Currently, the need for R&D performance measurements that are both practically useful and theoretically sound seems to be generally acknowledged; indeed, the rising cost of R&D, greater emphasis on value management and a trend towards decentralization are escalating the need for ways of evaluating the contribution of R&D to corporate performance. However, although recent research and writing on the subject shows that the challenge of developing such sound measurements has been taken up by many academics and organizations, it is also clear that there is no generally applicable approach.In this review, we consider various approaches for measuring the performance in industrial R&D and identify their key characteristics. We also include a brief summary of the`history' of performance measurement in R&D, which shows that although there are some new ways of looking at the issue there are many examples from the past that can contribute to our current thinking.The approaches found in the literature and practice are very varied in their application, some being more suitable for the project level, others for the R&D department, and some for the development process or for the organization as a whole. Furthermore, the uses of the approaches tend to be different. For example, some approaches are intended to justify the continuation of investment in R&D to upper management, whilst others are more suited to support learning and self-correction by empowered R&D teams. In this paper these uses, or functions', of performance measurement and a taxonomy of typical subjects of measurement in R&D environments are explored.Finally, we conclude the review with a discussion of some limitations of the growing literature on R&D performance measurement. Trends in R&D Arousing the Interest in Performance MeasurementSeveral studies have pointed to changes in the business environment that have taken place over recent decades, which have had a substantial impact on the way R&D processes are practised and managed, though it has also been noted that these trends do not apply equally throughout all industries (see, for

Many methodology sources suggest that a researcher should in advance frame the research project and make a choice among these options and should subsequently stick to his or her frame and choice. In this article a different, more natural, research trajectory design is presented which is labelled the “iterative theory‐building process”. The main feature of this approach is that research questions may be changed over time based on material collected and that research strategies, data collection and analysis methods and tactics should fit the (changing) research questions and process phases. The rationale of this “iterative theory‐building process” is explained and the strategies that can be chosen from the research trajectory design are further discussed.

Product architecture decisions regarding, for example, product modularity, component commonality, and design re‐use, are important for balancing costs, responsiveness, quality, and other important business objectives. Firms are challenged with complex tradeoffs between competing design priorities, face the need to facilitate communication between functional silos, and want to learn from past experiences. In this paper, we present a qualitative approach for systematically evaluating the product architecture of a product family, comparing the original architecture objectives and actual experiences. The intended contribution of our research is threefold: (1) to present a framework that brings together a diverse set of product architecture‐related decisions and business performance; (2) to provide a set of metrics that operationalise the variables in the framework, and (3) to provide a workshop protocol that is based on the framework and the metrics. This workshop aims to improve cross‐functional communication about the product architecture of an existing product family, and it results in practical improvement actions for future architecture design projects. Experiences with this approach are reported in pilots with Philips Domestic Appliances and Personal Care, and Philips Consumer Electronics.

At NIAB, a UK based company that provides research, services and information to the agricultural and food sector, a system has been designed that helps to assess and manage the growing research programme of the company. Since the company was 'privatised' four years ago, research activities have increased and moved away from solely applied research to a mix of applied and more fundamental research. Being a key element of the new developed company strategy, research now plays an increasing important role in broadening the scope of the company and keeping current services competitive by driving innovation. All research at NIAB is externally funded. In this paper we report on the process to design NIAB's performance measurement system, for which the Performance measurement system Systematic Design Approach was used. The design process was started with an elaborate structured problem analysis of the research process and its inter and extra-organisational context. Based upon this analysis, firstly a conceptual and secondly a detail design of a performance measurement system was made. To maximise the leverage from research, the system has been designed to optimise the value delivered to the funder as well as the value delivered to internal customers in the form of knowledge that drives innovation.

No abstract