Hi,

In a recent meeting about a potential innovation project, one of the first questions from a partner was:

“What is the funding rate?”

Not: what are we trying to achieve?

Not: what value could this project create?

Not even: what could this mean for our organisation?

The funding rate came first.

And to be clear, funding matters. Innovation involves uncertainty and risk. External funding can make ambitious projects possible, help organisations explore new territory and bring partners together.

But the order of the questions matters too.

Because if the funding rate becomes the main criterion for choosing innovation projects, something interesting happens.

You start moving.

One attractive call takes you forward. Another pulls you to the left. A third opportunity sends you to the right. Then another project takes you somewhere else again.

There is plenty of activity. Projects get approved. Teams stay busy. Consortia are formed. Reports are delivered. The innovation portfolio may even look impressive.

And the people involved can invest enormous amounts of energy in making those projects succeed.

But after a few years, you may look at the organisation and realise that, strategically, you are almost exactly where you started.

Lots of movement. Plenty of effort. Perhaps even a rather expensive circle.

If the funding rate becomes your compass, you can move in every direction and still end up where you started.

Innovation funding should support your innovation strategy, not define it.

Funding is an accelerator, not a substitute for strategic direction.

A strategic innovation portfolio is not simply a collection of good projects. The projects should collectively move the organisation towards its strategic ambitions and intended impact.

That is also one of the reasons I believe innovation needs to be managed as a system, connecting strategy, portfolio choices, funding decisions and learning rather than treating projects as isolated opportunities..

A stronger sequence is:

• Where do we strategically want to go?
• What innovation challenges stand between us and that ambition?
• Which projects could move us meaningfully in that direction?
• Which capabilities and partners do we need?
• Which funding opportunities could help us get there faster, reduce the risk, or increase the impact?

Only then does the funding rate become the important question it deserves to be.

Of course, a funding call can reveal an opportunity you had not considered before. Serendipity has its place in innovation.

But there is a difference between discovering a valuable opportunity and allowing the availability of money to determine your direction.

A useful test is surprisingly simple:

If the funding disappeared tomorrow, would we still want to pursue this project?

• If the answer is yes, the funding may be helping you accelerate something strategically important.
• If the answer is no, it may be worth asking what is actually driving the project.

My invitation for this week: look at the innovation projects currently in your portfolio and ask one question.

Are they collectively moving your organisation towards the impact you actually want to create?

Warm regards,

Piet V.

P.S. Funding can make a project cheaper. It cannot make the destination more valuable.