The R&D/Production interface in four developed countries

Abstract

The relationship between company R&D and commercial performance, if any, is the subject of much discussion and little measurement. One view (Bisio and Gastwirt 1979) is that meaningful quantitative generalisations on the value of R&D to companies cannot be made. A later study (Bergen 1983) introduced quantitative methods by creating a series of hypotheses. These were tested by scoring related variables and analysing the data for correlations and population differences. The study was confined to one industry to approach like for like comparison as closely as possible. The results encouraged the extension of the study to include Japan (Bergen & Miyajima 1986) and the USA. The present paper reports on the four country quantitative comparisons. Among other indications, the findings support the view that national culture is an important factor in both methods and results and that there is a correlation between R&D investment and productivity.

A Comparative Analysis of New Product Programmes:

“…Relatively few cross‐national studies have been carried out in the area of new product development. The few that have been tend to be based on quite small sample sizes[23,24,25,26,27,28], especially when compared to the many single‐country studies. Nonetheless, the limited results indicate that there are differences in new product practices between countries and there may also be performance differences[3,23,26,28].…”

“…Senior management′s involvement and corporate commitment : The impact of these two senior management elements on new product development has been found to be positive[12,35]. Success factors here include: sending clear messages to the entire organization about the role and importance of new product development in the form of broad parameters and a strategic mission for NPD[3,4,27,33,45];ease of access to senior management in case of difficulties or for major decisions[25,27,38];availability of sufficient funds and resources[4,25,31,40,49];the presence of some technical literacy among senior managers [4,23,42];senior management commitment to risk‐taking in product innovation[2,29]. …”

“…The national/cultural environment : The firm′s national and cultural environment moderates its approach to new product development and the outcomes. For example, the idea of “professionalism” and standards of behaviour among different functions may be culture specific[29], preventing or facilitating co‐operation, teamwork and management support[4,23,25,26,43,52,53]. Japanese and European companies appear to have better multifunctional co‐operation because of such cultural differences than do North American companies[33,43,52].…”

“…In German‐US comparisons, innovation activities in Germany tended to have better multifunctional co‐operation and better exchange of information among R&D people[52]; further, Germans placed more emphasis on timeliness than on staying within budgets[3,26], had problems with authority, required more uncertainty avoidance, but had better senior executive involvement[25,43]. Weisenfeld and Chakrabarti found that innovation strategies aimed at a differential advantage and cost reduction are fostered by R&D management in Germany, while the same strategies are advanced by marketing groups in the US[54].…”

From Maturity to Entrepreneurship: A Stakeholder Model of Innovation

“…It has also been suggested that scientific concepts are western`inventions' and this combined with a lack of individualism blocks creativity in Japan (Dreyfuss, 1987). Bergen et al (1988) identified differences in the R&D productivity of 54 scientific instrument manufacturers in the UK, US, Germany and Japan which were attributed to national culture. Other writers have ascribed R&D productivity to technology (Dumbleton, 1986), organisational factors such as adminis-trative systems and public policy (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990) and to the creativity and motivation of scientists (Pelz and Andrews, 1976).…”