Search results

The desired outcome in the new product development (NPD) effort is the timely commercialization of a profitable product. Whether marketing can benefit from the NPD case study is a critical but underresearched issue. The purpose of this study is to investigate the usage and quality of NPD case studies in business and industrial marketing.

To investigate the prevalence and research quality of case studies on NPD in business and industrial marketing, 317 case studies published in mainstream journals over the past decade (2010–2020) are reviewed.

This study finds that the distribution of quantity and quality of case studies fluctuates across journals. The scores on the evaluation template for the different case study stages vary widely across journals. This indicates that different journals have different criteria and priorities for NPD case studies. By focusing on different issues, enterprises can quickly find appropriate journals and case results according to their own needs.

This paper can help spark a debate about the implementation and quality of NPD case studies, including future studies and practical applications. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no similar study has been found in existing studies.

This article considers how the evaluation of research teams can better account for the challenges of transdisciplinarity, including their larger team size and more diverse and permeable membership, as well as the tensions between institutional pressures on individuals to publish and team goals.

An evaluation team was retained from 2015 to 2020 to conduct a comprehensive external evaluation of a five-year EPSCoR-funded program undertaken by a transdisciplinary research team. The formative portion of the evaluation involved monitoring the program’s developmental progress, while the summative portion tracked observable program outputs and outcomes as evidence of progress toward short- and long-term goals. The evaluation team systematically reviewed internal assessments and gathered additional data for an external assessment via periodic participation in team meetings, participant interviews and an online formative team survey (starting in Year 2).

Survey participants had a better understanding of the project’s “Goals and Vision” compared to other aspects. “Work Roles,” and particularly the timeliness of decision-making, were perceived to be a “Big Problem,” specifically in regard to heavy travel by key managers/leadership. For “Communication Channels,” Year 2 tensions included differing views on the extent to which management should be collaborative versus “hierarchical.” These concerns about communication demonstrate that differences in language, culture or status impact the efficiency and working relationship of the team. “Authorship Credit/Intellectual Property” was raised most consistently each year as an area of concern.

The study involves the use of a unique survey approach.

The purpose of this research is to study how compliance evaluation becomes performed in practice. Compliance evaluation is a common practice among organizations that need to evaluate their posture against a set of criteria (e.g. a standard, legislative framework and “best practices”). The results of these evaluations have significant importance for organizations, especially in the context of information security and continuity. The author argues that how these evaluations become performed is not merely a “social” activity but shaped by the materiality of the evaluation criteria

The authors adopt a sociomaterial practice-based view to study the compliance evaluation through in situ participant observations from compliance evaluation workshops to evaluate organizational compliance against a information security and business continuity criteria. The empirical material was analyzed to construct vignettes that serve to illustrate the practice of compliance evaluation.

The research analysis shows how the information security and business continuity criteria themselves partake in the compliance evaluations by operating through (ventriloqually) the evaluators on three strata: the material, the textual and the structural. The author also provides a conceptualization of a hybrid agency.

This research contributes to lack of studies on the organizational-level compliance. Further, the research is an original contribution to information security and business continuity management by focusing on the practices of compliance evaluation. Further, the research has theoretical novelty by adopting the ventriloqual agency as a hybrid agency to study the sociomateriality of a phenomenon.

This article explores the applicability of participatory action research (PAR) on two levels: on the one hand, as a participatory evaluation method for community engagement and community development; on the other hand, as a tool to link ex ante and ex-post evaluation that situated at various stages of the policy cycle.

Through a practice-based case study of the community engagement process of Valletta Design Cluster, this paper aims to illustrate how PAR can offer collaborative and continuous evaluation by facilitating social action through a practical, situative, context-bounded, responsive and transformative framework.

The study explores how PAR can contribute to cultural sustainability by linking community development with participatory evaluation, and it offers new perspectives on the applicability of PAR as a tool to link ex ante and ex-post evaluation, situated at various stages of the policy cycle.

Although based on a single case, the paper demonstrates that the method has the potential to be applied in various contexts, as it helps to foster local ownership and to develop future cultural strategies, thus providing a base for cultural sustainability.

The novelty of this study is to link evaluation – a majorly top-down and ex ante approach – with participatory planning. PAR-E offers a continuous participatory framework for the whole European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) cycle, as well as serving as a tool for empowerment and community development.

While providing users with important innovation resources, an enterprise's open innovation community also encounters numerous challenges. The purpose of this study is to develop and implement a set of evaluation systems that can identify the ecological characteristics of open innovation communities. The ultimate goal is to provide guidance for the construction and establishment of these communities.

Firstly, from the perspective of information ecology, according to the connotation requirements of the four information elements of “people, information, technology and environment” in the information ecosystem, this paper determines the evaluation indicators of enterprise's open innovation community from the aspects of integrity and dynamics. Then, based on the improved analytic hierarchy process, the weight of each index is calculated, and a complete evaluation system of open innovation community is established. Finally, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is used to conduct empirical research on Haier Open Partnership (HOPE) platform, analyze its ecological situation and existing problems and put forward the corresponding construction recommendations.

The application of HOPE platform shows that the evaluation index system built in this study has good applicability, and the whole research process and research method have certain reference value for future studies. At the same time, the study found that the HOPE platform has good ecological characteristics, but there are also some problems. This study can directly promote the construction of the platform.

This paper, for the first time, combines the information ecology theory with the open innovation community. The results demonstrate that the open innovation community is an information ecosystem, which can be evaluated ecologically. Furthermore, to ensure the calculation's scientific accuracy, the index weight is determined by constructing a judgment matrix based on expert questionnaires.

This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis to evaluate the current situation of journals, examine the factors that influence their development, and establish an evaluation index system and model. The objective is to enhance the theory and methodologies used for journal evaluation and provide guidance for their positive development.

This study uses empirical data from economics journals to analyse their evaluation dimensions, methods, index system and evaluation framework. This study then assigns weights to journal data using single and combined evaluations in three dimensions: influence, communication and novelty. It calculates several evaluation metrics, including the explanation rate, information entropy value, difference coefficient and novelty degree. Finally, this study applies the concept of fuzzy mathematics to measure the final results.

The use of affiliation degree and fuzzy Borda number can synthesize ranking and score differences among evaluation methods. It combines internal objective information and improves model accuracy. The novelty of journal topics positively correlates with both the journal impact factor and social media mentions. In addition, journal communication power indicators compensate for the shortcomings of traditional citation analysis. Finally, the three-dimensional representative evaluation index serves as a reminder to academic journals to avoid the vortex of the Matthew effect.

This paper proposes a journal evaluation model comprising academic influence, communication power and novelty dimensions. It uses fuzzy Borda evaluation to address issues related to the weighing of single evaluation methods. This study also analyses the relationship of the three dimensions and offers insights for journal development in the new media era.

In this paper, the authors reflect critically on their experience as researchers on the Impacts 18 programme: a re-study concerned with the long-term effects of Liverpool European Capital of Culture (ECoC) 2008. Situating Impacts 18 at the confluence of three important debates within the cultural policy field, the paper considers the causation, nature and significance of the shortcomings of the research, with a view to advancing cultural evaluation practices and encouraging re-studies in a field where they are seldom used.

The authors draw on documentary analysis of unpublished research outputs, along with their own research notes and critical reflections. The paper focuses on two projects from the Impacts 18 programme, in particular, in order to illustrate the broader issues raised in terms of the epistemological framing, methodological design and execution of the Impacts 18 research.

The paper highlights and explores the various issues that affected Impacts 18 in terms of its epistemological framing and methodological design, as well as problems encountered in terms of data management and stakeholder relationships.

As a large-scale re-study of a cultural event, Impacts 18 represents an exceedingly rare occurrence, despite the acknowledged dearth of evidence on the longer-term impacts of such events. Similarly unusual, however, are critical and candid retrospectives from research authors themselves. The paper is thus doubly unusual, in these two respects, and should help to advance research practice in an under-researched area.

To assess whether interdisciplinary research evaluation scores vary between fields.

The authors investigate whether published refereed journal articles were scored differently by expert assessors (two per output, agreeing a score and norm referencing) from multiple subject-based Units of Assessment (UoAs) in the REF2021 UK national research assessment exercise. The primary raw data was 8,015 journal articles published 2014–2020 and evaluated by multiple UoAs, and the agreement rates were compared to the estimated agreement rates for articles multiply-evaluated within a single UoA.

The authors estimated a 53% agreement rate on a four-point quality scale between UoAs for the same article and a within-UoA agreement rate of 70%. This suggests that quality scores vary more between fields than within fields for interdisciplinary research. There were also some hierarchies between fields, in the sense of UoAs that tended to give higher scores for the same article than others.

The results apply to one country and type of research evaluation. The agreement rate percentage estimates are both based on untested assumptions about the extent of cross-checking scores for the same articles in the REF, so the inferences about the agreement rates are tenuous.

The results underline the importance of choosing relevant fields for any type of research evaluation.

This is the first evaluation of the extent to which a careful peer-review exercise generates different scores for the same articles between disciplines.

This article's purpose is to examine the case for the use of the theatre arts in the evaluation of UK City of Culture (UKCC) programmes, specifically headphone verbatim.

Through an analysis of secondary evidence, supported by some primary research, this article analyses past and present evaluation practices surrounding UKCC programmes and the case for headphone verbatim to be included as a method of gathering and distributing research data. The article also observes the challenges in how data may be disseminated through verbatim theatre performance practices, given the limited examples of its use in this context.

The author argues that the theatre arts can provide a different way of knowing and understanding the impacts of UKCC projects on the host city. Specifically, that headphone verbatim can bring an experiential perspective that is rarely if ever captured by existing UKCC evaluation methods and policymaking in general.

This article details an innovative method of evaluating social impacts associated with UKCC projects.