Corporations are always looking to innovate. A Google search for “corporate innovation” easily returns over 1.5M results; Amazon carries over 10,000 book titles that deal with the topic. And yet, despite all the information, resources, and training available on the topic, corporations are derided for their inability to perform in such a critical area, critical to their long-term survival.

But the struggle to innovate successfully stems not from the lack of ideas, talent, culture or systems and models to support innovation; it is a fundamental flaw in how corporations are built.

Corporations can’t innovate because they are not designed to innovate.

In fact, it may be said that pursuing innovation opportunities via external partners and investments may actually be easier than trying to generate the same momentum and success internally. Creating an external entity, i.e. a Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) firm, with a separate set of targets and management expectations, with limited financial exposure and interaction with the money-making units, allows the Board of Directors to simply spin “innovation” out and let it do its own thing — out of mind, out of sight.

But for those trying to innovate within the confines of a corporation, they face multiple uphill battles to get the funding, support and approvals they need to succeed. The search for innovation isn’t about discovering ideas or entrepreneurial employees, it is about figuring out a way to deal with the internal issues below.

  • Corporate Inertia
  • The Overhead Burden
  • Financial KPI Deliverables

Corporate Inertia

“Even if you are on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.” 
― Will Rogers

Corporate inertia is a term used to describe an established company that remains rigid in its thinking and actions rather than being open to changing industry and company dynamics.

And successful corporations are naturally in a state of inertia.

While a corporation is earning above-average profits, it is difficult and risky to rock the boat. Trying a radically new approach or introducing unproven technologies into the current system would rock the boat. Small ripples at the fringes of the market by startups are not important enough to be noticed, and have no impact on the bottom line, so the companies continues to do the things that got it where it is today: pursue efficiency over innovation.

And while corporations are constantly seeking to improve their product offerings, corporate thinking is more linear than exponential. Clayton Christensen, the academic and writer, has espoused that corporations fail to grasp the potential impact of disruptive technologies because they are focused on serving their existing customers (linear improvements) better while missing the emerging opportunities in smaller market segments (exponential growth).

This state of inertia prevents management from giving internal startups the wholehearted support and resources it requires, because the company simply doesn’t believe that radical innovation is necessary.

The Overhead Burden

“The sparrow is sorry for the peacock at the burden of its tail.” 
― Tagore, Amitendranath

Anyone who has managed a profit-generating unit in a large corporation understands the travails of overhead allocations. While burdensome, they are necessary to distribute the cost burden of support units. The problem arises when the same calculations are applied to the financial projections of radical innovation projects.

Startups are not corporations, yet, however we internal startups are subjected to the same financial assessment as if they were in execution mode rather than search. With the application of overhead allocations, even at a prorated structure, internal startups are not financially feasible and thus cannot justify large-scale investment. Startups in search mode must pursue business model validation at the lowest possible cash burn level, but corporate accounting makes that nearly impossible.

Furthermore, while a startup can entice new employees with promises of stock options and other incentives despite lower initial wages and benefits, corporations are stuck paying market salaries and standard corporate benefit packages to innovation project team members. While startups and corporate innovators are pursuing the same goals, they are not playing according to the same rules.

Standard corporate overhead and compensation packages prevents internal startups from taking off, especially when profitability may be 2–3 years down the road.

Financial KPI Deliverables

“Shenanigans is a financial model on the catwalk.” 
― Toba Beta, Master of Stupidity

Corporations are not inclined to innovate radically; rather they are pressed to deliver incremental improvements on a consistent basis to the Board and their shareholders. Companies are judged based on quarterly and annual growth numbers, and thus managers, departments and employees and incentivized according to related financial KPIs.

But while linear thinking and incremental improvements may help to deliver on those KPIs, it is exponential thinking that will deliver above-average results in the long-term. Companies and employees just don’t give themselves the space to consider the world beyond the next shareholders’ call or the next performance evaluation.

For internal startups to get the investment it needs to succeed, they need to be put on a separate timeline that reflects exponential growth and exponential expectations. The wrong expectations is often the cause of early failure as management is quick to judge sub-optimal returns.

Without a significant mindset shift across the organization, internal startups have no chance to succeed, and will always be struggling to get the financial and time resources it needs to implement radical new approaches.

Do these elements resonate with you and your organization?

Corporation innovation theater is the inevitable result for corporations that can’t deal head-on with these issues, because, the concept of a successful corporation, and the structures and approaches that make it successful, do not apply in the startup concept.

Corporations must provide the freedom alongside significant, risky resources to internal startups for them to have a chance to succeed. They must be separate entities, subject to separate rules and expectations. Then they might have a chance.


About the Author

This article was written by Jason Lau, Partner at Core Strategy. See more.

Recently Published

Key Takeaway: Venture capital-backed startups, such as Anduril Industries, are transforming the defense sector by securing multi-million dollar contracts from the US Department of Defense and the UK Ministry of Defence. This surge in AI-driven defense technologies is driven by a relentless appetite for risk and innovation, with venture capital firms playing a pivotal role […]
Key Takeaway: Attosecond science, a field that earned the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2023, uses ultra-short laser pulses to observe and manipulate matter on timescales previously thought impossible. This breakthrough has implications across various sectors, including computing, renewable energy, medicine, and beyond. Attosecond science harnesses the energy of laser light to emit rapidly moving […]

Top Picks

Key Takeaway: Researchers are using genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) to study the complexities of microbial life, offering innovative solutions to climate change and space challenges. GEMs simulate the vast network of metabolic pathways within living organisms, allowing scientists to test and predict microbial behavior across diverse environments. They provide a detailed framework for understanding organisms’ […]
Key Takeaway: The “Wirkin” bag, a $78 imitation of Hermès’ Birkin bag, has gained popularity on TikTok, attracting millions of users. The bag, a clever portmanteau of “Walmart” and “Birkin,” allows everyday consumers to partake in high-end fashion without the exorbitant cost. The trend reflects a broader shift in societal values, where symbols of wealth […]
Key Takeaway: In 2022, scientists achieved the “experiment of the century” at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, marking the first time a fusion reaction produced more energy than consumed. This achievement has attracted billions of dollars in private investment, particularly in the United States, to advance fusion technology. However, a myriad of engineering challenges remain before […]
Key Takeaway: The demand for data centers is increasing, but they come with a significant environmental cost. Space-based data centers could be a potential solution, as they can be deployed and scaled with unprecedented speed to meet the surge in data demand. Companies like Lumen Orbit and Ascend are exploring extraterrestrial solutions, leveraging solar energy […]
Key Takeaway: As the new year begins, it’s important to challenge consumer myths and adopt a more conscious approach to consumption. The fallacy of “more is better” is a myth that materialistic consumption leads to diminished personal happiness and societal wellbeing. Low-consumption lifestyles can bring personal fulfillment and environmental benefits. The myth of “new equals […]

Trending

I highly recommend reading the McKinsey Global Institute’s new report, “Reskilling China: Transforming The World’s Largest Workforce Into Lifelong Learners”, which focuses on the country’s biggest employment challenge, re-training its workforce and the adoption of practices such as lifelong learning to address the growing digital transformation of its productive fabric. How to transform the country […]

Join our Newsletter

Get our monthly recap with the latest news, articles and resources.

Login

Welcome to Empirics

We are glad you have decided to join our mission of gathering the collective knowledge of Asia!
Join Empirics