Long range planning and product development rarely align—the question is why is this and what can you do about it? Across industries, executive teams craft their long-range plans (LRPs) with confident projections for revenue growth, market expansion, and innovation impact. But when it comes time to deliver, product development pipelines often tell a different story.

This misalignment, between the top-down assumptions embedded in strategic plans and the bottom-up reality of new product development (NPD), is one of the most persistent and under-addressed risks in corporate planning. The consequences are serious: growth targets are missed, credibility erodes, and shareholder confidence wanes. And yet, many organizations continue to treat this disconnect as inevitable, rather than solvable.

The Illusion of Alignment

On paper, LRPs typically assign a portion of future revenue to innovation—new products, new markets, new business models. This makes sense. In competitive, fast-moving sectors, sustaining growth depends on a constant stream of successful launches.

But few companies take the next step: validating whether their actual innovation pipeline supports those ambitions. The top-down LRP rarely connects meaningfully with the bottom-up details of project timelines, product margins, development risks, or resource constraints.

Leadership may assume, for instance, that new product contributions will ramp up in years three through five of the plan. Yet the NPD pipeline might only be populated with early-phase projects, with no clear line of sight to commercialization in that time frame. Or worse, it might be filled with low upside sustaining efforts that do little to drive long-term growth.

This isn’t just a data problem—it’s an accountability problem.

A Blind Spot in Strategic Execution

Unlike sales or operations, which are frequently forced to reconcile their contributions to the LRP through tangible metrics and quarterly reviews, product development is often allowed to operate in a parallel universe. Project business cases get approved on a rolling basis, disconnected from aggregate targets. Teams work diligently, but no one steps back to ask: Do the numbers add up?

In many organizations, this analysis is simply never done. When questioned about how the pipeline contributes to the LRP, the answers range from vague optimism (“We’ll figure it out”) to manual workarounds (“We added 5% to last year’s numbers to cover new product upside”).

Such informal planning approaches might have been acceptable in a slower, less competitive world. But in today’s environment, where innovation cycles are compressed, capital is scrutinized, and every function is expected to deliver ROI, they fall short.

Interestingly, other parts of the business, particularly operations, already have a model for how to approach this. Manufacturing teams routinely perform network strategy exercises to determine whether they have the physical capacity to meet future demand. They map projected sales to factory utilization, labor capacity, CapEx, and throughput. If there’s a gap, they create an actionable plan.

Yet in most organizations, this rigor stops at the walls of the plant. There is no equivalent exercise on the R&D side to ask: Do we have the innovation pipeline, product plans, and resources required to meet our revenue commitments? Working with our clients, we’ve seen how powerful it is when this same network strategy logic is applied to product development. The exercise shifts the conversation from hope to confidence, from general intent to measurable plans.

The Case for a Unified Growth Strategy

The path forward requires a more integrated, data-driven approach, a growth strategy that spans both the strategic and executional layers of the business.

At the core is a disciplined feedback loop: reconciling the LRP’s innovation-driven revenue expectations with the actual new product roadmap, resource plan, and market assumptions. This means:

• Bottom-up modeling of product-level forecasts (volumes, ASPs, margins, launch dates) that aggregate to a portfolio view of expected revenue. Our benchmarks show that without this discipline, overstatements of new product contributions can widen to 20–40% or more in the outer years of the LRP. Modeling helps identify these gaps early, enabling timely course corrections.
• Scenario analysis that tests different mixes of existing and in-development products to identify gaps and prioritize high-leverage opportunities.
• Risk adjustment grounded in performance benchmarks and realistic probabilities of technical and commercial success, not wishful thinking. Companies that formalize these assumptions often uncover significant overstatements in expected revenue from early-stage projects.
• Cross-functional transparency between R&D, finance, operations, and commercial teams to ensure the entire organization is planning from a shared reality.

Working with our clients, we’ve helped build models that mirror this approach, combining innovation pipeline data, financial assumptions, and market insights into a unified view of expected contribution to growth. The result? Greater visibility into how future revenue will be earned and higher confidence in investment decisions. For some organizations, this alignment has helped redirect 10–15% of R&D spend toward higher-value opportunities without increasing total investment.

In nearly every case, the analysis reveals significant gaps between what leadership believes the innovation engine will deliver and what’s realistically in flight. But once exposed, those gaps become manageable. They become actionable.

This isn’t about punishing innovation teams for uncertainty. It’s about giving them, and the organization, an honest view of what’s likely to be delivered and where targeted adjustments are needed.

Building the Capability (Not Just the Model)

Organizations that do this well don’t just build a single model—they build the capability. They embed portfolio management processes that continually evaluate whether innovation plans are aligned with strategic goals. They invest in tools and talent that can translate project business cases into forward-looking financial impact. And critically, they elevate the conversation from “project selection” to “portfolio impact.”

This approach can also shift the internal conversation away from politics and gut feel, and toward clarity and confidence. CFOs, for example, are increasingly demanding to know what they’re getting for the annual increases in R&D spend. A connected, data-rich view of how new product drives future cash flows goes a long way in strengthening that case. We’ve seen how quickly these conversations mature when companies adopt a planning discipline that brings product development onto the same strategic playing field as operations and sales.

The Strategic Imperative

Ultimately, reconciling innovation with the LRP isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s a fiduciary responsibility. Companies make commitments to their boards and investors based on the assumption that R&D investment will deliver a meaningful share of future growth. When that assumption is built on loosely connected plans and unvalidated forecasts, the entire strategy is at risk.

Bridging that gap can unlock substantial value. In our experience, we see organizations with tightly aligned portfolio and strategy processes outperform their peers by as much as 40% in terms of new product ROI and time-to-market.

The good news? The gap is measurable. The tools, models, and methods to close it exist. What’s often missing is the mandate.

Organizations that seize this opportunity will be better equipped to make confident trade-offs, accelerate high-potential initiatives, and pivot early when plans drift off course. They’ll be able to tell a coherent story, not just about where they want to go, but how they plan to get there.

And that story, told with numbers and backed by action, is what distinguishes companies that plan for growth from those that actually deliver it.

If you’re interested in exploring how to better align your product development plans with long-range strategic goals or want to assess the credibility of your innovation pipeline, we’d be happy to share what we’ve learned from working with companies in similar situations.

If you found this article helpful, I invite you read more on this topic here.

Arrange a Conversation