---
id: "concept-innovation-as-science"
type: "concept"
source_timestamps: ["¶53", "¶54", "¶55", "¶56"]
tags: ["innovation", "growth-strategy", "product-development"]
related: ["framework-innovation-segmentation", "claim-growth-is-oxygen", "quote-innovation-as-science", "prereq-cpg-product-architecture", "entity-org-pepsico"]
speakers: ["Indra Nooyi"]
definition: "Approaching corporate innovation as a mathematical growth requirement driven by gross revenue targets, segmented systematically into line extensions, new products, and new platforms."
source_url: "https://hbr.org/2025/10/innovating-at-the-core-and-for-the-future"
source_title: "Innovating at the Core—and for the Future"
sources: ["futures"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-futures"
originDay: 2
articleStem: "hbr-cl-91-innovating-core-and-future"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/10/innovating-at-the-core-and-for-the-future"
sourceTitle: "Innovating at the Core—and for the Future"
---
# Innovation as a Science

The practice of stripping away the *marketing hype* and *art* of innovation to approach it as a rigorous mathematical requirement for corporate growth — captured in the maxim [[quote-innovation-as-science]].

Nooyi illustrates this with [[entity-org-pepsico]]'s scale: for a **$50 billion** company to achieve **4% to 5%** top-line growth, it must add **$2.5 to $3 billion** in *net* revenue annually. But because older products naturally fall off in sales, the company actually needs **$4 to $5 billion** in *gross* revenue growth to net that target. To reliably hit numbers that large, innovation cannot be left to chance; it must be systematically segmented (see [[framework-innovation-segmentation]]) into:

- **line extensions** — short-term growth, low stickiness (e.g., new flavors of existing chips);
- **new products** — medium-term growth;
- **new platforms** — long-term investments that require new manufacturing capabilities and that eventually spawn their own new products and line extensions.

Understanding this segmentation requires the [[prereq-cpg-product-architecture]] distinction. The whole exercise is driven by Nooyi's conviction that [[claim-growth-is-oxygen]].

**Enrichment note.** The segmentation framing is strongly supported by CPG and innovation-management literature — it parallels McKinsey's Three Horizons of Growth and O'Reilly & Tushman's ambidextrous organization (exploitation via line extensions, exploration via new platforms). The exact revenue math is internally consistent but appears specific to this conversation and is not independently documented. Counter-view: design and behavioral researchers argue the creative *art* of innovation — serendipity, intuition, user empathy — cannot be fully reduced to math, and over-indexing on metrics risks incrementalism and underinvestment in radical innovation.