Decision Analysis and Strategic Management of Research and Development: A comparison between applications in electronics and ethical pharmaceuticals

The process of strategic management of research and development is contrasted through the application of decision analysis in the evaluation of R&D projects—one in an electronics company, and one in a pharmaceutical company.
Issues considered include the different character of applied R&D in each industry resulting from, for example, the shorter product lifecycles that apply to the electronics industry compared to the much longer lifecycles in the pharmaceutical industry. The difference of time horizon between the two industries suggests that different decision criteria might be adopted in project evaluation. Decision-makers in both industries express a need for flexible decision and performance criteria in relation to strategy dialogue about alternative project-options.
Implementation problems encountered include: long term discounting, the nature of the preference function for long-term cash flow streams, issues in making assessments of uncertainty in relation to long-term future time horizons, and the management of research portfolios.     

Developing a process for the relative valuation of R&D programmes

This paper addresses the issue of R&D programme prioritisation within a manufacturing company in the aerospace industry, in the context of an overall framework for technology management. A review of approaches to R&D project selection leads into a recent case, which describes how the company developed a practical methodology. The benefits of the process and the relevance of the academic contribution are discussed, leading to a practical checklist for in-company development of a prioritisation process.     

Strategies for Linking Vertical Cooperative R&D to Commercialization in Korea

Since 1982, the government of Korea has actively promoted vertical cooperative R&D programs between government-sponsored research institutes (GRIs) and private firms. A number affirms participated in the programs because cooperative R&D could lower the risk and could contribute to rapid commercialization of many technologies. In this article, Chulwon Lee, Zong-Tae Bae, and Jinjoo Lee examine the effectiveness of participant firms' strategies for commercial utilization of cooperative R&D results, from the viewpoint of technology sourcing at the project level. The data have been obtained from 162 cases of vertical cooperative R&D projects from a diverse group of industries in Korea. Three different commercialization strategies are empirically derived through cluster analysis of the relative usage rates of cooperative R&D and of other supplementary technology acquisition methods. They find that the effectiveness of these strategy clusters varies significantly according to the types of innovation, that is, project-business relatedness. If the project belongs to an existing business area, in-house development augmented cooperative R&D strategy is the most effective. On the other hand, licensing-in supplemented cooperative R&D strategy is the most successful, if the project belongs to a new business area. Findings suggest that firms participating in cooperative R&D projects should try to utilize other supplementary technology acquisition methods in order to achieve commercial utilization of cooperative R&D results.     

How entrepreneurial orientation can leverage innovation project portfolio management

Innovation project portfolio management (IPPM) is a key task in R&D management because this decision‐making process determines which R&D projects should be undertaken and how R&D resources are allocated. Previous research has developed a good understanding of the role of IPPM in R&D strategy implementation and of successful IPPM practices. But the fundamental orientations that drive the strategy formation and implementation process have never been investigated in the context of IPPM, and it is unclear whether successful practices are equally valid for different strategic orientations. This study, therefore, investigates the moderating impact of a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation on the relationship between strategic portfolio management practices and portfolio success. An empirical analysis of 257 firms shows that both innovativeness and risk taking as entrepreneurial orientation’s dimensions positively moderate the relationship between managerial practices and performance. Specifically, we find that firms high in innovativeness profit more from stakeholder engagement compared to firms low in innovativeness. Firms high in risk‐taking profit more from a clearly formulated strategy. With increasing innovativeness and risk‐taking propensity, firms also profit more from business case monitoring and agility in portfolio steering. The results suggest that a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation can leverage the effect of IPPM practices. Vice versa, a lacking entrepreneurial orientation can render these practices ineffective. Strategic orientation and IPPM practices should, therefore, be aligned with each other to enable firms to better implement their strategy and generate competitive advantage.     

Creative Thinking Ability, Cognitive Type and R&D Performance

The purpose of this study was to investigate the contributions of creative thinking ability and cognitive type to research and development (R&D) performance. One hundred and six researchers in an R&D institute of a petroleum company in Taiwan were given the Circle Test of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . Their R&D performance was measured in terms of assigned technical reports, completed service projects, published papers, and a supervisor's performance rating. Results showed that there was a low but positive correlation between creativity and the first-authored paper and the technical report. The cognitive type was on the other hand associated with the performance rating and the first-authored service project assignment. Implications for R&D management are discussed.     

Economic compensation compositions preferred by R&D personnel of different R&D types and intrinsic values

In order to enhance R&D performance, R&D managers make sure that R&D personnel are satisfied with their compensation, both economic and non–economic . An R&D compensation scheme would consist of many complex factors. In this research, we focus on 'compensation composition' as such a factor for the economic compensation system, i.e., the mix of compensation components such as team (or organization) performance based, individual (R&D personnel) performance based, and fixed (seniority based) portion of economic compensation. As part of non–economic compensation, intrinsic values such as social status and self–actualization perceived by the R&D personnel are influencing their level of satisfaction with the entire compensation system. Another critical factor we consider here is the difference in R&D types: there are three R&D types, i.e., basic, applied , and commercial R&D . We put forth two sets of propositions. First, there is statistically significant correlation among R&D personnel's job satisfaction, performance measurement satisfaction, and compensation satisfaction. Second, depending on the types of their R&D activities, R&D personnel prefer a certain composition of economic compensation. In addition, the relationships are mediated by whether the R&D personnel feel intrinsic values of their jobs.     

Trends and determinants of managing virtual R&D teams

The past years have seen a decentralization of R&D to local markets and centres-of-excellence. Supported by modern information and communication technologies, 'virtual project teams' were formed to facilitate transnational innovation processes. With their boundaries expanding and shrinking flexibly with changing project necessities, virtual teams are believed to be an important element in future R&D organization. Based on 204 interviews with R&D directors and project managers in 37 technology-intensive multinational companies we identify four distinct forms of virtual team organizations used to execute R&D projects across multiple locations. Ordered by increasing degree of central project coordination, these four team concepts are based on: (1) decentralized self-organization, (2) a system integrator as a coordinator, (3) a core team as a system architect, and (4) a centralized venture team. Our contingency approach for organizing a transnational R&D project is based on four principal determinants: (1) the type of innovation (radical/incremental), (2) the systemic nature of the project (systemic/autonomous), (3) the mode of knowledge involved (tacit/explicit), and (4) the degree of resource bundling (complementary/redundant). According to our analysis, the success of virtual teams depends on the appropriate consideration of these determinants.     

The relationship between team communication,structure, and academic R&D performance: empirical evidence of the national telecommunication program in Taiwan

This research evaluates the frontier National Telecommunication Program (NTP) in Taiwan using the data envelopment analysis approach and analyzes the influence of team communication and structure on R&D performance by establishing a structural equation modeling relationship. The results show that team communication is highly correlated with R&D performance. The high‐scored projects have internal communication patterns with a higher meeting frequency but shorter dialogue duration, a uniform distribution of regular meetings, a scheme for the lower hierarchy to meet with the project leader, a well‐managed channel to access accumulative expertise, and an open forum for communication. They also have external communication patterns with a gatekeeper bridging inward and outward information, a lower frequency of time‐consuming external sourcing, and a higher frequency of external cooperation, referencing, learning, and benchmarking. Though team structure has no significant influence on R&D performance, the high‐scored research group focused more on the structural dimensions of research strategy, laboratory management, and motivation incentives. This research will provide effective principles of project management to team leaders and industrial policy guidelines to program sponsors.     

Antecedents of open innovation at the project level: empirical analysis of Korean firms

The concept of open innovation has recently gained wide academic attention, as it seems to have significant impact for company performance. Most empirical investigations about this emerging concept have been case studies of successful early adopters of open innovation, and their analyses have largely been at the company level. Although case studies at that level provide meaningful implications, the new phenomena merit a more in‐depth examination: that is, we need to collect and analyze data on multiple companies to explore more systematic findings about open innovations across companies. Moreover, analyses may need to go down to the individual project rather than the whole company level because innovation activities are often conducted as part of research and development (R&D) projects. To meet these needs, this study examines companies' open innovation efforts at the level of the individual R&D project. Specifically, the present study focuses on project‐level openness to better understand the mechanisms of open innovation. It explores systematic relationships between various antecedent factors and the degree of openness. Project‐level openness could be affected by team and task characteristics, such as team size, learning distance, strategic importance, technology and market uncertainty, and relevance to the main business. Relevant data collected from 303 companies in Korea were used to identify the antecedents that affect inbound and outbound openness. The research findings are expected to help provide a concrete theoretical framework suited for more generalized application and further practical development of open innovation strategy.     

Action, reflection, and learning – coaching in order to enhance the performance of drug development project management teams

High-performing project teams are crucial for effective research and development (R&D). To become high performing, teams need to make use of their different skills and reflect upon their collective actions, thereby combining knowledge that could lead to value-adding activities for the company. This article describes the use of team coaching in supporting team reflection and learning in global R&D project teams. A collaborative research approach was used during the 8 months of coaching, with several inquiry methods being employed. The results indicate that coaching interventions have a positive effect on team performance, both from an efficiency perspective as well as from a creativity and climate perspective. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed, as is future research.     

Mentoring and organisational learning in research and development

This paper presents and discusses the contribution of 'mentoring' relationships to organisational learning and knowledge creation in the early stages of research and development (R&D) projects. Our study considers the characteristics of a scientific leader, the nature of the context he creates, and how dialogue contributes to scientific breakthrough. Our study is unusual in as much as research on knowledge creation has developed separately, yet in parallel, with that of mentoring. It is rare to combine these disciplines and yet our research shows there is much to learn from examining the two as a process.
We conducted our research at TECHNO, a high-tech-based European company producing advanced equipment dedicated to particles acceleration. Interviews were carried out in 2002–2003 with the founder of the company, the head of the R&D and engineering department, and team members involved in the low energy cyclotron project.
Our exploratory research enabled us to identify differences in actors' perceptions about the nature and characteristics of these relationships. Our study also suggests that not all sets of relationships can tolerate the degree of intensity provided by the 'mentor'. TECHNO has other 'mentors' who do not manage to generate the same creative context. Complementary mentoring styles based on premises and process reflection allow to support and enhance 'upper levels' learning by junior team members. We examine the nature of the leaders as mentors and catalysts within the learning process and briefly discuss implications for setting up and maintaining learning teams.     

A structural analysis of process development in process industry: A new classification system for strategic project selection and portfolio balancing

A research project on the development of process technology in process industry led to recognition of the importance of a better classification of different types of process development. A new classification system and matrix have consequently been developed, using the dimensions 'newness to the world' and 'newness to the company'. The distribution of annual company expenditures for process development in the matrix and the estimated usability of the matrix have been tested as part of a larger survey conducted among R&D managers in European process industry. In view of the favourable response from industry, it is argued that the matrix could facilitate company portfolio balancing of process development projects, and that it is also necessary to distinguish between different types of process development in academic research.     

Managing foreign R&D laboratories in China

This paper focuses on the management of R&D units established by foreign companies in China, investigating R&D missions, site build-up, integration with the parent organization, and overall performance measurement. The research is based on 37 qualitative expert interviews with local R&D directors and managers conducted between 2001 and 2004, using a semi-structured research questionnaire, and semi-quantitative research done on 199 foreign R&D labs in China. Cultural influences on R&D management, location advantages, expatriate involvement, and organizational evolution of local laboratories are discussed. We find that foreign R&D laboratories in China are not only important vehicles for local market development but also increasingly important sources of locally developed technology.     

Innovation in shipbuilding

Abstract . In certain products, such as aircraft or ships, innovation is not always easily recognizable. Major developments in components and systems can be overshadowed by the total product. Innovation is spread over many different items and timescales. The article describes an approach where innovatory activity in shipbuilding is planned and carried out by those involved in design production in several departments, rather than confined to a separate R&D department. The aims, organization, and procedures are described, including the process of project evaluation. The article concludes with a review of project success rate, and draws conclusions particularly about the key roles of marketing and individual performance.     

The effects of privatization on corporate R&D units: evidence from Italy and France

Over the last two decades privatization programmes in a variety of different countries have radically reduced the role of the state as a major owner of productive assets. While there is empirical evidence to show that the switch in ownership generally improves productive efficiency and profitability at company level, its effects on research and development (R&D) activities, which can impact strongly on long–term performance, have been largely ignored in the literature.
In this paper we address this issue by analyzing seven cases of privatization that have recently occurred in Italy and France in order to gauge how R&D activities may be affected by privatization in terms of objectives and organization. The organizations studied show that R&D units within privatized companies are subject to profound restructuring actions, generally designed to boost efficiency and to strengthen integration with the goals of the business units and of the final customers. A new role for R&D thus emerges: the aim is no longer to generate new knowledge in the broad national interest, but rather more directly to create value for the company and its clients, by emphasizing the assessment and integration of external knowledge.     

Benchmarking the Firm's Critical Success Factors in New Product Development

Managing new product development (NPD) is, to a great extent, a process of separating the winners from the losers. At the project level, tough go/no-go decisions must be made throughout each development effort to ensure that resources are being allocated appropriately. At the company level, benchmarking is helpful for identifying the critical success factors that set the most successful firms apart from their competitors. This company- or macro-level analysis also has the potential for uncovering success factors that are not readily apparent through examination of specific projects. To improve our understanding of the company-level drivers of NPD success, Robert Cooper and Elko Kleinschmidt describe the results of a multi-firm benchmarking study. They propose that a company's overall new product performance depends on the following elements: the NPD process and the specific activities within this process; the organization of the NPD program; the firm's NPD strategy; the firm's culture and climate for innovation; and senior management commitment to NPD. Given the multidimensional nature of NPD performance, the study involves 10 performance measures of a company's new product program: success rate, percent of sales, profitability relative to spending, technical success rating, sales impact, profit impact, success in meeting sales objectives, success in meeting profit objectives, profitability relative to competitors, and overall success. The 10 performance metrics are reduced to two underlying dimensions: program profitability and program impact. These performance factors become theX-and Y-ax.es of a performance map, a visual summary of the relative performance of the 135 companies responding to the survey. The performance map further breaks down the respondents into four groups: solid performers, high-impact technical winners, low-impact performers, and dogs. Again, the objective of this analysis is to determine what separates the solid performers from the companies in the other groups. The analysis identifies nine constructs that drive performance. In rank order of their impact on performance, the main performance drivers that separate the solid performers from the dogs are: a high-quality new product process; a clear, well-communicated new product strategy for the company; adequate resources for new products; senior management commitment to new products; an entrepreneurial climate for product innovation; senior management accountability; strategic focus and synergy (i.e., new products close to the firm's existing markets and leveraging existing technologies); high-quality development teams; and cross-functional teams.     

The effects of creative problem solving training on creativity, cognitive type and R&D performance

The effects of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) training on creativity, cognitive type, and R&D performance were investigated with 106 R&D workers of a large government–owned manufacturing company in Taiwan. Seventy–one of them volunteered to participate in the CPS training and were divided into three groups. Each group received 12 hours of CPS training and two follow–up training sessions over a one–year long period in a time–series design. The 'Circle Test of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking', and the 'Myers–Briggs Type Indicator' were administered before and after the CPS training. R&D performance averaged over the past three years before the CPS training and one year after the pretest were obtained from the company. Results showed that participant's scores on fluency and flexibility of ideas were higher after the CPS training. There was also an increase in the number of persons being classified as extrovert or feeling type of cognition. In terms of R&D performance, the participants' number of co–authored service projects increased significantly from pretest to posttest, whereas no such change was observed among those 35 R&D workers who did not participated in the CPS.     

Government support of clean technology research in West Germany: some evidence

The authors have set out to review the procedures used in the allocation of public money by the Federal German government for research into 'clean' technologies. Public sponsorship of this kind of research is necessary as industrial firms rarely see enough return for their R&D investment to warrant their carrying it out. The authors have surveyed the methods used by the government funding agency (BMFT) to identify projects and to allocate money to them. 82 projects were included in the survey in the fields of low-emission processes.
Projects were segmented in five ways: Status of the receiver; Type of technology; R&D stage (from basic through demonstration plant); Cooperative versus non-cooperative, Environmental medium. Their broad conclusions are that (a) most of the funds went to projects for the development of 'end-of-the-pipe-cum-recycling' technologies and integrated technologies, (b) where there was cooperation between a firm and a university the R&D concentrated on studying basic principles, and (c) success depends on the existence of a clear strategy for the research as a whole rather than on ad hoc monitoring against a narrowly conceived plan. The authors also summarise the problems met in ensuring that money allocated in this way is effectively used.     

PDMA Success Measurement Project: Recommended Measures for Product Development Success and Failure

Success is not just elusive; it is also multifaceted and difficult to measure. A firm can assess the success or failure of a development project in any (or all) of many terms, including customer satisfaction, financial return, and technical advantage. To complicate matters, success may be measured not only at the level of the individual project, but also at the program level. With so many variables to consider and so many stakeholders involved, managers face a difficult challenge just deciding which measures are useful for measuring product development success. Recognizing that no single measure suffices for gauging the success of every product development project, Abbie Griffin and Albert L. Page hypothesize that the most appropriate set of measures for assessing project-level success depends on the project strategy. For example, the objectives (and thus, the success criteria) for a new product that creates an entirely new market will differ from those of a project that extends an existing product line. Similarly, they hypothesize that the appropriate measures of a product development program's overall success depend on the firm's innovation strategy. For example, a firm that values being first to market will measure success in different terms from those used by a firm that focuses on maintaining a secure market niche. To test these hypotheses, product development professionals were presented with six project strategy scenarios and four business strategy scenarios. For each project strategy scenario, participants were asked to select the four most useful measures of project success. For each business strategy scenario, participants were asked to choose the set of four measures that would provide the most useful overall assessment of product development success. The responses strongly support the idea that the most appropriate measures of project-level and program-level success depend on the firm's project strategy and business strategy, respectively. For example, customer satisfaction and customer acceptance were among the most useful customer-based measures of success for several project strategies, but market share was cited as the most useful customer-based measure for projects involving new-to-the-company products or line extensions. At the program level, firms with a business strategy that places little emphasis on innovation need to focus on measuring the efficiency of their product development program, while innovative firms need to assess the program's contribution to company growth.