End of Phase 1 and preparation for Year 2 Alberto Di Minin

The research team

Alberto Di Minin, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Elena Casprini Maria Karaulova Cristina Marullo

Bart van Looy, KU Leuven Adrian Kovacs Dennis Verhoeven

Dries Faems, University of Groningen Isabel Estrada Vaquero

2

The research project aims to study the organizational antecedents and the

relevant approaches that large established organizations might adopt to implement

exploration and exploitation simultaneously, with a specific emphasis on

radical innovation strategies.

Novel elements of the proposed research -adopt a “two levels” perspective in examining solutions that have proved relevant for successful innovation in large established enterprises (internal/external solutions) -introduce novel and emerging solutions to the “innovator dilemma” whose effectiveness remains underexplored in existing research - apply a novel approach that allows us go beyond the current state of the art, and build up “actionable knowledge”

Novel elements of the proposed research - apply a novel approach that allows us go beyond the

current state of the art

“Useful knowledge”

Literature review

WHY

Quantitative approach

WHAT

Qualitative approach

HOW

VALIDATION

VALIDATION

Structure of the research project Phase 1 (Y1/Y2):

Outlining the state of the art

What needs to be taken into

account?

Literature review

Background information: outlining

constituents that might 'solve' the problem

Phase 2(Y1/Y2):

Quantitative assessment

Who is doing the better job?

Databases

Indicators

Importance of constituents: Large scale assessment, preliminary interviews and selection

of relevant cases

Phase 3(Y2/Y3):

Case analysis and tools development

How are they achieving these

results?

Case studies

Case reports

Tools development/ dissemination

VALIDATION workshops with practitioners and

other non-academic experts

VALIDATION meetings with VC investors,

managers, policy makers

Phase 1:

Outlining the state of the art

SSSA

KU Leuven

Output=Research tools

Collection of best practices emerging

from literature

Y1-Y2

Phase 2:

Quantitative assessment

KU Leuven SSSA

Output= Diagnostic Tools

EU Radical Innovation Scorecard

Detecting Radical Innovation in

Europe

Y1-Y2

Phase 3:

Case analysis and tools development

Groningen University

KU Leuven SSSA

Output=Research tools

Supporting managerial practices for radical innovation

in EU

Y2-Y3

Research Workplan

Phase 1:

Outlining the state of the art

SSSA

KU Leuven

Output=Research tools

Collection of best practices emerging

from literature

Y1-Y2

Phase 2:

Quantitative assessment

KU Leuven SSSA

Output= Diagnostic Tools

EU Radical Innovation Scorecard

Detecting Radical Innovation in

Europe

Y1-Y2

Phase 3:

Case analysis and tools development

Groningen University

KU Leuven SSSA

Output=Research tools

Supporting managerial practices for radical innovation

in EU

Y2-Y3

Research Workplan

TODAY

Activities conducted in Year 1 1. RAD Comprehensive Reading List 2. TOPICS in RAD 3. Validation conference in Luxembourg 4. Comprehensive Literature review 5. Year 1 Report and

Special Session to the R&D Managment Conference (Leuven, July 2017) Submission to Academy of Management (Atlanta, August 2017)

OU

R F

irst

Deliv

era

ble

October Validation Meeting @ EIB

This format will be followed for: Phase 1: Literature review (coordinated by SSSA) Phase 2: Quantitative Assessment (coordinated by KU Leuven) Phase 3: Case Studies (coordinated by University of Groningen)

Introduction by the research

team

Team Work (EIB members + research team

members)

Plenary Feedback to

next phase of the project

11 EIB Meeting - October 2016, 11th

What did we learn conducting the lit review?

What did we learn?

What did we learn?

What did we learn?

Conclusions of Year 1: after going through almost 2000 papers..

1. conceptual and theoretical frameworks are extremely contingent on the industry, sector and empirical context of the study

2. the definitions of radical innovations have been inconsistent and different adoption/interpretation of labels leads to different analysis

3. Still… behind different labels we find a limited number of components: building blocks for a new typology? (Work in progress)

4. Relevant/Emerging themes: Business models, “external solutions” to the RAD issue, IP issues and project portfolio

5. Control tools: still need to be integrated with literature of ambidexterity.

Towards Year 2: quantitative analysis takes over..

1. KU Leuven will take the leading role 2. RQ: “How do certain R&D choices regarding radical innovation

translate in economic value in 10-15-20 years?” 3. Tech Novelty dimension AND Market impact 4. Databases: IPTS Scoreboard, PATSTAT, AMADEUS 5. Unit of analyis: the firm 6. Meso level “technology paths” 7. Selection of relevant industries and technology based on: High EU

presence, significant R&D spending, EIB activities reported, existence of discontinuities in the technology development, promising of interesting cases.

Thank you for your attention Alberto Di Minin