Toward an integrative organizational framework for outsourced R&D efficiency

  • Florian Pereme
  • Bertrand Rose
  • Virginie Goepp
  • Jean Pierre Radoux
Industrial Paper
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Integrating Research with Development (R&D) by industrial firms in the early twentieth century was the first step of industrial R&D. Industrial R&D, is nowadays considered as a high resource consumer, in time, money and human work, with a high risk of non-return on investment. Nevertheless R&D divisions are the only way for companies to innovate and keep competitive. So, measuring productivity and added value of R&D division has become a major issue. We are interested in how the R&D articulation allows to convert scientific issues in product prototypes and finally in product innovation. A specific point of interest lays in how an effective measurement framework could improve R&D productivity.

Keywords

Industrial R&D Metrics Innovation R&D 

References

  1. 1.
    Arnold, J.: Practice led research: creative activity, academic debate, and intellectual rigour. High. Educ. Stud. 2(2), 9 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v2n2p9Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldwin, C., von Hippel, E.: Modeling a paradigm shift: from producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organ. Sci. 22(6), 1399–1417 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barge-Gil, Andrés, López, Alberto: R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results. MPRA Paper. février 23. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29091/ (2011)
  4. 4.
    Bryant, A., Charmaz, K.: The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, Paperback edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen, C.: The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press, Brighton (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cropley, D.H., Kaufman, J.C.: Measuring functional creativity: non-expert raters and the creative solution diagnosis scale. J. Creat. Behav. 46(2), 119–37 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cropley, D.H., Kaufman, J.C., Cropley, A.J.: Measuring creativity for innovation management. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 6(3), 13–30 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242011000300002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Engward, H.: Understanding grounded theory. Nurs. Stand. 28(7), 37–41 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2013.10.28.7.37.e7806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., Chesbrough, H.: Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D Manag. 39(4), 311–16 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00570.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fontana, R.M., Fontana, I.M., da Rosa Garbuio, P.A., Reinehr, S., Malucelli, A.: Processes versus people: How should agile software development maturity be defined? J. Syst. Softw. 97, 140–55 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.07.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedlander, M.: Altran: comment externaliser l’innovation? Le journal de l’école de Paris du management 47, 15–21 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fritzsche, M., Keil, P.: Agile methods and CMMI: compatibility or conflict? e-Informatica 1(1), 9–26 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Transaction Publishers (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grimpe, C., Kaiser, U.: Balancing internal and external knowledge acquisition: the gains and pains from R&D outsourcing. J. Manag. Stud. 47(8), 1483–1509 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00946.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hendriks, M.H.A., Voeten, B., Kroep, L.: Human resource allocation in a multi-project R&D environment: resource capacity allocation and project portfolio planning in practice. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 17(3), 181–88 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00026-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Howells, J., Gagliardi, D., Malik, K.: The growth and management of R&D outsourcing: evidence from UK pharmaceuticals. R&D Manag. 38(2), 205–19 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00508.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hsuan, J., Mahnke, V.: Outsourcing R&D: a review, model, and research agenda. R&D Manag. 41(1), 1–7 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00627.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huff, A.S., Möslein, K.M., Reichwald, R.: Leading Open Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO 13485:2016: Medical devices – Quality management systems – Requirements for regulatory purposes. Consulté le juillet 7. https://www.iso.org/standard/59752.html (2017)
  21. 21.
    Ivanov, C.-I., Avasilcăi, S.: Measuring the performance of innovation processes: a balanced scorecard perspective. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 109, 1190–1193 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kerzner, H.: R&D project management. In: Project Management 2.0, pp. 199–228. Wiley. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119020042.ch9/summary (2015)
  23. 23.
    Muratovski, G.: Paradigm shift: report on the new role of design in business and society. She Ji J. Des. Econ. Innov. 1(2), 118–39 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2015.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    OECD Manuel de Frascati 2002. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/book/9789264299047-fr (2003)
  26. 26.
    Paul, S.M., Mytelka, D.S., Dunwiddie, C.T., Persinger, C.C., Munos, B.H., Lindborg, S.R., Schacht, A.L.: How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9(3), 203–214 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3078Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pereme, F., Rose, B., Goepp, J., Radoux, J.P., Belhaoua, A.: Toward an integrative CSDS based model of industrial R&D division efficiency. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(12), 1785–1790 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petty, N.J., Thomson, O.P., Stew, G.: Ready for a paradigm shift? Part 2: introducing qualitative research methodologies and methods. Man. Therapy 17(5), 378–84 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pillai, A., Sivathanu, A.J., Srinivasa Rao, K.: Performance measurement of R&D projects in a multi-project, concurrent engineering environment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20(2), 165–77 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00056-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Samsonowa, T., Buxmann, P., Gerteis, W.: Defining kpi sets for industrial research organizations—a performance measurement approach. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 13(02), 157–76 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919609002248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    SEI-CMU, CMMI Production. CMMI for Development v1. 3. Carnegie Melon University. www.sei.cmu.edu (2010)
  32. 32.
    Tsikis, T.: Innovative solutions for satellite conformity to space debris mitigation. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1044602
  33. 33.
    Wan, F., Williamson, P.J., Yin, E.: Antecedents and implications of disruptive innovation: evidence from China. Technovation 39—-40, 94–104 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.05.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang, E.C., Huang, W.: Relative efficiency of R&D activities: a cross-country study accounting for environmental factors in the DEA approach. Res. Policy 36(2), 260–73 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Watson, R.I., Kuhn, T.S.: The structure of scientific revolutions. J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 2(3), 274–76 (1966).  https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(196607)2:3<274::AID-JHBS2300020312>3.0.CO;2-7
  36. 36.
    Whitehurst, J.: The Open Organization: Igniting Passion and Performance. Consulté le août 3. https://hbr.org/product/the-open-organization-igniting-passion-and-performance/13980-HBK-ENG (2017)
  37. 37.
    Yin, D.R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2008)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yu, D., Hang, C.C.: A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12(4), 435–52 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang, A., Zhang, Y., Zhao, R.: A study of the R&D efficiency and productivity of Chinese firms. J. Comp. Econ. 31(3), 444–64 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-5967(03)00055-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Altran Technologies Boulevard Sébastien BrandIllkirch-GraffenstadenFrance
  2. 2.Université de StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  3. 3.INSA StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  4. 4.ICube UMR CNRS 7357StrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations