Objective Tagging: The Innovation Ambition Matrix
Escaping the Core Comfort Zone
Clayton Christensen warned of the Innovator’s Dilemma; the Innovation Ambition Matrix (IAM)—popularised by Bansi Nagy and Harvard Business Review—offered the budgeting antidote. By splitting investment into Core (70 %), Adjacent (20 %), and Transformational (10 %) work, leaders avoid the gravitational pull of near-term ROI that leaves companies obsolete just as margins peak.
1. Defining the Three Ambitions
| Ambition | What changes? | Pay-Off Horizon | Risk Profile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core | Neither customers nor offer change significantly | 0–12 months | Low |
| Adjacent | Either customers or offer extends into new territory | 1–3 years | Medium |
| Transformational | Both customers and offer leap | 3–5+ years | High |
Think AWS: EC2 began as Adjacent to Amazon’s retail infra; Alexa was Transformational.
2. Tagging Mechanics
- Tag Group – Use the build-in RoadmapOne category template “IAM Ambition” with Core, Adjacent, Transformational.
- Quarterly Guard-Rails – Pre-agree 70/20/10 but review drift monthly.
- Scenario Modelling – Copy roadmap, toggle ambition mix to simulate ARR trajectories.
3. Example Tag Mapping
Core: “Refactor billing micro-service to cut invoice delay.”
Adjacent: “Launch self-serve tier for SMBs in APAC.”
Transformational: “Research voice-controlled workflow for logistics drivers.”
Epics that look small can be Transformational if they open a gateway to new markets—tag meaning trumps size.
4. Case Story: Logistics SaaS “RouteFlow”
Three years of 90 % Core backlog left RouteFlow king of legacy trucking, but market share plateaued. IAM tagging exposed the bias. The board agreed to ring-fence 15 % Transformational spend: an IoT sensor initiative now anchors their Series E narrative. NPS dipped briefly, but valuation doubled.
5. Risk-Adjusted Funding
Transformational bets scare CFOs. RoadmapOne’s ambition heat-map pairs each tag with risk bands (green/yellow/red). Combining with SVPG tags, a high-risk Transformational epic triggers a deeper feasibility spike before capital release.
6. Talent Allocation
- Core squads optimise; rotate graduates for onboarding efficiency.
- Adjacent squads blend veterans with domain experts in the new segment.
- Transformational labs hide from quarterly KPIs; compensate with milestone-based vesting.
Tag-driven capacity charts ensure each squad fights on its own battlefield, not for the same few seniors.
7. Anti-Patterns
- Core Creep – Boards panic-cut Transformational during downturns, boosting Core to 90 %. Short-term EPS rises; five-year R&D pipeline collapses.
- Transformational Vanity – Moon-shots with no kill-switch. Require kill criteria at each funding gate.
8. Integrating with Other Tag Lenses
IAM pairs naturally with RGT (Run/Grow/Transform) but is not identical: a Transformational ambition may still involve Run foundation work. Tag groups coexist—RoadmapOne filters let you stack them, e.g., “Show Transformational ambition epics that are SVPG Value risk.”
9. Boardroom Narrative
“Today 68 % Core, 22 % Adjacent, 10 % Transformational. If we delay the autonomous-fleet prototype, Core jumps to 78 %. That moves EBITDA +1 % next year, but slices our 2028 TAM by £0.5 bn.”
When ambition is tagged, trade-offs quantify themselves.
10. Final Thoughts
- IAM tagging inoculates the roadmap against the comfort of the Core.
- The 70-20-10 split is a compass, not a cage—customise for context but track the delta.
- RoadmapOne automates the view, letting leaders steer ambition with eyes wide open.