Most common argument for non-innovative and non-generating of cutting edge research is money. This may seem to some as an easy excuse or as mission impossible.
However, there are many ways of innovating and generating the cutting edge research with minimum cost.
What are the most effective strategies and methodologies to innovate and generate cutting edge research in most economical way?
Hi Eduard,
Interesting question- and highly rellevant. If we take the approach of “disappointment and failure” quite many studies have uncovered reasons for ineffective and ambition-decreasing factors leading to the top management teams frustration with their investment.
see e.g this paper (and the reference list, not least)
Article Fail forward: Mitigating failure in energy research and innovation
If you cannot access then feel free to use the “request full version” here at RG...
best,
Jacob
Read the following paper
Article Managing Creative People: Strategies and Tactics for Innovation
about your question: What are the most effective strategies and methodologies to innovate and generate cutting edge research in most economical way?
I recommend you read the work done by
Kim (1997)On Linsu Kim’s Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics
of Korea’s Technological Learning.
Hobday (1995). East Asian Latecomer Firms: Learning the Technology
of Electronics.
There are many factors and in particular a very important one is the outsourcing of research or development if you do not have the capacity to do so. Some countries with R & D capabilities can offer good developments at low costs in some industrial sectors; Now, the key is how to transfer and appropriate this knowledge to learn and generate internal capacities in the R & D structures of the organization.
There are various strategies that you may adopt to promote innovation in research. But your emphasis, it seems, is to find the most economical way - that means you wish to cut costs but increase productivity in creativity.
That severely limits the strategies you can pursue. One that I can recommend (one that worked for me) is the incentivizing of output. That means, you create an ecosystem that rewards based on the quality and source of creative ideas albeit with low initial baselines. You can choose to create a competitive environment however, if you are limited in funding, you should always incentivize output that is most suited to your goals. Do note that the Achilles Heel of this approach is that your project may not be attractive due to the lower initial baselines, the talent you attract might be mediocre.
This might affect your team culture and motivation - but if you incentivize output that you need, you provide a trajectory to your research team with a control for you to define the path you want to take. Furthermore, you can expend limited resources on areas that most suit your interests. But again, the initial team building process is going to be very difficult.
Another approach is one suggested by Furr & Dyer (2014) who propose an incremental approach, depending on what way you choose to pursue innovation. It's an HBR article that I found very helpful. But it's more for business innovation which I concur might suit you, given that your vision and goals for innovation is the same as demanded in an small and medium sized business environment.
https://hbr.org/2014/12/choose-the-right-innovation-method-at-the-right-time
Finally, something that has worked for me is to hire entrepreneurs that possess the skills that you seek. Small business entrepreneurs are remarkable in their understanding of cost control and tend to find out ways that you never thought were possible. This finding has been one of personal observation - and might need to be examined further, for me it's a worthwhile logical inference to draw.
Hope this helps.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology