Why might an organization choose to Implement an Innovation even though it does not meet its minimum requirement for "return on Investment' (ROI)?

Question

Options

• AThe innovation is low cost
• BThe innovation is essential for the a organization to survive
• CThe innovation will deliver significant benefit for the organization
• DThe innovation is low risk

• A
  15% (5)
• B
  3% (1)
• C
  76% (26)
• D
  6% (2)

Explanation

Option C is correct because ROI is a purely financial metric, and organizations regularly pursue innovations that deliver non-financial value - such as competitive advantage, brand reputation, regulatory compliance, or customer loyalty - that justifies overriding a financial threshold. "Significant benefit" is deliberately broader than ROI, capturing strategic and operational value that financial ratios fail to measure.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A (low cost): A low-cost innovation still needs to justify its expenditure through returns; low cost alone doesn't exempt it from ROI requirements.
• B (essential for survival): This sounds persuasive but is too extreme and narrow - most ROI-exception decisions aren't life-or-death scenarios. Also, survival is itself a significant benefit, making B a specific subset of C rather than the root reason.
• D (low risk): Low risk reduces downside exposure but doesn't generate value or justify bypassing a return threshold on its own.

Memory tip: Think of ROI as measuring financial return only. Whenever a question asks why an organization might bypass a financial hurdle, look for the answer that captures non-financial strategic value - "significant benefit" is the exam signal phrase for that concept.

No community discussion yet for this question.