The execution gap killing corporate ventures in Southeast Asia

Across Singapore, Indonesia, and beyond, corporations spend millions each year exploring “Horizon 3” opportunities – future growth bets that sit beyond their core businesses. Yet many of these ventures do not reach scale even after a promising start.

In my work building corporate ventures, I noticed that they often run out of momentum or capital before they can attract external investment or generate steady revenue.

Image credit: Timmy Loen

What’s striking is that these failures are not always driven by weak market demand. I’ve seen ventures with early traction – even those already in advanced discussions with regulators – shut down because of shifts at the corporate level.

For instance, a merger takes place and consequently redirects budgets, or a new CEO resets priorities during their first 100 days. In these cases, the venture’s performance isn’t the issue. Instead, it becomes collateral damage of a broader strategic move.

This problem isn’t unique to Southeast Asia, but it’s particularly pronounced in the region. Its fast-growing digital economy rewards experimentation, yet many corporations still approach innovation through the lens of consulting: Define a strategy, write a report, and hope execution follows.

The truth is, it is people that build businesses, not strategy slides.

Patterns vs. truths

Consulting plays an important role in corporate transformation. When a company needs to cut costs, restructure business lines, or assess a major market entry, consulting is often the right tool.

But strategy work alone cannot de-risk a new business model.

I’ve seen companies spend months in workshops validating assumptions only to discover in the first week of prototyping that customer behavior looks nothing like what the deck predicted.

See also: How AI is forcing VCs to rethink their timelines

In one case, a corporate partner worked with a consultancy firm staffed by subject-matter experts to identify a new business model in the elder-care industry. The decks were long and well-referenced, so the conclusion was clear: All that remained was to launch.

My firm was brought in to test the model on the ground, but it was obvious that several of the core assumptions – from pricing, adoption, to day-to-day operations – did not hold up in practice.

This testing, conducted at a fraction of the cost of the original study, showed that the model was not viable in the real world.

Execution teaches faster than analysis

Founder-led ventures lead the way

Bridging the gap

The rise of builders in Southeast Asia