Research and development are subject to different location drivers. The analysis of 1021 R&D units, each distinguished by its main orientation towards either research or development work, reveals that research is concentrated in only five regions worldwide, while development is more globally dispersed. Our research is based on 290 research interviews and database research in 81 technology-intensive multinational companies. We identify two principal location rationales-access to markets and access to science-as the principal determinants for four trends that lead to four archetypes of R&D internationalization: 'National-Treasure', 'Market-Driven', 'Technology-Driven' and 'Global'. Their organizational evolution is characterized by four trends. The model is illustrated with short cases of international R&D organization at Kubota, Schindler, Xerox, and Glaxo-Wellcome. Differences in R&D internationalization drivers lead to a separation of individual R&D units in geography and organization. Current belief is to integrate R&D processes; separation seems to contradict this trend. We argue that this needs not to be the case, for there are good reasons to maintain some independence between research and development.

The globalization of markets, the regionalization of technical and scientific expertise, and the rapid change in technologies are forcing technology-

No abstract

Reverse innovation commonly refers to an innovation initially launched in a developing country and later introduced to an advanced country. Adopting a linear innovation model with the four sequential phases of concept ideation, product development, primary target market introduction, and subsequent secondary market introduction, this study expands the espoused definition of reverse innovation beyond its market-introduction focus with reversals in the flow of innovation in the ideation and product development phases. Recognizing that each phase can take place in different geographical locations, the paper then introduces a typology of global innovation with 16 different types of innovation flows between advanced and emerging countries, 10 of which are reverse innovation flows. The latter are further differentiated into weak and strong reverse innovation, depending on the number of innovation phases taking place in an emerging country. This analytical framework allows recasting of current research at the intersection between innovation and international business. Of the 10 reverse innovation flows, six are new and have not been covered in the literature to date. The study addresses questions of ethnocentrism and the continuity of the flow of innovation, and discusses possible extensions of the model with respect to the number of geographical categories and phases of innovation. Four research propositions highlight areas for future investigation, especially in the context of optimizing a firm's portfolio of global innovation competence and capability. The implications for management are concerned with internal and external resistance to reverse innovation. Most significantly, while greater recognition and power of innovation in formerly subordinate organizational units is inconvenient to some, the ability to leverage the potential of reverse innovation makes a firm more likely to succeed in global innovation overall.

Post-project reviews are one opportunity to systematically improve performance in subsequent projects. However, a survey reveals that only one out of five R&D projects receives a post-project review. Postproject reviews -if they take place -are typically constrained by lack of time and attention as well as lack of personal interest and ability. They focus mostly on technical output and bureaucratic measurements; process-related factors such as project management are rarely discussed.In this paper we review the role of post-project meetings as a tool to improve organizational learning at the group level. Based on 27 in-depth interviews with R&D managers carried out between 1997 and 2001, we categorize four classes of learning impediments. These difficulties are not easily resolved, as is illustrated by examples from Hewlett-Packard, DaimlerChrysler, SAP, Unisys, the US Army, and others. We propose a five-level post-project review capability maturity model, identifying some of the key capabilities that need to be in place in order to advance to the next process maturity level. Most companies reside on the first or second maturity level. Our conclusion is that many companies give away great potential for competence building by neglecting post-project reviews as a tool for systematic interproject learning.