MaryAnne Gobble - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by MaryAnne Gobble

Research-Technology Management

This column is the latest in a series of topics aimed at defining the vocabulary of innovation ma... more This column is the latest in a series of topics aimed at defining the vocabulary of innovation management. The object is to take on the profession's terms of art, exploring their origins and mapping their limitations, to provide new clarity, and thus restore some of their power. In looking at the terminology at the heart of innovation management and exploring how it has emerged and evolved, perhaps we can also get a glimpse of where innovation is heading. In previous installments, we looked at disruptive innovation and open innovation. Up this month: user innovation. As a kid hanging around his father's lab at MIT, Eric von Hippel noticed that many of the scientists made the instruments and equipment they needed to carry out their experiments. He also saw manufacturers' reps asking the scientists about their homemade equipment. That experience later led him to question the manufacturer-centered innovation model he was taught in graduate school--and eventually to develop the concept of user innovation. In his early work, as an assistant professor at MIT, he told MIT Sloan Management Review in a 2011 interview, he returned to the labs and "found that scientific instrument companies do get their innovations largely from users." That observation, reported in a 1976 article in Research Policy, became the foundation for a fundamental change in the way innovation is understood. Conventional wisdom has held, at least since Joseph Schumpeter's work in the 1930s, that innovation comes from manufacturers, who alone can muster the scale to support product development. As von Hippel told Sloan Management Review, the accepted paradigm is that producers "'find a need and fill it' with a new product they develop." Consumers, in this model, merely accept the solutions offered. Von Hippel's work has shown again and again that that's just not true. He has worked with other researchers to conduct studies that have shown, for example, that more than 25 percent of librarians have modified library information systems to better meet the needs of their libraries (with Pamela Morrison and John Roberts in 2000). As another study, by Shah and Franke, showed, "extreme" sports enthusiasts are particularly avid innovators. Indeed, a number of sports--skateboarding, hang gliding, and mountain biking among them--would not have been possible at all without the inventiveness of early practitioners. A series of national studies, reported in a 2011 article with Jeroen De Jong and Stephen Flowers and in a 2011 MIT Sloan article with Susumu Ozawa and De Jong, shows that the phenomenon persists across geographic and cultural boundaries. Separately, Konstantin Fursov and Thomas Turner found that at least 10 percent of Russians had either modified or invented a product for their own use. Their 2016 paper identifies two groups of user innovators. The first fits the profile identified in other national studies--"urban, male, well educated, and financially better-situated individuals who innovate for career reasons (or for fun)." But the authors identify a second group--"a much more diverse group of small town folks who innovate out of necessity"--as "unique to developing markets and to Russia in particular." This kind of necessity-driven user innovation may be unique to developing markets, but it seems unlikely that it's unique to Russia--it is remarkably similar to the concept of jugaad described by Navi Radjou and his coauthors in Jugaad Innovation. (1) Whatever it's called, wherever it happens, user innovation is widespread, perhaps even ubiquitous. Indeed, in a study published in the October 2016 issue of Research Policy, Nikolaus Franke and his coauthors argue that user innovation is even more widespread than these studies suggest--closer to 40 percent than 10. Von Hippel's model, laid out in detail in Democratizing Innovation, recognizes user innovation as a fundamentally social undertaking. User innovators don't create new products for financial reasons; rather, they invent what they need--and often share their ideas with others for free. …

Research-Technology Management, 2016

Every profession has a vocabulary, a dictionary of words and phrases peculiar to its own context ... more Every profession has a vocabulary, a dictionary of words and phrases peculiar to its own context that defines what practitioners do, how they do it, even how they think about their work. These are terms of art, and they are the base on which a community is built; they are at the heart of our notions of expertise, and they are the foundation of clear thinking and effective discussion. This is no less true for innovation management than it is for any field. In the hundreds of papers I see every year as RTM's managing editor, and the many more I read in other venues, in print and online, it seems that researchers and practitioners struggle with the shared vocabulary of the field. Business in general is infamous for playing fast and loose with language--appropriating other communities' terms of art inappropriately, verb-ing nouns and noun-ing verbs in ways that make language purists shudder, creating new jargon when existing language will get the job done just fine. (1) But perhaps the worst tendency in the innovation management literature is the tendency of practitioners, thinkers, and researchers to defang their own terms of art, rendering them powerless to define or illustrate, by applying them everywhere and anywhere. When everything is disruptive, and all innovation is open, we're left with no tools to distinguish what may be important about a new tool, a new approach, a new concept. With the next several installments of this column, I'm going to take on some of these terms, exploring their origins and mapping their limitations. In looking at how the terms of art at the heart of innovation management have emerged and evolved, perhaps we can get a glimpse of where innovation is heading--and maybe we can restore the power of some important ideas. First up: disruptive innovation. The term disruptive innovation was introduced by Clayton Christensen, first in a 1995 Harvard Business Review article coauthored with Joseph L. Bower and then in his 1997 book, The Innovator's Dilemma. Christensen himself has modified both the specific terminology and its import; his first work focused on disruptive technology, but in The Innovator's Solution, his 2003 follow-up to The Innovator's Dilemma, coauthored with Michael E. Raynor, he shifts the focus. Technology itself is not inherently disruptive, Christensen now argues. Rather, Christensen has come to believe, what is disruptive is how and to whom value is delivered in the marketplace--it's the business model that makes an innovation disruptive. And often, the disruption is the business model--particularly when the disruption comes from the low end of the market and the technology itself may not be new at all (often, it's even inferior to existing solutions). As Christensen defines them, "disruptive innovations were technologically straightforward," offering "a different package of attributes" from those valued by the mainstream market. Disruptive innovators gain a foothold in the market either by creating a low-end product that appeals to customers for whom existing products are too much--too complex, too expensive, too difficult--or by addressing a set of customers overlooked or ignored by mainstream competitors. Alternately, disruptive innovations may shed sophistication in a domain where incumbents have overdelivered--how much does an incremental improvement in screen resolution matter to consumers?--in order to deliver a new attribute that incumbents aren't offering--for instance, a screen that is less likely to break or crack. An incumbent facing disruption must choose between clinging to its existing markets--likely not a real long-term choice--or risking its advantage on new technologies and new business models. Some companies try to have it both ways, by experimenting with disruptive concepts in separate business units or corporate incubators, or by acquiring upstart disruptors. Since its introduction, the concept of disruptive innovation has, to put it mildly, taken off. …

Research-Technology Management, 2017

Leadership is an ongoing preoccupation for the innovation community. Every company wants to be a ... more Leadership is an ongoing preoccupation for the innovation community. Every company wants to be a market leader, and many rely on innovation to provide that leadership. At the national level, innovation ensures economic and technical leadership. And those broader forms of leadership are built on individual leadership: CTOs and CEOs who create and support the environments that nurture innovation; managers who provide the inspiration, encouragement, and support teams need io do amazing things; individual scientists and engineers who step up into ad hoc leadership roles when called upon. Often, the success of an extraordinary company is attributed to an iconic leader--think Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Sam Walton. (The list could be much longer; Fast Company's 2005 list of the 20th century's greatest business leaders runs to 50.) It's not surprising, then, that so much attention, in management generally and in innovation specifically, is devoted to leadership--defining it, identifying its key traits, helping employees develop it, spotting it in potential new hires. Hundreds of books have been written about business leadership, from the memoirs of famous CEOs to ethnographic studies of what constitutes leadership and qualitative analyses of the correlations between particular leadership traits and business performance. Two recent IRI Research projects, reported in three recent RTM articles ("The Role of Leadership in Innovation" and "Exploring the Principles of RD they are passive and uncritical, doing only as they are told. In the upper right are Effective Followers--critical thinkers and active participants who can take the initiative, solve problems, and manage themselves effectively. …

Research-Technology Management, 2017

This special issue is focused on digitalization and the wave of change it’s bringing to RD it wil... more This special issue is focused on digitalization and the wave of change it’s bringing to RD it will roll thro...

Research-Technology Management, 2018

Research-Technology Management, 2019

Research-Technology Management, 2017

This column is the latest in a series of discussions aimed at defining the vocabulary of innovati... more This column is the latest in a series of discussions aimed at defining the vocabulary of innovation management. The object is to take on the profession's terms of art, exploring their origins and mapping their limitations, to provide new clarity and thus restore some of their power. In looking at the terminology at the heart of innovation management and exploring how it has emerged and evolved, perhaps we can get also a glimpse of where innovation is heading. In previous installments, we looked at disruptive innovation, open innovation, and user innovation. Up this month, a somewhat different topic: the sharing economy. Or the peer-to-peer economy. Or perhaps you're partial to the on-demand economy or the access economy. Maybe the platform economy? We've had a half decade or so of breathless hype around the idea; the Economist announced "the rise of the sharing economy" in 2013. Much of it has been generated by or on behalf of companies like Uber and Airbnb. But despite the constant stream of press on the topic, there is not a general consensus around what constitutes the sharing economy. The headline for Steven Greenhouse's December 2016 New York Times essay aptly captures the questions around the terminology for this emergent economic sector: "The Whatchamacallit Economy." Even Arttn Sundararajan, author of a book called The Sharing Economy, isn't sure about the "sharing economy" as a term--according to Greenhouse, Sundararajan chose the title "because so many people use it," even though he prefers "crowd-based capitalism." Rachel Botsman, coauthor of an early work on the phenomenon, What's Mine is Yours, prefers "collaborative consumption." A number of other terms have been suggested that escape the inaccuracies and ambiguities of the "sharing economy" terminology. Of course, each of these reflects the particular preoccupations of the person using it. Sundararajan's "crowd-based capitalism," perhaps the most inclusive of the alternatives, speaks to the way in which platforms like Uber and Airbnb draw on the resources of the crowd to serve the needs of the crowd, taking their cut along the way. Botsman's "collaborative consumption" highlights the focus on distributing the cost and use of capital assets, such as hotels, cars, and designer gowns (via Rent the Runway), as well as on the reuse of assets, via platforms such as Ebay and thredUP (a market for selling used designer clothes). "Access economy" describes a business model that offers customers access to a product or service as and when it's needed. Other terms focus on the technical aspects of the business model driving firms in this sector. The US Department of Commerce introduced the term "digital matching firms" to describe "companies that use Internet and smartphone-enabled apps to match service providers with consumers, help ensure trust and quality assurance via peer-rating services, and rely on flexible service providers who, when necessary, use their own assets." Similarly, according to Adam Chandler, in a 2016 Atlantic article, "platform economy," distinguishing between "labor platforms" (Uber, TaskRabbit) and "capital platforms" (Airbnb). For Botsman--and I'd have to agree--each of these terms actually refers to something different, even if they are often used interchangeably. But "sharing economy" has become the default term; it has even been added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015, a sign that, as Botsman points out in a Fast Company article that year, "the sharing economy as an idea is here to stay." But that's happened--as it so often does--as the concept itself has become fractured and confusing, applied to so many ideas that it no longer clearly denotes any. So what is meant by the "sharing economy"? As Juliet Schor points out in a 2014 essay, that can be hard to pin down, nor is it clear which companies are included and which ones aren't. Occasional labor exchange TaskRabbit is generally considered part of the sharing economy; Amazon's Mechanical Turk is not. …

Research-Technology Management, 2019

Research-Technology Management, 2019

Research-Technology Management, 2019

Research-Technology Management, 2019

Research-Technology Management, 2019

In this space, we offer a series of summaries on key topics, with pointers to important resources... more In this space, we offer a series of summaries on key topics, with pointers to important resources, to keep you informed of new developments and help expand your repertoire of tools and ideas. We welcome your contributions, in the form of suggestions for topics and of column submissions.

Research-Technology Management, 2018

The winning article, "Design for Service: The Advanced Services Transformation Roadmap at Rolls-R... more The winning article, "Design for Service: The Advanced Services Transformation Roadmap at Rolls-Royce," was published in the July/August 2017 edition of RTM. The article describes one tool the pioneering company uses in designing aircraft engines that will be sold under services contracts-the Advanced Services Transformation Roadmap. The roadmap ensures that the services Rolls-Royce incorporates with its engines are considered at every stage of the design process, from first conception to final testing. In accepting the Holland Award, Harrison joins many accomplished recipients, including John Seely Brown, who received the award for his 1998 paper "Seeing Differently: A Role for Pioneering Research"; Robert Cooper, who won for his 1990 article "New Products: What Distinguishes the Winners?"; and William Banholzer, for his 2010 paper "Creating Value in Turbulent Times." "We are thrilled to recognize Andrew Harrison with the Holland Award," said Ed Bernstein, IRI president. "Harrison's leadership in the development, introduction, and improvement of Design for Service capabilities across Rolls-Royce is illustrative of his tremendous contributions to R&D and innovation management." The Maurice Holland Award, which is named in honor of IRI's founder, recognizes the best papers published in RTM in the previous volume year. The award, which was traditionally given at the IRI Member Summit but will now be awarded at the Annual Conference, is a crystal replica of a World War I "Jenny," symbolizing the spirit and dynamism of Maurice Holland, who flew a Jenny during the war.

Research-Technology Management, 2018

Research-Technology Management, 2012

Research Technology Management, Sep 1, 2012

Research Technology Management, Nov 1, 2012

Research Technology Management, Jul 1, 2012

Research Technology Management, Mar 1, 2013

Research Technology Management, Mar 1, 2012

Research-Technology Management

This column is the latest in a series of topics aimed at defining the vocabulary of innovation ma... more This column is the latest in a series of topics aimed at defining the vocabulary of innovation management. The object is to take on the profession's terms of art, exploring their origins and mapping their limitations, to provide new clarity, and thus restore some of their power. In looking at the terminology at the heart of innovation management and exploring how it has emerged and evolved, perhaps we can also get a glimpse of where innovation is heading. In previous installments, we looked at disruptive innovation and open innovation. Up this month: user innovation. As a kid hanging around his father's lab at MIT, Eric von Hippel noticed that many of the scientists made the instruments and equipment they needed to carry out their experiments. He also saw manufacturers' reps asking the scientists about their homemade equipment. That experience later led him to question the manufacturer-centered innovation model he was taught in graduate school--and eventually to develop the concept of user innovation. In his early work, as an assistant professor at MIT, he told MIT Sloan Management Review in a 2011 interview, he returned to the labs and "found that scientific instrument companies do get their innovations largely from users." That observation, reported in a 1976 article in Research Policy, became the foundation for a fundamental change in the way innovation is understood. Conventional wisdom has held, at least since Joseph Schumpeter's work in the 1930s, that innovation comes from manufacturers, who alone can muster the scale to support product development. As von Hippel told Sloan Management Review, the accepted paradigm is that producers "'find a need and fill it' with a new product they develop." Consumers, in this model, merely accept the solutions offered. Von Hippel's work has shown again and again that that's just not true. He has worked with other researchers to conduct studies that have shown, for example, that more than 25 percent of librarians have modified library information systems to better meet the needs of their libraries (with Pamela Morrison and John Roberts in 2000). As another study, by Shah and Franke, showed, "extreme" sports enthusiasts are particularly avid innovators. Indeed, a number of sports--skateboarding, hang gliding, and mountain biking among them--would not have been possible at all without the inventiveness of early practitioners. A series of national studies, reported in a 2011 article with Jeroen De Jong and Stephen Flowers and in a 2011 MIT Sloan article with Susumu Ozawa and De Jong, shows that the phenomenon persists across geographic and cultural boundaries. Separately, Konstantin Fursov and Thomas Turner found that at least 10 percent of Russians had either modified or invented a product for their own use. Their 2016 paper identifies two groups of user innovators. The first fits the profile identified in other national studies--"urban, male, well educated, and financially better-situated individuals who innovate for career reasons (or for fun)." But the authors identify a second group--"a much more diverse group of small town folks who innovate out of necessity"--as "unique to developing markets and to Russia in particular." This kind of necessity-driven user innovation may be unique to developing markets, but it seems unlikely that it's unique to Russia--it is remarkably similar to the concept of jugaad described by Navi Radjou and his coauthors in Jugaad Innovation. (1) Whatever it's called, wherever it happens, user innovation is widespread, perhaps even ubiquitous. Indeed, in a study published in the October 2016 issue of Research Policy, Nikolaus Franke and his coauthors argue that user innovation is even more widespread than these studies suggest--closer to 40 percent than 10. Von Hippel's model, laid out in detail in Democratizing Innovation, recognizes user innovation as a fundamentally social undertaking. User innovators don't create new products for financial reasons; rather, they invent what they need--and often share their ideas with others for free. …

Research-Technology Management, 2016

Every profession has a vocabulary, a dictionary of words and phrases peculiar to its own context ... more Every profession has a vocabulary, a dictionary of words and phrases peculiar to its own context that defines what practitioners do, how they do it, even how they think about their work. These are terms of art, and they are the base on which a community is built; they are at the heart of our notions of expertise, and they are the foundation of clear thinking and effective discussion. This is no less true for innovation management than it is for any field. In the hundreds of papers I see every year as RTM's managing editor, and the many more I read in other venues, in print and online, it seems that researchers and practitioners struggle with the shared vocabulary of the field. Business in general is infamous for playing fast and loose with language--appropriating other communities' terms of art inappropriately, verb-ing nouns and noun-ing verbs in ways that make language purists shudder, creating new jargon when existing language will get the job done just fine. (1) But perhaps the worst tendency in the innovation management literature is the tendency of practitioners, thinkers, and researchers to defang their own terms of art, rendering them powerless to define or illustrate, by applying them everywhere and anywhere. When everything is disruptive, and all innovation is open, we're left with no tools to distinguish what may be important about a new tool, a new approach, a new concept. With the next several installments of this column, I'm going to take on some of these terms, exploring their origins and mapping their limitations. In looking at how the terms of art at the heart of innovation management have emerged and evolved, perhaps we can get a glimpse of where innovation is heading--and maybe we can restore the power of some important ideas. First up: disruptive innovation. The term disruptive innovation was introduced by Clayton Christensen, first in a 1995 Harvard Business Review article coauthored with Joseph L. Bower and then in his 1997 book, The Innovator's Dilemma. Christensen himself has modified both the specific terminology and its import; his first work focused on disruptive technology, but in The Innovator's Solution, his 2003 follow-up to The Innovator's Dilemma, coauthored with Michael E. Raynor, he shifts the focus. Technology itself is not inherently disruptive, Christensen now argues. Rather, Christensen has come to believe, what is disruptive is how and to whom value is delivered in the marketplace--it's the business model that makes an innovation disruptive. And often, the disruption is the business model--particularly when the disruption comes from the low end of the market and the technology itself may not be new at all (often, it's even inferior to existing solutions). As Christensen defines them, "disruptive innovations were technologically straightforward," offering "a different package of attributes" from those valued by the mainstream market. Disruptive innovators gain a foothold in the market either by creating a low-end product that appeals to customers for whom existing products are too much--too complex, too expensive, too difficult--or by addressing a set of customers overlooked or ignored by mainstream competitors. Alternately, disruptive innovations may shed sophistication in a domain where incumbents have overdelivered--how much does an incremental improvement in screen resolution matter to consumers?--in order to deliver a new attribute that incumbents aren't offering--for instance, a screen that is less likely to break or crack. An incumbent facing disruption must choose between clinging to its existing markets--likely not a real long-term choice--or risking its advantage on new technologies and new business models. Some companies try to have it both ways, by experimenting with disruptive concepts in separate business units or corporate incubators, or by acquiring upstart disruptors. Since its introduction, the concept of disruptive innovation has, to put it mildly, taken off. …

Research-Technology Management, 2017

Leadership is an ongoing preoccupation for the innovation community. Every company wants to be a ... more Leadership is an ongoing preoccupation for the innovation community. Every company wants to be a market leader, and many rely on innovation to provide that leadership. At the national level, innovation ensures economic and technical leadership. And those broader forms of leadership are built on individual leadership: CTOs and CEOs who create and support the environments that nurture innovation; managers who provide the inspiration, encouragement, and support teams need io do amazing things; individual scientists and engineers who step up into ad hoc leadership roles when called upon. Often, the success of an extraordinary company is attributed to an iconic leader--think Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Sam Walton. (The list could be much longer; Fast Company's 2005 list of the 20th century's greatest business leaders runs to 50.) It's not surprising, then, that so much attention, in management generally and in innovation specifically, is devoted to leadership--defining it, identifying its key traits, helping employees develop it, spotting it in potential new hires. Hundreds of books have been written about business leadership, from the memoirs of famous CEOs to ethnographic studies of what constitutes leadership and qualitative analyses of the correlations between particular leadership traits and business performance. Two recent IRI Research projects, reported in three recent RTM articles ("The Role of Leadership in Innovation" and "Exploring the Principles of RD they are passive and uncritical, doing only as they are told. In the upper right are Effective Followers--critical thinkers and active participants who can take the initiative, solve problems, and manage themselves effectively. …

Research-Technology Management, 2017

This special issue is focused on digitalization and the wave of change it’s bringing to RD it wil... more This special issue is focused on digitalization and the wave of change it’s bringing to RD it will roll thro...

Research-Technology Management, 2018

Research-Technology Management, 2019

Research-Technology Management, 2017

This column is the latest in a series of discussions aimed at defining the vocabulary of innovati... more This column is the latest in a series of discussions aimed at defining the vocabulary of innovation management. The object is to take on the profession's terms of art, exploring their origins and mapping their limitations, to provide new clarity and thus restore some of their power. In looking at the terminology at the heart of innovation management and exploring how it has emerged and evolved, perhaps we can get also a glimpse of where innovation is heading. In previous installments, we looked at disruptive innovation, open innovation, and user innovation. Up this month, a somewhat different topic: the sharing economy. Or the peer-to-peer economy. Or perhaps you're partial to the on-demand economy or the access economy. Maybe the platform economy? We've had a half decade or so of breathless hype around the idea; the Economist announced "the rise of the sharing economy" in 2013. Much of it has been generated by or on behalf of companies like Uber and Airbnb. But despite the constant stream of press on the topic, there is not a general consensus around what constitutes the sharing economy. The headline for Steven Greenhouse's December 2016 New York Times essay aptly captures the questions around the terminology for this emergent economic sector: "The Whatchamacallit Economy." Even Arttn Sundararajan, author of a book called The Sharing Economy, isn't sure about the "sharing economy" as a term--according to Greenhouse, Sundararajan chose the title "because so many people use it," even though he prefers "crowd-based capitalism." Rachel Botsman, coauthor of an early work on the phenomenon, What's Mine is Yours, prefers "collaborative consumption." A number of other terms have been suggested that escape the inaccuracies and ambiguities of the "sharing economy" terminology. Of course, each of these reflects the particular preoccupations of the person using it. Sundararajan's "crowd-based capitalism," perhaps the most inclusive of the alternatives, speaks to the way in which platforms like Uber and Airbnb draw on the resources of the crowd to serve the needs of the crowd, taking their cut along the way. Botsman's "collaborative consumption" highlights the focus on distributing the cost and use of capital assets, such as hotels, cars, and designer gowns (via Rent the Runway), as well as on the reuse of assets, via platforms such as Ebay and thredUP (a market for selling used designer clothes). "Access economy" describes a business model that offers customers access to a product or service as and when it's needed. Other terms focus on the technical aspects of the business model driving firms in this sector. The US Department of Commerce introduced the term "digital matching firms" to describe "companies that use Internet and smartphone-enabled apps to match service providers with consumers, help ensure trust and quality assurance via peer-rating services, and rely on flexible service providers who, when necessary, use their own assets." Similarly, according to Adam Chandler, in a 2016 Atlantic article, "platform economy," distinguishing between "labor platforms" (Uber, TaskRabbit) and "capital platforms" (Airbnb). For Botsman--and I'd have to agree--each of these terms actually refers to something different, even if they are often used interchangeably. But "sharing economy" has become the default term; it has even been added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015, a sign that, as Botsman points out in a Fast Company article that year, "the sharing economy as an idea is here to stay." But that's happened--as it so often does--as the concept itself has become fractured and confusing, applied to so many ideas that it no longer clearly denotes any. So what is meant by the "sharing economy"? As Juliet Schor points out in a 2014 essay, that can be hard to pin down, nor is it clear which companies are included and which ones aren't. Occasional labor exchange TaskRabbit is generally considered part of the sharing economy; Amazon's Mechanical Turk is not. …

Research-Technology Management, 2019

Research-Technology Management, 2019

Research-Technology Management, 2019

Research-Technology Management, 2019

Research-Technology Management, 2019

In this space, we offer a series of summaries on key topics, with pointers to important resources... more In this space, we offer a series of summaries on key topics, with pointers to important resources, to keep you informed of new developments and help expand your repertoire of tools and ideas. We welcome your contributions, in the form of suggestions for topics and of column submissions.

Research-Technology Management, 2018

The winning article, "Design for Service: The Advanced Services Transformation Roadmap at Rolls-R... more The winning article, "Design for Service: The Advanced Services Transformation Roadmap at Rolls-Royce," was published in the July/August 2017 edition of RTM. The article describes one tool the pioneering company uses in designing aircraft engines that will be sold under services contracts-the Advanced Services Transformation Roadmap. The roadmap ensures that the services Rolls-Royce incorporates with its engines are considered at every stage of the design process, from first conception to final testing. In accepting the Holland Award, Harrison joins many accomplished recipients, including John Seely Brown, who received the award for his 1998 paper "Seeing Differently: A Role for Pioneering Research"; Robert Cooper, who won for his 1990 article "New Products: What Distinguishes the Winners?"; and William Banholzer, for his 2010 paper "Creating Value in Turbulent Times." "We are thrilled to recognize Andrew Harrison with the Holland Award," said Ed Bernstein, IRI president. "Harrison's leadership in the development, introduction, and improvement of Design for Service capabilities across Rolls-Royce is illustrative of his tremendous contributions to R&D and innovation management." The Maurice Holland Award, which is named in honor of IRI's founder, recognizes the best papers published in RTM in the previous volume year. The award, which was traditionally given at the IRI Member Summit but will now be awarded at the Annual Conference, is a crystal replica of a World War I "Jenny," symbolizing the spirit and dynamism of Maurice Holland, who flew a Jenny during the war.

Research-Technology Management, 2018

Research-Technology Management, 2012

Research Technology Management, Sep 1, 2012

Research Technology Management, Nov 1, 2012

Research Technology Management, Jul 1, 2012

Research Technology Management, Mar 1, 2013

Research Technology Management, Mar 1, 2012