Organizational designs for R&D
Abstract
Executive OverviewResearch and development is becoming increasingly business-oriented, and corporate reliance on new technology and innovation is greater than ever. How can R&D activities be organized to yield the greatest value for the enterprise? A study of 14 leading technology-intensive companies in six industries illustrates how three organizational designs are being used to manage distributed, flexible R&D organizations: (1) decentralized, (2) networked, and (3) integrated. Decentralized designs limit the role of a central R&D group; they direct R&D resources more toward products and markets rather than basic scientific activities. Networked designs push the boundaries of R&D outside the confines of a central R&D group and the firm as a whole. Integrated models use sophisticated communication linkages to tie centralized, science-based activities with the business needs of the corporation. Within the three design approaches, there are design variants, each with its positive and negative tradeoffs. We show how some designs for R&D are more effective than others and provide suggestions for how companies in search of an ideal organization design for R&D can select among possible configurations to promote adaptive, value-oriented R&D organizations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Learning from collaboration is a function of a firm's access to knowledge and its possession of the capabilities for utilising the relationships and knowledge established.
“Learning from collaboration was found in the empirical work reviewed to be a function of a firms' access to knowledge and its possession of the capabilities for utilising the relationships and knowledge established (DeSanctis, Glass and Ensing, 2002).”
From Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence (2004) · cites this paper as DeSanctis, Glass and Ensing, 2002
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00101.x · Cited by 1,747 · see citing works
Business value appropriation roadmap for artificial intelligence
Mishra, A. N., & Pani, A. K. (2021) · VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems · doi:10.1108/vjikms-07-2019-0107 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
- Authors
- DeSanctis, G., Glass, J. T., & Ensing, I. M.
- ORCID
- Glass, Jeffrey T.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Perspectives
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 55-66
- ISSN
- 1558-9080 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4529
- OpenAlex
- W2118924301
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 6.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Perspectives (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Organizational Management and Leadership
- Keywords
- technology-intensive companies, innovation management, adaptive organizations
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