Stay ahead of the curve
Get exclusive insights delivered directly to your inbox. Join thousands of tech leaders.
TL;DR
- R&D prioritization is choosing which good projects get funded when the budget never covers them all.
- Standard prioritization matrices score value, cost, fit, feasibility and risk. All five describe today.
- Add the Technology Improvement Rate: how fast each option is getting better. In EV batteries it splits six credible routes into three to fund and three to phase out.
- The most-patented route in that set, solid-state with 9,628 families, lands in phase out.
Why is prioritizing R&D projects so hard?
Because the choice is between good options. Christophe Perthuisot, former SVP of R&D at Moët Hennessy and Danone, has watched the field widen over 30 years: "When I started, there were very few options. Nowadays, there are lots of options coming from startups, academia, and suppliers." For a single problem a head of R&D can face a hundred candidate technologies.
Most of them are defensible. They cannot all be funded. And the leader asking the question wants a verdict, not a longer list of interesting insights.
What criteria should you use to prioritize R&D projects?
Every prioritization matrix uses some mix of the same five criteria. Each is useful. Each describes the project as it stands today.
| Criterion | What it measures | What it misses |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic fit | Alignment with business goals | Whether the option will still be competitive when it launches |
| Value | Expected revenue or savings | Usually an estimate made by the project's own champion |
| Cost and effort | Budget, people, capex | The cost of being wrong cheaply |
| Feasibility / maturity | How ready the technology is (TRL) | Maturity today says nothing about speed tomorrow |
| Risk | Technical and market risk | A judgement, rarely a measurement |
| Improvement rate | How fast each option is getting better, compared with the alternatives | Nothing: this is the criterion that decides which bets age well |
The sixth row is measurable. MIT showed that every technology improves exponentially at its own stable rate. GetFocus estimates that Technology Improvement Rate from patent citations, validated on 150+ domains.
What the improvement rate does to a shortlist
The GetFocus platform · EV batteries
Six credible routes. The rate splits them.
Hover a route for its rate history and top patent holders. Sodium-ion sits alone at the top of fund; the most-patented route, solid-state, sits in phase out.
GetFocus platform · Battery Technologies · 31,644 patent families · Full radar and verdicts
The GetFocus Automotive Technology Strategy Radar compares six credible battery routes for passenger EVs. Every one of them is still compounding. On a standard matrix most would score well: all have serious backers, real patents and plausible roadmaps.
Ranked by rate, three clear the median of the set and three do not:
- Sodium-ion, ~125%/yr: fund. The fastest rate in the set, already near-commercial.
- Lithium-sulfur, ~70%/yr: fund, with targeted pilots rather than scale-up.
- LFP / LMFP, ~65%/yr: fund. Proven, and still compounding.
- All-solid-state, ~53%/yr: phase out. The most heavily patented route in the set at 9,628 families, and one of the slowest improving. The filings are not buying progress.
- NMC / NCA, ~47%/yr and lithium-metal, ~46%/yr: phase out.
Patent volume, press coverage and maturity would all have ranked solid-state near the top. The rate puts it in the bottom half.
A four-step way to narrow the field
- Start from the problem, not the project list. List every technology that could do the job, including ones nobody in the room is working on. Christophe's test for any process: "You need to make sure that the choices you are considering are between the possible winners first."
- Remove what you cannot carry. Capex, footprint and dependencies you will not accept. Testing is cheap; implementing is not.
- Rank what is left by rate. Which options are improving fastest relative to the others, and which have stalled?
- Fund at different levels. One or two core bets in the fund quadrant, smaller learning budgets for fast-improving early routes, and a watch list with triggers for the rest. Move money as the rates move.
The goal is three to five options worth a deep look. Christophe's experience with improvement-rate data: "It allows you to boil things down from perhaps 100 solutions to the three, four, or five you really need to examine."
FAQ
What is R&D portfolio management?
R&D portfolio management is choosing, balancing and reviewing the set of R&D projects a company funds, so together they match the strategy, spread risk and use the budget well.
What criteria should be used to prioritize R&D projects?
Strategic fit, expected value, cost, feasibility and risk are standard. Add the Technology Improvement Rate: how fast each option improves compared with competing approaches. It separates bets that will still matter in five years from bets that are mature today and stalled tomorrow.
What is a project prioritization matrix?
A grid that scores projects on two or more criteria, often value against effort, to compare them visually. For long-term R&D, plot maturity (TRL) against improvement rate (TIR): it turns a list of options into four decisions: fund, monitor closely, phase out, ignore.
How many R&D bets should a company make?
There is no fixed number. The leaders we work with aim for one or two core bets per priority area, a few smaller options funded to learn, and a watch list with explicit triggers.
