Selling Technology to Your Chief Executive

Steele, Lowell W.

doi:10.1109/emr.1987.4306317

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As one of our interviewees said: "The customer knows the direction, but lacks the expertise; researchers have the expertise, but lack the direction." Tier 2 researchers and managers are judged both for their competence in developing technologies and for their ability to align the values of R,D&E with those of the firm (Steele 1987). Our interviewees said that development succeeds if it gets the programs right.…”

Section: Qualitative Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, some firms reward development researchers for "strategic vision" and for decisions that are aligned with the firm's goals (Steele 1987 …”

Section: Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…al. (1994), Chester (1994), EIRMA (1995), Frohman (1980, Ransley and Rogers (1994), Schmitt (1987), Sen and Rubenstein (1989), and Steele (1987Steele ( , 1988. As one of our interviewees said: "The customer knows the direction, but lacks the expertise; researchers have the expertise, but lack the direction."…”

Section: Qualitative Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Research, Development, and Engineering Metrics

Hauser

1998

Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We seek to understand how the use of Research, Development, and Engineering (R,D&E) metrics can lead to more effective management of R,D&E. This paper combines qualitative and quantitative research to understand and improve the use of R,D&E metrics. Our research begins with interviews of 43 representative Chief Technical Officers, Chief Executive Offices, and researchers at 10 research-intensive international organizations. These interviews, and an extensive review of the literature, provide qualitative insights. Formal mathematical models attempt to explore these qualitative insights based on more general principles. Our research suggests that metrics-based evaluation and management vary according to the characteristics of the R,D&E activity. For applied projects, we find that project selection can be based on market-outcome metrics when firms use central subsidies to account for short-termism, risk aversion, and scope. With an efficient form of subsidies known as “tin-cupping,” the business units have the incentives to choose the projects that are in the firm's best long-term interests. For core-technological development, longer time delays and more risky programs imply that popular R,D&E effectiveness metrics lead researchers to select programs that are not in the firm's long-term interest. Our analyses suggest that firms moderate such market-outcome metrics by placing a larger weight on metrics that attempt to measure research effort more directly. These metrics include standard measures such as publications, citations, patents, citations to patents, and peer review. For basic research, the issues shift to getting the right people and encouraging a breadth of ideas. Unfortunately, metrics that identify the “best people” based on research success lead directly to “not-invented-here” behaviors. Such behaviors result in research empires that are larger than necessary, but lead to fewer ideas. We suggest that firms use “research tourism” metrics, which encourage researchers to take advantage of research spillovers from universities, other industries, and, even, competitors.

show abstract

Section: Qualitative Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, some firms reward development researchers for "strategic vision" and for decisions that are aligned with the firm's goals (Steele 1987 …”

Section: Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research, Development, and Engineering Metrics

Hauser

1998

Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Managing uncertainty in research and development

Doctor¹,

Newton²,

Pearson³

2001

Technovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The science advisory committee as a tool for new technology assessment

Rosenfelder

[Proceedings] 1992 International Engineering Management Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Science Advisorv Committee As A Tool For New Technoloav Assessment Technology is a critical asset of the firm that must be used to gain strategic advantages in today's competitive environment. This paper examines the assessment of new technology strategies in multi-divisional firms and the role of the Chief Executive Officer as the strategic decision maker regarding these new technology issues. The rate of technological changes has made the strategic management of technology a critical issue for U . S . firms competing in technology-driven markets.A Science Advisory Committee made up of independent senior scientists can serve the purpose of assessing the firm's performance regarding the strategic management of new product technology. The research reported in this paper explores the advantages of such a committee in the implementation of the technology evaluation process in multidivisional firms.Introductioq

show abstract

Selling Technology to Your Chief Executive

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Research, Development, and Engineering Metrics

Research, Development, and Engineering Metrics

Managing uncertainty in research and development

The science advisory committee as a tool for new technology assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About