The previous chapters of this book confirmed that a major reason for the long-term decline in Britain’s competitiveness in manufactured goods has been an inability to compete in innovative products and processes. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the performance of British management in the light of current knowledge about the successful management of innovative firms. The discussion will concentrate on British weaknesses in managing innovation, because Britain’s economic performance in general suggests that the weaknesses highlighted here are widespread. This book, however, also reveals some strengths, such as the steady commitment of the chemical industry to innovative activities, and the considerable British achievement in technical innovation and international competitiveness in coalmining machinery. There are also examples of retrenchment and recovery, for example, in textile machinery. The British weaknesses are neither universal, nor irremediable. We discuss them here in the hope of stimulating action that will eventually eliminate them.


Innovative Activity Technical Innovation Innovative Firm Successful Innovation British Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boston Consulting Group Ltd, Strategy Alternatives for the British Motorcycle Industry, a report prepared for the Secretary of State for Industry (London: HMSO, 1975).Google Scholar
  2. C. F. Carter and B. R. Williams, Industry and Technical Progress (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957).Google Scholar
  3. R. Coombs, P. Gardiner, M. Gibbons and R. Johnstone, Technology Change and the UK Tractor Industry, Interim Report for the Department of Industry, Department of Liberal Studies, Manchester University, July (unpublished, 1978).Google Scholar
  4. ‘Coventry Workshop’, draft report commissioned by the Coventry Machine Tool Workers Committee (Coventry: 1978).Google Scholar
  5. Footwear Industry Study Group, Report (London: HMSO, April 1977).Google Scholar
  6. C. H. Hayvaert, Innovation Research and Product Policy: Clinical Research in 12 Belgian Industrial Enterprises, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium (unpublished, 1973).Google Scholar
  7. J. Langrish et al., Wealth with Knowledge (London: Macmillan, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. S. Myers and D. G. Marquis, ‘Successful Industrial Innovation’National Science Foundation (Washington, D.C.: NSF 69–17, 1969).Google Scholar
  9. C. F. Pratten, A Comparison of the Performance of Swedish and UK Companies, Department of Applied Economics, Occasional Paper no. 47 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  10. R. Rothwell et al., ‘SAPPHO Updated: Project SAPPHO Phase II’, Research Policy, 3 (1974).Google Scholar
  11. R. Rothwell, Innovation in Textile Machinery: Some Significant Factors in Success and Failure, Science Policy Research Unit, Occasional Paper Series no. 2 (University of Sussex, Science Policy Research Unit, June 1976).Google Scholar
  12. R. Rothwell, ‘The Characteristics of Successful Innovators and Technically Progressive Firms’ (with some comments on innovation research), R and D Management, 7: 3 (June 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. A. Rubenstein et al., ‘Management Perceptions of Government Inventives to Technological Innovation in England, France, West Germany and Japan’, Research Policy 6 (1977).Google Scholar
  14. G. Schock, Innovation Processes in Dutch Industry, TNO Industrial Research Organisation (Apeldoorn, The Netherlands: TNO, 1974).Google Scholar
  15. G. D. Szakasits, ‘The Adoption of the SAPPHO method in the Hungarian Electronics Industry’, Research Policy 3 (1974).Google Scholar
  16. J. M. Utterback, T. Allen and J. H. Holloman, The Progress of Innovation in Five Five Industries in Europe and Japan, Centre for Policy Alternatives, MIT (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1975).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Policy Research Unit 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy Rothwell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations