Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling Innovation Paths of European Firms Using Fuzzy Balanced Scorecard

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reliability and Statistical Computing

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Reliability Engineering ((RELIABILITY))

  • 748 Accesses

Abstract

Because innovation processes are complex, uncertain and highly dimensional, modelling innovation paths is a very challenging task. As traditional regression models fail to address these issues, here we propose a novel approach for the modelling. The approach integrates Balanced Scorecard, a method used for strategic performance measurement, and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. In addition to key performance indicators, strategic goals are taken into consideration in the modelling. We provide empirical evidence for the effectiveness of the approach on a large dataset of European firms. We show that several innovation pathways can be identified for these firms, depending on their strategic goals. These results may be of relevance for the decision making of innovative firms and other actors of innovation system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Adams R, Bessant J, Phelps R (2006) Innovation management measurement: a review. Int J Manag Rev 8(1):21–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andrew JP, Manget J, Michael DC, Taylor A, Zablit H (2010) Innovation 2010: a return to prominence—and the emergence of a new world order. The Boston Consulting Group, pp 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  3. Babillo F, Delgado M, Gómez-Romero J, López E (2009) A semantic fuzzy expert systome for a fuzzy balanced scorecard. Expert Syst Appl 36:423–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bremser WG, Barsky NP (2004) Utilizing the balanced scorecard for R&D performance measurement. R&D Manag 34(3):229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Buytendijk F, Hatch T, Micheli P (2010) Scenario-based strategy maps. Bus Horiz 53:335–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chow ChV, Van der Stede WA (2006) The use and usefulness of nonfinancial performance measures. Manag Account Q 7(3):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dewangan V, Godse M (2014) Towards a holistic enterprise innovation performance measurement system. Technovation 34(9):536–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Donate MJ, de Pablo JDS (2015) The Role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation. J Bus Res 68(2):360–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Estampe D, Lamouri S, Paris JL, Brahim-Djelloul S (2015) A framework for analysing supply chain performance evaluation models. Int J Prod Econ 142(2):247–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gama N, Silva MM, Ataíde J (2007) Innovation scorecard: a balanced scorecard for measuring the value added by innovation. In: Cunha PF, Maropoulos PG (eds) Digital enterprise technology. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 417–424

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Ganter A, Hecker A (2014) Configurational paths to organizational innovation: qualitative comparative analyses of antecedents and contingencies. J Bus Res 67(6):1285–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Haase VH (2000) Computer models for strategic business process optimisation. In: Proceedings of the 26th euromicro konference, vol 2, pp 254–260

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hajek P, Henriques R (2017) Modelling innovation performance of european regions using multi-output neural networks. PLoS ONE 12(10):e0185755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hajek P, Henriques R, Castelli M, Vanneschi L (2019) Forecasting performance of regional innovation systems using semantic-based genetic programming with local search optimizer. Comput Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.02.001 (2019)

  15. Hajek P, Striteska M, Prokop V (2018) Integrating balanced scorecard and fuzzy TOPSIS for innovation performance evaluation. In: PACIS 2018 proceedings, pp 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hashi I, Stojčić N (2013) The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: evidence from the community innovation survey 4. Res Policy 42(2):353–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoque Z (2014) 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. Br Account Rev 46:33–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hult GTM, Snow CC, Kandemir D (2003) The role of entrepreneurship in building cultural competitiveness in different organizational types. J Manag 29(3):401–426

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ittner CD, Larcker DF (2011) Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective. J Account Econ 32:349–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ivanov CI, Avasilcăi S (2014) Measuring the performance of innovation processes: a balanced scorecard perspective. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 109:1190–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. James PA, Knut H, David CM, Harold LS, Andrew T (2008) A BCG senior management survey—measuring innovation 2008: squandered opportunities (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2014) The strategy map: guide to aligning intangible assets. Strat Leadership 32(5):10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kerssens-van Drongelen IC, Cook A (2007) Design principles for the development of measurement systems for research and development process. R&D Manag 27(4):345–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Khaksari S (2017) AHP and innovation strategy as project portfolio management. Polytechnic University of Turin (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lazzarotti V, Manzini R, Mari L (2011) A model for R&D performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ 134(1):212–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee AHI, Chen W-CH, Chang Ch-J (2008) A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Syst Appl 34:96–107 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lin QL, Liu L, Liu H-C, Wang DJ (2013) Integrating hierarchical balanced scorecard with fuzzy linguistic for evaluating operating room performance in hospitals. Expert Syst Appl 40:1917–1924

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mbassegue P, Nogning FL, Gardoni M (2016) A conceptual model to assess KM and innovation projects: a need for an unified framework. In: Bouras A, Eynard B, Foufou S, Thoben KD (eds) Product lifecycle management in the era of internet of things. PLM 2015. IFIP advances in information and communication technology. Springer, Cham, vol 467

    Google Scholar 

  29. Naranjo-Valencia JC, Jiménez-Jiménez D, Sanz-Valle R (2016) Studying the links between organizational culture, innovation, and performance in Spanish companies. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología 48(1):30–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. OECD (2005) OECD SME and entrepreneurship outlook 2005. OECD Publishing, 416 pp

    Google Scholar 

  31. Peréz CÁ, Montequín VR, Fernández FO, Balsera JV (2017) Integration of balanced scorecard (BSC), strategy map, and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) for a sustainability business framework: a case study of a spanish software factory in the financial sector. Sustainability 9:527

    Google Scholar 

  32. Porter ME (1997) Competitive strategy. Meas Bus Excel 1(2):12–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Poveda-Bautista R, Baptista DC, García-Melón M (2012) Setting competitiveness indicators using BSC and ANP. Int J Prod Res 50(17):4738–4752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Prokop V, Stejskal J (2019) Different influence of cooperation and public funding on innovation activities within German industries. J Bus Econ Manag 20(2):384–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Prokop V, Stejskal J, Hudec O (2019) Collaboration for innovation in small CEE countries. E a M: Ekonomie a Management 22(1):130–140

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rejeb HB, Morel-Guimaraes L, Boly V, Assielou NG (2008) Measuring innovation best practices: improvement of an innovation index integrating threshold and synergy effects. Technovation 28(12):838–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Saunila M, Ukko J (2012) A conceptual framework for the measurement of innovation capability and its effects. Balt J Manag 7(4):355–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schentler P, Lindner F, Gleich R (2010) Innovation performance measurement. In: Gerybadze A, Hommel U, Reiners HW, Thomaschewski D (eds) Innovation and international corporate growth. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 299–317

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Sohn MH, You T, Lee S-L, Lee H (2003) Corporate strategies, environmental forces, and performance measures: a weighting decision support system using the k-nearest neighbor technique. Expert Syst Appl 25:279–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sorayaei A, Abedi A, Khazaei R, Hossien Zadeh M, Agha Maleki SMSA (2014) An integrated approach to analyze strategy map using BSC–FUZZY AHP: a case study of dairy companies. Eur Online J Nat Soc Sci 2:1315–1322

    Google Scholar 

  41. Stejskal J, Hajek P (2019) Modelling collaboration and innovation in creative industries using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. J Technol Transf 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  42. Woodside AG (2014) Embrace perform model: complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. J Bus Res 67(12):2495–2503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhang Z (2016) Missing data imputation: focusing on single imputation. Ann Transl Med 4(1):1–8

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Zizlavsky O (2016) Innovation scorecard: conceptual framework of innovation management control system. J Glob Bus Technol 12(2):10–27

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant provided by the scientific research project of the Czech Sciences Foundation Grant No. 17-11795S.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Pardubice, Pardubice, Czech Republic

    Petr Hájek, Jan Stejskal, Michaela Kotková Stříteská & Viktor Prokop

Authors
  1. Petr Hájek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Stejskal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michaela Kotková Stříteská
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Viktor Prokop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Stejskal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA

    Hoang Pham

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hájek, P., Stejskal, J., Kotková Stříteská, M., Prokop, V. (2020). Modelling Innovation Paths of European Firms Using Fuzzy Balanced Scorecard. In: Pham, H. (eds) Reliability and Statistical Computing. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43412-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43412-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43411-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43412-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation