Setting the three-stage R&D shared portfolio methodology: an innovative approach to industry–university collaboration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/REGE-07-2021-0108Palabras clave:
Industry-University Collaboration, Open Innovation, Research and DevelopmentResumen
Purpose – The purpose is to present an approach to start industry-university (I-U) collaboration through a phased process aimed at building a portfolio of Research and Development (R&D) projects.
Design/methodology/approach – It devises from an 18-month action-research program held between a multinational automotive manufacturer and a top-ranked Brazilian university.
Findings – The 3-Stage RSP methodology results from a combined application of QFD-like (Quality Function Deployment) correlation matrices and Roadmapping. The 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 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.
Research limitations/implications – As the study lies on a single experience, extensions to other contexts should be made with caution. However, the proposal offers a robust rationale and a set of supporting tools to nurture new applications.
Practical implications – Theoretical and methodological reflections help managers tackle the long-standing problem of setting a shared R&D agenda.
Originality/value – Literature on industry-university collaboration tends 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 building a shared R&D project portfolio from a managerial viewpoint, filling an academic gap and offering guidance for managers on both sides.
Descargas
Referencias
Bagno, R. B., Mudrik, J. A. T., Freitas, J. S., Cheng, L. C., & Melo, J. C. F. (2020). The Feature Selection Methodology (FSM): an approach for automotive companies to face a new paradigm in the Front End of Innovation. Product: Management and Development, 18(1), 26-38.
Bagno, R. B., Salerno, M. S., & Dias, A. V. C. (2017). Innovation as a new organizational function: evidence and characterization from large industrial companies in Brazil. Production, 27.
Bagno, R. B., Salerno, M. S., & Silva, D. O. (2017). Models with graphical representation for innovation management: a literature review. R&D Management, 47(4), 637-653.
Bagno, R. B., Salerno, M. S., Souza Junior, W. C., & O’Connor, G. C. (2020). Corporate engagements with startups: antecedents, models, and open questions for innovation management. Product: Management and Development, 18(1), 39-52.
Bargal, D. (2008). Action research: A paradigm for achieving social change. Small Group Research, 39(1), 17-27.
Barnes, T., Pashby, I., & Gibbons, A. (2002). Effective University–Industry Interaction: A Multi-case Evaluation of Collaborative R&D Projects. European Management Journal, 20(3), 272-285.
Belkhodja, O., & Landry, R. (2007). The Triple-Helix collaboration: Why do researchers collaborate with industry and the government? What are the factors that influence the perceived barriers? Scientometrics, 70(2), 301-332.
Berbegal-Mirabent, J., García, J. L. S., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E. (2015). University–industry partnerships for the provision of R&D services. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1407-1413.
Berman, E. M. (1990). The economic impact of industry-funded university R&D. Research Policy, 19(4), 349-355.
Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858-868.
Cassell, C., & Johnson, P. (2006). Action research: Explaining the diversity. Human relations, 59(6), 783-814.
Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action research: Its nature and validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022908820784
Cheng, L. C. (2002). A Guide for QFD Implementation in Product Development. Product: Management and Development, 1(3), 5-15.
Cheng, L. C. (2003). QFD in product development: methodological characteristics and a guide for intervention. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
Cheng, L. C., & Melo Filho, L. D. R. (2010). QFD - Desdobramento da Função Qualidade na Gestão de Desenvolvimento de Produtos. Blucher.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2019). Open innovation results: Going beyond the hype and getting down to business. Oxford University Press.
Cole, R. I. (1959). Industry-University Cooperation in the Field of Research. Ire Transactions on Engineering Management, 6(1), 12-13. https://doi.org/10.1109/iret-em.1959.5007489
Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2002). Action research for operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
Dagnino, R. (2009). A relação universidade-empresa no Brasil e o "argumento da hélice tripla". Revista Brasileira de Inovação, 2(2 jul/dez), 267-307.
Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321-342.
Dollinger, M. J., Golden, P. A., & Saxton, T. (1997). The effect of reputation on the decision to joint venture. Strategic Management Journal, 18(2), 127-140.
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2018). Theory into practice, practice to theory: Action research in method development. European Journal of Operational Research, 271(3), 1145-1155.
Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for management research. British Journal of Management, 7(1), 75-86.
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311-316.
Etzkowitz, H. (2010). The triple helix: university-industry-government innovation in action. Routledge.
Freitas, J. S., Bagno, R. B., Bertollo, C. M., Alves, T. M. A., Zani, C. L., Cheng, L. C., & Gonçalves, C. A. (2018). Adapting the roadmapping approach to science-intensive organizations: Lessons from a drug development program for neglected diseases. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management.
Freitas, J. S., Oliveira, M. G., Bagno, R. B., Melo Filho, L. D. R., & Cheng, L. C. (2020). A Bottom-Up Strategic Roadmapping Approach for Multilevel Integration and Communication. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
Huizingh, E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.10.002
Khurana, A., & Rosenthal, S. R. (1998). Towards holistic "front ends" in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(1), 57-74.
Lai, W.-H. (2011). Willingness-to-engage in technology transfer in industry–university collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1218-1223.
Lê, J. K., & Schmid, T. (2019). An Integrative Review of Qualitative Strategy Research: Presenting 12 “Designs-in-Use”. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants.
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of management Journal, 51(2), 221-240.
Melo, J. C. F., Salerno, M. S., Freitas, J. S., Bagno, R. B., & Brasil, V. C. (2020). From open innovation projects to open innovation project management capabilities: A process-based approach. International Journal of Project Management, 38(5), 278-290.
Oliveira, M. G., Amaral, D. C., Rozenfeld, H., & Fonzi, W. (2009). Applying technology roadmapping (TRM) for strategic product planning of start-up high-tech companies. Product: Management and Development, 7(2), 103-110.
Oliveira, M. G., Bagno, R. B., Mendes, G. H. S., Rozenfeld, H., & Nascimento, P. T. S. (2019). The Front-Hub of Innovation: updating the classic Fuzzy Front-End to the new approaches of innovation management. Product: Management and Development, 16(2), 81-91.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J., & Probert, D. (2010). Roadmapping for Strategy and Innovation: Aligning technology and markets in a dynamic world. University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J., & Probert, D. R. (2004). Technology roadmapping—a planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(1-2), 5-26.
Plewa, C., Korff, N., Johnson, C., Macpherson, G., Baaken, T., & Rampersad, G. C. (2013). The evolution of university-industry linkages-A framework. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30(1), 21-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.11.005
Rajalo, S., & Vadi, M. (2017). University-industry innovation collaboration: Reconceptualization. Technovation, 62, 42-54.
Rice, M. P., OConnor, G. C., & Pierantozzi, R. (2008). Implementing a learning plan to counter project uncertainty. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 54.
Roberts, E. B. (1988). What we've learned: Managing invention and innovation. Research-Technology Management, 31(1), 11-29.
Salerno, M. S., Gomes, L. A. d. V., Silva, D. O. d., Bagno, R. B., & Freitas, S. L. T. U. (2015). Innovation processes: Which process for which project? Technovation, 35(1), 59-70.
Scandura, A. (2016). University–industry collaboration and firms’ R&D effort. Research Policy, 45(9), 1907-1922. ttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.06.009
Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133.
van Aken, J. E., & Berends, H. (2018). Problem solving in organizations: A methodological handbook for business and management students (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
van Aken, J. E., Chandrasekaran, A., & Halman, J. (2016). Conducting and publishing design science research: Inaugural essay of the design science department of the Journal of Operations Management. Journal of Operations Management, 47, 1-8.
Verworn, B., Herstatt, C., & Nagahira, A. (2008). The fuzzy front end of Japanese new product development projects: impact on success and differences between incremental and radical projects. R&D Management, 38(1), 1-19.
Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5), 355-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.01.008
Zhang, Q., & Doll, W. J. (2001). The fuzzy front end and success of new product development: a causal model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(2), 95-112.
