacts.
Thus, digitization becomes a bridge between technical complexity and citizen action.
The real challenge is to design digital solutions tailored to people’s real needs, capable of transforming information into understanding, understanding into participation, and participation into collective impact.
Digitization has become a key lever for addressing industrial decarbonization. However, explaining how processes, energy, raw materials, emissions, artificial intelligence, and circular business models interact is not always easy.
With the aim of facilitating this understanding, I wanted to explore a different format: translating technical analysis into the visual language of comics. Through a sequence of vignettes, we explore the main levers for action—direct process, resources and raw materials, and product-market system—showing how digital tools can optimize consumption, manage carbon, improve traceability, and enable new business models.
The result is an alternative way of communicating a systemic approach to industrial decarbonization, maintaining technical rigor but using a more visual and accessible format. Ultimately, better communication is also part of transforming the industry.
