Research-Technology Management

ISSN: 0895-6308 (Print) 1930-0166 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urtm20

How Innovation Management Techniques Support

An Open Innovation Strategy

Juan Ignacio Igartua, Jose Albors Garrigós & Jose Luis Hervas-Oliver

To cite this article: Juan Ignacio Igartua, Jose Albors Garrigós & Jose Luis Hervas-Oliver (2010)
How Innovation Management Techniques Support An Open Innovation Strategy, Research-
Technology Management, 53:3, 41-52, DOI: 10.1080/08956308.2010.11657630

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2010.11657630

Published online: 22 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1172

View related articles

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urtm20
HOW INNOVATION MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
SUPPORT AN OPEN INNOVATION STRATEGY
The use of innovation management techniques can help managers of small to medium-sized
companies to establish a well-structured open innovation strategy.
Juan Ignacio Igartua, Jose Albors Garrigós,
and Jose Luis Hervas-Oliver
OVERVIEW: How to achieve a sustained competitive
advantage that ensures long-term survival is a major
concern for managers everywhere, but even more so for
those in smaller firms, which may have more difficulty
enduring under hostile environmental conditions than
larger organizations. Because innovation is a key driver
of sustained competitive advantage and sustainable
business growth, the management of innovation is a cen-
tral concern for these firms. While research in innova-
tion management has provided many insights into
specific aspects of innovation, the encompassing prob-
lems confronting general managers, especially manag-
ers of small and medium-size firms, have been overlooked
in the development of innovation management tools. As
a case study in the value of innovation management
Juan Ignacio Igartua is lecturer at Mondragon Univer-
sity; for more than four years, he has been the Director of
the Office of Transference of the Results of Investigation
of the engineering faculty. He received his MPhil in Pro-
duction Engineering from Nottingham Trent University
and holds professional certification in project manage-
ment (PMP). He is a member of the Basque Foundation
for Quality Assessors Club, participating in external
company assessments using the European Foundation
Quality Model. He has contributed to the design and de-
velopment of the MONDRAGON business group man-
agement model and to its cooperative research model,
based on the collaboration of firms, research centers,
and universities. jigartua@eps.mondragon.edu
Jose Albors Garrigós is professor of organizational be-
havior at Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain.
He received an MBA and a PhD in industrial engineer-
ing from Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. He has
30 years international experience in engineering. He
has published a number of articles in various journals,
May—June 2010
0895-6308/10/$5.00 © 2010 Industrial Research Institute, Inc.
techniques and tools in the development of a collabora-
tive innovation network, this paper analyzes the use of
innovation management techniques and tools by a lead-
ing Spanish elevator manufacturer’s research unit in
implementing its open innovation strategy. This empiri-
cal study will help managers to understand the role of
innovation management tools in structuring an open in-
novation strategy based on collaboration and technology
transfer.
KEY CONCEPTS: small and medium-sized firms, inno-
vation management, innovation management tools, open
innovation.
Several decades of research into innovation manage-
ment have failed to provide clear and consistent findings
including Journal of Technology Transfer, Production,
Planning and Control; Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development; Management Research News; and Eu-
ropean Regional Studies. His current research focuses
on innovation and technology management. He teaches
technology and innovation management to undergradu-
ate and PhD students and provides consulting on tech-
nology management. jalbors@omp.upv.es
Jose Luis Hervas-Oliver is assistant professor of man-
agement at Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain,
and associate professor at Florida State University
International Programs. He has published a number of
articles in various journals, such as Journal of Economic
Geography, Entrepreneurship and Regional Develop-
ment; International Journal of Technology Manage-
ment; and Journal of Intellectual Capital. He earned
his PhD from Polytechnic University of Valencia. His
current research focuses on the areas of strategic man-
agement, IC, clusters, and regional competitiveness.
jose.hervas@omp.upv.es
41
or coherent advice for managers (1), mainly because the
concept is frequently disaggregated into component
parts. At the business level, the need for understanding
and managing innovation appears to be widespread and
enduring. Managers have long reported that manage-
ment of innovation is a central concern in managing
their enterprises (2). An Arthur D. Little survey of 669
global executives conducted in the late 1990s concluded
that “fewer than one in four managers believe they have
fully mastered the art of deriving business value from
innovation” (3, p. 11). Even today, innovation is identi-
fied as a more important strategic challenge than e-busi-
ness or even globalization (4). Open innovation, with
the increased complexity introduced by a greater inter-
dependence among firms, has increased the need to mas-
ter the management of innovation (5).
In response to the need to understand the effectiveness
of innovation actions, there have been frequent propos-
als for tools or techniques to measure aspects of the
management of innovation. However, the treatment of
innovation in these approaches is fragmented (6), and as
a result, empirical studies have found that many organi-
zations tend to focus only on measuring inputs and out-
puts of innovation in terms of spending, speed to market,
and the number of new products, ignoring the intermedi-
ate processes. Adams, Bessant, and Phelps (6) attempt to
address this gap by proposing a synthesized framework
for the innovation management process consisting of
seven categories that integrate 19 areas to be managed.
The use of systems and tools appears among these as an
important input to the innovation process. These can be
of various sorts, including tools and techniques for pro-
moting creativity or managing technology or systems
of quality control ranging from informal methods to
specific techniques such as total quality management
(TQM). Innovation management tools are key in the
management of open innovation, which brings greater
interface demands and a greater organizational ability to
absorb information and assess the impressions from the
outside. Managing these additional demands makes it
essential for companies to use the right tools to help
manage the inherent complexities (7).
In this article, we examine the role of innovation man-
agement tools (IMTs) in R&D strategic planning, espe-
cially for small and medium-sized companies, and the
organizational changes needed to adapt to collaborative
innovation models, where there is a need to forge closer
links between market information and technology devel-
opment. This exploration is based on a case study of
Orona, a small/medium-sized Spanish company with a
leading position in the European lift industry.
Defining Innovation Management
We undertook a review of the proposed definitions of
innovation management in an effort to define the scope
42
of the term. This review was complicated by the fact
that, for some authors, innovation management shares
many similarities with the management of technology,
which seeks to maintain and improve the competitive
position of a company through the use of technology (8),
and often the terms are used interchangeably. Similarly,
Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour (9) indicate that some
studies tend to speak about “innovation and technology
management,” bringing together both concepts under
one name. Another approach, historically very common,
has been to associate innovation management with new
product development. Trying to establish a distinction
between the two, Durand (10) highlights the importance
of managing the development and marketing of new
products as part of the management of innovation.
Dankbaar (8) suggests an approach that gathers and
summarizes these various interpretations (11–13). The
management of innovation, according to Dankbaar, may
be examined through two different but complementary
approaches. On one hand, innovation management can
be defined as the creation of preconditions to promote
human creativity, including strategic commitment and
context management. On the other hand, innovation
management can be seen as a process to foster the ap-
plication of knowledge.
Our review of the literature also found that innovation
management involves many different components and
requires management of a variety of areas, including:
• The strategy of innovation. Managing the strategy of
innovation requires understanding the what, why, and
when of innovation activity (11). This means developing,
reviewing, and updating an innovation policy and
strategy consistent with the organization’s mission and
setting goals for innovation.
• Portfolio management. R&D managers must balance
portfolios of technology, products, and projects, deciding
which ones are worth pursuing (the valuation problem)
and choosing a group, or portfolio, of them that best
meets the needs of the organization (the balance problem).
Choosing and managing a portfolio is a dynamic activity
because innovation projects change and develop as they
proceed. This requires a flexible and open attitude
supported by strong management disciplines to align the
portfolio with overall company strategy. Different tools
may provide support for this process, such as the project
portfolio matrix (14), a balanced-portfolio approach
(15), or fuzzy (16) or risk management (17) tools, among
others.
• Project management. Successful implementation of
an innovation strategy starts with good project
management (15). Innovation projects require an extra
dimension of management because of the relatively high
levels of uncertainty and risk that they face, through
their very nature. Innovation project management may
Research . Technology Management
include determining customers’ current needs and
expectations for innovation projects, developing new
products and services for both current and future markets,
innovating together with lead users, and generating and
validating alternative ideas and opportunities in the
different stages of the projects.
• Leadership and organizational culture. Leaders
must promote innovation and an entrepreneurial culture
across the organization by being personally involved
in establishing and implementing clear and relevant
ways to support innovation. Management leadership is
particularly important in the context of innovation, as
both the nature of innovation and the plan for achieving
it need to be communicated clearly and repeatedly (15).
Leaders must have a vision for innovation and be able
to share it (11).
• Human resources. Attracting, recruiting, motivating,
rewarding, and developing individuals are the backbone
of effective innovation management. Managing human
resources strategically means aligning people manage-
ment to innovation strategy and finding the right people
to support innovation plans (15).
• External relations. Fostering innovation means
nurturing networks, exchanging ideas, and sharing
knowledge outside of the company as well as within.
Innovation networks, such as links to suppliers and
technical institutes, are increasingly important to
organizational innovation efforts (8).
• Organizational design. Organizational design for
innovation is dependent on the strategy-structure profile
of the company and the innovation strategy chosen (18).
The pursuit of innovation may require redesigning the
organization, putting people capable of developing new
challenges in charge of new products or services,
business units, and companies.
• Innovation processes. The development of innovation
is managed and enhanced by ensuring a clear process,
using a structured step-by-step logic to steer and manage
innovation, enabling efficient teamwork, eliminating
innovation bottlenecks and optimizing time to market,
adopting and adapting methods and techniques to support
innovation, establishing mechanisms to resolve interface
issues, improving the innovation process, and improving
all processes by building on innovation (19).
• Performance measures. As with any other aspect of
management, innovation management requires appro-
priate measurement systems to allow managers to
measure the impact of innovation management activities
on the performance of the company (15, 20).
• Marketing. Marketing has a key role to play in
generating ideas for innovation. Marketing can make the
difference between a good idea and a successful product.
Without marketing and sales, a product innovation or a
May—June 2010
Managing the
additional demands
presented by open
innovation makes it
essential for
companies to use the
right tools.
new service will not attract customers’ interest and
developing an effective sales channel is fundamental.
Exploring new markets is also a path to innovation,
and the marketing department can assist in the
identification of specific needs and the development
of new relationships and new opportunities (11, 15).
The degree of collaboration and integration between
marketing and R&D has a profound influence on the
success of innovation projects (21).
• Resources. Limited resources for the implementation
of innovation projects need to be carefully assigned.
Resource management for innovation means making
suitable resources available (including time and money)
to support innovation projects, providing time and
resources for people to explore ideas, linking innovation
strategy with resource strategy, and ensuring people
have the resources and space to develop innovation
opportunities (15).
• Knowledge and intellectual property management.
The contribution of knowledge to innovation must be
managed and protected. Knowledge management is
concerned with identifying, translating, sharing, and
exploiting the knowledge within an organization. One of
the key issues is the relationship between individual and
organizational learning; managers must understand how
the former is translated into the latter and ultimately into
new processes, products, and businesses (11).
• Technology. Technology is an important driver of
successful innovation (19); the development of new
technologies must be managed by scanning and road-
mapping technology trends and emerging technologies,
identifying and evaluating alternative and emerging
technologies in light of their impact on business and
society, managing the technology portfolio (including
43
identifying and replacing outdated technology), and
exploiting existing technology while reusing it.
The implementation of an open innovation approach
presents additional challenges. Project portfolio man-
agement and the management of external relations are
especially important to open innovation due to their im-
pact on the organizational design needed to integrate
partners and manage resources, knowledge, and intel-
lectual property. In this context, the use of certain IMTs
(networking tools, R&D management tools, and market
intelligence techniques) can play a key role in focusing
and integrating all the actors involved.
Innovation Management Tools
The need to manage the innovation process and context
demands that managers make effective and timely deci-
sions based on multiple functions, inputs, and disci-
plines. In a compilation of the results of a study on
techniques and tools for managing innovation in 17 Eu-
ropean countries, Brown (22) concluded that the man-
agement of innovation is concerned with people, culture,
communication, and organization of business processes,
as well as technology.
Management tools and techniques are needed to support
these complex decisions (23–24). Brady et al. (25) de-
fine a management tool as “a document, framework,
procedure, system or method that enables a company to
achieve or clarify an objective” (p. 418). Innovation
management tools (IMTs) can be defined as the range of
tools, techniques, and methodologies intended to sup-
port the process of innovation and help companies to
meet new market challenges in a systematic way (23).
Chiesa and Masella (26), in their audit model of the pro-
cess of technological innovation, identified the effective
use of appropriate tools and systems as one of three fa-
cilitators of innovation processes, in conjunction with
the deployment of human and financial resources and
the leadership and direction of senior management.
Brown (22) affirms that IMTs allow a company to com-
bine technology and business strategy, fostering in-
creased employee participation, and concludes that there
is insufficient awareness of the variety and range of IMTs
available, as well as the potential benefits of their use.
More recently, Hidalgo and Albors (27) argue that IMTs
are critical to increasing competitiveness, showing that
proper application of IMTs facilitates a company’s abil-
ity to introduce appropriate new technologies in prod-
ucts or processes, as well as the necessary changes to the
organization. Within firms that actually implemented
IMTs, the perspective of managers participating in
Hidalgo and Albors’s study (mostly based on small/
medium-sized enterprises [SMEs]) is that IMTs can help
their firms to foster competitive advantages by increas-
ing flexibility and efficiency (86%), helping managers to
44
The use of innovation
management tools
can play a key role
in focusing and
integrating all the
actors involved.
manage knowledge effectively (76%), improving pro-
ductivity and time-to-market (73%), improving relation-
ships with suppliers (72%), gathering online marketing
information (69%), facilitating teamwork (67%), inte-
grating different sources of customer information (66%),
reducing costs by facilitating IT-based solutions (65%),
and eliminating redundant processes (64%). The aware-
ness of SME managers about the benefits of using IMTs
and their role in open innovation approaches has also
been examined in other studies (28). The capability of
these tools to address the problems of innovation in a
systematic way can be invaluable for SMEs, whose
managers may know little of these techniques and who
typically do not have the resources to set up whole teams
devoted to innovation. IMTs can help SMEs to take on
complex projects and frameworks, such as open innova-
tion (29).
Farrukh et al. (30) summarizes the literature on tools for
technology management and presents research identify-
ing a number of key issues related to the instruments, in
particular the characteristics of “good” tools. Phaal et al.
(31) works toward the development of a catalogue of
tools, while a series of research programs led to the pub-
lication of practical guides to support the implementa-
tion of IMTs (32). While some areas of innovation
management, such as portfolio management, human re-
sources, organizational design, innovation process, and
technology management, are quite well supported by
IMTs, other areas appear to be neglected (Table 1). This
is largely due to a tendency among scholars, identified
by Adams, Bessant, and Phelps (6), to identify the key
activities of the innovation management process in the
single context of technological innovation without tak-
ing other areas into account. This mismatch may also
emerge from the ambiguous roles of the different actors
(academic centers, business schools, consultancies, busi-
ness support organizations, and companies) involved
with the creation, promotion, support, and use of IMTs
Research . Technology Management
 Table 1.— IMTs available for each area of innovation management. Although there are several groups of IMTs supporting
the management of innovation, some areas of innovation management, such as portfolio management, human
resources, organizational design, innovation process, and technology management, are better supported while
others are comparatively neglected.

IMTs Groups

Innovation Management Areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOT

Strategy * 1
Portfolio management (Technology, Product, Project) * * * 3
Project management * 1
Leadership and culture * 1
Human resources * * 2
External Relations * 1
Organizational Design * * 2
Processes * * 2
Indicators 0
Market * 1
Resources * 1
Protection * 1
Knowledge * 1
Technology * * 2
TOTAL 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 1
(1) Creativity development techniques (2) Technology management (3) Strategic management techniques
techniques
(4) Human resources management techniques (5) Business intelligence (6) Innovative project management
techniques techniques
(7) New product and processes development (8) Cooperation and networking (9) Design management techniques
techniques techniques

(10) Knowledge management techniques

and the relationships between them (33); the lack of na-
tional or regional programs promoting IMTs; and the
lack of qualified personnel with experience in IMTs (27).
However, some companies, aware of the capabilities of
IMTs and the role they can play in fostering and manag-
ing innovation, have developed an innovation strategy
that incorporates these tools. One example is Orona, a
Spanish company that has designed and implemented an
open innovation strategy applying its own cooperative
research model, supported by IMTs chosen and imple-
mented according to the strategy and goals of the moment.
Managing Innovation at Orona
The lift sector encompasses companies providing manu-
facture, maintenance, repair, and installation of eleva-
tors, escalators, and moving walks. The sector is very
active in Europe, with four million elevators installed,
the most of any continent, and about 120,000 new instal-
lations each year; of these, Spain accounts for a 24%
share, followed by Italy (15%), France and Germany
(10% each), and the United Kingdom (8%) (34). In
2005, the sector employed 117,592 workers. Of the four
leading companies (Kone, Otis, Schindler, and Thyssen-
Krup), three are European, showing Europe’s strength in
the sector; European companies also lead in terms of
technological developments related to elevation. Al-
though the European lift sector is dominated by the big
four companies, hundreds of SMEs, like Orona, also
compete in the sector. The competitive technological
race and product developments among the big four com-
panies have a real influence on the SME competitors,
influencing their strategies and shaping their businesses.
Orona is the leading Spanish company in the lift indus-
try, qualifying for the exclusive “Ranking Prestige”
designation, a distinction awarded by Dun and Brad-
street to the most solvent 0.1% of companies in the
Spanish market. The company had consolidated sales
of €461.7 million in 2006 and has enjoyed a mean an-
nual increase of 20% over the last six years. Orona is a
member company of Mondragón Corporación Cooper-
ativa (MCC), considered to be the most successful
worker-owned enterprise in the world (35) and one of
the leading business groups in Spain, with a workforce
of over 92,700 people.

May—June 2010 45
In their 2006 strategic planning discussions, Orona reaf-
firmed that technological innovation was a crucial and
decisive activity for the vertical transport industry (36).
Accordingly, the company’s 2007–2010 strategic plan
stressed the importance of the innovation processes ini-
tiated in the previous business plan and allocated more
resources to technological innovation, multiplying the
effort by a factor of three over the three years of the plan.
Orona has historically considered technological innova-
tion a key strategy to anticipate, adapt, and transform
more successfully and more quickly than their competi-
tors. They consider it vital to create opportunities for in-
novation, shaping multidisciplinary teams, increasing
their absorptive capacity for knowledge generated by
universities and research centers, watching the impact
of new technologies, generating new projects, adopting
an innovation scoreboard with indicators, being more
efficient in funding, and innovating in the innovation
process itself. This commitment to innovation is driven
by Orona’s Elevator Innovation Center (Orona-EIC), an
R&D business unit with the mission of fostering techno-
logical innovation within Orona Group and planning
and carrying out R&D projects in the fields of cable/pull
systems, control devices, power electronics, comfort,
noise and vibrations, and electronics and communica-
tions for lift control.
In 2003, motivated by the desire to mobilize a large
number and range of participants, Orona-EIC created a
Cooperative Research Model based on the concept of
open innovation. The model established a precise set
of institutional relationships, gathered into the Vertical
Transport Innovation Network (VTIN), an organiza-
tion established by Orona-EIC, which retains control
of participation, dispute mediation, and performance
metrics. The VTIN supports close relationships with
diverse sets of people and institutions, creating and
nurturing rich and sustained interactions and collabo-
rations.
Orona’s innovation strategy, as exemplified by the VTIN,
relies on an open innovation model (5), in which the
company researches and develops both their own ideas
and ideas from partners; the exchange is two way, as
Orona seeks to move their own innovations out to part-
ners as well as to bring in external innovations (Figure
1). In designing and managing VTIN, Orona-EIC has fo-
cused its activities on two of the three primary areas
identified by Chesbrough (37) for managing open inno-
vation: funding innovation and generating innovation.
With this in mind, the activities of the network are orga-
nized into modular teams, which are linked to key tech-
nologies identified by Orona-EIC; teams are given the
freedom to innovate within their technological areas.
Orona’s model defines the interface mechanisms needed
to coordinate activity across teams, share ideas, and dis-
cuss the goals.
46
While creation nets are loose in one dimension—the
freedom to innovate—they are remarkably tight in an-
other: defining clear “action points” at which partici-
pants must come together and deliver outputs. When
inconsistencies or incompatibilities arise, participants
must make clear choices to produce an integrated prod-
uct or offer their idea for use by others who can resolve
the issues. If the design of the elevator motor control
system depends on the traction elevator system, for ex-
ample, the two subsystem designers need to solve any
problems together. Finally, to assure the success of the
model, Orona-EIC stresses its long-term nature, as well
as the win-win aspect of the VTIN relationship. The
group also emphasizes the chance for further opportu-
nities for innovation and collaboration through repeated
interactions, as the development of market-oriented prod-
uct innovations demonstrates the value of cooperation.
IMTs and Open Innovation at Orona
In order to further develop and better manage its open in-
novation strategy, Orona-EIC considered, based on the
experience and knowledge of VTIN organizations, the
use of IMTs as a way to strengthen the network. IMTs, the
group believed, could facilitate teamwork, improve rela-
tionships with technological suppliers, align team and in-
stitutional members’ objectives (increasing productivity
and reducing time to market, eliminating redundant pro-
cesses, and helping to manage knowledge effectively),
increase the number and quality of proposals (in terms of
market impact, planning horizon, and innovativeness),
and improve the efficiency of VTIN’s funding systems.
Aware of the wide range of IMTs available on the mar-
ket, Orona-EIC made an analysis of the impact of par-
ticular IMTs on the key elements of its cooperative
research model (Table 2). That analysis revealed that
collaborative project management, portfolio manage-
ment, roadmapping, and scenario techniques are the
most valuable for supporting Orona-EIC’s innovation
strategy. Taking into account the goals and needs of the
VTIN as well as the demands of the coordination com-
mittees, these tools were marked for earliest adoption
(Table 3).
Portfolio Management Techniques
Portfolio management techniques are systematic ways
of assessing a set of R&D projects or activities or even
business units in order to maintain an optimum balance
between risks and returns, stability and growth. The
definition of optimum varies as widely as the ambi-
tions, competence, vision, and culture of individual
companies. Orona-EIC started from the very beginning
to use portfolio management techniques to manage the
full set of R&D projects, balancing risk and reward in
such a way as to reduce overall uncertainty. To do that,
the innovation process was considered from idea to
Research . Technology Management
 Figure 1.—Orona’s cooperative research model for open innovation and the definition of the VTIN collaboration
plan. The model focuses on two primary areas for managing open innovation: funding innovation and generating
innovation.
implementation alongside variables such as type of
project, impact of the project on strategy, proposed
funding mechanism, impact on product, and techno-
logical area of research. The specific technique used is
a graphic representation of the variables listed in a two-
dimensional matrix, where different preferences are
given to those variables by VTIN members. Later in the
process, this matrix is used to foster discussion among
VTIN members and finally to make a decision about
the most suitable R&D projects or activities.
Technology Watch
Technology watch, like project management, was used
by Orona-EIC from the start as a key technique for an-
ticipating change and adapting and transforming its
technologies and related products more successfully
and more quickly than competitors. Technology watch
is a defensive technique that allows Orona-EIC to
May—June 2010
maintain closer control over the environment in which
it operates. The aim is to recognize the main techno-
logical advances as they appear on the market or tech-
nological arena in order to detect opportunities and
threats in a timely fashion. The main objective is to
identify significant developments that represent oppor-
tunities for development and should be integrated into
R&D strategies. Such opportunities in this case focus
on new technologies; decisions emerging from tech-
nology watch vary from those related to starting,
ending, or intensifying research around a certain tech-
nology to those related to making or buying options.
Orona-EIC uses a technology watch technique that,
with the help of the VTIN, establishes an appropriate
process and organization in each of the focus areas, as
well as a particular methodology to guide analysis, dis-
cussion, sharing, and use of the results within VTIN to
ensure the most effective deployment of the informa-
tion collected.
47
 Table 2.— IMTs and open innovation at ORONA. ORONA assessed the likely contribution of different IMTs
to the company’s open innovation strategy.
Impact on Orona-EIC Objectives

IMT Groups IMTs Networking Alignment Finance Quality

Cooperative and networking tools • Team-building High High Low Medium
• Networking High High Low Medium
• Collaborative projects High High High High
• Outsourcing Low Low High Medium
Interface management approaches • R&D-Marketing Low High Low High
Creativity development techniques • Brainstorming Low High Low High
• Creativity workshops Medium High Low High
• Expert panels Low Low Low Medium
IPR management • Intellectual property rights Low Low High Medium
management
R&D management tools • Portfolio management Medium High High High
Technology management tools • Technology Watch Medium High Low Medium
• Road mapping High High Low High
• Scenario Technique High High Low High
Market intelligence techniques • Patents Analysis Low Low Low Medium
• Business Intelligence Low Low Low Medium
Innovation finance techniques • Investment / financial analysis Low Low High Low
• R&D financing Low Medium High Low
Organizational techniques • Virtual enterprise High Medium Low Low

Table 3.— The deployment of IMTs at ORONA. ORONA established a plan for the implementation of IMTs likely
to contribute to its cooperative research model.

IMTs implementation evolution

IMT Groups 2003 2004 2005 2006

Team-building
Networking
Cooperative and networking tools Collaborative projects
Outsourcing Outsourcing
Interface management approaches R&D-Marketing
Brainstorming
Creativity development techniques Creativity workshops
Expert panels
IPR Management Intellectual property rights management
R&D Management tools Portfolio management
Technology Watch
Technology Management Tools Road mapping
Scenario Technique
Patents Analysis
Market intelligence techniques
Business Intelligence
Investment / financial analysis
Innovation finance techniques
R&D financing
Organizational techniques Virtual enterprise

48 Research . Technology Management

Roadmapping
Technology roadmapping is a widely used approach to Concept visioning
support integrated strategic planning at both the firm
and sector levels (38). There are many types of road-
maps, but the most common format comprises a graphic
and scenario
framework that shows how technology and product de-
velopments align with business and market goals over a building have pushed
given period of time. The technology roadmapping ap-
proach provides a useful integrating mechanism, acting
as the focal point for company strategy and planning ac-
existing roadmap
tivities.
boundaries further
At Orona-EIC and VTIN, roadmapping was used to
look further in the Orona Group product portfolio to
identify future technologies and associated R&D proj-
and helped to identify
ects that would need to be started in the present. The use
of roadmapping was intended to organize, prioritize, the market context
and complement the project ideas coming from creativ-
ity workshops, brainstorming sessions, and technology
watch by providing a vision into the future based on
and to build the
present state-of-the-art constraints. In Orona’s Technol-
ogy Follow-up Sheet (2006–2015), technology road- business case for
mapping helped identify key areas of research and
projects related to them. appropriating
Scenario Techniques resources for
In 2006, in an attempt to improve the innovativeness of
the ideas generated by the roadmapping, and based
on the successful experiences of Siemens in its Pictures
further development.
of the Future exercise (39), Orona-EIC worked with
VTIN members to incorporate scenario techniques into
its innovation management toolkit. Scenario techniques
are a powerful method for analyzing future building on This was just the idea Orona-EIC was looking for as it
two main principles, systems and future open thinking. developed its cooperative research model. Identifying
A scenario can be defined as a generally intelligible de- potential product innovations requires working on the
scription of a possible situation in the future, based on a horizon of already existing product roadmaps and also
complex network of influence factors. The scenario ensuring that a credible business case can be made for
planning framework regards enterprises as embedded in the proposed innovation (41). In this context, the Orona
a complex network of influences and takes different vi- Group’s Technology Follow-up Sheet lacked a sufficient
sions of the future into account. The scenario is created planning horizon, and the ideas and projects captured
starting from the company’s current situation, where there had more to do with the near-future planning than
major influence factors are defined as key factors within radical long-term innovation. Product concept visioning
the scenario field analysis. In the next step, the scenario needed to be coupled with scenario building as part of
prognostic is used to suggest possible changes in these the product innovation roadmap formulation to encour-
factors in the future. The scenario transfer summarizes age a long-term innovative vision.
different projections of the key factors in their extreme This combination of scenario techniques and roadmap-
specifications to create different scenarios (40). Sie- ping was also used to align and support the technology
mens’s experience showed that future scenarios exer- roadmaps of universities and research centers in the
cises such as those presented in Pictures of the Future VTIN, as well as Orona Group departments responsible
work as a basis for science and business groups to en- for product improvement and commercialization. This
gage in strategic dialogue, so that guiding concepts can experience has made it clear that concept visioning and
be developed together, creating a joint venture for inno- scenario building have pushed existing roadmap bound-
vation in which the partners will invest without giving aries further and helped to identify the market context,
up their own identities. including varying and emerging markets, and to build

May—June 2010 49
the business case for appropriating resources for further fined, and establishing more efficient funding systems.
development. The use of portfolio management, technology watch,
roadmapping, and scenario techniques has played a ma-
Innovation Results jor role in the positive change in the indicators estab-
Orona-EIC created an innovation scoreboard with indi- lished in Orona-EIC’s innovation scoreboard. It is too
cators to measure the progress of its cooperative research soon to tell whether this rate of improvement will con-
model, as well as the efficiency of Orona-EIC, the im- tinue in the future, but what is clear is that Orona-EIC
pact of the innovation model on Orona, and the contri- has become much more successful at accessing exter-
bution of the VTIN to innovation at Orona. The nal sources of technology through the use of IMTs in
scoreboard compiles 32 indicators arranged into seven relation to VTIN.
areas: scientific excellence, intellectual property rights, Although it is unwise to generalize from a single ex-
market success, market competitiveness, innovation ample, we can venture a number of broad observations
management, research unit internal performance, and about IMTs in open innovation. First, the introduction
network performance. The measurement areas were of IMTs at Orona-EIC did not occur overnight or in iso-
chosen based on Orona’s balanced scorecard approach lation; rather, their implementation was thoroughly
(42) and the company’s perspective on R&D’s role in its planned and executed in cooperation with VTIN. Fur-
strategy. thermore, the use of these tools has not only facilitated
The movement of the indicators over the years shows the
positive evolution of the model as it has been implement-
ed by Orona Group and quantifies the qualitative feeling
of optimism. Indicators that measure the overall efficien-
cy of the model have improved steadily; for example,
Orona-EIC maintained 4% of personnel in the model
while the number of external researchers involved in-
creased by nearly 25%. Another example of the success
of the collaborative model is Orona’s leading role in
NET0LIFT, a strategic project funded by the Spanish
Government’s Centre for Development of Industrial
Technology (CDTI), one of only sixteen projects judged
worthy of support in 2008.
IMTs played a large role in these positive developments.
Because of the introduction of technology watch and
roadmapping techniques, the planning horizon for Oro-
na’s portfolio rose to 21.34% in 2007, which led to an
increase of nearly 20% in the number of projects with a
horizon beyond two years. This figure demonstrates the
strategic alignment of VTIN members who are capable
of identifying and defining strategic projects of interest
for the longer term. Similarly, the percentage of projects
devoted to research increased by 8.9%, showing the ca-
pability of the VTIN to define projects for discovering
and developing methods and systems. Technology watch
supported these developments. Finally, network effi-
ciency grew, as well as the strength of VTIN’s contribu-
tion to it, spurring the development of a more stable
open innovation strategy (Figure 2).
Conclusion
IMTs can help companies manage innovation, adapt to Figure 2.— The horizon and research intensity
changing circumstances, and meet market challenges in of R&D projects in the VTIN collaboration plan
a systematic way. At Orona, IMTs have played and will over time. These indicators have evolved
continue to play an important role in facilitating an positively with the introduction of IMTs, while
open innovation strategy, particularly in building and the in-house human resources of ORONA
improving the network, aligning network members to R+D+i remained stable, indicating an increase
shared goals, improving the quality of the projects de- in overall research productivity and efficiency.

50 Research . Technology Management

the company’s ability to introduce appropriate new
technologies, but also helped to support necessary
changes to the organization to encourage continued in-
novation. Second, IMTs do not replace sound practices
and organizational processes. In implementing its open
innovation strategy, Orona established a precise set of
institutional mechanisms, making clear that Orona-EIC
assembled the network and controlled participation, ad-
ministration, and assessment. Third, IMTs do not pro-
vide a panacea for the uncertainties of innovation. The
process must be measured and analyzed, while continu-
ously questioning the efficacy of the tools being used.
Fourth, the support given by the external members of
VTIN provided knowledge sharing regarding IMTs and
facilitated introduction of IMTs; most companies do
not have sufficient in-house knowledge of IMTs to ef-
fectively choose and implement appropriate tools.
Finally, although there is not enough space to develop a
complete IMT framework here, it should be emphasized
that companies must possess a certain level of dynamic
absorptive capacity (43) to relate positively with their
environment in order to capture, transform, and exploit
the knowledge needed for innovation. They should mas-
ter the skills of project management, be able to develop
a technology roadmap, and be capable of working with
various scenarios in order to deal with the uncertainty of
the market. These could be considered the critical ele-
ments in the deployment of an innovation roadmap.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Board of Editors for their helpful
suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. We would
also like to thank the Orona Group, and especially Iñaki
Aranburu and Miguel Encabo from Orona-EIC, for their
help and support for this research. We also wish to ex-
press our gratitude to Michael F. Wolff for his useful
assistance with the submission of this paper.
References and Notes
1. Tidd, J. 2001. Innovation Management in Context: Environment,
Organization, and Performance. International Journal of Management
Reviews 3(3), pp. 169–183.
2. Van De Ven, A. H. 1986. Central Problems in the Management of
Innovation. Management Science 32(5), pp. 590–607.
3. Tucker, R. B. 2001. Innovation: The New Core Competency.
Strategy & Leadership 29(1), pp. 11–14.
4. Pricewaterhouse Coopers. 2007. PwC’s 10th Global CEO
Survey—Section 1: Assessing the Global Landscape. In C. Ampil
et al., eds., Global CEO Survey (London: Pricewaterhouse Coopers),
p. 13.
5. Huston, L., and Sakkab, N. 2007. Implementing Open Innovation.
Research-Technology Management 50(2), pp. 21–25.
6. Adams, R., Bessant, J., and Phelps, R. 2006. Innovation
Management Measurement: A Review. International Journal of
Management Reviews 8(1), pp. 21–47.
7. Fredberg, T., Elmquist, M., and Ollila, S. 2008. Managing Open
Innovation: Present Findings and Future Directions. VINNOVA
Report VR 2008:02, ed. C.U.o. Technology. VINNOVA - Verket för
Innovationssystem/Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation
Systems.
May—June 2010
IMTs can help
companies manage
innovation, adapt to
changing
circumstances, and
meet market
challenges in a
systematic way.
8. Dankbaar, B. 2003. Innovation Management in the Knowledge
Economy. Series on technology management; v. 7. London: Imperial
College Press.
9. Gopalakrishnan, S., and Damanpour, F. 1997. A Review of
Innovation Research in Economics, Sociology and Technology
Management. Omega 25(1), pp. 15–28.
10. Durand, T. 2003. Bringing Technology and Innovation into the
Boardroom: Strategy, Innovation, and Competences for Business
Value. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Bessant, J. R., and Tidd, J. 2007. Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; Chichester: John Wiley.
12. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. R., and Pavitt, K. 2005. Managing Innovation:
Integrating Technological, Market and Organization Change. 3rd
ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
13. Chiesa, V., Coughlan, P., and Voss, C. A. 1996. Development of
a Technical Innovation Audit. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 13(2), pp. 105–136.
14. Mikkola, J. H. 2001. Portfolio Management of R&D Projects:
Implications for Innovation Management. Technovation 21(7), pp.
423–435.
15. Goffin, K., and Mitchell, R. 2005. Innovation Management:
Strategy and Implementation Using the Pentathlon Framework.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
16. Riddell, S., and Wallace, W. A. 2007. The Use of Fuzzy Logic
and Expert Judgment in the R&D Project Portfolio Selection Process.
In Portland International Center for Management of Engineering
and Technology. PICMET ’07 (Portland, OR: IEEE), pp. 1228-1238.
17. Floricel, S., and Ibanescu, M. 2008. Using R&D Portfolio
Management to Deal with Dynamic Risk. R&D Management 38(5),
pp. 452–467.
18. Storey, J., and Salaman, G. 2005. Managers of Innovation:
Insights into Making Innovation Happen. Management, Organizations
and Business Series. Malden, Ma.; Oxford: Blackwell.
19. European Foundation for Quality Management. 2005. The
EFQM Framework for Innovation. Brussels, Belgium: European
Foundation for Quality Management.
20. Bösch, D., and Kobe, C. 2005. Structuring the Uses of Innovation
Performance Measurement Systems. Working Paper Series by the
University of Applied Sciences of Vienna. Vienna, Austria:
Department of Industrial Management, Vienna University of
Economics and Business Administration.
21. Souder, W. E., and Chakrabarti, A. K. 1978. R&D Marketing
Interface: Results from an Empirical Study of Innovation Projects.
IEE Transactions in Engineering Management EM-25(4), pp. 88–93.
51
22. Brown, D. 1997. Innovation Management Tools: A Review
of Selected Methodologies. EIMS Studies, vol. 30. Luxembourg:
European Commission Directorate-General XIII Telecommunications,
Information Market and Exploitation of Research.
23. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., and Probert, D. 2006. Technology
Management Tools: Generalization, Integration and Configuration.
International Journal of Innovation & Technology Management 3(3),
pp. 321–339.
24. General Secretariat of the European Union. 2003. Proceedings of
the Competitiveness Council. Brussels: Council of the European Union.
25. Brady, T., Rush, H., Hobday, M., Davies, A., Probert, D., and
Banerjee, S. 1997. Tools for Technology Management: An Academic
Perspective. Technovation 17(8), pp. 417–426.
26. Chiesa, V., and Masella, C. 1996. Searching for an Effective
Measure of R&D Performance. Management Decision 34(7): pp.
49–57.
27. Hidalgo, A., and Albors, J. 2008. Innovation Management
Techniques and Tools: A Review from Theory and Practice. R&D
Management 38(2), pp. 113–127.
28. European Commission. 2000. Innovation Management: Building
Competitive Skills in SMEs. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.
29. McAdam, R., Keogh, W., Sid, R. S., and Mitchell, N. 2007.
Implementing Innovation Management in Manufacturing SMEs: A
Longitudinal Study. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development 14(3), pp. 385–403.
30. Farrukh, C. J. P., Phaal, R., and Probert, D. R. 1999. Tools for
Technology Management: Dimensions and Issues. In Portland
International Conference on Management of Engineering and
Technology. PICMET ‘99, vol. 1 (Portland, OR: IEEE), pp. 9–10.
31. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., and Probert, D. R. 2001. A Framework
for Supporting the Management of Technological Innovation. Paper
presented at the ECIS Conference, The Future of Innovation Studies,
Eindhoven, the Netherlands, 20-23 September.
32. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., and Probert, D. R. 2001. T-Plan:
The Fast Start to Technology Roadmapping—Planning Your Route
to Success. Cambridge, UK: Centre for Technology Management.
33. European Commission. 2004. Innovation Management and the
Knowledge-Driven Economy. Brussels: European Commission
Directorate-General for Enterprise.
34. European Lift Association (ELA). 2007. Statistical information.
[Online]. Brussels, Belgium: ELA. Available: http://www.ela-aisbl.
org/intro.htm (accessed February 10, 2010).
35. Logue, J., and Yates, J. S. 2006. Cooperatives, Worker-Owned
Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization.
Economic and Industrial Democracy 27(4), pp. 686–690.
36. Wolff, M. F. 2007. Forget R&D Spending--Think Innovation.
Research-Technology Management 50(2), pp. 7–9.
37. Chesbrough, H. 2006. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for
Creating and Profiting From Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Publishing.
38. Lichtenthaler, U. 2008. Integrated Roadmaps for Open
Innovation. Research-Technology Management 51(3), pp. 45–49.
39. Eberl, U., Weyrich, C., and Kolpatzik, B. 2002. The Process of
Picturing the Future: An Interview with Claus Weyrich and Bernd
Kolpatzik. Munich, Germany: Siemens AG, Corporate Technology (CT).
http://a1.siemens.com/innovation/en/publikationen/publications_
pof/pof_spring_2002/picturing_the_future.htm (accessed February 17,
2010).
40. Drew, S.A.W. 2006. Building Technology Foresight: Using
Scenarios to Embrace Innovation. European Journal of Innovation
Management 9(3), pp. 241–257.
41. Passey, S. J., Goh, N., and Kil, P. 2006. Targeting the Innovation
Roadmap Event Horizon: Product Concept Visioning and Scenario
Building. In ICMIT 2006 Proceedings—2006 IEEE International
Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology,
Singapore. Portland, OR: IEEE), pp. 604–607.
42. Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. 2001. The Strategy-Focused
Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the
New Business Environment. Boston: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
43. Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., and Pathak, S. 2006. The Reification
of Absorptive Capacity: A Critical Review and Rejuvenation of the
Construct. Academy of Management Review 31(4), pp. 833–863.

CALL FOR PAPERS

Research-Technology Management Seeks Submissions

Research-Technology Management seeks articles that connect theory to practice in the management of
innovation.
We are actively seeking articles that map the cutting edge in R&D management, illustrate how management
theory can be applied to real situations, and give R&D managers the tools to promote innovation throughout
their organizational cultures. We are interested in case studies, practical models, frameworks, and tools
covering a wide range of innovation and technology management. We are particularly interested in articles
about open innovation, design-driven innovation, user-centered innovation, and other trends in innovation
strategy and R&D management.
RTM articles are concise and practice centered. We prefer submissions at around 3,500 words, although we
will occasionally publish truly groundbreaking pieces as long as 5,000 words. For more information,
including author’s guidelines and submission requirements, please visit us at http://www.iriweb.org/
Public_Site/Navigation/Publications/Research-Technology_Management/index.aspx.
Keep an eye out for forthcoming special issue announcements!

52 Research . Technology Management