Service 01 — Sample Analysis

What Comes Out of an R&D Portfolio Diagnostic?
Real Outputs, Representative Data.

Every score, decision, and simulation you see below is produced in real engagements. The data comes from a representative white goods R&D portfolio based on scenarios we frequently encounter in Turkish manufacturing: projects that can't be killed, budgets locked into incentives, strategic misalignment.

This is not a fictional story. This is a sample of the analysis you receive when we apply it to your portfolio.

120+
Projects Managed
€35.5M+
Incentives Defended
11
Ministry Audits
Zero
Loss
21 Years
R&D Experience

Sample Portfolio Profile

The following profile represents a structure we commonly see in client portfolios.

SectorWhite Goods
Scale650 employees, 72 R&D engineers
R&D Budget€4.7M / year
Active Projects8 projects
5746 StatusR&D Center — Year 8
Typical ProblemNo project has been killed in 3 years

What's in This Portfolio?

This profile contains patterns we've encountered repeatedly across 126 projects: all projects are labeled "strategic"; no kill decision has been made in years; 5746 incentives have become part of the operational budget — even energy label compliance updates are defined as R&D projects; TÜBİTAK applications are opportunistic, disconnected from strategy; more than half the portfolio consists of incremental product improvements, with near-zero investment in the future. One or more of these problems exists in your portfolio too.

What's Required?

About 8–10 hours total from your team. Duration: 3–4 weeks. The remaining analysis is conducted entirely by Luminairo.

Project List & Budget Allocation

Active R&D projects, per-project annual budget and spending status.

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Personnel Allocation

R&D personnel assigned per project and full-time equivalent distribution.

Project Start & Completion Reports

Technical documents from existing project files — as-is.

Incentive & Funding Structure

5746 scope, any TÜBİTAK/EU projects, and current incentive distribution.

Interviews with Project Leaders

~45-minute structured interview per project.

Strategic Objectives

The direction the company expects from R&D — strategy document or management guidance if available.

Output — Portfolio Balance View

We look at the portfolio's overall distribution as much as individual projects. The problem is often not a single project, but the portfolio investing too much in today and too little in the future.

By Development Type

The portfolio is over-weighted toward short-term and incremental work. Platform and breakthrough projects that would create higher multiplier effects remain weak.

By Time Horizon

Most investment goes to protecting the present. The share allocated to medium and long-term technology building is low enough to require rethinking at the management level.

⛔ STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE

The problem isn't a few weak projects; it's the entire portfolio allocating too little to the future.

Why does this balance analysis matter? Many R&D Centers evaluate individual projects one by one but never measure portfolio structure. Result: every project looks "good," but the portfolio doesn't invest in the future.

Score Guide

Opportunity Score: Strategic and economic value of the project (1–10). 7+ strong, 4–6 medium, 1–3 weak.

Risk Score: Project risk profile (1–10). 1–3 low risk, 4–6 medium, 7+ high risk.

Risk-Adj Value: Opportunity × (10−Risk)/10. Negative value = project destroys value.

CEI: Capital Efficiency Index. 1.5+ healthy, <1.0 inefficient. Sector average: ~1.1.

Output — Project Decisions

Each project is scored individually and falls into one of 4 decision quadrants: Scale, Pivot, Review, or Terminate. Below we show 3 representative project types and the decisions they produced.

Project 1

Smart Home IoT Platform

Platform Medium (1-3yr) FUND & ACCELERATE

Profile: Connected home ecosystem platform built on Matter/Thread protocol. Refrigerator, washing machine, oven, and AC share the same infrastructure. High market demand, platform architecture creates value across all product lines.

7.8
Opportunity Score
3.5
Risk Score
5.1
Risk-Adj Value
1.82
CEI
€820K
Budget
12 FTE
Headcount
Risk Level
Low
Decision: FUND & ACCELERATE. Low risk, high opportunity. Platform architecture creates value across multiple product lines. Additional resource allocation recommended.

Why do projects like this typically not get enough resources? When budget is distributed equally across all projects, star projects share the same resources as underperformers. The analysis makes this inequality visible.

Project 2

Energy Label Compliance Update v4

Incremental Short (<1yr) TERMINATE KILL

Profile: 4th iteration energy label compliance update. Low R&D content — recalibration of existing compressor parameters. Borderline routine engineering. High 5746 audit risk. Near-zero competitive differentiation.

2.8
Opportunity Score
7.2
Risk Score
−0.8
Risk-Adj Value
0.31
CEI
€420K
Budget
6 FTE
Headcount
Risk Level
High
Decision: TERMINATE + KILL FLAG. High risk + low opportunity = TERMINATE quadrant. Negative Risk-Adj Value (−0.8): project destroys value for every € spent. €420K and 6 FTE freed. Immediate termination recommended due to 5746 audit risk.

Internal assessment vs. external calibration: Projects like this are typically scored 5.0+ by internal teams — "it's regulatory, we're already doing it." Calibrated score: 2.8. The 2.2-point gap shows the size of the political protection shield. Regulatory compliance is not R&D — but if defined as an R&D project under 5746, it becomes the biggest audit risk.

Project 3

Domestic-Supply Inverter Compressor

Breakthrough Long (3+yr) RESTRUCTURE PIVOT

Profile: Inverter compressor to be produced with a domestic rare earth element magnet supply chain. Strategically correct — breaks import dependency, creates cost advantage — but supply chain is immature, cost targets aggressive. Unsustainable in current scope.

6.0
Opportunity Score
6.4
Risk Score
2.2
Risk-Adj Value
0.68
CEI
€950K
Budget
14 FTE
Headcount
Risk Level
Medium-High
Decision: PIVOT. Strategy is right but scope is wrong. Reduce budget by 50% (€475K), shift scope from full production prototype to supply chain feasibility study + TÜBİTAK 1501 application. Preserve domestic sourcing option, defer mass production investment commitment.

PIVOT is the hardest type of decision. FUND and TERMINATE decisions are clear-cut. But "strategy right, scope wrong" projects are the most debated and the biggest resource wasters.

Remaining 5 projects + full decision table

In a real engagement, all projects are analyzed at this level of detail.

Discuss Your Own Portfolio →

Output — Decision Summary

Board-defensible decision headlines: scale, restructure, monitor, or stop.

The decision picture in this sample: several high-potential projects were accelerated, some were redefined, and low-return work was removed from the portfolio. The result is a less scattered structure with higher capital efficiency.

What Do You Receive?

Executive Presentation

Summary presentation prepared for quick management decision-making.

Decision List

Clear per-project decision summary: scale, restructure, monitor, or stop.

Portfolio View

Snapshot showing whether the portfolio invests in today or the future.

Resource Reallocation Note

Management note showing where freed resources should be redirected.

Compliance Risk Summary

Concise view summarizing critical compliance and audit risks.

Cost of Inaction Summary

Brief impact summary quantifying the cost of indecision to the company.

In This Sample8-project representative portfolio results:
2 ProjectsTerminated — €1.17M freed
€1.2MReallocated to high-value projects
+49%€-per-Value Increase
€3.0MCost of Inaction Avoidance

Does Your Portfolio Show These Symptoms?

How many of these apply to your portfolio?

No R&D project has been killed or descoped in the last 3 years.
Most projects in the portfolio are incremental product improvements — platform or breakthrough project ratio is below 20%.
Budget is distributed roughly equally across projects — star and weak projects receive the same resources.
5746 incentive has become part of the operational budget — the risk of losing it is not considered.
The portfolio view presented to the board has no per-project "continue/stop" decision.
If 3+ symptoms apply, your portfolio is most likely carrying value-destroying projects. → Request a free call
1–2 symptoms is still a structural risk signal. An outside perspective can make a difference. → Request a call
Your portfolio looks above average — but external calibration can still create value.

What Would Your Portfolio Reveal?

Every analysis above — scores, balance view, decision matrix, cost of inaction — is a real engagement output. We used representative data because we can't share client data yet. But the tools and process are the same.

Internal teams cannot objectively evaluate their own projects — research consistently shows 1.5–2.0 points of positive bias. In a free 20-minute call, let's discuss what your portfolio would reveal.

Request a Free Call