That's the problem with "MBA thinking". You can't put a dollar value on R&D. You just can't. Anything you do will be a gross approximation, and because the number is so fuzzy, you'll be encouraged (even subconsciously) to fudge it around to make other things look better, which will undoubtedly lead you to undervalue R&D to the point where it negatively impacts your business, but you have no idea why, because you're solely focused on dollar figures and not what really matters. Y'know, like developing the ability to solve actual customer problems in an exceptional manner. This sort of thing is very difficult to quantify, and any approach that starts from a finance perspective is always going to be sub-optimal at best, but often just flat-out wrong.
I see so many people optimizing the things that are quantifiable at the expense of the things that aren't, when the loss of the qualitative things is what's killing their business. MBA types seem to never get this, and the form of your reply is basically a textbook example of that.
It’s the same as how some firms get more return out of spending the same amount on factories as others. They are better factories.
It's on the income statement five years from now, not the one you have when you're making the decision today. The R&D paid for five years ago will commonly have been under different market conditions.
> Then I can show that some firms see more of a return on that R&D spending than others, and that impacts how valuable they are.
The question is, how do you cause your company to be the one getting more of a return?
WACC: weighted average cost of capital
On the other hand, attempting to quantify R&D seems like a fool’s errand. Maybe quantifying between different paths of R&D to see which could pay off more is beneficial but cutting the R&D budget outright because it’s not profitable? Seems like you’re cutting away from your company’s future at that point.