Stephen K. Markham

Moving Technologies from Lab To Market

OVERVIEW: Product champions need more than enthusiasm and foresight if they are to accomplish their self-appointed mission—they must be able to steer their product idea across the “Valley of Death” that separates discovery from commercialization. This requires the champion to successfully accomplish a series of discrete activities: recognize that his/her idea or research actually has commercial value, manifest the discovery as a product, communicate its potential through a compelling business case, acquire the resources necessary to realize that potential, use those resources to reduce risk, seek approval for formal development, and translate the project into the approval criteria. Following this, the champion must make his influence felt during the formal project approval stage and in the (hopefully) final development and launch. Carrying out these activities requires special skills, from influence tactics to business case writing.

Product Champions: Truths, Myths and Management

OVERVIEW: Champions represent powerful forces in most organizations. Champions are passionate about what they do; they generate support for ideas; and they keep ideas and projects alive. The research literature contradicts some champion myths and validates others. For example, we now know that a champion moves projects along, while projects with no champion struggle—but having a champion does not guarantee market success. As well, we know that champions arise from all levels in an organization, and are as likely to support incremental as radical ideas. Champions work within a political environment, and rely primarily on relationships for influence, although they will resort to traditional influence tactics. Formal NPD processes with cross-functional teams go hand-in-hand with champions. Champions are motivated by working toward a strategic vision, from contact with a community of knowledge, and from opportunities to develop skills. Having a loyal antagonist may actually help champions in their work.

Industry-University IP Relations: Integrating Perspectives and Policy Solutions

Despite a long and productive U.S. history, industry-university (I-U) relations have become increasingly testy around intellectual property (IP). The Bayh-Dole Act is cited the driver for sharply increased university patenting, less fundamental research focus, and disinterest in traditional missions, although there is little data to corroborate these conclusions. A National Science Foundation (NSF)-sponsored workshop points to I-U relationship issues in the context of the path a new technology must follow from lab to market. We propose some critical variables affecting I-U IP relationships; describe areas of agreement and contention between the parties, drawing also on secondary data and the broader literature of I-U relations; and offer IP policy observations of interest to universities, researchers and technology transfer managers, their industry counterparts, and government. We end with propositions for further research

Strategies and Tactics for External Corporate Venturing

OVERVIEW: By providing a window on emerging technologies, market opportunities, new business models, and distribution channels, corporate venturing can be an important source of technological innovation for corporations. However, effective implementation requires a clear view of the objectives, dedication to understanding the process, and discipline. There are two major tactics for external investing: invest in a venture capital fund, or invest directly in a start-up company, and the strategy a company chooses should be tied to its objectives. For example, best-of-class companies whose objective is to acquire a window on technology will invest in VC funds to gain access to their wider deal flow. One of the most challenging aspects of corporate venturing is finding the right people, and corporations must be willing to devote significant time and resources to working closely with their portfolio companies if they wish to gain satisfactory value from their external investments.

The university's role in creating radically new products

This paper explores the role of research universities in creating radical new products. Existing activities include cooperative research, entrepreneurial activities, technical publications and student training. While each of these activities are valued endeavours, none of them address the scope of issues confronting the task of commercialising technology. Industry and universities operate at different levels in the development process. Industry difficulties and needs are examined and found to be inconsistent with present university activities. The need for universities to develop the capacity to create product concepts and business plans is explained. (Publication abstract)

Unstructured Text Analytics to Support New Product Development Decisions

OVERVIEW: This article describes how to use unstructured text analytics to support critical product development decisions. It clarifies the difference between structured and unstructured data and proposes an analytical process for using big data and natural language processing tools for unstructured text analytics to support managerial decision-making. The usefulness of unstructured data for product development decisions is demonstrated in real cases. In particular, we illustrate the use of text analytics to develop services, to find new customers, and to assess new product viability. Results and outcomes are presented, and practical considerations for selecting and adopting text analytic capabilities are examined.

Use of an Innovation Board to Integrate the Front End of Innovation with Formal NDP Processes: A Longitudinal Study

OVERVIEW: Drawing on a twelve-year case study, this article reports on the creation, structure, processes, and results of a major corporations innovation board. A variety of front-end activities are described to show how the innovation board integrates its front-end activities with formal development processes. This research describes the formation of the innovation board, the “light touch” process developed for front-end projects, and the specialized roles that emerged to conduct early stage innovation. The institution of the board and its evolving practices changed leadership and culture in the organization; the board was reorganized over time to address new challenges. The case study offers a detailed description of the activities and evolution of the board.

Innovation Training: Making Innovation a Core CompetencyA study of large companies shows that, although managers see human capital as central to innovation success, most aren’t providing innovation training.

OVERVIEW: Investment in innovation training has the potential to help firms create more successful product offerings, but the extent to which companies do innovation training is unknown. Although efforts to optimize formal processes and integrate Agile methods into development have led to more efficient innovation systems, a large skill gap remains that cannot be overcome by tools and processes alone. To explore the extent to which companies are (or are not) engaging in training to address those skill gaps, interviews were conducted with 30 senior R&D managers from Fortune 1000 companies. The results indicate that even though senior managers’ view of innovation success factors is more focused on human capital than in the past, innovation training rarely happens—80 percent of the companies in our sample reported rarely engaging in structured training to build innovation competencies. We offer some recommendations for addressing this gap.

Bridging the valley of death: lessons learned from 14 years of commercialization of technology education

This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.