Managing innovation complexity: About the co-existence of innovation types

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the changing innovation management literature by providing an overview of different innovation types and organizational complexity factors. Aiming at a better understanding of effective innovation management, innovation and complexity are related to the formulation of an innovation strategy and interaction between different innovation types is further explored. The chosen approach in this study is to review the existing literature on different innovation types and organizational complexity factors in order to design a survey which allows for statistical measurement of their interactions and relationships to innovation strategy formulation. The findings demonstrate interaction between individual innovation types. Additionally, organizational complexity factors and different innovation types are significantly related to innovation strategy formulation. In particular, more closed innovation and incremental innovation positively influence the likelihood of innovation strategy formulation. Organizational complexity factors have an overall negative influence on innovation strategy formulation. In order to define best practices for innovation management and to guide managerial decision making, organizations need to be aware of the co-existence of different innovation types and formulate an innovation strategy to more closely align their innovation objectives.

Do social factors matter for innovation, and do they influence innovation in Aeronautics Industry?

Based on the report for the course on “Social Factors of Innovation” of the PhD Program on Technology Assessment, supervised by Prof. António Brandão Moniz, Monte de Caparica, University NOVA Lisbon, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, July 2013

Board independence and innovation

Legislation introduced in the U.S. in 2002/2003 significantly changed board composition of public firms by imposing a 50% independent directors’ ratio. Research on the effect of independent directors is not consensual, implying that this exogenous shock is a unique opportunity to study their importance. This study answers the question of whether or not independent directors can effectively mitigate agency conflicts between shareholders and the management, having a positive impact on the choice of successful R&D projects. We find that an increase of board independence has a positive impact on patent counts. Hence, the results support that independent directors truly spur innovation and risk taking.

Overcoming the “European Paradox”: The role of Regional Innovation Systems (RIS) in translating R&D investments into economic and employment growth

The emergence of the so-called “European Paradox” shows that R&D investment is not maximally effective and that increasing the scale of public R&D expenditures is not sufficient to generate employment and sustained economic growth. Increasing Governmental R&D Investment is far from being a “panacea” for stagnant growth. It is worth noting that Government R&D Investment does not have a statistically significant impact on employment, indicating the need to assess the trade-offs of policies that could lead to significant increases in government expenditure. Surprisingly, Governmental R&D Employment does not contribute to “mass-market” employment, despite its quite important role in reducing Youth-Unemployment. Despite the negative side-effects of Governmental R&D Employment on both GVA and GDP, University R&D Employment appears to have a quite important role in reducing Unemployment, especially Youth-Unemployment, while it also does not have a downside in terms of economic growth. Technological Capacity enhancement is the most effective instrument for reducing Unemployment and is a policy without any downside regarding sustainable economical development. In terms of wider policy implications, the results reinforce the idea that European Commission Research and Innovation policies must be restructured, shifting from a transnational framework to a more localised, measurable and operational approach.

Responsible research and innovation: a global perspective

Based on the paper presented at the Doctorate Conference on Technologogy Assessment in July 2013 at the University Nova Lisboa, Caparica campus

Measuring impact with the social return on investment: the case of the social innovation hub

There is a growing interest in social impact assessment across the private, the public and the nonprofit sector. However, there is still limited academic research produced in this area, particularly in what concerns to the application of the Social Return of Investment (SROI) methodology. The goal of this Work Project is to give an overview of the social impact measurement literature and apply the Social Return on Investment, a flagship methodology to measure impact, to the specific case of the Social Innovation Hub (SIH). The findings suggest that each 1€ invested on the SIH generates 1,21€ in terms of social value. While this value seems very appealing to use, there are some risks in monetizing impact in such way, mainly due to the lack of reliable data available for benchmarking purposes.

Responsible research and innovation: a global perspective

Based on the paper presented at the Doctorate Conference on Technologogy Assessment in July 2013 at the University Nova Lisboa, Caparica campus

Implementation progress of mental health services in Rwanda: Bugesera district case

RESUMO: O Ministério da Saúde do Governo do Ruanda identifica a saúde mental como uma área de prioridade estratégica para a intervenção em resposta à alta carga dos transtornos mentais no Ruanda. Ao longo dos últimos 20 anos após o genocídio, o sector público reconstruiu sua Resposta Nacional de Saúde Mental com base no acesso equitativo aos cuidados, através do desenvolvimento de uma Política Nacional de Saúde Mental e novas estruturas de saúde mental. A política de Saúde Mental do Ruanda, revista em 2010, prima pela descentralização e integração dos serviços de saúde mental em todas as estruturas nacionais do sistema de saúde e ao nível da comunidade. O presente estudo de caso tem como objetivo avaliar a situação do sistema de saúde mental de um distrito típico de uma área rural no Ruanda, e sugerir melhorias, incluindo algumas estratégias para monitoras as mudanças. Os resultados do estudo permitirão ao Ruanda reforçar a sua capacidade para implementar o Plano Nacional de Saúde Mental ao nível dos distritos. O relatório também será útil para monitorar o progresso da implementação de serviços de saúde mental nos distritos, incluindo a prestação de serviços de base comunitária e a participação dos usuários, suas famílias e outros interessados na promoção, prevenção, assistência e reabilitação em saúde mental. Este estudo também procurou avaliar o progresso da implementação dos cuidados de saúde mental a nível descentralizado, com vista a compreender as implicações em termos de recursos desses processos. Foi realizada uma análise situacional num local do distrito, baseado em entrevistas com as principais partes interessadas responsáveis, usando o Instrumento de Avaliação de Sistemas de Saúde Mental da Organização Mundial da Saúde (WHO-AIMS). Os resultados sugerem que os recursos humanos para a saúde mental e serviços de base comunitária de saúde mental no distrito continuam a ser extremamente limitados. Os profissionais de saúde mental são adicionalmente limitados na sua capacidade para oferecer intervenções de emergência a pacientes psiquiátricos e garantir a continuidade do tratamento farmacológico a pacientes com condições crônicas. Para planejar efetivamente, de acordo com as necessidades da comunidade, sugerimos que o sistema de saúde mental deve envolver também os representantes das famílias e dos usuários no processo de planificação de modo a melhorar a sua contribuição no processo de implementação das atividades de saúde mental. Este estudo de caso do Distrito de Bugesera oferece a primeira análise de nível distrital dos serviços de saúde mental no Ruanda, e pode servir como uma mais-valia para a melhoria do sistema de saúde mental, incluindo a advocacia para a melhoria da qualidade dos cuidados de saúde mental a este nível, aumentando o financiamento para a implementação de serviços clínicos de saúde mental e os recursos humanos disponíveis para a prestação de cuidados de saúde mental, principalmente a nível dos cuidados primários.--------------------- ABSTRACT: To deal with the high burden of mental health disorders resulting from consequences of the 1994 genocide against Tutsis, the Rwanda Ministry of Health (MoH) considers mental health as a priority intervention. For the last 20 years, Ministry of Health focused on rebuilding a national and equity-oriented mental health program responding to the population needs in mental health. Mental health services are now decentralized and integrated in the national health system, from the community level up to the referral level. This study assessed the situation of mental health services in one rural district in Rwanda. It was aimed at assessing the progress of implementation of mental health care at the decentralized level, focusing on resource implications and processes. This study is based on interviews conducted with key stakeholders, using the World Health Organization's Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems (WHO-AIMS). Findings show that human resources for mental health care and community-based mental health services of the assessed district remain extremely limited. Mental health professionals face limitation regarding the ability to provide emergency management of psychiatric patients and to ensure continuity of psychopharmacological treatment of patients with chronic conditions. To improve the implementation process of mental health interventions and activities, a planning process based on community needs and the involvement of representatives of families and users in planning process should be considered. The Bugesera case study on the situation of mental health services can serve as a baseline for improvement of the mental health program in Rwanda, in terms of quality care services, infrastructure and equipment, human and financial resources.

Lag-user method: Using laggards to leverage user innovation

Laggards are the last users to adopt a product. Prior literature on user-led innovation ignores laggards’ impact on innovation. In this paper, we develop the Lag-User Method, through which laggards can generate new ideas. Through six studies with 62 teams in three countries, we apply the method to different technologies and services and present our findings to executives to get managerial insights. Findings reveal that laggards who generate new ideas (lag-users) have different perceptions of user-friendly products and different unfulfilled needs. They prefer simple products. We propose that by involving lag-users in NPD, firms can improve the effectiveness of NPD.

Decisions of technology innovation: the role of indicators

This work presents research conducted to understand the role of indicators in decisions of technology innovation. A gap was detected in the literature of innovation and technology assessment about the use and influence of indicators in this type of decision. It was important to address this gap because indicators are often frequent elements of innovation and technology assessment studies. The research was designed to determine the extent of the use and influence of indicators in decisions of technology innovation, to characterize the role of indicators in these decisions, and to understand how indicators are used in these decisions. The latter involved the test of four possible explanatory factors: the type and phase of decision, and the context and process of construction of evidence. Furthermore, it focused on three Portuguese innovation groups: public researchers, business R&D&I leaders and policymakers. The research used a combination of methods to collect quantitative and qualitative information, such as surveys, case studies and social network analysis. This research concluded that the use of indicators is different from their influence in decisions of technology innovation. In fact, there is a high use of indicators in these decisions, but lower and differentiated differences in their influence in each innovation group. This suggests that political-behavioural methods are also involved in the decisions to different degrees. The main social influences in the decisions came mostly from hierarchies, knowledge-based contacts and users. Furthermore, the research established that indicators played mostly symbolic roles in decisions of policymakers and business R&D&I leaders, although their role with researchers was more differentiated. Indicators were also described as helpful instruments to conduct a reasonable interpretation of data and to balance options in innovation and technology assessments studies, in particular when contextualised, described in detail and with discussion upon the options made. Results suggest that there are four main explanatory factors for the role of indicators in these decisions: First, the type of decision appears to be a factor to consider when explaining the role of indicators. In fact, each type of decision had different influences on the way indicators are used, and each type of decision used different types of indicators. Results for policy-making were particularly different from decisions of acquisition and development of products/technology. Second, the phase of the decision can help to understand the role indicators play in these decisions. Results distinguished between two phases detected in all decisions – before and after the decision – as well as two other phases that can be used to complement the decision process and where indicators can be involved. Third, the context of decision is an important factor to consider when explaining the way indicators are taken into consideration in policy decisions. In fact, the role of indicators can be influenced by the particular context of the decision maker, in which all types of evidence can be selected or downplayed. More importantly, the use of persuasive analytical evidence appears to be related with the dispute existent in the policy context. Fourth and last, the process of construction of evidence is a factor to consider when explaining the way indicators are involved in these decisions. In fact, indicators and other evidence were brought to the decision processes according to their availability and capacity to support the different arguments and interests of the actors and stakeholders. In one case, an indicator lost much persuasion strength with the controversies that it went through during the decision process. Therefore, it can be argued that the use of indicators is high but not very influential; their role is mostly symbolic to policymakers and business decisions, but varies among researchers. The role of indicators in these decisions depends on the type and phase of the decision and the context and process of construction of evidence. The latter two are related to the particular context of each decision maker, the existence of elements of dispute and controversies that influence the way indicators are introduced in the decision-making process.