7 Practices To Balance Speed and Control

In the consumer goods industry, 45% of new product launches fail to meet their commercial objectives. Another 35% of those that survive disappear within two years. The root cause is the gap between innovation speed and strategic alignment. 

Cross-functional teams now drive product development at 83% of consumer goods companies, according to Deloitte. Yet most struggle to govern distributed innovation without creating bottlenecks. Companies with mature cross-functional governance are 2.5 times more likely to report innovation success, McKinsey research shows.

The solution is innovation governance transparency. Organizations need governance that can boost innovation while maintaining strategic alignment. This playbook outlines seven practices that leading consumer goods companies use to balance speed with strategy.

Why innovation governance transparency matters in consumer goods

The shift to cross-functional teams has fundamentally changed how companies approach product innovation. When decision-making authority is unclear and strategic priorities remain hidden, even the best innovation efforts stall.

The challenge isn’t choosing between speed and control. It’s building innovation governance that enables both through transparency.

Speed without governance models creates strategic chaos

Move fast and break things works for software startups. For consumer goods companies launching physical products into retail channels, breaking things means wasted development resources, confused customers, and damaged retailer relationships.

Yet the pressure to accelerate is real. Consumer preferences now change 40% faster than they did a decade ago, while competitors launch innovative products in months, not years.

The response in many organizations: eliminate governance checkpoints, push decision-making down, and let cross-functional teams run. The result is teams creating conflicting solutions, duplicating innovation efforts, and misallocating engineering resources to projects that senior leadership would have killed months earlier.

Research from the Product Development and Management Association shows that companies without clear governance frameworks waste up to 30% of their R&D spending on misaligned initiatives.

Decentralisation of product innovation amplifies the need for transparency

Product innovation no longer happens sequentially within single departments. It happens in parallel across cross-functional teams that bring together product management, engineering, marketing, supply chain, and commercial functions.

This decentralization is now the norm. Deloitte reports that 83% of consumer goods companies have moved to cross-functional team structures in the past five years.

This structural shift creates new governance challenges. Decision-making authority that was once clear becomes ambiguous when accountability is shared.

Who kills a project when engineering loves it but marketing sees no path to market success? A Harvard Business Review study found that 65% of cross-functional teams report unclear decision-making authority as their top barrier to execution.

Innovation governance transparency enables speed and alignment

Innovation governance transparency makes three things visible: strategic priorities, decision rights, and resource constraints. When teams see how their initiatives connect to strategy, they make better decisions autonomously.

When decision-making processes are clear, teams spend less time seeking permission and more time creating value. McKinsey research confirms that companies with transparent governance processes reduce time-to-market by an average of 30% while improving strategic alignment scores by 40%.

The 7 innovation governance practices

Effective innovation governance balances strategic control with operational autonomy. The following practices help product managers and cross-functional teams make faster decisions while maintaining alignment with business objectives.

Together, they create a governance model that accelerates rather than impedes product innovation.

Practice 1: Make strategic trade-offs visible

Today’s challenge: hidden priorities create conflicting direction

Senior innovation leaders constantly make trade-offs: choosing which customer needs to address first, which market segments to enter, and which technology bets to make. These decisions stay in executive meetings.

Teams work without knowing what leadership said no to, or why. Product managers develop concepts for customer segments that leadership decided to deprioritize.

Engineering invests in emerging technologies that don’t align with the company’s strategic approach. A study by the Project Management Institute found that organizations with low strategic alignment waste $122 million for every $1 billion invested, primarily due to duplicated innovation efforts.

The fix: transparent decision-making at portfolio level

Leading consumer goods companies make portfolio decisions visible to everyone involved in product innovation. When teams understand the strategic trade-offs (why the company chose club store expansion over DTC strategies, whether to pursue Walmart exclusivity or broader retail distribution, and why it prioritized sustainable packaging over premium formulations) they can align their innovation efforts without constant oversight.

Procter & Gamble’s portfolio transformation under CEO David Taylor demonstrates this power. Between 2015 and 2018, P&G streamlined from more than 160 brands to 65 brands under 10 product categories, focusing on brands generating 90% of revenue and 95% of profits. By making these portfolio decisions visible, product teams understood which brands would receive first call on capital and resources.

Unilever offers another verified example. Under CEO Fernando Schumacher’s 2024 strategic direction, the company focused on 30 key brands, accounting for 70% of sales. Schumacher stated publicly: “These brands will have the first call on capital and resources.” This transparent prioritization helped teams across the organization understand strategic direction and redirect their work accordingly.

Boston Consulting Group research shows that companies with visible portfolio management processes achieve 20% higher returns on innovation investment.

Practice 2: Map decision-making rights to innovation efforts

Today’s challenge: unclear authority stalls cross-functional teams

Cross-functional collaboration amplifies a fundamental governance problem: who decides? Can the product manager decide to pivot positioning without marketing approval?

Does engineering have veto power over feature scope? Who owns the final call on launch timing?

Without clear decision rights, teams either move too slowly (seeking consensus on everything) or too fast (making choices they lack the authority to make). Bain & Company research found that companies with unclear decision rights take 2.2 times longer to bring products to market and experience 30% more rework.

The fix: define who decides what at each stage

High-performing consumer goods innovation organizations map decision rights explicitly to innovation process stages. They specify who has input, who must approve, and who owns each decision type.

Best practice examples demonstrate how leading companies structure decision rights. For package design decisions, typical frameworks show product managers deciding on graphics updates for existing SKUs, while structural packaging changes (like switching from bags to canisters) require VP approval because they affect manufacturing line configurations across multiple facilities.

For retail channel expansion, category managers often have autonomy to add 1-2 retailers, but major channel shifts (like entering dollar stores) require business unit sign-off because they impact brand positioning company-wide. In personal care and beauty, leading companies clarify that cross-functional teams can approve claim changes that don’t require new clinical testing. However, any efficacy claim requiring substantiation data needs R&D director approval.

Launch timing decisions typically belong to supply chain leads for in-line extensions, but require executive review for launches tied to seasonal windows (back-to-school, holiday) where retail commitments are inflexible. Organizations that implement clear decision rights frameworks report 35% faster decision velocity, according to McKinsey research.

Exhibit 1: ITONICS project permission settings showing how edit and view rights define clear decision authority across cross-functional innovation teams.

Practice 3: Share resources across cross-functional teams

Today’s challenge: teams compete blindly for the same resources

Consumer goods innovation requires shared resources: R&D labs, consumer testing facilities, manufacturing lines for pilot runs, regulatory expertise, and engineering capacity. When teams can’t see these constraints, they over-commit.

Product management builds plans assuming engineering availability that doesn’t exist. A study by the Standish Group found that 45% of project delays stem from resource conflicts that could have been identified and resolved earlier with better visibility.

The fix: make capacity visible across the innovation pipeline

Leading organizations create transparency around resource constraints. They maintain visible capacity planning across critical resources: engineering hours, lab time, pilot production slots, regulatory support, and key expertise.

Food companies often maintain visible dashboards showing packaging design capacity across their design centers. When product managers can see that structural design (boxes, bottles, pouches) is booked 8 weeks out while graphics capacity has 3-week availability, teams plan accordingly, sequencing their requests or adjusting timelines before conflicts arise.

Manufacturing capacity represents a common constraint. Companies make pilot production windows transparent through shared calendars showing how many SKU trials manufacturing can support per quarter and which slots are already committed. When new product teams see these constraints months in advance, they adjust their development timelines to target available slots rather than building plans around unavailable capacity.

Companies implementing transparent resource management report 25% improvement in resource utilization and 30% reduction in project delays, according to Gartner research.

Practice 4: Set innovation management kill criteria early

Today’s challenge: projects linger without strategic purpose

The hardest governance decision is killing a project. Without clear kill criteria, initiatives persist long after they should stop, consuming resources that could fuel successful products.

Research from the Product Development Institute reveals that the average consumer goods company has 30% more active projects than it can effectively resource. In matrixed organizations, when accountability is shared across various functions, no single function feels empowered to kill a cross-functional team’s work.

Projects drift through governance checkpoints, each reviewer assuming someone else will make the tough call.

The fix: define exit criteria before launch

Effective innovation governance establishes kill criteria at project initiation, not when problems emerge. These criteria are specific, measurable, and tied to a strategic rationale.

Industry best practices show how CPG companies set velocity thresholds for new item launches. For grocery products, a common benchmark is 2.5 units per store per week within 12 weeks of distribution. For premium lines sold through specialty retail, thresholds are often lower (around 1.8-2.0 units), given lower foot traffic but higher margins.

Purchase intent scores from category testing provide another common kill criterion. Leading beverage and food companies typically require products to hit 70% top-2-box purchase intent among target consumers, or development stops. For line extensions that leverage existing brand equity, the bar may be set at 65%. For new brands requiring higher marketing investment to gain distribution, companies often set the threshold at 75%.

Seasonal production windows create critical kill criteria in CPG. The fragrance and beauty industry, for example, operates on strict formulation freeze dates. If fragrance development misses the June formulation deadline, projects are automatically postponed 12 months because missing September production means missing holiday retail commitments.

Companies with rigorous kill criteria achieve 50% better returns on R&D investment by concentrating resources on winning initiatives, according to Accenture research.

Exhibit 2: ITONICS portfolio dashboard highlighting project health, cost performance, and early warning indicators to trigger kill or recovery decisions.

Practice 5: Connect every product manager to strategy

Today’s challenge: product managers execute without context

Strategy documents exist. They articulate market positioning, customer needs to address, and technology bets.

But these documents live in shared drives, not daily decisions. Product managers execute projects without understanding how their work connects to the broader innovation strategy.

A PwC study found that 52% of innovation projects lack a clear linkage to business strategy.

The fix: link every initiative to strategic priorities

High-performing consumer goods companies make every product manager strategic by connecting their project explicitly to the innovation strategy. Each initiative includes a strategic rationale that answers: Which customer needs does this address? How does it differentiate in the market? What business model does it support? Which strategic priority does it advance?

Best practice approaches show companies requiring every innovation brief to specify which strategic priority it advances. Common frameworks include four to five strategic pillars such as premiumization, better-for-you portfolio expansion, emerging market growth, or sustainability leadership. When strategy shifts to prioritize one pillar, product managers can immediately identify projects in development that no longer align.

Leading CPG companies connect each project to specific customer needs backed by ethnographic research. For instance, plant-based lines often explicitly address the “flexitarian parent” need state: convenient protein options that appeal to both meat-eaters and vegetarians in the same household. This clarity helps product teams make trade-off decisions.

Channel strategy linkage provides another example. Companies distinguish between products designed for DTC (focusing on customization and subscription models) versus retail innovations (emphasizing shelf standout and impulse purchase). Product managers who understand which business model they’re supporting make packaging, pricing, and formulation decisions accordingly.

Research from Strategy& shows that companies with explicit strategy-to-execution linkage are 3.5 times more likely to achieve their growth targets.

Practice 6: Design the innovation process for collaboration

Today’s challenge: governance operates as a control mechanism

Traditional governance treats reviews as gates: pass/fail checkpoints where projects get approved or killed. In cross-functional environments, gate-based governance creates problems.

It positions governance as an obstacle rather than a support. It encourages teams to hide challenges until review meetings.

When governance operates primarily as control, it also slows learning. Teams don’t share what they’re discovering until formal reviews. MIT research indicates that companies with gate-based governance models experience 40% more repeated failures across different innovation initiatives due to poor knowledge transfer.

The fix: turn reviews into cross-functional learning moments

Leading organizations redesign governance as collaborative learning, not just decision-making. Reviews become forums where cross-functional teams share what they’re learning: what’s working, what’s not, and what they’d do differently.

Procter & Gamble’s “Connect and Develop” model demonstrates collaborative governance in action. When P&G launched Pringles Prints in 2004 (potato crisps with trivia questions and jokes printed on each crisp), the product went from concept to launch in less than a year at a fraction of traditional costs. As described in Harvard Business Review, “In the old days, it might have taken us two years to bring this product to market, and we would have shouldered all of the investment and risk internally.” The collaborative approach involved external partners and proprietary networks, including P&G’s top 15 suppliers (collectively employing 50,000 R&D staff). This governance model turned review processes into learning opportunities where internal teams could access external expertise and capabilities.

Unilever’s “Connected 4 Growth” initiative, launched in 2016, restructured the company into smaller, more autonomous business units designed to foster greater agility and innovation. Teams were empowered to take risks and experiment, with governance serving as a coordination and learning mechanism rather than purely a control function.

Companies with collaborative governance models report 45% faster organizational learning cycles, according to research from INSEAD.

Exhibit 3: ITONICS gate configuration enabling cross-functional reviewers, approvals, and feedback to support collaborative learning across innovation stages.

Practice 7: Embed strategy in product management workflows

Today’s challenge: strategy lives in decks, not daily decisions

Innovation strategy typically exists as presentation slides or planning documents. These artifacts communicate intent, but they don’t equip teams for daily decision-making.

Research from the London Business School found that 85% of executive teams spend less than one hour per month discussing strategy execution. Meanwhile, 95% of employees don’t understand their organization’s strategy enough to execute it effectively.

The fix: embed decision frameworks in team workflows

Sophisticated consumer goods innovation organizations translate strategy into decision frameworks that teams use in their regular work. These tools codify strategic priorities as evaluation criteria.

Typical approaches show companies embedding strategic priorities directly into concept screening tools. When product managers evaluate new ideas, scorecards automatically weight criteria like premium positioning (30%), ingredient quality perception (25%), and price elasticity (20%) higher than volume potential (15%) or production efficiency (10%). This ensures teams select concepts that advance strategic priorities, not just those easiest to manufacture.

Channel strategy integration into stage-gate criteria represents another common practice. For products targeting club stores, cost-to-serve thresholds are strict (often <$0.15 per unit) because warehouse retailers demand everyday low prices. For specialty retail, margin requirements are higher (>45%), but cost tolerance is looser. When product managers see these criteria in their project planning tools, they make channel-appropriate decisions automatically.

Leading companies translate sustainability commitments into go/no-go criteria at each stage. The concept phase might require 20% recycled content minimum. The pilot phase might require supply chain mapping showing renewable energy usage. The launch phase might require packaging recyclability verification for the specific retailers being targeted.

Companies that operationalize strategy through embedded tools achieve 60% better strategic alignment scores and 35% faster time-to-market, according to Bain & Company research.

Exhibit 4: Overview of seven innovation governance practices that help CPG teams accelerate decisions while maintaining strategic and portfolio alignment.

Turn innovation governance transparency into advantage

Innovation governance transparency transforms how consumer goods companies balance speed with strategy. When teams see strategic trade-offs, understand decision rights, and access resources deliberately, they move faster and more confidently.

When governance operates as collaboration rather than control, it builds capability while managing risk. The companies that lead their categories don’t choose between speed and governance.

They recognize that transparent innovation governance enables both. By implementing these seven practices, they turn governance from necessary overhead into a competitive advantage: accelerating innovation while ensuring every initiative drives strategic success.