No abstract

No abstract

This paper's objectives are: • To clarify the concepts of "shortage" and "low production" in the context of scientists and engineers • To suggest answers to the questions in the paper's title • To point toward strategies for addressing science and engineering (S&E) workforce shortages. WHAT WOULD A "SHORTAGE" OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS LOOK LIKE? Over the last half-century, numerous alarms have sounded about looming shortages of scientists and engineers in the United States. What is meant by "shortage" has not always been clear. Further, the population under discussion, the scientists and engineers themselves, has not always shared the perspective of those sounding the alarm. Regardless, the implications of a shortage of skills critical to U.S. growth, competitiveness, and security are significant. So are the implications of the continuing low entry of female and minority students into many S&E fields. These implications justify closer examination of the nature and sources of the over-or underproduction of scientists and engineers. Improved understanding of the definition and nature of the problem can point toward relevant data and useful questions. As a starting point, consider the different circumstances in which the production of any good or service, new S&E PhDs being one, might be called "low": 1. If production is lower than in the recent past (steel is a recent example) 2. If competitors' share of total production is growing (electronic component manufacturing, shoe manufacture, and oil production are increasingly foreign) 3. If production is lower than what the people doing the producing would like (automobiles) 4. If less is produced than the nation is deemed to need (well-trained K-12 teachers) 5. If production is not meeting market demand, as indicated by a rising price (nurses, Washington, DC, area housing).

No abstract

PurposeMeasurement of the innovation process performance is critical for both managers and researchers. However, existing performance frameworks (PFs) neglect performance indicators (PIs) and dimensions relevant to the current innovation landscape in companies as well as lack support in the definition of action plans. Thus, this paper aims to introduce a new and updated PF for measuring innovation performance and defining improvement actions.Design/methodology/approachThe proposed PF is developed from literature and action-oriented case studies in two European manufacturing companies. First, the literature review enabled the synthesis of framework elements into a “conceptual” PF capable of illustrating the current state of knowledge in the field. Then, this PF was applied in the case studies that enriched the conceptual form with empirical insights, resulting in a new and updated PF.FindingsThe review enabled the systematisation of nine dimensions and 259 PIs that were fragmented throughout the literature. In turn, empirical insights from the case studies gave rise to an actionable procedure for providing a comprehensive diagnosis of the company's situation considering the new trends as well as defining improvement actions. Although the results from the two cases cannot be generalised, the findings encourage broader applicability.Originality/valueThe novelty of this research resides on the fact that the PF consolidates elements from the literature but combined with empirical insights in a new actionable way that supports managers in performance measurement and provides researchers with an extensive systematisation of dimensions and PIs.