DPMT in R&D Strategy: Dynamic Modeling for Innovation Portfolio and Breakthrough Timing

BY NICOLE LAU

Abstract

R&D is a dynamic process with feedback loops (knowledge enables innovation, success attracts funding), tipping points (breakthrough moments, technology readiness), and portfolio dynamics (explore vs exploit trade-offs). Yet R&D strategy often relies on static tools—stage-gate processes, NPV calculations, portfolio matrices—that don't model how innovation unfolds over time. How do breakthroughs emerge from accumulated knowledge? When should projects be killed vs continued? What portfolio balance optimizes long-term innovation? Dynamic Predictive Modeling Theory (DPMT) transforms R&D strategy from static planning to dynamic innovation modeling, enabling R&D leaders to predict innovation trajectories, identify critical decision points, and optimize portfolio allocation. This paper demonstrates DPMT application to R&D strategy, showing how dynamic modeling reveals the path from research to breakthrough.

I. R&D as Dynamic System

Innovation is emergent: breakthroughs come from accumulated knowledge, serendipity, and persistence. Static stage-gate processes miss these dynamics.

DPMT models R&D as dynamic system with:

Stocks: Research projects (by stage), technical knowledge, patent portfolio, funding allocation, team capability

Flows: Project progression, knowledge accumulation, resource allocation, commercialization

Feedback Loops: Success → funding → more projects (positive), knowledge → breakthroughs → more knowledge (positive), failure → resource depletion → fewer projects (negative)

Delays: Research → proof of concept (1-3 years), prototype → commercialization (2-5 years), knowledge accumulation → breakthrough (unpredictable, 5-20 years)

Scenarios: Breakthrough innovation, incremental improvement, portfolio of failures, technology transfer

Attractors: Innovation leadership, incremental player, research dead-end

II. Case Study: Pharma R&D Portfolio

Company: Mid-sized pharma, $500M R&D budget, 20 drug candidates in pipeline

Current State: 15 incremental (me-too drugs), 5 breakthrough (novel mechanisms), high failure rate (90%), long timelines (10-15 years)

Question: Optimal portfolio allocation? When to kill projects? How to increase breakthrough probability?

Key Variables: Projects by stage (discovery, preclinical, Phase I/II/III), success probability, knowledge accumulation, patent strength, market potential, resource allocation

Dynamics:

Positive Loop (Knowledge Accumulation): Research → Knowledge → Better Hypotheses → More Successful Research

Positive Loop (Success Breeds Success): Breakthrough → Funding → More Projects → More Breakthroughs

Negative Loop (Sunk Cost Fallacy): Failed Project → Already Invested → Continue Anyway → More Waste

Negative Loop (Resource Depletion): Too Many Projects → Spread Too Thin → All Fail → No Resources

Tipping Point: Phase II success = 30% probability of approval. Below this, kill project. Above this, invest heavily.

Scenarios:

Current Portfolio (Baseline): 15 incremental + 5 breakthrough. Expected: 2 incremental approvals, 0.5 breakthrough approvals over 10 years. Revenue: $2B. ROI: 4×.

All Incremental (Risk-Averse): 20 incremental, 0 breakthrough. Expected: 3 approvals. Revenue: $2.5B. ROI: 5×. Safe but no competitive advantage.

Balanced (50/50): 10 incremental + 10 breakthrough. Expected: 1.5 incremental + 1 breakthrough approvals. Revenue: $3B. ROI: 6×. Higher risk, higher reward.

Breakthrough-Focused (Aggressive): 5 incremental + 15 breakthrough. Expected: 0.5 incremental + 1.5 breakthrough approvals. Revenue: $4B. ROI: 8×. High risk, transformative potential.

Recommendation: Balanced Portfolio (50/50). Incremental projects provide steady revenue and fund breakthrough research. Breakthrough projects create competitive advantage and blockbusters. Expected outcome: $3B revenue over 10 years, 6× ROI, 1 blockbuster drug. Key: Kill projects early (Phase I failure → stop immediately, don't continue to Phase II). Reallocate resources from failures to promising projects.

Key Insight: R&D is a portfolio game—diversify across risk levels. Knowledge accumulates—failed projects still generate learning. Sunk cost fallacy is deadly—kill failures fast. Breakthroughs are unpredictable—need multiple shots on goal. Timeline is decades—pharma R&D takes 10-15 years from discovery to approval.

III. Key Insights for R&D Strategy

A. Portfolio Balance: Explore vs Exploit

All incremental = safe but no competitive advantage. All breakthrough = high risk of total failure. Optimal is balanced portfolio.

Implication: 50/50 or 60/40 (incremental/breakthrough) depending on risk tolerance. Incremental funds breakthrough.

B. Kill Projects Fast

Sunk cost fallacy keeps bad projects alive. Every dollar on failed project is dollar not on promising project.

Implication: Set clear kill criteria (Phase I failure → stop). Don't continue hoping for miracle. Reallocate quickly.

C. Knowledge Accumulates Even from Failures

Failed drug teaches about biology. Failed prototype teaches about engineering. Learning compounds.

Implication: Document learnings. Share across teams. Failed projects have value if knowledge is captured.

D. Breakthroughs Are Unpredictable

Can't predict which project will succeed. Need multiple shots on goal. Portfolio approach essential.

Implication: Don't bet everything on one breakthrough. Diversify. Accept that most will fail.

IV. Conclusion

R&D is a dynamic system with knowledge accumulation, portfolio dynamics, and long timelines. DPMT enables evidence-based R&D strategy by modeling innovation dynamics, optimizing portfolio allocation (explore vs exploit), and identifying kill criteria. For R&D leaders seeking breakthrough innovation, DPMT provides a framework for understanding how innovation emerges and how to maximize long-term ROI.

---

About the Author: Nicole Lau is a theorist working at the intersection of systems thinking, predictive modeling, and cross-disciplinary convergence.