FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W328673463> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W328673463 startingPage "29" @default.
• W328673463 abstract "The creation of a set of metrics to measure the effectiveness of R&D has been a major need for research managers for some time. In recent surveys of Industrial Research Institute (IRI) participants, the need for metrics has ranked in the top three for the past three years (Cosner 2010). The enhanced importance of reliable metrics is being driven by several forces: the need to justify the investment in R&D to senior management, the desire to improve efficiency in the use of R&D resources, and the need for a means to estimate the value of the R&D investment for the future growth of the company. Because R&D tends to be both longer terra and more subjective than a sales or manufacturing target, effective metrics must encompass the broad influence R&D has over an organization, including such diverse elements as new products, cost savings, customer support, competitive evaluations, and IP protection. The difficulty in creating metrics is further complicated by the need for changing measures of R&D effectiveness as business conditions and technology strategies change. Over the years, there have been many attempts to create metrics to quantify the success or failure of R&D organizations. The result has been a proliferation of metrics, ranging from financial measures, such as R&D spending as a percent of sales (Andrew et al. 2008, Hauser 1996), to more complex measures, such as strategic alignment (Roussel, Saad, and Erickson 1991). A 2004 study by the European Industrial Research Management Association (EIRMA) lists over 250 potential R&D metrics (EIRMA 2004). While metrics clearly draw a high level of interest from R&D leaders, it isn't clear whether this continued focus is because of the inadequacy of existing choices for metrics or a lack of knowledge of the topic. To address these questions, the IRI formed the Measuring the Effectiveness of R&D Research-on-Research (ROR) Working Group in 2005 as a follow-up to previous ROR groups on the topic. After a review of the literature on R&D metrics, the ROR group polled members on the metrics they currently used. The subcommittee further attempted to evaluate whether metric choices were dependent on the type or industry of the organization. Using the Technology Value Pyramid (TVP), a rediscovered and modernized model created by a 1994 ROR group, the group classified and organized existing metrics, providing a guide for choosing relevant, useful metrics, and identified gaps in available metrics. The Technology Value Pyramid One of the key challenges of implementing R&D metrics is matching metrics to the various levels and functions of the R&D organization, so that metrics are meaningful to the appropriate personnel. A bench scientist's metrics, for instance, should be related to his or her accomplishments, while the CEO or general manager should have more overarching metrics related to the performance of the organization under his or her responsibility. A metric for financial return makes sense for a CEO or CTO but has little direct meaning for a bench scientist. Conversely, the number of patents issued may make sense as a measure of performance for the bench scientist but is not directly meaningful for the CEO. Categorizing metrics by their relevance to the particular components that make up the eventual value of the R&D investment addresses this by allowing metrics to be targeted to the most relevant levels of the organization. In this way, bench scientists can access relevant measures of their group's performance, while managers get the quantitative measures they need--not just to rate the return on the R&D investment but to answer the key question, Are we doing the right things? An earlier ROR group developed the TVP (Figure 1), a model that takes this approach to categorizing metrics. The TVP provides a hierarchy of metrics based on the fundamental elements of R&D value and the relationships of those elements to business results in the long and short term (Tipping, Zeffren, and Fusfeld 1995). …" @default.
• W328673463 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W328673463 creator A5057125723 @default.
• W328673463 creator A5062771064 @default.
• W328673463 creator A5082479753 @default.
• W328673463 creator A5087496105 @default.
• W328673463 date "2011-09-01" @default.
• W328673463 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W328673463 title "Measuring the Effectiveness of R&D: R&D Metrics Continue to Be an Important Topic for Measuring the Effectiveness of R&D. Practitioners Share Their Issues and Recommendations" @default.
• W328673463 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W328673463 type Work @default.
• W328673463 sameAs 328673463 @default.
• W328673463 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W328673463 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W328673463 hasAuthorship W328673463A5057125723 @default.
• W328673463 hasAuthorship W328673463A5062771064 @default.
• W328673463 hasAuthorship W328673463A5082479753 @default.
• W328673463 hasAuthorship W328673463A5087496105 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C124101348 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C177264268 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C27548731 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C2779347749 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C2780009758 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W328673463 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C119857082 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C124101348 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C144133560 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C162853370 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C177264268 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C17744445 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C199360897 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C199539241 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C27548731 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C2776291640 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C2779347749 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C2780009758 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C41008148 @default.
• W328673463 hasConceptScore W328673463C94625758 @default.
• W328673463 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W328673463 hasLocation W3286734631 @default.
• W328673463 hasOpenAccess W328673463 @default.
• W328673463 hasPrimaryLocation W3286734631 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W175177255 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2013326998 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2043607013 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2051276096 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2123120413 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2294369855 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2298891282 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2322284742 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2326020447 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2490122366 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2553258588 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2624925997 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W2808518780 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W3017338766 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W3040990657 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W3043081902 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W3110203031 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W3118306486 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W31430198 @default.
• W328673463 hasRelatedWork W420288017 @default.
• W328673463 hasVolume "54" @default.
• W328673463 isParatext "false" @default.
• W328673463 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W328673463 magId "328673463" @default.
• W328673463 workType "article" @default.