A Bibliometric Study of Research-Technology Management, 1998-2017: An analysis of 20 years of RTM articles offers a perspective on trends and evolutions in the journal's content and in the field of innovation management.
As a result, readers and authors looking for topic trends and seeking to identify the journal's evolving focus must sift through a large body of material. RTM editors do not have meaningful measures of the journal's development to help evaluate the journal's future direction and scope.
To fill these gaps, we present the results of a bibliometric study of RTM's published articles over the past two decades (1998-2017). We trace the evolution of the industries and topics featured in the journal over time to help practitioner readers track changes in the highly mutable domain of innovation, both within their organizations and across the broad range of practitioner-focused literature. Our study also serves as a good starting point for prospective RTM authors seeking information about the types of papers the journal publishes. More importantly, a systematic and concise retrospect of the field of technology and innovation that tracks trends as they emerge can reveal opportunities for meaningful research.
RTM was founded in 1958 as Research Management and rebranded to Research-Technology Management in 1988. The journal publishes a wide range of content covering topics such as R&D portfolio management, new product development, management of disruptive or discontinuous innovation, information technology, and more. Its goal is to provide innovation leaders with the knowledge and skills to foster innovative activity in their organizations. In addition to blending theory with actionable insights, the journal aims to promote practitioner learning through the sharing of experiences (Euchner 2009).
RTM has long been recognized as a leading innovation management journal. Most notably, Linton & Thongpapanl's (2004) citation analysis of technology and innovation management specialty journals ranked RTM as one of the top three journals in the field. In other words, the analysis showed that articles published in RTM were among the most frequently cited sources in other top journals. The authors suggest that this influence arises from RTM's practitioner focus: academic researchers look to RTM, known for its practical approach and influence among practitioners, to "ground theory in practice" (Linton and Thongpapanl 2004, p. 132).
Undoubtedly, RTM's wide appeal to working innovation leaders amplifies its influence on the field. Consequently, a bibliometric analysis of RTM's output can support inferences about the evolution of the entire landscape of technology and innovation management. Bibliometrics add value by capturing the development of disciplines and networks of researchers and providing a measure of productivity for thought leaders (Okubo 1997). Our analysis of RTM examines four key attributes: citations of RTM articles in other publications, authors of RTM articles (including an examination of trends in collaboration), representation of industry sectors in published articles, and topics presented in published articles.
Our methodology, which was designed to categorize and parse relevant content, followed a simple-to-complex order of operations. From the list of metrics we aimed to gather, we started with the ones that were most objective and already labeled and quantified through existing sources. We then moved to more subjective elements requiring more direct engagement with the relevant articles, such as topic categorization, which was manually coded by the authors.
Our process began with a review of all articles published in the 120 issues of RTM issued from 1998 to 2017; these were identified via the journal's website. (1) We limited the search to the past 20 years because we felt a 20-year range was sufficient to capture recent trends. We then narrowed the field by excluding shorter, less substantive pieces such as editorials and book reviews. To accomplish this winnowing, we defined two criteria for inclusion in the analysis: (a) a date of publication within the period of the study (1998-2017) and (b) an abstract. Applying these criteria yielded a final sample size of 550 articles representing 901 unique authors.
We then collected various metrics for each article included in the sample. We queried Google Scholar, using Harzing's Publish or Perish, version 6, for total citation counts and citations per year. The academic affiliations and occupations of the authors at the time of publication were identified by reading author biographies published with each article. If the author held positions at multiple institutions, data were collected only on the first one listed in the author's biography. Authors were categorized as practitioners if they did not hold faculty positions at any university or if they held both industry and academic positions.
We also coded each article for its industry-sector focus. Because the sample included a relatively large number of articles, we did not know the breadth of industry categories beforehand. We used a bottom-up classification approach to generate categories. We scanned abstracts (and, if the abstract didn't provide sufficient information, entire articles) and manually coded each article according to its industry--for example, biotechnology. Then, all similar codes were combined into overarching categories. For example, gene therapy and general biotechnology were combined to form the Biotechnology category; eventually, biotechnology was combined with health care to form one category. If the article discussed multiple industries, we assigned the article to the industry showcased most prominently. Industries with very low representation were combined into the Miscellaneous category. The Generic category was reserved for articles with general applicability to the business practitioner and no evident focus on a particular industry.
Ultimately, we arrived at a list of 13 sectors: Academia & Laboratory, Aerospace, Automotive, Biotechnology & Health care, Chemicals, Consumer Goods, Electronics, Industrial & Manufacturing, Information Technology, Materials, Miscellaneous, Sustainability & Environment, or Generic. Articles labeled Information Technology focus on the use of software or other computer technologies, including Internet-based technologies, as innovation tools, as well as on the IT industry itself. For example, Farris and colleagues' (2003) "Web-Enabled Innovation in New Product Development" describes how the Internet-based tools can facilitate new product development processes. Articles where an Information Technology company is an exemplar were also classified as part of the Information Technology industry. An example is "IBM's Evolving Research Strategy" (McQueeney 2003). Similarly, articles categorized as Sustainability & Environment emphasize sustainability as a tenet of innovation, the focus, for example, of Metz and coauthors' (2016) "The Path to Sustainability-Driven Innovation."
We generated an initial list of potential topic classifications from the list of topics provided in the "Aims and Scope" section of RTM's website.2 We then combined similar items to arrive at a list of 11 possible topic fields: Discontinuous Innovation, Disruptive Innovation, General Innovation, Innovation Culture & People Management, Knowledge & Portfolio Management, New Product Development, Open Innovation, Reverse Innovation, Strategy, Sustainability, and Miscellaneous.
This sequence of data collection and coding procedures provided a quantitative snapshot of RTM's output for the period of the study. The 20-year period was then divided into 5-year intervals, which provided us with four samples for different time periods. These samples supplied the data for a time-lag study. We compared average citations and topics by time period. We also conducted group comparisons between practitioner and academic authors and authors from different geographic regions. Trends in the shifting concentration of papers in each time interval were also analyzed. Taken together, these analyses provided a roadmap of RTM's evolution over time.
The analysis offered some broad insights about RTM's focus and scope. The 25 most-cited articles enjoy a larger than expected share of total citations, and a core group of well-known authors also attract a large proportion of total citations. These point to the relatively small community of specialists on which the journal draws, as well as its stature within that community, as it repeatedly draws high-profile authors. Also, author demographics have shifted in recent years, toward a greater proportion of academic authors and toward more non-US-based authors.
The majority of RTM papers are not specifically focused on a particular industry, but are generally applicable: in other words, most articles are about innovation and technology management broadly rather than innovation or innovation tools in a specific industry. Knowledge & Portfolio Management was the most common topic, although the number of papers written about New Product Development has been growing in recent years.
Almost 75 percent of articles in the sample drew between 1 and 50 citations; almost half (47 percent) had between 11 and 50 citations (Table 1). Just 10 percent of articles drew more than 100 citations and 5 percent were not cited at all. In the period 1998-2002, which accounts for 155 of the articles in our sample, only one article drew no citations.
The 25 most-cited articles based on total citations each accumulated at least 195 citations in the last 20 years (Table 2). Overall, the 25 most-cited articles account for approximately 33 percent of the total citations to all 550 articles in the sample. The three most-cited articles in terms of total citations were "Providing Clarity and a Common Language to the 'Fuzzy Front End'" (Koen et al. 2001), "Innovating Business Models with Co-Development Partnerships" (Chesbrough and Schwartz 2007), and "Optimizing the Stage-Gate Process: What Best-Practice Companies Do, Part I" (Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt 2002). Interestingly, the most-cited article, by Koen and colleagues (2001), has 14 authors, the greatest number of authors of any article in our sample. The team of Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt was the most frequent entrant in the list, producing 6 of the 25 most-cited articles; Cooper and Edgett and Cooper alone account for two more articles in the list.
To account for the fact that older publications have a greater opportunity to accumulate higher citation counts (Ramos-Rodrfguez and Rulz-Navarro 2004), we normalized the citation counts by dividing the total number of citations by the number of years since publication to produce an average annual citation rate. This calculation significantly reordered the ranking; if the list were reordered by citation rate, Chesbrough and Schwartz (2007) would take the top spot from Koen et al. (2001), and Chesbrough's 2012 article "Open Innovation: Where We've Been and Where We're Going" would move up from 14th to 3rd. Another 10 articles that did not break the top 25 in number of citations have annual citation rates higher than at least 10 of the articles in the most-cited list (Table 3); unsurprisingly, these articles were for the most part published more recently than some of the top performers in terms of total citation counts.
The geographic distribution of RTM's author base is widening over time, even as a core group of authors produce a significant portion of the journal's content: the 30 authors who appeared most frequently in RTM issues during the period of the study were responsible for almost a quarter (23 percent) of the total sample (Table 4). Each produced four or more articles for the journal during the period of study; 11 of these authors appear in the list of most-cited articles.
Of the most published authors, two-thirds are affiliated with academic institutions and one-third are practitioners. All of the most prolific practitioner authors are based in the United States; nearly half of the most prolific academic authors are based elsewhere in the world.
RTM's author base is becoming more geographically diverse. Since 1998, the percentage of academic authors from North America has declined steadily, from 76 percent in the period 2003-2007 to 38 percent in the period 2008-2012 (Table 5). (Note that this calculation includes only academic authors; we omitted practitioner authors because of the difficulty in determining their geographic base from the information provided in the articles. As a result, although the finding is indicative, it cannot be inferred to the full sample.) The biggest beneficiary of this shift has been authors from Europe; the percentage of academic authors located in Europe increased from 11 percent for the period 2003-2007 to 48 percent for the period 2008-2012. Although North America remains the dominant source for RTM articles, accounting for 46 percent of academic authors, Europe is catching up, with 41 percent in the most recent period of analysis. Although this analysis includes only academic authors, it is still an important finding, especially given that 42 percent of unique authors in the last 20 years have been academics, and that proportion is growing.
Finally, with RTM's emphasis on practitioner-focused content in mind, we examined the affiliations of authors to determine the relative prevalence of practitioner and academic authors (Table 6). In aggregate, articles authored by practitioners make up the majority of papers published in the period of study, at 52 percent. However, the number of articles authored solely by practitioners is steadily declining. In the period 1998-2002, 61 percent of articles were written by practitioners; by the 2013-2017 period, that number had declined to 35 percent. As a result, RTM is increasingly publishing papers by academic authors. A recent increase in the number of academic authors reflects that shift: the number of papers with only academic authors increased by 19 percent from 2008-2012 to 2013-2017. This trend has also been observed in bibliometric studies of other journals that focus on practice rather than research, such as Management International Review; that study suggests that one possible reason for this shift is the increased rigor of the review process and the lengthy publication process, which deter practitioner-only authors (Coudounaris et al. 2009).
One way practitioners continue to be involved in RTM is through academic-practitioner collaborations. For the purposes of this analysis, a collaboration is defined as a multiauthor article with at least one author holding an academic position and at least one other author holding an industry position. The number of such academic-industry collaborations increased fairly dramatically through the middle of the study period, from 11 percent in the period 1998-2002 to 22 percent in 2008-2012. That growth has receded somewhat; only 17 percent of articles in the 2013-2017 period were academic-industry collaborations.
If it is to stay true to its mission to "connect theory to practice in innovation management," (3) RTM must find ways to sustain that bridge, including by continuing to encourage academic-practitioner collaborations. In light of the declining number of practitioner authors, RTM editors may consider prioritizing collaborations in its acceptance criteria. The journal's rigorous review process ensures quality publications, but it may also disadvantage practitioner authors. Considering RTM's broad author reach in industry and academia, its editors might consider finding ways to facilitate collaborations between authors, especially between academic and industry authors.
For the most part, RTM's articles are not industry specific. Articles that have general applicability (the Generic category) were consistently the most common industry type (Table 7). In 2003-2007, for instance, almost two-thirds (66 percent) of the articles published were generally applicable. The industry sectors with the highest proportion of articles across the period of the study are Information Technology, Biotechnology & Health care, and Consumer Goods.
From 2003 onward, sector-specific articles become more prevalent; the sector with the most representation in this period is Information Technology. In fact, the proportion of RTM articles about the Information Technology industry doubled, from 8 percent in 2008-2012 to 16 percent in 2013-2017. This growth could be a response to the proliferation of software and social media technologies, increased hype surrounding these technologies, and the associated growth of collective mindshare devoted to this industry. At the same time, the number of articles related to Academia & Laboratories shrank from 5 percent in 1998-2002 to just 1 percent in 2013-2017. The opposite trend can be seen for Sustainability & Environment, which increased from 1 percent in 1998-2002 to 6 percent in 2013-2017.
There has been a shift over time in the most frequently published topics in RTM (Table 8). Knowledge & Portfolio Management accounts for the largest proportion of total articles published, at 28 percent, but New Product Development is most represented on the list of most-cited articles, accounting for 36 percent of that group, compared to 20 percent for Knowledge & Portfolio Management. Perhaps tellingly, those two topic areas also follow opposite trajectories over time: the proportion of articles concerned with Knowledge & Portfolio Management has shrunk as the proportion of articles on New Product Development has grown.
Overall, the second most frequent topic in the journal is General Innovation, which includes articles that do not fit into the Discontinuous, Disruptive, Open, or Reverse Innovation categories. For example, "Growing through Innovation" (Sakkab 2007) and case studies such as "How 3M Innovates for Long-Term Growth" (Coyne 2001) and "Managing Innovation at Xerox" (Loutfy and Belkhir 2001) were classed as General Innovation. This catch-all topic accounted for 17 percent of all articles; furthermore, the proportion of articles in the category increased over time, from 12 percent in 1998-2002 to 22 percent in 2013-2017.
Several notable trends and implications may be derived from our quantitative results. One interesting trend is the shift in recent years toward academic authors in European institutions after decades in which North American institutions dominated. There may be multiple reasons for this change.
First, scholars, particularly in Europe, are experiencing increased pressure to publish internationally significant research in quality journals. For example, in the United Kingdom, where most universities are state funded, an initiative known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) awards public funding to institutions and the academic departments within them based directly on the quality of their publication output (Research Excellence Framework 2014). Thus publishing in RTM, one of the top three journals in its field by citation count, is likely an attractive strategy for authors in European institutions seeking to meet state assessment criteria, as well as to achieve industrial and practitioner recognition.
Second, scholars in North America may be focusing more on publishing in academically oriented journals, driven by the need to support their institutions' prestige. One influential ranking of US business schools, produced by the Financial Times, bases its rankings on each school's number of publications in the Financial Times' list of top journals; the entries on that list tend to be more academically focused and broader in scope (Ormans 2016). In an effort to improve their institution's public ranking, American business deans may pressure their professors to publish more academically oriented papers, either directly or through tenure and promotion decisions.
Whatever is driving it, the growth in European authors may become self-sustaining. As more authors from European institutions publish in RTM, awareness of the journal in those institutions grows, leading to more submissions from the region. The Journal of Product Innovation Management witnessed a similar trend (Biemans, Griffin, and Moenaert 2007).
The analysis also identifies other notable trends related to authorship. The fact that papers from a concentrated group of 30 authors represents almost a quarter of the articles published in RTM suggests that these frequently published authors consistently produce high-quality content on topics that are of high interest to RTM's readership. Not coincidentally, several of the top 30 authors are luminaries in the innovation and technology entrepreneurship literature. Their stature in the field stems from their thought leadership around concepts with high relevance to both academics and practitioners. For example, Robert Cooper introduced the Stage-Gate concept in new product development, and Henry Chesbrough originated the term "open innovation," mapped the paradigm, and has produced seminal studies on the topic. As these authors advance the body of literature around these topics, they continue to produce work that is highly influential in their particular domains, of more interest to other writers in the field, and more likely to be cited.
The majority of RTM publications are by single authors or multiple authors who are all either academics or practitioners. However, the percentage of articles written by practitioners alone is declining. One reason for this may be that the peer review process may be aligning with the processes of more academic management journals.
It should be noted that bibliometric studies do have some limitations emerging primarily from the data sources. For instance, our study used Harzing's Publish or Perish software to gather citation counts, which meant we were relying on not one but two external sources to compile and curate data--the software itself and Google Scholar, which the software used as a source. Thus, citation counts would be vulnerable to errors or flaws in tallying methodology in either of these sources. Similarly, differences in the robustness of author biographies--including a small number of authors whose biographies were not included--sometimes made it difficult to determine the extent to which an author with an industry affiliation was a true practitioner.
Finally, data collection decisions may create limitations. First, we limited our data set to articles that had abstracts. Our logic in defining this criterion was that abstracts are good indicators of studies that have rich information; the presence of an abstract also simplified data collection. However, there are examples of papers, such as "Helping New Leaders Succeed" (Hill and McCullough 1998), that have relatively rich content but did not have abstracts and so were excluded. Also, although we normalized citation counts by years since publication, we did not normalize by month. Thus, an article published in January would have a slight inherent citation count advantage over an article published in December of the same year.
RTM is a longstanding, practitioner-focused publication that has contributed to the management literature for nearly 60 years. Our bibliometric study offers the first retrospective review of this leading innovation management journal. The results of the study can help prospective authors to understand trends in authorship and content and map the network of expertise that supports the journal. The RTM editorial team, including editors and reviewers, may consider the results of the study in decisions about the direction, scope, and themes of the journal. Finally, the study provides an efficient synopsis for readers, especially practitioners, of the history and evolution of the field, which may be useful as they consider the future of innovation management.
The authors would like to thank Mary Anne Gobble for her helpful comments during the development of this article.
Armbrecht, F. R., Jr., Chapas, R. B., Chappelow, C. C., Farris, G. F., Friga, P. N., Hartz, C. A., McIlvaine, M. E., Postle, S. R., and Whitwell, G. E. 2001. Knowledge management in research and development. Research-Technology Management 44(4): 28-48.
Biemans, W., Griffin, A., and Moenaert, R. 2007. Twenty years of the Journal of Product Innovation Management: History, participants, and knowledge stock and flows. Journal of Product Innovation Management 24(3): 193-213.
Bowonder, B., Dambal, A., Kumar, S., and Shirodkar, A. 2010. Innovation strategies for creating competitive advantage. Research-Technology Management 53(3): 19-32.
Chesbrough, H. 2012. Open innovation: Where we've been and where we're going. Research-Technology Management 55(4): 20-27.
Chesbrough, H., and Brunswicker, S. 2014. A fad or a phenomenon? The adoption of open innovation practices in large firms. Research-Technology Management 57(2): 16-25.
Chesbrough, H., and Schwartz, K. 2007. Innovating business models with co-development partnerships. Research-Technology Management 50(1): 55-59.
Cooper, R. G. 2006. Managing technology development projects. Research-Technology Management 49(6): 23-31.
Cooper, R. G. 2009. How companies are reinventing their idea-to-launch methodologies. Research-Technology Management 52(2): 47-57.
Cooper, R. G. 2014. What's next? After Stage-Gate. Research-Technology Management 57(1): 20-31.
Cooper, R. G., and Edgett, S. J. 2008. Maximizing productivity in product innovation. Research-Technology Management 51(2): 47-58.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., and Kleinschmidt, E. J. 1998. Best practices for managing R&D portfolios. Research-Technology Management 41 (4): 20-33.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., and Kleinschmidt, E. J. 2000. New problems, new solutions: Making portfolio management more effective. Research-Technology Management 43 (2): 18-33.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., and Kleinschmidt, E. J. 2002. Optimizing the Stage-Gate process: what best-practice companies do--I. Research-Technology Management 45(5): 21-27.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., and Kleinschmidt, E. J. 2004a. Benchmarking best NPD practices--I. Research-Technology Management 47(1): 31-43.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., and Kleinschmidt, E. J. 2004b. Benchmarking best NPD practices--II. Research-Technology Management 47(3): 50-59.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., and Kleinschmidt, E. J. 2004c. Benchmarking best NPD practices--III. Research-Technology Management 47(6): 43-55.
Coudounaris, D., Kvasova, O., Leonidou, L. C., Pitt, L. F., and Nel, D. 2009. Fifteen good years. Management International Review 49(5): 671-684.
Coyne, W. E. 2001. How 3M innovates for long-term growth. Research-Technology Management 44(2): 21-24.
Desouza, K. C., Awazu, Y., Jha, S., Dombrowski, C., Papagari, S., Baloh, R, and Kim, J. Y. 2008. Customer-driven innovation. Research-Technology Management 51(3): 35-44.
Euchner, J. A. 2009. RTM: For and by practitioners. From the Editor. Research-Technology Management 52(5): 8.
Farris, G. F., Hartz, C. A., Krishnamurthy, K., McIlvaine, B., Postle, S. R., Taylor, R. P., and Whitwell, G. E. 2003. Web-enabled innovation in new product development. Research-Technology Management 46(6): 24-35.
Gupta, A. K., and Souder, W. E. 1998. Key drivers of reduced cycle time. Research-Technology Management 41(4): 38-43.
Hill, R. E., and McCullough, T. 1998. Helping new leaders succeed. Managers at Work. Research-Technology Management 41(5): 14-18.
Igartua, J. I., Garrigos, J. A., and Hervas-Oliver, J. L. 2010. How innovation management techniques support an open innovation strategy. Research-Technology Management 53(3): 41-52.
Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D'Amore, R., Elkins, C., et al. 2001. Providing clarity and a common language to the "fuzzy front end." Research-Technology Management 44(2): 46-55.
Lester, D. H. 1998. Critical success factors for new product development. Research-Technology Management 41(1): 36-43.
Linton, J. D., and Thongpapanl, N. T. 2004. Perspective: Ranking the technology innovation management journals. Journal of Product Innovation Management 21(2): 123-139.
Loutfy, R., and Belkhir, L. 2001. Managing innovation at Xerox. Research-Technology Management 44(4): 15-24.
McGrath, R. G., and MacMillan, I. C. 2000. Assessing technology projects using real options reasoning. Research-Technology Management 43(4): 35-49.
McQueeney, D. F. 2003. IBM's evolving research strategy. Research-Technology Management 46(4): 20-27.
Metz, P., Burek, S., Hultgren, T. R., Kogan, S., and Schwartz, L. 2016. The path to sustainability-driven innovation. Research-Technology Management 59(3): 50-61.
O'Connor, G. C., and Ayers, A. D. 2005. Building a radical innovation competency. Research-Technology Management 48(1): 23-31.
Okubo, Y. 1997. Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems: Methods and examples. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 1997/01. Paris: OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/208277770603
Ormans, L. 2016. 50 journals used in FT research rank. Financial Times, September 12. https://www.ft.com/content/ 3405a512-5cbb-llel-8flf-00144feabdc0
Paap, J., and Katz, R. 2004. Anticipating disruptive innovation. Research-Technology Management 47(5): 13-22.
Parida, V., Sjodin, D. R., Wincent, J., and Kohtamaki, M. 2014. Mastering the transition to product-service provision: Insights into business models, learning activities, and capabilities. Research-Technology Management 57(3): 44-52.
Prahalad, C. K. 1998. Managing discontinuities: The emerging challenges. Research-Technology Management 41(3): 14-22.
Ramos-Rodriguez, A. R., and Rufz-Navarro, J. 2004. Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal 25(10): 981-1004.
Reinertsen, D. G. 1999. Taking the fuzziness out of the fuzzy front end. Research-Technology Management 42(6): 25-31.
Research Excellence Framework. 2014. About the REF. REF2014, December 15. https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/about/
Rice, M. P., O'Connor, G. C., Peters, L. S., and Morone, J. G. 1998. Managing discontinuous innovation. Research-Technology Management 41(3): 52-58.
Roberts, E. B. 2001. Benchmarking global strategic management of technology. Research-Technology Management 44(2): 25-36.
Roberts, E. B. 2007. Managing invention and innovation. Research-Technology Management 50(1): 35-54.
Sakkab, N. Y. 2002. Connect & develop complements research & develop at P&G. Research-Technology Management 45 (2): 38-45.
Sakkab, N. Y. 2007. Growing through innovation. Research-Technology Management 50(6): 59-64.
Schiele, H. 2012. Accessing supplier innovation by being their preferred customer. Research-Technology Management 55(1): 44-50.
Stevens, G. A., and Burley, J. 2003. Piloting the rocket of radical innovation. Research-Technology Management 46(2): 16-25.
Swink, M. 2006. Building collaborative innovation capability. Research-Technology Management 49(2): 37-47.
Zeschky, M., Widenmayer, B., and Gassmann, O. 2011. Frugal innovation in emerging markets. Research-Technology Management 54(4): 38-45.
Zeschky, M. B., Winterhalter, S., and Gassmann, O. 2014. From cost to frugal and reverse innovation: Mapping the field and implications for global competitiveness. Research-Technology Management 57(4): 20-27.
Vanessa Shum is a PhD candidate at Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Canada. Her research interests are in management and organization studies, in particular employee turnover behavior. She holds a BBA from Simon Fraser University and a Master's in industrial relations and human resources from the University of Toronto. firstname.lastname@example.org
Andrew Park is a PhD candidate at the Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Canada. His research interests are in technology management, innovation, and entrepreneurship. He holds a BSc and an MBA from Simon Fraser University. email@example.com
Elicia Maine is a professor of innovation and entrepreneurship at the Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Canada, where she is also the academic director of the graduate program Invention to Innovation. Her research interests are in science-based business and innovation management. She holds a BEng in materials engineering and a BA in English from Queen's University, a Master's in materials engineering and a Master's in technology and policy from MIT, and a PhD in materials engineering and technology management from the University of Cambridge. firstname.lastname@example.org
Leyland F. Pitt is a professor of marketing and the Dennis F. Culver EMBA Alumni Chair of Business at the Beedie School of Business at Simon Fraser University, Canada. He is also a Distinguished Fellow in the Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland. He has taught in executive and MBA programs at major international business schools, such as the Graham School of Continuing Studies at the University of Chicago, the Graduate School of Business of Columbia University, Rotterdam School of Management, and London Business School. He holds a Bachelor of Commerce with Honors and an MBA from the University of Pretoria, a Master of Commerce with distinction from Rhodes University, a PhD in marketing from the University of Pretoria, and a PhD (Honoris Causa) from Lulea University of Technology. Ieyland_pitt@sfu.ca
(2) https://www.tandfonline.com/action/jonrnalInformation?show=aims Scope&journalCode=urtm20.
(3) See http://www.iriweb.org/board.
TABLE 1. Distribution of absolute citations, 1998-2017 * Citation 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 Count [n.sub.1] = 155 [n.sub.2] = 149 [n.sub.3] = 141 0 1% 3% 1% 1-10 19% 17% 29% 11-50 48% 52% 51% 51-100 17% 17% 11% 101 + 15% 11% 9% Citation 2013-2017 Total Count [n.sub.4] = 105 N = 550 0 21% 5% 1-10 42% 25% 11-50 32% 47% 51-100 4% 13% 101 + 1% 10% n = number of articles in each period. * All citation counts are as of January 18, 2018. Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 2. Most-cited RTM articles, 1998-2017 (by total citations) Authors (Year of Publication) Article Title Koen, Ajamian, Burkart, Providing Clarity and a Common Clamen, Davidson, D'Amore, Language to the "Fuzzy Front End" Elkins, Herald, Incorvia, Johnson, Karol, Seibert, Slavejkov, and Wagner (2001) Chesbrough and Schwartz (2007) Innovating Business Models with Co-Development Partnerships Cooper, Edgett, and Optimizing the Stage-Gate Process: Kleinschmidt (2002) What Best-Practice Companies Do Part I Cooper, Edgett, and Benchmarking Best NPD Practices Kleinschmidt (2004a) Part 1 Cooper, Edgett, and New Problems, New Solutions: Kleinschmidt (2000) Making Portfolio Management More Effective Cooper, Edgett, and Benchmarking Best NPD Practices Kleinschmidt (2004b) Part 2 Armbrecht, Chapas, Chappelow, Knowledge Management in Research Farris, Friga, Hartz, and Development Mcllvaine, Postle, and Whitwell (2001) Cooper, Edgett, and Benchmarking Best NPD Practices Kleinschmidt (2004c) Part 3 Cooper and Edgett (2008) Maximizing Productivity in Product Innovation Roberts (2001) Benchmarking Global Strategic Management of Technology Cooper, Edgett, and Best Practices for Managing R&D Kleinschmidt (1998) Portfolios Prahalad (1998) Managing Discontinuities: The Emerging Challenges Rice, O'Connor, Peters, and Managing Discontinuous Innovation Morone (1998) Chesbrough (2012) Open Innovation: Where We've Been and Where We're Going Lester (1998) Critical Success Factors for New Product Development Roberts (2007) Managing Invention and Innovation McGrath and MacMillan (2000) Assessing Technology Projects Using Real Options Reasoning Zeschky, Widenmayer, and Frugal Innovation in Emerging Gassmann (2011) Markets Paap and Katz (2004) Anticipating Disruptive Innovation Reinertsen (1999) Taking the Fuzziness Out of the Fuzzy Front End Sakkab (2002) Connect & Develop Complements Research & Develop at P&G Cooper (2006) Managing Technology Development Projects Stevens and Burley (2003) Piloting the Rocket of Radical Innovation O'Connor and Ayers (2005) Building a Radical Innovation Competency Gupta and Souder(1998) Key Drivers of Reduced Cycle Time Authors (Year of Publication) Topic Koen, Ajamian, Burkart, New Product Development Clamen, Davidson, D'Amore, Elkins, Herald, Incorvia, Johnson, Karol, Seibert, Slavejkov, and Wagner (2001) Chesbrough and Schwartz (2007) Open Innovation Cooper, Edgett, and New Product Development Kleinschmidt (2002) Cooper, Edgett, and New Product Development Kleinschmidt (2004a) Cooper, Edgett, and Knowledge & Portfolio Kleinschmidt (2000) Management Cooper, Edgett, and Strategy Kleinschmidt (2004b) Armbrecht, Chapas, Chappelow, Knowledge & Portfolio Farris, Friga, Hartz, Management Mcllvaine, Postle, and Whitwell (2001) Cooper, Edgett, and New Product Development Kleinschmidt (2004c) Cooper and Edgett (2008) New Product Development Roberts (2001) Strategy Cooper, Edgett, and Discontinuous Innovation Kleinschmidt (1998) Prahalad (1998) Discontinuous Innovation Rice, O'Connor, Peters, and Knowledge & Portfolio Morone (1998) Management Chesbrough (2012) Open Innovation Lester (1998) New Product Development Roberts (2007) Miscellaneous Innovation McGrath and MacMillan (2000) Knowledge & Portfolio Management Zeschky, Widenmayer, and Miscellaneous Innovation Gassmann (2011) Paap and Katz (2004) Disruptive Innovation Reinertsen (1999) New Product Development Sakkab (2002) Knowledge & Portfolio Management Cooper (2006) New Product Development Stevens and Burley (2003) Discontinuous Innovation O'Connor and Ayers (2005) Discontinuous Innovation Gupta and Souder(1998) New Product Development Authors (Year of Publication) Total Years Citation Citations * Rate Koen, Ajamian, Burkart, 861 17 50.65 Clamen, Davidson, D'Amore, Elkins, Herald, Incorvia, Johnson, Karol, Seibert, Slavejkov, and Wagner (2001) Chesbrough and Schwartz (2007) 567 11 51.55 Cooper, Edgett, and 531 16 33.19 Kleinschmidt (2002) Cooper, Edgett, and 477 14 34.07 Kleinschmidt (2004a) Cooper, Edgett, and 426 18 23.67 Kleinschmidt (2000) Cooper, Edgett, and 366 14 26.14 Kleinschmidt (2004b) Armbrecht, Chapas, Chappelow, 335 17 19.71 Farris, Friga, Hartz, Mcllvaine, Postle, and Whitwell (2001) Cooper, Edgett, and 326 14 23.29 Kleinschmidt (2004c) Cooper and Edgett (2008) 322 10 32.2 Roberts (2001) 295 17 17.35 Cooper, Edgett, and 280 20 14 Kleinschmidt (1998) Prahalad (1998) 280 20 14 Rice, O'Connor, Peters, and 280 20 14 Morone (1998) Chesbrough (2012) 269 6 44.83 Lester (1998) 269 20 13.45 Roberts (2007) 259 11 23.55 McGrath and MacMillan (2000) 248 18 13.78 Zeschky, Widenmayer, and 247 7 35.29 Gassmann (2011) Paap and Katz (2004) 239 14 17.07 Reinertsen (1999) 212 19 11.16 Sakkab (2002) 204 16 12.75 Cooper (2006) 203 12 16.92 Stevens and Burley (2003) 199 15 13.27 O'Connor and Ayers (2005) 195 13 15 Gupta and Souder(1998) 195 20 9.75 * All citation counts are as o f January 18, 2018. TABLE 3. Highly cited RTM articles, 1998-2017 (by citation rate) Authors Article Title (Year of Publication) Cooper (2014) What's Next? After Stage-Gate Zeschky, Winterhalter, From Cost to Frugal and Reverse and Gassmann (2014) Innovation: Mapping the Field and Implications for Global Competitiveness Chesbrough and A Fad or a Phenomenon? The Adoption of Brunswicker (2014) Open Innovation Practices in Large Firms Cooper (2009) How Companies Are Reinventing Their Idea-To-Launch Methodologies Schiele (2012) Accessing Supplier Innovation by Being Their Preferred Customer Bowonder, Dambal, Innovation Strategies for Creating Kumar, and Shirodkar Competitive Advantage (2010) Igartua, Garrigos, and How Innovation Management Techniques Hervas-Oliver (2010) Support an Open Innovation Strategy Parida, Sjodin, Wincent, Mastering the Transition to Product- and Kohtamaki (2014) Service Provision: Insights into Business Models, Learning Activities, and Capabilities Desouza, Awazu, Jha, Customer-Driven Innovation Dombrowski, Papagari, Baloh, and Kim (2008) Swink (2006) Building Collaborative Innovation Capability Authors Topic Total (Year of Publication) Citations * Cooper (2014) New Product Development 150 Zeschky, Winterhalter, Reverse Innovation 93 and Gassmann (2014) Chesbrough and Open Innovation 86 Brunswicker (2014) Cooper (2009) New Product Development 191 Schiele (2012) Miscellaneous Innovation 125 Bowonder, Dambal, Strategy 133 Kumar, and Shirodkar (2010) Igartua, Garrigos, and Open Innovation 133 Hervas-Oliver (2010) Parida, Sjodin, Wincent, New Product Development 65 and Kohtamaki (2014) Desouza, Awazu, Jha, Miscellaneous Innovation 161 Dombrowski, Papagari, Baloh, and Kim (2008) Swink (2006) Miscellaneous Innovation 190 Authors Years Citation (Year of Publication) Rate Cooper (2014) 4 37.50 Zeschky, Winterhalter, 4 23.25 and Gassmann (2014) Chesbrough and 4 21.50 Brunswicker (2014) Cooper (2009) 9 21.22 Schiele (2012) 6 20.83 Bowonder, Dambal, 8 16.63 Kumar, and Shirodkar (2010) Igartua, Garrigos, and 8 16.63 Hervas-Oliver (2010) Parida, Sjodin, Wincent, 4 16.25 and Kohtamaki (2014) Desouza, Awazu, Jha, 10 16.10 Dombrowski, Papagari, Baloh, and Kim (2008) Swink (2006) 12 15.83 * All citation counts are as of January 18, 2018. TABLE 4. Most prolific RTM authors, 1998-2017 Author Institution Robert G. Cooper McMaster University Gene Slowinski Rutgers University Scott J. Edgett Pennsylvania State University David Probert University of Cambridge Elko J. Kleinschmidt McMaster University Keith Goffin Cranfield School of Management Henry Chesbrough University of California, Berkeley Paul Germeraad Practitioner Stephen K. Markham North Carolina State University Marc H. Meyer Northeastern University Robert Phaal University of Cambridge Alan R. Fusfeld Practitioner Roger Smith Practitioner Lynda Aiman-Smith North Carolina State University Peter A. Koen Stevens Institute of Technology Lawrence Schwartz Practitioner John Tao Practitioner F. Peter Boer Practitioner Nabil Sakkab Practitioner Rita Gunther McGrath Columbia University Ian C. MacMillan University of Pennsylvania Roger Miller Oxford University Matthew W. Sagal Practitioner Gina Colarelli O'Connor Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Heidi Bertels City University of New York B. Bowonder Tata Management Training Centre Alden Bean North Carolina State University Oliver Gassmann University of St. Gallen Robin A. Karol Practitioner Edward Hummel Practitioner Author Country Total Articles Adjusted Articles Robert G. Cooper Canada 16 9.50 Gene Slowinski USA 13 3.74 Scott J. Edgett USA 10 4.00 David Probert England 10 2.98 Elko J. Kleinschmidt Canada 9 3.17 Keith Goffin England 8 3.33 Henry Chesbrough USA 7 5.00 Paul Germeraad USA 6 5.00 Stephen K. Markham USA 6 3.03 Marc H. Meyer USA 6 2.50 Robert Phaal England 6 1.56 Alan R. Fusfeld USA 6 1.50 Roger Smith USA 5 5.00 Lynda Aiman-Smith USA 5 1.83 Peter A. Koen USA 5 1.40 Lawrence Schwartz USA 5 1.01 John Tao USA 5 0.91 F. Peter Boer USA 4 4.00 Nabil Sakkab USA 4 2.83 Rita Gunther McGrath USA 4 1.75 Ian C. MacMillan USA 4 1.75 Roger Miller England 4 1.50 Matthew W. Sagal USA 4 1.42 Gina Colarelli O'Connor USA 4 1.42 Heidi Bertels USA 4 1.33 B. Bowonder India 4 1.33 Alden Bean USA 4 1.20 Oliver Gassmann Switzerland 4 1.17 Robin A. Karol USA 4 1.07 Edward Hummel USA 4 0.98 Note: Total articles = the number of articles on which the author's name appears. Adjusted article count is the sum of p scores for individual articles; the p score for an article is p=1/(total number of authors). This calculation is intended to account for multiauthor articles. TABLE 5. RTM authors' geographic bases, 1998-2017 * Location 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 [n.sub.1] = 81 [n.sub.2] = 88 [n.sub.3] = 120 North America 81% 76% 38% Europe 6% 11% 48% Asia 9% 11% 13% Other 4% 1% 1% Location 2013-2017 Total [n.sub.4] = 146 N = 382 North America 23% 46% Europe 68% 41% Asia 8% 11% Other 1% 2% [n.sub.i] = number of unique academic authors in each period * Includes only academic authors; geographic base was determined by location of author's institution of affiliation. Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 6. Academic vs. practitioner authors in RTM, 1998-2017 Author Type 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 [n.sub.1] = 155 [n.sub.2] = 149 [n.sub.3] = 141 Academic only 28% 23% 29% Practitioner 61% 57% 49% only Collaborations 11% 20% 22% Author Type 2013-2017 Total [n.sub.4] =105 N = 550 Academic only 48% 31% Practitioner 35% 52% only Collaborations 17% 17% [n.sub.i] = number of articles in each period. TABLE 7. Industry sectors represented in RTM articles, 1998-2017 Industry 1998-2002 2003-2007 [n.sub.1] = 155 [n.sub.2] = 149 Academia & Laboratory 5% 3% Aerospace 0% 2% Automotive 1% 1% Biotechnology & Health 6% 7% Care Chemicals 1% 1% Consumer Goods 5% 5% Electronics 3% 1% Industrial & 6% 2% Manufacturing Information Technology 6% 8% Materials 5% 1% Miscellaneous 6% 3% Sustainability & 1% 0% Environment Generic 55% 66% Industry 2008-2012 2013-2017 Total [n.sub.3] = 141 [n.sub.4] =105 N= 550 Academia & Laboratory 3% 1% 3% Aerospace 1% 3% 1% Automotive 1% 2% 1% Biotechnology & Health 7% 6% 7% Care Chemicals 3% 1% 1% Consumer Goods 4% 7% 5% Electronics 3% 2% 2% Industrial & 3% 4% 4% Manufacturing Information Technology 8% 16% 9% Materials 1% 3% 3% Miscellaneous 4% 4% 4% Sustainability & 1% 6% 2% Environment Generic 62% 47% 58% [n.sub.i] = number of articles in each period Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 8. RTM content by topic, 1998-2017 Topic 1998-2002 2003-2007 [n.sub.1] = 155 [n.sub.2] = 149 Discontinuous 3% 3% Innovation Disruptive Innovation 0% 1% General Innovation 12% 9% Innovation Culture & 10% 8% People Management Knowledge & Portfolio 35% 32% Management New Product 12% 16% Development Open Innovation 3% 5% Reverse Innovation 0% 0% Strategy 5% 11% Sustainability 0% 4% Miscellaneous 18% 9% Topic 2008-2012 2013-2017 Total [n.sub.3] = 141 [n.sub.4] = 105 N = 550 Discontinuous 0% 2% 2% Innovation Disruptive Innovation 1% 1% 1% General Innovation 26% 22% 17% Innovation Culture & 9% 6% 8% People Management Knowledge & Portfolio 25% 17% 28% Management New Product 11% 17% 14% Development Open Innovation 8% 10% 6% Reverse Innovation 0% 3% 1% Strategy 7% 2% 7% Sustainability 1% 5% 2% Miscellaneous 13% 16% 14% [n.sub.i] = number of articles in each period. Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Shum, Vanessa; Park, Andrew; Maine, Elicia; Pitt, Leyland F.|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2019|
|Previous Article:||What Machine Learning Can Learn from Foresight: A Human-Centered Approach: For machine learning-based forecast efforts to succeed, they must embrace...|
|Next Article:||Leave Your Varsity Letter Jacket at Home.|