Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resources – Evaluation of Innovation Projects Between “Lean” and “Slack”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation performance accounting

  • 1485 Accesses

Abstract

The examination of the resources for R&D activities in general but also within the framework of the strategic R&D planning by means of the technology-portfolio is in particular a central point of the innovation management.

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 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Metze, G. (1998) Rückbesinnung auf Pfeiffers frühe(re) Werke als Verpflichtung für die künftige Theorieentwicklung – aufgezeigt am “First-Follower-Prinzip” und am “Lean Management”. In: Weiß, E., Dirsch, H.(Hrsg.), Innovative Unternehmensführung. Festgabe zum 65. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Werner Pfeiffer, Forschungs- und Beratungsgruppe für innovative Unternehmensführung, Nürnberg, S. 39–56, hier S. 52 ff.

  2. 2.

     Cyert, R. M., March, J. G. (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, New York, p. 279.

  3. 3.

     David E. Dimick, Victor V. Murray (1978) Correlates of Substantive Policy Decisions in Organizations: The Case of Human Resource Management. Academy of Management Journal, 21(4) (December, 1978), pp. 611–623, here p. 616.

  4. 4.

     Slack allows an organization “to adapt successfully to internal pressures for adjustment or to external pressures for change in policy, as well as to initiate changes in strategy with respect to external environment” Bourgeois, L. J. (1981) On the measurement of slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1) 29–39, p. 30.

  5. 5.

     Jensen, M. C. (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76, 323–329; Leibenstein, H. (1969) Organisational or frictional equiplibria, X-efficiency, and the rate of innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83: 600–623.

  6. 6.

     Nohria, N., Gulati, R. (1996) Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1245–1264. Geiger, S. W., Cashen, L. H. (2002). A Multidimensional Examination of Slack and its Impact on Innovation. Journal of Managerial Issues, XIV(I), 68–84. Ozcan, S. (2005) Examining Slack – Innovation Relationship: Longitudinal Evidence from the US Farm Equipment Industry (1996–2000). Paper to be presented at the DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference 2005 on Dynamics of Industry and Innovation: Organizations, Networks and Systems. Copenhagen, Denmark, June 27–29, p. 5.

  7. 7.

    Greve, H. R. (2003) A Behavioral Theory of R&D Expenditures and Innovations: Evidence from Shipbuilding. Working paper of the Norwegian School of Management BI, Department of Strategy: http://home.bi.no/a0210001/BehavInnovAMJ.pdf; Forthcoming in the Academy of Management Journal, February 2003.

  8. 8.

    Lake, D. (2001) Pc R&D Is A-Ok – Industry Trend or Event. In: Industry Standard, The,  May 21, 2001. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HWW/is_20_4/ai_75098482

  9. 9.

    This definition is close to that of Nohria and Gulati’s (1996), with the important distinction that slack involves resources that are not only currently within the firm, but also those that are potentially available to the firm (i.e., debt), thus capturing the multidimensional aspect of organizational slack. Geiger, S. W., L. H. Cashen. (2002), p. 55 or p. 54.

  10. 10.

    Greve, H. R. (2003), p. 9.

  11. 11.

    “…various ways in which resources and energy that may have been devoted to pursuing organizational goals have been channeled into other things” Levinthal, D. A., J. G. March, J. G. (1981) A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2(4) 307–333, p. 309.

  12. 12.

    Dimick, D. E., V. Murray, V. V. (1978) Correlates of Substantive Policy Decisions in Organizations: The Case of Human Resource Management. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4 (December, 1978), pp. 611–623, p. 616.

  13. 13.

    Ozcan (2005), p. 6.

  14. 14.

    Bourgeois, L. J., Singh, J. V. (1983). Organizational slack and political behaviour within top management groups. Academy of Management Proceedings. 43, 43–49.

  15. 15.

    The formulation about slack as informally activities by appropriating time for tasks or projects that are unknown to higher levels of management indicate that lower levels of management know about these activities or even are involved. Not in all, but in some cases bootlegging is hidden to upper and higher management. See Burgelman, R. A. (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizationaladaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2, 239–262. Greve, H. R. (2003), p. 8, and see Augsdorfer, P. (1996) Forbidden Fruit: an analysis of bootlegging, uncertainty, and learning in corporate R&D, DPhil dissertation, Science Policy Research Unit: University of Sussex.

  16. 16.

    Augsdorfer, P., (1996), p. 71.

  17. 17.

    To the perception of slack as a prerequisite to the allocation of slack see Greve, H. R. (2003), p. 8.

  18. 18.

    Augsdorfer, P. (1996), p. 71.

  19. 19.

    See e.g. Augsdorfer, P. (1996), p. 71.

  20. 20.

    The ogee is mostly attributed to Henderson. It was however already e.g. discussed by Jantsch etc, E. (1967) Technological Forecasting in Perspective. Paris OECD. p. 151; Robert U. Ayres (1969) Technological Forecasting and Long-Range Planning, McGraw Hill, New York.

  21. 21.

    Albach, H., Audretsch, D. B., Fleischer, M., Greb, R., Höfs, E., Röller, L.-H., Schulz, I. (1996), Innovation in the European Chemical Industry, Discussion Paper FS IV 96 – 26, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, 1996, p. 4.

  22. 22.

    Twiss B. C. (1995), Managing technological innovation, Pitman, Publishing, 4 Edt., UK; Shehabuddeen, N. TMH., Probert D. R., Excavating the Technology Landscape: Deploying Technology Intelligence to Detect Early Warning Signals. International Engineering Management Conference 2004; 0-7803-8519-5/04/2004 IEEE; pp. 332–336.

  23. 23.

    Singh, S., Singh Chhatwal, S., Yahyabhoy, t. M., Heng, Y. c.,(2002) Dynamics of Innovation in E-Banking. Paper presented at ECIS 2002, June 6–8, Gdańsk, Poland, pp. 1527–1537, p. 1529 ; Foster, R., “Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage”, Summit Books, New York, 1986.

  24. 24.

    Results of unpublished analyses by Prof. Dr. Gerhard Metze, Institut für Innovations- und Risiko-Management. http://www.baytech-netzwerk.de/institut-fuer-innovationsund-risiko-management-einleitung.html

  25. 25.

    Siehe auch die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung von Augsdorfer, P. (1996), a.a.O.

  26. 26.

     Lake, D. (2001), Pc R&D Is A-Ok – Industry Trend or Event. In: Industry Standard, The,  May 21, 2001.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HWW/is_20_4/ai_75098482, und siehe http://www.destatis.de/…/Internet/DE/Presse/pk/2005/Biotechnologie/Publikation__Biotechnologie,property=file.pdf

  27. 27.

    Greve, H. R. (2003), a.a.O.

  28. 28.

    Greve, H. R. (2003), p. 13.

  29. 29.

    “….require that the organizations be involved in similar forms of business…”, Greve, H. R. (2003), p. 18.

  30. 30.

    Greve, H. R. (2003), p. 39.

  31. 31.

     Stephan, M. (2005) Vertikale Spezialisierung und technologischer Kompetenzabbau?

    Eine empirische Analyse der Auswirkung der Reduzierung der Wertschöpfungstiefe auf das Technologieportfolio von Unternehmen. Beitrag im Rahmen der Fachtagung der Kommission Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement. 7. Fachtagung der Kommission für Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement (TIM) im Verband der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft e. V., Universität Erfurt, 27–29 November, Erfurt 2005, p. 15.

  32. 32.

    Stephan, M. (2005), p. 15.

  33. 33.

    Porter, M. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: The Free Press.

  34. 34.

    “CS involve a high degree of precision and customization in design and production”, “Consequently, users involve themselves intimately in the innovation process”, Miller et al. (1995), pp. 364–365.

  35. 35.

    “… supply large user firms rather than mass market consumers.”, “… persistent bilateral oligopoly.”, “…needs of large sophisticated business users…”, Miller et al. (1995), pp. 364–365.

  36. 36.

    “Users are heavily involved in complex products because they are dependent upon them for their business growth, profitability and survival.”, Miller, R., Hobday, M., Leroux-Demers, T., Olleros X. (1995): Innovation in Complex Systems Industries: the Case of Flight Simulation, in: Oxford University Press, Industrial and Corporate Change, Brighton 1995, pp. 363–400, p. 371.

  37. 37.

    “Consequently, the buyer’s involvement in R&D, design and production methods will often take place throughout the product’s development and not just at the early stages, as in the conventional model. Users may be responsible for important post production innovations involving maintenance, upgrading, performance modifications and information feedback for future production and re-innovation (Rothwell and Gardiner, 1989). Unlike mass market buyers, CS user organizations learn and internalize (verinnerlichen) much of the systems technology in order to be effective in their own business.”, Miller et al. (1995), p. 372.

  38. 38.

    “That the users have an important stake in the innovation process.”, Miller et al. (1995), p. 372.

  39. 39.

    “intensity of user involvement”, “uncertainty/change in user requirements”, “intensity of other supplier involvement and intensity of regulatory Involvement.”, Hobday (1998), p. 10,

  40. 40.

    Roelandt, T. J. A., Gerbrands, P. W. L., van Bergeijk, P. A. G. (2002): Markets and innovativeness: Does structure influence innovation performance? Research Memorandum 9902, Erasmus University Rotterdam, https://ep.eur.nl/bitstream/1765/844/1/rm9902.pdf, p. 18.

  41. 41.

    Roelandt, T. J. A. et al. (2002), p. 19.

  42. 42.

    Roelandt, T. J. A. et al. (2002), p. 19.

  43. 43.

    Pfeiffer, W., Metze, G., Schneider, W., Amler, R. (cit. as Pfeiffer, W. et al.) (1991), Technologie-Portfolio zum Management strategischer Zukunftsgeschäftsfelder. 1st edition Göttingen 1982, 6th reviewed edition Göttingen 1991, here p. 82.

  44. 44.

    Results of unpublished analyses by Prof. Dr. Gerhard Metze, Institut für Innovations- und Risiko-Management. http://www.baytech-netzwerk.de/institut-fuer-innovationsund-risiko-management-einleitung.html

  45. 45.

    Christensen, C. M., Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995) Explaining the attackers advantage: technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy 24, 233–257 and see Murmann, J. P., Frenken, K. (2002) Toward a Systematic Framework for Research on Dominant Designs, Technological Innovations, and Industrial Change. Papers on Economics and Evolution from Max Planck Institute of Economics, Evolutionary Economics Group; Working paper 12, 2002, p. 27.

  46. 46.

    Stephan, M. (2005), p. 29.

  47. 47.

    Roelandt, T. J. A. et al. (2002), p. 19. Enright, Michael J. (1995), Regional Clusters and Economic Development: A Research Agenda, Paper prepared for the Conference on Regional Clusters and Business Networks, November 18–20, Fredericton, Canada.

References

  • Albach, H., Audretsch, D. B., Fleischer, M., Greb, R., Höfs, E., Röller, L.-H. Schulz, I. (1996) Innovation in the European Chemical Industry, Discussion Paper FS IV 96–26, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Augsdorfer, P. (1996) Forbidden Fruit: an analysis of bootlegging, uncertainty, and learning in corporate R&D, DPhil dissertation, Science Policy Research Unit: University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J. (1981) On the measurement of slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), pp. 29–39, 30

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J., Singh, J. V. (1983) Organizational slack and political behavior within top management groups. Academy of Management Proceedings, 43, pp. 43–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2, pp. 239–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., Rosenbloom, R. S., (1995) Explaining the attackers advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy 24, pp. 233–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., March, J. G. (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimick, D. E., Murray, V. V. (1978) Correlates of substantive policy decisions in organizations: The case of human resource management. Academy of Management Journal, 21(4) (December), pp. 611–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enright, M. J. (1995) Regional Clusters and Economic Development: A Research Agenda, Paper prepared for the Conference on Regional Clusters and Business Networks, November 18–20, Fredericton, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, R. (1986) “Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage”, Summit Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, S. W., Cashen, L. H. (2002) A multidimensional examination of slack and its impact on innovation. Journal of Managerial Issues, XIV(I), pp. 68–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R. (2003) A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Working paper of the Norwegian School of Management BI, Department of Strategy :http://home.bi.no/a0210001/BehavInnovAMJ.pdf; Forthcoming in the Academy of Management Journal, February.

  • Jantsch, E. (1967) Technological forecasting in perspective. Paris OECD, p. 151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76, pp. 323–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D. (2001) Pc R&D Is A-Ok – Industry trend or event. In: Industry Standard, May 21, 2001. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HWW/is_20_4/ai_75098482

  • Leibenstein, H. (1969) Organisational or frictional equiplibria, X-efficiency, and the rate of innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83, pp. 600–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., March, J. G. (1981) A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 2(4), pp. 307–333, 309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metze, G. (1998) Rückbesinnung auf Pfeiffers frühe(re) Werke als Verpflichtung für die künftige Theorieentwicklung – aufgezeigt am “First-Follower-Prinzip” und am “Lean Management”. In: Weiß, E., Dirsch, H. (Hrsg.) Innovative Unternehmensführung. Festgabe zum 65. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Werner Pfeiffer, Forschungs- und Beratungsgruppe für innovative Unternehmensführung, Nürnberg, S. 39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R., Hobday, M., Leroux-Demers, T., Olleros, X. (1995) Innovation in complex systems industries: The case of flight simulation. In: Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, Brighton, pp. 363–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murmann, J. P., Frenken, K. (2002) Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Papers on Economics and Evolution from Max Planck Institute of Economics, Evolutionary Economics Group, Working paper 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nohria, N. Gulati, R. (1996) Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39, pp. 1245–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozcan, S. (2005) Examining slack – Innovation relationship: Longitudinal evidence from the US Farm Equipment Industry (1996–2000). Paper to be presented at the DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference 2005 on Dynamics of Industry and Innovation: Organizations, Networks and Systems. Copenhagen, Denmark, June 27–29, p. 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, W., Metze, G., Schneider, W., Amler, R. (zitiert als Pfeiffer, W. et al.) (1991) Technologie-Portfolio zum Management strategischer Zukunftsgeschäftsfelder. 1. Auflage Göttingen 1982, 6. durchgesehene Auflage Göttingen,

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert U. A. (1969) Technological Forecasting and Long-Range Planning. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roelandt, T. J. A., Gerbrands, P. W. L., van Bergeijk, P. A. G., (2002) Markets and innovativeness: Does structure influence innovation performance? Research Memorandum 9902, Erasmus University Rotterdam, https://ep.eur.nl/bitstream/1765/844/1/rm9902.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Shehabuddeen, N. TMH., Probert D. R., Excavating the technology landscape: Deploying technology intelligence to detect early warning signals. International Engineering Management Conference 2004; 0-7803-8519-5/04/2004 IEEE, pp. 332–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S., Singh Chhatwal, S., Yahyabhoy, t. M., Heng, Y., c. (2002) Dynamics of innovation in e-banking. Paper presented at ECIS 2002, June 6–8, Gdańsk, Poland, pp. 1527–1537, 1529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, M. (2005) Vertikale Spezialisierung und technologischer Kompetenzabbau? Eine empirische Analyse der Auswirkung der Reduzierung der Wertschöpfungstiefe auf das Technologieportfolio von Unternehmen. Beitrag im Rahmen der Fachtagung der Kommission Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement. 7. Fachtagung der Kommission für Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement (TIM) im Verband der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft e. V., Universität Erfurt, 27–29 November, Erfurt, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twiss B. C. (1995) Managing Technological Innovation, 4th Edition. Pitman Publishing, UK.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Applied Sciences, Munich, Germany

    Peter Bauernschmid

Authors
  1. Peter Bauernschmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Bauernschmid .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. FB 3 Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Stg. Betriebswirtschaft, FH für Technik und Wirtschaft, Treskowallee 8, Berlin, 10318, Berlin, Germany

    Wilhelm Schmeisser

  2. Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827, Germany

    Hermann Mohnkopf

  3. FB 3 Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Stg. Betriebswirtschaft, FH für Technik und Wirtschaft, Treskowallee 8, Berlin, 10318, Berlin, Germany

    Matthias Hartmann

  4. FH München, Lothstr. 64, München, 80335, Germany

    Gerhard Metze

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bauernschmid, P. (2010). Resources – Evaluation of Innovation Projects Between “Lean” and “Slack”. In: Schmeisser, W., Mohnkopf, H., Hartmann, M., Metze, G. (eds) Innovation performance accounting. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01353-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01353-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-01352-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-01353-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation