No Access

ROAM — THE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT MODEL FOR TARGETED INNOVATION

E. I. Dupont Company (Retired), Mentor Associates Inc., 817 West 19th Street, Wilmington, DE 19802, USA

and

University of Delaware, Alfred Lerner College of Business & Economics, Department of Business Administration, 236 Alfred Lerner Hall, Newark, DE 19716, USA

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877004000064Cited by:1 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Knowledge-driven companies are facing financial and competitive pressures that make them increasingly difficult to allocate the kinds of financial resources to research as they have in the past. For this reason, corporate scientists, research managers and business managers must understand both the financial and knowledge returns associated with the research they conduct so that they can best direct and allocate resources to research that provides both financial returns and establishes the knowledge basis for future discovery and innovation. We present a model for assessing research opportunities both from the standpoint of responding to market needs and pushing forward new knowledge development. We illustrate the use of this analytic model in both market pull and research push examples. We argue that both business and research managers in corporations can use this analytical discipline to better join the needs of business and the research divisions that support them.

Keywords:

References

D. I. Angelis, International Journal of Technology Management 24, 44 (2002). Crossref, Google Scholar
W. E. Bijker, The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, eds. W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes and T. J. Pinch (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1987) pp. 159–187. Google Scholar
W. M. Cohen and D. A. Levinthal, Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128 (1990). Crossref, Google Scholar
J. C. Collins and J. I. Porras, Harvard Business Review (1996). Google Scholar
P. Drucker , Post-Capitalist Society ( Harper Collins , New York , 1993 ) . Google Scholar
E. Geisler, Omega, International Journal of Management Science 23, 281 (1995). Crossref, Google Scholar
K. Heidenberger, European Journal of Operational Research 95, 284 (1996). Crossref, Google Scholar
K. Heidenberger and C. Stummer, International Journal of Management Review 1, 197 (1999). Crossref, Google Scholar
C. W. L. Hill and F. T. Rothaermel, Academy of Management Review 28, 257 (2003). Crossref, Google Scholar
D. A. Hounshell and J. K. Smith Jr. , Science and Corporate Strategy: Du Pont R&D, 1902–1980 ( Cambridge University Press , New York , 1988 ) . Google Scholar
H.-S. Hwang and J.-C. Yu, Computers Industrial Engineering 35, 567 (1998). Crossref, Google Scholar
J. Klapka and P. Piňos, European Journal of Operational Research 140, 434 (2002). Crossref, Google Scholar
D. A. Levanthal and J. G. March, Strategic Management Journal 14, 95 (1994). Crossref, Google Scholar
J. G. March, Organizational Science 2, 71 (1991). Crossref, Google Scholar
H. Nachtmann and K. L. Needy, The Engineering Economist 48, 259 (2003). Crossref, Google Scholar
D. E. Patton and R. J. Huggett, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 9, 1337 (2003). Crossref, Google Scholar
T. J. Pinch and W. E. Bijker, The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, eds. W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes and T. J. Pinch (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1987) pp. 17–50. Google Scholar
K. L. Poh, B. W. Ang and F. Bai, R&D Management 31, 63 (2001). Crossref, Google Scholar
M. Porter , Competitive strategy. Industries and competitors ( The Free Press , New York , 1980 ) . Google Scholar
E. B. Roberts and A. R. Fusfeld, Sloan Management Review 22(3), 19 (1981). Google Scholar
M. A. Runco, American Behavioral Scientist 37, 54 (1993). Crossref, Google Scholar
C. Stummer and K. Heidenberger, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50, 175 (2003). Crossref, Google Scholar