R&D Goal Setting: Steer Corporate Research With LARGER, Not SMART

Across R&D portfolios, more than 70% of projects miss their original objectives - not because the science fails, but because the goals are vague, misaligned, or lack clear decision points. Too often, teams pursue interesting problems rather than strategic priorities and exhaust resources without evidence-based checkpoints.

In R&D environments, typical goal-setting frameworks like SMART fail because they miss learning goals and the generation of new knowledge. This article explains the LARGER framework, which is built for R&D teams to bring structure, alignment, and accountability to the development process.

Why clear goals matter for research and development teams

R&D objectives set the strategic direction for corporate development. Without them, development processes drift, teams chase interesting problems instead of important ones, and promising technologies stall before generating immediate profit. Clear objectives help align basic research, applied research, and development research toward shared outcomes.

When well defined, research and development objectives turn fragmented activities into a coordinated system. They guide resource allocation, clarify priorities for cross-functional teams, and make progress measurable through readiness levels or KPIs. In fast-moving markets shaped by emerging technologies and shifting market trends, this alignment is what allows technology companies to stay ahead.

Typical R&D objectives and challenges in defining them

A precise R&D objective names the business goal, the problem, the readiness target (TRL/MRL/SRL), evidence to collect, and resource allocation limits. It links to a roadmap item, has a single decision owner, and lists explicit kill/pivot/scale criteria

Common objective types are:

Knowledge creation (basic research): reduce technical uncertainty, map mechanisms, or validate principles; success = published methods, datasets, or a TRL 2–3 advance.

Solution maturation (applied research): prove feasibility for defined market needs; success = prototype development to TRL 4–6 with target performance, cost, and reliability.

Productization (development research): de-risk scale-up, manufacturability, compliance, and serviceability; success = TRL 7–8, verified DFM/DFT, and transfer to product.

Capability/platform building: reusable modules, tools, or new technologies that enable multiple lines; success = adoption across programs and intellectual property generated.

The challenges are consistent:

• Ambiguous goals lack measurable evidence or readiness targets.
• Misaligned goals ignore organizational strategy, market trends, or the competitive landscape.
• Scope often swings between overreach and incrementalism.
• Late involvement of cross-functional teams hides feasibility issues.
• Funding is spread too thin, and metrics focus on activity, not outcomes.

How research and development goals contribute to business strategy and competitive advantage

Strong goals in research and development build a bridge between scientific research and strategic planning.

They ensure that research and development activities target real customer needs, respond to competitive landscape shifts, and reinforce the company’s competitive advantage. They should control for building technology capabilities that find market demand.

When objectives are linked to strategy and customer demands, research and development becomes a driver of long-term growth rather than a cost center. Strategic goals direct investment toward new technologies that can shape future markets, while operational goals accelerate innovation in existing offerings. This dual focus strengthens corporate research as a core capability.

How objectives in research and development are typically defined

R&D objectives start with strategic planning. Executives set strategic objectives and guardrails from business strategy, market trends, regulation, and the competitive landscape. A portfolio council translates these into funded themes with budget envelopes and target outcomes.

Research labs and development teams draft objectives against those themes. Each objective names the problem, target users or market needs, a TRL/MRL readiness target, exit criteria, risks, and a resource allocation baseline (people, budget, tooling). Drafts reference roadmaps, dependencies, and expected intellectual property or technology transfer outcomes.

Objectives go through governance. Cross-functional reviewers from engineering, product, manufacturing, quality, and finance test feasibility and strategic fit. Approval ties the objective to a roadmap, a decision owner, and milestone gates.

Measurement is explicit. Teams track readiness levels, prototype exit tests, time-to-prototype, cost targets, and IP filings. Each milestone is a decision point: proceed, pivot, or stop.

Cadence is fixed. Reviews run quarterly or at stage-gate exits. Evidence can trigger re-scoping or re-allocation across the development process so portfolios stay aligned with shifting market dynamics and corporate priorities.

Why SMART goals fall short in R&D

SMART means Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound. It was built for operational work where outcomes are known, timelines are fixed, and success is defined up front. In delivery teams (manufacturing, product launch, sales), it drives clarity and accountability.

Corporate R&D is different. It operates with unknown problems, uncertain technologies, and shifting market trends. The job is to discover what targets are worth pursuing, not just to hit preset targets. R&D needs goal frameworks that embrace uncertainty, stage learning, and align research with strategy.

SMART assumes known problems, R&D tackles unknowns

SMART goals start from a clearly defined problem and stable context.

R&D rarely enjoys that clarity. In basic research, the problem itself is still emerging. Teams investigate unknown mechanisms, not fixed targets. In applied research, both the technology and the market can shift during the project. Strategic direction evolves through iteration and new evidence.

Locking research and development into SMART goals too early forces teams to treat uncertain problems as if they were already well understood. It discourages reframing when better opportunities or critical risks emerge - precisely the moments when agile thinking matters most.

SMART assumes concrete outcomes, R&D generates learnings

SMART goals rely on predefined, measurable outcomes.

Research and development often produces knowledge, not finished products. A project that proves a technology cannot meet customer preferences still generates high strategic value. It prevents wasted development spending elsewhere and informs future bets. Learning about failure modes, technical bottlenecks, or shifting customer demands shapes strategic objectives far more than hitting arbitrary KPIs.

SMART frameworks undervalue this because they measure delivery, not discovery. In research labs, learning is the outcome, and learning must be structured and measurable in its own right.

SMART assumes fixed endpoints, R&D progresses in stages

SMART is built around a single finish line. R&D follows a staged progression: proof of principle, feasibility, prototype development, and scaling.

Each stage reduces uncertainty and drives resource allocation decisions. Fixed endpoints encourage teams to chase outdated goals even when evidence suggests pivoting or stopping. Effective research processes use stage gates, not rigid timelines. Each gate asks: continue, pivot, or kill? This staged approach reflects how technologies mature and how strategic decisions are made under uncertainty; something SMART was never designed to handle.

LARGER Goals: Incorporating new technology developments and R&D specifics

Most goal-setting frameworks are built for operational certainty, not technological flux.

Corporate research and development works at the frontier of cutting-edge technologies, ambiguous problem spaces, and shifting business contexts. Traditional methods like SMART often fail because they ignore how research and development actually unfold. The LARGER framework (Learning-oriented, Aligned to business needs, Readiness-indicative, Governed by decisions, Evidence-based, Resource-sensitive) offers a structure tailored for this reality.

LARGER works because it connects continuous learning to strategic intent, while grounding ambitions in measurable progress and controlled financial risk. It allows project managers to navigate uncertainty without losing alignment with business units and leadership priorities.

Whether applied to exploratory projects in small businesses or large corporate labs, LARGER helps teams allocate resources effectively and build the company’s competitive advantage in both new technologies and existing ones.

Learning-oriented: Generate knowledge, not just output

Research and development's primary product is new knowledge, not polished deliverables.

Goals must define what the team needs to learn to accelerate innovation: technical feasibility, market viability, or integration pathways. A learning goal might aim to validate a scientific principle or probe customer behavior through structured customer feedback, rather than to deliver a final product. Depending on the learning objective, different types of MVPs offer different benefits.

In untapped market segments, continuous learning gives organizations a decisive edge. It reduces uncertainty earlier, avoiding wasted research and development spending later. For research and development, staged learning is decisive as most research and development spending is allocated along metered stages.

Aligned to strategy: Connect R&D to business direction

Effective R&D must align with the R&D strategy and broader business context. All too often, basic research is conducted with no clear link to business needs or customer needs.

Alignment ensures that exploration supports growth, whether through differentiation, dollar-for-dollar reduction, or new market entry. Strategic alignment gives project managers clarity on trade-offs and priorities. A well-aligned goal links learning objectives to business units’ roadmaps and to how the company plans to remain competitive.

Readiness-indicative: Make progress measurable

Unlike operational work, R&D progress isn’t measured by delivery velocity. It’s tracked through readiness levels, evidence milestones, and the reduction of technical and financial risk.

A readiness-indicative goal specifies the maturity state to reach (proof of principle, prototype integration, or manufacturability) along with measurable exit criteria. This structured view helps project managers and leaders make rational decisions about when to double down, pivot, or stop.

Governed by decisions: Build in inflection points

R&D portfolios are healthiest when goals create deliberate decision moments. Each stage (proof of concept, feasibility, scaling) should culminate in a clear go/pivot/kill review. These inflection points prevent zombie projects, surface financial risk early, and allow organizations to allocate resources effectively across competing priorities.

They also keep business units involved, ensuring that strategic relevance is re-evaluated as technologies and markets evolve. Decision-based governance aligns exploratory work with dynamic strategic realities.

Evidence-based: Rely on data, not wishful thinking

Goals in R&D need to be grounded in evidence, not wishful thinking. This means using data from experiments, simulations, and structured customer feedback to validate assumptions.

R&D managers should frame each goal around what evidence must be gathered to inform the next decision, whether technical, commercial, or regulatory. Evidence-based goal setting builds credibility inside the corporate world, especially when justifying R&D spending to finance teams or external investors. It shifts discussions from subjective enthusiasm to objective signals.

Resource-sensitive: Scope ambition to reality

LARGER goals explicitly define the people, time, and budget required. They make risks visible and manageable. This matters for both large organizations and small businesses, which often operate with tighter capital constraints.

Resource sensitivity forces trade-offs: which market segments to pursue, how to balance technology investment, and when to defer projects that exceed current capacity. By making constraints explicit, organizations allocate resources effectively instead of spreading efforts too thin.

Examples of appropriate LARGER goals in R&D

A well-structured LARGER goal should articulate a learning intent, show strategic alignment, specify a readiness target, build in decision gates, define required evidence, and set clear resource boundaries. This structure transforms new ideas into focused bets.

The LARGER framework is designed to work across a wide range of R&D contexts. To illustrate this flexibility, the following two examples show how teams at different maturity levels can frame their objectives with clarity, strategic relevance, and measurable decision points.

The first example comes from a lower-complexity R&D team working on a simple feasibility question.

We aim to learn whether a low-cost capacitive sensor can reliably detect moisture inside sealed food packaging, because this helps reduce food waste and add smart features to current packaging. We will advance from proof of concept (TRL 2) to lab-validated prototype (TRL 4), with exit criteria on detection accuracy ≥85% in controlled humidity tests and stable performance over 30 cycles. At the prototype review meeting in three months, the team will decide to proceed, adjust, or stop based on test results. The work is capped at €40k, uses one lab team, and relies on existing testing equipment.

The second example comes from a high-maturity, strategic R&D initiative in the automotive sector.

We aim to learn about the performance limits of a novel solid-state battery architecture in cars and trucks, because this supports the strategic objective of enabling longer-range EV platforms. We will advance from TRL 2 to TRL 4 with exit criteria on energy density, cycle life, and manufacturability. At the Q3 feasibility gate, a go/kill/pivot decision will be made if the data show: cars ≥ 300–320 Wh/kg at cell level with ≥500 cycles to 80% capacity and demonstrable DFM yield on pilot pouches; trucks ≥ 230–250 Wh/kg with ≥1,000 cycles to 80% and stable stack processing at lab scale. The work is capped at €450k with a cross-functional team, and any shortfall against these thresholds triggers a pivot to hybrid architectures or a stop.

Applying the LARGER framework to real-world R&D scenarios

The LARGER framework helps research and development teams structure goals across very different types of projects, from exploratory lab work to large-scale transformational projects.

By framing learning objectives, evidence, and resource boundaries clearly, teams can respond to consumer demands, guide significant investments, and maintain the company’s competitive edge.

It also creates a systematic process for gathering customer feedback, integrating simulation and automation techniques, and making strategic decisions that attract venture capital and unlock tax incentives.

Basic research: Accounting for uncertainty and learning

Basic research often begins within academic institutions or public–private partnerships. These environments face key challenges: uncertain outcomes, long time horizons, and the need to justify significant investment without guaranteed returns.

LARGER helps teams focus on precise learning goals and clear evidence sources, ensuring that uncertainty is treated as an input, not a failure. By defining the readiness leap and governance decisions early, basic research projects build a transparent R&D strategy that can adapt as breakthroughs emerge.

Applied research and scale-up: Aligning with business timelines

Applied research pushes ideas toward commercialization, where timelines tighten, and strategic alignment matters. Market research and gathering feedback become essential to ensure that emerging solutions address real demands.

The LARGER framework helps structure goals around measurable milestones and decision gates, enabling teams to integrate simulation and automation techniques to accelerate validation and scale-up. This approach turns promising concepts into breakthrough innovations while aligning with business priorities and investment schedules.

Emerging technology tracking and capability building: Turning innovative solutions into intellectual property

LARGER helps teams set learning-oriented goals for evaluating external signals, identifying promising opportunities, and converting them into defensible patents.

By structuring evidence and governance clearly, companies can move fast on transformational projects, secure venture capital, and leverage tax incentives while maintaining a coherent R&D strategy that safeguards long-term competitive advantage.

Implementing LARGER goals in the development process

The LARGER framework gives research and development teams a structured way to turn ambitious ideas into actionable, evidence-based objectives.

In a nutshell, it encodes the hypothesis to test (learning), why it matters (strategic alignment), the TRL leap (readiness improvement), when the go/pivot/kill call is made (governance), what data will decide (evidence source), and from what resources.

By making these elements explicit, R&D teams generate new knowledge systematically, accelerate the delivery of innovative products, and build a resilient R&D strategy that helps the organization stay competitive and stay ahead in high-risk, fast-moving markets. This structure ensures development work doesn’t drift but instead creates measurable progress toward long-term growth.

Augmenting development research with AI agents

AI agents can help structure complex R&D data, run simulations, or support scenario analysis to identify the most promising development paths. They accelerate the discovery of new knowledge and support evidence gathering across different maturity levels.

By embedding AI into the development workflow, organizations can make smarter decisions under uncertainty, shorten iteration cycles, and de-risk investment in high-potential technologies.

Connecting cross-functional teams and learnings on one platform

Implementing LARGER goals works best when cross-functional teams (engineering, product, strategy, and market intelligence) share objectives and evidence on a single digital platform. This ensures business leaders can see trade-offs clearly, align resources, and guide R&D strategy consistently across innovative products and existing ones.

It also supports organizational learning and reduces duplication of effort.

Tracking readiness, evidence, and decision points per technology

Tracking the readiness progress, evidence gathered, and decision points for each technology helps organizations stay ahead and plan for long-term growth. It allows teams to spot bottlenecks early, manage high-risk bets more intelligently, and give business leaders the visibility needed to guide investment decisions confidently.

This is where the LARGER framework moves from theory to real strategic advantage.

Steer R&D. Build better products. Today, with ITONICS, the best software for R&D and product development teams.

The ITONICS platform equips R&D managers with the tools to oversee all initiatives, align them with organizational goals, and deliver measurable portfolio outcomes.

Optimize budget spent and mitigate risks: Gain a consolidated view of your R&D portfolio. ITONICS helps teams identify overlaps, identify dependencies, and reallocate resources toward initiatives with higher impact. The tool empowers R&D teams to minimize risks and ensure that every team member contributes to defined objectives.

Make confident decisions with transparency: ITONICS supports structured processes like stage-gates, with embedded key decisions and evaluation criteria. Product managers and other key stakeholders gain a single source of truth to determine priorities, monitor return on investment, and enhance stakeholder satisfaction.

Plan and execute with roadmaps: With ITONICS, you can design clear roadmaps that connect projects, programs, and the full portfolio. Roadmaps highlight milestones, dependencies, and required adjustments, helping leaders develop adaptive plans that align with the organization’s strategy. The result: a program office that delivers efficiency today and resilience tomorrow.