We are living in times when traditional concepts of evolution and progress through innovation seem surpassed by new paradigms, induced by the success of large digital corporations, expressed with particular terminology, and driven by extraordinary exposure through social communication. This leads us to believe that it is not only something new but essential, and that adopting it involves contradicting the traditional. The much-discussed “disruptive change” actually means a shift in what already exists with some radical initiatives, but the language leads to the interpretation of destroying the present to give way to the future. Like other radical languages (such as discussions on artificial intelligence or the cloud), it revitalizes the subconscious, stimulating convergence with the new paradigms: the wealth of data, the possibilities of technology, and the magic of the digital world.

Large digital corporations are the reference that illuminates new initiatives called “startups”: an entrepreneur, frequently supporting a business idea, inspired by the media examples available to them. However, there are also other progress models in organizations that stem from experience and commitment to innovation, embracing an “internal entrepreneurship” model—transformation based on their own efforts, enriched by collaborations, and aligned with their business model and market reality. This approach is less media-driven, therefore less attractive, perhaps harder to access, and undoubtedly more direct and effective if alignment is achieved.

In the more common path of a “startup,” the first destination is to secure financial resources for the initiative to launch. The starting point is often exhausting personal resources and turning to family and friends before seeking investors. The drive, induced by those providing the funds, is to progress in product and activity to capture market share and then sell to a third party for a significant capital gain. The investor’s goal is clear: to choose ideas and entrepreneurial leaders capable of achieving this potential revaluation within a limited time period. This is a valid model, like any other, but it has become the natural (sometimes almost the only) path for promoting entrepreneurship.

There are numerous initiatives and startups that succeed, and notable examples they represent, but in no case—particularly in our country—do they represent a substantial wealth mass or serve as a major driver of growth. It is important to note that this model captures the attention and effort of a vast collective of ideas and entrepreneurs, and often with a purpose closer to greed than to creating value. This initial point is concerning, as some initiatives are rejected with little attention, and others receive minimal starting support before being abandoned overnight. The balance is shocking: only a minimal percentage of initiatives progress, almost all disappear, and only a small proportion of those that start achieve scale. Those that succeed are often absorbed by larger, dominant corporations (generally foreign), improving their positioning, which may seem somewhat contradictory if the aim is to generate national wealth while citizens’ taxes are incentivizing their development.

Today, entrepreneurship is a source of excitement and talent deployment for many who wish to dedicate their efforts to the development of new activities. It is increasingly receiving attention from universities and institutions that engage in teaching or supporting/mentoring entrepreneurs. While all of this is valuable, there must be an alternative to the current situation, where the purpose is evidently improvable, the talent drain destroys hope, and the waste of effort questions the future. Leadership and imagination from entrepreneurs alone are not enough, nor is the protagonism of investors’ money reasonable or sufficient institutional involvement in promotion and follow-up. Starting a new activity is much more complex, and the path between the idea and the opportunity is long and ever-changing. It is not enough to believe that only money is essential, nor is it consistent to expect so much from the short-term. However, the potential is vast: doubling entrepreneurship successes when the failure rate is above 90% does not seem, at first glance, to be a titanic task.

And here we have an extraordinary reference when we consider the evolution of innovation and entrepreneurship within companies, particularly “ETIs” (medium-sized enterprises), and to a lesser extent large corporations and SMEs. From the business world, the factor of innovation, the need for change, the drive for progress, and digital transformation are increasingly evident. If we analyze many companies’ value propositions from ten years ago and compare them to the present, we will find radical changes that can only be explained by innovation efforts, competition, and the development of entrepreneurship dynamics that support their transformation.

This so-called “internal entrepreneurship,” unlike the traditional one, has a success rate above 50%, and its overall impact is macroeconomically significant, evident in many areas of the economy: competitiveness, productivity, exports, sustainability, organizational projection, and growth. Therefore, it seems natural to look at companies and learn from how to develop individual entrepreneurship in a transformation model more aligned with business activity. In general, companies—especially ETIs (many of which are family-owned)—have a medium- to long-term vision, and capital gains are not a cause but an effect. This imposes a different dynamic in purpose and allows projects to be approached with a different, non-short-term perspective.

Within a company, an entrepreneurship initiative benefits from an extraordinary support platform: projects are born from market opportunities and grow with the pragmatic vision of being useful and in demand. Many of the tasks that overwhelm entrepreneurs are services that the company provides: resources, technological support, HR, financial management, etc., which are easier to implement than money. Scaling is less complex as the company can access markets more easily. If a company takes on a project, it must naturally allocate the appropriate budget and timeframe, whether using its own resources or turning to traditional banking support—undoubtedly the best possible financial partner. Finally, if the project doesn’t meet expectations, the teams will have learned, gained better personal experience, and contributed to other projects with their acquired knowledge.

Within an organization, projects are often promoted in an “internal startup” mode where internal resources replace money, executives and technicians are the internal entrepreneurs, and market potential and strategy are tested with real customers. The difference with other business projects lies in the operational model, freeing the entrepreneurial team from cultural constraints or administrative obstacles. Other alternatives include cooperation, where a business partner can be an entrepreneur, and the change equation may involve shareholder participation or a preferential relationship. Here, cooperation could be considered from a transversal or thematic perspective, where the change equation pivots more on business or commercial support. Public administrations (PAs) may also play a role as potential clients in a similar model to “innovative procurement,” but from a more strategic, less bureaucratic perspective, with more development and continuity.

It is worth noting that 40% of startup failures are due to a lack of resources, nearly the same percentage is due to misalignment with the market, and a third reason is the poor tuning of the business model. These three (90% of the causes of failure) are much better addressed in internal entrepreneurship models. Perhaps what is needed for this model to become a significant option is to involve the business sector much more. A three-way partnership: entrepreneur-investor-leading company is a better bet. This requires sharing the project idea from the outset, seeking greater realism, even commitment to the market, and valuing—not only economically—the organizational and commercial support.

In essence, these are times when we must, with courage, bring entrepreneurs, businesses, and administrations closer together to share sensitivity and perspective. The momentum of the entrepreneurship dynamic is, fortunately, strong, and today, young people see it as an alternative. The present options are insufficient, but this is not due to a lack of opportunity.

Luis Rodríguez-Ovejero, President of Grupo SATEC