An overview of tools for managing the corporate innovation portfolio

Abstract

Many prior studies concentrated on how to manage single new product development projects rather than on how to manage the corporate or business unit level portfolio of innovation projects. However, the use of different tools and techniques for planning, analysing, and evaluating a firm's portfolio of ongoing innovation projects may help to reduce many firms' managerial difficulties in innovation management. On the basis of a thorough literature analysis, this paper discusses the particular characteristics and key goals of innovation portfolio management. In addition, it provides an overview of tools for managing innovation portfolios.Keywords: new product portfolio management; portfolio tools; innovation; development project; R&D project selection.Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Coulon, M., Ernst, H., Lichtenthaler, U. and Vollmoeller, J. (2009) 'An overview of tools for managing the corporate innovation portfolio', Int.

Innovation Project Portfolio Management: A Qualitative Analysis

“…Financial growth and efficiency can be defined as subgoals of value maximization as both aim at optimizing financial resources. This confirms earlier studies' findings that IPPM's goals are [15], [18], [19] 1) to maximize value in terms of longterm profitability, the probability of success, and returns on investment; 2) to gain the right balance between high-and low-risk projects, incremental versus radical innovation projects, as well as short-term and long-term projects and ensuring that number and kind of projects fit with the organizational capacity; and 3) to align the innovation project portfolio with the firm's strategy. Rating on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high), none of the interviewees ranked IPPM performance as very high.…”

“…According to our observations, IPPM performance is measured by a majority of the companies. Interviews confirmed prior findings stating that IPPM performance has to be measured according to its main goals [18]. Our interviews revealed that strategic alignment of projects, balance, resource fit, and value maximization are the main goals of IPPM.…”

“…1) The linkage between the applied methods and IPPM's success: Providing a deeper understanding of how existing methods relate to the fulfillment of IPPM objectives can assist firms in achieving these objectives [18]. Even though Cooper et al [2], [5], [19], [20] and Killen et al [6], [21] have provided research on the linkage between methods and performance measures, Killen et al [21, p. 34] state that "[.…”

Enforcing strategic fit of project portfolios by project termination: An empirical study on senior management involvement

“…Both these activities hint at operational aspects, which are at the core of project management, thus highlighting the demand to link corporate strategy to project strategy (Morris and Jamieson, 2005). Coulon et al (2009) advocate this link proposing that companies with a high-quality portfolio management will improve strategic alignment. Lastly, a growing research interest in alignment of business strategy and project management can be noted (Artto and Wikström, 2005;Srivannaboon and Milosevic, 2006), e.g.…”

Analysis of quantitative empirical papers on diffusion and adoption of methods, techniques and tools for innovation

“…Among these approaches, here called methods, techniques and tools for innovation (MTT-I), are included brainstorming, morphological analysis, focus groups, concept testing, scenarios, return on investment (D'Alvano & Hidalgo, 2012;Nijssen & Lieshout, 1995). Other terms are used to refer to the MTT -tools (Coulon, Ernst, Lichtenthaler, & Vollmoeller, 2009;Hidalgo & Albors, 2008;Nijssen & Frambach, 2000); tools and techniques (Fleisher, 2006;Igartua, Garrigós, & Hervas-Oliver, 2010); methods (Lichtenthaler, 2005); models and methods (Nijssen & Lieshout, 1995). Analysis of the work related to the subject shows a confusion in the terminology (Phaal et al, 2012), since authors do not seek to explain the conceptual and operational differences, even when using two terms to name the approaches.…”