A Framework For Systematic Application And Measurement Of The İnnovation Management Processes

Öz

Managing innovation as a process is vital for entrepreneurs and businesses. Through our literature review we realized that the innovation measurement in many organizations does not appear to take place routinely within management practice and that, where it does, it tends to focus on output measures. Further, from the relatively small number of empirical studies of measurement in practice, measurement of innovation management appears to be under-taken infrequently as an ad hoc approach, and relies on outdated innovation frameworks due to the accelerated progress of technology and R&D management. The consequence of this is the absence of an updated rigorous and generic framework covering the range of all activities required to generate and manage ideas and turn these ideas into useful added values and new marketable products, services, or business model. In this paper we introducing generic but comprehensive framework that addresses the innovation management at both levels of the firms and projects. We first developed a synthesized framework of the innovation management and activities consisting of nine dimensions. Second, introduced the Innovation Balanced Score Card (IBSC) to measure four categories of innovation Key Performance Indicators (KPI). The paper makes two important contributions. First, it takes the difficult step of incorporating a vastly diverse innovation frameworks into a single framework. Second, it provides a innovation KPI against which managers can evaluate their own innovation activity, explore the extent to which their organization is nominally innovative or whether or not innovation is embedded throughout their organization, and identify areas for improvement. Through the application of this framework to a particular context, practitioners will be able to conduct an evaluation of their own innovation management activity, identify gaps, weaknesses and also improvement potential.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Innovation, Framework, Measurement, Innovation Balanced Scorecard

Kaynakça

1. Adams, R., et.al, “Innovation Management Measurement” A Review, International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 1, 21–47.
2. Burgelman, R.A., Christensen, C.M. and Wheelwright, S.C. (2004). “Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, 4th edition.” New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
3. Chiesa, V., Coughlan, P. and Voss, A. (1996). “Development of a technical innovation audit.” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 105–136.
4. Cooper, R.G. (2008): “Perspective: The Stage-Gate® Idea-to-Launch Process – Update, What’s New, and NextGen Systems”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25, Issue 3, p. 213-232.
5. Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995). “Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in new product development.” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12, 374–391.
6. Cordero, R. (1990). “The measurement of innovation performance in the firm:” an overview. Research Policy, 19, 185–192. .
7. Cormican, K. and O’Sullivan, D. (2004). “Auditing best practice for effective product innovation management.” Technovation, 24, 819–829.
8. Peter F. Drucker, “The Discipline of Innovation,” Best of HBR,” August 2002, Product 3480, Reprint Number R0208F.

9. Fagerberg, J. et al. (2006). Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press.
10. Frenkel, A., Maital, S. and Grupp, H. (2000). Measuring dynamic technical change: a technometric approach. International Journal of Technology Management, 20, 429–441.
11. Hall, D.L. and Nauda, A. (1990). An interactive approach for selecting IR&D projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37, 126–133.
12. Holbrook, A. and Wolfe, D. (2002), Knowledge, Clusters and Regional Innovation: Economic Development in Canada, Montréal, Published for the School of Policy Studies, Queen's University by McGill-Queen's University Press.
13. Jones, A. (2008). “The Innovation Acid Test, Axminster:” Triarchy Press.
14. Goffin, K. and Pfeiffer, R. (1999). “Innovation Management in UK and German Manufacturing Companies.” London: Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society.
15. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992). “The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance.” Harvard Business Review, January–February, 71–79.
16. Kustoff, R (2008), “What is Organizational Innovation, Ezine Articles. [Online], [Retrieved September 22, 2010]: http://ezinearticles.com/?What-is-Organizational-Innovation? &type=sv&id= 1573028
17. Lam, A. (2006), “Organizational Innovation,” Ch5, Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University.
18. Mietzner, D. et al.(2009), “Innovation Management Model (IMM),” MS Class Notes, University of Potsdam.
19. Nada, N. et al. (2010), “An Integrated Innovation Management Framework,” Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Izmir University, 2010.
20. O’Sullivan, D. and Dooley, L. (2009), “Applying Innovation,” Sage Publications, Inc.
21. Pugh, S. (1981) Concept selection: “a method that works. In: Hubka, V. (ed.), Review of design methodology.” Proceedings international conference on engineering design, March 1981, Rome. Zürich: Heurista, 1981, blz. 497 – 506.
22. Rohit Talwar: “Designing Your Future,” ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership, 2008.
23. Simon, H. (1969). “The Sciences of the Artificial.” Cambridge: MIT Press.
24. Skyrme, D. (2008), Skyrme Associated. [Online], [Retrieved September 22, 2010]: http://www.skyrme.com/resource/kmbasics.htm
25. Teece, D. J. (1998). “Design issues for innovative firms: bureaucracy, incentives and industrial structure”. The Dynamic Firm: The Role of Technology, Strategy, Organization and Regions. O. Solvell. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
26. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). “A penny for your quotes – patent citations and the value of innovations.” Rand Journal of Economics, 21, 172–187.
27. Verhaeghe, A. and Kfir, R. (2002). “Managing innovation in a knowledge intensive technology organization (KITO)”. R&D Management,” 32, 409–417.
28. Werner, B.M. and Souder, W.E. (1997). “Measuring R&D performance – state of the art.” Research-Technology Management, 40, 34–42.