Journal of the Knowledge Economy

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 782–796 | Cite as

IT-Enabled R&D for Business Value in a Global Framework

  • Gabriel J. CostelloEmail author
  • Brian Donnellan


Historically, innovation research and development (R&D) has been investigated in terms of product and, more recently, service applications. The central argument of this paper is that information technology can support R&D in the important but relatively underdeveloped area of business process development. The methodology used in this study is design science research (DSR). The approach of the work is to outline the case of the Innovation Value Institute (IVI) which was co-founded in 2006 by University of Maynooth, Ireland and Intel with the objective of transforming information technology (IT) management. Through the application of IT to the R&D process, the institute has developed the information technology capability maturity framework (IT-CMF) for managing IT for business value. Consequently, the framework is a unique example of IT-enabled R&D, developed in the context of academic-practitioner cooperation, which has a global reach. The IVI case demonstrates that innovation in IT business processes is increasingly important as a source of competitive advantage and, in doing so, it addresses key limitations in current research.


Innovation Business process Research and development (R&D) Competitive advantage 


  1. Bannister, F. (2005). When paradigms shift: IT evaluation in a brave new world. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 8(1), 21–30.Google Scholar
  2. Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: creating and sustaining competitive advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brynjolfsson, E., & Saunders, A. (2009). Wired for innovation: how information technology is reshaping the economy. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  4. Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2014). Business model innovation as antecedent of sustainable enterprise excellence and resilience. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(3), 440–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carr, N.G. (2003). IT doesn’t matter. Harvard Business Review, May 2003 edition.Google Scholar
  6. Chamberlin, E. (1933). The theory of monopolistic competition: a re-orientation of the theory of value. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clemons, E. K. (1986). Information systems for sustainable competitive advantage. Information & Management, 11(3), 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, T., & Jamieson, M. (1994). Beyond return on investment: evaluating ALL the benefits of information technology. In L. Willcocks (Ed.), Information management, the evaluation of information systems investments (pp. 189–206). London: Chapman Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, R. G. (1994). New products: the factors that drive success. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 60–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costello, G. J., & Donnellan, B. (2007). The diffusion of WOZ: expanding the topology of IS innovations. Journal of Information Technology, 22(1), 79–86. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: strategies for product design. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Curley, M. (2004). Managing information technology for business value: practical strategies for IT and business managers (IT best practices series). Intel.Google Scholar
  13. Curley, M. (2007). Introducing an IT capability maturity framework. In keynote address at the International Conference for Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS, Madeira, Portugal, 12–14 June 2007.Google Scholar
  14. Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: a longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650–675. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00814.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2005). Think, play, do: technology, innovation, and organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Donnellan, B. (2004). ‘IT systems to support innovation: an empirical analysis to support innovative product development in analog devices B.V.’. In B. Fitzgerald & E. Wynn (Eds.), IT innovation for adaptability and competitiveness. Boston: Kluwer Academic. IFIP TC8/WG8.6. Seventh working conference on IT innovation for adaptability and competitiveness, May 30–June 2, 2004, Leixlip, Ireland.Google Scholar
  17. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feeny, D. F., & Ives, B. (1997). IT as a basis for sustainable competitive advantage. In L. P. Willcocks, D. F. Feeny, & G. Islei (Eds.), Managing IT as a strategic resource (pp. 43–63). London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Fichman, R. G. (2004). Going beyond the dominant paradigm for information technology innovation research: emerging concepts and methods. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(8), 314–355.Google Scholar
  20. Hammer, M. (1996). Beyond reengineering: how the process-centred organisation is changing our work and our life. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  21. Hammer, M., & Champey, J. (1994). Re-engineering the corporation. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  22. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  23. IVI (2013). Innovation Value Institute. Available online at Accessed Feb 2013
  24. Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J. W., & Lacity, M. C. (2006). A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research. Journal of Information Technology, 21, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.Google Scholar
  26. Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2002). Management information systems: managing the digital firm (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix, …, and an N-tuple of helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lundvall, B.-A. (1995). National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  29. MacMillan, I. C. (1983). Preemptive strategies. Journal of Business Strategy, 3(2), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. March, S., & Vogus, T. (2010). Design science in the management disciplines. In A. Hevner & S. Chatterjee (Eds.), Design research in information systems: theory and practice (integrated series in information systems). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., & Gasser, L. (2002). A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 179–213.Google Scholar
  32. Mathiassen, L., & Nielsen, P. A. (2008). Engaged scholarship in IS research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 20(2), 3–20.Google Scholar
  33. Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: when firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1269–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neavel Dickens, L. (1998). A theory of action perspective of action research. Unpublished thesis Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  35. O’Brien, J. A., & Marakas, G. M. (2009). Management information systems. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Google Scholar
  36. Otto, K., & Wood, K. (2001). Product design: techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Pavitt, K. (2005). Innovation process. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Peppard, J., Ward, J., & Daniel, E. (2007). Managing the realisation of business benefits from IT investments. MIS Quarterly Executive, 6(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  39. Pfaffenberger, B. (2002). Computers in your future. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Post, G. V., & Anderson, D. L. (2003). Management information systems: solving business problems with information technology. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
  41. Pugh, S. (1991). Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  42. Robson, W. (1997). Strategic management and information systems: an integrated approach (2nd ed.). London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  43. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. Schryen, G. (2013). Revisiting IS business value research: what we already know, what we still need to know, and how we can get there. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 139–169. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2012.45. Published online 13 November 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  46. Strassmann, P. (1985). Information payoff: the transformation of work in an electronic age. New York: Free.Google Scholar
  47. Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (2004). Innovating mindfully with information technology. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 553–583.Google Scholar
  48. Tarafdar, M., & Gordon, S. R. (2005). How Information Technology Capabilities Influence Organizational Innovation: Exploratory Findings from two Case Studies. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Information Systems in a Rapidly Changing Economy. Regensburg, Germany: ECIS 2005, 26-28 May 2005.Google Scholar
  49. Ulrich, K. T. & Eppinger, S. D. (2004). Product design and development, 3rd Edition. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Vaishnavi, V., & Kuechler, W. (2007). Design science research methods and patterns: innovating information and communication technology, journal of product innovation management. New York: Auerbach.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: a guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Venable, J. R. (2010) Design science research post. In: Hevner et al. (Eds.) Criteria, standards, guidelines, and expectations. Translated by Winter, R., Zhao, J. L. and Aier, S., Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6105, Springer, 109–123.Google Scholar
  53. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Massachusetts: MIT.Google Scholar
  54. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G., & Sawy, O. E. (1992). Building information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ward, J., & Peppard, J. (2002). Strategic planning for information systems (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 99–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whelan, E. (2007). Exploring knowledge exchange in electronic networks of practice. Journal of Information Technology, 22, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson, J. Q. (1966). Innovation in organizations: notes toward a theory. In J. D. Thompson (Ed.), Approaches to organizational design (pp. 193–218). Pittsburgh: PA University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  59. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Galway-Mayo Institute of TechnologyGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Maynooth UniversityMaynoothIreland

Personalised recommendations