Comparative of existing PFs for innovation measurement
| Performance frameworks | Database elements | The process | Continuous improvement | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIs | Dimensions | Procedure | Performance progression | Improvement actions | |
| Brown and Gobeli (1992) | “Top ten” quantitative PIs related to productivity, quality, timeliness and R&D costs (all lagging PIs) | Project management, people, innovation planning, new product development, outputs, and division results | It starts with steps to clarify the responsibilities, R&D activities and strategic goals. Then, the shortlist of PIs is defined. Following this, data are captured to assess performance | – | The improvements focus on the production processes |
| Chiesa et al. (1996) | 40 qualitative and quantitative PIs across the dimensions (with leading and lagging PIs) | Strategy and leadership, tools and resources, organisational culture, and process management (concept generation, technology acquisition and product development) | It includes setting up facilitators and a small team, meet to discuss initial findings, key stakeholders' interviews, validation of the diagnosis, discussion and identification of improvement gaps, prioritisation of actions and assignment of responsibilities | Evolutionary levels 1 to 4 in each dimension characterise distinct levels of practice progression, together with a graphical representation of the improvement gaps | PF enables the identification of improvement actions, but it is not clear how they are identified and relate to the evolutionary levels |
| Werner and Souder (1997) | Eight top-cited PIs (mostly quantitative and lagging PIs) | Financial, project effectiveness, technical abilities and R&D productivity | – | – | – |
| Loch and Tapper (2002) | 28 quantitative PIs formulated where the PF was applied (mostly lagging PIs) | New technologies and breakthrough concepts, customer support, knowledge repository and external reputation | A superficial procedure is presented in a case study | The PIs are organised into a radar graph that illustrates evolutionary levels of performance | – |
| Kahn et al. (2006) | – | Innovation strategy, portfolio management, process, market, people management and metrics and performance evaluation | – | Evolutionary levels 1 (poor practices) to 4 (best practices) are used to portray performance progression | Improvement gaps can be identified, but no further support is provided |
| Berg et al. (2009) | 16 qualitative and quantitative PIs related to finance, patents, people, time, market and technical attributes (with leading and lagging PIs) | Market; process (opportunity identification, idea generation, project plan); outcomes and social/ physical environment | Five steps for the analysis of the companies' innovation environment, selection of measurement criteria, selection of data sources; data collection and analysis | It uses maturity levels to address the progression of performance (from the capability maturity model integration) | – |
| Chiesa et al. (2009) | 55 qualitative and quantitative PIs used in the participating companies (mostly lagging PIs) | Financial, customer, innovation and learning and business processes | – | – | – |
| Crossan and Apaydin (2010) | 78 qualitative and quantitative PIs addressing the dimensions (with leading and lagging PIs) | Innovation strategy, knowledge management; organisation/culture, portfolio; project management, people and market | – | – | – |
| Richtnér et al. (2017), Frishammar et al. (2019) | – | Innovation process, resources and capabilities, culture, business model and innovation performance (including openness and servitisation) | The steps begin with: identify existing practices, assess current innovation focus/priorities, develop or improve PIs for the process, portfolio and projects and set and implement measurement routines | – | Planning action plans is included in the PF |
| Lakiza et al. (2018) | 37 PIs mostly based on productivity (mainly quantitative) | – | It starts with meeting main stakeholders, understanding the needs, selecting dimensions, clustering topics into the dimensions, proposing PIs, gaining feedback, assessing innovation process maturity, implementing PIs, proposing encouraged improvement practices | The study superficially discusses the progression of performance, but it does not go further into providing a proposal | There are steps to identify improvement gaps and define actions plans |
| Performance frameworks | Database elements | The process | Continuous improvement | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIs | Dimensions | Procedure | Performance progression | Improvement actions | |
| “Top ten” quantitative PIs related to productivity, quality, timeliness and R&D costs (all lagging PIs) | Project management, people, innovation planning, new product development, outputs, and division results | It starts with steps to clarify the responsibilities, R&D activities and strategic goals. Then, the shortlist of PIs is defined. Following this, data are captured to assess performance | – | The improvements focus on the production processes | |
| 40 qualitative and quantitative PIs across the dimensions (with leading and lagging PIs) | Strategy and leadership, tools and resources, organisational culture, and process management (concept generation, technology acquisition and product development) | It includes setting up facilitators and a small team, meet to discuss initial findings, key stakeholders' interviews, validation of the diagnosis, discussion and identification of improvement gaps, prioritisation of actions and assignment of responsibilities | Evolutionary levels 1 to 4 in each dimension characterise distinct levels of practice progression, together with a graphical representation of the improvement gaps | PF enables the identification of improvement actions, but it is not clear how they are identified and relate to the evolutionary levels | |
| Eight top-cited PIs (mostly quantitative and lagging PIs) | Financial, project effectiveness, technical abilities and R&D productivity | – | – | – | |
| 28 quantitative PIs formulated where the PF was applied (mostly lagging PIs) | New technologies and breakthrough concepts, customer support, knowledge repository and external reputation | A superficial procedure is presented in a case study | The PIs are organised into a radar graph that illustrates evolutionary levels of performance | – | |
| – | Innovation strategy, portfolio management, process, market, people management and metrics and performance evaluation | – | Evolutionary levels 1 (poor practices) to 4 (best practices) are used to portray performance progression | Improvement gaps can be identified, but no further support is provided | |
| 16 qualitative and quantitative PIs related to finance, patents, people, time, market and technical attributes (with leading and lagging PIs) | Market; process (opportunity identification, idea generation, project plan); outcomes and social/ physical environment | Five steps for the analysis of the companies' innovation environment, selection of measurement criteria, selection of data sources; data collection and analysis | It uses maturity levels to address the progression of performance (from the capability maturity model integration) | – | |
| 55 qualitative and quantitative PIs used in the participating companies (mostly lagging PIs) | Financial, customer, innovation and learning and business processes | – | – | – | |
| 78 qualitative and quantitative PIs addressing the dimensions (with leading and lagging PIs) | Innovation strategy, knowledge management; organisation/culture, portfolio; project management, people and market | – | – | – | |
| – | Innovation process, resources and capabilities, culture, business model and innovation performance (including openness and servitisation) | The steps begin with: identify existing practices, assess current innovation focus/priorities, develop or improve PIs for the process, portfolio and projects and set and implement measurement routines | – | Planning action plans is included in the PF | |
| 37 PIs mostly based on productivity (mainly quantitative) | – | It starts with meeting main stakeholders, understanding the needs, selecting dimensions, clustering topics into the dimensions, proposing PIs, gaining feedback, assessing innovation process maturity, implementing PIs, proposing encouraged improvement practices | The study superficially discusses the progression of performance, but it does not go further into providing a proposal | There are steps to identify improvement gaps and define actions plans | |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.