Search results

The paper provides an overview of research published in the innovation and operations management (IOM) literature on 15 methods for cost management in new product development, and it provides a comparison to an earlier review of the management accounting (MA) literature (Wouters & Morales, 2014).

This structured literature search covers papers published in 23 journals in IOM in the period 1990–2014.

The search yielded a sample of 208 unique papers with 275 results (one paper could refer to multiple cost management methods). The top 3 methods are modular design, component commonality, and product platforms, with 115 results (42%) together. In the MA literature, these three methods accounted for 29%, but target costing was the most researched cost management method by far (26%). Simulation is the most frequently used research method in the IOM literature, whereas this was averagely used in the MA literature; qualitative studies were the most frequently used research method in the MA literature, whereas this was averagely used in the IOM literature. We found a lot of papers presenting practical approaches or decision models as a further development of a particular cost management method, which is a clear difference from the MA literature.

This review focused on the same cost management methods, and future research could also consider other cost management methods which are likely to be more important in the IOM literature compared to the MA literature. Future research could also investigate innovative cost management practices in more detail through longitudinal case studies.

This review of research on methods for cost management published outside the MA literature provides an overview for MA researchers. It highlights key differences between both literatures in their research of the same cost management methods.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature of functional involvement in the cross‐functional make or buy decision process.

The paper is based on literature within the areas of cross‐functional make or buy decision processes as well as cross‐functional process research in general. The empirical part of the paper is a longitudinal and in‐depth case study, where the data are collected using interviews, documentation and observations. The data are analyzed using chronological patterns.

Findings indicate a changing pattern between close collaborative integration during decision‐making phases and more interaction‐focused integration during data‐gathering phases. The benefits of this integration pattern mainly lay in the effective use of resources combined with increased decision quality.

The results are based on a large manufacturing company that produces complex products. It can be suggested that the scene researched by the authors may be common for companies in the same environment. However, it is a limited sample and future research would benefit from investigating different environments to establish whether the results are context‐specific or not.

Five phases are found in the make or buy decision process where resources are used differently. Also, different functions have different roles during these phases in order not to drain resources.

The paper helps clarify how functions integrate and use resources during different phases of the make or buy decision process and the cross‐functional benefits and effects. A conceptual model is developed that explains the effect of functional involvement during different types of integration.

Innovation is an increasingly distributed process, involving networks of geographically dispersed players with a variety of possible, and dynamic, value chain configurations (Fraser, Minshall, & Probert, 2005). ‘Open innovation’ is one term that has emerged to describe ‘[…] the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively’ (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West, 2006). This is contrasted with the ‘closed’ model of innovation where firms typically generate their own ideas which they then develop, produce, market, distribute and support.

The purpose of this paper is to present an approach to start industry–university (I-U) collaboration through a stepped process aimed at building a portfolio of research and development (R&D) projects.

It devises from an 18-month action-research program held between a multinational automotive manufacturer and the a top-ranked Brazilian university.

The three-stage R&D shared portfolio methodology results from a combined application of quality function deployment-like correlation matrices and roadmapping. A first matrix tackles industry interests and correlates product performance dimensions and components to reveal broad research areas of interest. A second matrix correlates research areas and engineering competences, highlighting the types of the required know-how from the university standpoint. Thirdly, academic experts help to fill a roadmap-like layer with possible collaborative R&D deliverables over time.

Since the study lies on a single experience, extensions to other contexts should be made with care. However, the proposal offers robust rationale and a set of supporting tools to nurture new applications.

Theoretical and methodological reflections help managers tackling the long-standing problem of setting a shared R&D agenda.

Literature on I-U collaboration tends or to over-emphasize the role of technology transfer offices in promoting the partnerships or to seek implications for public policy. This research offers a valuable approach to build shared R&D project portfolio from a managerial viewpoint, filling an academic gap and offering guidance for managers in both sides.

Researchers have shown increased interest in open innovation – that is, the inflow and outflow of ideas, or the collaborative efforts of innovating – while previous research on acquisitions of innovative firms has foremost focused on the inflow only. Open innovation, however, introduces several new challenges related to acquisitions of such firms, not the least related to intellectual property rights and innovative skills that may be distributed among several parties. This paper explores what issues the literature on open innovation and acquisitions deals with related to acquisitions in open innovation environments.

A systematic literature review is conducted to achieve the purpose of the paper. Two main questions are addressed. First, how can acquisitions be understood in relation to open innovation? Second, what does the open innovation literature say on matters of distributed innovations in relation to acquisitions?

The paper concludes that there is a quite limited amount of research concerning itself with open innovation and acquisitions combined. Furthermore, acquisitions are for the most part seen as a means to reach innovation in transaction-based transfers between parties.

With acquisitions of innovative firms, in general, being seen as an important means to reach new ideas, while open innovation is on the rise, the juxtaposing of these phenomena would be of high practical and theoretical relevance to study further.

The make‐or‐buy question represents a fundamental dilemma faced by many companies. Companies have finite resources and cannot always afford to have all manufacturing technologies in‐house. This has resulted in an increasing awareness of the importance of make‐or‐buy decisions. This paper reports on the development of a make‐or‐buy framework to address the make‐or‐buy decision for either a specific individual part or family of parts. Firstly, a literature review of the principal make‐or‐buy approaches is discussed. Secondly, the development of a make‐or‐buy framework is described and the framework is explained and illustrated using case studies. Thirdly, the operationalisation of the framework is outlined. The paper concludes with a discussion of its contribution to both the academic understanding of the subject, and the improvement of industrial practice.

This study aims to comprehensively analyze the intersection of technology management and innovation management amidst the fourth industrial revolution, uncovering evolving trends and influential contributors.

Using the Bibliometrix R-package, this pioneering research conducts a bibliometric analysis to delve into innovation and technology management literature, quantifying scholarly output and identifying thematic breakthroughs.

The study reveals quantitative insights into the progression of innovation and technology management research, offering guidance on evolving trends, thematic breakthroughs and influential contributors.

The findings offer valuable insights for practitioners and managers, guiding them through emerging trends and recommending a dual focus on fundamental principles and emerging areas for strategic decision-making.

By fostering active engagement with evolving trends, this research contributes to the ongoing technology and innovation management discourse, potentially leading to societal benefits and advancements.

This study pioneers an in-depth bibliometric analysis at the intersection of innovation and technology management, offering unique insights and quantitative assessments of scholarly output and thematic trends, thus adding significant value to the existing literature.

To determine whether or not clockspeed is an important variable in outsourcing strategies throughout the development of radical innovations.

An internet‐based survey of manufacturing firms from all over the world.

An industry's clockspeed does not play a significant role in the success or failure of a particular outsourcing strategy for a radical innovation.

Conclusions from earlier research in this area are not necessarily industry‐specific.

Lessons learned via previous investigations about the computer industry need not be confined to that sector. Vertical integration may be a more robust outsourcing strategy when developing a radical innovation in industries of all clockspeeds.

Previous research efforts in this field focused on a single technology jump, but this approach may have overlooked a potentially important variable: industry clockspeed. Thus, this investigation explores whether clockspeed is an important factor.