Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide an economic assessment of the productivity growth and technical efficiency of US Class I railroads for the period of 2002‐2007.

The US railroad industry has become increasingly concentrated with seven Class I railroads accounting for over 90 percent of the industry's revenue. Because the small sample size creates a dimensionality problem for data envelopment analysis (DEA) with contemporaneous frontiers, the authors use sequential DEA and calculate the Malmquist productivity indexes using sequential frontiers. Through a decomposition process, changes in productivity are attributed to technical efficiency change, technical change, and scale efficiency change.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) led the industry in terms of productivity growth (4.6 percent) and consistently stayed on the production frontier in every period studied; both BNSF and Union Pacific (UP) are top innovators in the industry, but UP trailed BNSF in both productivity growth and technological innovations by wide margins; and Grand Trunk Corporation was very good at “catching up” or leading its peers in efficiency improvements.

Railroads have invested heavily in technology over the years to enhance efficiency and productivity. However, two recent economic studies find that railroad productivity has slowed in recent years. The authors' benchmarking analysis sheds light on how individual railroads performed relative to their peers, and what they could learn from industry best practice.

The benchmarking study enables the authors to report each railroad's performance instead of reporting industry‐wide aggregate indexes or industry averages which tend to mask performance variations. The paper also examines the causal factors of recent productivity growth and provides useful information for the industry and its regulators.

Peter joined local government following a career in nursing, specialising in psychiatric social work. Following qualification in social work, he worked in practice, including attachments to primary health, in both the US and UK. His managerial career has taken him into both public and private sectors. He was Strategic Director of Social Services in Kent for eight years and during this time took the largest Social Services department in the country from ‘poor’ performance to ‘excellent’ before being appointed as Chief Executive of Kent County Council. Kent is one of the largest local authorities in the country and has been rated as one of the very best performing authorities. Peter also chairs the South East England Centre of Excellence which concentrates on sharing best practice and creating a smart environment with regard to efficiency and performance, and is working closely with the Government on Futures.Peter led nationally for ten years on asylum matters for the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS), chaired the National Taskforce and for five years until recently the National Register for Unaccompanied Children (NRUC). He also started a network of principal gateway authorities in the European Union to discuss common problems and develop a framework of best practice. Peter is now leading for the region on the national migration forum. He has also been invited by Lord Darzi to become a member of the Health Innovation Council. Peter has a national reputation for innovation and was nominated by The Guardian newspaper as one of the top 100 Innovators in the public sector in the UK and shortlisted for the 2006 Public Sector Power 100 Awards.Now in his fourth year as Chief Executive at Kent, Peter continues to pursue ‘innovation, effectiveness and an outcome‐based modern public service’.

This article reviews the IEE Innovation in Engineering awards.

This article is prepared by an independent writer.

Those recognised represent the cream of an international crop of engineers.

This article looks at the winners of the IEE Innovation in Engineering awards.

The purpose of this paper is to review the evolution of policies and practices of innovation in China for the past 40 years.

This is a review paper. It adopts a different multi-dimensional, qualitative methodology to examine China’s trajectory of innovation from the economic reform since 1978, highlighting “China” experiences in the developing innovation-driven economy, also pointing the challenges that China faces in this transition process and future prospects. The analysis of China’s innovation performance was based mostly on secondary data from sources and institutions that use statistical data to build country rankings, such as the global innovation index and global competitiveness index.

It is found that the institutional foundations of the national innovation system in China are already being laid, and so far, China has made extraordinary progress regarding innovation performance from country to region and from business to individual. However, some critical challenges in its innovation-driven development still need urgent attention and effective efforts to reinforce them.

This paper aims to fill the gap in the literature by providing an overview of the evolution of the policies and practices of innovation development in China since the 1978 economic reforms and explores the Chinese experiences in transforming into an innovation-driven economy.

The following paper details a “Q&A interview” conducted by Joanne Pransky, Associate Editor of Industrial Robot Journal, to impart the combined technological, business and personal experience of a prominent, robotic industry engineer-turned successful business leader, regarding the commercialization and challenges of bringing technological inventions to the market while overseeing a company. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The interviewee is Dr William “Red” Whittaker, Fredkin Research Professor of Robotics, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (CMU); CEO of Astrobotic Technology; and President of Workhorse Technologies. Dr Whittaker provides answers to questions regarding the pioneering experiences of some of his technological wonders in land, sea, air, underwater, underground and space.

As a child, Dr Whittaker built things and made them work and dreamed about space and robots. He has since then turned his dreams, and those of the world, into realities. Dr Whittaker’s formal education includes a BS degree in civil engineering from Princeton and MS and PhD degrees in civil engineering from CMU. In response to designing a robot to cleanup radioactive material at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, Dr Whittaker established the Field Robotics Center (FRC) in 1983. He is also the founder of the National Robotics Engineering Center, an operating unit within CMU’s Robotics Institute (RI), the world’s largest robotics research and development organization. Dr Whittaker has developed more than 60 robots, breaking new ground in autonomous vehicles, field robotics, space exploration, mining and agriculture. Dr Whittaker’s research addresses computer architectures for robots, modeling and planning for non-repetitive tasks, complex problems of objective sensing in random and dynamic environments and integration of complete robot systems. His current focus is Astrobotic Technology, a CMU spin-off firm that is developing space robotics technology to support planetary missions. Dr Whittaker is competing for the US$20m Google Lunar XPRIZE for privately landing a robot on the Moon.

Dr Whittaker coined the term “field robotics” to describe his research that centers on robots in unconstrained, uncontrived settings, typically outdoors and in the full range of operational and environmental conditions: robotics in the “natural” world. The Field Robotics Center has been one of the most successful initiatives within the entire robotics industry. As the Father of Field Robotics, Dr Whittaker has pioneered locomotion technologies, navigation and route-planning methods and advanced sensing systems. He has directed over US$100m worth of research programs and spearheaded several world-class robotic explorations and operations with significant outreach, education and technology commercializations. His ground vehicles have driven thousands of autonomous miles. Dr Whittaker won DARPA’s US$2m Urban Challenge. His Humvees finished second and third in the 2005 DARPA’s Grand race Challenge desert race. Other robot projects have included: Dante II, a walking robot that explored an active volcano; Nomad, which searched for meteorites in Antarctica; and Tugbot, which surveyed a 1,800-acre area of Nevada for buried hazards. Dr Whittaker is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He is a fellow of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence and served on the National Academy of Sciences Space Studies Board. Dr Whittaker received the Alan Newell Medal for Research Excellence. He received Carnegie Mellon’s Teare Award for Teaching Excellence. He received the Joseph Engelberger Award for Outstanding Achievement in Robotics, the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence’s inaugural Feigenbaum Prize for his contributions to machine intelligence, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Simon Ramo Medal, the American Society of Civil Engineers Columbia Medal, the Antarctic Service Medal and the American Spirit Honor Medal. Science Digest named Dr Whittaker one of the top 100 US innovators for his work in robotics. He has been recognized by Aviation Week & Space Technology and Design News magazines for outstanding achievement. Fortune named him a “Hero of US Manufacturing”. Dr Whittaker has advised 26 PhD students, has 16 patents and has authored over 200 publications. Dr Whittaker’s vision is to drive nanobiologics technology to fulfillment and create nanorobotic agents for enterprise on Earth and beyond (Figure 1).

To analyse logistical innovations from 1984 to 2003.

The approach concerned analysing the use of patents retrieved from major patent databases to create a picture of logistical innovations.

Confirmation that the use of patent statistics can depict an overall picture of technological innovation in the logistics sector. Logistics firms can be innovative by making good use of patent data.

Logistics researchers and practitioners take advantage of recent improvements in the quality and availability of patent statistics rather seriously; in other fields many do not see the relevance.

Customers will begin to rely on 3PL service providers beyond distribution services for more technological innovation as they successfully expand capabilities into these areas, as well as provide end‐to‐end integration and visibility.

This is a novel and useful approach for examining innovations.

A new management philosophy, based on the importance of creativity and individual initiative, is replacing the familiar model that sees the individual as a cog in the corporate machine.

This study analyses new product development (NPD) processes of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The purpose of this paper is to find successful innovation processes of SMEs on the one hand, and to reveal starting points to further improve these processes on the other.

Data were gathered from 49 semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with German firms. From the total of 49 cases, the authors identified three manufacturing SMEs with high-performing innovation processes, whose NPD processes the authors took as best practice examples. The authors then used the design structure matrix to map these three NPD processes, and optimised the sequence by applying an optimisation algorithm.

The authors determined which activities could be done sequentially, in parallel, or overlapping. The authors also scrutinised the position of dynamic milestones and demonstrated that the best-performing SMEs had flexible NPD processes, which allowed for an accelerated innovation process.

Due to the qualitative design of the investigation, the research presented was not specifically designed to draw statistical generalisations. For this reason, the results may not be applicable to all SMEs.

The authors recommend that SMEs uncouple activities as much as possible. In this regard, the findings revealed that that especially technical and economic activities may be conducted in parallel due to their low dependence.

The paper offers an SME-specific NPD process to optimise the innovation performance. Moreover, the findings deliver new knowledge on how the best-performing SMEs innovate.

Sustaining product innovation in an established company – increasingly the key to a company’s economic success, and perhaps its survival – is a challenging task The author describes a and the model often referred to as an “Idea lab” that has emerged as a necessary organizational feature to accomplish this goal.

The author explains how to manage Idea labs as deliberately established locations, where individuals and teams with new product ideas can work together for concentrated bursts of time, sharpening and focusing their product concept, embedding the voice of the customer in product design and charting alternative progression paths for their ideas to be developed into potentially profitable offerings by units of the business that will nurture them.

In today’s organizations, the managerial prime directive is fundamentally being redefined as one of addressing the challenge of sustained, profitable innovation that opens new markets or reinvigorates existing ones. Idea labs should be considered a vital process in fostering sustaining innovation.

A critical success factor is the interplay between idea originators, technology specialists and product managers with a keen awareness of customer needs, competitor initiatives and genuine product differentiation.

A comprehensive guide for top managers and innovators, the article details the four key facets of Idea labs: Positioning in the firm’s innovation value chain. Tasks. Processes. Structure.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate Department of Defense (DoD)-backed innovation programs as a means of enhancing the adoption of new technology throughout the armed forces.

The distribution of 1.29 million defense contract awards over seven years was analyzed across a data set of more than 8,000 DoD-backed innovation program award recipients. Surveys and interviews of key stakeholder groups were conducted to contextualize the quantitative results and garner additional insights.

Nearly half of DoD innovation program participants achieve no meaningful growth in direct defense business after program completion, and most small, innovative companies that win follow-on defense contracts solely support their initial sponsor branch. Causes for these program failures include the fact that programs do not market participants’ capabilities to the defense community and do not track participant companies after program completion.

Because the DoD does not market the capabilities of its innovation program participants internally, prospective DoD customers conduct redundant market research or fail to modernize. Program participants become increasingly unwilling to invest in the DoD market long term after the programs fail to deliver their expected benefits.

Limited scholarship evaluates the efficacy of DoD-backed innovation programs as a means of enhancing force readiness. This research not only uses a vast data set to demonstrate the failures of these programs but also presents concrete recommendations for improving them – including establishing an “Innovators Database” to track program participants and an incentive to encourage contracting entities and contractors to engage with them.