Headquarters is an organization that builds products. Its energy goes to what will sell right now, and it is hard to put money into technology that is two to three years out. Overseas labs had to fill that gap.
In 2017, I designed from scratch an advance technology program covering all overseas labs run by the Mobile Business. The number that served as the starting point was the commercialization rate. In the early days, only around 10% of the advance projects started by the labs led to actual products. Running this program through 2024, I raised that rate to 50%.
Three Things I Changed
1. I narrowed the target. I selected only “technology that can become a product within 2~3 years,” not “technology that might be useful someday.” Technology that was too far out had no place for headquarters to receive it. The narrow window of 2~3 years was the overseas labs’ share.
2. Headquarters set the direction first, starting from the research stage. I tied research → incubation → commercialization support into one flow, and the first stage changed the commercialization rate the most. Before a lab chose a topic, headquarters first presented the broad frame of strategy and commercialization direction. Over time, the labs began to propose new ideas first within that direction, and to run their own PoCs before making proposals. Once the virtuous cycle of direction → lab ideas → PoC → proposal took hold, the commercialization rate began to climb faster a few years later.
3. I matched projects to labs. Even the same project produces different results depending on which lab it goes to. I looked at the lab’s existing technology portfolio, its talent level, and its external environment together — whether regulations and standards are favorable there, or whether security makes it a place where the work should not be entrusted.
The program, which started with a little over 10 projects, grew in number, budget, and commercialization rate alike.
If I Were to Do It Again
It took several years for that virtuous cycle to start turning. If I did it again, I would shorten that time, starting by reducing open-ended topics further. At the time, I put the weight on giving only the broad direction and letting the labs find the specific topics themselves. Looking back, I should have taken in more of headquarters’ direction and of the problems the business units actually face from the very beginning. A lab’s imagination works best when the “problem to solve” is clear.
To Those Now Responsible for an R&D Portfolio
- If you want to raise the commercialization rate, narrowing the target window comes before choosing projects better.
- Before leaving topics to the labs, give them headquarters’ direction first. When the direction is clear, the labs come up with ideas within it and prove them with PoCs.
- Set aside, with budget and people, a stage that goes all the way to the business unit’s threshold rather than “select and done.”
- Each site is good at different things. Allocate projects to fit each site’s portfolio.
What changed the number was not an eye for picking good projects, but setting the direction to go together first.