Conference Agenda

Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).

Session Overview
21-PM3-05: ST10.1 - The Future of R&D and Innovation
Friday, 21/June/2019:
4:45pm - 6:15pm

Session Chair: Sven Schimpf, Fraunhofer Group for Innovation Research
Session Chair: Veronique STEYER, Ecole Polytechnique
Location: Amphi Curie

Session Abstract

Within the last decades, R&D and Innovation Management practices changed due to upcoming new challenges, societal developments and technological possibilities. R&D and innovation processes are nowadays are more effective, taking into account a wider range of developments in the environment of an organisation and more efficient than in previous generations of R&D and innovation management while dealing with a new level of complexity and the challenge of increasing convergences and cross-disciplinarity.

A key challenge however remains the early recognition of future developments and trends in R&D and Innovation Management. This track will address foresight activities dealing with the identification and/or analysis of next decade’s key topics in R&D and Innovation Management from an industrial and scientific perspective.

Show help for 'Increase or decrease the abstract text size'

Innovation as Manifesting Imagination: Exploring the Role of Imaginations and Imaginators at the Front-End of Innovation

Julien Bucher, Stefan Hüsig

Chair for Innovation Research and Technology Management, TU Chemnitz, Germany


We argue that the idea of something to be realized, the imagination of a certain product, technology, service or even concept of living and social organization has often been formulated, picked-up, reiterated and discussed over time before the actual problem-solution cycle kicks in and starts the known innovation process.


Imaginations as mental multimodal images of fictional artefacts, institutions, technologies, concepts of living and forms of social organization have been conceptualized and described by scholars scattered across various disciplines such as philosophy (Castoriadis 1998, Blackford 2017, Heuser 2015), the social sciences (Appadurai 2010, Anderson 2016, Beckert 2013, Samli 2011, Weller/Bucher 2016), history (Graf/Herzog 2016) and the biosciences (Hoffmann/Furcht 2014).

In the innovation discourse, research scholars like Bassett, Steinmueller and Voss (2013), Archibugi (2017a, 2017b), and Michaud (2017) have pointed towards the inherent relation between innovation and imagination and the potential use and benefit working with such imaginations found in Science Fiction (Archibugi 2017a, Steinmueller 2016, Lundvall 2017, Michaud 2017, Bucher 2019). The process of imaginations being transmitted over time, evolving and finally coming into existence as innovations has been investigated rarely dispersed across the different scientific disciplines, often focusing on specific aspects and not the whole process.

Literature Gap

Literature regarding the front-end of innovation often emphasizes managing creativity regarding the creation of ideas and finding solutions (e.g., Floren/Frishammar 2012, Hüsig/Kohn 2003, Kim/Wilemon 2002; Dziallas 2018), but they usually do not consider the imaginations that feed and drive creativity.

Research Questions

Can the process of an imagination manifesting as an innovation be reconstructed? How is imagination manifesting as innovation? What influences this process of manifestation?


Using an historic case and contemporary examples, we broadly follow a case study research strategy (Yin 2013, Eisenhardt 1989) mixed with qualitative case examples (Baxter/Jack 2010) and intend to explore the process and understand how imaginations evolve and get realized as innovations, identifying core aspects influencing the evolution and transition to an innovation.

Empirical Material

As empirical basis we collected secondary data of the historic case study of Wernherr v. Braun and his agenda to realize man in space, supported by several complementary historic as well as contemporary case examples such as Elon Musk’s use of Science Fiction Imaginations as inspiration as well as for marketing purposes (Bucher 2019), the ESA’s work with Science Fiction to identify potential exploitable imaginations (Raitt/Warmbein 2004), predating Johnsons (2011) concept of Science Fiction Prototyping, and the German Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development’s study on the influence of the Science Fiction Culture on the technological development of the city (BBSR 2015).


Individuals, the social imagination and artefacts encompassing literature, audio books and plays, pod- and vodcasts, movies, serial video formats, art and architecture in general. Groups and individuals develop these imaginations further and promote them utilizing media and art. Influencing the social imagination as well as the individual imagination of creatives, innovators, researchers, developers and engineers, that reproduce, develop and potentially realize these imaginations as manifested innovations. They may be innovators and they may be visionaries, but these concepts do not fit the core trait of what we call imaginators – individuals and groups that try to actively realize imaginations. They set agendas and attempt to influence the social imagination using various kinds of media and art(-ists).

Contribution to Scholarship

We aim to add to this field of research conceptualizing imagination as an inherent element of the innovation process, by identifying several key aspects of the transition from imagination to innovation. Teleologically there are two general kinds of imaginations: There are the ones that (are used to) preserve and stabilize the status quo, existing interpretations, institutions and orders, systems, functionalities and artefacts. One of the most prominent examples for such a preserving imagination has been framed by Anderson (2016) – the imaginary institution of the nation, a fictive but yet powerful entity defining and unifying a heterogeneous social group. However, there are also ones that convey ideas of alternative future possibilities (and vice versa, possible futures) and are called radical imaginations. The radical imaginations encompass yet again everything from the human individual to social systems, the environment we live in and interact with, technologies, and artefacts in general.

Contribution to Practice

Typically, organisational innovation processes start with a problem to solve or an idea to be realized. However, these practises might have limitations in understanding and shaping long-term developments of research driven technological innovations such as LED (Funk 2018), sometimes also referenced as “long nose of innovation” (Buxton 2008) or moon shot projects without an initial economic impetus such as space travelling (Heuser 2015, Bucher 2019).


Exploring the influence of imaginations on innovation it is shown how imaginations drive innovation and how they can be used to create value. Firms and entrepreneurs could adopt ideas and use imaginations actively in order to get inspired or promote their visions to gain legitimacy among customers, investors and society.


Anderson, B. (2016 [1983]). Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, UK: Verso.

Appadurai, A. (2010 [1996]). Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (9th ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

Archibugi, D. (2017a). Blade Runner economics: Will innovation lead the economic recovery? Research Policy, 46 (3), 535-543.

Archibugi, D. (2017b). The social imagination needed for an innovation-led recovery. Research Policy, 46 (3), 554-556.

Bassett, C., Steinmueller, E., Voss, G. (2013). Better made up. The mutual influence of science fiction and innovation, Nesta Working Paper, No. 13/07. URL: (accessed 13.05.2018)

Baxter, P. E. & Jack, S. M. (2010). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Bundesinstitut für Bau- Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBSR) im Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (2015). Von Science-Fiction-Städten lernen. Szenarien für die Stadtplanung, at

Beckert, J. (2013). Imagined futures: fictional expectations in the economy, Theor Soc, DOI 10.1007/s11186-013-9191-2.

Blackford, R. (2017). Science Fiction and the Moral Imagination, NYC: Springer.

Bucher, J. (2019, in press). The overlooked roots of innovations. Exploring the relevance of imagination on innovation using Science Fiction. In Z. Fields, S. Hüsig (Eds.) Responsible, Sustainable, and Global Aware Management in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Buxton, B. (2008). The Long Nose of Innovation, at

Castoriadis, C. (1998). The Imaginary Institution of Society. K. Blarney (Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Cooper, R. G. (2014). What’s Next? After Stage‐Gate, Research‐Technology Management, January – February 2014, pages 20‐31.

Dziallas, M. (2018). How to evaluate innovative ideas and concepts at the front-end?: A front-end perspective of the automotive innovation process. Journal of Business Research, in press, corrected proof, at:

Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, R. R. Nelson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 181-208.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Floren, H. & Frishammar, J. (2012). From preliminary ideas to corroborated product definitions: managing the front end of new product development. California Management Review 54(4), 20-43.

Glassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36(3), 223-228.

Graf, R. & Herzog, B. (2016). Von der Geschichte der Zukunftsvorstellungen zur Geschichte ihrer Generierung. Probleme und Herausforderungen des Zukunftsbezugs im 20. Jahrhundert. Geschichte und Gesellschaft 42, 497-515.

Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4): 413-432.

Heuser, M.-L. (2015). Raumontologie und Raumfahrt um 1600 und 1900. Reflex, 6, 1-15.

Hoffmann, W. & Furcht, L. (2014). The Biologist’s Imagination. Innovation in the Biosciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hüsig, S. (2014). A Typology for Radical Innovation Projects based on an Innovativeness Framework, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 11, 4, 1450023.

Hüsig, S.; Kohn, S.: Factors Influencing the Front End of the Innovation Process: A Comprehensive Review of Selected Empirical NPD and Explorative FFE Studies. Proceedings of 10th International Product Development Management Conference Proceedings, at

Jeffrey L. Funk (2018). The Big Hole in Social Science Research: How can we improve R&D processes when they are so poorly defined, at:

Johnson, B. D. (2011). Science Fiction Prototyping: Designing the Future with Science Fiction, San Rafael, CAL: Morgan & Claypool.

Kim, J. & Wilemon, D. (2002): Focusing the fuzzy front–end in new product development. R& D Management, 32(4), 269-279.

Lundvall, B.-Å. (2010). National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Anthem Press, London.

Lundvall, B.-Å. (2017). Is there a technological fix for the current global stagnation? A response to Daniele Archibugi, Blade Runner economics: Will innovation lead the economic recovery? Research Policy, Volume 46, Issue 3, 544-549

Nelson, R.R., (1992). National innovation systems: a retrospective on a study. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2, 347–374.

Nobelius, D. (2004): Towards the Sixth Generation of R&D Management, International Journal of Project Management, 22, 369–375.

North, D.C. (1994). Economic performance through time. The American Economic Review, 84, 359-368.

Michaud, T. (2017). Innovation, Between Science and Science Fiction. London, UK: ISTE Ltd.

Raitt, D. & Warmbein, B. (2004). Tales of Innovation and Imagination: Selected Stories from the 2003 Clarke-Bradbury International Science Fiction Competition, at

Rogers, E. M. (2003 [1962]). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Samli, A. C. (2011). From Imagination to Innovation. New Product Development for Quality of Life. London, UK: Springer.

Steinmueller, W. Edward (2016). Science Fiction and Innovation: A Response, Research Policy, 46 (3), 550-553.

Weller, A. & Bucher, J. (2016). Visualisierte Imaginationen der Lebenswelt und der Einfluss der Medien. In J. Raab, R. Keller (Eds.), Wissensforschung - Forschungswissen. Beiträge zum 1. Sektionskongress der Wissenssoziologie (pp. 595-607). Weinheim, GER: Belz Juventa.

Yin, Robert K. (2013). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. 5th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Absorptive Capacity on Multilateral R&D Partnerships: Antecedents and effects for firm’s innovativeness

Maria Pateraki, Yiannis Spanos

Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece


This research set out to investigate the antecedents and consequences of team level absorptive capacity (AC) in multilateral publicly funded R&D partnerships and examine how resource complementarity, trust, partner’s objectives and alliance management systems affect absorptive capacity and in turn firm’s innovativeness.


AC is essential for innovation and relies at the centre of discussion as one of the main determinants of interfirm learning (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998). Lane et al. (2006) postulate that AC is a dynamic capability and a multidimensional construct involving three processes: exploratory, transformative and exploitative learning and they call for research on the particular structures and processes that enable interfirm learning. Later on, Volberda et al. (2010) performed a bibliometric analysis of AC that maps the research terrain and calls for future research on the alliance management systems, knowledge development and the relatedness of partners.

Moreover, extant research on AC and research partnerships has predominantly addressed tangible outcomes neglecting the intangibly outcomes stemming from the partnership (Volberda et al., 2010; Ryan et al. 2018) while Li et al. (2012) argue that alliance research should focus on multilateral research alliances than bilateral.

Literature Gap

We respond to calls for research on the antecedents of AC on multilateral publicly funded R&D partnerships and investigate how partners’ complementarity, trust, partner’s objectives and alliance management systems stimulate team AC and, in turn, how team AC affect the participant’s innovativeness.

Research Questions

• Which factors enable the development of absorptive capacity in multilateral publicly funded R&D partnerships?

• Which are the underlying dimensions of team absorptive capacity?

• How organizations can capitalize from absorptive capacity developed in multilateral publicly funded research partnerships?


The methodology used to analyze the data is structural equation modelling (SEM) based on Stata software package. SEM permits to model the relationships among multiple independent and dependent constructs simultaneously in a singly systematic and comprehensive analysis. Before testing the structural model we checked the validity of the measurement model (Hair et al., 2006). Overall fit measures evaluate the extent to which the proposed model reproduces the observed variables.

Empirical Material

To address the research questions a questionnaire was designed to fully capture the variables of interest. The measurement items were generated through an extensive review of prior literature. We draw our data from multilateral publicly funded R&D partnerships formed under the European framework programs (FP).

Therefore, to empirical test the conceptual model we utilized data collected for the purposes of a publicly funded European Commission (EU) project.

The starting point was 8000 organizations that participated in 1000 of the Community 5th and 6th RTD Framework Programs. The data coverage and the survey sample on this study were sufficient while the surveyed sample of organizations was representative of the whole population of FP participants. The first step was to contact them by e mail, including a letter from the project team and a recommendation letter from European Commission. The survey has been applied online and was accessible on the projects’ website.

The aforementioned procedure returned 1.172 responses from all type organizations (firms, universities, research institutes). From those, 422 (36%) represent firms while 750 (64%) correspond to universities and research organizations. In the presence research, we focus on the firm sample, which is the 422 responses collected from a firm participant.


In this study, we sought to advance understanding of absorptive capacity in multilateral R&D partnerships and to analyze its principal antecedents and consequences for innovation. Using a large sample of multilateral publicly funded R&D partnerships formed under the European framework programs, we tested and confirmed several hypothesis. Initially, we confirmed that resource complementarity, trust between partners and coordination mechanisms are positively linked to team absorptive capacity. Partner’s objectives appear to have no effect on absorptive capacity. Finally, we empirically confirm that team level absorptive capacity is a multidimensional construct, relating to three dimensions- explorative, transformative and exploitative learning- and that is strongly associated with higher firm innovativeness in terms of research and technological outputs gained through the R&D partnership.

Contribution to Scholarship

The contribution of the study has major implications for research into interorganizational learning, complementarity and innovation in multilateral R&D partnerships. Concerning learning and innovation this study sheds light on the learning processes taking place on multilateral research partnerships with diverse participants (firms, research organizations, universities). Learning processes are captured by measuring the team level absorptive capacity developed during partnership. Results support the multidimensional nature of absorptive capacity and the complementarity of the construct. Furthermore, absorptive capacity developed during the research partnership generates significant returns to the participating organizations. The results show that through R&D partnerships organizations reinforce their innovativeness.

Contribution to Practice

The results show that absorptive capacity developed in multilateral R&D partnerships and its underlying dimensions, i.e. exploratory, transformative and exploitative learning, have positive effects on the firms’ innovativeness. Innovativeness refers to preliminary research and technology outcomes stemming from the research consortia that are not yet commercially exploited. Therefore, firms that participate in publicly funded R&D partnerships significantly expand their scientific and technological capabilities which could not have developed singlehandedly, especially in high technology firms.


The proposed research is of high relevance to the audience of the R&D management conference. By shedding light into the role of absorptive capacity on multilateral R&D partnerships, we focus concurrently on the learning effects of R&D partnerships and the innovation potential for the participating organization.


• Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

• Lane, P.J., Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strateg. Manage. J. 19 (5), 461–477.

• Lane, P.J., Koka, B.R., Pathak, S. 2006. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Acad. Manage. Rev. 31 (4), 833–863.

• Li D., Eden L. Hitt M., Ireland D. R. Garett P.R. 2012. Governance in Multilateral R&D alliances. Organization Science. 23 (4), 1191-1210

• Ryan P., Geoghegan W., Hilliard R. 2018. The microfoundations of firms’ explorative innovation capabilities within the triple helix framework. Technovation 76-77, 15-27

• Volberda, H.W., Foss, N.J., Lyles, M.A. 2010. Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: how to realize its potential in the organization field. Organ. Sci. 21 (4), 931–951.

« Out of the dusty labs ». Really ? Bell Labs, the transistor and the myth of isolated research (1925-1960)

Sylvain Lenfle

Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, France


This paper deals with the role and internal organization of corporate research (as distinct from development) to make it strategically relevant. In particular it questions what we call the myth of isolated research, as expressed in the title, partly borrowed from The Economist (2007).


The declining role of corporate laboratories over the last 40 years is now well documented (Hounshell, 1996 ; Mowery, 2009 : Arora & al., 2018). It has been notably (but not only) attributed to an isolation of research from corporate and business unit’s strategy (e.g. Graham, 1986 & 2017). This paved the way for more « open » approaches to innovation processes (Chesbrough, 2003 ; Chesbrough & al. 2014). One of the consequences of this evolution has been a shift of academic research toward the analysis of interfirm organizations and networks to the detriment of the internal organization of research (Powell & al., 1996; Argyres & Silverman, 2004). This leaves the picture of corporate labs that were « ivory towers » in which scientists defined their own objectives, most of the times loosely related to corporate strategy (the so-called « strategy of hope » in Roussel & al., 1991 ; Buderi, 2000).

Literature Gap

There is a lack of micro-analysis of the internal organization of research in the contemporary academic literature. Most of the (too rare) remaining literature on this question frequently relies on quantitative methods, for example to assess the relevance of different structural configurations (e.g. Arora & al., 2014).

Research Questions

Were the famous corporate research laboratories really the « ivory towers » depicted in the literature ? Incidentally, what are the conditions that makes corporate research strategically relevant ? Aren’t we victim, as suggested by Lipartito (2009), of an historical misperception of the role of corporate labs.


Our approach is qualitative. We propose to revisit this question through an historical case study of Bell Laboratories from its foundation to 1960 (i.e. during M.J. Kelly’s tenure). In particular we will focus on the post-war period and the invention of the transistor, which represent an archetypal success of corporate research leading to a breakthrough technology and the 1956 Nobel Prize in physics.

Empirical Material

We rely on the historiography of Bell Labs and the transistor which, as far as we know, as not been fully exploited in economics and management research since R. Nelson’s 1962 paper. Three sources are important for our purpose :

1) history of Bell Labs in general (Lipartito, 2009 ; Gertner, 2012) ;

2) history of the transistor (Nelson, 1962 ; but first and foremost Riordan & Hoddeson, 1997) ;

3) testimony of the actors involved in the process, in particular W. Shockley (1956, 1974 & 1976), J.A. Morton (1970) and Bell Lab President, M.J. Kelly (1943 & 1950).

This testimonies are of particular significance since they question the common discourse of research as an « ivory tower » and the classic basic/applied distinction. This is particularly true of M. Kelly, Bell Labs President until 1959, who spent most his 1950 adress to discuss the systemic dimension of innovation and the corresponding Bell Labs organization.


We demonstrate that, contrary to a widely shared belief in the managerial literature, Bell Labs were very carefully integrated in ATT’s strategy. Indeed the invention of the transistor is the result of a research effort launched in the mid 30’s by M. Kelly on the basis of a thourough assessment of limits of current technology (vacuum tubes) and of ATT future challenges (high volume / high speed trafic). It was also, a point rarely mentioned in the literature, strongly influenced by the new practices of research/engineering management developed in major word war II projects, such as the Radar (in which Bell Labs plays a major role) and Manhattan projects. The transistor has benefited from M. Kelly’s reorganization of Bell Labs after the war, namely the creation of an interdisciplinary research group on semi-conductors, under the leadership of W. Shockley. Finally this research was part of a carefully designed innovation process organizing a rapid transition from research to development and manufacturing, while simultaneously allowing the pursuit of the research effort. Thereby two different transistor design were invented at Bell Labs in 1947-48.

Contribution to Scholarship

As pointed out by Graham (2017) the organization of research remains an important question. Its decline over the last decades may only be a a period in history. Important firms (Apple, Google…) are still investing in corporate research. In this perspective this work brings us back to the future by debunking the myth of isolated research. It outlines a model of research management

- anchored in the firm’s strategic vision, which help to define innovative design spaces to be explored

- inserted in the overall innovation process,

- based on multidisciplinary, mission-oriented teamwork

- and, last but not least, not enslaved to development but capable of being, at the same time, focused on pratical application and on generic theoretical knowledge (Shockley, 1956 & 1974).

This echoes current debates on the governance and organization of corporate research, in particular its role in the strategy process (Le Masson & Weil, 2016).

Contribution to Practice

The model outlined above shed a new light on the internal management of corporate research and is, in our view, relevant to practionners of research management.


We believe this historical case study of a landmark laboratory and innovation to be relevant to a conference on R&D Management.


 Argyres N, Silverman, B. 2004. R&D, Organization Structure, and the Development of Corporate Technological Knowledge. Strategic Management Journal 25(8–9): 929–958.

 Arora, A, Belenzon, S, Rios, L. 2014. Make, Buy, Organize: The Interplay Between Research, External Knowledge, and Firm Structure. Strategic Management Journal 35(3): 317–337.

 Arora, A, Belenzon, S, Patacconi, A. 2018. The decline of science in corporate R&D. Strategic Management Journal 39(1): 3–32.

 Buderi R. 2000. Engines of Tomorrow. How the World’s Best Companies are Using Their Research Labs to Win the Future. Simon & Schuster: New-York.

 Chesbrough H. 2003. Open Innovation. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

 Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West, J. 2014. New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Ox ford University Press: Oxford, UK.

 Gertner J. 2012. The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation. Penguin Books: New-York.

 Graham, M.B.W. 1986. The business of research. RCA and the VideoDisc. Cambridge University Press: New-York.

 Graham, M.B.W. 2017. When the Corporation Almost Displaced the Entrepreneur: Rethinking the Political Economy of Research and Development. Enterprise & Society 18(2): 1–37.

 Hounshell D. 1996. The Evolution of Industrial Research in the United States. In Engines of Innovation. US Industrial Research at the End of an Era., Rosenbloom R, Spencer W (eds). Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA: 13–86.

 Kelly, M. 1950. The Bell Telephone Laboratories—an example of an institute of creative technology. Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 203(1074): 287–301.

 Kelly, M. 1943. A first Record of Thoughts Concerning an Important Postwar problem of the Bell Telephone Laboratories and Western Electric. AT&T Archives, Warren, NJ. Box 173 09 01 05

 LeMasson P, Weil B. 2016. Fayol, Guillaume, Chevenard - La science, l’industrie et l’exploration de l’inconnu : logique et gouvernance d’une recherche conceptive. Entreprises et Histoire (83): 79–107.

 Lipartito, K. 2009. Rethinking the Invention Factory. Bell Laboratories in Perspective. In The Challenge of Remainng Innovative. Insights from Twentieth-Century American Business. Stanford Business Books: Stanford, CA: 132–159.

 Morton, J.A. 1971. Organizing for Innovation. A Systems Approach to Technical Management. McGraw-Hill: New-York.

 Mowery D. 2009. Plus ça change. Industrial R&D in the ‘third industrial revolution’. Industrial and Corporate Change 18(1): 1–50.

 Nelson R. 1962. The Link Between Science and Invention: The Case of the Transistor. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, NBER (ed). Princeton University Press: Princeton: 549–584.

 Powell W, Koput W, Smith-Doerr L. 1996. Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1): 116–145.

 Riordan M, Hoddeson L. 1997. Crystal Fire. The Invention of the Transistor and the Birth of the Information Age. W.W. Norton & Co: New-York.

 Roussel P, Saad K, Erickson T. 1990. Third Generation R&D. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

 Shockley W. 1956. Transistor technology evokes new physics. Nobel Lecture, dec. 11, Stockholm. Available at :

 Shockley W. 1974. The Invention of the Transistor - ‘An Example of Creative-Failure Methodology’. National Bureau of Standard Special Publication : 47–89.

 Shockley W. 1976. The Path to Conception of the Junction Transistor. IEEE transactions on Electron Devices ED-23(7): 597–620.

 The Economist. 2007. Out of the dusty labs. The rise and fall of corporate R&D. The Economist.

Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Privacy Statement · Conference: R&D Management Conference 2019
Conference Software - ConfTool Pro 2.6.135+TC
© 2001 - 2020 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany