Search results

To highlight a few critical issues related to indicators that are used to compare organizational practices.

The approach is as follows: to compare the efficacy of qualitative and quantitative indicators; objectivity in identification of processes and practices; and make a distinction between essence and logistics of benchmarking.

For any benchmarking exercise the most important job is objectivity in identification of processes and practices. The distinction between the two is not always apparent. Qualitative evaluation of practices is as important as quantitative evaluation. The quantitative performance indicators for evaluation of best practices come only at the end of a series of critical qualitative analysis of the organizational processes and practices.

The subject of the paper has been the enhancement of the effectiveness of R&D organizations. Such organizations form an important part of the innovation system of a nation, generally known as national innovation system (NIS). NISs of more successful countries are being continuously evaluated and emulated by other countries for attaining respective technological aspirations. This leaves a wide scope for application of benchmarking methodology. The dynamics of networks like NIS being different from that of a business organization, the methodology for best practices has to be refined. The present paper has addressed only the R&D organization part of NIS. Much of the validity of the conclusions will depend upon studies on NIS in particular and organizations not driven by profit motive in general.

The exact definition of the organization in terms of its mandate, long‐term vision and source of competence is the critical task. This is an important lesson for extending benchmarking exercise beyond business enterprises. The study envisages that the methodology would have wide scope of application for organizational restructuring of R&D organizations. However, methodology has to be refined depending on the specificity of the problem of R&D organizations.

It is in presenting the comparative efficacy of qualitative and quantitative indicators for R&D organizations and also in highlighting the importance of benchmarking, the essence of organizational practices, to arrive at the logistics.

In the present context an organization competes in terms of its knowledge intensity. In this article we are focusing on human resource development, sustenance and enhancement as a process in non‐corporate research and technology organizations (RTOs), based on an international study on “Benchmarking the best practices for research and technology organizations”, coordinated by WAITRO. The basic function of these RTOs is to generate knowledge to effectively enhance their client’s competitive strength. A best RTO can be the one that provides a structure, which encourages people to take initiatives to generate new knowledge and effectively translate clients’ technological requirements into research results. For this, the RTO has to be a learning organization. To develop and sustain capabilities is essential for any RTO’s survival and growth. How best an organization performs depends upon its capability to build and enhance this knowledge base, i.e. the human capital. This in turn depends upon the way various activities are organized to generate human resource from the manpower they have.

Presents an illustrative example of a benchmarking exercise for non‐corporate R&D organizations. Drawing from a global study of 60 R&D organizations from around the world, the benchmarking practice for identification of processes, practices and best practices is examined. Focuses primarily on R&D‐industry linkage – a nagging problem, particularly relevant for non‐corporate R&D organizations. Processes like project selection, human resource development and knowledge delivery systems are functionally related to R&D‐industry linkage and therefore constitute the main body of the benchmarking exercise. It has been argued that the basic organizational principle behind successful R&D is partnership between R&D organizations and users of the research results. Practices under each of the selected processes, therefore, have to be examined in the light of this basic organizational principle. Argues that, to achieve this, actionable accuracy is more important than quantitative indicators for identification of best practices.