Towards an integrated framework for managing the process of innovation

Lan Tao, David Probert and Rob Phaal

Centre for Technology Management, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0FS UK. lt288@cam.ac.uk; drp1001@cam.ac.uk; rp108@cam.ac.uk

Innovation has become a major driving force for business growth and success. However, successful and sustained innovation represents challenges rooted in technological uncertainties, ambiguous market signals and embryonic competitive structures. Notably, in the management of innovation, many challenges still remain in both theory and practice, which demand improved managerial approaches. In this context, the development of a practical and explicit management framework for the process of innovation could be benecial. This research sets out to develop the concept of Innovation Readiness Levels (IRL), an explicit model for managing the process of incremental innovation. Basically, IRL is a framework depicting the development of an innovation over its lifecycle. Within the emerging framework proposed in this paper, ve key aspects that determine the effective implementation of innovation are identied. The lifecycle of innovation is then divided into six phases, and for each phase, associated assessment aspects and criteria are identied. By providing better monitoring and control, IRL is intended to help implement innovation over the lifecycle more effectively. It is also expected to apply as a management tool, for which guidance of use is suggested.

1. Introduction

nnovation has become a driving force for business growth and success. However, successful and sustained innovation represents challenges rooted in technological uncertainties, ambiguous market signals and embryonic competitive structures (Day et al, 2000). These challenges exist not only in theory but also in practical innovation management, which is largely focused on the systematic processes that organisations use to develop new and improved products, services and business processes (Ettlie, 2000; Gofn and Mitchell, 2005). With an increasing pace of the emergence and development of innovation, coping with the challenges in the innovation process has become a foremost concern for technology managers. When this research started, it was observed that a number of companies were in need of improved

managerial approaches for the innovation process. This background lays the foundation for this research. The aim is to develop an explicit framework, which can be used as a tool for managing the process of innovation. In the following sections, the literature related to this research is reviewed. The research question and methodology are then dened and claried. After describing the case studies that have been conducted, an initial framework for the incremental innovation process and further research activity are proposed.

2. The research
The research reported here set out to examine how technological, market and other associated aspects of innovation readiness can be depicted 19

R&D Management 40, 1, 2010. r 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA

Lan Tao, David Probert and Rob Phaal over the lifecycle and to provide the Innovation Readiness Levels (IRL) framework as a tool for managers to position themselves and take into account key elements relating to an innovation. This can be addressed by the following two specic objectives: (i) To develop a generic readiness model that can be abstracted and applied to managing the process of innovation in industry; (ii) To establish generic activities and criteria for each phase of the innovation lifecycle. As this research is exploratory and theory building in nature, it embraces an interpretative philosophical position and uses a case-study approach (Yin, 2003). The logic ow is that rst, existing theories about innovation processes and associated activities were reviewed, following which practical problems and needs were reviewed and identied through case studies with companies that have experienced challenges in managing the process of innovation, as a result of which the practicability and applicability of the conceptual framework of IRL were conrmed. Further case studies were then conducted with leading companies in various industrial sectors, in order to develop and rene the conceptual framework of IRL. The objective in selecting the research subjects was to choose an appropriate population that would allow generalisation of the ndings. When selecting the research subjects, a range of industrial sectors and practicalities of access to companies were considered. This paper concludes with the proposal of an initial framework of IRL. (ii) the introduction of new processes, (iii) the opening of new markets, (iv) the introduction of new organisational forms. According to this denition, innovations are the composite of two worlds namely, the technical world and the business world. When only a change in technology is involved, Schumpeter terms this invention; when the business world is involved, it becomes an innovation (Janszen, 2000). In this paper, innovation is dened as the successful exploitation of new ideas incorporating new technologies, design and best practice (BIS, 2008). This denition is adopted because of the papers focus on technological innovations in manufacturing companies and the associated management of the innovation process.

3.2. Types of innovation

Conventionally, innovations have often been classied as incremental and radical. Incremental innovation reinforces the capabilities of established organisations, while radical innovation forces them to ask a new set of questions, to draw on new technical and commercial skills and to use new problem-solving approaches (Tushman and Anderson, 1986; Burns and Stalker, 1966). Incremental and radical innovations require different organisational capabilities and may require different management processes. This paper mainly focuses on how established organisations manage the process of incremental innovation. Research is ongoing to extend the framework to radical innovation.

3. Literature review leading to the proposal for IRL

Many theories have been developed to describe the process of innovation. Some aspects in the literature are highlighted in this section, as the foundation on which an improved model for managing the process of innovation can be developed.

3.3. The process of innovation

A comprehensive understanding of the lifecycle of innovation can include two phases: technological development and market evolution. In existing theories, one stream is the approaches to managing innovation process, which is more focused on the technological development phase, such as the Stage-Gates Game Plan (Cooper, 1993, 2001) and Technology Readiness Levels (TRL, Mankins, 1995) - see Table 1. Another stream concentrates on the phase of market evolution, understanding and describing the pattern after the innovation is inserted into the marketplace. Examples of this stream can be the theory of Diffusion of Innovations (DOI, Rogers, 1995), the Market Adoption Model (Moore, 1999), which was developed based on the DOI theory (Rogers, 1995),
r 2009 The Authors Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

3.1. Innovation
Innovation was dened by Schumpeter (1934) as the commercialisation of combinations of the following: (i) new materials and components, 20
R&D Management 40, 1, 2010

Integrated framework for managing the process of innovation

Table 1. Technology-readiness levels TechnologyDenitions readiness levels TRL 1 TRL 2 TRL 3 TRL 4 TRL 5 TRL 6 Basic principles observed and reported Technology concept and/or application formulated Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proofof-concept Component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space) System prototype demonstration in a space (operational) environment Actual system completed and qualied through test and demonstration (ground or space) Actual system proven through successful mission operations

TRL 7 TRL 8 TRL 9

Source: Mankins, 1995.

and Product Lifecycle (Levitt, 1965; Polli and Cook, 1969; Beacham, 2006). These theories typically do not embrace the whole lifecycle of technological innovation from inception to obsolescence. However, the StageGates Game Plan (Cooper, 2001) and TRL (Mankins, 1995) provide guidance for managing the technological development phase. Besides, although the DOI theory (Rogers, 1995), Market Adoption Model (Moore, 1999) and Product Lifecycle (Levitt, 1965; Polli and Cook, 1969; Beacham, 2006) are process patterns rather than management approaches, they illustrate and help to understand the phase of market evolution. Therefore, these theories are considered useful when developing a comprehensive lifecycle of innovation, as part of the conceptual framework of this research. Furthermore, in the process approaches on managing innovation, TRL (Mankins, 1995) provides a checklist of key activities for only technology at each level, while the Stage-Gates Game Plan (Cooper, 2001) describes mixed key activities for technology, market and organisation at different stages. Hence, there may be scope for considering innovation as a multi-aspect process, in which not only technology, market and organisation but also other key aspects are taken into account more explicitly throughout the lifecycle.
r 2009 The Authors Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

For this purpose, theories on innovation process might be worth reviewing as there are established theories on its evolution and characteristics. In the rst four generations of the innovation process (Roussel et al., 1991; Rothwell, 1992, 1994; Miller and Morris, 1999; and Khalil, 2000), conventional key factors that affect the innovation process are technology, market and organisation. In the fth generations, there is an emphasis on collaborative innovation systems and networks (Rothwell, 1992; Rogers, 1996; and Nobelius, 2004), which could be addressed through partnerships. This also ts into the trend of globalisation in manufacturing and the economy. In addition to these factors derived from the theories on the innovation process, risk should inevitably be considered whenever an innovation emerges. There might be other aspects that are important to the process of innovation, such as strategy, people and culture. However, these aspects are either contextual factors and are thus beyond the scope of this research or were found more appropriate to be reected by other key aspects. Thus, they are not explicitly included in the framework at this stage of its development. In summary, this research intended to address the management of the process of innovation by explicitly considering the following ve key aspects of innovation: technology, market, organisation, partnership and risk, through the full lifecycle of innovation.

3.4. Conceptual framework of IRL

Based on the above discussion, the conceptual framework of IRL is proposed. As demonstrated in Table 2, the framework is a six C model, which separates the comprehensive lifecycle of innovation into six phases (readiness levels), and addresses the management of the process of innovation by considering ve key aspects that are dened below. The purpose of dening these terms is to provide a precise understanding in the context of this research. (i) Dening the key aspects considered in IRL: (a) Technology: Braun (1998) denes technology as the ways and means by which humans produce purposeful material artefacts and effects. According to the National Academies of Engineering (NAE, 2008), technology is the process by which humans modify nature to meet their needs and wants. Most people, however, think of
R&D Management 40, 1, 2010

21

Lan Tao, David Probert and Rob Phaal

Table 2. Conceptual thinking of innovation-readiness levels (IRL) Innovation-readiness levels The lifecycle of innovation Technological development IRL 1 Concept Key aspects Technology Market Organisation Partnership Risk IRL 2 Components IRL 3 Completion Market evolution IRL 4 Chasm IRL 5 Competition IRL 6 Changeover/ closedown

technology in terms of its artefacts, such as computers and software, mobile phones, automobiles, aircraft and medical devices. But technology is more than these tangible products. It includes the entire infrastructure and knowledge necessary for the design, manufacture, operation and repair of technological artefacts, from corporate headquarters and engineering schools to manufacturing plants and maintenance facilities. As stated before, this paper focuses on incremental technological innovation in established organisations. (b) Market: In the context of this research, the term market refers to the groups of consumers or organisations that are interested in innovative technology or the product, have the resources to purchase the product and are permitted by law and other regulations to acquire the product (adopted from Doyle, 2002 and Perreault, 2005). The marketplace is the battleground on which the innovations fortunes will be decided (Cooper, 2001). (c) Organisation: In this research, the companies involved are all established. However, the notion of organisation does not refer to the entire corporation. It actually refers to the parts of the organisation(s) involved in the process of innovation, whose goal is to implement the innovation, to generate specic services and/or to produce goods throughout the lifecycle. (d) Partnership: The term partnership is taken in this research to specify a range of inter-organisational relationships: in which the parties maintain autonomy but are bilaterally dependent to a non-trivial degree (Williams, 1991; Minshall et al., 2005). Examples of partners include suppliers, resellers and research partners. 22
R&D Management 40, 1, 2010

Table 3. Sources of risk in innovation Sources of risk in innovation Technology Market risk risk Technical feasibility Supply of materials Market size and scope Knowledge of customer needs Intellectual property regimes Regulatory environment
Source: Day, 2000.

Organisational risk Cost and return Dependence of partners Quality and availability of personnel Capital

(e) Risk: As Gofn and Mitchell (2005) point out, ways of assessing of addressing risks must come high on the list of techniques for managing innovation projects. In this research, risk refers to a combined concept that denotes a potential negative impact on innovation at the business level. In the management of the process of innovation, this concept integrates technological, market and organisational risks (Day et al., 2000), which are considered or assessed in certain levels of IRL (Table 3). (ii) Dening the phases of IRL: (a) Concept: Basic scientic principles of the innovation have been observed and reported, and the critical functions and/or characteristics have been conrmed through experiments (equivalent to TRL 13). (b) Components: Components have been developed and validated, and a prototype has been developed to demonstrate the technology (equivalent to TRL 46).
r 2009 The Authors Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Integrated framework for managing the process of innovation (c) Completion: Technological development has been completed and the complete system functionality has been proven in the eld (equivalent to TRL 79). (d) Chasm: The term chasm here is broader than Moores denition (1999): the chasm between the early adopters of high technology and the product (the enthusiasts and visionaries) and the early majority (the pragmatists). Chasm in the IRL framework refers to the challenges and difculties that innovation may encounter when rst introduced into the market (early stage). (e) Competition: This is the mature phase of the market, when it has reached a state of equilibrium marked by the absence of signicant growth or innovation (adapted from Moore, 1999). The main mission in this phase is to maintain and enhance the position of innovation and to cope with competition. (f) Changeover/closedown: These are the two options in the declining stage of the market. Changeover refers to the re-innovation of technology, inaugurating new markets, transformation of the business model and corporate re-invention, in order to seek and develop a competitive advantage. On the other hand, closedown means that the innovation has come to obsolescence and exits. presenting an overview of the existing literature (Table 4). In this map, representative theories on the process of innovation, TRL (Mankins, 1995), Stage-Gates Game Plan (Cooper, 2001), the DOI Theory (Rogers, 1995), Market Adoption Model (Moore, 1999) and the Life Cycle of Innovation (Beacham, 2006), have been placed into matching positions (highlighted with a grey background). This literature map also illustrates how this research explores the existing literature.

4. Developing the framework of IRL

In this section, case studies conducted for developing the conceptual framework of IRL are discussed. The companies that have participated in the case studies are outlined in Table 5. Except for Company B, which is a consulting service company, all other companies are technology-based businesses. Practical issues and challenges were discussed with all the companies but particularly with the rst two companies, while the last three companies have clearly succeeded in managing the process of innovation and contributed more in the development of the IRL framework.

3.5. Mapping literature onto the IRL framework

Based on the above discussion, the key literature reviewed that relates to lifecycle models is mapped onto the conceptual framework of IRL,

4.1. Company A telecommunication equipment manufacturer

4.1.1. Brief introduction to the business Company A is an established company based in Europe, manufacturing telecommunication equipment. It has 14 manufacturing facilities in

Table 4. Mapping literature onto the innovation-readiness levels (IRL) framework Innovation-readiness levels Technological development IRL1 Concept IRL2 Components IRL3 Completion Market evolution IRL4 Chasm IRL5 Competition IRL6 Changeover/ closedown

Key aspects Technology Market

TRL (Mankins, 1995); Stage-Gates Game Plan (Cooper, 2001) Stage-Gates Game Plan (Cooper, 2001)

Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Rogers, 1995); Market Adoption Model (Moore, 1999); Life Cycle of Innovation (Beacham, 2006)

Organisation Partnership Risk

r 2009 The Authors Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

R&D Management 40, 1, 2010

23

Lan Tao, David Probert and Rob Phaal

Table 5. Proles of companies participating in the research Company A B C D E Sector Telecommunication equipment Consulting Aerospace Image-processing equipment Chemicals No. of employees in 2005 (worldwide) 50,000 410,000 50,000100,000 20,000 30,000 Corporate base Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe

Scoping

Build Business Case

Development

Testing and Validation

Launch

Discovery Stage

Gate 1

Stage 1

Gate 2

Stage 2

Gate 3

Stage 3

Gate 4

Stage 4

Gate 5

Stage 5

Post Launch Review

Idea Screen

Second Screen

Go to Development

Go to Testing

Go to Launch

Figure 1. Stage-Gates Game Plan (Source: Cooper, 1993, 2001).

Innovators 2.5% % of total market

Early Adopters 13.5%

Early Majority 34%

Late Majority 34%

Laggards 16%

Time
Figure 2. Diffusion Process (Source: Rogers, 1995).

eight countries and R&D centres in 11 countries. Its net sales in 2005 were over h10 billion, with 450,000 employees. Company A is strategically moving from traditional telecommunication manufacturing into new areas, for example, multimedia and business solutions. 4.1.2. Issues in managing innovation The main form of communication within the company is informal internal talk, which requires an individual to be able to advance innovative technologies sufciently in the organisation and other employees awareness. Once the tech24
R&D Management 40, 1, 2010

nology is proven by managers, discussions may start at different levels. In this way, the approach is not systematic or consistent, although it might have a positive outcome. For instance, when developing re-congurable logical processors, the limitations and issues perceived by Company A were (i) because of the management style and organisational culture, people in each department have limited knowledge of what the others are doing; (ii) the allocation of responsibility is very restrictive within the organisation; and
r 2009 The Authors Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Integrated framework for managing the process of innovation

Innovators Early Adopters Early Majority Late Majority Laggards

Chasm

Figure 3. Market Adoption Model (Source: Moore, 1999). Note: Area under the curve represents the number of customers.

Volume Innovation

Growth

Maturation Timeline

Decline

Figure 4. Product Life Cycle (Source: Levitt, 1965; Polli and Cook, 1969; Beacham, 2006). Note: Area under the curve represents the number of customers.

(iii) existing criteria are too vague to follow during the process of procuring innovation. In such a complex situation, Company A is seeking possibilities to establish a formal process for managing technological innovation with the following functions: (i) It should indicate clear allocation of responsibilities; (ii) It should break down the process of innovation into explicit phases, which can be effective and convenient. Company A conrmed the applicability of the conceptual thinking of IRL and perceived it as a potentially useful tool.

revenue of 4US$15 billion in 2005 and employed approximately 120,000 people globally. 4.2.2. Learning from experience According to the experience of Company B with clients, there is a practical need to improve the management of innovation. Many established organisations have experienced the following issues and challenges: (i) The process of innovation is vague to follow; (ii) The best possible benet erodes during research; (iii) Need to locate investment for testing the technology. There is a gap of translation (Figure 5) between technology and cash value, which makes it confusing where a benet or value arises. This results in difculty in obtaining investment. Therefore, it is crucial that the translation is made visibly and effectively in order to obtain investment. Company B conrmed that IRL is practical and recommended that the IRL framework covers the following issues: (i) Value or benets of the innovation should be visible in order to obtain investment;
R&D Management 40, 1, 2010

4.2. Company B global professional services

4.2.1. Brief introduction to the business Company B is a global professional services company and auditor. It also provides business advice, including strategic and operational management consulting services. Company B earned a
r 2009 The Authors Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

25

Lan Tao, David Probert and Rob Phaal The aspects and associated assessments considered by Company C when implementing the innovative system have also been interpreted with the IRL framework and further contributed to its development. Regarding technology, the assessment criteria are very similar to those of TRL. In the past when Company C had regular customers, market was not particularly recognised as a key aspect in managing innovation. However, as competition has intensied, much more attention is now drawn to market. While organisation is not one of the major concerns of Company C in managing the innovation process, partnership has become an increasingly important aspect. This includes collaborating with suppliers of displays and sensors, etc. and with universities and advanced technology research group. The criteria considered by Company C for risk are very comprehensive, which include technology, market and organisational risks.

Figure 5. Gap of translation between technology and cash value.

(ii) Risk should be addressed in a widely accepted way.

4.3. Company C aerospace

4.3.2. Brief introduction to the business Company C is a UK-based defence contractor and a commercial aerospace products manufacturer. It has operations and customers in about 100 countries. In 2005, the company employed circa 100,000 people and has generated annual sales in excess of d10 billion. 4.3.3. Developing the IRL framework with Company C Over 60% of the innovations in Company Cs business are incremental, e.g. improvement in ight controls, displays and mission systems. Company C uses a slightly modied version of TRL (Mankins, 1995) to manage the innovation process. In Company C, technological development and business development are actually considered separately. For developing technology, TRL is the main consideration. Technological development terminates when TRL is completed. After this, no further explicit stages are introduced except for the ongoing annual business planning cycle (including business planning and reviews) for managing innovations already in the market. The business planning and reviews enable the practice to be executed across all the functions. The aim is to deal with the insertion of the innovation to the market, the competitive environment and the overall dynamic of the industry. Therefore, it is perceived that the business planning cycle ts into the last three stages of IRL Chasm, Competition and Changeover/Closedown. 26
R&D Management 40, 1, 2010

4.4. Company D image-processing equipment manufacturer

4.4.1. Brief introduction to the business Company D is based in Europe and manufactures image-processing equipment. In 2005, the company, which employed 20,000 people, achieved revenues of over h2 billion. It is commercially active in 80 countries and has it own sales and service establishments in more than 30 countries. 4.4.2. Developing the IRL framework with Company D The company has a formal process for managing innovation, which consists of seven milestones, from Milestone 1 (M1), the denition of technology project to Milestone 7 (M7), the end of the project. IRL is developed by interpreting Company Ds milestone process. Reections from this study are as follows: (i) the sequences of the milestones are consistent with the six phases of IRL; (ii) the ve key aspects of IRL cover the mixed activities in the milestone process; (iii) activities and criteria that tend to be generic or conrming the literature are regarded as contributions to the development of IRL; (iv) the organisational change in the process of innovation has been identied: Company D intends to formalise the organisation from M3 onwards; and (v) the activities of partnerships in the process have been claried.
r 2009 The Authors Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Integrated framework for managing the process of innovation

4.5. Company E chemicals

4.5.1. Brief introduction to the business Company E is a large Europe-based chemical producer with a revenue of over d4 billion in 2005. It has employed 30,000 people in more than 50 countries. 4.5.2. Developing the IRL framework with Company E A stage-gate process is used in the implementation of innovation, which is a modied version of the Stage-Gates Game Plan (Cooper, 2001). This method ensures that the innovation ts into the overall strategy of the company and the risk of developing innovation is reduced. Within the process, each stage is designed to gather information needed to move the project forward to the next stage. Each stage consists of a set of parallel activities undertaken by people from different functional areas within the company. The functional areas may be technical, market, nance and so on. This multi- or crossfunctional idea and the functional areas are consistent with IRL and its ve key aspects. The company is interested in sub-dividing the last stage Post-Launch Review, for the sake of better control and monitoring of innovation. As perceived by managers in Company E, it is feasible that this last stage Post-Launch Review be divided into the last three phases of IRL, which are Chasm, Competition and Changeover/Closedown. Detailed issues are discussed, respectively: (i) Chasm (IRL 4) Chasm here is understood in a broader sense problems and difculties obstructing the innovation from becoming a winner. (ii) Competition (IRL 5) Company E possesses a strong brand in some countries and areas in the world. They had the ambition to strengthen the brand for some of the other areas. Multiple approaches were used to cope with competition:  maintain constant innovation,  differentiate products,  provide more efcient service,  use IP to prevent people from copying, e.g. trademark, registered designs and registered packaging. (iii) Closedown/changeover (IRL 6) This phase of innovation process was considered by Company E but not in a formal way. Some strategies include re-positioning or closedown of the technology.
r 2009 The Authors Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

5. Discussion
The main output of this research is the emerging framework of (IRL), which is presented in Table 6. The literature reviewed provides a theoretical base for the conceptual thinking of IRL, while the ve case studies, particularly the last three, have conrmed the feasibility of IRL and contributed to the development of the emerging framework of IRL. The novelty of the research ndings could be displayed in the following areas: (i) Partition of the lifecycle of innovation; (ii) Five aspects identied in the literature and observed in the cases that are key to managing the lifecycle of innovation: technology, market, organisation, partnership and risk; (iii) Key activities and criteria within each phase of the lifecycle of innovation (those derived from the literature and those observed from the cases are highlighted in different colours in Table 6).

5.1. Implications for theory

This research is coherent with existing theories in related areas. The limitations and gaps of existing theories on the management of the process of innovation led to the initial idea of a more comprehensive and explicit way to manage innovation throughout the lifecycle, which has so far been accomplished by this ongoing research. The literature identies maturity criteria for technology and market in the rst three phases: concept, components and completion. IRL describes the activities and criteria for these two aspects in the last three phases: chasm, competition and changeover/closedown, and for the other three aspects in the whole lifecycle.

5.2. Implications for practice (guidance for use)

The IRL framework is intended to be used as a management tool for managing the process of innovation. In general, IRL is a descriptive scale rather than a prescriptive one. When it is to be used in a particular industrial sector or company, IRL could be adapted to suit that situation. The current framework focuses on incremental innovation, although research is continuing to extend the framework to breakthrough innovation. An essential feature of IRL is cross-functional collaboration. Suggested responsibilities allocated to the
R&D Management 40, 1, 2010

27

Lan Tao, David Probert and Rob Phaal

Table 6. An initial framework of innovation-readiness levels (IRL) Innovation- Technological development readiness IRL 1 IRL 2 levels Concept Components Key aspects Technology Potential improvements of existing technologies or products identied and reported; Technology feasibility conrmed Market Market research conducted; Working with leading customers; Customer needs and demands observed Market evolution IRL 3 Completion IRL 4 Chasm IRL 5 Competition IRL 6 Changeover/ closedown Re-innovate or exit

Individual components tested; Prototypes demonstrated; IP protected

Actual system demonstrated; External test completed; IP protected; Technology/ product documented; Launch Specic needs and requirements of customers known; Market segment, size and share predicted; Pricing & Launching issued

Expertise formed; General availability to the market; Aftersales support

Lower R&D activities; Technology maintenance enabled; Technological service provided Products differentiated; Service and solutions provided; Periodical review conducted; Business model rened; Partnership is an option to compete Improved effectiveness and cooperation; Necessary restructure made

End-customer identied; Detailed market launch plan issued

Organisation

Strategy t conrmed;

Formalising Business organisation analysed and plan issued; Key individuals involved Partners selected; Calibration established Partnership formally established

Positioning in the market; Business model established; Customerintimate marketing (feedback); Competitors identied; Partnership is an option to break into market Formal organisation established

Declining market conrmed; Market research conducted for approval to reinnovate or exit

Partnership Potential partners identied Risk

Cooperation within dynamic network; On-going management Technology Technological Technological Organisational risk risk assessed; risk considered risk assessed Organisational periodically (alternative assessed risk assessed solution (especially (prot considered); predicted; large nancial Market risk indicators) investment assessed; Organisational issued) risk considered (investment plan initiated and investment started)

Cease partnership

Organisational risk periodically assessed (especially nancial indicators)

Re-innovate or exit considered; Changeover or closedown plan issued

Activities or criteria rst provided by the literature are in italics. Activities or criteria observed from case studies are in normal.

departments in an organisation are as shown in Table 7. The activities and criteria relate to particular functional departments, with periodic crossfunctional meetings. Based on cooperation and 28
R&D Management 40, 1, 2010

discussion with senior managers involved, when all the key activities in one phase are accomplished, this phase is called ready and the implementation proceeds to the next phase. In this way, the develr 2009 The Authors Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Integrated framework for managing the process of innovation

Table 7. Responsible functional department for the key aspects of innovation-readiness levels Key aspects Technology Market Organisation Partnership Risk Suggested responsible functional department R&D Sales & Marketing Strategic Planning Group, Human Resources Outsourcing group, research liaison group, sales Finance and accounting, strategic group

opment of innovation is under control and risk is monitored. This proposed usage of IRL is yet to be tested and consolidated.

understand its application and impacts on developing effective incremental innovation approaches. (ii) Radical innovation This research has mainly focused on incremental innovation. It is expected that more knowledge about managing the process of radical innovation can be obtained through further research. In sum, IRL is believed to be benecial as an improved framework for managing the innovation process. It is intended to help implement innovation over the lifecycle more effectively with managed risk. It is also expected to apply as a tool to enable companies to assess their innovation management practice.

6. Conclusions
In this paper, an emerging framework of IRL has been proposed. In the context of an increasing pace of innovation and ercer competition, the motivation to conduct this research was the desire observed in practice for an improved framework for managing the process of innovation. The research started with reviewing existing theories and tools related to innovation management. Major scope was identied as a more comprehensive partition of the innovation lifecycle and the use of ve aspects that are key to effective implementation of innovation process. This contributed to the conceptual thinking of the framework of IRL. Following this was the designed multi-case studies with ve European companies. Empirical data were obtained through in-depth interviews with top management members, technology managers and individuals involved in the management of innovation process. Company documents were another source of data. Based on the analysis of the data, the feasibility of the thinking of IRL was conrmed and the conceptual framework of IRL was developed, leading to an emerging framework (Table 6). This framework is considered simple, explicit and practical to be followed and used by the case-study participants. There are limitations in the ndings of this research, which provide an agenda for future research. (i) Generalisation of the research ndings This exploratory research is based on an inductive philosophy of science and is thus theory building in nature. Future testing of the framework is necessary in order to increase its robustness and to better
r 2009 The Authors Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions to this research and this paper from Tim Minshall, James Moultrie, Charles Romito, Marcel Dissel, Rick Mitchell, Francis Hunt and Elizabeth Garnsey.

References
Braun, E. (1998) Technology in Context: Technology Assessment for Managers. London, Routledge. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1966) The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. Cooper, R.G. (1993) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Cooper, R.G. (2001) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, 3rd edn. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. Day, G.S., Schoemaker, P.J. and Gunther, R. (2000) Managing Emerging Technologies. New York, NY, The Wharton School, John Wiley and Sons Inc. Doyle, P. (2002) Marketing Management and Strategy, 3rd edn. Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Ettlie, J.E. (2000) Managing Technological Innovation. New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons Inc. Gofn, K. and Mitchell, R. (2005) Innovation Management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Janszen, F. (2000) The Age of Innovation. London: Prentice Hall. Khalil, T. (2000) Management of Technology: The Key to Competitiveness and Wealth Creation. New York, NY, McGraw-Hill. Levitt, T. (1965) Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review, 43, 8194. Miller, W.L. and Morris, L. (1999) 4th Generation R&D: Managing Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation. New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons.
R&D Management 40, 1, 2010

29

Lan Tao, David Probert and Rob Phaal

Minshall, T., Valli, R., Fraser, P. and Probert, D.: Partnerships between technology-based start-ups and established rms: Initial evidence from the Cambridge (U.K.) high-technology business cluster. the 14th IAMOT Conference, Vienna, 2005. Moore, G.A. (1999) Crossing the Chasm. New York: Harper Business. Nobelius, D. (2004) Towards the sixth generation of R&D management. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 369375. Perreault, W.D. (2005) Basic Marketing: a GlobalManagerial Approach, 15th edn. London: McGrawHill. Polli, R. and Cook, V. (1969) Validity of the product life cycle. Journal of Business, 42, 10, 385400. Rogers, D.M.A. (1996) The challenge of fth generation R&D. Research-Technology Management, 39, 4, 3341. Rogers, E. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press. Rothwell, R. (1992) Successful industrial innovation: critical success factors for the 1990s. R&D Management, 22, 3, 221239. Rothwell, R. (1994) Towards the fth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review, 11, 1, 731. Roussel, P.A., Saad, K.N. and Erickson, T.J. (1991) Third Generation R&D: Managing the Link to Corporate Strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Schumpeter, J. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Prots, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P. (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439465. Williams, O.E. (1991) Comparative economic organisation: the analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 269 296. Yin, R. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2008). Available at http://www.nae.edu/nae/naehome.nsf (accessed 1 January 2008).

Lan Tao is a doctoral student at the Centre for Technology Management, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge. Lan holds an MPhil Degree from the University of Cambridge and a Bachelor Degree in Engineering from Tsinghua University in China. He worked as a research assistant in the Centre for Technology Management during 20062007 before commencing research for a PhD. His research interests include the innovation process, the management of radical innovation, intrapreneurship in established rms and emerging industries. David Probert is currently the head of the Centre for Technology Management. He pursued an industrial career with Marks and Spencer and Philips for 18 years before returning to Cambridge in 1991. His experience covers a wide range of industrial engineering and management disciplines in the United Kingdom and overseas. He joined the engineering department as Royal Academy of Engineering/ Lucas Industries research fellow, to develop a practical approach to the issues of make or buy and vertical integration in manufacturing industry, which has been widely applied and disseminated. Now a reader in technology management, his current research interests include technology and innovation strategy, technology management processes, technology valuation, technology intelligence and software sourcing. His publications include the IET books Developing a make or buy strategy for manufacturing business, Technology management assessment procedure, and more recently T-Plan: The fast start to technology roadmapping and Technology intelligence: Identifying threats and opportunities from new technologies published by the Institute for Manufacturing. Robert Phaal is a senior research associate in the engineering department of the University of Cambridge, based in the Centre for Technology Management (Institute for Manufacturing). He conducts research in the area of strategic technology management, with a particular interest in the areas of technology road mapping and evaluation, emergence of technology-based industry and the development of practical management tools. He has a mechanical engineering background, with a PhD in computational mechanics, with industrial experience in technical consulting, contract research and software development.
r 2009 The Authors Journal compilation r 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Web References
Beacham, J. (2006). Succeeding through innovation: 60 minute guide to innovation, turning ideas into prot. TSO. Available at http://www.dius.gov.uk/  /media/ publications/F/le34902 (accessed 1 January 2008). BIS (2008). Available at http://www.dius.gov.uk/inno vation (accessed 1 January 2008). Mankins, J.C. (1995). Technology Readiness Levels, Advanced Concepts Ofce, Ofce of Space Access and Technology, NASA. Available at http://www.hq. nasa.gov/ofce/codeq/trl

30

R&D Management 40, 1, 2010

Copyright of R&D Management is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.