Measurements and Incentives for Central Research

Chester, Arthur N.

doi:10.1080/08956308.1995.11674275

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this 'third generation' R&D management concept, R&D strategies and business strategies are closely linked and, at both the strategic and operational levels, the R&D department has to co-operate with other departments to manage the cross-functional R&D processes. This practice is often strengthened by making a part of the R&D budget directly dependent upon project-or program-based funding to be determined by Business Unit management instead of putting fixed annual budgets at the disposal of R&D managers (Chester 1995;Robb 1991).…”

Section: Trends In Randd Arousing the Interest In Performance Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…procedures, e.g. a technical audit used by 3M (Krogh et al 1988), project performance measurement procedures used at GM Hughes Electronics (Chester 1995), Hewlett Packard (House and Price 1991) and Unilever (Rainbow 1971), and an individual performance measurement procedure used at Olin Corporation (Endres 1997). Table 1 highlights important characteristics of these measurement procedures.…”

Section: June 2000mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No. of patents related to inputs, licensing income, royalties payment avoided due to patents Valuation of Technology Transitions • Estimation of contribution of R&D to (expected) cash-flows of products/processes introduced in the market in the past decade • R&D's credit % is determined by the receiving BU GM Hughes Electronics (Chester 1995) Laboratory Performance Measure • mix of three metrics:…”

Section: The Randd Performance Measurement Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• NPD programs or portfolios (Cooper and Kleinschmidt 1995;Hardingham 1970;Loch et al 1996;Tipping et al 1995); • a single product development project (Hultink and Robben 1995;Rainbow 1971;Sivathanu Pillai and Srinivasa Rao 1996); • a product development team (House and Price 1991;Meyer 1994); • R&D (sub)departments (Chester 1995;Collier 1977;Kuwahara and Takeda 1990;Patterson 1983;Robb 1991;Szakonyi 1994a,b); • Individual researchers (Domsch et al 1983;Edwards and McCarrey 1973;Keller and Holland 1982).…”

Section: Performance Measurement In Industrial Randdmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• (Collier 1977) • R&D department • R&D sub-departments General Electric (Robb 1991) • R&D department GM Hughes Electronics (Chester 1995) • R&D site Hitachi (Kuwahara and Takeda 1990) • R&D department • R&D site Hewlett Packard (House and Price 1991) • Project team Olin Corporation (Endres 1997) • Researcher Unilever (Rainbow 1971) • Project team providing information on current performance and probable future assignments in the organization; • research purposes, such as validation of selection procedures, evaluation of training programs, compensation plans or job enrichment programs.…”

Section: Functions Of Performance Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Performance measurement in industrial R&D

Drongelen

Nixon

Pearson

2000

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Trends In Randd Arousing the Interest In Performance Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: June 2000mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Randd Performance Measurement Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%