Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Course Syllabus BUS213E
MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATION AND TECHNICAL CHANGE
Number of ECTS credits: 6 ECTS
Contact Details for Professor
Tel: 0474 600 452 (ONLY urgent use, this is my personal mobile) E-mail: Christophe Lejeune, [email protected]
Office hours: Friday, 11.30 - 12.30
Course Description
This course is focused on innovation, what it is (or not), how it appears (“search” & “select”), and how it can be managed (“implement” and “capture”). Innovation will not be restricted to creativity and new technical ideas, but also take organizational aspects into account. The course is committed to providing an opportunity to learn to use some tools and news ways of thinking which are better suited to addressing complex problems and opportunities inherent in organisations today. In terms of method, the course will promote interactions between students and the teacher. Before each session, students will be expected to have read a chapter and/or article. During classroom sessions, students will work in groups to answer specific questions, and discuss what they have learned. Concepts and ideas will be illustrated with concrete examples and press releases. Course Prerequisites (if any)
BUS 101 Learning Objectives
The students will be able to:
1) Understand the role of innovation and technical change in enterprise and national level economic performance
2) Understand the technological, human, economic, organisational, social and other dimensions of innovation
3) Explore and better manage the effects of new technology on people and work systems
4) Demonstrate that the effective management of technological innovation requires the integration of people, processes and technology
5) Recognize opportunities for the commercialization of innovation
2
Major Learning Objectives, Teaching Methods, Testing and Feed-back Questionnaire (Business Studies)
Course code and course name: BUS213E – Management of innovation and technical change
Instructor: Christophe Lejeune
Summary:
Number of assignments used in this course: 0
Number of Feedback occasions in this course (either written or oral): continuously
Number and Types of of Teaching Methods: Class readings, class discussion, group work and oral presentation
Does your course require graded student oral presentations? Yes
Major Learning Objectives Course Learning objectives
addressing the Major
Objectives (choose the most
important ones that your
course actually addresses)
Methods used to Teach Course
Objectives
Methods (and numbers/types
of assignments) used to test
these learning objectives
Type, Timing and
Numbers of Feedback
given to Student
The bachelor has a broad knowledge
of the different functional fields of
business management. He is able to
apply this knowledge in the analysis of
business-oriented problems and is able
to propose solution to specific
business problems.
(2) Understand the technological,
human, economic, organisational,
social and other dimensions of
innovation.
(5) Recognize opportunities for the
commercialization of innovation
Main readings and class discussion Mid-term examination + final exam
via the analysis of a case study
Oral feedback during the week
after the test
The bachelor has an understanding of
the interrelatedness of the different
functional fields of business and
understands the impact of this on
decision-making.
(4) Demonstrate that the effective
management of technological
innovation requires the integration of
people, processes and technology
Main readings and class discussion Random written tests about class
preparedness
Written feedback during the week
after the test
The bachelor has insight into the broad
societal context of businesses and is
able to take it into account in the
analysis of business-oriented problems.
(1) Understand the role of innovation
and technical change in enterprise
and national level economic
performance
Main readings and class discussion Mid-term examination + final exam
via a short essay
Oral feedback during the week
after the test
3
Major Learning Objectives Course Learning objectives
addressing the Major
Objectives (choose the most
important ones that your
course actually addresses)
Methods used to Teach Course
Objectives
Methods (and numbers/types
of assignments) used to test
these learning objectives
Type, Timing and
Numbers of Feedback
given to Student
The bachelor knows and is able to
apply common qualitative and
quantitative research methods and is
able to apply these in the field of
business studies
The bachelor has an open and academic
attitude characterized by accuracy,
critical reflection and academic
curiosity.
The bachelor is able to identify the
international dimension in business-
related problems and knows how to
handle these problems in an effective
way.
The bachelor is able to work in a multi-
cultural team.
The bachelor recognizes the importance
of life-long learning.
The bachelor is able to communicate
clearly, fluently and accurately; as well
in a written report as in an oral
presentation.
(3) Explore and better manage the
effects of new technology on people
and work systems.
Class discussion about innovation
examples and case studies
Case study report and oral
presentation
Continuous oral feedback upon
request before and after the
presentation
The bachelor is able to combine ethical
and business-oriented judgments in the
analysis of business problems and takes
these ethical considerations explicitly
into account in the solutions proposed
for business problems
4
Course Materials
Required textbook: TIDD, Joe & BESSANT, John (2015), Managing innovation (5th edition). Wiley: Chichester, United Kingdom. ISBN: 978-1-118-36063-7 See: http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP003053.html Reader: additional readings and case studies in a separate document, available at low cost from the College Reception and/or as electronic files. Course Assessment
The students will be evaluated on the basis of their performance as follows
Midterm examination 30% Case study and presentation 25% Class preparedness 15% Final exam 30%
Midterm examination: exam based on the material covered in the lecture and in
the readings.
Case study and presentation: See instructions below.
Class preparedness: creative participation during the sessions (value-added),
using concepts, arguments and ideas from readings.
Final exam: exam based on the material covered in the lecture and in the readings.
Grading Scale of Vesalius College Vesalius College grading policy, in line with the Flemish Educational norms, is now as stated follows:
Letter grade Scale of 20 Scale of 100
A 17.0-20.0 85-100
A- 16.1-16.9 81-84
B+ 15.3-16.0 77-80
B 14.5-15.2 73-76
B- 13.7-14.4 69-72
C+ 13.1-13.6 66-68
C 12.3-13.0 62-65
C- 11.5-12.2 58-61
D+ 10.7-11.4 54-57
D 10.0-10.6 50-53
5
F 0-9.9 0-49
Description of activities and Grading Criteria Midterm examination (30%) The midterm exam will cover weeks 1-6. The exam will consist of 1 or 2 short essay(s) and a case evaluation. The exam will be held on March 3rd from 8:30-11:30 (you are free to go when exam is completed). Case study (20%) and presentation (5%) By groups of 2 students, you will work on an innovation-based research question to be illustrated by an international (ideally European) company. You will be responsible for providing a 2400-3500 word document presented as a research paper. In addition, you will need to provide a PowerPoint presentation of no more than 10 slides, to be used for a 20-minute presentation on 5 May 2017 (week 14). The paper will have an Introduction (300-500 words), Literature Review (750-1000-word), Method (300-500 words), Analysis (750-1000-word), and a Conclusion (300-500 words). These five (5) topics are to be written in the paper. All cited references (minimum 5) must be listed in APA format on a separate page. If the essay does not meet all the above criteria you will have a grade reduction or receive a zero (0) for the work. The case study will be submitted via Turnitin. Class preparedness (15%) Creative participation during the sessions (value-added), using concepts, arguments and ideas from readings. Students will have random written tests to evaluate their understanding of class readings. Final exam (30%) The midterm exam will cover weeks 8-13. The exam will consist of 1 or 2 short essay(s) and a case evaluation. The exam will be held during week 15 (you are free to go when exam is completed).
6
RUBRICS – RESEARCH PAPER 200-LEVEL
Criterion Description Points Comments (or directly in paper)
Introduction
and Research
Question /
Statement /
Puzzle
( /8 Points)
Explain Choice of Topic and why it is academically relevant /2
Clear and Concise Research Question / Research Statement /4
Outline of structure of the paper and main argument /2
Literature
Review
( /12 Points)
The literature review identifies the relevant (i.e. to the chosen topic) arguments and debates in the
literature and places the student’s own topic in the wider academic context
/3
It compares, contrasts and synthesizes the main authors and arguments /3
It evaluates strengths and weaknesses of the literature and identifies clear gaps the student’s paper
addresses
/3
Based on the Literature Review, the student also identifies major theories and core concepts that
have been applied by authors to the topic at hand and applies some of them in the analysis part of
the paper (see Analysis / Discussion criteria)
/3
Methods
( /8 Points)
The student chooses, explains and justifies an appropriate method to tackle the research question /4
The student demonstrates the ability to select and present suitable data for the analysis /4
Analysis /
Discussion
( /32 Points)
Extensive Analysis and Arguments supported by strong empirical examples and data /8
Use and synthesis of a good number of sources and references to support key arguments directly
addressing the research question
/8
The student explains and shows awareness of appropriate theoretical debates that have been used in
the literature to examine similar problems and applies some concepts to the analysis
/8
Critical and dialectic (thesis/antithesis/synthesis) evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of core
assumptions and arguments of other authors in non-prejudicial and open-minded manner
/8
Structure
( /20 Points)
The paper is structured in a coherent and logical way – with clear subsections – supporting the
clarity of the argument and analysis
/10
A coherent line of argumentation, linking empirical examples back to answering the main research
question.
/10
Formal
Aspects
( /10 points)
Correct use of language (spelling, grammar, expression) /3
Correct citation and bibliography /3
Appropriate Number of Sources /4
Conclusions
Stating in clear and succinct manner the result of the analysis and main answer to the research
question /4
7
Criterion Description Points Comments (or directly in paper)
( /10 points) Critical, open-minded and non-defensive evaluation the validity of the student’s own arguments and
results to explore further avenues of research /6
TOTAL Final and Overall Comments:
Total
8
EXPLANATION OF POINT VALUES FOR EACH MARKER
Criterion/Marker Excellent / Very good (A/A-) Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to D) Fail (F)
Introduction and
Research Question /
Statement / Puzzle
(8 points maximum)
2
1,5 – 1
0,5 – 0
Choice of Topic The author provides a clear and convincing explanation of the choice
of topic and highlights its significance
The author provides an explanation which is,
however, not fully convincing
No or very weak explanation
provided
Clear Research Question /
Clear Research Statement
4 3-2 1,5 - 0
The author provides a clear and meaningful research question. The
research question is focused enough to enable an in-depth analysis and
is relevant and ambitious enough to allow for original and critical
engagement with empirical developments, theories and author debates.
The author provides a research statement on how to tackle the
overarching research question. Sub-questions are used if research
question is too complex
The author provides a research question, but it
lacks clarity, conciseness or is not ambitious
enough (self-evident research question). Muddled
or unclear research statement
Poorly designed research question
No research statement
Outline of Structure and
Main Argument
2
1,5 – 1
0,5 – 0
The author provides a clear outline of the main argument and will how
she/he will structure the paper
The author provides an outline of the main
argument and an indication of the structure – but
lacks clarity
No or very weak outline
Literature Review
Analysis (12 points) 3
points per marker
3 – 2.5
2 – 1,5
1 – 0
Relevant arguments and
debates / academic context
The literature review identifies the relevant (i.e. to the chosen topic)
arguments and debates in the literature and places the student’s own
topic in the wider academic context
The literature review identifies some relevant (i.e.
to the chosen topic) arguments and some debates
in the literature. The student places his or her own
topic in an academic context – but this is not fully
explored
No relevant literature is provided or
only weakly explored. Limited or
no wider academic context provided
Compare, Contrast and
Synthesis
The student compares, contrasts and synthesizes a wide range of key
authors and arguments in the literature review
The student mentions some of the key authors
and arguments, but does not fully and actively
synthesize the material or compares and contrasts
in a limited manner; or only does one of the two
No or very weak synthesis and/or
comparing & contrasting or
arguments and authors
Evaluation of
Strengths/Weaknesses and
Gaps
The literature review evaluates strengths and weaknesses of the
literature and identifies the relevant gaps the student’s paper addresses
Some strengths and weaknesses of the literature
are identified but the gap the student’s paper
seeks to address is not fully clear
No or very weak evaluation – gaps
not explained or weakly explained
Identifying Key Theories
and Core Concepts
Based on the Literature Review, the student also identifies major
theories and core concepts that have been applied by authors to the
topic at hand and applies some of them in the analysis part of the paper
(see Analysis / Discussion criteria)
The student identifies theories / concepts, but
they are not completely relevant and/or not
clearly and correctly defined
No or irrelevant theories/concepts
identified
9
Criterion/Marker Excellent / Very good (A/A-) Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to D) Fail (F)
Methods (8 points) –
4 points per descriptor 4 3-2 1,5 - 0
Appropriate Method The student chooses, explains and clearly justifies an appropriate
method to tackle the research question
The student chooses a method, but it lacks proper
justification and is only partially relevant / or not
fully explained
No or irrelevant methods – no or
weak explanation/justification
Selection of suitable Data The student demonstrates the ability to identify and present suitable
data for the main analysis
The student identifies and presents some data, but
not always the most suitable
No or poorly selected/presented
data
Analysis/Discussion
(32 points) 8 – 6,5 6 – 4 3 - 0
Extensive Analysis and
Arguments with empirical
examples, data and facts
Analytical arguments are illustrated with the help of clear and
insightful empirical examples. The author frequently substantiates
arguments with the help of up to date data. The arguments are
presented in a succinct way so as to answer directly the overall research
questions and sub-questions, ensuring a high level of relevance.
Arguments are occasionally supported by
empirical examples. The author occasionally
substantiates arguments with the help of data
even though this data is outdated. Arguments are
not always linked back to the main research
question
Arguments are mostly
unsubstantiated claims, absence of
data or empirical examples and
large passages that do not address
the research question, undermining
the relevance of the main body.
Synthesis of wide range of
sources
Wide use and synthesis of sources and references to support key
arguments directly addressing the research question. The use of
literature displays the author’s in-depth knowledge of the subject-
matter.
Occasional use and synthesis of sources and
references to support some arguments – some but
not all arguments directly address the research
question (i.e. passages of irrelevant
analysis/discussion)
No or very weak synthesis of
sources – arguments do not address
the research question directly
Explanation and
application of
theory/concepts
The student explains and shows awareness of appropriate theoretical
debates that have been used in the literature to examine similar
problems and applies some concepts to the analysis
Some application of concepts/theoretical aspects
of the analysis in the paper
No or very limited explanation and
application of theories and concepts
Evaluation of arguments Critical and dialectic (thesis/antithesis/synthesis) evaluation of
strengths and weaknesses of core assumptions and arguments of other
authors in non-prejudicial and open-minded manner (including the
presentation of counter-arguments)
Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of some
assumptions and arguments, but often counter-
arguments are not presented or straw-man
arguments are provided. Some evidence of
selective argumentation
No or very limited evaluation of
strength and weaknesses – highly
biased or selective line of
argumentation
Structure ( /20 points) –
10points per marker 10 – 8,5 8 – 5 4 - 0
Clear Structure The paper is structured in a coherent and logical way – with clear
subsections – supporting the clarity of the argument and analysis
The structure is generally logical and coherent,
but at places unclear – the sub-sections could be
clearer or better organized
No or very unclear/incoherent
structure
Clear and coherent line of
argumentation
A coherent line of argumentation (red thread running through the entire
paper), linking theories and empirical examples back to answering the
main research question.
Argumentation line is not always clear or
coherent – theories and examples are not always
linked back to the main research question
Unclear / absent line of
argumentation – fragments that are
not linked back to the research
10
Criterion/Marker Excellent / Very good (A/A-) Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to D) Fail (F)
question
Formal Aspects(10)
Language and Spelling Correct use of language - correct spelling, grammar, and English
expression (3 – 2.5)
Use of language with occasional flaws in
spelling, grammar and expression (2 – 1,5)
Very flawed use of language with
many spelling and grammar
mistakes
(1-0)
Citation Correct and consistent use of citation method and correct bibliography
(3 – 2.5)
Occasional mistakes in citation method and
bibliography (2 – 1,5)
Recurring mistakes in citation and
bibliography (2 – 1,5)
Number of Academic
Sources
Appropriate number of academic sources used (please check
progression document for your specific Major: Business Studies: at
least 12 sources; CMM: 20, IA: 10-15) (4 - 3,5)
Acceptable number of sources
(3 – 2)
Inadequate number of sources used
(1,5 – 0)
Conclusion (10)
Results (4) The student states in clear and succinct manner the result of the
analysis and main answer to the research question. (4-3,5)
General conclusions are provided, but research
question is not fully answered. (3 – 2)
Unclear conclusions / absence of
conclusions. Research question is
not answered
(1,5 - 0)
Evaluation of own
arguments and further
avenues for research (6)
Critical, open-minded and non-defensive evaluation the validity of the
student’s own arguments and results to explore further avenues of
research (6 – 5)
Some evaluation of the validity of own
arguments, but more critical engagement with
own arguments and further avenues for research
not fully developed (4,5 – 3)
No or weak evaluation of own
arguments. No or weak outline of
further research avenues
(3 – 0)
11
Further description of assessment activities
The following criteria will be applied in assessing your oral presentation:
CATEGORY 4 3 2 1
Preparedness Student is completely prepared and has obviously rehearsed.
Student seems pretty prepared but might have needed a couple more rehearsals.
The student is somewhat prepared, but it is clear that rehearsal was lacking.
Student does not seem at all prepared to present.
Content Shows a full understanding of the topic.
Shows a good understanding of the topic.
Shows a good understanding of parts of the topic.
Does not seem to understand the topic very well.
Comprehension Student is able to accurately answer almost all questions posed by classmates about the topic.
Student is able to accurately answer most questions posed by classmates about the topic.
Student is able to accurately answer a few questions posed by classmates about the topic.
Student is unable to accurately answer questions posed by classmates about the topic.
Stays on Topic Stays on topic all (100%) of the time.
Stays on topic most (99-90%) of the time.
Stays on topic some (89%-75%) of the time.
It was hard to tell what the topic was.
Time-Limit Presentation is 20 minutes long.
Presentation is 17 minutes long.
Presentation is 15 minutes long.
Presentation is less than 15 minutes OR more than 20 minutes.
12
Peer Evaluation:
Each group member will have an opportunity to give the evaluations of the participation of other group members at the end of the project. All members of the group typically receive the same grade for group project. When one member does not comply with standards a lower grade is warranted. This rubric provides guidance for evaluation.
Description Score
Introduction This person helped the group work hard to meet group objectives as listed on the task analysis sheet.
Depth/Reflection This person completed his/her assigned work without a having to be re-directed by group members.
Discussion/Analysis This person did not waste time and significantly contributed to the analysis.
Conclusion This person listened to the other group members ideas, and offered his/her own input
5 points-strongly agree 4 points-very much agree 3 points-agree 2 points-somewhat agree 1 point-somewhat disagree 0 points-disagree
Total
Additional Course Policies
Late papers will not be accepted unless there are serious legitimate reasons. Provision of a signed medical note is required, and notice must be given prior to the deadline.
APA formatting is required on all work, further do not use “I” in any work, turned in the assignments are not opinion papers. Academic Honesty Statement
Academic dishonesty is NOT tolerated in this course.
Academic honesty is not only an ethical issue but also the foundation of scholarship. Cheating and plagiarism are therefore serious breaches of academic integrity.
Following the College policy, cheating and plagiarism cases will be communicated in writing to the Associate Dean for Students and submitted to the Student Conduct Committee for disciplinary action.
If you refer to someone else’s work, appropriate references and citations must be provided. Grammar, spelling and punctuation count, so use the tools necessary to correct before handing in assignments.
13
As part of the exam policy at Vesalius College, during an Exam, Test, or Quiz if you are caught with a mobile on your person you will immediately fail the testing instrument. In addition, smart watches are prohibited during the testing time. All material taken from another author’s work must be attributed. The main issue is that material other than your own, or extensively based upon the research of others, must be clearly distinguishable from your own writing. A number of different cases must be considered, if you wish to avoid committing plagiarism. Course schedule Class will meet one time a week (Friday 08:30-11:30, room TBA): Week # Date Topic Reading before class
Week 1 20-01-17 Welcome and introduction /
Week 2 27-01-17 Innovation: what and why? Chapter 1 (p1-55)
Week 3 03-02-17 Innovation as a core business process Chapter 2 (p59-99)
Week 4 10-02-17 Context: building the innovative organization
Chapter 3 (p105-161)
Week 5 17-02-17 Developing an innovation strategy Chapter 4 (p169-225)
Week 6 24-02-17 Sources of innovation Chapter 5 (p231-293)
Week 7 03-03-17 MIDTERM EXAMINATION
Week 8 10-03-17 Innovation Networks Chapter 6 (p299-324)
Week 9 17-03-17 Decision making under uncertainty Chapter 7 (p327-354)
Week 10 24-03-17 Building the innovation case Chapter 8 (p359-400)
Week 11 31-03-17 Creating new products and services Chapter 9 (p403-457)
07-04-17 Spring recess (no classes)
14-04-17 Spring recess (no classes)
Week 12 21-04-17 Exploiting open innovation and collaboration
Chapter 10 (p461-497)
Week 13 28-04-17 Exploiting entrepreneurship and new ventures
Chapter 11 (p503-560)
Week 14 05-05-17 PRESENTATION OF CASE STUDIES
Week 15 - FINAL EXAM
WEEK 1 – Guiding questions:
1) What is innovation? 2) Why does innovation matters? 3) What kinds of innovation exist?
Main Readings: / Additional recommended reading(s): /
14
WEEK 2 - Guiding questions:
4) What is innovation? 5) Why does innovation matters? 6) What kinds of innovation exist?
Main Readings: Tidd J. and Bessant J. (2015), Chapter 1 Almquist E., Senior J. and Boch N. (2016). The elements of value. Harvard Business Review, September 2016. European Commission (2016), The European Innovation Scoreboard (2016), retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/17822 Additional recommended reading(s): Prahalad, C.K. (2006), The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. New Jersey, Wharton School Publishing WEEK 3 - Guiding questions:
1) Is innovation manageable or just a random gambling activity? 2) How does context affect innovation management? 3) How can innovation be measured?
Main Readings: Tidd J. and Bessant J. (2015), Chapter 2 Adams, R., Bessant, J., Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: a review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), pp. 21-47. Additional recommended reading(s): Davies A. and Hobday M. (2005), The business of projects: managing innovation in complex products and systems. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press WEEK 4 - Guiding questions:
1) What is innovation leadership? 2) What is the difference between (innovation) culture and climate? 3) What factors contribute to the development of a creative climate?
Main Readings: Tidd J. and Bessant J. (2015), Chapter 3 Iyer, B., Davenport, T.H. (2008). Reverse engineering Google’s innovation machine. Harvard Business Review, April, pp. 59-68. Additional recommended reading(s): Rafferty A.E., and Griffin M.A. (2004), Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), pp. 329-354.
15
WEEK 5 - Guiding questions:
1) What is an innovation strategy? 2) Why determines innovation space? 3) Why does innovation space matters?
Main Readings: Tidd J. and Bessant J. (2015), Chapter 4 Pisano, G.P. (2015). You need an innovation strategy. Harvard Business Review, June, pp. 44-54. Additional recommended reading(s): Teece D. and Pisano G. (1994), The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, pp. 537-556. WEEK 6 - Guiding questions:
1) Where do innovations come from? 2) What are knowledge push and need pull innovations? 3) What are user-led innovation and lead user methods?
Main Readings: Tidd J. and Bessant J. (2015), Chapter 5 Prahalad, C.K. (2004). The blinders of dominant logic. Long Range Planning, 17(2), pp. 171-179. Additional recommended reading(s): Foster R. and Kaplan S. (2002), Creative Destruction, Cambridge: Harvard University Press WEEK 7 – Midterm Evaluation WEEK 8 - Guiding questions:
1) Is innovation a solo act? 2) What is open innovation? 3) What are the problems of implementing open innovation?
Main Readings: Tidd J. and Bessant J. (2015), Chapter 6 Furr N., O’Keeffe K., Dyer J.H. (2016), Managing multiparty innovation, Harvard Business Review, November 2016 Additional recommended reading(s): Birkinshaw J., Bessant J. and Delbridge R. (2007), Finding, forming and performing: creating networks for discontinuous innovation. California Management Review, 49(3), pp. 67-83.
16
WEEK 9 - Guiding questions:
1) How might an organization assess a portfolio of possible innovation projects? 2) What typical problems emerge as a result of a lack of portfolio management?
Main Readings: Tidd J. and Bessant J. (2015), Chapter 7 Merton C. (2013), Innovation risk, Harvard Business Review, April 2013 Nagji B., Tuff G. (2012), Managing your innovation portfolio, Harvard Business Review, May 2012 Additional recommended reading(s): Birkinshaw J. and Gibson C. (2004), Building ambidexterity into an organization. Sloan Management Review, 45(4), pp. 47-55. WEEK 10 - Guiding questions:
1) Which components of a business plan are most important to attract resources?
2) How can forecasting be used to identify and reduce risk and uncertainty?
3) What is meant by the ‘fuzzy front end’ and how can it be better managed?
Main Readings: Tidd J. and Bessant J. (2015), Chapter 8 Dvir, D. and T. Lechler (2004). Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: the impact of changes on project success. Research Policy, 33, pp. 1-5. Additional recommended reading(s): Rogers E.M. (2003), Diffusion of innovations, Free Press, New York. WEEK 11 - Guiding questions:
1) What are the key differences between managing operations in services and manufacturing?
2) In what ways do think the development of new products differs from the development of new services?
3) What effect does the novelty of the new product or service have on the development process?
Main Readings: Tidd J. and Bessant J. (2015), Chapter 9 Girotra K., Netessine S. (2014), Four paths to business model innovation, Harvard Business Review, July-August 2014 Additional recommended reading(s): Cooper R. and Kleinschmidt E. (1993), Screening new products for potential winners. Long Range Planning, 26(6), pp.74-81.
17
WEEK 12 - Guiding questions:
1) How might networking help deal with the challenges of being an innovative small firm?
2) What are the advantages of co-operating across networks in innovation as opposed to a ‘go-it-alone’ approach?
Main Readings: Tidd J. and Bessant J. (2015), Chapter 10 Boudreau K.J. and Lakhani K.R. (2013), Using the crowd as an innovation partner, Harvard Business Review, April 2013 Additional recommended reading(s): Lazzarotti, V., and Manzini, R. (2009). Different modes of open innovation: A theoretical framework and empirical study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13, pp.615-636. WEEK 13 - Guiding questions:
1) What are the differences between corporate venturing and new product development?
2) Why would an organization consider corporate venturing?
3) What options exist for corporate venturing? Main Readings: Tidd J. and Bessant J. (2015), Chapter 11 Wilson K. and Doz Y.L. (2012), 10 rules for managing global innovation, Harvard Business Review, October 2012 Additional recommended reading(s): Kanter R. (1985), Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies, Journal of Business Venturing, 1, pp.47-60. WEEK 14 – Presentation of case studies WEEK 15 – Final exam (date to be determined)
-------------------------------------------
