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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carr, N.G. (2003). IT doesn’t matter. Harvard Business Review, May 2003 edition.

  6. Chamberlin, E. (1933). The theory of monopolistic competition: a re-orientation of the theory of value. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  7. Clemons, E. K. (1986). Information systems for sustainable competitive advantage. Information & Management, 11(3), 131–136.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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 www.ivi.ie. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Neavel Dickens, L. (1998). A theory of action perspective of action research. Unpublished thesis Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  49. Ulrich, K. T. & Eppinger, S. D. (2004). Product design and development, 3rd Edition. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

  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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Whelan, E. (2007). Exploring knowledge exchange in electronic networks of practice. Journal of Information Technology, 22, 5–12.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel J. Costello.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Costello, G.J., Donnellan, B. IT-Enabled R&D for Business Value in a Global Framework. J Knowl Econ 7, 782–796 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0247-6

Download citation

Keywords

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