Management of R&D - Term Paper

"An analysis of the R&D strategies, financing, programs, projects, organization, staffing, and accomplishments of a domestic firm"

The following write-up constitutes a part of the term paper we submitted in fulfillment of a requirement (as described above) in our "TM 204: Management of R&D" class. It is the part that I personally wrote. With the permission of my co-authors, I may (or may not) post the entire paper here in the future. I replaced the firm's name with a place holder to maintain confidentiality.

R &D Management

1. R&D Organization
1. Centralized R&D

[Company Name]'s R&D is centralized. The company maintains a separate R&D department that exists along-side other functional departments such as Sales and Technical Operations. As a whole, the R&D department is responsible for designing and developing new components or new configurations of existing components to come up with new or improved solutions. The department is sub-divided into a hardware group, a software group and a solutions integration group. Aside form hardware design, the hardware group is also responsible for firmware development. The software group is responsible for software and the solutions integration group is responsible ensuring that software and hardware components work together as a whole.

The R&D effort is directed and managed by technical managers who all ultimately report to a central authority (which happens to function both as the COO and CTO.)  The decisions on which projects to pursue comes from this central authority. R&D funding is also centralized. The R&D department is allocated it's own budget taken directly from the company's overall annual budget.

Having a centralized R&D facilitates collaboration among its engineers. It allows them to leverage each others knowledge and expertise. Furthermore, it provides a certain level of flexibility in that engineers can be assigned to different projects when needed.  However, it is worth noting that the company's centralized R&D is as much a reflection of the company's size and the scale of its R&D activities as it is deliberate decision. The size of the company and its product portfolio dictates for a centralized R&D (it does not make sense for a small company to have a decentralized R&D.)

2. Product-centric Teams

Though R&D itself is centralized, the company as a whole uses a matrix form of organization. Thus, members of the R&D department, who are mostly hardware and software engineers, are distributed into cross-functional, product-centric projects that has members from other functional departments. That is, the projects teams are built around the companies products and cuts across the different departments of the organization. The project teams are managed by project managers who are also responsible for forming the team (i.e. selecting members from the department) subject to the approval of the COO. The project manager himself is designated by the COO.

Having cross-functional, product-centric teams allows the company to be responsive to the market, specifically to the needs of its customer since the team itself (through the project manager and sales persons in the team) coordinates with the customers. Moreover, the primary reason for creating a project team is to focus its members attention and effort on a particular product and its customers. This structure supports the company's business strategy of applying, exploiting and integrating existing technologies (e.g. GPS, GIS) and enables the company to achieve its mission of providing integrated, end-to-end solutions (i.e. complete systems) that add value to the business of its customers.

2. R&D Strategy

[Company Name]'s R&D organization reflects its market-pull approach to R&D. Its R&D activities are primary market-driven; that is, it takes its cues from the market and its customers on what innovations to develop. Thus, almost all of its projects revolve around existing products task to respond to the needs and demands (whether implicit or explicit) of its customers. As a result, the company produces only incremental innovations. In fact, most of its products simply reuse a common set of base technologies which gets re-configured and customized (i.e. interfaced with other technologies, additional components) to suit the specific needs of a customer. This shows that the company's R&D is primarily development with minimal research.

The company's market-pull approach that lead the company's R&D to focus on incremental innovation has been effective so far in terms of its impact on the company's past profitability and promises to remain effective in the short-term.  It allowed the company to focus on developing products that sell and developing enhancements that are in-demand. Furthermore, it has a multiplier effect in that enhancements requested by one customer can be sold to other customers as well with no development cost (or at least with the cost “subsidized” by several customers.) In short, by focusing the company's resources on low-risk projects (i.e. with demand known before-hand), the company operate efficiently and maximize its profits (i.e. extract the most profit out of their product.) However, having no radical innovations or distinctive technologies of their own, leaves the company at risk not only to the threat of disruptive technologies that might render their products obsolete but also to the entry of new players which can deliver similar products at lower costs. Thus, if it is remain viable and profitable in the long-term, the company must undertake long-term projects aimed at generating radical innovations or new distinctive technologies or products that could provide the company a competitive advantage over existing and future players in its industry.

The company appears to be aware of these threats as it attempted to establish another R&D unit outside and independent from its current R&D department in hope of developing, if not radical innovations then at least, completely new products (utilizing technologies outside of their current core-competencies i.e. GPS, GIS) that would diversity their product portfolio. The management has decided to established the unit in OpenTBI as a separate but wholly-owned entity not only to take advantage of OpenTBI but to minimize disruption and maintain the main R&D group's focus on existing products. Though the initiative looks encouraging, it has yet to produce a viable product that can be commercialized.

3. Technology Acquisition & Planning
1. Technology Acquisition

Initially, [Company Name] focused its R&D effort on the software and firmware components only. However, through collaboration with industrial partners and the academe, it was able to acquire the level of know-how required to do hardware design. By reverse engineering the output provided by Ayala Group's Integrated Microelectronics Inc. (IMI), to whom it used to outsource hardware design, and in consultation with industry experts and senior faculty members from the academe, the company was not only able to come up with a comparable design but was also able to incorporate its own improvements that enabled it to customize the hardware and firmware of its products. In particular, the company was able to integrate or interface custom components such as keypads, additional ports and communication modules that were not available in off-the-shelf products. Furthermore, the company was able customize certain device parameters such as polling and sending intervals that are not readily customizable in off-the-shelf-products. In turn, these enhancements in hardware and firmware enabled the company to introduce new features in its software that made the solutions more attractive to its customers.

The company's initiative to collaborate with the academe lead to the signing of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the company and academic institutions such as U.P. EEE and the Ateneo Innovation Center. However, aside from informal idea sharing and helping them develop their initial designs, its partnership with the academe has yet to produce any formal collaborative research project.

2. Technology Planning

The company is also known to send engineers regularly to attend conferences and trade shows that relates to its business (e.g. GPS, GIS, telemetry) both local and abroad. This has the dual purpose of both serving as an incentive to its engineers and also as limited form of technology-scouting. It uses reports generated from these activities to identify new components and technologies that it can utilize and eventually, acquire to improve its solutions.

The company also conducts technology roadmapping but primary as a product planning and development tool. That is, it uses roadmapping to schedule product upgrades and re-designs to keep their solutions up-to-date in the context of new developments in the IT industry such as releases of new operating systems, new development frameworks, new standards, new database and web technologies, etc.

4. Conclusion

The management of [Company Name] demonstrates a basic appreciation and understanding of the role of R&D in the sustainability of the company's business. Its initiatives to collaborate with the academe and to spin-off a separate R&D unit point to its awareness of the importance of technology and its desire develop new technologies and products to keep it competitive and expand its business. The effort and resources it puts to perform roadmapping and to keep its products up-to-date further supports this. These are all promising signs that the company is in the right direction in terms of its attitude towards technology and R&D. However, the company needs to develop a clear, well-formulated technology strategy and to institutionalize technology management. To do this, it needs a definitive understanding of the industry, its competitors and the direction of technologies that concerns their business. Conducting technology audit, benchmarking and forecasting will be a good starting point. By knowing its strengths and weaknesses and that of its competitors and similar companies both local and abroad and by knowing the technology trends in its industry (or industry-segment), it will be in a better position to come up with a plan and initiate long- and short- term R&D projects that will enable it to mitigate risks, respond to threats and take advantage of opportunities in the near- and long-term future.

Technology-based Entrepreneurship - Reaction Paper No. 1

1. Entrepreneurial Behavior and Perspective

A. Defining and Measuring Entrepreneurship

(Summary) In spite of its popularity, the concept entrepreneurship has not had a single, coherent, agreed-upon definition. Throughout the years, a number of definitions have been given, each presenting an important characteristic of the entrepreneur. For Richard Cantillon, the essential characteristic that distinguishes the entrepreneur from the wage worker or the land owner is the uncertainty in profit he derives from buying and selling. In short, the emphasis is his risk-bearing and equilibrating role in trade. While for Jean-Baptiste Say, the entrepreneur is “the main agent of production” in the economy. He is the manager of a firm where he assesses economic opportunities for the benefit of the firm. Alfred Marshall introduced the innovating function of the entrepreneur. He thought of the entrepreneur as someone who continuously innovate i.e. seek opportunities to maximize profits. Joseph Schumpeter expounds on that view. He describe the entrepreneur as  an agent of “creative destruction”, moving the economic system out of static equilibrium. Furthermore, Schumpeter opposes views of the entrepreneur as risk bearer and manager. For him, the entrepreneurial task is not to manage but “to identify new combinations and react to these by exercising the leadership to profit from them”. Being a business-owner does not automatically make one an entrepreneur. The entrepreneur is a someone who introduces new products and methods that render others obsolete. He is a disruptive force, a game-changer. Frank Knight shares a similar view with Schumpeter i.e. “that the entrepreneur initiates useful innovations.” He also shares the view (with Say) that the entrepreneur is a business owner. But for Knight the defining function of the entrepreneur is his role to “assume the consequences of uncertainly related to the company” and shield other stakeholders from it (i.e. an insurance agent).  The mainstream economics after World War II, which is focused on equilibrium analysis, does not quite accommodate the views of Schumpeter and Knight on the entrepreneur. Against this backdrop, Kirzner and Schults would argue that “entrepreneurs deal with situations in which the economy is in disequilibrium”. Kirzner argues that the “economy is in a constant state disequilibrium” and the entrepreneur takes advantage of this state of affairs to discover and exploit opportunities for economic gain (and in so doing moves the economy towards equilibrium). Schultz argues similarly but believes that it is not only the entrepreneur that is aware of the businesses opportunities. However, it is the best entrepreneurs that have the ability to reallocate resources optimally to take advantage of the opportunities. In the face of this multiple but equally insightful definitions, it can be argued that it is best to treat entrepreneurship as a multifaceted concept i.e. there are many dimensions in entrepreneurship and therefore, many types of entrepreneur. In view this, it becomes clear that there is no one way of measuring entrepreneurship and therefore it is a must to be clear and precise about the context when measuring entrepreneurship. There are three main approaching to measuring entrepreneurship: 1. stock measures (e.g. self-employment rate); 2. flow measures (e.g. firm and self-employment entry and exits rates); 3. indirect indicators (e.g. innovation and performance measure). In general stock measures are most accurate at measuring Knightian entrepreneurship while flow measures capture more accurately the type of entrepreneurship theorized by Schumpeter and Kirzner. Though extremely helpful in determining the type and level of entrepreneurship, the different approaching all have their own limitations. For instance, self-employment rate may not include business owner but we know that Knightian entrepreneurship are business-owners. Similarly, since not all changes that lead to firms being counted in the entry and exits rate are innovate (they could just be purely administrative), firm entry and exits rates may misrepresent Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. Performance and outcome-based measures have their own limitations too in that there are numerous factors affecting them, not all of which relate to entrepreneurship.

(Reaction) In some ways, Schumpeter's ideas are ahead of his time. Not only were his ideas incompatible with his period's mainstream economic thought, they  also could not be captured in the mathematics of his day (since the mathematical framework needed to formalize them had not been invented yet.) But even more compelling than how his ideas did not quite fit in his time, is how well they do today. His ideas on innovation and “creative destruction” are almost prophetic. They have become the norm today, the reality. We live in a world of constant innovation, where the process of creative destruction is continually at work, permeating all aspects of society. Therefore, the entrepreneur, as an agent of this process, shall play an increasingly important role in shaping today and tomorrow's society.

B. Entrepreneurs – Agent of Change

(Summary) The term entrepreneurship takes on different meaning in various cultures. In its western sense, an entrepreneur is an agent of change, innovator and risk-taker. He represents a beneficial disruptive force by introducing new products that lead other products to fail or become obsolete (“creative destruction”). As Schumpeter conceived it, entrepreneurship is totally incompatible with socialism or any form of “planned” economy. Schumpeter believes that the creation of a welfare state suppresses the entrepreneurial drive. In the world increasingly dominated by non-Western economies, this “definition” is no longer sufficient. The post-Soviet entrepreneurs are living proofs of how entrepreneurship can succeed and even benefit from a socialist legacy and a collectivist society. Soviet entrepreneurs relied heavily on “social capital” (i.e. network of friends and families) to initiate or stimulate business activities. Apart from “social capital”, Soviet entrepreneurs also relied on ”cultural capital”: societal habits and norms that can be translated to social resources like education, status and power; resources that help ensure success in entrepreneur activities. This diversity in meaning suggests that the term entrepreneurship should be considered more broadly as an activity that can be undertaken in many spheres. In this context, it can be said that hybridity, an ability to adapt global entrepreneurial practices to local conditions, is a defining character of an entrepreneur along with being an agent of change (ability to come up 1. with brilliant ideas and 2. the process to put those ideas to practice while being aware of his impact on the local and global community as well as environment.) ”Anyone who approaches his or her life, career, and social relationships in a creative and thoughtful fashion is an entrepreneur”. As individual agents, they are subject to structural forces of society but are also capable innovating within the structure and re-configuring it through their daily action.

(Reaction) The author deems the Schumpeter's definition as insufficient not because it no longer applies but because it has become too restrictive. The defining character that Schumpeter ascribes to the entrepreneur, that of being an innovator and an agent of change, is applicable now more than ever. The tools and resources, the most important of which is knowledge, that would enable an entrepreneur to more readily fulfill this role have become widely available and accessible. In other words, it is now a lot easier for individuals to become entrepreneurs. What the author finds insufficient is the aspect of Schumpeter's definition that constrained entrepreneurship in the context of a capitalist society. For the author, entrepreneurship is so ingrained in human nature that it finds expression in all aspects of human life, regardless of the type of economic system his/her society adheres to. On the contrary, rather than being a captive in particular societal structure, individuals, by embracing the entrepreneurial spirit, become the shaper of this structure. In today's world of increasing knowledge and interconnectedness, we will see the rate at which the entrepreneur shapes his/her society accelerate. What took decades in the past, will merely take years today and perhaps months tomorrow. The world will witness the collapse of old orders and antiquated ways of thinking and rise of new and better ones at an ever-increasing pace.

Management of R&D - Reaction Paper Series

Over the past few of days, I have posted a series of reaction papers. These papers were a requirement in one of my technology management classes a couple of semesters ago. We were given a list of reading materials and asked to summarize and react to them. Though called reaction papers, 90% of the grade is actually based on the summary which is why I devoted a significant portion of each paper to the summary (we were limited to a max. of 2 pages, font 10 min.)

Here's the syllabus of that course (as written by our professor):

TM204: MANAGEMENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(June 2010)

1. COURSE DESCRIPTION

The Systematic treatment of the various issues and factors inherent in the management of R&D; R&D strategies; measurement and assessment of R&D productivity; strategic R&D management. (Credit 3 units)

2. COURSE OBJECTIVES

1. To familiarize the students with the nature and functions of R&D in technology generation and technological innovation;
2. To acquaint the students with the methods of R&D strategizing and planning as well as with the techniques of valuing, selecting. Organizing, and implementing R&D projects;
3. To familiarize the students with the problems and techniques of organizing R&D laboratories, managing R&D personnel, and improving R&D productivity;
4. To acquaint the students with various national R&D systems and policies as well as with the problems of R&D management in government and academe; and
5. To familiarize the studenst with the methods of promoting government-business-academe collaboration in R&D, stimulating R&D in the enterprise sector, and evaluating R&D performance.

3. COURSE REQUIREMENTS

1. Class Participation – Class attendance is compulsory, and active participation in class discussions is expected of each student.
2. Reaction Papers – Each student must submit a printed/typewritten (single-space) reaction paper on the assigned reading (maximum of 2 pages).
3. Term Project – The class will be divided into groups of  3 students each, and each group will be required to submit at the end of the semester either one of the following: (1) an Analysis of the R&D strategies, financing, programs, projects, organization, staffing, and accomplishments of a domestic firm, government agency, or academic institution; or (2) an Evaluation Report on the management of an actual R&D project done locally, from the proposal stage, to the implementation and post-evaluation of the project.
4. Group Presentation – All groups will be required to make a formal presentation of their respective Term Projects. Every member of the presenting group must participate in the presentation to test his reporting skills, and his knowledge of the Project.
5. Final Examination – An examination covering all of the topics discussed during the semester will be given at the end of the semester.

4. COURSE GRADING

A student’s final weighted score in the course will be computed on the basis of the following weight distribution:

• Reaction Papers .. ………………………….. 25%
• Project Presentation .……….………………. 25%
• Term Project Report ………….……………. 25%
• Final Exam …………………….…………... 25%

The students’ final numerical grades for the course will be determined on the basis of the following grade equivalences:

• 95 – 100 …………………………………… 1.0
• 90 – 94   …………………………………… 1.25
• 85 – 89   …………………………………… 1.5
• 80 – 84   …………………………………… 1.75
• 75 – 79   …………………………………… 2.0
• 70 – 74   …………………………………… 2.25
• 65 –69    …………………………………… 2.5
• 60 – 64   …………………………………… 2.75
• 55 – 59   …………………………………… 3.0
• 0   - 54   …………………………………… 5.0

5. COURSE OUTLINE

Part I.  Strategic Aspects of R&D Management

1. The Sociology of Science and Research

• Keith Pavitt, “Research and Development”, International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, UK, 2001. pp. 2-10.
• Robert Buderi, “The Once and Future Industrial Research”, 2001.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Ramon Ruiz, “The Science and Scientific Method”, 1999.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) P.A. Roussel, K.N. Saad, and T.J. Erickson, “Technology, Maturation, and Competitive Impact”, in Third Generation R&D: Managing the Link to Corporate Strategy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1991. Briefing Paper 1, pp.59-65.

2. Evolution of R&D Management

• Debra M. Amidon Rogers, “The Challenge of Fifth Generation R&D”, Research Technology Management, The Journal of Industrial Research Institute. July – August 1996.
• Barry Jaruzelski, Kevin Dehoff, and Rakesh Bordia “Money Isn’t Everything”, Booz Allen Hamilton Resilience Report, 2005.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) William L. Miller and Langdon Morris, “The Innovation Business Process”, in 4th Generation R&D: Managing Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1999. Chapter 8, pp. 271-313.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) P.A. Roussel, K.N. Saad, and T.J. Erickson, “A Framework for Purposeful R&D”, ibid. Chapter 3, pp. 23-40.

3. R&D Strategic Management & Planning

• James Morrison and Ian Wilson, “The Strategic Management Response to the Challenge of Global Change”, Future Visions, Ideas, Insights and Strategies, Bethesda, MD: The World Future Society, 1996.
• Anders Hemre, “Robust R&D – Managing Engineering and Technology Based Organizations”, interKnowledge Technologies, 2004.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Dirk Bocher and S. M. Bose, “A Novel Approach to Risk-Based Planning of Advanced R&D Programs- How to Save Millions and Years”, IAMOT, 2001.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Secretary of Transportation, “Surface Transportation Research and Development Plan”, A Report to Congress by the US Department of Transportation, March 1996.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) “McClelan R&D Strategic Plan”, Angelou Economics Report to the Joint Powers Authority of McClellan, November 2006.

4. Strategic Foresighting Techniques

• Jay Ogilvy and Peter Schwartz, “Plotting Your Scenarios ”, Learning from the Future, Liam Fahey and Robert Randall (editors), John Wiley and Sons, 1998.
• Robert Phaal, Clare Farrukh and David Probert, “Technology Roadmapping: Linking Technology Resources to Business Objectives”, Center for Technology Management, University of Cambridge, UK, November 14, 2001.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED Robert Phaal, “Technology Roadmapping”, Center for Technology Management, University of Cambridge, UK.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Marie L. Garcia and Olin H. Bray, “Fundamentals of Technology Roadmapping”, Sandia National Laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories, April 1997
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) IZT, “Integrated Technology Roadmaping”, IZT (Institute for Future Studies and Technology Assessment), ZVEI, Germany, July 2007.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED “Integration of Strategic Business Planning and Technology Roadmapping in Globally Operating Companis by Means of Roadmapping”, IFSAM, 2006.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Thomas Froe and Jeff H. Rankin, “Strategic Roadmaps for Construction Innovation: Assessing the State of Research”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, August 2009.

5. Financial Evaluation of R&D Projects

• Fred Pries, Thomas Astebro and Amer Obedi, “Economic Analysis of R&D Projects: Real Option Versus NPV Valuation Revisited” University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. June 10, 2001.
• Rohini Gupta, “Real Options for Evaluating Venture Capital and Strategic R&D Investments”, Wharton School, 2002.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) F. Peter Boer, “Risk Adjusted Valuation of R&D Projects” Yale University, 2003.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) N.S. Vonortas and H.R. Hertzfeld, “Long-Term R&D Project Selection” George Washington University, Washington, DC: November 17, 1995.

6. Selecting R&D Projects

• “Research Decisionmaking in Industry: The Limits to Quantitative Methods”, Research Funding as an Investment: Can We Measure the Returns, Chapter 4, pp. 47-57.
• Adrian Presley and Donald Liles, “A Methodology for Research Project Selection” Truman State University, and University of Texas, U.S.A. 1997.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Laura Meade and Adrien Presley, “R&D Project Selection Using the Analytic Network Process”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Mangement, Vol. 49, No.1, February 2002, pp. 59-66.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Tobias Schmidt, Franz Schwiebacker and Wolfgang Sofka, “The Effects of Innovation Experience on Project Selection: Better the Devil You Know”, Contributed Paper for the 2007 Conference on Corporate R&D (CONCORD), Center for European Economic Research, Mannheim, Germany, 31 August 2007.
• Cody Aperson, Farid Arefzadeh, Abigail Dinsmore, Richard Grabowski, David May, Kathrin Morandi, Barb Tawney and K. Preston White, Jr., “Project Selection for Technology Invstment”, Proceedings of the 2005 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium.

7. R&D Portfolio Development

• Robert G. Cooper, Scott J. Edgett and Elko J. Kleinschmidt, “Portfolio Management for New Product Development: Results of an Industry Study”, R&D Management, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2001.
• Cedric Gaspoz, “Prediction markets as an Inovative Way to Manage R&D Portfolios”, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Juliana Mikkola, “Portfolio Management of R&D Projects: Implications for Innovation Management”, Copenhagen Business School, 2001.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) David Wadlow, “The Role of Risk in the Design, Evaluation and Management of Corporate R&D Project Portfolios for New Products” Sensors Research Consulting, Basking Ridge, NJ: 2007.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) “DOE R&D Portfolio - Overview”, U.S. Department of Energy, February 2000.

1. Strategic R&D Collaboration and Outsourcing

• Rajneesh Narula, “Choosing Between Internal and Non-internal R&D Activities: Some Technological and Economic Factors”, University of Oslo, Norway.
• Alan MacCormack, Theodore Forbath, Peter Brooks, and Patrick Kalaher, “Innovation Through Global Collaboration: A New Source of Competitive Advantage”, Harvard Business School and Wipro Technologies, Boston, MA, August 2007.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Suzanne E. Majewski, “How Do Consortia Organize Collaborative R&D?: Evidence from the National Cooperative Act”, Harvard Law School Discussion Paper No. 483, Cambridge, MA., August 2004.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Arup Sen, and Alan McPherson, “Outsourcing, External Collaboration, and Innovation Among U.S. Firms in the Biopharmateutical Industry” The Industrial Geographer, 2009, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 20-36.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) James Adams, and Mircea Marcu, “R&D Sourcing, Joint Ventures, and Collaboration: A Multiple Indicators Approach” Rensselaer Polytechnique Institute and University of Florida, November 2003.

Part II.  Operational Aspects of R&D Management

2. Organizing for Global Advantage

• Ron Hira, “The Globalization of Research, Development and Invation”, Rochester Institute of Technology.
• “Globalization Alters Traditional R&D Rules”, R&D Magazine, September 2006.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Y. Doz, K. Wilson, S. Veldhoen, and T. Goldbrunner, “Innovation: Is Global The Way Forward”, Booz Allen Hamilton and INSEAD, France: 2006.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) J. Dedrick, K. Kraemer, et.al., “Organizing Global Knowledge Networks in the Electronics Industry”, University of California-Irvine, University of California-Berkely, and University of Illinois-Chicago, June 2007.

3. Developing a Productive Industrial R&D

• “An Industrial Revolution in R&D”, PricewaterhouseCoopers Pharma 2005.
• William Sutherland, “Management of Industrial Research”, Sun Labs, July 2008.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Nicholas Argyres, and Brian Silverman, “R&D, Organization Structure, and the Development of Corporate Technical Knowledge”, iBoston University School of Management, and University of Toronto Rothman School of Management.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Legros Christopher, and Herman Yannicrumar, “New Concepts and Trends in International R&D Organization, Illustrated by the Example of Nestle”, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, March 17, 2008.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Boris Zlotin, and Alla Zusman, “Revolutionary Innovation Tools for the R&D Organization”, iIdeation International, Inc., 2005.

4. Managing Scientists and Researchers

• Thomas J. Allen, “Organizing for Product Development”, December 2001.
• Thomas Clarke, “Unique Features of an R&D Work Environment and Research Scientists and Engineers”, July 1996.
• Thomas J. Allen, “Organizational Structure, Information Technology and R&D Productivity”, March 1986.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) “Research and Development Management Practices”, (Not Available), Chapter 4, pp. 32 - 45.

5. R&D Managers From The Perspectives Of Researchers

• A. Zuckermann and L. Brajkovich, “Managing the Innovator”, Reprinted from Pharmaceutical Executive, August 2003.
• Varma, Roli, “Research and Development (R&D) Management and Technical Expertise: Creating an Effective Managerial Environment for Maximizing Productivity”, 2000.

6. Motivating and Measuring R&D Productivity

• Ville Ojanen and Olli Vuola, “Categorizing the Measures and Evaluation Methods of R&D Performance – A State-of-the-Art Review of R&D Performance Analysis”, Lappeenrant University of Technology, Finland, 2003.
• Josh Lerner and Julie Wulf, “Innovation and Incentives: Evidence from Corporate R&D”, Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, and University of Pennsylvania Wharton School.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Mark Brown, and Raynold Svenson, “Measuring R&D Productivity”, Industrial Research Institute, January 11, 1998.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED)  “Enhancing R&D Productivity”, Center For Biomedical Innovation, 2006.

7. R&D Project Management Techniques

• Rod Coombs, Richard Hull and Malcolm Peltu, “Knowledge Management Practices for Innovation: An Audit Tool for Improvement”, The University of Manchester, CRIC Working Paper No. 6, June 1998.
• Erik Erno-Kjolhede, “Project Management Theory and the Management of Research Projects”, Copenhagen Business School, January 2000.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED)  Anthony E. Harckham, “Project Management ”, Lecture Delivered to the 1998 APEC R&D Management Training Program.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Edward A. Kilner, “Developing Efficient R&D Project Architecture and Avoid Missing the Market Window”, Project Solutions Unlimited. ON, Canada, 2000.

Part III.  National Innovation Systems

8. Conceptual Framework of National Innovation Systems

• “National Innovation Systems”, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, June 1997.
• Stephen Feinson, “National Innovation Systems: Overview and Country Cases”, Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) “Innovation The New Reality for National Prosperity ”, Prepared by 21st Century Innovation Working Group for the National Innovation Initiative, June 1, 2004.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Willie Golden, Eoin Higgins and Soo Hee Lee, “National Innovation Sytems and Entrepreneurship”, Centre for Innovation & Structural Change Working Paper No. 8, National University of Ireland, October 2003.

9. The Roles of Academe, Defense Industries and Research Organizations

• D. C. Mowery, and B. N. Sampat, “Universities in National Innovation Systems”, U. C. Berkely and Georgia Institute of Technology.
• Judith Reppy, “Conceptualizing the Role of Defense Industries in National Systems of Innovation ”, Cornell University Peace Studies Program Occasional Paper #25, April 2000. pp. 1-12.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Judith Reppy (ed.), “The Place of the Defense Industry in National Systems of Iinnovation ”, Cornell University Peace Studies Program Occasional Paper #25, April 2000. pp. 13-227.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Rustam Lalkala, “National Innovation Systems: Role of Research Organizations and Enterprises”, CBusiness & Technology Development Strategies LLC.

1. World’s Leading National Innovation Systems

• “Innovation The New Reality for National Prosperity”, 21st Century Innovation Working Group Interim Report, June 2004.
• Sunil Mani, “Working with the Market: The Israeli Experience of Promoting R&D in the Enterprise Sector and the Lessons for Developing Countries”, Discussion Paper No. DP 2001-9, Institute for New Technologies (INTECH), U.N. University, December 2001.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Morris Teubal, “Towards an R&D Strategy for Israel”, January 1999.

2. NIS of Rapidly Developing Economies

• Trevor Monroe, “China’s Emerging National Innovation System and the Economic Role of its Science and Technology Parks ”, IRGN 486, December 2005..
• Andre’ Nassif, “National Innovation System and Macroeconomic Policies: Brazil and India in Comparative Perspective”, UNCTAD Discussion Paper No. 184, May 2007.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) C. Herstatt, R. Tiwari, D. Ernst, and S. Buse, “India’s National Innovation Sytem: Key Elements and Corporate Perspectives”, Working Paper No. 51, Hamburg University of Technology, April 2008.

3. NIS of Tiger Economies in Asia

• Linsu Kim, “Crisis, National Innovation, and Reform in South Korea”, MIT Japan Program Working Paper 01.01.
• Trevor Monroe, “The National Innovation Systems of Singapore and Malaysia”, UNPANO, April 2006.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) P. T. Ng and C. Tan, “From School to Economy: Innovation and Enterprise in Singapore”, The Innovation Journal, Vol. 11(3), Article 5.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) K Ho and K. Luban, “National Innovation systems: A Case study of South Korea and Brazil”, Coursework for Economic and Public Policy of Technology, March 2004.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Eleazar E. Ricote, “The Korean National Innovation Sytem: A Lesson in Public Administration and Governance for the Philippines”, UP Diliman National College of Public Administration, Philipines, pp. 181-200.

4. NIS of Developing Countries in Asia

• P. Intarakamnerd, P. Chairatana, and T. Tangchitpiboon, “National Innovation Systems in Less Successful Developing Countries: The Case of Thailand”, National Science and Technology Development Agency, and Aalborg University.
• Epectitus E. Patalinghug, “The Philippine National Innovation System: Structure and Characteristics”, Phillipine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 2003-04, February 2002.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) “Science and Technology”, Medium-Term Development Plan 2004-2010, Chapter 19, pp. 229-239.
• (Suggested Reading Material: NO REACTION REQUIRED) Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Brochure 2000.