Your innovation team's budget just got slashed. Again.

You saw it coming. OpEx review. Margin pressure. The familiar email from Finance asking for "options to reduce discretionary spending." Your innovation budget qualified as very discretionary.

Here's what nobody told you: the problem wasn't your ideas. The pilots looked promising. The roadmap was solid. Your team is talented. You did everything the innovation playbooks told you to do.

You failed anyway. And you'll keep failing until you change the one thing that has nothing to do with the quality of your ideas.

You need to change how you fund innovation.

The Structural Problem No One Talks About

Our CEO Elliott Parker recently presented at an Innov8rs webinar on unlocking new funding sources for innovation activities. Over the webinar, he walked through frameworks, case studies, and hard truths about why most corporate innovation efforts stall before they can produce meaningful results.

One insight hit harder than the rest: as long as you're funded from operating budgets, you're playing a game where the CFO holds all the cards. And the best move for the CFO is to cut you.

This isn't personal. It's structural.

CFOs optimize for return on invested capital (ROIC). When they need to improve that ratio, cutting OpEx is the fastest lever. Your innovation team shows up as pure cost on the P&L with uncertain future returns. You're the easiest cut to justify.

Every single quarter.

Here's the math that kills you: ROIC = Net Operating Profit ÷ Invested Capital. To improve this ratio, you can either increase profit or decrease invested capital. Guess which one's easier in the short term?

Cutting invested capital means shutting down factories, shedding unprofitable divisions, eliminating operating budgets. Your innovation team's OpEx budget sits right there on the chopping block. Cut it, and ROIC goes up immediately. The board sees improvement. The CFO looks smart. Your team gets reassigned.

This boosts ROIC short-term. It destroys resilience long-term. But we can argue with the market all we want. This is how capital allocation works in most Fortune 500 companies.

The OpEx Trap

When you fund innovation as an operating activity, you inherit the operating business's measurement system. You need to show progress every quarter. You need near-term returns. You can't afford many failures because each failure shows up as wasted OpEx.

So what happens? Your innovation starts looking like the core business. Safer. More incremental. Less transformative.

You optimize for frequency of correctness (always being a little bit right) instead of magnitude of correctness (being really right when it matters). That makes sense for the core business, but it kills transformative innovation.

We've watched this pattern repeat across hundreds of conversations with innovation leaders. Teams that start with bold mandates and transformative visions end up shipping incremental features to existing products. Not because they wanted to. Because that's the only type of innovation that survives OpEx funding.

Elliott calls this the illusion of innovation. Lots of activity. Busy teams. Excited executives. Zero transformative outcomes.

PS — if you want a copy of Elliott's book, The Illusion of Innovation, or want to listen to the audiobook, shoot us an email.

The Alternative: Balance Sheet Capital

Here's the key framework Elliott shared in the webinar: there's a different path. Fund innovation from the balance sheet. Build external ventures as separate legal entities. Access patient capital that doesn't need to show quarterly returns.

A Fortune 100 CFO told him something that reframes the whole conversation: "Operating budgets are nearly impossible to get, but balance sheet capital is infinite if it's a good use of cash."

Think about that. Your company is sitting on potentially billions in cash reserves. They're managing OpEx down to the penny. But balance sheet capital? If you can make the case that it's a smart investment with appropriate risk and return, there's capital available.

The difference is night and day. OpEx funding forces quarterly thinking. CapEx from the balance sheet enables patient capital. You can actually take the swings that transformative innovation requires.

This is the core principle behind corporate venture building. Instead of trying to innovate inside the operating business (where OpEx rules apply), you build external companies funded from the balance sheet. Different structure. Different funding. Different outcomes.

What This Changes in Practice

External venture building funded from the balance sheet unlocks options that OpEx-funded internal projects can't access.

You can bring in world-class entrepreneurs who won't work inside corporate structures. You can design proper governance that protects both corporate strategic interests and venture independence. You can raise capital from third-party investors who validate your market assumptions. You can solve industry-wide problems instead of just pushing corporate products.

Most importantly, you can optimize for magnitude of correctness. Some ventures will fail. That's expected in a portfolio approach. But when you're right, you can be really right. That's how transformative innovation actually works.

Compare that to OpEx-funded innovation. You optimize for frequency of correctness because you can't afford failures. You pilot endlessly because you can't commit capital. You stay close to the core because that's the only way to justify near-term returns. Your best people leave for actual startups.

Many companies, like our partners at Elanco, Huntington Bank, and others, are now building corporate venture studios specifically to access balance sheet capital for venture building. These studios operate as permanent infrastructure for systematic company creation. Not one-off experiments. Repeatable processes for building multiple ventures over time.

The Question You Should Be Asking

Stop asking "How do I get more OpEx budget for innovation?"

Start asking "How do I access balance sheet capital to fund external ventures?"

The first question keeps you in the same trap. Fighting for scraps. Measured quarterly. Cut when margins tighten.

The second question changes the game. Patient capital. External structure. Third-party validation. Portfolio thinking instead of pilot thinking.

Your CFO isn't your enemy. They're optimizing for what they're measured on. You need to meet them where they are. Speak their language. Show them how balance sheet capital for external ventures improves capital efficiency rather than draining it.

--

Elliott's full Innov8rs webinar went much deeper into the mechanics of how this works, and he covered frameworks for matching funding type to innovation type (core vs. adjacent vs. transformative), real case studies from Fortune 500 companies, and specific tactics for pitching your CFO on balance sheet funding. You can watch the full recording below if you're interested.

But the core insight is simple. Your ideas might be great. Your team might be talented. None of it matters if you're funding it wrong.

The funding mechanism is the most underappreciated barrier or accelerant to innovation success. Get that right first. Everything else follows.

Understanding what venture strategy actually means is a good next step. It's not just about building one venture. It's about building a systematic capability to create advantaged companies that combine corporate assets with entrepreneurial speed.

Your innovation budget doesn't have to be doomed. You just need to stop funding it like an operating expense and start funding it like the strategic investment it actually is.

Want to go deeper? Watch Elliott's full presentation or download the slides here.