Why repeatable processes are outperforming standalone R&D efforts
By Jason Kumpf, Strategy Advisor
Companies spend decades chasing innovation through a single point of failure: a lab, a dedicated team, an annual hackathon. New research suggests that model rewards short bursts of attention rather than durable advantage. A 20 year study by Boston Consulting Group, tracking corporate innovation performance from 2005 to 2024, found that companies sustaining a reputation for innovation outperformed the broader market by 2.4 percentage points annually in total shareholder return. The gap held through the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic, periods when many organizations cut research budgets and slowed product development.
The more useful finding sits underneath that headline number. BCG's analysts found no consistent link between how much a company spends on research and development and how well its shareholders are rewarded over time. Spending level is not the variable that separates strong performers from the rest. Structure is.
That distinction matters because most organizations still organize innovation as a project rather than a process. A team is formed, a budget is approved, a demo day is scheduled, and when the initiative winds down so does the muscle that built it. The companies BCG identifies as consistent performers, appearing on its innovation list year after year rather than once, treat idea generation, funding decisions and commercialization as an ongoing operating rhythm tied to the core business rather than a side initiative that reports up once a quarter.
Corporate venture capital data tells a parallel story about where that operating discipline is showing up. Corporate investors deployed 233.8 billion dollars into startup funding rounds in 2025, a 75 percent increase from 2024, according to Global Corporate Venturing's World of Corporate Venturing 2026 report. Roughly one in five startup funding rounds now includes a corporate backer, and those rounds accounted for more than half of all dollars raised across the startup market last year. More than 3,000 corporations made at least one early stage investment during the year, a base far wider than the small group of technology companies that built the first corporate venture programs two decades ago.
That breadth is the real signal. Corporate venture capital used to function as a side bet, a small fund insulated from the core business and judged mainly on financial return. The scale and spread of activity in 2025 point to something different: a growing number of companies treating outside investment as one input among several, alongside internal development and partnership, inside a single innovation function that reports on a common set of metrics rather than its own separate scorecard.
Building that kind of system does not require a large in-house team or a standalone research division. It requires a small number of consistent decisions applied the same way every quarter: a shared intake process for new ideas regardless of whether they originate inside the company or through an outside investment, a funding review that treats early internal bets and venture checks under one governance model, and a handoff path that moves a validated idea into the operating business instead of leaving it inside a separate unit indefinitely. Each of these choices is available to a mid-size company as readily as to a large one. What changes with scale is the number of ideas moving through the system, not whether the system exists.
The advisory work at Enterprise Innovation Center centers on that operating layer. Jason Kumpf works with organizations to define how ideas move from concept to commercial product, how internal development and external investment connect to the same strategic priorities, and how leadership reviews progress on a set schedule rather than around a single annual event. The goal in each engagement is a process a company can run again next year with the same discipline, not a one-time initiative that needs to be reinvented once the people who built it move on.
The BCG data suggests this approach compounds. Companies that appear on its innovation list repeatedly, rather than once, show the widest performance gap over the study's 20 year window. Consistency, not a single strong year, is what shows up in shareholder returns. The corporate venture numbers point in the same direction from a different angle: capital is moving toward companies with a repeatable way to evaluate and fund new ideas, at a pace and scale a one-off lab or an annual innovation week cannot match.
None of this argues against research labs, innovation teams or hackathons as tools. It argues for connecting them to a system that outlives any one of them. A lab produces prototypes. A venture fund produces access to outside ideas. Neither produces a business outcome on its own until a company has a repeatable way to decide, fund and launch what comes out of it. That repeatable layer, more than any single initiative inside it, is what the data now associates with sustained performance.
Companies building that layer today are not making a bet on an emerging trend. They are matching what a widening set of peers have already put in place, and what a growing base of capital is already rewarding.
Suggested stat callout