Back in the 1990s there was a very nice and lively debate, among management scholars and practitioners, about the future of Research and Development (R&D) activities. The Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) of the University of Sussex, in Brighton, was at the heart of this debate and a number of brilliant economists of innovation were inspiring and starting several new research fields which eventually became the backbone of a relevant part of innovation studies in economics and management. Within that group of scholars there was also someone who was particularly active in visiting companies and creating a sort of intellectual bridge between theoretical and numbers-based academic studies and what was concretely being discussed by industrial managers with regard to innovation. His name was Roy Rothwell and some of his contributions are still heavily cited. Unfortunately, there is a sad tendency to “reinvent the wheel”, which often attributes excessive emphasis to the most recent scientific contributions which, in many cases, are based on fundamental works of the recent past that are not always adequately cited. (… to be continued)

R&D ManagementVolume 40, Issue 1 p. 1-3 Emerging and new approaches to R&D management: selected papers from The R&D Management Conference 2008, Ottawa Tom Brzustowski, Tom Brzustowski Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5 Canada. brzustowski@telfer.uottawa.ca;linton@telfer.uottawa.caSearch for more papers by this authorJeff Butler, Jeff Butler Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9 PL UK. jeff.butler@mbs.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorFlavia Leung, Flavia Leung National Research Council Canada, 1200 Montreal Road, Building M-23A, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R6 Canada. flavia.leung@nrc-cnrc.gc.caSearch for more papers by this authorJonathan D. Linton, Jonathan D. Linton Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5 Canada. brzustowski@telfer.uottawa.ca;linton@telfer.uottawa.caSearch for more papers by this authorJack Smith, Jack Smith Defence R&D Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2 Canada. jack.smith@drdc-rddc.gc.caSearch for more papers by this author Tom Brzustowski, Tom Brzustowski Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5 Canada. brzustowski@telfer.uottawa.ca;linton@telfer.uottawa.caSearch for more papers by this authorJeff Butler, Jeff Butler Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9 PL UK. jeff.butler@mbs.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorFlavia Leung, Flavia Leung National Research Council Canada, 1200 Montreal Road, Building M-23A, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R6 Canada. flavia.leung@nrc-cnrc.gc.caSearch for more papers by this authorJonathan D. Linton, Jonathan D. Linton Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5 Canada. brzustowski@telfer.uottawa.ca;linton@telfer.uottawa.caSearch for more papers by this authorJack Smith, Jack Smith Defence R&D Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2 Canada. jack.smith@drdc-rddc.gc.caSearch for more papers by this author First published: 16 December 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00585.xCitations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume40, Issue1January 2010Pages 1-3 RelatedInformation

This conceptual paper in sustainable business research introduces a business sustainability maturity model as an innovative solution to support companies move towards sustainable development. Such model offers the possibility for each firm to individually assess its position regarding five sustainability maturity levels and, as a consequence, build a tailored as well as a common strategy along its network of relationships and influence to progress towards higher levels of sustainable development. The maturity model suggested is based on the belief that business sustainability is a continuous process of evolution in which a company will be continuously seeking to achieve its vision of sustainable development in uninterrupted cycles of improvement, where at each new cycle the firm starts the process at a higher level of business sustainability performance. The referred model is therefore dynamic to incorporate changes along the way and enable its own evolution following the firm’s and its network partners’ progress towards the sustainability vision. The research on which this paper is based combines expertise in science and technology policy, R&D and innovation management, team performance and organisational learning, strategy alignment and integrated business performance, knowledge management and technology foresighting.

Research assessment exercises covering universities in the United Kingdom were established to produce quality ratings as a basis for allocating much of the research funding from central government. They represent some of the largest research management exercises ever undertaken. Amongst other aspects of university performance, the publications of all ‘research active’ UK academics are evaluated. This paper describes the way in which quality was assessed and funds were allocated as a result of the 1992, 1996 and 2001 exercises. It looks at how the exercises might continue to evolve and the value of a further exercise. The strategies adopted by universities to maximise their ratings and their income are also considered. Universities have improved their research performance and their reporting methods in response to changes in the criteria and weightings used in the exercise. In parallel the HEFC (Higher Education Funding Council) has changed the ways in which funds have been distributed once the level of research performance has been determined. The exercises have received much criticism as well as an acceptance that they have changed the culture of academic research. This paper considers the parallel evolution of trends in the management of R&D in business with trends in the management of university research via these exercises. There are underlying assumptions that seem to influence the transfer of policy design principles and management lessons between the two sectors.

SummaryThe principles on which contemporary innovation policies can be designed depend (a) on our understanding of what innovation has been in the past and how we have studied it as a process and a system, and (b) what it might become in the future. Science, technology, industry, organisational designs and the economy at large are evolving; this is itself an innovation process. As innovation is becoming more subtle, intangible and pervasive, so we need to become increasingly sophisticated in order to make further progress. Europe is progressing rapidly towards a knowledge-driven economy and this has important implications for innovation. In order to stimulate more widespread debate around this theme, this paper introduces the concept of ‘third generation innovation policy’ and explains the development of this concept with reference to one particular policy area — taxation.

Research assessment exercises covering universities in the United Kingdom were established to produce quality ratings as a basis for allocating much of the research funding from central government. They represent some of the largest research management exercises ever undertaken. This paper describes the way in which quality was assessed and funds were allocated as a result of the 1992 and 1996 exercises and looks at how the exercises are continuing to evolve. University research management systems can be compared with company R&D management systems. This should interest research administrators and project teams in universities as well as managers in industry; each can learn from understanding more clearly the management styles, cultures and experiences of the other.

In some industries, the use of virtual reality (VR) technology is now firmly established and it is not difficult recognize its further potential across many sectors in a wide range of innovative applications. Since the technology is still emerging, and is evolving rapidly, any application of VR might be regarded as technologically innovative. This paper focuses on the organizational and networking benefits of the technology and the stimulation of entrepreneurial opportunities in design and development activities. In this paper, a business process model is presented by the authors in order to articulate and illustrate the benefits of using VR. The model can be used in several ways

The paper describes two models of technology and innovation management that are relevant to all managers, not just technology managers. The first model puts innovation management into a learning organisation framework and can be used to monitor progress and manage projects. It can also be used to evaluate the implementation and improvement of technology management within an organisation, and across virtual organisations and networks. The second model integrates technology management into a multi-disciplinary business context and treats it and the business holistically. This model is compatible with business process thinking and regards innovation as an ongoing technology and business management responsibility rather than a discrete event or project. The two models are complementary but can be used independently. This paper discusses their educational value and practical application

In 1992 a survey of over 40 UK companies was conducted to identify the progress being made in the implementation of quality management principles within R&D environments. Subsequently two workshops were organized to identify and explore areas of concern. The companies involved were selected because of their known interest in the subject. A variety of means were used to identify the 'sample', including information from previous communications and studies by the R&D Research Unit, membership of TQM in R&D study groups, or mention in journals such as Total Quality Management.A telephone survey was conducted and thirteen companies were visited. Semistructured interviews were conducted with R&D managers, quality managers and other employees. The companies visited were selected in order to illustrate a broad cross-section of experience in implementing quality management. The timing of their quality initiatives ranged from 1986 to embryonic stages in 1992.From the interviews and workshop discussions a model or framework was devised of the way in which TQM is implemented in R&D. This is presented in the paper with a recommendation that it be used to guide companies already in progress, or those companies still about to start.

Summary form only given. This paper helps to assess the scope for information technology to benefit R&D management, taking into account industry trends towards networking, the formation of virtual organisations and the implications of these trends for design processes. A challenge presented in the paper is to learn how to move from an IT strategy based on the current (traditional) perception of R&D management to a strategy based on a new (future) perception of R&D management. It is suggested that the future perception of R&D management needs to be formed around the requirements of innovation networks and not just around the requirements of a single enterprise. The aim of the paper is to stimulate thinking about the ways in which R&D management is changing and how the direction of change might need to be influenced. The paper also helps to consider how IT can be used effectively, either to support future practices or to influence their evolution