@article{michaelis_markham_2017, title={Innovation Training Making Innovation a Core Competency}, volume={60}, ISSN={["1930-0166"]}, DOI={10.1080/08956308.2017.1276387}, abstractNote={OVERVIEW: Investment in innovation training has the potential to help firms create more successful product offerings, but the extent to which companies do innovation training is unknown. Although efforts to optimize formal processes and integrate Agile methods into development have led to more efficient innovation systems, a large skill gap remains that cannot be overcome by tools and processes alone. To explore the extent to which companies are (or are not) engaging in training to address those skill gaps, interviews were conducted with 30 senior R&D managers from Fortune 1000 companies. The results indicate that even though senior managers’ view of innovation success factors is more focused on human capital than in the past, innovation training rarely happens—80 percent of the companies in our sample reported rarely engaging in structured training to build innovation competencies. We offer some recommendations for addressing this gap.}, number={2}, journal={RESEARCH-TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT}, author={Michaelis, Timothy L. and Markham, Stephen K.}, year={2017}, pages={36–42} }
 @article{lee_markham_2016, title={PDMA comparative performance assessment study (CPAS): Methods and future research directions}, volume={33}, DOI={10.1111/jpim.12358}, abstractNote={Best practices data are critical for managing and researching new product development. For these purposes the PDMA Research Foundation conducted the 2012 PDMA Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS). This article reports the use of the CPAS data among product development researchers and provides a complete description of the data gathering and cleaning process needed to write additional articles using these data, including other articles in this special issue. This article also reports important results of the CPAS data, makes comparisons between the Best and the Rest firms, and makes comparisons among firms by geography, industry, product/technology/market types, and company size. The results offer insights for academics and practitioners to conduct further research and to find potential new product development best practices.}, number={S1}, journal={Journal of Product Innovation Management}, author={Lee, H. and Markham, S. K.}, year={2016}, pages={3–19} }
 @book{markham_mugge_2015, title={Traversing the valley of death: A practical guide for corporate innovation leaders}, ISBN={9780990985310}, publisher={[Place of publication not identified]: [publisher not identified]}, author={Markham, S. K. and Mugge, P. C.}, year={2015} }
 @article{markham_kowolenko_michaelis_2015, title={Unstructured text analytics to support new product development decisions}, volume={58}, number={2}, journal={Research Technology Management}, author={Markham, S. K. and Kowolenko, M. and Michaelis, T. L.}, year={2015}, pages={30–38} }
 @article{markham_lee_2014, title={Marriage and Family Therapy in NPD Teams: Effects of We-ness on Knowledge Sharing and Product Performance}, volume={31}, ISSN={["1540-5885"]}, DOI={10.1111/jpim.12184}, abstractNote={Drawing on marriage and family therapy (MFT), this paper introduces the concept of we‐ness to new product development (NPD). We‐ness is the shared sense of togetherness family members feel toward each other. We apply we‐ness to NPD as the construct through which people share knowledge at the team, between‐team, and between‐organization levels. The results support the hypotheses that we‐ness increases knowledge sharing and that knowledge sharing increases product performance. In this study, we used regressions to analyze the hypotheses. We found that the greater in‐team we‐ness (H1, t = 3.786, p = .000), between‐team we‐ness (H2, t = 5.411, p = .000), and between‐organization we‐ness (H3, t = 2.940, p = .004) activities there were, the more knowledge sharing in NPD. Results also indicate that knowledge sharing is related to better NPD performance.}, number={6}, journal={JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT}, author={Markham, Stephen K. and Lee, Hyunjung}, year={2014}, month={Nov}, pages={1291–1311} }
 @article{holahan_sullivan_markham_2014, title={Product Development as Core Competence: How Formal Product Development Practices Differ for Radical, More Innovative, and Incremental Product Innovations}, volume={31}, ISSN={["1540-5885"]}, DOI={10.1111/jpim.12098}, abstractNote={Although universally recognized as an important consideration in building product development (PD) competency, the effect of a firm's ability to vary its PD practices to develop winning products has been given scant attention in large‐scale, multiorganizational, quantitative studies. This research explores differences in formal new PD practices among three project types—incremental, more innovative, and radical. Using a sample of 380 business units, this research investigates how development practices differ across these three classes of innovation with respect to the formal PD process, project organization, PD strategy, organizational culture, and senior management commitment. Our results diverge from several commonly held beliefs about formal PD processes and the management of radical versus incremental innovations. Our results indicate that radical projects are managed less flexibly than incremental projects. Instead of being an offshoot of less strategic planning, radical projects are just as strategically aligned as incremental projects. Instead of being informally introduced entrepreneurial adventures, radical projects are often the result of more formal ideation methods. While these results may be counterintuitive to suppositional models of how to radical innovation happens, it is the central theme of this research to show how radical innovation actually happens. Our findings also provide a foundation for reexamining the role of control in the management of innovation. As the level of innovativeness increased, so too did the amount of controls imposed—e.g., less flexibility in the development process, more professional, full‐time project leadership, centralized executive oversight for new products, and formal financial assessments of expected NP performance.}, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT}, author={Holahan, Patricia J. and Sullivan, Zhen Z. and Markham, Stephen K.}, year={2014}, month={Mar}, pages={329–345} }
 @article{castellion_markham_2013, title={Perspective: New Product Failure Rates: Influence of Argumentum ad Populum and Self-Interest}, volume={30}, ISSN={["0737-6782"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.01009.x}, abstractNote={A persistent myth in product innovation and management is that the failure rate of new products is 80% or higher. How does this false idea continue to displace the conclusions of empirical studies since 1977 that the new product failure rate is 40% or less? We examine the influence of a fallacy that encourages people's unthinking acceptance of ideas on new product failure rates and whose appeal rests primarily on an emotional, rather than a reasoned, argument. Self‐interest also plays a major role in keeping this myth alive.}, number={5}, journal={JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT}, author={Castellion, George and Markham, Stephen K.}, year={2013}, month={Sep}, pages={976–979} }
 @article{markham_lee_2013, title={Product Development and Management Association's 2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study}, volume={30}, ISSN={["1540-5885"]}, DOI={10.1111/jpim.12025}, abstractNote={Results of Product Development and Management Association (PDMA)'s Comparative Performance Assessment Study are presented from 453 companies. In addition to baseline questions from previous studies, new sections on culture, social media, services, sustainability, open innovation, and global product development practices are introduced. Extensive comparison between the best performing companies and the rest of the sample reveal numerous practices that lead to higher product performance in the market. Comparisons are also made between this study and previous PDMA best practices studies. In addition, geographic differences among North America, Europe, and Asia are explored. Practices leading to higher commercial performance are identified.}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT}, author={Markham, Stephen K. and Lee, Hyunjung}, year={2013}, month={May}, pages={408–429} }
 @article{markham_2013, title={The Impact of Front-End Innovation Activities on Product Performance}, volume={30}, ISSN={["1540-5885"]}, DOI={10.1111/jpim.12065}, abstractNote={This paper describes and tests a model of the impact of front‐end innovation activities on product performance. Data were collected from 272 companies to test the hypothesis that front‐end performance impacts new product performance in the marketplace while controlling for new product development (NPD) processes and strategy. The data support the hypothesis that front‐end performance favorably and independently impacts overall product success, time to market, market penetration, and financial performance.}, journal={JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT}, author={Markham, Stephen K.}, year={2013}, month={Dec}, pages={77–92} }
 @article{markham_ward_aiman-smith_kingon_2010, title={The Valley of Death as Context for Role Theory in Product Innovation}, volume={27}, ISSN={["1540-5885"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00724.x}, abstractNote={The purpose of this paper is to define and explain the front end of product innovation as a discrete segment of development between research and product development. The Valley of Death is used as a metaphor to describe the relative lack of resources and expertise in this area of development. The metaphor suggests that there are relative more resources on one side of the valley in the form of research expertise and on the other side by commercialization expertise and resources. Within this valley a set of interlocking roles are examined that move projects from one side to the other. The empirical methodology used in this study gathered data from 272 Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) members with extensive experience in the front end of product development using a Web-based survey instrument. Extensive pretests with experienced practitioners were conducted to develop the instrument. Results indicate that significant development takes place before projects enter into a firm's formal product development process. The data also support the roles of champion, sponsor, and gatekeeper as major actors that work together to develop and promote projects for introduction into the formal process. Champions make the organization aware of opportunities by conceptualizing the idea and preparing business cases. Sponsors support the development of promising ideas by providing resources to demonstrate the project's viability. Gatekeepers set criteria and make acceptance decisions. The data also reveal a dynamic interdependence between role players. It is concluded that the Valley of Death is a productive tool for identifying and understanding a critical area of development that has not been adequately addressed. This research finds a dynamic interplay between roles to accomplish tasks that are not well understood in practice or the literature. The implications of this research are far-ranging. It suggests that companies must understand the challenges in the valley, must develop the skills, and must make resources available to master the front end of product innovation. Recognizing roles, providing resources, and establishing expectations and accountability in this area of development become manageable in light of these results. Theoretically, this research informs role theory of a dynamic set of relationships previously treated as static. It also empirically investigates an area of product development where there is limited data. This paper opens profitable inquiries by focusing on an area of development not adequately researched yet drives the activities and investment made in subsequent steps of product development.}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT}, author={Markham, Stephen K. and Ward, Stephen J. and Aiman-Smith, Lynda and Kingon, Angus I.}, year={2010}, month={May}, pages={402–417} }
 @misc{barr_baker_markham_kingon_2009, title={Bridging the Valley of Death: Lessons Learned From 14 Years of Commercialization of Technology Education}, volume={8}, ISSN={["1537-260X"]}, DOI={10.5465/amle.2009.44287937}, abstractNote={We argue for the increasing importance of providing graduate students with skills in technology entrepreneurship and the commercialization of technology. We describe the lessons we have learned fro...}, number={3}, journal={ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION}, author={Barr, Steve H. and Baker, Ted and Markham, Stephen K. and Kingon, Angus I.}, year={2009}, month={Sep}, pages={370–388} }
 @article{jelinek_markham_2007, title={Industry-university IP relations: Integrating perspectives and policy solutions}, volume={54}, ISSN={["1558-0040"]}, DOI={10.1109/TEM.2007.893988}, abstractNote={Despite a long and productive U.S. history, industry-university (I-U) relations have become increasingly testy around intellectual property (IP). The Bayh-Dole Act is cited the driver for sharply increased university patenting, less fundamental research focus, and disinterest in traditional missions, although there is little data to corroborate these conclusions. A National Science Foundation (NSF)-sponsored workshop points to I-U relationship issues in the context of the path a new technology must follow from lab to market. We propose some critical variables affecting I-U IP relationships; describe areas of agreement and contention between the parties, drawing also on secondary data and the broader literature of I-U relations; and offer IP policy observations of interest to universities, researchers and technology transfer managers, their industry counterparts, and government. We end with propositions for further research}, number={2}, journal={IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT}, author={Jelinek, Mariann and Markham, Stephen}, year={2007}, month={May}, pages={257–267} }
 @article{brown_markham_2007, title={Innovation learning at BP}, volume={50}, ISSN={["0895-6308"]}, DOI={10.1080/08956308.2007.11657435}, abstractNote={Recent concerns about energy resource sustainability and security of supply have raised awareness that oil and gas production faces significant challenges that can only be met through highly innovative technology. Crude oil and gas customers demand sustained low-cost supply. This drives the international oil companies (IOCs) continually to reinvent their businesses in order to sustain them in response to competitive pressures on access to resources, operating cost and capital efficiency. BP is one of the largest IOCs and has been in the vanguard of the industry's transformation from relatively simple geological structures on-shore, to continental shelf off-shore development, to arctic and deep water developments, involving highly complex geological systems and new, massively complex, computer controlled, mechanical structures and equipment. The technology underpinning this transformation includes innovation in drilling, seismic acquisition and interpretation, numerical simulation of reservoir performance, engineering materials for extreme temperatures and pressures, deep water robotic vehicles, and many others. Together, these advances have transformed the industry within the last 30 years, and the pace of change is accelerating. As with other industries, BP's oil and gas production business segment strives to sustain and improve its competitiveness through innovation, both to improve its existing operations and to create new opportunities. As part of this, the Engineering and Production Technology group ("EPT") introduced an innovation process in 2000 that is ongoing into 2007. Given that industry innovation initiatives often fail to persist more that 2 or 3 years, it is instructive to inquire into what underpins the endurance of the EPT Innovation process and what has been learned from it. In this article, we summarize how we manage the innovation process and share what we have learned as a series of lessons. Establishing the Innovation Board In order to prosecute this agenda, an "Innovation Board" was formed and tasked with delivering innovative results in the areas of: 1) business transformation, 2) top-line revenue growth, 2) cost reductions, and 3) health, safety and environment. The Innovation Board started as a result of top management challenging the company for internal, organic growth. The technology group recognized they possessed many technologies which, if developed and utilized, could be valuable in all the areas listed above. The EPT vice president set up a fund to provide the methods, funding and-most critically-allocate time to develop those ideas into growth. The methods and funding to provide individuals the opportunity to innovate is called "creating space." Innovators can now bill their time to the Board for approved projects so they can justify their time spent on innovation. The Board continues to report to EPT senior management and is allocated funding in order to support the internal costs and associated external expenditure. The Board seeks innovative ideas from any member of EPT and then provides support to develop the project to the point where it represents enough value for development by the formal RD these have proved to be a key factor in the durability of the Innovation process, namely: * Membership is by personal invitation of the EPT vice president (under appropriate advisement). This ensures that membership is recognized as a significant opportunity within overall career development. * Membership rotates, such that new members cycle onto the Board and "retire" as their career circumstances evolve. This leads to a continuous refreshing of Board membership, and hence, personal energy and ideas. * Membership is managed to ensure representation of the geographical spread of EPT, the mix of technical disciplines and mix of cultural background, gender and experience. …}, number={3}, journal={RESEARCH-TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT}, author={Brown, Chris and Markham, Stephen}, year={2007}, pages={9–14} }
 @misc{markham_2007, title={Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation}, volume={50}, number={6}, journal={Research Technology Management}, author={Markham, S. K.}, year={2007}, pages={68–69} }
 @article{markham_gentry_hume_ramachandran_kingon_2005, title={Strategies and tactics for external corporate venturing}, volume={48}, ISSN={["1930-0166"]}, DOI={10.1080/08956308.2005.11657305}, abstractNote={OVERVIEW: By providing a window on emerging technologies, market opportunities, new business models, and distribution channels, corporate venturing can be an important source of technological innovation for corporations. However, effective implementation requires a clear view of the objectives, dedication to understanding the process, and discipline. There are two major tactics for external investing: invest in a venture capital fund, or invest directly in a start-up company, and the strategy a company chooses should be tied to its objectives. For example, best-of-class companies whose objective is to acquire a window on technology will invest in VC funds to gain access to their wider deal flow. One of the most challenging aspects of corporate venturing is finding the right people, and corporations must be willing to devote significant time and resources to working closely with their portfolio companies if they wish to gain satisfactory value from their external investments.}, number={2}, journal={RESEARCH-TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT}, author={Markham, SK and Gentry, ST and Hume, D and Ramachandran, R and Kingon, AI}, year={2005}, pages={49–59} }
 @article{aiman-smith_markham_2004, title={What you should know about using surveys}, volume={47}, ISSN={["1930-0166"]}, DOI={10.1080/08956308.2004.11671625}, number={3}, journal={RESEARCH-TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT}, author={Aiman-Smith, L and Markham, SK}, year={2004}, pages={12–15} }
 @misc{markham_2002, title={Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies}, volume={19}, number={3}, journal={Journal of Product Innovation Management}, author={Markham, S. K.}, year={2002}, pages={253–254} }
 @article{markham_aiman-smith_2001, title={Product champions: Truths, myths and management}, volume={44}, ISSN={["0895-6308"]}, DOI={10.1080/08956308.2001.11671429}, abstractNote={OVERVIEW: Champions represent powerful forces in most organizations. Champions are passionate about what they do; they generate support for ideas; and they keep ideas and projects alive. The research literature contradicts some champion myths and validates others. For example, we now know that a champion moves projects along, while projects with no champion struggle—but having a champion does not guarantee market success. As well, we know that champions arise from all levels in an organization, and are as likely to support incremental as radical ideas. Champions work within a political environment, and rely primarily on relationships for influence, although they will resort to traditional influence tactics. Formal NPD processes with cross-functional teams go hand-in-hand with champions. Champions are motivated by working toward a strategic vision, from contact with a community of knowledge, and from opportunities to develop skills. Having a loyal antagonist may actually help champions in their work.}, number={3}, journal={RESEARCH-TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT}, author={Markham, SK and Aiman-Smith, L}, year={2001}, pages={44–50} }
 @article{markham_baumer_aiman-smith_kingon_zapata_2000, title={An algorithm for high technology engineering and management education}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb00515.x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={89}, journal={Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Markham, S. and Baumer, D. and Aiman-Smith, L. and Kingon, A. and Zapata, M.}, year={2000}, pages={209–218} }
 @article{markham_2000, title={Corporate championing and antagonism as forms of political behavior: An R&D perspective}, volume={11}, ISSN={["1047-7039"]}, DOI={10.1287/orsc.11.4.429.14599}, abstractNote={ Individuals in general management, marketing, production, and customer service undertake corporate political roles of championing and antagonism in support of or opposition to research and development (R&D) projects. R&D personnel see these champions acting politically because they favor projects that align more closely with the firm's business interests than with its specific technologies. Champions find resources and protect their projects from termination; however, they are equally likely to support high and low performing projects. These results contradict many of the commonly held beliefs in research literature about champions. Antagonists, in a role of friendly opposition, appear to react to the presence of champions and do not appear to affect resources or project termination. }, number={4}, journal={ORGANIZATION SCIENCE}, author={Markham, SK}, year={2000}, pages={429–447} }
 @article{markham_2000, title={Innovation explosion: Intellect and software to revolutionize growth strategies}, volume={17}, ISSN={["0737-6782"]}, DOI={10.1016/s0737-6782(99)00040-5}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT}, author={Markham, SK}, year={2000}, month={Jan}, pages={95–96} }
 @article{markham_1998, title={A longitudinal examination of how champions influence others to support their projects}, volume={15}, ISSN={["1540-5885"]}, DOI={10.1016/S0737-6782(98)00031-9}, abstractNote={The image of the project champion fighting corporate inertia, rallying support, and leading a project to success makes for a great story, but that story may not reveal the true nature of the champion's role. All those oft-told tales about champions fail to provide hard evidence of the techniques that champions use, the activities they perform, and the effects that champions have on project success. Stephen K. Markham addresses this knowledge gap in a study that examines how champions influence other people and what effects champions have on projects and the people those projects involve. The study uses responses from 53 champions of innovation projects in four large firms as well as team members from those projects. Rather than look at the champions' work on project tasks, the study focuses on the influence champions have on other people to support their projects. The results of the study only partially support the idea that champions affect projects by influencing people. In the four firms studied, champions use cooperative rather than confrontative tactics to influence other people. However, the champions' choice of influence tactics does not affect the level of compliance or the willingness to participate in the project that those people demonstrate. On the other hand, the champions appear to have a strong influence on their target's behavior if the champions enjoy positive personal relationships with those people. In general, the tactics used by the champions do not seem to play an important role in the projects studied. From the perspective of the team members, the results of this study do not support the notion that champions make a positive contribution to project performance. However, the champions in this study consistently hold a more positive view of the project than those of the team members.}, number={6}, journal={JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT}, author={Markham, SK}, year={1998}, month={Nov}, pages={490–504} }
 @article{markham_griffin_1998, title={The breakfast of champions: Associations between champions and product development environments, practices and performance}, volume={15}, ISSN={["0737-6782"]}, DOI={10.1111/1540-5885.1550436}, abstractNote={According to conventional wisdom, if an innovative new product development (NPD) effort is to stand any chance for success, the project must have a champion. The role of the champion has taken on almost mythic proportions, through oft‐told tales of the development of such disparate products as instant cameras, automobiles, and microprocessors. Notwithstanding the purportedly essential role that champions play, however, we have only anecdotal evidence of the manner in which effective champions operate and the benefits that they offer.}, number={5}, journal={JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT}, author={Markham, SK and Griffin, A}, year={1998}, month={Sep}, pages={436–454} }
 @misc{markham_1997, title={New products management, 5th Edition. C. M. Crawford}, volume={14}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Product Innovation Management}, author={Markham, S. K.}, year={1997}, pages={312–314} }