Search results

Organizations are increasingly reliant on their top management to provide research and development (R&D) units with a strategic focus reflecting changes in their competitive environments. However, little research has specifically explored implications arising from top management involvement in R&D budget setting. This study examines empirically the extent to which such involvement is associated with first, an emphasis on financial factors in setting R&D budgets, and second, with the importance of budget targets for R&D managers. Third, the study evaluates the impact of that involvement on R&D performance evaluation. The results of the research provide evidence of the relation R&D budget setting has to these three factors.

Briefly reviews previous literature by the author before presenting an original 12 step system integration protocol designed to ensure the success of companies or countries in their efforts to develop and market new products. Looks at the issues from different strategic levels such as corporate, international, military and economic. Presents 31 case studies, including the success of Japan in microchips to the failure of Xerox to sell its invention of the Alto personal computer 3 years before Apple: from the success in DNA and Superconductor research to the success of Sunbeam in inventing and marketing food processors: and from the daring invention and production of atomic energy for survival to the successes of sewing machine inventor Howe in co‐operating on patents to compete in markets. Includes 306 questions and answers in order to qualify concepts introduced.

The electric utility industry, unlike most other technology‐intensive industries, does not spend much money or effort on research and development. Many utilities do not possess an in‐house R&D facility, nor is there an R&D line item in their budgets. Over the last several decades the rate of change in the electric utility industry has been very slow and in‐house R&D efforts have not been required. As the rate of change in the industry is beginning to change, the need to pursue R&D is increasing. The electric utility industry is responding to this increasing requirement by increasing R&D budgets, and in some cases re‐initiating the R&D process within individual utilities. The purpose of this paper is to focus on R&D portfolio management efforts of various actors from different industrial sectors, to find out the best practices by using benchmarking method.

The paper used case study approach and on‐site interviews as research methods.

The authors found that R&D management is in its infancy in the electric utility sector, while the methods established in the manufacturing sector are applicable there.

This study is exploring R&D management in the electric utility sector and contributes to the service innovation research stream.

Pre-commercial procurement (PCP), introduced by the European Commission in 2007, is the most important purchasing procedure available to the European Union public sector to solicit innovative solutions from the business sector. As such solutions are not yet in the market, they first require research and development (R&D) activities. PCP is concerned with procuring R&D services only, and typically consists of three phases. This paper aims to discuss how the budget available to the contracting authority (CA) may be optimally allocated along such three phases.

The paper is mostly theoretical and the CA is assumed to maximise the overall probability of success in the PCP, that is the probability of receiving at least one successful proposal at the end of the procedure.

The main finding of the paper suggests that, for a CA, the optimal budget allocation across the three phases of the PCP depends on how likely it is to receive successful proposals in various stages of the procedure, as well as on the rewards paid to the invited companies.

In this paper, the author proposes a methodology for the optimal budget allocation of a CA and discusses how the approach could be practically implemented, pointing out its potential difficulties.

The main social implication of the findings is represented by the best use of the available budget, hence taxpayers’ money.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, no existing paper has discussed the optimal budget allocation in a PCP as in this work.

This paper aims to shed light on the linkage between research and development (R&D) networks and public funding presented in a given period by using network-based evaluation tools as a means of exploring the relational dimension in public projects designed to foster technology R&D activities.

This research uses co-occurrence network analysis of relevant public projects to assess how technological associations might occur within the R&D activities of given publicly funded projects as well as conducts correlation analysis to understand the extent to which linkages of R&D activity in technology fields are related to public expenditure.

Core technology fields, regarded as eligible to receive continued public funding, are critical for enhancing competitiveness and sustainable growth at the nationally strategic technology level. Thus, the relationship between R&D and the level of government funding for these fields is generally perceived as strong. However, a few technology fields, which did not actively form specific network relationships with other technology fields, are considered to exceptionally drive the largest government support. This trend indicates that the government-funded R&D should be designed and managed not only to curb the inefficiencies existing in the current funding programs but also to achieve the appropriateness for further technology development.

Despite the comprehensive findings, this study has several limitations. First, it is difficult to control any confounding factors, such as the determinants and constraints of the government budget allocation and expenditure decisions over S&T areas, strategic frameworks for public investment and evolving policy landscapes in technology sectors, which lead to bias in the study results. Second, this study is based on a narrow, single-year data set of a specific field of projects supported by the Korean government’s R&D program. Therefore, the generalization of findings may be limited. The authors assumed that influences caused by confounding variables during the initial phase of the public funding schemes would not be significant, but they did not take into account possible factors that might arise coincident with the subsequent phase changes. As such, the issue of confounding variables needs to be carefully considered in research design to provide alternative explanations for the results that have been ruled out. The limitations of this study, therefore, could be overcome by comparing the outcome difference between subsidized and non-subsidized R&D projects or evaluating targeted funding schemes or tax incentives that support and promote various areas of R&D with sufficiently large, evidence-based data sets. Also, future research must identify and analyze the R&D activities concerning public support programs performed in other countries associated with strategic priorities to provide more profound insight into how they differ. Third, there are some drawbacks to using these principal investigators-provided classification codes, such as subjectivity, inaccuracy and non-representation. These limitations may be addressed by using content-based representations of the projects rather than using pre-defined codes. Finally, the role that government investment in R&D has played in developing new science and manufacturing technologies of materials and components through network relationships could be better examined using longitudinal analysis. Furthermore, the findings suggest the need for further research to integrate econometric models of performance outcomes such as input–output relations into the network analysis for analyzing the flow of resources and activities between R&D sectors in a national economy. Therefore, future research would be helpful in developing a methodological strategy that could analyze temporal trends in the identification of the effects of public funding on the performance of R&D activity and demand.

Public funding schemes and their intended R&D relationships still depend on a framework to generate the right circumstances for leading and promoting coordinated R&D activities while strengthening research capacity to enhance the competitiveness of technologies. Each technology field has a relatively important role in R&D development that should be effectively managed and supervised to accomplish its intended goals of R&D budgeting. Thus, when designing and managing R&D funding schemes and strategy-driven R&D relations, potential benefits and costs of using resources from each technology field should be defined and measured. In this regard, government-funded R&D activities should be designed to develop or accommodate a coordinated program evaluation, to be able to examine the extent to which public funding is achieving its objectives of fostering R&D networks, balancing the purpose of government funding against the needs of researchers and technology sectors. In this sense, the examination of public R&D relations provides a platform for discussion of relational network structures characterizing R&D activities, the strategic direction and priorities for budget allocation of the R&D projects. It also indicates the methodological basis for addressing the impact of public funding for R&D activities on the overall performance of technology fields.

The value of this work lies in a preliminary exploratory analysis that provides a high-level snapshot of the areas of metallurgy, polymers/chemistry/fibers and ceramics, funded by the Korean Government in 2016 to promote technological competitiveness by encouraging industries to maintain and expand their competencies.

Gives an in depth view of the strategies pursued by the world’s leading chief executive officers in an attempt to provide guidance to new chief executives of today. Considers the marketing strategies employed, together with the organizational structures used and looks at the universal concepts that can be applied to any product. Uses anecdotal evidence to formulate a number of theories which can be used to compare your company with the best in the world. Presents initial survival strategies and then looks at ways companies can broaden their boundaries through manipulation and choice. Covers a huge variety of case studies and examples together with a substantial question and answer section.

Third generation management of R&D seeks to create a strategic and operational partnership between researchers and other functional units that will meet both the challenging technological needs of today and tomorrow.

The purpose of this paper is to present a new perspective on the marketing-R & D interface by modelling firms that develop new products in a duopolistic market.

By using a game-theoretic modelling approach, this study examines strategic delegation, through which the marketing and R & D managers of each firm are given authority over pricing and new products’ quality levels.

Interestingly, the study finds that the case where two managers with conflicting incentives negotiate (the horizontal coordination case) might produce a better financial outcome than when the managers’ decisions are perfectly coordinated by a profit-maximizing CEO (the vertical control case). In addition, the study identifies several conditions that guarantee horizontal coordination’s generation of higher profit, such as high (or low) sensitivity to the quality (or price) of a new product. The paper further shows that two competing firms may select horizontal coordination as a Nash equilibrium.

These findings provide new insights into the role of marketing-R & D interaction under strategic delegation, which may allow rival firms to “spend smart” on R & D, avoid excessive (and unnecessary) quality competition, and thus enhance the profitability of new products. Such insights would be useful for any firms under budget constraints.

To the authors’ knowledge, this paper represents the first attempt to analyze how delegation interacts with the conflicting incentives of marketing and R & D managers, which in turn affects the quality investment decisions, competitive intensity, and, ultimately, the financial outcomes of new products developed competing firms.

The outcomes of public research institutions (PRIs), also known as research and development (R&D) institutions, in developing countries, including Indonesia, are still dubious. This study aims to measure the efficiency of R&D institutions using the case of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, with and without an assessment of the role of scientific publication.

A panel data envelopment analysis (DEA) model is used to estimate the research efficiency of Indonesian R&D institutions during the period 2016–2019 based on the relationship between intellectual property (IP), research budgets and number of active researchers. The Tobit model is subsequently applied to analyze the factors that affect efficiency.

The DEA analysis shows an average efficiency value of 0.361, implying that 42% of the decision-making units (DMUs) have above-average efficiency scores. When scientific publication is added as an output variable, the efficiency increases to an average of 0.545, resulting in 53% of the DMUs with above-average efficiency.

The main implication is that scientific publications can increase the output of R&D institutions in Indonesia. This study recommends strengthening the research group establishment led by research professors along with setting acceptable high output targets. Researcher competence must be improved together with support for research collaboration among the different fields of science. Scientific publications should be considered part of IP measurement along with the type of mandate of each PRI.

This study offers a method of evaluation of research efficiency that can be applied to institutions outside Indonesia, thus furthering the dialogue on science and technology policy management.

This paper contributes to the literature by using a new and comprehensive method to measure research output – that of IP measurement, including new scientific publication. The implications provide action points for the governments to support R&D institutions and for research practitioners to augment research output.

“Unless a company accepts R & D as an essential element in the business, it is better not to spend money on it, for the money will be wasted.”