Exploring causal relationships in an innovation program with Robust Portfolio Modeling

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 73, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 1028-1044

  Salo, Ahti ^a   Mild, Pekka ^a   Pentikäinen, Tuomo ^b  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b Finnish Science Park Association TEKEL   (Finland)

Author keywords

Data analysis; Decision modeling; Innovation policy; Research and technology programs

Indexed keywords

DATA MINING; DATA REDUCTION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PUBLISHING;

DATA COLLECTION; DECISION MODELING; INNOVATION POLICY;

DATA PROCESSING;

DECISION MAKING; INNOVATION; MODELING; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; RESEARCH PROGRAM; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; SOFTWARE; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

EURASIA; EUROPE; FINLAND; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA;

EID: 33748053677     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.005     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. In: Dosi G., Freeman C., Nelson R., Silverberg G., and Soete L. (Eds). Technical Change and Economic Theory (1988), Pinter, London
2. In: Lundvall B.-Å. (Ed). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning (1992), Pinter, London
3. Smits R., and Kuhlmann S. The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. Int. J. Foresight Innov. Policy 1 1 (2004) 4-32
4. Kortum, S., Lerner, J., 1998. Does venture capital spur innovation? NBER Working Paper Series No. 6846.
5. Mustar P. Spin-offs from public research: trends and outlooks. OECD STI Rev. 26 (2001) 165-172
6. Salmenkaita J.-P., and Salo A. Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of technologies. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 14 2 (2002) 183-200
7. Callan B. Generating spin-offs: evidence from across the OECD. OECD STI Rev. 26 (2001) 13-55
8. Hall B., and Van Reenen J. How effective are fiscal incentives in R&D? A review of the empirical evidence. Res. Policy 29 4-5 (2000) 449-469
9. Porter A.L. QTIP: quick technology intelligence process. New Horizons and Challenges for Future-oriented Technology Analysis, Proceedings of the EU-US Scientific Seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting and Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13-14, 2004 (2004), European Commission, Joint Research Centre
10. Liesiö, J., Mild, P., and Salo, A., Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection, Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2006) in press.
11. Henriksen A.D., and Traynor A.J. A practical R&D project-selection scoring tool. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 46 2 (1999) 158-170
12. Salo A., and Hämäläinen R.P. Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME)-elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 31 6 (2001) 533-545
13. Archer N., and Ghasemzadeh F. An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 17 4 (1999) 207-216
14. In: Thore S.A. (Ed). Technology Commercialization: DEA and Related Analytical Methods for Evaluating the Use and Implementation of Technical Innovation (2002), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
15. Stummer C., and Heidenberger K. Interactive R&D portfolio analysis with project interdependencies and time profiles of multiple objectives. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 50 2 (2003) 175-183
16. Di Benedetto C.A. Identifying the key success factors in new product launch. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 16 (1999) 530-544
17. Calantone R.J., Di Benedetto C.A., and Schmidt J.B. Using the analytic hierarchy process in new product screening. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 16 (1999) 65-76
18. Cooper R.G., Edgett S.J., and Kleinschmidt E.J. New product portfolio management: practices and performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 16 (1999) 333-351
19. Gustafsson J., and Salo A. Contingent portfolio programming for the management of risky projects. Oper. Res. 53 6 (2005) 946-956
20. Martino J.P. Research and Development Project Selection (1995), John Wiley and Sons, New York
21. Keeney R., and Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs (1976), John Wiley and Sons, New York
22. Belton V., and Stewart T.J. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach (2003), Kluwer, Boston
23. Kleinmuntz C.E., and Kleinmuntz D.N. A strategic approach to allocating capital in healthcare organizations. Healthc. Financ. Manage. 53 4 (1999) 52-58
24. Salo A., Gustafsson T., and Mild P. Evaluation of a cluster programme for Finnish forestry and forest industries. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 11 (2004) 139-154
25. Golabi K., Kirkwood C.W., and Sicherman A. Selecting a portfolio of solar energy projects using multiattribute preference theory. Manage. Sci. 27 2 (1981) 174-189
26. Salo A., and Punkka A. Rank inclusion in criteria hierarchies. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 163 2 (2005) 338-356
27. Salo A., and Hämäläinen R.P. Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements. Oper. Res. 40 6 (1992) 1053-1061
28. Mustajoki J., Hämäläinen R.P., and Salo A. Decision support by Interval SMART/SWING-incorporating imprecision in the SMART and SWING methods. Decis. Sci. 36 2 (2005) 317-339
29. M. Lindstedt, J. Liesiö, A. Salo. Participatory development of a strategic product portfolio in a telecommunication company, Int. J. Technol. Manag. (2006) in press.
30. T. Könnölä, V. Brummer, A. Salo. Diversity in foresight: insights from the fostering of innovation ideas, submitted for publication, Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory, October 2005.
31. Lemola T. Science, Technology and Innovation for the Best of Society. A Look at the Recent History of Finnish Science and Technology Policy (In Finnish), VTT, Group for Technology Studies, Working papers 57/01, VTT, Espoo, 2001 (2001)
32. Porter M. The Competitive Advantage of Nations (1990), The Free Press, New York
33. Hernesniemi H., Lammi M., and Ylä-Anttila P. Advantage Finland-The Future of Finnish Industries. ETLA Series B vol. 113 (1996), Taloustaito, Helsinki
34. Kuusisto J., Kotala S., Kulmala R., Viljamaa A., and Vinni S. Intermediary Evaluation of the TULI-program (in Finnish with an English summary), Tekes Technology Programs Reports 8/2004, Tekes, Helsinki (2004)
35. Keeney R. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (1992), Harvard University Press, Harvard, MA
36. Charnes A., Cooper W.W., and Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2 (1978) 429-444
37. Zhu J. Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking (2003), Kluwer, Boston
38. Porter A.L., Roper A.T., Mason T.W., Rossini F.A., and Banks J. Forecasting and Management of Technology (1991), Wiley, New York
39. Duda R.O., Hart P.E., and Stork D.G. Pattern Classification. 2nd ed. (2000), Wiley Inderscience, New York
40. Cooper R.G. Selecting winning new product projects: using the NewProd System. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2 (1985) 34-44
41. Watts R.J., and Porter A.L. Innovation forecasting. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 56 (1997) 25-47
42. Linstone H.A. Decision Making for Technology Executives: Using Multiple Perspectives to Improve Performance (1999), Artech House, Norwood, MA