Expenditure in Research and Development, Open Innovation - Coursework Example

Introduction The development of new ideas for both processes and products needs watchful efforts to innovate. Scientific progress was not as much of structured during the nineteenth century and it has naturally risen from the developed ideas in the diverse areas of organisations. Moreover, the 21st century has experienced an increase on emphasis placed on the facilities of formal research and development (R&D) as a source of innovation while the sources of ideas still flow from diverse quarters. The pursuit of scientific knowledge and its applications to problem productions have been epitomised by popular research laboratories such as Dupont, AT&T, IBM, and the General Electric. As much as we recognise that science has significantly contributed to the early industrial revolution in the United Kingdom, the modern corporate enterprise has also harnessed technology and science in the 21st century in a more extensive fashion within its organisational bounds. For the sake of economic well-being, systematic management rules are applied to practise scientific knowledge (Damanpour & Wischnevsky 2006). The innovation management process is equally critical, and present with it main challenges, and makes it a common challenge across many organisations. Methodologies vary depending on the aspects of R&D emphasised, size, and to some extent personal management styles of organisational managers. Businesses that conduct research in the private sectors such as the pharmaceutical companies also devote important resources to developmental and applied work. Numerous firms may not be familiar with the development demands. Nonetheless, to be successful, the organisational ventures should effectively manage and blend both basic R&D with the strategic view to commercialisation either as part of innovation collaboration or more like as independently, such as cluster or network (Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt 2009). The management of external collaborations that plays a major role in the R&D process is the critical aspect of the innovation management process for organisations in a vastly connected networked industry. This essay will be examining the significance of R&D in innovating organisations since it is being viewed as playing a major role in the innovative process. Open innovation Many organisations have now largely appreciated that in the current first-evolving business environment, there will always be an existence of ideas and more competitions outside the walls irrespective of the expertise and size the organisation have. Markets are normally capable than individual organizations at relentlessly destroying and creating prospective innovations (Shavinina 2003). Hence, an organisation’s innovative ecosystem presents the possibilities of enlarging and diversifying its innovation opportunities sources. Furthermore, the new development of technologies and market capabilities that are not available within organisations are often required by innovation. An organisation’s innovation ecosystem hence consequently offers the prospects of outsourcing part of the innovation management and also accesses the best-in-class operators (Panayides 2006). Consequently, the entire progression of transforming a prospective opportunity or an idea into a profitable business needs various capabilities and skills at diverse stages within a considerable time frame. This can as well be between a period of five to ten year period of going from a business notion on paper to a beneficial and sizable business activity. Firms can thus focus on specific development segments instead of endeavouring to do everything for themselves (Sampson 2007). For instance, large firms scale the ideas up while the small organisations develop them (Fricke & Totterdill 2004). This in turn insinuates that open innovation is all out the development of in-house prospects which have already been instigated outside, but at the same time equally about developing outside the organisation other prospects have been commenced in-house (Andreas & Brettel 2012). This can be achieved through spin-offs or through licensing. These kinds of outsourcing are capable of eliminating or reducing distribution or production risks and costs and also propelling the project to target new applications and reaching larger markets. Licensing can be utilised while trying to gain access to the corresponding technology or endeavouring to institute industry standards. Various Strategic and tactical benefits can be gained from open innovation. From the strategic view point, critical masses of capabilities and synergies that can be generated by open innovation that are capable of permitting firms to achieve global reach and economies of scale. It can permit organisations by helping them in terms of cost reduction, risks and development time and jointly develop bundle offers (solutions rather than offers) from the tactical point of view. For instance, a media organisation presenting a book jointly with best sellers and an access to established media. Moreover, when working with other people especially around innovation, divergence around competing management styles with traditional corporate ways can arise based on proprietary skills and information, core competencies and exclusivity (Shavinina 2003). Open innovation also needs organisations to posses core competencies they need to maintain and develop in-house and the clear visions of their unique capabilities, and equally of the ones they require to co-develop or ready to share (OECD 2002a). It is therefore very critical for organisations to think on how they intend to grow their innovation aptitudes so as to be in tandem with their innovation strategies regarding the implementations, identifications, and evaluations of partnership opportunities. Expenditure in Research and Development (R&D) There has been an emergence of new data on the significance of R&D expenditures within the divers’ national innovation systems. Extensive efforts have therefore been allocated in determining the inputs of the R&D progression because of its significance in the modern organisations. As a guide to international measures practise, The R&D definition was prepared by the OECD (2002a) – the Frascati Manual. In the manufacturing sector, Statistics Canada defines R&D as: the systematic investigation conducted in the engineering and natural sciences through analysis and experiments to accomplish a commercial or scientific advancement. Research is the study that is initially carried out on a methodically foundation to acquire new knowledge, while development is the research findings applications or the logical understanding of conception of new or critically improved processes or products. The development will eventually result in processes or devices if it turns out to be successful. This definition might not turn out to be exhaustive as the line between other processes or products and R&D is not easy to conclude in a defined approach. This is because the R&D definition is not harmonious with the work carried out by the entire engineers and scientists in organizations (Jain & 1997). Most of the work done by engineers and scientist is not research and development, more so because they are engaged in habitual quality control, production, testing, and engineering. Thus, R&D is anticipated to result in an invention that could consequently become a technological innovation. Innovation has more rottenly been envisaged as a linear process – beginning from the contemporary study through the commercial and engineering invention. The major complexity in measuring R&D when the liner model is suitable is the involvement of the definition of the dividing point between the stage of commercialisation and the research process. The critical requirement of our previous definition of R&D is that there is uncertainty of the work outcome (OECD 2010b). The expenditures will then be no longer be considered to be R&D once the form of the new processes or product has been resolved, even though they will still be part of the innovation process. A pilot plant should be considered as part of R&D, but once testing has been completed, the boundary is reached. Therefore, the costs of production start-ups, tooling costs, manufacturing blueprints, and construction drawings are not included in the development costs. Expenditures in Innovation Innovation encompasses intricate initiative procedures between market forces, technology and science. Innovation is the outcome of the ‘upstream’ knowledge application produced in the R&D division to ‘downstream’ activities involving design and engineering or production (OECD 2010b). The traditional view considers technological process as reliant on the developed application of fundamental scientific knowledge. This model is not universal, but then it is suitable to some innovative activities. Chiesa & Frattini (2009) states that numerous innovations have been created by engineers and scientists as they also endeavour to solve downstream issues on the factory floor. Scientific knowledge is put into use by these changes and not necessarily frontier research being done upstream in the organization. In this scenario, technological knowledge comes before scientific knowledge and fosters research in return. The improvement of the innovation discovered outside of R&D laboratory bears a complicated feedback on the R&D development as organizations try to understand the process that has produced new processes and products or try to refine the solution. For example, the nineteenth century in Metallurgy in Canada, in this case saw a technology that was frequently driven by science (Bain, Mann & Pirola-Merlo 2001). Trial and error methods were employed in developing alloys, and only after their development was science utilised to understand the forces that shaped the new compounds. The role of R&D in this case was to monitor or improve the consistency of the consistency of the new product properties that resulted from the variations in the production process or input variations qualities (OECD 2002a; OECD 2010b; Youtie & Shapira 2008). Research has also played the same vital role in the milling industry where measurement and quality control have permitted the economies of large-scale production and exploited, and consistently providing for the flour needed by the millers (OECD 2009c). The responsibility of establishing the proper qualities of inputs are critical for the developments in constructions, where comprehending both steel and concrete properties are approved for enormously expansion range of use of both materials. Food processing developments also heavily depend on researches that define the properties needed for numerous food inputs for successful preservation. Out of all these scenarios, enhancements in the output performance require the development of precise standards for inputs, and needs the orderly classifying, grading, and chemical testing of components (Fulford 2013). In the present times, the role of shop-floor discovery is still relevant, and it is still the case that technological knowledge always precedes scientific knowledge. Several studies conducted by Fan et al. (2009) on the significance of R&D and technology have revealed that technological capabilities were more critical factors that contributed to the success of organisations than R&D factors. These technology emphases confirms that most of the present scientific studies involves restructuring and systemising in an internally consistent way, the practical solutions, methods and knowledge previously developed by the technologist (Goffin & Mitchell 2010). Numerous organisations have broad innovation systems with R&D comprising of these systems. The R&D division can as well be more inclusive. The nature of the system should be understood on its entirety instead of endeavouring to fit innovation into a narrowly defined box. Chen et al. (2013) asserts that innovation is not linear, and goes ahead to explain that innovation can originate from diverse departments where each of them bears the responsibility outside the scientific development area. Interactions between other departments and R&D occur at many levels and numerous iterations occur in the new products and processes development. As such, some organizations find it tricky in subdividing their innovation systems into compartments that are acquiescent for expenditure measurements (OECD 2009c; Argyres & Silverman 2004; Alwis & Hartmann 2008; Pearce & Ensley 2004). And the ones facing these issues will not be in a position to deliver precise measurements of the R&D. Moreover, they are not exhaustive of the entire innovation expenditures even when the estimates for R&D can be provided. The significant contributions made by expenditures on problem solving or the downstream knowledge development are sometimes ignored by the conventional approaches that equate significant innovative activities with just basic or upstream activities. Critical expenditures that are products of other activities and that generate unintended innovations are excluded (Chiesa & Frattini 2009). Organizations that consistently undertake R&D are expected to have greater commitment on the innovation process and success. Exploring organisational knowledge Established organisations are in a position of creating new knowledge by distributing resources to particular activities of experimental and research development that are that are meant for generating innovation (Hine & Kapeleris 2006). The R&D umbrella system is what covers these specific activities. Established organisations systematically try to pursue innovation instead of depending on individual chance or intuition. Molle & Djarova (2009) divulges that R&D intensifies the rate at which new technologies are created and also positively impacts on the organisations’ technological competence. For instance, higher R&D investments allow organisations to engage in basic research and also escalate the research activity levels within organisations that are indispensable for the generation of proprietary scientific information. These research activities according to Yuan & Woodman (2010), results in the specialised technological or scientific information. They further states that the knack to develop numerous significant products technologies depends on the tangible outcome of these basic research conducted by organisations. He also explains that established organisations exploits economics of scale and patents using research and development. These organisations also endure sporadic futile R&D with the help of the processes that they undertake in the innovation processes (Hine & Kapeleris 2006). Sources of technology innovations: R&D Firms have been exploiting scientific discoveries since the inception of industrial revolution so as to develop new products and find the better means of distributing and selling them. Hence, scores of firms have developed activities and in-house research so as to inspire scientific research in an inclusive way and its application in specific fields. R&D spending has therefore been used as an alternative for the innovation activities intensity as congruence on industries or organisations (Fichter 2009). The concentration of R&D varies across sectors in diverse organisations, from being marginal (less than 5%) in services sectors and several profound industries such as the oil, paper and pulp, and more than 20% in high-tech industry sectors like health care, computer software and electronics (Baldwin & Hanel 2003). This is the reason why some organisations in the information technology, pharmaceuticals, and automobiles sectors spends billions of money on a yearly basis in training and hiring experts so as to widen their R&D scope (Steen et al. 2012). The strategy of R&D is supposed to be first defined according to the purpose, environment and resources of the organisation. It should also be in a position to support the core competencies development of the organisation Lawson & Samson (2001) states that the managements sources of ability to consolidate corporate-wide production and technology skills into competencies that empowers the individual business to rapidly adapt to the dynamic opportunities are the real sources of management advantages. The assumption of making an innovative R&D on one hand, the strategy development of the R&D, and setting up the R&D organisation to identify where to place and how to integrate the resources, and on the other hand define how much time spent on seeking for prospects. The moment an organisation has already identified the technology platforms or the core areas that it intend to focus on, it must now decide on the amount it intends to invest across its business circles (Hine & Kapeleris 2006). In most cases, the organisations that experiences the decrease in sales issues should be in a position to effectively decide on how they spend on their R&D disbursements, while considering both their short-term (spend less), and long-term perspectives (try to spend better or more). A bottom-up approach can be used by organisations in determining the right level of R&D expenditure based on the profitability of commercial and technology success among the identified prospects, and on the expected corresponding project development profits, timing, costs and markets (Chiesa & Frattini 2009; Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt 2009). This can as well be applied through the top-down methodology based on the benchmarking strategic decisions and or peers about the areas that the organisation needs to build its future on or learn from. The first approach goes down well with the exploitation strategy aimed at incremental innovation, while the later fits well with an exploration strategy where there are expectations of radical innovations. Different organisations have different organisational needs and thus they should be in a position to identify, design, and implement R&D that well suite their choices after settling on how much resources they need to invest in their R&D and where to invest it on (Steen et al. 2012). Moreover, R&D departments are no longer purely corporate black boxes to headquarters with limited monitoring of their output and activities in the context of multinational firms and/or multinational business. The geographical scope, corporate structure and the business process are the determining factors and makes key decisions on how much R&D are distributed or centralised. The performance and R&D activities have become central part of the organisational business process and thus organisations should make decisions on how much R&D activities are managed through fanatical prescribed compositions, discipline and accountability, gaining focus, or through market agility and orientation, gaining flexibility, and relatively informal networks (Molle & Djarova 2009). Alternatively, R&D activities should be carefully be balanced in between the divisional (short-term or more medium) and corporate (typically long-term) ones when the corporate structure combines business activities in diverse competitive environments both in terms of absorption (who implements and who integrates the developed opportunity) and of funding (who decides and who pays for the projects). The R&D geographical scope must also be defines by organisations who are active across numerous regions by considering the local market characteristics while also at the same time identifying where the best expertise and talent can be sourced, which might not be near from corporate headquarters (Laursen & Salter 2006). The R&D in this case should be balanced between on the other hand, more local structures fostering close collaborations and local connections and on the other regional or global structures connected with ample assortment of production units, potential customers and recruits. As a result, an extensive selection of R&D organisational structures have been adopted by organisations from specialised regional network centres with focused technology scope and local market reach to centralised structures with global market reach and a wide technology scope (Baldwin & Hanel 2003). Baldwin & Hanel (2003) further states that other organisations have adopted traverse methods based on their technology centres of excellence while focusing on regional centres with local market reach and wide technology scope, or on global market reach and technology scope. What best fits the R&D and overall organisational strategy should determine the style chosen by the organisation while also bearing in mind the purpose and environment, specific resources, and specifically balancing global efficiency with local flexibility. But whilst it is necessary to effectively make decisions on how to and where, and how much to develop the R&D capacities to be able to compete with numerous industries as a necessary condition, there is also a proof that it is not necessarily the efficient condition for success (Lichtenthaler 2011; Verganti 2008), and other innovative sources must therefore be influence so as to efficiently compete. Sources of business innovations: beyond R&D While the spending levels of R&D remains an accepted alternative for innovativeness among numerous managers, economists, leaders, and other policy makers, there is considerable proof that the amount spent on R&D by organisations is a pitiable indicator of how worse one of how well they innovate and how much it innovates (Jain, Triandis & Weick 2010). According to Steen et al. (2012), from the quantitative point of view, research and development is not necessarily the most significant innovation input, and in fact, numerous organisations do not significantly innovate. Cassiman & Veugelers (2006) affirms that it is the investment levels in capital equipment correlated to the new products introduction. In addition, higher expenditure on R&D across sectors do not yields higher performance, be it in terms of shareholder returns, profit abilities or even organisational growth. For instance, Dell Computers revolutionised the PC industry while spending much less in creative and absolute terms. Troubles in innovation Even though successful organisations may seem to have brought innovation to the market, they may still be experiencing some innovation issues in their organisations (Paulsen et al. 2009). The fundamental justifications have been broadly investigated from organisational and economic viewpoints and some of the three perceived issues comprise of cognitive barriers, organisational rigidities, and perceived incentives as described below: Cognitive barriers: Reputable organisations are perceived to be exposed to “technological myopia” (Paulsen & Callan 2013) that hinders their capability of embracing the emergence of new technologies and makes them overrate the existing ones. The reason behind this is as a result of the organisational competences that directly serve the attention of managers towards the maximisation of utility of the recent technology for present customers, filtering any information that is not appropriate for that purpose (Schroll & Mild 2011). This organisational filter may work within the organisational frontiers, and between the peripheral environments and the organisation. The market understanding developments that are affected by the organisational interpretative and routines barriers strongly hinders the new product developments for new markets (Baldwin & Hanel 2003). Organisational routines: The organisation establishment is permitted to deal with the present product categories that allow the team to efficiently concentrate of the current activities. Argyres & Silverman (2004) acknowledges that the capabilities of organisation that are tailor made to counter the current challenges can as well be compromised by organisational rigidities when the organisation is faced with new challenges. Organisational rigidities are built on similar activities that creates core abilities and at the same time the core competence and the flipside of organisational capabilities (Godoe 2000; Schroll & Mild 2011). Organisations also becomes prone to torpor the more they age and grow bigger and that reduces their innovativeness in the long run. Rigid communication channels, organisational formulations and intricate organisational structures also may subject organisations to loss of information. Thus the increase in organisational rigidity and the reduction in the change for innovation and adaptation likelihood may be propelled by institutionalisation of power structures, formulation of routines, inertia, and internal processes. Perceived incentives: Conventional establishments with big shares in existing markets might be having small enticements for product development for their market forte. An organisation with such kind of a product development choice is exposed to some sensitivity to the scale of uncertainty in the product innovation (Hsuan 2001). An established organisation will always be reluctant to invest in case innovation is highly uncertain. This is because based on the resent technology of these organisations they receive profits for existing products. And the opposite may be true when innovation is less certain. Moreover, if the new product addresses the current customer issues, and the perceived innovation is proved to be a potential success, the established organisation will then be willing to invest irrespective of the required resources (Becker & Dietz 2004). New products may subject the organisation with a cannibalisation threat with the current business model in the case of familiar markets. The new thereat may cause the new project to be circumvented or even be sub-optimally managed as a result of the provided inertia by the mainstream operating units (Berchicci 2013). References Alwis, RS & Hartmann, E 2008, ‘The use of tacit knowledge within innovative companies: knowledge management in innovative enterprises’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.12, No. 1, pp. 133-147. Andreas, E & Brettel, M 2012, ‘A Coalitional Perspective on the Role of the R&D Department within the Organization’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 489-505. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00919.x. Argyres, NS & Silverman, BS 2004, ‘R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 8-9, pp. 929-958. doi: 10.1002/smj.387. Argyres, NS, & Silverman, BS 2004, ‘R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 8-9, pp. 929-958. Bain, PG., Mann, L & Pirola-Merlo, A 2001, ‘The Innovation Imperative: The Relationships Between Team Climate, Innovation, and Performance in Research and Development Teams’, Small Group Research, Vol. 32, No.1, pp. 55-73. Baldwin, JR & Hanel, P 2003, Innovation and Knowledge Creation in an Open Economy: Canadian Industry and International Implications. New York: Cambridge University Press. Becker, W & Dietz, J 2004, ‘R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms - Evidence for the German manufacturing industry’, Research Policy, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 209-223. Berchicci, L 2013, ‘Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance’, Research Policy, Vol. 42, No.1, pp.117-127. Cassiman, B & Veugelers, R 2006, ‘In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition’, Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 68-82. Chen, et al., 2013 ‘Teams as innovative systems: multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams’, The Journal of applied psychology, Vol. 98, No. 6, pp. 1018-27. doi: 10.1037/a0032663. Chiesa, V & Frattini, F 2009, Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Research and Development: Techniques and perspectives for Multi-level Analysis. Northampton: Edgar Elgar Publishing, Inc. Damanpour, D & Wischnevsky, JD 2006, ‘Research on innovation in organizations: Distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 269-291. doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2006.08.002. Fan, Q et al., (eds) 2009 Innovation for Development and the Role of Government: A Perspective from the East Asia and Pacific Region. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Fichter, K 2009, ‘Innovation communities: the role of networks of promoters in Open Innovation’, R&D Management, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 357-371. Fricke W & Totterdill, P (eds) 2004, Action Research in Workplace Innovation and Regional Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Fulford, H (eds) 2013, Case Studies in Innovation: For Researchers, Teachers and Students. London: Academic Conference Limited. Godoe, H 2000, ‘Innovation regimes, R&D and radical innovations in telecommunications’, Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 9, pp. 1033-1046. Goffin, K & Mitchell, R 2010, Innovation Management: Strategy and Implementation using the Pentathlon Framework, (2nd Edition). United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. Hine, D & Kapeleris, J 2006, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Biotechnology, an International perspective: Concepts, theories and Cases. Northampton: Edgar Elgar Publishing, Inc. Hsuan, MJ 2001, ‘Portfolio management of R&D projects: implications for innovation management’, Technovation, Vol. 21, No.7, pp. 423-435. Jain, R., Triandis, HC & Weick, CW 2010, Managing Research, Development and Innovation: Managing the Unmanageable. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Jain, RK & Trandis, HC 1997, Management of Research and Development Organizations: Managing the Unmanageable (2nd edn). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Laursen, K & Salter, A 2006, ‘Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms’, Strategic management journal, Vol. 27, pp.131-150. doi: 10.1002/smj.507. Lawson, B & Samson, D 2001, ‘Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach’, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 377-400. Lichtenthaler, U 2011, ‘Open Innovation: Past Research, Current Debates, and Future Directions’, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 75-93. Molle, W & Djarova, J (eds) 2009 Enhancing the Effectiveness of Innovation: New Roles for Key Players. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. OECD 2002a, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2002. Paris, France: OECD Publication Service. OECD 2009c, Educational Research and Innovation: Working Out Change Systemic Innovation in Vocational Education and Training. United Kingdom: OECD Publication Service. OECD 2010b OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship Poland: Key Issues and Policies. United Kingdom: OECD Publication Service. Panayides, P 2006, ‘Enhancing innovation capability through relationship management and implications for performance’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 466-483. Paulsen, N & Callan, NJ 2013, ‘Transformational leadership and innovation in an R&D organization experiencing major change’, Organizational Change, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 595-610 Paulsen, N et al. 2009 ‘Charismatic leadership, change and innovation in an R&D organization’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 22, No. 5, No. 511-523. doi: 10.1108/09534810910983479. Pearce, CL & Ensley, MD 2004, ‘A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: the central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs)’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 259-278. Sampson, C 2007, ‘R&D Alliances and Firm Performance: The Impact of Technological Diversity and Alliance Organization on Innovation’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 364-386. Schroll, A & Mild, A 2011, ‘Open innovation modes and the role of internal R&D: An empirical study on open innovation adoption in Europe’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 475-495. Schroll, A & Mild, A 2011, Open innovation modes and the role of internal R&D: An empirical study on open innovation adoption in Europe’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 475-495. Shavinina, LV (eds) 2003, The International Handbook on Innovation, United Kingdom: Oxford. Steen, H et al. (eds) 2012, Employee-Driven Innovation: A New Approach. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Tidd J Bessant J & Pavitt K 2009, Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change, (4rd Edition). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Verganti, R 2008, ‘Design, Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Meta-model and a Research Agenda ’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 436-456. Youtie, J & Shapira, P 2008, ‘Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development’, Research Policy, Vol. 37, No.8, pp. 1188-1204. Yuan, F & Woodman, RW 2010, ‘Innovative Behaviour in the Workplace: The Role of Performance And Image Outcome Expectations’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 323-342. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.49388995. Read More