IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i5p599-608..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From thematic to organizational prioritization: the challenges of implementing RDI priorities

Author

Listed:
  • Tomas Hellström
  • Merle Jacob
  • Karolin Sjöö

Abstract

While priority setting for research, development and innovation (RDI) traditionally focuses on which thematic areas should be supported, less is known about how such goals are implemented on the agency level. Key challenges are how to translate broad priorities into programs and projects, how to govern the knowledge base, and how to handle organizational tensions during implementation. Many of these challenges must be addressed by ‘street-level’ administrators and agency experts during implementation. We take these agency challenges to be of central concern for RDI policy implementation, and propose a process perspective on priority setting. We apply this perspective to a case study of the Swedish Energy Agency and highlight a number of insights such as the tension between existing organizational capabilities and new goals for research and innovation. We argue that these insights are particularly relevant to other research funders with a sectoral mandate, for example, health, defense, or agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomas Hellström & Merle Jacob & Karolin Sjöö, 2017. "From thematic to organizational prioritization: the challenges of implementing RDI priorities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 599-608.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:5:p:599-608.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw087
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. William Bonvillian & Richard Atta, 2011. "ARPA-E and DARPA: Applying the DARPA model to energy innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 469-513, October.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. E. Fisher & G. Maricle, 2015. "Higher-level responsiveness? Socio-technical integration within US and UK nanotechnology research priority setting," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 72-85.
    4. Hariolf Grupp & Sybille Hinze & Barbara Breitschopf, 2009. "Defining regional research priorities: a new approach," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(7), pages 549-559, August.
    5. Stewart, Jenny, 1995. "Models of priority-setting for public sector research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 115-126, January.
    6. Bosin, Morris Robert, 1992. "Priority setting in government : Beyond the magic bullet," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, January.
    7. Harrison, Anthony J. & Appleby, John, 2010. "Optimising waiting: a view from the English National Health Service," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 397-409, October.
    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. Brattström, Erik & Hellström, Tomas, 2019. "Street-level priority-setting: The role of discretion in implementation of research, development, and innovation priorities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 240-247.
    2. Janzwood, Scott, 2021. "R&D priority-setting for global catastrophic risks: The case of the NASA planetary defense mission," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).

    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. Brattström, Erik & Hellström, Tomas, 2019. "Street-level priority-setting: The role of discretion in implementation of research, development, and innovation priorities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 240-247.
    2. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    3. Giuliani, Elisa & Martinelli, Arianna & Rabellotti, Roberta, 2016. "Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 192-205.
    4. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    5. Son K. Lam & Thomas E. DeCarlo & Ashish Sharma, 2019. "Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement: do customer base characteristics matter?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 659-680, July.
    6. Bruneel, Johan & Clarysse, Bart & Bobelyn, Annelies & Wright, Mike, 2020. "Liquidity events and VC-backed academic spin-offs: The role of search alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    7. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    8. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    9. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    10. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    11. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    12. Keegan, A. & Turner, J.R., 2000. "Quantity versus Quality in Project Based Learning Practices," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2000-55-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    14. Robert P. Garrett Jr. & Jeffrey G. Covin, 2015. "Internal Corporate Venture Operations Independence and Performance: A Knowledge–Based Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(4), pages 763-790, July.
    15. Marco Valeri & Rodolfo Baggio, 2021. "A critical reflection on the adoption of blockchain in tourism," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 121-132, June.
    16. Sarv Devaraj & Robert F. Easley & J. Michael Crant, 2008. "Research Note ---How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 93-105, March.
    17. Daniel Reimsbach & Bastian Hauschild, 2012. "Corporate venturing: an extended typology," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-80, September.
    18. Li, Mingxiang, 2021. "Exploring novel technologies through board interlocks: Spillover vs. broad exploration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    19. Sadovnikova, Anna & Pujari, Ashish & Mikhailitchenko, Andrey, 2016. "Radical innovation in strategic partnerships: A framework for analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1829-1833.
    20. Thomas Bolli & Martin Woerter, 2013. "Technological Diversification and Innovation Performance," KOF Working papers 13-336, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.

    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:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:5:p:599-608.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.