Step 1.4

Determine scope of project (role) and define expected project results (output) as conceptual discovery from scientific research, prototype invention from engineering development; or commercial device innovation from production.

Primary findings

Secondary findings

Primary findings

Barriers

University professors value research which they can publish to further their careers whereas businesses are incentivized to keep discoveries private in the spirit of competition.
Survey findings
(View full citation)

Impact studies often rely on outcomes generated during the grant reporting period although the actual benefits cannot fully manifest in that short a time.  
Case study findings
(View full citation)

Phases of product development are difficult to plan when goals are not well-defined.
Research conclusions from conceptual framework
(View full citation)

Research agendas about open innovation often stay within OI and fail to leverage knowledge in other disciplines like marketing or engineering.
Literature review findings
(View full citation)

Explorative research provides greater opportunities but requires more resources and presents higher risk to businesses.
Case study analysis
(View full citation)

Future research of a technology is linked to present commercial applications, which are dependent on knowledge transfer. 
Case-based research
(View full citation)

Failure of a research network (or project) to clearly articulate and broadly communicate its goals and objectives can impede its progress. It can also cloud stakeholder’s abilities to evaluate network (project) outcomes.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation
(View full citation)

Inadequate problem (need), solution (goal) and project scope (role) definition at the front end, leads to confusion and changing priorities downstream. This generates conflicts between the internal departments of R&D, marketing and production, which may arise at any point and persist throughout the project.
Three case studies supported by 18 interviews.
(View full citation)

R&D Project planning is influenced by the norms and values of key actors within the sponsor organization. Researchers view the sponsor as the Customer rather than viewing the target beneficiary as the Customer.
Case study of agricultural R&D system within The Netherlands.
(View full citation)

Carriers

Researchers should carefully define and communicate to stakeholders what they mean by “moving research into practice.” The starting point of the spectrum is research findings that are specific to a unique set of circumstances. The endpoint of the spectrum is research findings that can be generalized across an entire system. Correctly setting stakeholder expectations is crucial.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

Models

Multi-site R&D mandates can be characterized based on their degree of market orientation and technology orientation. A matrix exists of: Local adaptors (high market orientation, low tech orientation), Product excellence centers (high market orientation, high technology orientation), Extended workbench (low market orientation, low technology orientation), Technology excellence center (Low market orientation, high technology orientation).
Case study findings
(View full citation)

A Team-Based Knowledge Work (TBKW) theoretical framework can be used to identify the most appropriate type of team-based knowledge work based on team’s knowledge composition (homogeneous, heterogeneous) and the nature of the problem being solved (ill-structured, well-structured). A 2 x 2 matrix distinguishes the four types of TBKW: collaborative (ill-structured problem and heterogeneous knowledge composition), integrative (ill-structured problem and homogeneous knowledge composition), modular (well-structured problem and heterogeneous knowledge composition), and standardized (well-structured problem and homogeneous knowledge composition).
Case study and interviews.
(View full citation)

Methods

Must be aware that examining product effectiveness as compared to productivity outcomes or marketplace performance will correlate higher with NPD success and cross functional integration
Meta-analysis. β = .185, p < .01
(View full citation)

Project Scope — Clear focus on the major deliverables, along with joint management and project team involvement in the creation of a solution, is critical to the generation of a good project scope.
Conclusions drawn from case studies and experience.
(View full citation)

Six key components are highly correlated with new product development success. 1) The role of the new product development project must be defined in terms of their contribution to achieving organizational goals. 2) Strategic arenas (markets, product areas, industry sectors or technologies) should be clearly identified and defined. 3) Longer term goals for new products should be defined early on. 4) The organization should have a long-term view of its new product development efforts. 5) Earmarking buckets of resources (funds or person days) targeted at different project types helps to ensure strategic alignment of new product development with organizational goals. 6) Product/technology road maps should be in place to help management make sure that the capabilities are in place to achieve their objective when needed.
Survey of 105 U.S. companies
(View full citation)

Technology Acquisition — Companies have finite resources and cannot afford to pursue all technologies in-house. Hence, organizations face the dilemma of deciding whether to develop technologies internally or to acquire them from a third-party. Further, as technologies become more complex, acquisition is increasingly regarded as a principle path for delivering new solutions. Technology acquisition helps bridge the technology gap in areas of expertise where the organization lags behind.
Literature review, author's industry experience with case study.
(View full citation)

When measuring the success of NPD, use objective measures, such as sales or profits, instead of subjective measures
Meta-analysis. β = -.381, p < .01 (see Table 2 –H9)
(View full citation)

Tips

As action group discussions unfold, participants can move more naturally between knowledge creation, transfer, uptake, and application, addressing and integrating each component into everyday work, if and as appropriate, in no particular order.
Summary of a KT intervention based upon the participatory action KT (PAKT) model.
(View full citation)

Consider that service products benefit more strongly from CFI than goods.
Meta-analysis. Significant moderating effect on CFI-product success relationship when Services are produced (vs. for goods)
(View full citation)

Researchers can benefit from establishing ongoing partnerships with key knowledge users (stakeholder groups). One way to manage expectations and avoid surprises is to jointly establish objectives, goals and commitments regarding time and resource availability, at the beginning of the project. These could be documented informally or formally by way of a memorandum of agreement — whatever complements the stakeholder’s culture. Sharing the commitments broadly facilitates common awareness.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Secondary findings

Tips

Academic involvement in creating new ventures (e.g., spin off companies) may be driven by entrepreneurially-oriented objectives. Alternatively, involvement may be driven purely by academically-orient objectives, with no direct interest in the business aspects of the venture. It is important to understand what drives the academic and to resource the venture accordingly. Academic motivation may also define how intellectual property is appropriated (e.g., patent, spin off, licensing, open, etc.) and how knowledge/technology are transferred. Some of the factors that complement academic involvement in new ventures include a history of frequent interaction with external companies, prior joint experience, prior education in economic and management topics, and prior technical work experience.
Source: Colombo (1995, 2004, 2005); Ramaciotti (2006); Fini (2009); Grandi (2005). In: Tommaso, M.R. & Ramaciotti, L. (2010)

Researchers can benefit from the involvement of knowledge users (stakeholder groups) in their projects. One way to orientate stakeholders and get them up to speed on the project is to synthesize relevant existing research and share it with them.
Source: Davis (2003). In: Jansson, S. M., Benoit, C., Casey, L., Phillips, R., & Burns, D. (2010)