The importance of an innovation managemente systen

MIETE MASTER IN INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP The importance of an innovation management system Maie Peetri Dissertation Supervisor in FEUP: Prof. Alexandra Xavier Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto 2013-09-30 The importance of an innovation management system ii I authorize total or partial reproduction or divulgation of this dissertation for the purpose of study or research as long as its source is cited. The importance of an innovation management system iii Abstract Innovation management is a subject every time more getting emphasised by companies and undergone by researchers. In this light have been launched and are continuously in development practice-based and scientific, nationally bounding and worldwide frameworks for systematically fostering innovation. In this dissertation seven influential management frameworks from both a scientific and consultative approach were analysed and various models´ scopes were benchmarked in comparison to each other. Interestingly, this revealed that all the models showed a high similarity. Based on the frameworks´ auditing tools a questionnaire was designed and used for obtaining empirical input for this dissertation. Qualitative data was favoured to give more insight to the implementation impact and therefore personal interviews were conducted. All together nine mainly Portuguese origin companies were interviewed; many of them with subsidiaries and/or international commitment. Five of the companies were NP4457:2007 certified which is a Portuguese national standard for Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) management. Other four non-certified companies were brought in to analyse their similarities and differences compared to certified companies´ RDI management. The information technology (IT) sector was chosen because previous studies revealed that this sector has the highest standard NP4457:2007 adoption rate and importantly the author of this dissertation originates from Estonia where the IT sector is considered as one of the backbones of the new epoch of economical development after re-gaining independence in 1991. Results indicated that national standard certified and companies with internally developed RDI system presented higher information systematization and its documentation. Moreover, intriguingly it was noted that there is a higher motivation for framework based RDI management among well market-established companies. For new or startup companies innovation management could be considered an element that is naturally part of their activities but having to certify RDI when the company still has not reached a reasonable size was often considered too large an obligation coming from national financial incentive1. According to the certification impact on the system effectiveness was concluded that organizational strategy for innovation, commercialisation and diffusion of the products/services and innovation outcome were the innovation management sub-processes that can be considered to benefit the most from fostering a formal innovation management system. Keywords: innovation management, management models for innovation, innovation management standard, certification of RDI management system. 1 Company Investment Incentive Systems 2007-2013 under Quadro de Referência Estratégico Nacional (QREN) National Strategic Reference Framework. The importance of an innovation management system iv Acknowledgements Among all who supported me in the realization of this dissertation there are some that deserve special mentioning. Wish to thank very much my supervisor Alexandra Xavier for her continuous motivation and substantial input throughout our meetings and for the opportunity to be integrated into the INESC-TEC2 Innovation and Technology Transfer Unit while conducting research for this dissertation. I would also like to thank a colleague Andreia Passos for her contribution to cowritten article, on my dissertation content and for facilitating my social inclusion to the institution. Would like to include a big thankyou to João José Pinto Ferreira who is the course director of MIETE (Master in Innovation and Technological Entrepreneurship) for his understanding and considerable help in the formal processes. Also, thanks to all the lectures for the educational input and their knowledge shared with me along the last two year. My grateful thanks are due to all the IT companies3 who were willing to contribute to this dissertation by sharing their experience on innovation management: 3Decide, Ambitada, Auditmark, Bitmaker Software, Critical Software, IBM, MOG Technologies, Ueb and Shortcut. Special thanks to Pat who helped me to revise my English and to my family and friends for their continuous support throughout the master course. I would also like to acknowledge the Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia for the one year mobility grant within Foundation Archimedes National scholarship Programme Kristjan Jaak, that contributed to my financial security during the studies. 2 INESC Technology and Science (INESC-TEC) Associate Laboratory coordinated by INESC-Porto, Institute for Systems and Computers of Porto 3 In Appendix A can be found the respondents names and titles. The importance of an innovation management system v Table of contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Scope of this dissertation ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Motivation .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2 1.5 Dissertation outline ...................................................................................................... 3 2 Literature review ................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Innovation definition .................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Types of innovation .............................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Degrees of innovation ........................................................................................... 5 2.1.3 Categories of innovation adaption ........................................................................ 6 2.2 Systematization of innovation management ................................................................ 7 2.2.1 Innovation management systems .......................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Innovation management frameworks ................................................................... 8 2.2.3 Standardizing innovation management ................................................................ 9 2.3 Dilemma of standardizing innovation management .................................................... 9 2.4 Overview of the documentation on innovation management .................................... 10 2.4.1 Development of innovation management systems (IMS) .................................. 11 2.4.2 International, regional and national regulations on innovation management ..... 12 2.5 Benchmarking of the frameworks of innovation management .................................. 15 2.5.1 Frameworks´ scope characteristics according to the model ............................... 17 2.5.2 Outcome of the benchmarking of the frameworks ............................................. 20 2.6 Scope of the frameworks´ auditing tools ................................................................... 27 2.6.1 Outcomes of the benchmarking of the auditing tools ......................................... 29 3 Fostering innovation practices based on a standard .......................................................... 34 3.1 Development and characteristics of the NP4457:2007 standard ............................... 34 3.1.1 The definition of innovation ............................................................................... 35 3.1.2 The main innovation processes .......................................................................... 35 3.2 Implementation overview of the NP4457:2007 ......................................................... 36 3.2.1 24 pioneer companies to implement the NP4457:2007 ...................................... 37 The importance of an innovation management system vi 4 Scope of this research ........................................................................................................ 38 4.1 Methodology used for case study .............................................................................. 38 4.2 Case study .................................................................................................................. 39 4.3 Questionnaire used for the case study ........................................................................ 39 4.4 Data collection ........................................................................................................... 40 5 Results ............................................................................................................................... 41 5.1 Company characteristics ............................................................................................ 41 5.2 Presenting and analysing the empirical data .............................................................. 44 5.2.1 Innovation concept characterization ................................................................... 44 5.2.2 Value perceived from the standard certification impact ..................................... 45 5.2.3 Certification impact on the system effectiveness ............................................... 48 6 Discussion and conclusions ............................................................................................... 56 6.1 Opportunities for future research ............................................................................... 57 7 Bibliographical references................................................................................................. 58 The importance of an innovation management system vii Index of tables Table 1. Dissertation methodology. ............................................................................................ 2 Table 2. Chronologic line of the innovation management documentation............................... 11 Table 3. Documentation on fostering innovation management practices. ............................... 13 Table 4. Characterization of the models included in the study. .............................................. 15 Table 5. Scope of each model ................................................................................................... 17 Table 6. Benchmarking of the frameworks. ............................................................................. 22 Table 7. Scope of the frameworks´ auditing tools. ................................................................... 27 Table 8. Benchmarking of the auditing tools. .......................................................................... 30 Table 9. Questionnaire scope.................................................................................................... 39 Table 10. General characteristics of the NP4457:2007 certified companies. ........................... 42 Table 11. General characteristics of the companies not NP4457:2007 certified. ..................... 43 Table 12. Respondents insights on concept of innovation. ...................................................... 44 Table 13. NP4457:2007 certified companies’ motivation for the standard implementation and relevance attached to the certification obtained. ...................................................................... 45 Table 14. Non-certified companies motivation for RDI systematic management. .................. 46 Table 15. Main advantages and disadvantages identified from NP4557:2007 certification. ... 48 Table 16. Innovation management certification influence on each process. ............................ 49 The importance of an innovation management system viii Index of figures Figure 1. Portuguese RDI management standard NP4457:2007 certification during the first five. ...... 36 Figure 2. NP4457:2007 certifications by sector. ................................................................................... 36 Figure 3. Comparison: company strategy for innovation. ..................................................................... 49 Figure 4. Comparison: organizational culture. ...................................................................................... 50 Figure 5. Comparison: management of knowledge ............................................................................... 51 Figure 6. Comparison: creation and management of ideas. .................................................................. 52 Figure 7. Comparison: development of new products and management of technology and project portfolios. 52 Figure 8. Comparison: commercialisation and diffusion of the products/services. .............................. 53 Figure 9. Comparison: management of already launched products. ..................................................... 54 Figure 10. Comparison: innovation outcome. ....................................................................................... 54 The importance of an innovation management system ix Index of appendixes Appendix A. Interview contacts. .............................................................................................. 60 Appendix B. Framework graphical models in larger image. .................................................... 61 Appendix C. Table of NP4457:2007certifications` RDI scope certifications. ......................... 65 Appendix D. Questionnaire. ..................................................................................................... 67 Appendix E. Statements extracted from the interviews. .......................................................... 75 Appendix F. Data of the figures. .............................................................................................. 88 The importance of an innovation management system 7 According to late follower strategy a new idea is adopted after the majority has already done so. There is no other way of continuing the business than upgrading for the new technology. It is an answer to both economic necessity and increasing pressure (Rogers 1983). 2.2 Systematization of innovation management Schumpeter (1934) recognized that clustering of innovations led to extensive growth of new business launches (C. Freeman 2003). The realization of the possible benefit revealed from being innovative, made managers desire to systematically groom activities boosting competitive advantage. In conjunction with this recognition scientific research also increased and in Science Direct the number of papers and books published since the 80´s, in relation to about innovation management, evidences exponential growth tendency (Eveleens 2010) and is continuing to rise. Every time more of the creation of innovation-based values are located at the heart of business priorities the desire to be successful is affirmed (Little 2013). Keith Goffin says “innovation management is about getting more and better products successfully to market”. Portuguese standard NP4457:2007 completes Goffin´s idea by emphasizing that the central objective is company sustainable competitive advantage as it “[…]aims to establish a normative framework that contributes to better performance of organization, focusing on their Research, Development and innovation management system (RDI) as a fundamental method to create knowledge and transform it into economical and social wealth”. In the model development was taken into account the design, the alignment and the evaluation of the critical dimensions of the RDI process to foster the transition of organizations of any type and size, into the knowledge-based economy (Instituto Português de Qualidade 2007b). A. D. Little justifies “integrated innovation is all about taking innovation approaches that were once the domain of New Product Development (NPD) only – such as idea management, stage gates and portfolio optimization – and applying them consistently as an integral part of business strategy to achieve not only growth but also competitiveness.” (Eagar, van Oene e Boulton 2011) 2.2.1 Innovation management systems One might question what an innovation management system is? According to Tang (Tang 2003) a management system is defined as “organizational structure, responsibilities, procedures, practices, activities and resources needed for the development, implementation, achievement and maintenance of an organizational policies and objectives”. Innovation management systems can therefore be described as structured and regularly practiced ways of running organizational activities contributing to its innovativeness capacity and performance. A fundamental cycle of innovation process according to Schumpeter (Schumpeter 1939) starts with idea generation that is commonly called the invention or discovery phase, continues with innovation which in reality means the first economic application of the invention, and the conversion which follows when successfully fostered by the third and final step, diffusion where an outcome of the innovation is adapted by the consumers in general. Various frameworks have been built on this ageless understanding of innovation management process. According to Goffin & Mitchell the phases form a funnel which starts with an idea generation phase where promising ideas stay on the filter and continue whereas not so The importance of an innovation management system 8 innovative are filtered out. Next, choices of best ideas where already more complex concepts are developed around the previously selected ideas. In this phases less promising concepts are rejected and some are turned into initial idea generation phase for “recycling”. In the third and final, implementation phase, the formerly developed concepts are taken to the project level. When not killed in this phase, the idea seed planted and nurtured throughout the developement process is launched to the market. The process of typical innovation process is complex and any idea must progress through the development phases hereinbefore it is comercially viable. Those systems can be organically developed based on the best practices and the organization needs. Nevertheless, it is becoming common for companies to adapt or acquire an already existing framework developed by some other institution (Goffin e Mitchell 2005) as they are proven to deliver higher integration. 2.2.2 Innovation management frameworks An innovation management system has a structured integrated instrument for managing related recommended activities that depending on the author(s) is called a framework, model, manual or even an engine and when developed by a certified entity the innovation management system can be launched as a standard. Commonly, together they are identified as frameworks and this terminology is therefore used in the current dissertation. Innovation management normally includes a set of tools that are frequently related to R&D activities but not exclusively. Published best practices have revealed that company competetive edge is achieved not only via research and development work but that a well structured internal process flow in the organisation also plays an important role and therefore the need for top managament to be strongly involved and motivated in the innovation management process has been underlined (Goffin e Mitchell 2005). Innovation management is fostering both interdependent and inter-related processes of organisational activities that are directed to improve its output and performance. The skills required to manage innovation effectively differ from general management principles as it demands that managers match technical expertise with soft skills. To promote creativity, areas such as technology and project management are in need of integration with people management, plus managers need to be alert about risk management. (Goffin e Mitchell 2005) As the process of innovation is complex, managing innovation is therefore even more sophisticated, hence it takes time to develop and constant effort to maintain. Everything starts from the understanding of how the innovation process could successfully influence development, mainly based on the empirical studies conducted among successful companies (Eveleens 2010). There is a body of literature on best practices available from pioneer companies and various international consulting firms offering service to managements in order to facilitate the implementation of an integrated innovation management system. Goffin & Mitchell (2005) identify when interviewing managers that integrative tools for innovation management are requested, rather than ad hoc collection of snippets of best practices. When developing innovation management frameworks, innovation research constantly moves from theory to practice and the other way around, to obtain the relevant and reliable data(Eveleens 2010). The importance of an innovation management system 9 Professor Joe Tidd9 has emphasized that “developing systematic innovation management frameworks that travel beyond the NPD function is an important goal for future business success” (Eagar, van Oene e Boulton 2011). 2.2.3 Standardizing innovation management What is the role of standardization in innovation? Standards are developed to normalize technical knowledge on relevant issues to obtain uniformity in how the processes are conducted in the companies and organizations. (The European Parliament and the Council 2012) Looking at machinery producers or pharmaceutics, it is obvious that customers require them to follow some regulations. Consequently, standardization is considered as something positive. However, from the perspective of the management and staff, regulations have a tendency to be felt as restrictions, especially when speaking about innovation which is a creative process in its nature. The question of standardizing innovation remains complicated due to much of its occurrence being perceptible. João Bento, the coordinator of the Portuguese DSIE10 initiative has explained that if there are convictions about the necessity to innovate and the company has complex activities for innovation, there should be a system to manage it. A management system submitted to a standard ensures that the system does not have gaps through audit and full documentation.(Pimental 2010) Best practices have demonstrated that systematized innovation activities have helped companies to reach success and establish competitive advantage over their rivals (Little 2013, Koetzier, Kristensen ja Alon 2011, COTEC 2010, Engel, Wagner ja Hubbert 2007). This has led to the development of new tools and approaches that are constantly launched and offered to companies (Little 2013). 2.3 Dilemma of standardizing innovation management Innovation is a creative process and it is true that children are more creative than adults11. When a human being grows up, the amount of rules and regulations that one has to follow vanishes natural creativity (Land e Jarman 1993). This should be understood when examining the standardization rules that inform innovation performance within a company, is the innovative management framework a positive force for building an environment for adults 9 Professor of Technology & Innovation Management, SPRU, University of Sussex 10 DSIE initiative stands for Sustained Development of Company Innovation 11 1968 study by George Land, a general systems scientist interested in the development of creative performance, revealed that we are naturally creative as children, Over a 15 year period he distributed among 1,600 5-year-olds a test designed to measure creativity. This test was used by NASA to select innovative engineers and scientists. George Land used the test to re-tested the same children at 10 years of age, and again at 15 years of age. 5 year olds showed 98% of creativity, 10 year olds 30%, 15 year olds 12% and when the same test was given to 280,000 adults performed 2% for their creativity. (Land e Jarman 1993) http://blog.entrepreneurthearts.com/2009/03/04/are-we-more-or-less-creative-as-we-age/, accessed on the 15.08.2013 The importance of an innovation management system 10 (working people) to nurture their creativity or does it hinder personal creativity and company growth? To support the SMEs the European Commission has promoted the Europe INNOVA program12 since 2000 which in its early stages has a focus on innovation management consulting approaches and self-assessment tools that SMEs could use to define their proficiency in innovation management (INNOVA 2006). Ideally European standard in Innovation Management was planned to develop over a period of 2006-2009 under the IMP3ove project which is an initiative from the European Commission. However, time has shown that this has not yet happened. Sack (Sack 2011), points out that there is a natural tension between innovation and standardization by suggesting that when standardization occurs too early, innovation could be stifled. Records from management consulting firms nevertheless continue to refute this argument. Numerous available case study results present positive feedback in the light of innovation management practices(Koetzier, Kristensen ja Alon 2011, Thuriaux-Alemán, Eagar ja Johansson 2013, COTEC 2010, INNOVA 2006, Engel, Wagner ja Hubbert 2007). Sack (Sack 2011) supports that innovation and standardization can go hand in hand identifying that “successful standards not only fill a need, but allow for innovation to be accomplished in a standard way” – and adds that the challenge lies in meeting the right balance between standards and innovation. However Müller-Prothmann (Müller-Prothmann 2006) disagrees and states that “innovations are major drives for national economies and individual companies operation on competitive global markets” his main arguments are that empirical studies and practical experiences demonstrate that increased planning performance and efficient process design do not contribute to sustainable innovation success as “common innovation management models are not flexible enough and do not provide sufficient support for dynamic (re-) actions to meet the real conditions of complex processes and environments”. Disruptive factors, “Innovation Management Devils” is how he calls them, inhibit innovation behavior by delaying or converting it and therefore are considerable barriers. This could be also explained with what Goffin & Mitchell (Goffin ja Mitchell 2005) have realized “the challenges with managing innovation are compounded by the fact that many ideas that are effective in one organization cannot be easily transferred and must be adapted case by case”. General understanding is that “innovation management is the key driver for sustainable growth and competitiveness” (Imp3rove 2010). As supporting an evidence for that, numerous attempts by various institutions can be named who show an intention to develop an internationally recognized uniform framework for innovation management. In the Harvard Review 17 articles were publish in 2011 concerning innovation (Thuriaux-Alemán, Eagar ja Johansson 2013). 2.4 Overview of the documentation on innovation management In the following section a comprehensive overview will be offered about the current state of documentation developed (and in development) on innovation management. Due to the 12 Europe INNOVA program information http://www.innova-eu.net/publications/benchmarking-studies/13benchmarking-studies/178-qexploratory-team-report-on-high-growth-innovative-smesq, accessed on the 6.05 The importance of an innovation management system 11 difficulty in obtaining literature from all international sources, there may be some lack of relevant documentation from the wider field of innovation management. See below Table 2 chronologic line of the innovation management documentation development influencing the economic area of the European Union. It includes the launch of first national standards, Oslo Manual updates and information on innovation management framework development process. 20th century timeline 1981 1991 1992 1992 1997 The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, OECD, updated in 1994 French national standard FD X50-901 on project management and innovation CEN-STAR committee was formed OSLO Manual 1st version OSLO Manual 2nd version 2000-2010 timeline 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 Development of Spanish RDI standard family starts OSLO Manual 3rd updated version Spanish national UNE 166000 standard family was launched Portugal national NP4457 standard family was launched, Technical Committee CT169 CEN/TC 389 “Innovation Management” Committee was created in November 2010 ongoing timeline 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 French national standard FD X50 family was re-launched ISO/TMB/NWIP Research, development and innovation – Process management proposal by ABNT (November) ISO/TS/P 233 (identified as ISO/TC 279) Innovation process: interaction, tools and methods proposal by AFNOR (December) ISO/TC 279 Innovation process: interaction, tools and methods approved and under development CEN/TS 16555-1:2012 Innovation Management – Part 1: Innovation Management System has been approved by the beginning of June Table 2. Chronologic line of the innovation management documentation. 2.4.1 Development of innovation management systems (IMS) Mír and Casadesús (Mir e Casadesús 2011) agree that historical development of innovation management has passed five generations of innovation processes which were first mentioned by Rothwell in 1994. These generations are identified throughout a period of approximately fifty years starting from 1950s until 20th century and in the final fifth generation innovation is characterized as an essential contemporary business practice (Rothwell 1994). By which time a well-known linear model from Kline had also became successful. In 1992 the European Committee for Standardisation action group dealing with Standardization and Research (CEN-STAR committee) was formed as innovation was considered as key objective to be integrated to R&D. Consequently, CEN/TC 389 Innovation The importance of an innovation management system 12 Management Committee13 was created in November 2008 with an intention to support innovation culture in Europe and accelerate the access of innovation to both domestic and global markets. The committee is currently carrying out a work to provide organizations with tools, methods, approaches and processes that would facilitate their realization of innovation management. The draft version of standard Technical Specification CEN/TS 16555-1 Innovation Management – Part 1: Innovation Management System has been submitted for formal voting and was approved14 by the end of May 2013. Other complementary documents such as innovation management assessment, creative thinking (see in the Table 3) are still under development. Oslo Manual is developed by the OECD forum, where governments of 30 democracies uniquely work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalization. This forum aknowledges that over time the nature and landscape of innovation has been changing and conducted considerable research since the 1980s on models and analytical frameworks developed for the study of innovation. The need for a choherent set of concepts and tools led to the 1st edition of the Oslo Manual in 1992 (focused on technological product and process). Surveys based on the 1st version led to further refinements of the manual and the 2nd version published in 1997 included already existing service sectors. Ongoing surveys and changing policy needs have driven to the launching of what is known as the 3rd version where innovation has been expanded to adequately include innovation in the service sector by through inclusion of marketing and organizational innovation. (OECD and Eurostat 2005) National standards are local initiatives developed by national certification bodies that seek to foster national innovation management practices. They are mainly voluntary nevertheless, can be interrelated to national policies and programs. In further sections is collaborated a more comprehensive overview of this topic. By the end of 2012 there were two initiatives for developing an ISO international standard for innovation management, one proposed in November by a Brazilian national certifying body ABNT and in the following month by a French organisation AFNOR. It is understood the AFNOR proposal ISO/TS/P 233 (identified as ISO/TC 279) Innovation process: interaction, tools and methods proposal for an international ISO standard has been approved by International Organization for Standardization and according to the ISO, standard on innovation management is under development. 2.4.2 International, regional and national regulations on innovation management As it has been taking a long time to advance with an innovation management instrument on an European level, numerous countries have taken the initiative to develop a nationally binding standard, for example Spain, Portugal and France among them. For a better overview relevant to existing and under development regulations supporting the culture of innovation, both 13 Information available at http://www.cen.eu/cen/Sectors/Sectors/Innovation/Pages/TC%20389.aspx, accessed on the 10.06.2013 14Information available at http://www.cen.eu/cen/Sectors/TechnicalCommitteesWorkshops/CENTechnicalCommittees/Pages/WP.aspx?par am=671850&title=CEN/TC%20389, accessed on the 24.05.2013 The importance of an innovation management system 13 working documents and standards either on international, regional and national level found are listed in the Table 3. International ABNT, (07.11.2012) ISO/TMB/NWIP Research, development and innovation – Process management standard under development AFNOR (20.12.2012) ISO/TS/P 223 Innovation process: interaction, tools and methods standard under development European OECD and Eurostat OSLO Manual 3rd updated version2005 Manual In use European Commission CEN/TC 389 Innovation Management - 2008 Technical specification CEN/TS 16555-1:2012 Innovation Management – Part 1: Innovation Management System Technical specification Approved prCEN/TS 16555-2 Innovation Management - Strategic Intelligence Management Technical specification Under drafting prCEN/TS 16555-3 Innovation Management - Innovation Thinking Technical specification Under drafting prCEN/TS 16555-4 Innovation Management - Intellectual Property Management Technical specification Under drafting prCEN/TS 16555-5 Innovation Management - Collaboration Management Technical specification Under drafting prCEN/TS 16555-6 Innovation Management - Creativity Management Technical specification Under drafting prCEN/TS 16555-N/A Innovation Management - Innovation Management Assessment Technical specification Under drafting National Brazil ABNT NBR 16500:2012 – Activities to Management of Research, Development and Innovation (R&D&I): Terminology standard In force ABNT NBR 16501:2011 – Guidance for Management Systems of Research, Development and Innovation (R&D&I) standard In force ABNT NBR 16502:2012 –Management of Research, Development and Innovation (R&D&I): Guidelines to Elaboration of R&D&I projects standard In force Denmark pDS (code not known) User-oriented innovation N/A Under development France (cont.) FD X50-052:2011 – Innovation Management – Strategic Intelligence Management N/A In force FD X50-146:2011 – Innovation ManagementIntellectual Property Management N/A In force Table 3. Documentation on fostering innovation management practices. (cont. 1/2) The importance of an innovation management system 14 National France (cont.) prFD X50-271 – Guide in the Implementation of the Innovation Management N/A N/A prFD X50-272 – Guide to Implement Open Innovation N/A N/A prFD X50-273 – Guide to Integrate Sustainable Development in the Innovation Process N/A N/A Germany DIN 77100:2010 – Patent valuation – General Principles of Monetary Patent Valuation N/A In force Ireland NWA 1:2009 – Guide to good practice and product development processes N/A In force Mexico Name and code not known N/A Under development Portugal NP 4456:2007 – Management of Research, Development and Innovation (RDI): Terminology and definitions of RDI activities standard In force NP 4457:2007 – Management of Research, Development and Innovation (RDI): Management system requirements of RDI standard In force NP 4458:2007 – Management of Research, Development and Innovation (RDI): Requirements for a RDI project standard In force NP 4461:2007 Management of Research, Development and Innovation (RDI): Competence and assessment of RDI management system auditors and RDI project auditors standard In force Spain UNE 166000:2006 – Research, Development and Innovation (R&D&i) Management: Terminology and definitions standard In force UNE 166001:2006 – Research, Development and Innovation (R&D&i) Management: R&D&i project requirements standard In force UNE 166002:2006 – Research, Development and Innovation (R&D&i) Management: R&D&i Management System Requirements standard In force UNE 166006 EX:2006 – Research, Development and Innovation (R&D&i) Management: Technology Watch System standard In force United Kingdom BS 7802:1995 – Glossary of terms used in operational research N/A N/A BS 7000-1:2008 – Design management systems: Part 1: Guide to managing innovation standard In force Table 3. Documentation on fostering innovation management practices. (cont. 2/2) The importance of an innovation management system 15 2.5 Benchmarking of the frameworks of innovation management In the scope of this dissertation six actively practiced and internationally known conceptualized tools of innovation management were identified and examined (listed in the chronological order). Three representing an academic approach (two of which are standards): Keith Goffin & Rick Mitchell Innovation Pentathlon framework, Spanish linear Innovation Model and Portuguese chain-interactive Innovation Model. The remaining models were based on the consulting experience: A.T. Kearney House of Innovation, Accenture Performance Innovation Engine and Arthur D. Little´s Innovation Excellence Model. During the process of writing the dissertation the CEN/TS 16555-1:2012 Innovation Management – Part 1: Innovation Management System was partly made available by the European Commission and it was perceived important to include also this framework. All together seven frameworks are studied in the context of this dissertation (Table ). a. Keith Goffin & Rick Mitchell Innovation Pentathlon framework (2005) b. A.T. Kearney House of Innovation (2006) c. Spanish linear Innovation Model, UNE 166002:2006 d. Portuguese chain-interactive Innovation Model, NP4457:2007 e. Accenture Performance Innovation Engine (2010) f. CEN-Committee 389 Innovation Management, Part 1: Innovation Management System, CEN/TS 16555-1:2012 g. Arthur D. Little´s Innovation Excellence Model (2013) Framework Publishing year Source Used contexts Mainly based on Authorities involved in the development Innovation Pentathlon framework 2005 Book Scientific; Consulting Authors´ research; Casework Cranfield School of Management House of Innovation 2006 Working document Consulting; IMP3rove initiative Casework A.T. Kearney consulting Innovation management Model – UNE 166002:2006 2006 Standard Scientific; Certification Kline and Rosenberg model Spanish Ministry of Science and Education; universities, public bodies; AENOR Innovation Model - NP 4457:2007 2007 Standard Academic; Certification OECD Oslo Manual; Kline and Rosenberg chain-linked model; UNE 166002 The Portuguese Standardization State Agency; Technical Committee CT 169; APCER; COTEC Portugal Table 4. Characterization of the models included in the study15. (cont. 1/2) 15 The ones marked with light blue are further involved in the auditing tools benchmarking. The importance of an innovation management system 16 Framework Publishing year Source Used contexts Mainly based on Authorities involved in the development Performance Innovation Engine 2010 Working document Consulting Casework Accenture consulting Innovation management model CEN/TS 16555-1:2012 2012 Technical Specification Scientific; Consulting National standardization bodies; scientific work CEN-Committee 389 Innovation Excellence Model 2009/2010; 201316 Working document Consulting Casework Arthur D. Little consulting Table 4. Characterization of the models included in the study17. (cont. 2/2) Goffin & Mitchell in the book “Innovation Management: Strategy and Implementation Using the Pentathlon Framework” (2005) present techniques and examples of how to meet the challenge of developing and implementing an innovation strategy. Their approach to innovation management is scientifically recognized by the Cranfield School of Management. Currently the second edition is in progress, where the complexity of the interactions between the five building blocks assists organizations to draw more attention on recognizing opportunities. According to Pentathlon framework innovation management requires versatile skills from managers like the Olympic sport pentathlon. It very much underlines the importance of communication as part of the innovation management. (Goffin ja Mitchell 2005) A.T. Kearney House of Innovation (2006) like the Pentathlon Framework is a reference model for the IMP3rove initiative which with its aims focused on a holistic approach was in 2006 used to develop the future European innovation management standard. The initiative was directed to support the SMEs efforts to develop their innovation management capabilities. Despite of the continued effort, this initiative has been maintained on consulting level only and the originally planned reference document due by 2009 has not been published. (Imp3rove 2010) The Spanish UNE 166002:2006 standard was launched in 2006 after a successful trial period of four years by AENOR. Their academic approach to innovation process and its model is adapted from the Kline (1985) chain-linked model. (Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación 2006)(Mir e Casadesús 2011). UNE 166002:2006 is considered as one of the first national standards in Europe for innovation management. The Portuguese NP4457:2007 standard was developed based on the Spanish UNE family in 2007 with a wider perspective so it could be used by organizations of any kind as innovation 16 Latest framework update. 17 The ones marked with light blue are further involved in the auditing tools benchmarking. The importance of an innovation management system 23 Processes covered by innovation management tools identified Innovation Pentathlon framework House of innovation Innovation Management Standard – UNE 166002:2006 Innovation Management Standard - NP4457:2007 Performance Innovation Engine Innovation management model CEN/TS 16555-1:2012 Innovation Excellence Model Creation and management of ideas Ideas Idea management Invention and/or Basic design; Ideas Invention, Basic design or Service conception Discover Ideas Idea management Idea creation as the first phase of innovation process, sometimes also identified as Schumpeter named it discovery or invention, is well-covered in all the frameworks. Goffin and Mitchell explain that ideas mainly consist of targets managing creativity and knowledge and there are many techniques to boost creative ideas. For A.T. Kearney idea management is a corner block of the pyramid essential baseline innovation life-cycle management. For the Spanish standard ideas are expressed via technology watch and foresight, internal creativity, analyses and potential market. According to the Portuguese standard specifications invention involves idea management and evaluation of opportunities. For Accenture consulting discover means “do the right things” and is the front-end of innovation where growth is built. According to Arthur D. Little, idea management is the process to generate and manage ideas for new products/services. Development of new products/ services/processes Prioritization; Implementation Product/process development Detailed design and Pilot testing Detailed design or Prototyping Execute Innovation process (Assessment, Improvement, Planning) Development and launch Either called prioritization or innovation process, here the ideas are converted into new products/services/processes, all the frameworks contain this phase. In the Penthathlon framework prioritization is the selection and managing the portfolio. According to A.T. Kearney product/process development is the middle building block of the pyramid baseline. In the both standards´ detailed design indication is allocated to match the new product development needs. According to Performance Engine execute helps to drive an idea or briefing to the market launch and itself means “do things right” and is the centre of innovation. For Excellence Model development and launch are all steps required to transform the original idea into a launched product/service/process. Table 6. Benchmarking of the frameworks. (cont.2/4) The importance of an innovation management system 24 Processes covered by innovation management tools identified Innovation Pentathlon framework House of innovation Innovation Management Standard – UNE 166002:2006 Innovation Management Standard - NP4457:2007 Performance Innovation Engine Innovation management model CEN/TS 16555-1:2012 Innovation Excellence Model Management of technology and projects Prioritization Innovation lifecycle management - - The centre of innovation Innovation management techniques Product/ Service Portfolio Management; Technology portfolio management Management of technology projects is well-covered by most of the frameworks (except Spanish and Portuguese standard). According to Pentathlon framework prioritization connected to technology and project management includes strategic allocation, roadmaps, risk-reward balance and metrics. In the House of innovation it is perceived to be covered by the innovation life-cycle management. Accenture framework includes an interlinked building block called the centre of innovation and in the CEN/TS innovation management techniques are identified on the organizational level. According to the A.D. Little there are two closely related units, i) product/ service portfolio management and ii) technology portfolio management. Commercialisation and diffusion of the products/services Implementation Launch/ continuous Improvement Redesign, Demonstration and Production; Marketing Design and Demonstration or Testing and Production; Commercialization or Implementation Commercialize Innovation results Development and launch Present in all the models, can be verified that commercial component becomes more obvious from the practices directly applied in the business use. According to the Pentathlon framework implementation is realised throughout four phases of project management: i) concept, ii) design, iii) planning, iv) implementation itself. In the Performance Engine commercialize is identified as a mean to repeat rewards in the scope of back-end of innovation. Table 6. Benchmarking of the frameworks. (cont.3/4) The importance of an innovation management system 25 Processes covered by innovation management tools identified Innovation Pentathlon framework House of innovation Innovation Management Standard – UNE 166002:2006 Innovation Management Standard - NP4457:2007 Performance Innovation Engine Innovation management model CEN/TS 16555-1:2012 Innovation Excellence Model Management of already launched products - Launch/continuous improvement - Results evaluation - - Post-Launch Management of already launched products is seldom present in the frameworks; nevertheless product upgrading and continuous improvement could be seen as an input for new ideas. Uniqueness - - Designed by analogy with ISO 9001 and 14001 standards Compatibility to ISO 9001 and 14001 standards Addresses frequency, speed and consistency of innovation results - Special focus on growth Both of the standards are developed according to the ISO international standard principles to facilitate their co-implementation and integration with other management systems. Consulting frameworks from Accenture and A.D. Little pay attention to innovation outcomes. Table 6. Benchmarking of the frameworks. (cont. 4/4) The importance of an innovation management system 26 2.5.2.3 Management of knowledge Importantly, management of knowledge is represented with a visual identification in all of the analysed frameworks. According to Pentathlon framework managing knowledge is covered by people and organization including Training, Recruitment, Manpower plans and Processes. For Performance Engine manage innovation is possibly perceived to cover also knowledge management. When we look into standards´ specifications both include competence, awareness and training, whereas Spanish standard includes moreover resource management. 2.5.2.4 Creation and management of ideas Idea creation is commonly considered as the first phase of innovation process and sometimes as also described in the innovation management system part under literature review of this dissertation identified as Schumpeter named it discovery or invention. This process is wellcovered in all the frameworks. Goffin and Mitchell explain that ideas mainly consist of targets managing creativity and knowledge and there are many techniques to boost creative ideas. For A.T. Kearney idea management is a corner block of the pyramid essential baseline innovation life-cycle management. For the Spanish standard ideas are expressed via technology watch and foresight, internal creativity, analyses and potential market. According to the Portuguese standard specifications invention involves idea management and evaluation of opportunities. For Accenture consulting discover means “do the right things” and is the front-end of innovation where growth is built. According to Arthur D. Little, idea management is the process to generate and manage ideas for new products/services. 2.5.2.5 Development of new products/services/processes Either called prioritization or innovation process, here the ideas are converted into new products/services/processes and are further developed. All the frameworks contain this phase. In the Penthathlon framework prioritization is the selection and managing the portfolio. According to A.T. Kearney product/process development is the middle building block of the pyramid baseline. In the both standards´ detailed design indication is allocated to match the new product development needs. According to Performance Engine execute helps to drive an idea or briefing to the market launch and itself means “do things right” and generally belongs to the centre of innovation. For Excellence Model development and launch are steps identified and required to transform the original ideas into ready to launch product/service/process. 2.5.2.6 Management of technology and projects Management of technology projects is well-covered by most of the frameworks (except Spanish and Portuguese standard). According to Pentathlon framework prioritization is connected to technology and project management and includes strategic allocation, roadmaps, risk-reward balance and metrics. In the House of innovation management of technology and projects can be perceived to be covered by the innovation life-cycle management. Accenture framework includes an interlinked building block called the centre of innovation and in the CEN/TS innovation management techniques are identified on the organizational level. According to the A.D. Little there are two closely related units, i) product/ service portfolio management and ii) technology portfolio management. Spanish standard specification includes planning, monitoring and control of project portfolio. The importance of an innovation management system 27 2.5.2.7 Commercialisation and diffusion of the products/services Commercialization and diffusion of the products/services is found present in all the models. Moreover, can be verified that commercial component becomes more obvious from the frameworks directly applied in the business use. According to the Pentathlon framework implementation is realised throughout four phases of project management: i) concept, ii) design, iii) planning, iv) implementation itself. In the Portuguese standard specifications there is a point referring to implementation and operations. In the Performance Engine commercialize is identified in the back-end of innovation as a mean to repeat rewards. 2.5.2.8 Management of already launched products Pos-launch is seldom present in the frameworks; nevertheless product upgrading and continuous improvement could be seen as a favourable input for new ideas. 2.5.2.9 Uniqueness Both of the standards are developed according to the ISO international standard principles to facilitate their co-implementation and integration with other management systems either standardized or not. Consulting based frameworks from Accenture and A.D. Little pay compared to other benchmarked frameworks more attention to innovation outcomes. 2.6 Scope of the frameworks´ auditing tools As for elaborating the case study in the scope of this dissertation, the methodology anticipates conducting interviews, and therefore a questionnaire for that aim was designed based on the frameworks in the study. For that purpose three frameworks with different background (colored light blue in the Table 4) i) Pentathlon framework with academic background, ii) Portuguese RDI management standard and iii) Innovation Excellence Model based on the casework, were identified and accordingly their auditing tools were benchmarked. Portuguese standard NP4457:2007 has no official auditing guide available but related Innovation Scoring framework developed together with the standard family was used. Auditing documentation specifications are presented in the following Table 7, where in the left column is indicated the auditing framework, in the middle one the auditing building block type and in the right one is named the building block scope. In the brackets is indicated the number of questions/statements. This information is sourced from the respective auditing documentation. Table 7. Scope of the frameworks´ auditing tools. (cont. 1/3) Auditing framework Auditing builidng blocks Building block scope Innovation Pentathlon framework Audit Questions (2005) (cont.) General data (4) (4) Innovation strategy (60) Management leadership (11) Market and competior analyses (11) Funding of innovation (8) Innovation performance measures (4) Innovation performance (results) (3) Innovation networking (8) Technology management (11) Market planning and review (4) The importance of an innovation management system 28 Table 7. Scope of the frameworks´ auditing tools. (cont. 2/3) Auditing framework Auditing builidng blocks Building block scope Innovation Pentathlon framework Audit Questions (2005) (cont.) Ideas: managing creativity and knowledge (40) Culture of creativity and innovation (13) Use of creativity tools, approaches (5) Knowledge management (10) Use of enchanced market reseach methods (9) Creativity levels in the organization (3) Prioritization: selecting & managing the portofolio (26) Prioritization process (13) Analyses tools and approache (6) Current portfolio (7) Implementation (85) The management process (12) Structure and organisation (5+5) Industrial design (4) Transfer to operations (5+1) Market and distribuition (17) Promotional mix (6) Tools for innovation (6) Process innovation (24) People and organization (49) Innovation culture (20) Recruting and job assignment (10) Managing performance (2+2) Development of emplyees (10) Organizational structure (5) Innovation Scoring (2008) Related to NP4457:2007 Organization characterization (37) Information (1) General data (25) Collaborators (2) Certifications (4) Financial (2) Research, development and innovations (3) Conditions (12) Culture (4) Leadership (4) Strategy (4) Resources (13) Human capital (3) Competences (5) External relations (2) Structures (3) Processes (11) Management of RDI activities (7) Systematic learning and improvement (3) Protection and assessment of results (1) Results (8) Financial and operational (2) Market (4) Society (2) Innovation Excellence Survey (2012) (cont.) Company details and innovation performance (36) Industry sector (21) Company characteristics (4) Investment to innovation activities (2) Overall innovation capabilities (9) Corporate strategic & innovation priorities (Innovation strategy) (11) Innovation effort (3) Approach to meeting growth (4) Innovation strategy integration (4) Business Intelligence (8) Process and responsibilities (4) Participants and sources (2) Customer segmentation (1) Tools (1) Idea Management (16) Process and responsibilities (4) Usage of guidelines and insights (2) Participants and sources (5) Tools (5) The importance of an innovation management system 29 Innovation Excellence Survey (2012) (cont.) Product/ Service Portfolio Management (6) Product and service portfolio and evaluation (6) Technology Portfolio Management (6) Technology strategy (3) Technology portfolio (3) Development & Launch (16) Product/service/process development (12) Process and responsibilities (4) Post-Launch (7) (7) Resource & Competence Management (6) (6) Special focus on growth (11) Strategy (1) Finding growth (5) Delivering growth (5) Table 7. Scope of the frameworks´ auditing tools. (cont.3/3) Innovation Pentathlon framework innovation audit questions follow the identical building block structure as the framework´s model and include all together 264 question. Innovation Scoring 81 questions cover i) organization characterization, ii) conditions, iii) resources, iv) processes and v) results. And lastly, Innovation Excellence survey embraces the building block structure as identified in the framework characterization scope by identifying 123 of questions and statements. 2.6.1 Outcomes of the benchmarking of the auditing tools The structure used for auditing benchmarking was maintained very similar to the benchmarking of the frameworks presented earlier. Main structural differences originating from the above Table 7 were the addition as the first category company characterization and as the last innovation outcome. Development of new products/ services/processes and management of technology and projects were joined as their statements made sense to be presented jointly, uniqueness did not find coverage and therefore was not included. Overall, nine categories were analysed and can be found in the left side of the Table 8. On the top line of the table auditing tools are presented in chronological order. In the columns below are identified the matching auditing building blocks, below that the according building block scope that comes from the right hand column of the Table 6. Benchmarking of the frameworks. In the joint section auditing tools similarities and differences are shortly described and topics included in the questionnaire are highlighted. In the brackets following the auditing scope is when possible indicated a number which refers to quantity of questions/statements related to that point. Results from these benchmarking observations were applied to design the questionnaire used to obtain empirical data presented in the future sections of this dissertation. The available three auditing schemes show conformity in company characterization, organizational strategy for innovation, management of knowledge, creation and management of ideas and in development of products/services and management of technology and projects. Organizational culture, commercialization and diffusion of the products/services, Auditing framework Auditing builidng blocks Building block scope The importance of an innovation management system 30 management of already launched projects and innovation outcome are covered either by two or only one auditing tool. Processes covered by innovation management auditing tools Innovation Pentathlon framework Innovation Audit Questions (2005) Innovation Scoring (2008) Related to NP4457:2007 Innovation Excellence Survey (2012) Organisation characterization General data Organization characterization Company details and innovation performance; Corporate strategic & innovation priorities (4) *not much covered Information (1) General data (25) Collaborators (2) Certifications (4) Financial (2) Research, development and innovations (3) Industry sector (21) Company characteristics (4) Investment to innovation activities (2) Overall innovation capabilities (9) In auditing company characterization is generally included in order to provide the first approach and boundaries of the organization/company in study. Covered topics:  General data about the company  Financial data about the company  Implemented management systems  Company innovation behaviour (innovation adoption, type of innovation, degree of innovation) Organisational strategy for innovation Innovation strategy; People and organization Conditions Corporate strategic & innovation priorities; Business Intelligence; Special focus on growth; Management leadership (11) Market and competior analyses (11) Funding of innovation (8) Innovation performance measures (4) Innovation performance (results) (3) Innovation networking (8) Technology management (11) Market planning and review (4) Innovation culture (20) Strategy (4) Innovation effort (3) Approach to meeting growth (4) Innovation strategy integration (4) Process and responsibilities (4) Participants and sources (2) Customer segmentation (1) Tools (1) Strategy (1) Innovation strategy is addressed significance as within the management systems is perceived important the top management commitment in order to obtain successful results. Covered topics:  Understanding about the concept of innovation  Development of a systematised innovation management system  Motivation for developing an innovation management system  Innovation strategy statements Table 8. Benchmarking of the auditing tools. (cont. 1/3) The importance of an innovation management system 31 Processes covered by innovation management auditing tools Innovation Pentathlon framework Innovation Audit Questions (2005) Innovation Scoring (2008) Related to NP4457:2007 Innovation Excellence Survey (2012) Organisational culture People and organization Conditions - Innovation culture (20) Recruting and job assignment (10) Managing performance (2+2) Development of emplyees (10) Organizational structure (5) Culture (4) Leadership (4) Organizational innovation culture gives insights about the organization practices that foster a supportive environment for value creation. In the Excellence survey it is not covered directly. Covered topic:  Innovation culture statements Management of knowledge People and organization Resources Resource & Competence Management Recruting and job assignment (10) Managing performance (2+2) Development of emplyees (10) Organizational structure (5) Human capital (3) Competences (5) External relations (2) Structures (3) (6) Knowledge management is about mapping the organizational current and future competence needs both internally and externally. Covered topics:  Knowledge management statements  Employee training statements Creation and management of ideas Ideas: managing creativity and knowledge Processes Idea management Culture of creativity and innovation (13) Use of creativity tools, approaches (5) Knowledge management (10) Use of enchanced market reseach methods (9) Creativity levels in the organization (3) Management of RDI activities (7) Systematic learning and improvement (3) Protection and assessment of results (1) Process and responsibilities (4) Usage of guidelines and insights (2) Participants and sources (5) Tools (5) Creation and management of ideas as the origin of innovation are every time more given a systematized approach, dedication and importance. Covered topics:  Idea creation statements  Idea management and evaluation statements Table 8. Benchmarking of the auditing tools. (cont. 2/3) The importance of an innovation management system 32 Processes covered by innovation management auditing tools Innovation Pentathlon framework Innovation Audit Questions (2005) Innovation Scoring (2008) Related to NP4457:2007 Innovation Excellence Survey (2012) Development of new products/ services/processes and Management of technology and projects Prioritization: selecting & managing the portofolio; Implementation Processes Development & Launch Product/ Service Portfolio Management; Technology portfolio management Prioritization process (13) Analyses tools and approache (6) Current portfolio (7) The management process (12) Structure and organisation (5+5) Industrial design (4) Transfer to operations (5+1) Market and distribuition (17) Promotional mix (6) Tools for innovation (6) Process innovation (24) Management of RDI activities (7) Product/service/process development (12) Process and responsibilities (4) Product and service portfolio and evaluation (6) Technology strategy (3) Technology portfolio (3) New product development, management of technology and projects is covered by all the auditing tools as it is considered the hearth of a business success. Covered topic:  Development process statements Commercialisatio n and diffusion of the products/services Implementation Processes The management process (12) Structure and organisation (5+5) Industrial design (4) Transfer to operations (5+1) Market and distribuition (17) Promotional mix (6) Tools for innovation (6) Process innovation (24) Management of RDI activities (7) Commercial coverage is mostly overviewed in the Pentathlon framework auditing. Covered topic:  Commercialization and marketing statements Management of already launched products - - Post-Launch (7) Management of pos-launch activities is covered by the Excellence survey. Covered topic:  Pos-launch statements Innovation outcome - Results Post-Launch Financial and operational (2) Market (4) Society (2) (7) Innovation outcome is emphasised both in the Innovation Scoring and Excellence survey. Covered topic:  Innovation outcome statements Table 8. Benchmarking of the auditing tools. (cont. 3/3) The importance of an innovation management system 39 The questionnaire was developed based on the auditing benchmarking Table 8 and can be found in the Appendix D. Interview input was always recorded and organised following full transcriptions. All transcriptions were firstly organised individually in MS Word documents and for analysing transferred to MS Excel format. Company characterizations and key statements were presented in table format. Answers indicated to all the questionnaire statements were used to produce quantitative figures to compare the certified and non-certified companies’ compliance to an innovation management auditing questionnaire designed in the scope of this dissertation. Conclusions were drawn based on the key statements and figures. Further explanation on delivering the objectives of this dissertation is located together in the section about questionnaire within this chapter. 4.2 Case study In the case study were included nine companies, five of them with a NP4457:2007 certification and four not certified companies. One of the non-certified companies had internally developed RDI management system and in another company its development was in process. It was originally planned to interview five non certified companies, however it was only possible to interview only four. Consequently the sample comparison with certified companies was incomplete. However some very interesting data was uncovered from the input obtained. All of the certified and non-certified companies interviewed were in different sizes and business maturity. Some of them had international subsidiaries and others were locally in expanding. This was intentional to include companies from a wider perspective. 4.3 Questionnaire used for the case study The questionnaire used during the personal interviews included nine topics as defined in the benchmarking of the studied auditing tools and in Table 9 an overview is given about the coverage. Processes of innovation management Questionnaire process coverage Company characterization Included general and financial data about the company, short explanation of their products/services, information on implemented management systems and definition of company innovation behaviour including innovation adoption (competitive positioning), type and degrees of innovation. Organizational strategy for innovation Included open format questions about the concept of innovation and on motivation for developing innovation management system, plus a section with questions about innovation management system. Nine statements with choices covered innovation strategy process. Table 9. Questionnaire scope. (cont. 1/2) The importance of an innovation management system 40 Processes of innovation management Questionnaire process coverage Organizational culture In the questionnaire were indicated ten innovation culture statements with choices. Management of knowledge Was divided into two sets of questions: knowledge management was coved with seven statements and employee training with two statements. Creation and management of ideas Was covered with two sets of questions: idea creation with nine statements and idea management and evaluation with six statements. Development of products/services and management of technology and projects Importance was attributed to the topic with 16 statements. Commercialisation and diffusion of the products/services Commercialization and marketing activities together were covered with 13 statements. Management of already launched products About management of pos-launch activities were included five statements. Innovation outcome Covered with seven statements. Table 9. Questionnaire scope. (cont. 1/2) Statements with choices (leading question type) n/a or disagree, applies partly, applies mostly, applies totally and open format questions were used to construct the interview guide. At the end of each block of questions respondents were ask to clarify their answers. In practice, the respondents’ added spontaneously interesting statements and specifications were asked were relevant. The questionnaire was designed to be able to be completed within one hour and to facilitate this it was sent beforehand to the respondents by email. The aim of the empirical research conducted in the scope of this dissertation is to answer two questions. Firstly, what the advantages of implementing a RDI management system based on a certified system are. And secondly, what is the implementation impact of certified innovation management system based on the Portuguese sample. The first question on the advantages of implementing a RDI management based on a certified system was answered based on the open format questions responses and general comments given by the respondents throughout the interview. The second question about what is the implementation impact of certified innovation management system based on the Portuguese sample was answered based on the key statements from the respondents and analysing the quantitative figures drawn based on the statements input. 4.4 Data collection All the interviews were recorded and information was transcribed into separate questionnaire forms.. Duration of the interviews varied between 45min to 90min, average interview lasted 75 minutes. Secondly, information was organised in a MS Excel file. Data was processed and figures presented under the results. The importance of an innovation management system 41 5 Results Results presented in this dissertation follow the questionnaire structure that was originally introduced through the benchmarking of seven management frameworks for innovation. Company characteristics are presented in an independent section. Empirical analysis of the interview data is organised by three topics. Firstly an overview of the innovation concept input. Then, value perceived from the certification implementation impact is described by analysing the company motivation for certification and insights given by other companies. Finally certification impact on the system effectiveness is analysed through quantitative figures analysing the eight processes important to innovation management. 5.1 Company characteristics Case study were analysed both the national standard NP4457:2007 certified companies and standard not implemented companies in different business development and company size. All together nine mainly Portuguese origin information technology (IT) companies were interviewed. This sector was chosen because previous study revealed that this sector has the highest standard NP4457:2007 adoption rate. Moreover, aspects from global economical development also supported positively the sector relevance. The group of certified companies includes three small and medium sized companies (SMEs), one large sized company and one startup company. Two of the SMEs and the medium size company show reasonable market maturity. See Table 10 with NP4457:2007 certified companies’ information. The group of non-certified companies included mainly companies still in the startup phase and one market established large sized company. See Table 11 for general characteristics of the companies not NP4457:2007 certified. In the table are indicated: company foundation year and their main products/services, number of workers (in case of certified companies that number is directly related to the NP4457:2007 certified RDI system), where possible sales behaviour and investment in RDI over the last three years between the years 2010-2012 are indicated. For certified companies the year of NP4457:2007 certified RDI management system, access to consulting and duration of the standard implementation period are presented. Not certified companies were asked if they have a formal process for RDI management. Also was identified whether the company had implemented other management systems (mostly ISO 9001 was identified). All the companies were asked to describe their innovation behaviour concerning whether they are first-to-the-market, fast followers or late followers. On the product, service, process, organizational, business model and marketing level they identified how they consider their innovation degree on the scale of incremental, balanced, and radical. The importance of an innovation management system 42 General Characteristics Company A Company B Company C Company D Company E Year of foundation 1998 1999 2001 2007 2008 (2011)29 Number of workers/RDI related30 230 / 40 24 / 14 33 / 8 28 / 28 4 / 4 Main products/ services Specializing in developing reliable solutions, services and technologies for information systems Development of laboratory software for different market segments and consultancy Software development, for different segment markets (Health, Telecommunications, etc.), customized ICT solutions Ingest solutions for video production and broadcast industry Development of interactive 3D software application for leisure and business purposes Sales behavior/ investment in RDI (during the period of 2010 – 2012) N/A / 10-15% Mainly local market / 15-30% Local market only / ~ 5% Mainly exportations / ~30% N/A Year of RDI management system NP4457:2007 certification 2010 2009 2011 2011 2012 Duration of the implementation 1 month 9 months 24 months 8 months 6 months Access to external consulting team for implementation Yes Yes Yes No Yes Other management systems certified ISO 9001    In progress - ISO 14001 - - - - - Innovation behavior First to the market Fast follower First to the market Fast follower First to the market First to the market Fast follower First to the market Innovation degree Product Incremental Balanced Balanced Incremental Balanced Service Balanced Incremental Incremental - Incremental Process Radical Incremental Incremental - Incremental Organizational Balanced Balanced Incremental - - Business model - Incremental Incremental Balanced Incremental Marketing Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental Table 10. General characteristics of the NP4457:2007 certified companies. 29 The company was legally established in 2008, but only started running in 2011. 30 Number of workers in the company in 2012 affected by the NP4457:2007 / Number of workers directly involved in the RDI activities. The importance of an innovation management system 43 General Characteristics Company F Company G Company H Company I Year of foundation 1911 2007 2010 2012 Number of workers/RDI related31 434246 / N/A 5 / 5 22 / 9 4 / 4 Main products/ services Development of product and service software technology extensions to integrate multiple applications for a smarter planet Development of software for protecting web application source code (offered as a cloud service) Development of CRM and invoicing applications offered via cloud computing Development of software based on the factory assembly line principle Sales behavior/ investment in RDI during the period of 2010 - 2012 N/A 2/3 local market (export is growing)/ N/A Local market only / 10-15% N/A There is developed an internal process for RDI management Yes No In progress No Other management system(s) certified ISO 9001  - - - ISO 14001  - - - Innovation behavior First to the market First to the market Fast follower Fast follower Fast follower Innovation degree Product Radical Balanced Incremental - Service Radical - - Incremental Process Balanced - Incremental Radical Organizational Balanced - Incremental Balanced Business model Radical - - Balanced Marketing Incremental - - Incremental Table 11. General characteristics of the companies not NP4457:2007 certified. 31 Number of workers in the company in 2012 / Number of workers directly involved in the RDI activities. The importance of an innovation management system 44 5.2 Presenting and analysing the empirical data Presenting and analysing the empirical data includes firstly companies’ input on their perception about innovation concept. Secondly motivational background to NP4457:2007 certification and RDI management in general is examined throughout the respondents’ comments. Some of them are added in the main body of the dissertation but due to the extensive amount of inputs it was not possible to include all of them. In Appendix E. Statements extracted from the interviews. more statements and comments from all the respondents on motivation for RDI management system, its advantages and disadvantages perceived and experienced together with general insights and with some examples of practices that companies are fostering. Some are related to NP4457:2007 certification and others considered relevant to the company RDI management. Due to the input extensively some relevant comments might not be given importance that they deserve. 5.2.1 Innovation concept characterization The concept of innovation curiously presents very harmonious understanding among all the companies. Innovation definition according to the respondents input could be – it is a series of incremental modifications that are in our DNA which allow us to do things in a different way and that are one of our basic pillars in our daily work, moreover it is the reason why we born and what we breathe from day one mostly because of the people who are in the company and who see innovation as a strategic step to differentiate the company from the competition and face the global market. Further details on respondents input that were used to create this innovation definition can be seen in Table 12. Insights on concept of innovation Company A “Innovation is one of our basic pillars, so I would say that it is in our daily work. It is mandatory for us! ” Company B “It’s a series of incremental modifications, improvements in the product and in an organization.” Company C N/A Company D “From the day one, we breathe innovation. It´s the way we built the company, to create innovative products, innovative solutions to our customers. Innovation and internationalization are the reasons why we born, otherwise the company would have not started.” Company E “We innovate because of the people who are in the company and are leading the company; these people already have a strong innovation culture and have clearly shorted out in their heads the differentiation, positioning, strategy, surveillance, disruptive innovation versus incremental, risk, risk analyses and why it is needed.” Company F “Our main motivation is part of the DNA; it is the way company was created.” Company G “Innovation is how we differentiate from the competition and how we are able to face the global market. We do not have knowledge about formal innovation management systems.” Company H “I see innovation like a strategic step, and I think most of the employees see innovation like an incremental process.” Company I “For us innovation is to do things we do in a different way, not just because it is different but because it might have some return.” Table 12. Respondents insights on concept of innovation. The importance of an innovation management system 45 5.2.2 Value perceived from the standard certification impact Value perceived is analysed based on the all respondents’ answers on their motivation for RDI formal system. Standard certification impact is further examined throughout the certified companies input on the advantages gained from the certification and drawbacks faced during the implementation and management of the NP4457:2007 certified RDI system. 5.2.2.1 Motivation for the RDI systematic management, system certification and relevance given to it Value perceived from the NP4457:2007 certification impact is examined throughout respondents empirical input. Certified companies were asked to name their motivation for the NP4557:2007 certification and identify because of what reasons they consider the certification relevant (Table 13). Not NP4457:2007 certified companies were asked to bring out their motivation for RDI systematic management and future system certification. Two of the NP4457:2007 certified companies stated that they went through the certification process voluntarily (company A and B); others admitted that Portuguese national RDI management standard certification came as a mandatory condition from a national incentive program. Motivation for the NP4457:2007 certification and/or RDI management Relevance attached to NP4457:2007 certification and/or RDI management system Company A ”When we read the NP4457:2007 we said that we do everything that is based here so let´s certify, why not.” “Yes, we plan to continue with the certification. Our sector is very competitive so it is mandatory to have innovation.” Company B “The adoption of the NP4457:2007 was done with our will so we have done it from ourselves and totally voluntary. For us it made total sense.” “We are expecting that ISO would produce the standard for innovation management, recognition from ISO will be totally different from Portuguese standard.” Company C “It was one of the mandatory requirements from the co-funding programme.” “The certification seal distinguishes us from other companies. I think that it helps maintaining our clients and also helps us.” Company D “Because we had some projects running with QREN and it was an obligation so we had to submit our system to certification.” “Yes, we are planning to continue with the certification as we are continuously getting new projects with QREN. I do not really see any other benefit coming for the stamp that financial.” Company E “In our case the motivation was almost, let’s say, an obligation coming from the QREN programme.” “I guess certification would make sense in a later stage of our business cycle. We are still assessing whether we want to keep with certification.” Table 13. NP4457:2007 certified companies’ motivation for the standard implementation and relevance attached to the certification obtained. For company A innovation is a need on its markets and in fact they did prior the certification already everything that NP4457:2007 required. Their implementation process took one month due to that. Company B was the first company out of the interviewed five certified companies to obtain the certification in 2009. For them the process was curious as they say themselves. The importance of an innovation management system 46 First they had implemented the ISO 9001 standard and then after successfully developing and stabilizing all the documentation for that certification they were proposed by APCER32 the NP4457:2007 certification. Back then the NP4457:2007 was not known by most of the companies so it was a surprise, but for them it made total sense, the CEO added “it made total sense because that was what we were doing and it allowed us to have more formal procedures for our records”. Company C nevertheless of being pushed to the certification knowledge that standard helped them to improve the internal processes related to innovation and according to the CEO of the company that the certification seal distinguishes them from other companies and helps maintaining their clients. Contrary, company D leader has different point of view on the certification by seeing it mainly as a stamp but still will continue with the formal process as the company is benefiting national funding incentives for the new projects. Both companies foresee continuing with the NP4457:2007 certification. For company E, NP4457:2007 certification was an obligation that they tried to confront in a constructive way, its CEO commented: “I think it is very complicated to maintain a standard of these, this is my opinion”, and they are considering whether they wish to keep it or not as in their current size they see that it requires resources they do not have. Analyse continues with the non-certified companies. Their comments are included in the Table 14. Motivation for the RDI systematic management and system certification Company F “We are what we are and we reached this position due to innovation. So as I told, the easiest thing to say is that it is part of our DNA. And part of our values.” [The ISO standard in development on RDI would be very interesting to company as] “[...] we want to be certified, it is very important for us to be certified. Even if in some situations, even though in some of the [existing] certification areas they are not created but supported by company internal practices.” Company G “We do not have the size to justify such formalism.” “The first step is knowing exactly what are the advantages of adopting.” Company H “We are making an effort to make innovation culture as part of the company´s culture.” “I would love to create our own approach to innovation and don´t really consider implementing the Portuguese standard.” “I think that standards/frameworks are too much closed.” Company I “I believe we have to have a minimum size in order to implement the standard.” “I believe the smaller the company the easier it is to set up any process, but the bureaucratic part is that put as always with some thoughts before starting these things.” Table 14. Non-certified companies motivation for RDI systematic management. From the not certified companies reveals that one of them, company F, has internally developed RDI management system. Company H is in a process of integrating innovation 32 Portuguese Association for Certification. The importance of an innovation management system 47 culture as part of the company culture. CEO of the company H comments: “I spoke with some companies to understand the framework and some guys were really enthusiastic of the frameworks and some people said to be careful as sometimes these frameworks put too much bureaucracy and that is the problem”. Company G and I do see it beneficial the RDI management and have implemented some practices although due to their small size both of them exclude the possibility of voluntarily adopting a formal RDI management system in their current development phase. Company F nevertheless expresses curiosity and openness towards the ISO standard in development for RDI certification. They justify the development of RDI management system with the internal need and adds that certification would be very important for them. When looking at all the nine companies’ responses, the more mature the company is the more likely they are interested in formal RDI system adoption. Company A, B and F are the good examples of that. Company C could be considered to be on the side of the voluntary fostering of RDI systematic management as they present strong interest to continue with the certification. Company D shows positive evolution in developing voluntarily a management system, nevertheless certification in the current situation was faced more as an obligation. Company H shows a similar profile with its internal development of systematization for the RDI process. Looking at the first group of companies (A, B and F) company D and H present prebehaviour phase which first group of companies had fostered prior the certification or formal internal process for RDI management. Company E, G, I are all small sized startup companies and too formal process for RDI management is not considered beneficial as the communication is very much agile. 5.2.2.2 Main benefits and difficulties indicated by the certified companies In the Table 15 are collected main advantages and disadvantages of the NP4457:2007 certification. The benefits named by certified companies are the routinization and more structured processes and information. All the companies agree that standard can help to foster and drive a change in the company. Company E CEO stated on the topic: “Standard is an antibody that helps to bring the changes and influence people that otherwise would be almost impossible and therefore can be seen as an instrument of change”, he considered the standard very important from that point of view. Difficulties related to Portuguese standard certification are mainly the bureaucracy it bring and the fact that a certification requires human resources to manage it and in relation to that a certain dimension from the company. Company B brings a nice example by describing that for doing all the records they internally developed software to manage everything digitally, “it is important part of the implementation and allows eliminating all the bureaucracy and the administrative procedures that do not have any value to the organization.” The importance of an innovation management system 48 Company A Company B Company C Company D Company E Advantages/Benefits “Main thing that we have gained is the more structured information.” “The standard helps systematize knowledge.” “The standard can be a driver of change.”      “Documentation improved with the certification.” “[...]more systematic approach and more structured activities.” “New channels were created in support of systematization, timeline definition […]” “[...] things are more organized[...]” “An area that improved a lot was that of interface management” Difficulties/ Drawbacks Standard needs people to keep it which further require a certain dimension from the company.   “It is an error for me if a company who does not have implemented any standard start implementing RDI standard as a first standard.” “If we had more people in the team, things [idea management] could work out better” “For very small companies I doubt that the system becomes economical but for big companies yes, I believe.” “For a company with our size […] a standard like this is difficult to keep […] You need to have dedicated people to it”. “There is a bureaucratic side in the standard.”      “The things existed already and we did them, but not in a formal way” Some “things are done because they have to be done” according to the standard. Running the system effectively “requires time.” “In the beginning there was some natural resistance as we were only four and communication was very agile and tacit.” Table 15. Main advantages and disadvantages identified from NP4557:2007 certification. 5.2.3 Certification impact on the system effectiveness This chapter includes eight sub chapters, each of them characterising the case study sample from one process of innovation management. Firstly, short description of the questionnaire statements is presented, (full questionnaire found in the Appendix D. Comparison of the behaviour of the certified and non-certified companies´ innovation management compliance is introduced. Answers considered favourable and in compliance with the innovation management practices are the applying totally and applying mostly responses. In analysis, where relevant, are added some key statements from respondents. Answers from all the respondents were summed up in each predefined choice in calculating values for analysis (n/a or disagree, applies partly, applies mostly, applies totally) For example, as the company strategy for innovation had nine statements and the case study included nine respondents, then for the five certified companies 5x9=45 maximum responses that are distributed among the four choices. For four non-certified companies the calculation The importance of an innovation management system 55 This process could be seen critical as involved statements are mainly related to the top management and company strategy development. Certified companies present stronger compliance in this aspect. In relation to that can it be assumed that generally the certification has been beneficial in this process. The importance of an innovation management system 56 6 Discussion and conclusions First of all the definition of innovation according to the respondents input is: “Innovation is a series of incremental modifications that are in the DNA of a company, which allow to do things in a different way and that are one of the basic pillars in daily work, moreover it is the reason why companies born. Innovation is what companies breathe from day one mostly because of the people and it is a step to differentiate from the competition and face the global market”. To answer the research questions set in the objectives of this dissertation and described in the methodology, current discussion and conclusions chapter endeavours to draw connections between the objectives and results presented in the previous chapter. To answer the first question ”what the advantages of implementing a RDI management based on a certified system are“, the input from all the companies has been used. The main results reveal are: three of the companies faced a mandatory condition coming from the national finical incentive to implement the Portuguese national NP4457:2007 RDI management standard. Two of the SMEs pushed to the certification foresee continuing with the certification; One justifies the voluntary fostering with the fact that the certification helps them internally to structure the activities connected to the RDI management system and secondly considers certification important for maintaining their clients (their market is national); Other company on the contrary justified the NP4457:2007 certification with the continuous financing incentives for their new products; For the two more mature companies NP4457:2007 certification was process leaded voluntarily and they foresee continuing with the certification as they see it more as a strategic step. Large size company involved in the case study indicated that prior to implementation of the standard they already did do everything. They identify that the IT sector is very competitive and standard has improved their documentation in favour of RDI management, subsequently foresee continuing with the certification. Some companies also see benefits rising from the current ISO international RDI management system development in process as being NP4457:2007 certified will facilitate future ISO certification and recognition from ISO is perceived to be totally different from Portuguese standard. Author´s curiosity and motivation to this subject undergone in this dissertation was also very strongly influenced by the ISO standard development in the area of the RDI management. Among the drawback the respondents´ experienced with the NP4457:2007 certification are the human resources it requires to maintain it. Smaller companies consider it very complicated to maintain a standard mainly from the certification point of view. All of the respondents agree and recognise the need of following the best practices but the bureaucracy introduced by the documentation is considered too heavy for starting companies where the communication is still very much agile. The importance of an innovation management system 57 To answer the second question “what is the implementation impact of certified innovation management system based on the Portuguese sample” was used the quantitative analyse principle. According to the certification impact on the system effectiveness, can be concluded that organizational strategy for innovation, commercialisation and diffusion of the products/services and innovation outcome are the innovation management sub-processes that are considered to benefit the most from fostering a formal innovation management system. Development of products/services and management of technology projects shows moderate favourability towards the certified companies compliance and management of knowledge seems to be influenced slightly. This could be associated to the fact of IT sector naturally emphasising the importance and structuring more efficiently the activities connected to organizational culture, creation and management of ideas, management of already launched products. Fostering these processes showed similar behaviour in the entire studies sample. Generally can be concluded that the RDI management system has brought advantages namely in the formalization of the RDI activities; higher documentation and structuring of the information, and moreover in the involvement of the all the employees contribution to the company success by systematizing the knowledge. And importantly, standard can be a driver for a change in the company that without the external influence could be more complicated to implement. 6.1 Opportunities for future research Firstly, would be interesting to involve in analyse more companies from the information technology (IT) sector to further sustain the results. The current nine companies are seen to not allow a complete and comprehensive overview. A case study of this research was situated in the IT sector, but also could be very interesting to study the RDI standard implementation influence in the other sectors. Moreover, could it add value a proactive RDI system manager and how are the current innovation managers. What shall be the recommendable competences of a proactive RDI system manager? During the contact with the NP4557 certified companies was came out that they receive numerous requests to participate in the studies about innovation management which in reality they are not able to positively respond. Therefore, would be interesting to form a national organ that would gather information about all the publications and research work on innovation management (plus relevant international ones) to coordinate the interview/questionnaire flow that the companies receive. This is more a suggestion but as was rose by many respondents importance should be given to this. The importance of an innovation management system 58 7 Bibliographical references Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. “UNE 166002:2006 R&D&i management: R&D&i management system requirements.” 2006. British Standards. “BS 7000-1:2008 Design management systems - Part 1: Guide to managing innovation.” 2008. Caetano, Isabel, and Joana dos Guimarães Sá. “A certificação dos sistemas de gestão da Inovação.” Revista da Ordem dos Engenheiros, Ingenuim p. 28-29, July/August 2011. COTEC. Guia de Boas Practicas de Gestão de Inovação. 2.ª edição.275p. ISBN-978-98995583-2-8, 2010. Eagar, Rick, Frederik van Oene, and Charles Boulton. “The future of innovation management.” Prism, Arthur D.Litte, 1 2011. Engel, Kai, Kristina Wagner, and Joshua Hubbert. Innovation Management Assessment. A. T. Kearney GmbH, 2007. Eveleens, Chris. “Innovation management; a literature review of innovation process models and their implications.” Nijmegen, NL, pp. 1–16, 2010. Freeman, Chris. “A Schumpeterian Renaissance?” Science and Technology Policy Research, 2003. Freeman, Christopher. “The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 2nd edn. Frances Pinter, London revolution, Oxford University Press.” International Review of Law and Economics, 1982. Godin, Benoît. In the Shadow of Schumpeter: W. Rupert Maclaurin and the Study of Technological Innovation. Project on the Intellectual history of Innovation, 2008. Goffin, Keith, and Rick Mitchell. Innovation Management: Strategy and Implementation Using the Pentathlon Framework. 352p. ISBN-13: 978-1-4039-1260-2: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Henderson, Rebecca M., and Kim B. Clark. “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1, Special Issue: Technology, Organizations, and Innovation (Mar., 1990), pp. 9-30, 1990. Imp3rove. Imp3rove:A European Project with Impact 50 Success Stories on Innovation Management. Europe INNOVA Paper n°14, ISBN 978-92-79-14070-9, 2010. INNOVA. “European Innovation Management Landscape.” 2006. Instituto Português de Qualidade. “NP4456:2007 Research, Development and Innovation (RDI). Terminology and definitions of RDI activities.” 2007a. Instituto Português de Qualidade. “NP4457:2007 Research, Development and Innovation (RDI). RDI mamagement system requirements.” 2007b. Koetzier, W., S. Kristensen, and A. Alon. The Innovation Death Spiral. Accenture, 2011. Land, George, and Beth Jarman. Breakpoint and Beyond. Harpercollins Publisher, ISBN: 0887306047, p288, 1993. The importance of an innovation management system 59 Little, Artur D. “Getting a Better Return on Your Innovation Investment.” Technology and Innovation Management, 2013. Mir, Moisés, and Martí Casadesús. “Standardised innovation management systems: A case study of the Spanish Standard UNE 166002:2006.” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 71, p.1733-1737, 2011. Müller-Prothmann, Tobias. “Innovation Management Devils.” Innoplex project at Pumacy Technologies AG, 2006. OECD and Eurostat. Oslo Manual 3rd Edition. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. OECD/European Communities, ISBN 92-64-01308-3, 2005. OECD. The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities. Using patent data as science and technology indicators. 1994. Pimental, Ana. “O que é preciso para conseguir ser inovador.” Jornal de Negocios in Investimento & Inovação & PME, 24 06 2010. Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovation, 3rd updated edition, ISBN 0-02-926650-5. 1983. Rothwell, Roy. “Towards the Fifth-generation Innovation Process.” International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 7-31, MCB University Press, 0265-1335, 1994. Sack, John. “Innovation and Standardization; Friends not Foes.” Information Standards Quarterly, Vol 23, Issue 4, ISSN 1041-0031, 2011. Sánches, Lago, and Ribeira Ferrás. “Innovation Management Practices, Strategic Adaption and Business Results: Evidence from the Electronic Industry.” 2011. Schumpeter, Joseph A. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York Toronto London : McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1939, 461 pp, 1939. Tang, Jia. “Corporate Culture and Integrated Management Systems: A case study of the UK Construction Industry.” Thesis of Master of Science of the University of East Anglia, 2003. The European Parliament and the Council. “Regulation No 1025/2012 on European standardisation.” Official Journal of the European Union, 2012. Thuriaux-Alemán, B., R. Eagar, and A. Johansson. Getting a Better Return on Your Innovation Investment. Arthur D. Little, 2013. World Economic Forum and INSEAD. “Global Information Technology Report 2012: Living in a Hyperconnected World.” 2012. The importance of an innovation management system 60 Appendix A. Interview contacts. Company Contact person Responsibility 3Decide Carlos Rebelo Co-founder and CEO Ambitada Paulo Rego CEO Auditmark Pedro Fortuna Co-founder and CTO Bitmaker Software Ricardo Fernandes Co-founder and CEO Critical Software Fernanda Machado I&K Manager IBM José Eduardo Fonseca Chief Technologist of IBM Portugal MOG Technologies Luis Miguel Sampaio CEO Ueb Tiago Almeida CEO Shortcut Valter Henriques Co-founder and CEO The importance of an innovation management system 61 Appendix B. Framework graphical models in larger image. a. Keith Goffin & Rick Mitchell Innovation Pentathlon framework (2005) b. A.T. Kearney House of Innovation (2006) The importance of an innovation management system 62 c. Spanish linear Innovation Model, UNE 166002:2006 d. Portuguese chain-interactive Innovation Model, NP4457:2007 The importance of an innovation management system 63 e. Accenture Performance Innovation Engine (2010) f. CEN-Committee 389 Innovation Management, Part 1: Innovation Management System, CEN/TS 16555-1:2012 The importance of an innovation management system 64 g. Arthur D. Little´s Innovation Excellence Model (2013) The importance of an innovation management system 71 3. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 3.1. Innovation culture statements N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally Company innovation culture is defined Activities are developed to support innovation culture implementation Innovation management is attributed importance by the top management Top management motivates employees to creativity and innovation Culture of learning from the mistakes is encouraged Organization invests in employee/team development Employee working conditions are flexible (location, schedule, dress code, etc) Employees love to come to work Innovation culture is part of marketing strategy Traineeship/Internship programs are created Please specify the applied statements 4. MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE 4.1. Knowledge management statements N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally Competences required for having competitive advantage through innovation are mapped Main forces and weaknesses compared to competitors are identified Essential technological areas for the business are prioritized Critical markets/areas are defined for the company success Sources of internal and external information are systematized and used regularly Methodology is defined for systematic dissemination and management of knowledge Responsible for this task is named Please specify the applied statements 4.2. Employee training statements N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally Internal training sessions are elaborated Employees are encouraged for continuous professional learning and personal development Please specify the applied statements The importance of an innovation management system 72 5. CREATION AND MANAGEMENT OF IDEAS 5.1. Idea creation statements N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally All the employees are involved in the idea creation Regular activities are held to generate ideas Every idea is registered (evaluation comes after!) Employees can add/suggest ideas spontaneously Creation boosting tools are practices (brainstorming, mind maps, benchmarking, alternative ideas sessions etc) Workers are given extra resources for creating and managing ideas (time, finance, leisure, etc) Cross functional fertilization between members/teams/units is fostered Connections are established with external bodies (sharing knowledge, open innovation, etc) Customer feedback capturing is systematised Please specify the applied statements (tools and activities used for idea creation) 5.2. Idea management and evaluation statements N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally Ideas are registered and managed within the idea portfolio Process for idea management has been implemented Idea evaluation methodology is set and practiced regularly Every idea is given a chance and selected ones developed further Idea management is systematically communicated to the employees (activities, evaluation, results, developments, etc) Person for this responsibility is named Please specify the applied statements (how occurs your idea management and evaluation) 6. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PRODUCTS & SERVICES and MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY AND PROJECT PORTFOLIOS 6.1. Development process statements N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally Funding is available for developing selected ideas Small and priority projects move through the pipeline quicker Development process is systematised and allows a wide and updated overview of the idea portfolio and/or technology and project pipeline Development process is adapted to the market conditions and project requirements There is a R&D unit/specification Milestones for new launches are set according to the company business strategy The importance of an innovation management system 73 New product/service development methods and tools are used (Agile Software Development, LEAN methods) Evaluation methodology is set and criteria for promising product/service selection is practiced systematically Stringent market acceptance/field tests are made early on the development process Development teams are multidisciplinary Design process methods are used (design to cost, quality function development, etc) Effective knowledge management helps to capture and disseminate best practice knowledge Development is done hand-in-hand with the client Lead users are applied to obtain information Risk management activities are practiced Person for this responsibility is named Please specify the applied statements (methods and tools used) 7. COMMERCIALIZATION AND DIFFUSION OF THE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 7.1. Commercialization and marketing statements N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally Processes are set to bring innovative products/services to the market Distribution and marketing activities are applied an innovative approach Creativity demonstrated in the promotional mix Elements of the marketing mix are continuously monitored in comparison with competitors Channel intermediaries are involved in the marketing team process of idea generation and strategy planning Marketing management effectively scans and identifies good practices by other companies Customer satisfaction is measured Customers perceive company products/services innovative Benefit ratio of promotional campaigns is improving Company experiments with new communication ideas Company´s record of new products/services development is satisfactory compared with main competitors The speed of converting ideas into practical innovations is improving Market launches are managed by cross-functional teams Please specify the applied statements The importance of an innovation management system 74 8. MANAGEMENT OF ALREADY LAUNCHED PRODUCTS 8.1. Pos-launch statements N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally Company separates product/service improvements from new product development activities Mechanisms for obtaining customer feedback are use to improve and update products/services There is financing for continuous improvement of the already launched products/services Post-launch methodology is more and more engaged in tailoring the products/services There is collaborative environment between R&D and product management Please specify the applied statements 9. INNOVATION OUTCOME 9.1. Innovation outcome statements N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally Company has established indicators for controlling and evaluation of innovation management activities There are indicators from innovation management activities outcome that support the development of innovation strategy according to the action plan External audits serve for critical reflection about the system Innovation management outcomes are discussed and analysed by the top management Innovation activities contribute positively to financial development of the company Company has registered patent(s) Company innovation activities have positive influence on the industry sector Please specify the applied statements (patents registered) The importance of an innovation management system 75 Appendix E. Statements extracted from the interviews. Motivation Company A “Well, as I said to you, innovation is a need for us on our markets.” “I would say that it was clear for us that when we looked at the standard we had read it and said “we have everything”. When we read the NP4457:2007 we said that we do everything that is based here so let´s certify, why not.” “It was the company who found the standard interesting and it was neither proposed by APSER nor obliged from the QREN.” “Yes, we plan to continue with the certification.” Company B “That was a very curious process, after we had implemented the ISO 9001 in 2007, we had more or less one year to stabilise our procedures and so on. [...] we had appreciated the process and the standard and it seemed at that moment after implementing the 9001 standard a great thing.” “The adoption of the NP4457:2007 was done with our will so we have done it from ourselves and totally voluntary, plus did not have any funds for that. But it was not a purpose for us, in fact we did not knew the standard very well, we had heard about it but we did not knew it and it was by suggestion of APCER that we have decided to go for the NP4457:2007. We were the 12th company in Portugal that has certified the NP4457:2007.” “[...] in that moment COTEC was not doing the effort that is doing now to force the companies, most of the companies that were associated to COTEC to do the certification, to implement the standard of NP4457:2007.” “It was not known by most of the companies so it was a surprise, but for us it made total sense. It made total sense because that was what we were doing and it allowed us to have more formal procedures for our records.” “It made total sense to us because that was what we were doing and it allowed us to have more formal procedures for our records.” Company C “[...]the implementation of the NP4457 as it was one of the obligations coming from QREN. “ Company D “From the day one, we let´s say breathe innovation. It´s the way we built the company, to create innovative products, innovative solutions to our customers. From the beginning we had a team to find always new solutions, creative solutions, to solve the problems and the needs of our customers.” Innovation and internationalization are the reasons why we born, otherwise the company would have not started.” “It was an obligation from the QREN.” The importance of an innovation management system 76 “We started the development of a management system 3 years before. We prepared our system, but we did not have intention to certify it. It was simply the way we worked. Because we had some projects running with QREN and it was an obligation so we had to submit our system to certification. That´s why it was easy and took 8 months and we were able to have the system ready for the certification.” “For me I don´t have any value for the stamp. Yes, we are “planning” to continue with the certification as we are continuously getting new projects with QREN. So it is a must. I do not really see any other benefit coming for the stamp that financial. Because there are two things, one is to have the process and the other thing is to have the certification. Certification is what I call the stamp. The stamp is for nothing. We do not have any partners neither customers who would value the certification. “Ah, you have it, great for you! It does not make any difference for us.” Company E “I think, and will be totally honest, because I think this is what the studies need. In our case the motivation was almost, let´s say, an obligation due to QREN project. And therefore was an obligation that we tried to confront in a constructive way in the company.” Company F “Our main motivation is part of the DNA; it is the way company was created.” Company G “I think that five people company perhaps do not justify having someone spending like, I don´t know how much time.., managing the whole thing is quite cumbersome.” “We do not have the size to justify such formalism.” “The first step is knowing exactly what are the advantages of adopting.” Company H “We are building this systematized innovation process as we and our partners are really concerned with innovation because we know we need it. CEO will be in charge of the innovation process systematization during the next year and will always stay involved in that process.” “I study some frameworks but I would love to create our own way to approach innovation and don´t really consider implementing the Portuguese standard.” I think that standards/frameworks are too much closed. Part of innovation is creativity and I think that frameworks they don´t let the process to be as creative as I would like to be. So I prefer to create our own approach to innovation with no standards or frameworks. I look to the best practices; some companies are really innovative in making things.” Company I “Yes, I would be very interested but not right now. I believe we do not have the right size. As soon as we grow a little bit more, I believe we have to have a minimum size in order to do this. But the size cannot be so big that it is harder to implement.” The importance of an innovation management system 77 Comments and benefits of RDI management system Company A “[...] we already had all the procedures implemented and developed in the company. We just had to make small adjustments to the requirements of the standard; we did not have to do anything new.” Company B “The main thing that was changed after having the standard implemented was the routines and the records that we are doing. So the things existed already and we did them, but not in a formal way.” “If the company has innovation culture previously before the certification, the changes will not be so big. It will be adoptions to already existing system and to have a more systematic approach and more structured activities. This is the most value that it adds to the organization.” “To have overview of everything and information extracted, even more importantly, to know which interfaces that you are monitoring that have generated knowledge to your organization. This is some kind of information that you get and is really important and something that the standard can help you to do that.” “We are doing all the records and documenting in software, internal software that is developed by us.” “So it is all documented in the software, we do not have papers for the procedures, it is always digitally. And it is easy to work with the software. It is important part of the implementation and allows you to eliminate all the bureaucracy and the administrative procedures that do not have any value to the organization.” Company C “Standard helped to see other areas than technical (product) as areas where they could innovate. Maybe we did some already in some ways but did not feel that it was an innovation.” “I would say that yes, the standard helped to define the scope of our innovation, but is not completely closed.” “In terms of innovation culture and creativity that already existed in the company (one of the forces that helped to implement the standard), only there was no systematization of the processes. That was an advantage of implementing the system.” “When we speak about organizational culture then we speak about collaborative spirit of the people, entrepreneur, we are working for all, we are all partners in terms of work.” “Main benefit was the systematization of the process that already existed. Also where created the channels that allow this systematization and time definitions [...].” “Methods that allow us to do the idea management, suggestions management.” “Innovation and creativity are included in the communication.” “The fact of being certified helps as to speak the same language with the companies who also are and share the problems.” “I think on the level of interfaces it is good.” The importance of an innovation management system 78 “I think that the standard helps always with the systematization.” “And as there is achieve of things, for repeating questions answers can be found from there (example, this does not makes sense as was evaluated before).” Company D “Yes in the sense that the things are more organized I give value.” “With the certification/standardization nothing changed, just the stamp.” “How we systematize the information? [...] first thing is that we have a SharePoint, and we have some owners of things. [...] we have a person in charge of the standard for example. He goes to the meetings for the standard definition and every time there is a change he notice that in the SharePoint.” Company E “The standard helped to structure what was in our heads to be more sharable with the team.” “In some points the standard insists that there are people very dedicated to the topic.” “One of the areas that I presume more important from the standard is the management of interfaces, doing monitoring and surveillance/vigilance. So this, in some way obliges producing reports of surveillance. I think it makes all sense to have in the CRM the information and then do sync, this has lot of value.” “Standard obliged and same time helped to define the scope if RDI activities of the company, understand the business focus, obliged to define measurable RDI objectives, with real significance. Nevertheless, in the state that we are, it was not the standard that was the driving force, obliged to do this.” “Standard helped to formalize the process of knowledge management. Obligated to report the surveillance, integration of the information in the CRM.” Company F “It is part of the company the culture to share, so one is always engaged to share. When I arrived, the system was already set and it come naturally for me and one of the first sessions that I had was about innovation that company was bringing. It was normal.” “We are what we are and we reached this position due to innovation. So as I told, the easiest thing to say is that it is part of our DNA. And part of our values.” Company G N/A Company H “Innovation strategy/documentation is what we are building during the next year. It will be part of the plan to develop the strategy with defined targets to the year and to the months in order to develop new products or to increase disruptive innovation.” “We and our partners are really concerned with innovation because we know we need innovation.” Company I N/A The importance of an innovation management system 79 Drawbacks of the RDI management system Company A N/A Company B “For me it is an error if a company who does not have implemented any standard starts implementing RDI standard as a first standard. Because if there is already standard implemented, its routines and procedures and it makes it easier to understand what you have to do. As it is only in certain activities that we do project, ideas, knowledge and so on, there need to be implemented some standardized procedures beforehand that allow that.” “If the company does not have an innovation culture, I do not believe that implementing the standard will improve that.” “Probably mapping the competences is the most important things that we could do better regarding the standard. Because the knowledge in this kind of company is the most important. Of course you need to have ideas, you need to have innovation, but in certain point it is very important to manage the knowledge that you have inside. And some of the knowledge is not structured in a formal way, it is inside of your head, and this is the most important. Well we could do better.” “We have everything implemented and documented, what is lacking us is changing the knowledge that some people have in their head to the documents to be defused by everyone.” “We have a lot of ideas what we call coffee ideas, when we are taking our coffee we have brilliant ideas all the time. But when we need to start thinking about them and structure them and to think a little bit more and to see the implications [...]. Company C “Difficulty lies in the fact that one person wished to do everything and then starts with vices objectives and then not easily implementable in terms of system and in terms of usability as are too complex.” “We will try to do a simplification as we had objectives for everything (to too many things) as many of the indicators did not bring out important results. It was mainly helped to define but it can be seen as an obligation from the standard and most of it is formality. As there were many processes, each of them had to have objectives then objectives were developed in the way that what-will-be-put-here”. “I think they are maybe more difficulties [...] mostly time, bureaucracy, and systematization in a good way but maybe a bit stiff. Sometimes it is not needed a meeting, but we do a brainstorming and that does not stay registered in the system.” Company D “I would say that innovation strategy is something that is impossible to create a total documentation. In our mission, innovation policy we describe exactly what we want, in that sense yes it is totally documented. Of course it is depending, we are speaking about statements and all of them are quite wage.” “Our action plan has targets, nevertheless have defined couple of objectives that we are not able to measure, sometimes it happens. Sometimes when we define an objective we find a way to measure it but then it is not so easy to implement it, sometimes it takes time.” The importance of an innovation management system 80 “One year ago systematic dissemination and management of knowledge methodology was defined better than it is now. We had more internal forums and things like that but with time people start to slow down that process. So it is not so efficient at the moment.” “The reason why we have it [SharePoint] is that everybody was asking for it. But the truth is that I doubt that they use the SharePoint regularly, most of the cases they go to the system folders to have the information from there. People ask for new things but it takes some times to start using them.” “Yes we have a process implemented for ideas management, nevertheless have been already changing it several times. Evaluation methodology is not really set and that is the reason why we had to change the process several times. What happens is that people always find barriers to use the methodology, always find excuses because of something with what they don´t agree (does not match) in the process.” Company E “As constructive personal critics note that standard tends to create an association, sometimes to straight in the focus on the financial return of the things. I think it happens as a form for the standard to gain force at the same time.” “Innovation objectives were defined, but are so called artificial/formality in a small company.” “I think it is very complicated to maintain a standard of these, this is my opinion.” “Yes, from the certification point of view we would maintain what is here the good practice, that’s why we try to do the things from the constructive point of view so when we arrive to the end would gain something. And we gained.” “At that time the X (responsible) had three hats (responsibilities): manager of innovation management system, manager of innovation, manager of the results of the system.” “Standard a bit complicated, focuses more on if the things are done.” Company F N/A Company G N/A Company H “I think that standards/frameworks are too much closed. Part of innovation is creativity and I think that frameworks they don´t let the process to be as creative as I would like to be.” Company I N/A The importance of an innovation management system 87 happens that the document itself is one page. In the control we have the process owner, document owner, reviewers, approvers; all of it is part of the documentation. Also the history of change control, with the date.” Company G “We do traineeships regularly and have had almost 20 trainees here; from FEUP we have had 15. It is part of our innovation process, because we have these ideas bubbling all the time regarding to our products and future products.” Company H “We pay our employees outside trainings, workshops.” “We have a program, we select young students on their second year, we make some interviews with them, we choose two, we pay them the rest of their bachelor, so they have two years working just 8h per week with us, and we pay all the bachelor. When they finish that level, they make their internship with us, and next if they are good they stay.” “Hope that my workers love to come to work, I would love to have better place but at the moment our office is that. We have good conditions, we have a kitchen, they can rest here, have lunch here, and they see some TV here. It is important for me that [workplace] is part of their life, (integrate workers socially), we make some dinners, we make some trips, we make some surfing, (workers feels that they are friends).” “We have totally horizontal management, […] communication it totally informal.” “That is important that we do not have any doors in our office, just in the bathrooms! That is something that we decided to do when we designed our office, we decided to use no doors. I do not have any door at my office.” “We do not have any doors in our office, expect in toilet.” Company I “Once in a while move to a coffee shop for brainstorming, use also other methods for idea creation. The importance of an innovation management system 88 Appendix F. Data of the figures. N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally N/A or disagree Applies partly Applies mostly Applies totally Company strategy for innovation Organizational culture Knowledge management Creation and management of ideas Company A 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 8 1 1 2 5 0 0 5 10 Company B 0 0 4 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 3 6 0 2 3 10 Company C 0 2 1 6 0 0 2 8 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 13 Company D 0 1 4 4 0 2 4 4 0 1 4 4 1 3 6 5 Company E 0 3 2 4 0 0 6 4 0 1 4 4 0 3 2 10 Total 0 6 13 26 0 2 19 29 1 3 15 26 1 8 18 48 Company F 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 15 Company G 5 0 3 1 2 1 6 1 2 2 3 2 0 0 1 14 Company H 8 0 1 0 1 2 0 7 1 4 0 4 0 0 1 14 Company I 4 0 1 4 0 0 1 9 2 2 4 1 10 1 0 4 Total 17 0 5 14 3 3 8 26 5 8 7 16 10 1 2 47 Development of new products Commerzialization and diffusion of the products Management of already launched products Innovation outcome Company A 0 0 3 13 1 0 8 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 6 Company B 0 4 6 6 0 1 7 5 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 7 Company C 0 2 4 10 0 0 4 9 0 1 0 4 1 1 1 4 Company D 0 3 8 5 1 3 6 3 1 0 1 3 0 0 2 5 Company E 3 3 6 4 4 1 3 5 1 0 2 2 2 0 2 3 Total 3 12 27 38 6 5 28 26 2 1 5 17 3 1 6 25 Company F 0 2 0 14 1 2 1 9 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 7 Company G 5 6 3 2 3 6 0 4 0 1 1 3 4 1 0 2 Company H 1 5 1 9 6 1 0 6 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 3 Company I 5 0 4 7 7 0 2 4 4 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 Total 11 13 8 32 17 9 3 23 4 1 3 12 14 1 1 12