CONTINUOUS FINANCIAL INNOVATION
The case for continuous innovation is powerful. The key idea is that a company in time calibrates the slope of its technological Scurve in financial terms.3 It gains that knowledge through an analysis of the costs of its R&D programs, counting both successes and failures. At the same time, it learns the impact of improved performance on sales growth and margins. The combination tells it how fast it can move up the S-curve for a given level of technology spending.
Faster growth and higher margins translate directly into value. A higher, sustainable growth of free cash flow significantly boosts discounted cash flow (DCF) valuations. And higher margins improve return on invested capital. The combination of high returns and high growth rates can produce sensational gains in economic value.
Of course, an R&D investment reduces free cash flow in the short term, as in the Boeing case, so it is necessary to factor in R&D productivity to determine whether the long-term growth creates more value than the short-term penalty extracts. Several metrics have been proposed for measuring R&D productivity. In The Valuation of Technology, I proposed using a growth-related measure: the ratio of annual new product sales to the portion of the R&D budget dedicated to innovative new products.
Other companies have developed algorithms for calculating return on investment (ROI) on R&D investment. In the long term, however, R&D productivity cannot be expected to remain constant. As one mines out the more attractive opportunities at the foot of the S-curve and as its slope flattens, it makes sense to reduce R&D and to eliminate programs that no longer add value.
