IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v146y2019icp1-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking the national defense R&D innovation system for latecomer: Defense R&D governance matrix

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Jun Gon
  • Park, Min Jae

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to present defense R&D governance model for governance analysis and decision making in defense R&D programs. In particular, by utilizing the MIT Sloan IT governance matrix and through Delphi surveys of a group of defense R&D experts, an efficient governance model of national R&D and weapon systems acquisition area is deducted and at the same time policy implications and directions of defense R&D and weapon systems decision making processes for technology-pursuing countries are presented. This study contributes to the decision making of R&D and weapon systems acquisition programs that utilize defense R&D governance, by allowing many corporations trying to enter emerging economies to understand those countries' defense R&D governance models. This study emphasizes that the governance with the most optimal combination of the Decision types (R&D Principles, R&D Architecture, R&D Infrastructure, Business Application Needs, R&D Investment) and the Archetypes (National R&D Committee Monarchy, Defense Agency Monarchy, Federal, Defense Industries Monarchy) must be reflected on national defense R&D programs and weapons systems acquisition procedures, in accordance with the scale and budget of a given program. This can be applied through various means to benefit national defense R&D and weapons system-related projects in different countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Jun Gon & Park, Min Jae, 2019. "Rethinking the national defense R&D innovation system for latecomer: Defense R&D governance matrix," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 1-11.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:146:y:2019:i:c:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518314434
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Joosung J. & Yoon, Hyungseok, 2015. "A comparative study of technological learning and organizational capability development in complex products systems: Distinctive paths of three latecomers in military aircraft industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1296-1313.
    2. Hendrickson, Joshua R. & Salter, Alexander William & Albrecht, Brian C., 2018. "Preventing plunder: Military technology, capital accumulation, and economic growth," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 154-173.
    3. E. Desli & A. Gkoulgkoutsika & C. Katrakilidis, 2017. "Investigating the Dynamic Interaction between Military Spending and Economic Growth," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 511-526, August.
    4. Stephanie Neuman, 2010. "Power, Influence, And Hierarchy: Defense Industries In A Unipolar World," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 105-134.
    5. Godoe, Helge, 2000. "Innovation regimes, R&D and radical innovations in telecommunications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1033-1046, December.
    6. Cho, Yonghee & Yoon, Seong-Pil & Kim, Karp-Soo, 2016. "An industrial technology roadmap for supporting public R&D planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Coccia, Mario, 2018. "A Theory of the General Causes of Long Waves: War, General Purpose Technologies, and Economic Change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 287-295.
    8. Hobday, Mike & Rush, Howard & Tidd, Joe, 2000. "Innovation in complex products and system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 793-804, August.
    9. Paulo Figueiredo & Silveira Gutenberg & Roberto Sbragia, 2007. "Risk-Sharing Partnerships With Suppliers: The Case Of Embraer," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Marianne Hörlesberger & Mohamed El-Nawawi & Tarek Khalil (ed.), Challenges In The Management Of New Technologies, chapter 17, pages 241-262, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Norman Dalkey & Olaf Helmer, 1963. "An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 458-467, April.
    11. Erik Arnold, 2004. "Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 3-17, April.
    12. Guo, Di & Guo, Yan & Jiang, Kun, 2018. "Governance and effects of public R&D subsidies: Evidence from China," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 74, pages 18-31.
    13. Mowery, David C., 2010. "Military R&D and Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1219-1256, Elsevier.
    14. Burmaoglu, Serhat & Sarıtas, Ozcan, 2017. "Changing characteristics of warfare and the future of Military R&D," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 151-161.
    15. Nill, Jan & Kemp, Ren, 2009. "Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to paradigm?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 668-680, May.
    16. Malik, Tariq H., 2018. "Defence investment and the transformation national science and technology: A perspective on the exploitation of high technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 199-208.
    17. Li, Peter Ping, 2010. "Toward a learning-based view of internationalization: The accelerated trajectories of cross-border learning for latecomers," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 43-59, March.
    18. Stowsky, Jay, 2004. "Secrets to shield or share? new dilemmas for military R&D policy in the digital age," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 257-269, March.
    19. Carter Bloch, 2007. "Assessing recent developments in innovation measurement: The third edition of the Oslo Manual," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 23-34, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liwång, Hans, 2022. "Defense development: The role of co-creation in filling the gap between policy-makers and technology development," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christoph Markmann & Alexander Spickermann & Heiko A. von der Gracht & Alexander Brem, 2021. "Improving the question formulation in Delphi‐like surveys: Analysis of the effects of abstract language and amount of information on response behavior," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), March.
    2. Guillou, Sarah & Lazaric, Nathalie & Longhi, Christian & Rochhia, Sylvie, 2009. "The French defence industry in the knowledge management era: A historical overview and evidence from empirical data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 170-180, February.
    3. Chi-Yo Huang & Jih-Jeng Huang & You-Ning Chang & Yen-Chu Lin, 2021. "A Fuzzy-MOP-Based Competence Set Expansion Method for Technology Roadmap Definitions," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-26, January.
    4. Meng, Jia-Hui & Wang, Jian, 2023. "The policy trajectory of dual-use technology integration governance in China: A sequential analysis of policy evolution," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    5. Pierre Barbaroux & Victor Santos Paulino, 2022. "Why do motives matter? A demand-based view of the dynamics of a complex products and systems (CoPS) industry," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1175-1204, September.
    6. Liu, Yong & Du, Jun-liang & Yang, Jin-bi & Qian, Wu-yong & Forrest, Jeffrey Yi-Lin, 2019. "An incentive mechanism for general purpose technologies R&D based on the concept of super-conflict equilibrium: Empirical evidence from nano industrial technology in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 185-197.
    7. Galati, Francesco & Bigliardi, Barbara & Galati, Roberta & Petroni, Giorgio, 2021. "Managing structural inter-organizational tensions in complex product systems projects: Lessons from the Metis case," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 723-735.
    8. Bo Kyeong Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "Exploring the effect of dual use on the value of military technology patents based on the renewal decision," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1203-1227, September.
    9. Lee, Joosung J. & Yoon, Hyungseok, 2015. "A comparative study of technological learning and organizational capability development in complex products systems: Distinctive paths of three latecomers in military aircraft industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1296-1313.
    10. Claude Serfati, 2008. "Le rôle de l'innovation de Défense dans le système national d'innovation de la France," Innovations, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 61-83.
    11. Malik, Tariq H., 2018. "Defence investment and the transformation national science and technology: A perspective on the exploitation of high technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 199-208.
    12. Coccia, Mario, 2019. "Why do nations produce science advances and new technology?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    13. Prommer, Lisa & Tiberius, Victor & Kraus, Sascha, 2020. "Exploring the future of startup leadership development," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).
    14. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    15. Jarle Aarstad & Olav Andreas Kvitastein & Stig-Erik Jakobsen, 2019. "What Drives Enterprise Product Innovation? Assessing How Regional, National, And International Inter-Firm Collaboration Complement Or Substitute For R&D Investments," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(05), pages 1-25, June.
    16. Wang, Liang & Tan, Justin & Li, Wan, 2018. "The impacts of spatial positioning on regional new venture creation and firm mortality over the industry life cycle," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 41-52.
    17. Bokrantz, Jon & Skoogh, Anders & Berlin, Cecilia & Stahre, Johan, 2017. "Maintenance in digitalised manufacturing: Delphi-based scenarios for 2030," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 154-169.
    18. Frida Thomas Pacho, 2018. "Diversified Network Effects on Innovation Performance in Tanzania: Innovation Strategy in Service Firms," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation, Macrothink Institute, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation, vol. 5(1), pages 1-1, December.
    19. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    20. Prianto Budi Saptono & Gustofan Mahmud & Intan Pratiwi & Dwi Purwanto & Ismail Khozen & Muhamad Akbar Aditama & Siti Khodijah & Maria Eurelia Wayan & Rina Yuliastuty Asmara & Ferry Jie, 2023. "Development of Climate-Related Disclosure Indicators for Application in Indonesia: A Delphi Method Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-25, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:146:y:2019:i:c:p:1-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.