I've learned it's never a good cost/benefit case when you're jumping to new technology.
That's not true. I am a project manager at Boeing and everything I do is funded with IR&D (Integrated Research & Development) money. I don't need a business case at all. I only have to identify a legitimate technology need or a market gap in technology to proceed through discovery and feasibility studies.
All of this good stuff (I'll use the 787 as an example) was a great technology bet that had little (if any) business case. You just have to have a keen sense of the difference between invention and innovation. First to market innovation can build a business case where there is none currently.
Lithium batteries, onboard oxygen generation, self inerting fuel tank, electric brakes, heads up displays, full carbon wing and fuselage, full time data connectivity, onboard aircraft health management, active dimming windows, LED interior lighting, RFID tagging of LRUs, paperless cockpit, elimination of engine bleed for start and cooling, decreased cabin pressure, wireless tire pressure monitoring, synthetic vision, glidepath optimization, airport position awareness, and many more are examples of things that didn't have much (if any) business case at the time, but is at the heart of why so many people want this airplane.
Nothing wrong with innovation, but that bleeding edge can be a lonely place. Especially if it's misplaced technology. My batteries work just fine, and no new battery technology is probably gonna improve that enough for me to jump on just yet.