End of Phase 1 and preparation for Year 2 Alberto Di Minin

Transcription

1 End of Phase 1 and preparation for Year 2 Alberto Di Minin

2 The research team Alberto Di Minin, Scuola Superiore Sant Anna Elena Casprini Maria Karaulova Cristina Marullo Bart van Looy, KU Leuven Adrian Kovacs Dennis Verhoeven Dries Faems, University of Groningen Isabel Estrada Vaquero 2

3 The research project aims to study the organizational antecedents and the relevant approaches that large established organizations might adopt to implement exploration and exploitation simultaneously, with a specific emphasis on radical innovation strategies.

4 Novel elements of the proposed research -adopt a two levels perspective in examining solutions that have proved relevant for successful innovation in large established enterprises (internal/external solutions) -introduce novel and emerging solutions to the innovator dilemma whose effectiveness remains underexplored in existing research - apply a novel approach that allows us go beyond the current state of the art, and build up actionable knowledge

5 Novel elements of the proposed research - apply a novel approach that allows us go beyond the current state of the art Literature review HOW WHY Useful knowledge VALIDATION Qualitative approach Quantitative approach VALIDATION WHAT

6 Structure of the research project Phase 1 (Y1/Y2): Outlining the state of the art Phase 2(Y1/Y2): Quantitative assessment Phase 3(Y2/Y3): Case analysis and tools development What needs to be taken into account? Who is doing the better job? How are they achieving these results? Literature review Databases Indicators Case studies Background information: outlining constituents that might 'solve' the problem Importance of constituents: Large scale assessment, preliminary interviews and selection of relevant cases Case reports Tools development/ dissemination VALIDATION workshops with practitioners and other non-academic experts VALIDATION meetings with VC investors, managers, policy makers

7 Research Workplan Phase 1: Outlining the state of the art Phase 2: Quantitative assessment Phase 3: Case analysis and tools development SSSA KU Leuven Output=Research tools Collection of best practices emerging from literature Y1-Y2 KU Leuven SSSA Output= Diagnostic Tools EU Radical Innovation Scorecard Detecting Radical Innovation in Europe Y1-Y2 Groningen University KU Leuven SSSA Output=Research tools Supporting managerial practices for radical innovation in EU Y2-Y3

8 Research Workplan Phase 1: Outlining the state of the art Phase 2: Quantitative assessment Phase 3: Case analysis and tools development SSSA KU Leuven Output=Research tools Collection of best practices emerging from literature KU Leuven SSSA Output= Diagnostic Tools EU Radical Innovation Scorecard Detecting Radical Innovation in Europe Groningen University KU Leuven SSSA Output=Research tools Supporting managerial practices for radical innovation in EU Y1-Y2 TODAY Y1-Y2 Y2-Y3

9 Activities conducted in Year 1 1. RAD Comprehensive Reading List 2. TOPICS in RAD 3. Validation conference in Luxembourg 4. Comprehensive Literature review 5. Year 1 Report and Special Session to the R&D Managment Conference (Leuven, July 2017) Submission to Academy of Management (Atlanta, August 2017)

10 OUR First Deliverable

11 October Validation EIB Introduction by the research team Team Work (EIB members + research team members) Plenary Feedback to next phase of the project This format will be followed for: Phase 1: Literature review (coordinated by SSSA) Phase 2: Quantitative Assessment (coordinated by KU Leuven) Phase 3: Case Studies (coordinated by University of Groningen) EIB Meeting - October 2016, 11th 11

12 What did we learn conducting the lit review?

13 What did we learn?

14 What did we learn?

15 What did we learn?

16 Conclusions of Year 1: after going through almost 2000 papers.. 1. conceptual and theoretical frameworks are extremely contingent on the industry, sector and empirical context of the study 2. the definitions of radical innovations have been inconsistent and different adoption/interpretation of labels leads to different analysis 3. Still behind different labels we find a limited number of components: building blocks for a new typology? (Work in progress) 4. Relevant/Emerging themes: Business models, external solutions to the RAD issue, IP issues and project portfolio 5. Control tools: still need to be integrated with literature of ambidexterity.

17 Towards Year 2: quantitative analysis takes over.. 1. KU Leuven will take the leading role 2. RQ: How do certain R&D choices regarding radical innovation translate in economic value in years? 3. Tech Novelty dimension AND Market impact 4. Databases: IPTS Scoreboard, PATSTAT, AMADEUS 5. Unit of analyis: the firm 6. Meso level technology paths 7. Selection of relevant industries and technology based on: High EU presence, significant R&D spending, EIB activities reported, existence of discontinuities in the technology development, promising of interesting cases.

18 Thank you for your attention Alberto Di Minin