Another Tough Challenge

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

We’ve known about this problem forever—how do you find a principled way to allocate budget across three different horizons of ROI.

• Horizon 1 pays off in the current year and equates to the funding needed for you to make your operating plan and meet or beat investor guidance.
• Horizon 3 pays off downstream, typically by making a speculative bet on an emerging category or market that would come to fruition in the out years. Since it is still early days, these bets are relatively small and can be measured by and managed to venture milestones.
• Horizon 2 is the troublemaker. It calls for a material investment in gaining power in the near term in order to compete effectively in the mid-term. That investment will come out of Horizon 1, either from the Performance Zone trying to make the number or from the Productivity Zone trying to supply the needed support to do so, and most likely both.

In short, both internally and externally, Horizon 2 investments are not popular, even though everyone recognizes that they are critical to long-term success. So what is the process by which one can do right by them?

The key is to recognize that the ROI from Horizon 2 is measured in units of power, whereas that from Horizon 1 is measured in units of performance, and that the two must not be mixed. Now, to be clear, performance creates the funding for power, and power creates the foundation for performance, so they are deeply intertwined. But each has its own metrics of success, and the time lag between them says they cannot be blended.

Power always precedes performance. To underfund power is to jeopardize your future performance, the ultimate result being the liquidation of your franchise. To underfund performance, on the other hand, is to jeopardize the cash flow that you need to fund power, putting your market cap at risk, the ultimate result being to attract an activist investor who will oversee the liquidation of your franchise. There is no safe path to take, only a precarious middle way to traverse.

Now, again to be fair, in good times when your category is enjoying secular growth, you get to have your cake and eat it too. That is, you produce amazing cash flow, have a fabulous market cap, and have resources aplenty to invest as you choose. My colleagues still refer to the period leading up to the first tech bubble as “ the time of the great happiness.” Be that as it may, for most of us in 2024 (our friends in GenAI being a notable exception), this is not such a year. We have to make tough choices, and we have to make them now.

So, back to process — and CFOs, take note because you’re likely the one to be leading it.

1. Separate strategic planning from annual budgeting by at least one quarter.
2. Charge each business unit to pitch a strategic plan that would create returns substantially above and beyond their current operating model. Included in this plan is a ballpark estimate of the funding that would be required to implement it.
3. Facilitate an Executive Leadership Team review of the overall portfolio of opportunities, culminating in a rank-ordered list.
4. Consult with the CEO to determine how much of next year’s operating budget can be allocated to strategic investments, and in that context, which investments should be prioritized for funding. This funding will be allocated in advance of the operational budgeting and ring-fenced to ensure it is spent as intended.
5. Most strategic investments will be funded as nested incubations, meaning they will be managed within an existing business unit, and are funded as part of their operating budget. However, you must insist that these efforts be isolated, measured, and accounted for separately from the core business, as they are intended to deliver power outcomes, not performance outcomes, and need to be held accountable to different success metrics. (If you do not do this, their operating budget funds will drift away to supplement Horizon efforts to make the number, and the strategic initiative will falter for lack of sufficient investment.)
6. Truly disruptive incubations, on the other hand, need to be funded outboard of the current business unit structure, in a corporate Incubation Zone, governed by an Incubation Zone board managing a ring-fenced Incubation Zone fund, following the operating model of venture capital. This is covered in detail in Zone to Win.
7. At this point budgeting can turn its attention to Horizon 1 and how best to allocate funding to hit the current year’s financial targets.

This process solves for two perennial missteps in annual budgeting. The first we might call “the leftovers approach.” First, you allocate all the resources needed to make your Horizon 1 commitments, and then you look to what’s left to fund strategic initiatives. There will be some resources in the kitty, but not as much as there could be since Horizon 1 managers want to reserve some contingency funding. The result is a bias toward modest investing in incremental innovations that do not create future power but rather extend the current footprint.

The second misstep we can call “the variable approach.” Here you allocate half the resources at the beginning of the year and make the second half allocation contingent upon meeting the Horizon 1 plan for that period. The problem here is that strategic initiatives require sustained investment throughout their time in the J-curve. If you flinch and pull back at any point, you lose momentum, never to be regained. This is a big advantage venture-backed companies have over in-house efforts and one of the reasons why VCs love to invest in a downturn.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Unsplash

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.