Measuring performance is helpful, but it's only part of the story. To learn from our past successes and failures, we need to understand how they came about. To continually improve, we must examine not only our innovation performance, but the processes with which we develop and exploit these innovations. Vittorio Chiesa, Paul Coughlan, and Chris Voss present a framework for auditing technical innovation management. Their auditing methodology goes beyond performance measurement by highlighting problems and needs, and providing information that can be used in developing action plans for improving performance. The foundation of their audit methodology is a process model of technical innovation. The model addresses the managerial processes and the organizational mechanisms through which innovation is performed. Underlying this method is the notion that success in innovation is related to good practice in the relevant management processes. The model identifies four core processes: concept generation, product development, process innovation, and technology acquisition. Supporting these core processes are three enabling processes: the deployment of human and financial resources, the effective use of appropriate systems and tools, and senior management leadership and direction. The outcome from these core and enabling processes is performance in terms of innovation and the resulting competitiveness in the marketplace. This model provides the basis for a detailed audit of current innovation practice and performance. The audit has two dimensions: the process audit assesses whether the processes necessary for innovation are in place and the degree to which best practice is used; and the performance audit focuses on the outcomes of each core and enabling process and of the overall process of technological innovation and its effect on competitiveness. The performance audit helps identify needs and problems, but it doesn't explain why gaps exist between current and required performance and it doesn't provide an action plan for closing these gaps. The process audit meets these needs. The audit methodology uses a two‐level approach: a rapid assessment based on innovation scorecards and an in‐depth audit. These scorecards provide an overview of the company's strengths and weaknesses with regard to technical innovation management, highlighting those areas that require in‐depth examination. The in‐depth audit identifies not only the processes, but the areas within each requiring attention.
Researchers and practitioners have recently paid great attention to research and development (R&D) performance measurement, although it is acknowledged to be a very challenging task because of R&D intrinsic uncertainty and complexity levels. In this paper, the problem of designing a performance measurement system (PMS) for R&D activities is addressed; specifically, we investigate if and how the design of the PMS is influenced by the type of activity it is applied to, namely Basic and Applied Research or new product development (NPD). We first develop a theoretical framework that comprises the main constitutive elements of a PMS for R&D. Then the framework is used for supporting a multiple case study analysis involving eight Italian technology‐intensive firms. The research results show that the criteria for designing the constitutive elements of the PMS are radically different in Basic and Applied Research and NPD. The reasons behind the observed dissimilarities in the design criteria are widely discussed in the paper, as well as their implications for R&D managers.
In the last years, management scholars have looked into the phenomenon of disruptive innovation, mostly focusing on the characteristics that identify a disruptive innovation and on the managerial solutions that incumbent firms should adopt to respond to the threat of a disruptive innovation. However, studying the characteristics of the context in which a disruptive innovation unfolds remains an under-researched topic. To fill this gap, this exploratory study examines how the disruptive innovation phenomenon is influenced by a set of variables that shape the context in which it takes place. This is done through a historical analysis of Uber, a widely discussed example of disruptive innovation. The exploratory analysis suggests that the extant regulatory framework plays a key role in influencing the impact that Uber has had on the taxi industry. By doing so, the paper points to the importance — for future researchers — to study disruptive innovation by carefully placing it in the regulatory context in which it takes place, given the importance that this aspect plays in influencing the anatomy of the disruption phenomenon.
It has been recognized that, in worldwide companies, the opportunities for innovation and the resources needed for it are often in different locations. The innovation processes then become transnational. Starting from a case study on Nissan cross-border product development, this work shows that, for transnational projects to be successful, a company has to undertake organizational actions in a long-term perspective. Company culture and human resource policy should help shape the organization appropriately, especially to orient it towards the sharing of resources, ideas and opportunities and to leverage local resources to the global benefit.< >
Implementing a performance measurement system (PMS) for research and development (R&D) is fundamental for supporting decision making and motivating researchers and engineers; however, this is a very challenging task, because effort levels are not measurable and success highly uncertain. Even if the subject has largely been debated in academic and practitioners literature so far, an acknowledged managerial approach is not available yet. This paper investigates the implementation and use of a PMS in new product development (NPD) projects, which represents a relatively unexplored issue in the R&D performance measurement debate. In particular, studying the case of a military aircraft development project, it provides a reference framework that integrates the major literature contributions’ findings and suggests a practical approach for the design and implementation of an effective PMS for NPD.
The Concept of Cluster and the Cleverbio Project The Biotech Industry: An Overview The Cluster of Cambridge The Cluster of Heidelberg The Cluster of Aarhus The Cluster of Marseilles The Cluster of Milan Other Cases of Biotech Clusters The Normative Model Conclusions: Forms of Cluster Creation in Biotech
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
