The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Development of a Technical Innovation Audit
Abstract
Measuring performance is helpful, but it's only part of the story. To learn from our past successes and failures, we need to understand how they came about. To continually improve, we must examine not only our innovation performance, but the processes with which we develop and exploit these innovations. Vittorio Chiesa, Paul Coughlan, and Chris Voss present a framework for auditing technical innovation management. Their auditing methodology goes beyond performance measurement by highlighting problems and needs, and providing information that can be used in developing action plans for improving performance. The foundation of their audit methodology is a process model of technical innovation. The model addresses the managerial processes and the organizational mechanisms through which innovation is performed. Underlying this method is the notion that success in innovation is related to good practice in the relevant management processes. The model identifies four core processes: concept generation, product development, process innovation, and technology acquisition. Supporting these core processes are three enabling processes: the deployment of human and financial resources, the effective use of appropriate systems and tools, and senior management leadership and direction. The outcome from these core and enabling processes is performance in terms of innovation and the resulting competitiveness in the marketplace. This model provides the basis for a detailed audit of current innovation practice and performance. The audit has two dimensions: the process audit assesses whether the processes necessary for innovation are in place and the degree to which best practice is used; and the performance audit focuses on the outcomes of each core and enabling process and of the overall process of technological innovation and its effect on competitiveness. The performance audit helps identify needs and problems, but it doesn't explain why gaps exist between current and required performance and it doesn't provide an action plan for closing these gaps. The process audit meets these needs. The audit methodology uses a two-level approach: a rapid assessment based on innovation scorecards and an in-depth audit. These scorecards provide an overview of the company's strengths and weaknesses with regard to technical innovation management, highlighting those areas that require in-depth examination. The in-depth audit identifies not only the processes, but the areas within each requiring attention.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Multi‐Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x · Cited by 3,244
DEVELOPING INNOVATION CAPABILITY IN ORGANISATIONS: A DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES APPROACH
LAWSON, B., & SAMSON, D. (2001) · International Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1142/s1363919601000427 · Cited by 1,581
Innovation management measurement: A review
Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00119.x · Cited by 1,369
Relationships between innovation stimulus, innovation capacity, and innovation performance
Prajogo, D. I., & Ahmed, P. K. (2006) · R&D Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00450.x · Cited by 708
Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2013) · Journal of Small Business Management · doi:10.1111/jsbm.12005 · Cited by 450
Metadata
- Authors
- Chiesa, V., Coughlan, P., & Voss, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-03-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 105-136
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1992066054
- Cited by
- 711
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development of a Technical Innovation Audit. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0737-6782(95)00109-3
- The paper
- Chiesa, V., Coughlan, P., & Voss, C. (1996). Development of a Technical Innovation Audit. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(95)00109-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.