Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

R&D, Innovation and Growth: Performance of the World’s Leading Technology Corporations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Innovation and International Corporate Growth

Abstract

Research and development (R&D) and Innovation are the drivers of change and the key determinants of growth in many industries and service sectors. The Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard commissioned by the European Union provides data for the 2000 largest R&D spenders in Europe, North America and Asia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    European Commission (2008), The 2008 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard, Seville and Luxembourg.

  2. 2.

    Take as a prominent example Google, a start-up firm established in the late ‘90s. This newly created firm is today one of the most valuable American corporations and No. 59 on the list of the world’s largest R&D spenders.

  3. 3.

    The term “Innovation excellence” was coined by Arthur D. Little to describe corporations that are persistent high performers in innovation management within their industry. See ADL (2005a,b).

  4. 4.

    See ADL (2005a, 2006), Teece (2007) and Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) for an excellent description of dynamic capabilities within top innovation performing firms.

  5. 5.

    In a private conversation, Mr. Jaworski, managing director of 3 M in Germany, pointed out “that you can find at least 10 consultants in the neighborhood of Düsseldorf that are ready to implement a new structured innovation process within six months”.

  6. 6.

    In their study on successful breakthrough innovation in 32 companies, Cotterman et al. (2009) come to a similar conclusion: Stage-gate processes are important but they do no longer serve as a differentiating factor.

  7. 7.

    See Knott (2009, 2008) for a more recent study on the ambivalent influence of R&D on financial performance indicators.

  8. 8.

    For the latest ranking see BCG (2009a,b). This study as well as earlier versions (BCG 2008, 2007) can be accessed via the internet.

  9. 9.

    Probably the most extensive benchmark studies on R&D performance and “pipeline studies” are carried out in Pharmaceuticals.

  10. 10.

    Maybe the quest for innovation in financial derivatives has led some of these firms to accept risks that later resulted in the financial domino game. The most recent ranking published by BCG in April 2009 has thus excluded Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and ING from the list of the most innovative corporations.

  11. 11.

    This includes the whole set of relevant “co-producers” of a complex innovation, including lead customers, innovative suppliers, service providers, regulators, competitors, research centers and universities.

  12. 12.

    Cisco’s logo depicts an artificial variant of the Golden Gate bridge as a symbol for its entrepreneurial role as a bridge builder.

  13. 13.

    See, for example, the case of Siemens, described by Achatz and Heger in this volume. In the field of Industrial Automation, Siemens focuses its R&D activities on trendsetter projects, for which the corporation can actively influence and shape its ecosystem.

  14. 14.

    An excellent example can be found in the chapter on innovation at Trumpf by Körber, Buchfink and Völker in this volume.

  15. 15.

    See the case study on Cisco in Jennewein, Durand and Gerybadze (2007) and Jennewein (2005).

  16. 16.

    Take, as an example, the innovation success story of Trumpf and the strong role of the majority owner, Mr. Leibinger.

  17. 17.

    See the Global Benchmark Survey of Strategic Management of Technology that provides a survey of the role CTOs play in American, European and Japanese firms in Roberts (2001).

  18. 18.

    See Cooper (2009) and ADL (2005a), who emphasize the role of “Strategic buckets” and “top-priority projects”.

  19. 19.

    On the list of top international design firms, we find companies such as Miele, Hilti, Hansgrohe, Festo and Kärcher, all of which follow integrated innovation and design strategies.

References

  • ADL (2005a). Global Innovation Excellence Study 2005. Innovation as Strategic Lever to Drive Profitability and Growth, Arthur D. Little, Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • ADL (2005b). Global Innovation Excellence Survey, Arthur D. Little in Collaboration with VNONCW, ADL Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • ADL (2006). Innovation Excellence. Erfahrungen in Innovation Management. Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • BCG (2007). Innovation 2007: A BCG senior management survey. Boston, MA: The Boston Consulting Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • BCG (2008). Innovation 2008: Is the tide turning? A BCG senior management survey. Boston, MA: The Boston Consulting Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • BCG (2009a). Innovation 2009: Making hard decisions in the downtown. Boston, MA: The Boston Consulting Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • BCG (2009b). Measuring innovation: The need for action. Boston, MA: The Boston Consulting Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • BERR (2008). The 2008 R&D scoreboard. London: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (2009). How companies are reinventing their idea-to-launch methodologies. Research Technology Management, 52(2), March–April, 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterman, R., Fusfeld, A., Henderson, P., Leder, J., Loweth, C., & Metoyer, A. (2009). Aligning marketing and technology to drive innovation. Research Technology Management, September–October, 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerybadze, A. (2004). Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement. Strategie, Organisation und Implementierung. München: Vahlen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaruzelski, B., & Dehoff, K. (2007). The Customer Connection: The Global Innovation 1000, Strategy and Business, Winter 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaruzelski, B., & Dehoff, K. (2008). Beyond Borders: The Booz & Company Global Innovation 1000, Strategy and Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennewein, K. (2005). Intellectual property management. The role of technology-brands in the appropriation of technological innovation. Heidelberg, New York: Physica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennewein, K., Durand, T., & Gerybadze, A. (2007). Marier Technologies et Marques pour un Cycle de Vie: Le Cas de Routeurs de Cisco. Revue Française de Gestion, 177, 57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonash, R. S., & Sommerlatte, T. (1999). The innovation premium. Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knott, A. M. (2008). R&D/returns causality: Absorptive capacity or organizational IQ. Management Science, 54, 2054–2067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knott, A. M. (2009). New hope for measuring R&D effectiveness. Research Technology Management, September–October, 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. (2001). Benchmarking global strategic management of technology. Research Technology Management, March–April, 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy, 15/6, 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hohenheim, D-70599, Stuttgart, Germany

    Alexander Gerybadze

Authors
  1. Alexander Gerybadze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Forschungsstelle Internationales, Management und Innovation, Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart, 70593, Germany

    Alexander Gerybadze

  2. und Recht i. Gr., EBS Business School, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft, Gustav-Stresemann-Ring 3, Wiesbaden, 65189, Germany

    Ulrich Hommel

  3. BASF AG, Carl-Bosch-Str. 38, Ludwigshafen, 67063, Germany

    Hans W. Reiners

  4. FB 1 Management, Controlling, HealthCare, FH Ludwigshafen, Ernst-Boehe-Str. 4, Ludwigshafen, 67059, Germany

    Dieter Thomaschewski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gerybadze, A. (2010). R&D, Innovation and Growth: Performance of the World’s Leading Technology Corporations. In: Gerybadze, A., Hommel, U., Reiners, H., Thomaschewski, D. (eds) Innovation and International Corporate Growth. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10823-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation