BUILDING A CREATIVE HIGH-PERFORMANCE
R&D CULTURE
Customer insight, risk tolerance, entrepreneurship, alignment, technology excellence,
innovation, creative collaboration, and execution are the building blocks
Jerry L. Newman
OVERVIEW: A highly effective CREATIVE R&D culture
combines Customer-focused, Risk-tolerant, Entrepre-
neurial, Alignment with strategy, Technology and
scientific excellence, Innovative, Virtual organization
(Collaboration), and Execution elements to consistently
drive true product innovation. To generate this culture,
R&D leaders should examine attitudes and values, and
eliminate barriers that impede behaviors based on these
characteristics. Constructing the CREATIVE R&D culture
involves a change process of building on inherent
strengths and compensating for organizational gaps.
This starts with a foundation of leadership and executes
product innovation at the juncture of customer insight,
technology and business alignment powered by risk tol-
erance and collaboration. This holistic framework has
evolved from the practice of product development and
has been applied successfully in various companies and
industries.
KEY CONCEPTS: R&D leadership, R&D culture,
product innovation.
Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dol-
lars you have……it’s not about money. It’s about the
people you have, how you’re led, and how much you get
it.—Steve Jobs
Jerry Newman is senior director, product develop-
ment at STERIS Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri. His
team is responsible for R&D activities for the skin care
and other chemical decontamination businesses within
STERIS. During his career he has held a variety of R&D
positions at S.C. Johnson & Son, Johnson & Johnson
Medical, Kemin Foods and STERIS. He and his teams
have been responsible for the development of over 50
new infection control, skin care, wound care, decontam-
ination, and dietary supplement products. Newman ob-
tained his Ph.D. in biochemistry from Ohio University.
jerry_newman@steris.com
September—October 2009
0895-6308/09/$5.00 © 2009 Industrial Research Institute, Inc.
R&D culture can be the engine for sustained product
innovation—a key driver of continual growth in many
successful corporations. Today there is a general impera-
tive to generate growth through innovation (1,2). This is
evident from all the organizations, conferences, consul-
tants and books focused on the subject (1,3,4). Even
with these resources, however, many organizations still
struggle to generate consistent results in new product
development (NPD). Finding and implementing new
opportunities is difficult and complex, yet, some organi-
zations excel not just once, but on an on-going basis.
Because innovation means many different things to peo-
ple, any in-depth discussion of the topic requires a defini-
tion of the term. In this case, discussion will be limited to
product innovation, which is defined as commercializing
products that produce customer and shareholder value
through differentiated technology that is strategically
aligned with the business. This product innovation model
is illustrated in Figure 1.
Customer insight, business alignment, technology, and
execution are at the core of building an effective innova-
tion initiative. The R&D culture of innovation excellence
is built on these elements plus risk tolerance and creative
collaboration (virtual organizations). These elements
form the acronym CREATIVE: Customer-focused, Risk-
tolerant, Entrepreneurial, Aligned with strategy, Tech-
nology and scientific excellence, Innovative, Virtual
organizations (or creative collaboration), Execution (or
Excellence in project management) (5).
Many R&D organizations have excelled by successfully
focusing on single factors, such as creativity, execution or
customer focus. The CREATIVE R&D culture framework
depicted in Figure 2 (6) has been originated and utilized
by the author at various levels of R&D management in
multiple industries. The application of this framework
has generated sustained innovation, resulting most re-
cently in significant and sustained improvement in new-
21
product sales over a five-year period. What follows is a
detailed explanation of each CREATIVE element and
tips for how to implement the holistic framework.
Customer Focus
We can believe that we know where the world should go.
But unless we’re in touch with our customers, our model
of the world can diverge from reality.—Steve Ballmer
When R&D team members overcome isolation from
customers and consumers they can gain profound insight
into how their technologies can be incorporated into
new products that bring value to customers. Without true
customer insight, an invention is just that—an invention,
not an innovation. There are many examples of outstand-
ing technologies that failed in the marketplace, and of
products that failed to even reach the marketplace, due to
poor relevance to customer needs. Traditional R&D man-
agement and organizations have tended to seclude R&D
professionals away from customers and have often been
reluctant to push for customer contact. However, unless
they are encouraged to see through the eyes of customers
and end-users, R&D professionals are often unable to see
practical applications for their technologies (7).
R&D professionals
should avoid the
“build it and they
will come” attitude.
If the customer insight side of the innovation equation is
ignored in favor of the R&D organization’s excitement
over a new technology, the department can end up with “a
technology in search of a market.” This occurs when R&D
professionals “fall in love with” technologies for their
own sake, as opposed to creating and developing tech-
nologies to meet customer needs. This can lead to a
perception that the R&D organization is out of touch with
the customers and the business needs of the organization.
R&D professionals should avoid the “build it and they
will come” attitude. Although no one can dispute the
value of visionaries, few R&D team members can afford

Figure 1.—True product innovation occurs when ideas at the intersection of customer insight, technology and
business alignment are successfully executed (6).

22 Research . Technology Management

the approach of Buckminster Fuller, who said, “I just
invent, then wait until man comes around to needing what
I’ve invented.” A search of numerous R&D management
books indicates that many of them offer little discussion
of the customer. Writings on innovation and NPD, on the
other hand, are filled with discussion of how to search for
effective solutions through the eyes of the customer (8).
Customer needs can be divided between articulated,
unarticulated (9) and future needs. Figure 3 illustrates
how these needs are a part of the innovation model (6).
Articulated needs are those that customers can recognize
and easily describe, based on their current requirements
and understanding of available technologies. These
types of insights generally result in incremental or con-
tinuous innovation. Unarticulated needs are sometimes
referred to as latent needs. R&D project team members
must have unfiltered access to customers in order to
identify unarticulated needs. Future needs are discerned
through a deep understanding of how alternative futures
create needs for new technologies. Unarticulated and fu-
ture needs are often the source of discontinuous innova-
tions or breakthrough opportunities.
It is important to take a balanced approach to the evalu-
ation of customer insight. Excessive emphasis on articu-
lated needs may tend to drive the organization toward
too many incremental projects. On the other hand,
excessive emphasis on unarticulated needs may drive
the balance of projects toward too many high-risk, long-
term projects. A balanced approach is needed to generate
a diversified portfolio of projects appropriate for the
corporation and the market.
Figure 2.—The CREATIVE R&D culture starts
with a foundation of leadership and executes
product innovation at the intersection of customer
insight, technology and business alignment
powered by risk tolerance and collaboration (6).
September—October 2009
“Risk” means
different things to
different corporate
stakeholders.
Highly effective R&D organizations have close ties to
customers philosophically and in practice. The first step
in creating customer focus among the R&D team is sim-
ply to have R&D professionals directly observe custom-
ers in their own environment. This is where abstract,
imagined customer needs can become concrete and real
for the team. Observing customers’ actual challenges al-
lows team members the opportunity to extrapolate tech-
nological solutions for these problems.
The R&D team is ideally suited for discovering unar-
ticulated needs. If the marketing department takes on the
sole responsibility for gathering customer insight it can
become a crutch that keeps R&D team members isolated
from customers. Uncovering an unarticulated need
through a customer visit could lead to a fundamental
change in the priority of customer needs. If customers
do not realize that there is a solution to one of their prob-
lems, they may prioritize needs differently. This chal-
lenge can be the basis of discontinuous innovation and
breakthroughs.
Various tools have been designed that provide more so-
phisticated customer insight to R&D staff and all cross-
functional project team members (8,10,11). Regardless
of whether the marketing group or project teams spear-
head the customer insight activities, it is important for
key R&D representatives to be involved in order to hear
the concerns, problems and comments of the customers
first-hand. This can help resolve potential conflicts in
feature sets and help to prioritize product requirements
early in any discovery or development process.
Many organizations are described as either market (or cus-
tomer) driven or technology driven. The best innovation
comes through a real balance of the two, as suggested by
the innovation model in Figure 1. Creating this balance is
not an easy task when faced with some of the biases with-
in some R&D organizations. By building the philosophy
of customer focus into the R&D organization, the more
balanced perspective can be established. While tools are
an important part of gathering effective customer input,
R&D leadership needs to make customer focus an impor-
tant and expected part of the R&D culture. Effective col-
laboration with the company’s marketing and sales teams
23
at multiple levels will help reinforce the importance of
customer insight for R&D staff.
Risk Tolerance
You miss 100% of the shots you never take.—Wayne
Gretzky
When R&D team members learn to effectively use in-
tuition and overcome their tendency to trust only abso-
lute certainty, they can make decisions fast enough to
keep up with the demands of the current business cli-
mate and create true innovation and competitive ad-
vantage. The term “risk” is used differently by various
corporate stake holders. The R&D discussion of risk
does not relate to personal or product safety, but rather
to the risk of failure that can hinder rapid decision-
making. For scientists and engineers, this specifically
relates to the question of whether enough data exist to
make rapid decisions that can move projects more
quickly to completion.
Because actions speak louder than words, creating a risk-
tolerant R&D organization can be a difficult task. Reper-
cussions from past failure can be traumatic and long
lasting, persisting even after changes in leadership have
Figure 3.—Customer focus can provide insight about articulated, unarticulated or future
needs. These can generate the basis for incremental, next generation or breakthrough
innovations, respectively (6).
24
removed the initial source of negative consequences. The
risk tolerance of an organization is not only the result of
the personality of individuals but also of organizational
behavior both past and present, particularly that of mid-
dle and senior management (12). Cultural attitudes to-
ward risk tolerance can be difficult to modify, and any
change must start with communication of risk tolerance
by R&D leadership.
Project-related risk also concerns the balancing of corpo-
rate financial risks vs. speed-to-market. The typical trade-
offs for any activity, but particularly for new product
projects, almost always involve time–cost–quality impacts
(10). A discussion of risks helps determine the appropriate
course of action and tradeoffs to make in particular cir-
cumstances of the project framework. Appropriate risk-
taking may involve adjusting project cost to gain a time
advantage and suggesting a value for parallel activities on
high-priority projects and activities.
At times, team members misunderstand the relative
value of costs. For example, rapid third-party testing of
prototypes may seem expensive, but compared to the
overall costs of potential project delays, it may actually
be a bargain. Decision-making and cycle time reduc-
tion may involve sacrificing perceived quality, which
Research . Technology Management
in most organizations translates to significant apparent
risk.
Fast decision-making is more important than ever in
NPD and sometimes requires decisions to be based on
less information. In the competitive environment of new
product development, the speed imperative does not al-
low collection of enough information for R&D profes-
sionals to always feel comfortable. Thus, the higher-risk
environment requires many scientists and engineers to
operate outside their normal comfort zone. R&D leader-
ship is responsible for creating the environment to en-
courage this transition.
R&D professionals may tend to be risk-averse when it
comes to data interpretation, but risk-tolerant when it
comes to project selection and termination. They gener-
ally value a challenge when it comes to the project choice
and there may be a tendency to take on projects that have
high technical risk. This can also result in a hesitancy to
discontinue or kill projects with low practicality. Engi-
neers and scientists are taught, perhaps unintentionally,
that anything is possible with enough time and money.
Based on a desire for challenge, R&D professionals may
advocate that certain projects are technically feasible
when the time and cost to achieve success are not within
the expectations of business partners. This leads to an-
other aspect of true risk avoidance: failure to admit mis-
takes and “pull the plug” on projects when appropriate.
Product development is full of risks and thus many proj-
ects are bound to fail (13). In R&D, the mantra should
be that it is OK to fail but we should fail fast and learn
from that failure. History is full of inventors that have
turned mistakes into successes (14). In fact, serendipity
has been the source of many great innovations (15).
It’s OK to make mistakes, but not the same mistakes
over and over. Discovering dead ends faster is one of
the benefits of understanding the positive attributes of
failure for the R&D team. The high-performance R&D
culture learns from failures, to ensure that the same
mistakes are not repeated, and regularly “turns lemons
into lemonade.” Nurturing this attitude can be difficult,
since it is important to communicate learning without
penalizing or creating a sense that the organization is not
risk tolerant.
Entrepreneurial
In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a
rented car.—Lawrence Summers
If R&D staff members can learn to think like business
owners and understand “the big picture,” they will gain
accountability for and drive greater innovation results.
One of the criticisms commonly heard about R&D pro-
fessionals is that that they lack business perspective.
This criticism is perhaps another consequence of lab and
September—October 2009
Ask R&D staff to look
at decisions as if
they owned the
company.
cubicle isolation. It also has to do with a subtle expecta-
tion that R&D professionals should be left alone to do
their science or engineering. In addition, there is often a
self-perpetuating cultural gap between scientists and en-
gineers and other parts of the business. This attitude
comes not only from functions other than R&D but is at
times reinforced by R&D management and profession-
als in their desire to just do the science (or engineering)
and let others make the business decisions.
The lack of business perspective among R&D profession-
als is a generally neglected topic in management books,
and a subtle but definite stereotype exists that the typical
R&D group is reluctant to dispute. A common distinction
is made between “the business side” and “the R&D side.”
This mindset can be a significant barrier to generating a
true CREATIVE innovation atmosphere and can subtly
strengthen the attitude that innovation is solely about cre-
ative ideas and novel technology. Ironically, while many
R&D managers receive management and business train-
ing, there is a reluctance to offer R&D staff similar busi-
ness and leadership education.
Although R&D team members may enjoy dealing with
numbers, they don’t always want to understand the num-
bers that drive the business. Perhaps this myopia is due
to leaders who don’t make them aware of how their cur-
rent R&D activities align and link to the business and its
objectives. By learning and using financial terms, par-
ticularly those related to the evaluation of new product
opportunities, R&D professionals can earn the credibil-
ity to enter the debate about business strategy and can
become effective business partners, strategically aligned
with organizational objectives.
An important way to generate credibility among busi-
ness partners is for R&D team members and leaders to
endorse incremental innovations that support short-term
business needs. R&D professionals generally prefer
working on the longer-term or more substantial innova-
tions. Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are able to un-
derstand the need to balance short-term needs with
long-term opportunities.
Understanding the big picture and connecting the results
with business strategies builds ownership among R&D
25
team members. By generating and publicizing progress
toward measurable new product goals, R&D leaders can
demonstrate the importance of these performance met-
rics to the R&D team as well as to other parts of the
corporation. New product sales, both in absolute num-
bers and as a percentage of base business, are arguably
the best surrogate measure of innovation results. How-
ever, since these are long-range measurements, patience
and understanding are required to evaluate the impact of
the CREATIVE R&D culture.
Being responsible and accountable for results can be dif-
ficult for some R&D organizations. It is easy to blame
marketing or corporate decisions for poor new product
performance. By entering into the debate over project
selection with credibility, the R&D organization takes
responsibility for its performance. While some projects
or activities may lack good, well-disciplined marketing
direction, R&D innovators can take responsibility for
obtaining market and customer feedback or demand that
appropriate due diligence be obtained before initiation
of programs. An entrepreneurial approach does not al-
low for lack of responsibility or accountability for new
product performance. Risk tolerance should not be an
excuse for a lack of suitable discipline or diligence
around business decisions.
A valuable method for building ownership is to ask R&D
staff members to look at decisions as if they owned the
company. Similarly, R&D leaders and teams could view
the department as if it needed to compete against outside
suppliers of new products and technology. This approach
can be a good method for instilling a sense of competition
and a culture of continual improvement. Comparing results
to those of small companies that introduce innovations rap-
idly provides motivation and a model for fast cycle time.
While all R&D professionals may not want to be drivers
of innovation, virtually all are involved with projects
that bring innovation to the marketplace. Without enough
exposure to business needs and an understanding of the
big picture, R&D professionals will not support these
innovations with passion. Without some passion and
sense of ownership, the drive to perform those support
functions suffers.
Aligned with Strategy
In the end, effective execution of strategic alignment
is a leader’s top priority and ensures that goals are met
and success achieved.—Gerard A. Abraham (Thermo
Electron Corp., 16)
R&D teams can gain credibility and support from other
functions and drive innovation more effectively if they
act in alignment with business strategies. An extension
of the lack of business perspective in the R&D organiza-
tion is lack of alignment, which is created largely by iso-
26
Lack of alignment is
created largely by
isolation and
independence.
lation and independence. An indication of this perceived
lack of alignment is the often-posed question, “Why is
R&D working on that project (which has little linkage to
the stated business strategies of the corporation or busi-
ness unit)?” These apparent inconsistencies create fric-
tion and distrust among other corporate departments.
Organizational isolation, often referred to as the “silo ef-
fect,” is one of the primary causes.
When an R&D organization has strong links with corpo-
rate and business-unit vision, mission, goals, and strategic
plans, the opportunity for successful innovation increases
exponentially. Strategic alignment between R&D and
the marketing and operations functions is particularly
valuable in driving the innovation process. Unfortunate-
ly, there is often a lack of alignment among these three
groups for new product strategies.
Business-unit organizations have often been formed in
an attempt to overcome this lack of alignment. Some
marketing leaders believe that if they had control of the
R&D organization they would improve new product
performance. But business-unit organizational structures
are no guarantee of R&D alignment. Although market-
ing professionals might provide some general manage-
ment and business information, they are less likely to
have the skill set to manage, motivate and reward re-
search and technical talent. Resorting to organizational
structure to achieve the goal of alignment can create bu-
reaucratic and motivational problems.
Organizational alignment can be accomplished either
through organizational structure such as business units
or by developing interdepartmental relationships. While
relationship-based alignment can be especially strong,
its success depends on the individual personalities, the
quality of senior management alignment and on other
cultural factors. R&D leadership needs to encourage the
teamwork that leads to a truly effective alignment and
must be willing to participate in virtually all elements
listed in the model shown in Figure 4. Establishing align-
ment is primarily a leadership function, but these tools
include both management and leadership aspects.
Organizational alignment doesn’t mean that there is
complete agreement with all R&D activities throughout
Research . Technology Management
the company. Innovation does require free-thinking at
certain times. However, the R&D organization needs to
be working toward the same focused business goals
rather than toward undefined scientific objectives. Indi-
vidual maverick innovators can be tolerated when they
are not overly distracting and they produce results that
are aligned with overall business objectives. While some
freedom is desirable to allow exploration that leads to
innovation, it can be an excuse for lack of alignment and
accountability. The R&D leadership must understand
this balance and must know how to best utilize the
unique attributes of each R&D staff member.
Technology and Science Excellence
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguish-
able from magic.—Arthur C. Clarke
When the R&D team individually and collectively exhib-
its excellence in technology and science, it can continu-
ally drive differentiated and sustainable innovation.
Therefore, technical excellence might be considered the
ticket for entry to a high-performing R&D team. This un-
derstanding is perhaps the easiest of the success factors to
establish within the R&D organization. Depending on the
nature of the business, the R&D scientists and engineers
may be expected to be world-class technical experts in
their respective fields. When they are able to apply techni-
cal expertise to meaningful innovations, the R&D team
can build credibility within the company and within their
industry, potentially on a national and international scale.
Because knowledge is a major driver of innovation, con-
tinual learning should have a high value in the high-
performance R&D culture. Leaders who understand the
value of innovation know that technical knowledge
Figure 4.—The elements of strategic alignment
begin with corporate mission as foundation and
utilize various layers of tools to drive toward
aligned results.
September—October 2009
Risk tolerance
should not become
an excuse for lack of
critical thinking.
should be strong throughout all levels of the R&D orga-
nization. R&D team members should be encouraged to
build their knowledge base and skills, since technical in-
formation changes so fast. Failure to keep up with ad-
vances in their field can cause scientists and engineers to
lose their edge and value to the organization.
As long as proprietary information is not exposed, writ-
ing technical papers and attending technical meetings
are also good ways to maintain these skills. They are
also beneficial to the corporation in building credibility
for their expertise and their technologies. Writing ar-
ticles for trade journals and customer-oriented peer-
reviewed journals allows the R&D staff to translate
technical differentiation into customer benefits.
Critical thinking leads to faster, better and cheaper new
product development. Tools such as high-throughput
screening, rapid prototyping and experimental design
can help to provide faster answers to fundamental ques-
tions involving multiple variables. Using critical think-
ing to plan effective experiments can help reduce the
total time for projects. When proper planning is sacri-
ficed in an attempt to speed up the process it can ulti-
mately result in slower decision-making due to repetition
of studies and incomplete or erroneous information.
Risk tolerance should not become an excuse for lack of
critical thinking and planning.
R&D leadership is responsible for identifying, prioritiz-
ing and developing technologies and technology plat-
forms that drive innovation and growth. These technology
platforms typically leverage existing or sustaining tech-
nologies as well as incorporating emerging disruptive
technologies. R&D leaders should interpret the value of
technology platforms to non-technical business partners
in order to translate the magic of technology into cus-
tomer benefits (7).
Innovative
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.—Alan
Kay
R&D teams must understand that true innovation as
modeled in Figure 1 is much more than clever inven-
27
tions or nifty technology (6). Great ideas are indeed the
lifeblood of an R&D organization, but ideas need to be
successfully implemented to become new products. Sus-
tained innovation requires the successful combination of
advanced technology, customer needs, the organization’s
strategy, and effective execution. In other words, inno-
vation is putting it all together to create value for cus-
tomers and the corporation.
Successful innovation is to a great extent about creat-
ing the atmosphere and mechanisms for choosing the
right project. Although this is primarily a leadership
function, maintaining disciplined processes around
these choices might also be perceived as a management
function. The choice and implementation of the right
projects is a fundamental challenge of sustained inno-
vation.
The process of “ideation” is generally enjoyable for many
R&D staff members. However, a problem occurs when
these professionals fall in love with creative ideas and
lack the skills or passion for critical evaluation and/or
implementation. Many R&D professionals love long-
range ideas or potential radical or breakthrough innova-
tions. While these projects are exciting and essential, it
is important to have a healthy, balanced portfolio of
projects with different opportunities vs. risk profiles and
timelines. This balance helps R&D leadership establish
credibility with other stakeholders in the organization
who are under pressure to produce short-term business
results.
Characteristics of an R&D innovation champion often in-
clude: technical competency, the ability to interpret cus-
tomer needs, risk tolerance, entrepreneurial understanding,
alignment skills, effective networking capabilities, and a
propensity for driving toward implementation (17). R&D
teams and staff members can become natural champions
of product innovation if R&D leaders identify, reward
and develop those individuals who show potential.
Virtual Organizations (CREATIVE Collaboration)
None of us is as smart as all of us.—Japanese Proverb
R&D teams improve their effectiveness by excelling at
collaboration within the team itself, across the corpora-
tion and externally. The spectacular results of creative
collaboration have been chronicled in the book, Organiz-
ing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration and
Group Genius (18). Building effective collaborative cor-
porate relationships with marketing, operations and other
internal functional groups can be crucial for successful
innovation and is characteristic of highly effective R&D
teams. Unfortunately, networking doesn’t come naturally
to many R&D professionals. Their personalities, training
or culture have often influenced them toward personal au-
tonomy and independence. Because of this mindset, R&D
28
True innovation is
much more than
clever inventions or
nifty technology.
scientists and engineers are often afraid to let go of their
egos and ask questions or seek help.
Isolation and independence can lead to the well-known
phenomena of NIH (not invented here) and groupthink
(19,20). One of the consequences of NIH can be rejec-
tion of ideas from the outside without appropriate dili-
gence. This practice has a damaging effect on innovation
and R&D credibility. One tactic for discouraging NIH
behavior is “research tourism,” i.e., having researchers
visit outside institutions (21). Jain and Triandis discuss
other helpful activities to help reduce the NIH attitude in
Management of Research and Development Organiza-
tions (20). Internal and external relationships are impor-
tant sources of creative energy for identifying new
product opportunities and for solving problems during
rapid implementation. However, this external research
should be balanced against the desirable benefits of ex-
tending internal competencies.
Any corporate perception of an NIH attitude from the
R&D group can lead to frustration and eventually to an
undervalued R&D organization. When that happens,
other departments may seek alternate sources of innova-
tion, and the R&D organization may be cut out of a ma-
jor part of the innovation process. The R&D team needs
to maintain an open, collaborative attitude and seek ap-
propriate outside interactions before these detrimental
consequences occur.
The spectrum of innovation processes ranges from to-
tally internal development to entirely external product
or asset acquisition. “Open innovation” is the popular
term for the external side of the continuum. Fully internal
development uses totally vertically integrated opera-
tions, and this rarely occurs today. The practical reality
is that most NPD projects fall somewhere in the middle
of this spectrum. One way to combine the benefits of
larger and smaller companies is to become a system
integrator and use sub-contractors to coordinate the
complex elements. In this case, R&D innovators need
to build effective partnerships with appropriate outside
organizations. Again, this may not come naturally, so
leadership needs to find ways to encourage such partner-
ships.
Research . Technology Management
Execution, or Excellence in Project Management
Real artists ship.—Steve Jobs
The R&D organization should consistently excel at com-
mercializing innovations to gain and maintain a reputa-
tion as a high-performing team. There has been a great
deal of attention provided to improving cycle time or
speed-to-market in many companies and industries, and
countless books and papers are available on the topic.
While there are many reasons for excessively long
product development cycles, a major source of frustra-
tion can come from inefficient project prioritization
procedures that span R&D and other corporate func-
tions involved in the NPD process.
Much has been written about the benefits and disadvan-
tages of phased product development, and about project
management as it relates to new product development.
The best processes balance discipline with lack of
excessive bureaucracy. Although R&D teams should
participate and be proficient in these overall corporate
processes, they must also master internal R&D process-
es and activities. Great ideas and strategic alignment
mean little without the results of efficient execution.
Champions of innovation within the R&D organization
need to be proficient at cross-functional project manage-
ment. Lack of proficiency can result in revenue loss and
missed opportunities (22).
Effective disciplined corporate processes have been well
described by Cooper and by Wheelwright and Clark (4,
23). These process tools include the establishment of
phases and decision gates, resource allocation, and port-
folio mapping. They help the corporation manage risk
and eliminate projects that should be discontinued due
to lack of marketing or technical feasibility. While such
processes are valuable, they need to be monitored to en-
sure that they do not become overly bureaucratic. Fur-
thermore, these tools work best when they are accepted
throughout the corporation.
Execution is the element most related to R&D manage-
ment. Some leaders may view this discipline as micro-
management, but leaders are ultimately accountable for
results. It has been said that “management without lead-
ership is bureaucracy, but leadership without manage-
ment is chaos.” It is the R&D leader’s job to set the
expectation for discipline and accountability for new
product results. Many R&D managers don’t feel the full
weight of this responsibility because progression to se-
nior levels has often been based on technical competen-
cy rather than managerial or leadership skills (24). Once
they are promoted, managers often miss appropriate
training and coaching on the skills related to manage-
ment and leadership.
Execution does not always come easily to R&D scien-
tists and engineers who tend to seek perfection before
September—October 2009
R&D teams improve
their effectiveness
by excelling at
collaboration.
commercializing products. The desire to tweak new
products often leads to numerous delays. Credibility of
the R&D organization is often lost when timelines are
not maintained. “Paralysis by analysis” can become a
problem for R&D professionals and managers, but inter-
nal credibility can be gained or reestablished by meeting
project milestones, in scope, on budget and on time.
R&D leaders should strive to develop credibility for
their organization within the company by consistently
meeting its commitments. High credibility will provide
greater resources and freedom for the R&D organization
to advance longer-term objectives.
When progressing toward a high-performance R&D
team, the change can begin with focus on execution.
Many times even smaller projects or ideas flounder due
to a lack of attention on execution. These projects may
represent only small, incremental innovations but change
is often accomplished through small early wins and the
celebration of these milestones. When there is a history
of poor performance, cross-functional relationships fal-
ter and R&D credibility suffers. Even small commer-
cialization successes can restore teamwork, confidence
and credibility.
It may be difficult for many R&D staff members to
deal with the political complexity of the product inno-
vation process, especially in large organizations. There-
fore, the innovator/champion must be adept at initiating
projects and maintaining progress. Professional project
managers can be valuable, but should not become a
crutch for R&D innovation champions. Individual con-
tributors need to be involved in project planning and
execution.
Implementing the CREATIVE Culture
Lead, follow or get out of the way.—Thomas Paine
Establishing the CREATIVE R&D culture is a challeng-
ing, long-term task and is not achieved through a single
seminar, tool or program. There are no simple techniques
that can create this culture and make changes in intrinsic
values. R&D leaders must examine attitudes and behav-
iors, and eliminate barriers that impede customer focus,
29
risk tolerance, entrepreneurial approaches, alignment,
technology excellence, innovation, collaboration, and
execution. Isolation is a major barrier to these changes.
Establishing the
Although the R&D team may benefit from some insula-
tion, R&D leaders need to look for signs of isolation and
determine the underlying reasons.
CREATIVE R&D culture
It is a happy coincidence that the CREATIVE acronym be-
gins with the customer and ends with execution. These
is a challenging,
elements can be referred to as the bookends of the frame-
work from a conceptual standpoint, but the starting point
long-term task.
for building the culture actually depends on the current
status of the R&D organization. And of course there is
no end point, since the high-performance R&D culture
is built on continual improvement. within the R&D organization: a culture that encourages
not just doing projects right but also doing the right
John Kotter has said that “most organizations are over- projects. Rapid, effective, sustained innovation can be
managed and under-led” (25). This observation seems the result. Individual contributors are the force behind
particularly true for R&D organizations. It is difficult to innovation. Great R&D managers and leaders under-
develop leadership skills in what may be the most tech- stand the attributes of individual innovators and can
nical function of the corporation. Although managers help establish the innovation culture. Their leadership
are responsible for project implementation and process provides direction toward choosing projects and estab-
improvement, it is a leader’s role to establish the overall lishing the right environment for identifying and imple-
high-performance culture. The CREATIVE framework menting innovation, and their management ensures that
provides guidance for building and maintaining such a the execution process delivers new products to the mar-
culture. ketplace.
A culture is defined through behaviors that represent To initiate the change process, R&D leaders must first
individual, management and leadership characteristics. communicate their vision for establishing a high-perfor-
This is a holistic approach to new product development mance culture. Next, baseline qualitative and quantita-

Figure 5.—A high-performance R&D culture is built though a number of potential steps
depicted as performance vs. time.

30 Research . Technology Management

tive assessments should be completed to provide a
thorough understanding of the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the organization and its people. This
can be followed by a CREATIVE 360 evaluation of the
management team, which can lead to organizational
alignment within the team to support the model (5).
Leaders should also communicate expected behaviors
broadly throughout the R&D organization (5). Leaders
of poorly performing organizations may want to focus
on executing incremental but significant innovations
to produce small early wins. Figure 5 depicts a possible
outline of a plan for R&D culture development. While
the plan will depend upon the results of assessments and
early achievements, it is important to develop and com-
municate an overall plan for the organization as well.
Fortunately, the CREATIVE R&D culture is not merely
a theory. This author’s use of the model has been proven
through successful application of the framework, most
recently producing an increase of greater than 70-fold in
the percentage of new product sales over a five-year pe-
riod. It has been used successfully to create high-perfor-
mance R&D teams in several industries, with teams
of varying maturity. This model is not the result of aca-
demic study or a concept from non-practicing consultants,
but rather has evolved from the analysis and use of suc-
cess factors from actual business experience. Of course,
as the disclaimer says, “individual results may vary.” But
it is unlikely that the disciplined use of a validated, suc-
cessful R&D approach will not yield positive results.
References
1. Carlson, Curtis R. and William W. Wilmot. 2006. Innovation: the
five disciplines for creating what customers want. New York: Crown
Business.
2. Christensen, Clayton M. and Michael E. Raynor. 2003. The
innovator’s solution: creating and sustaining successful growth.
Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation; McGregor,
Jena. 2007. 25 Most innovative companies. BusinessWeek, May 14,
2007, pp. 52–60; Sakkab, Nabil Y. 2007. Growing through innovation.
Research-Technology Management 50 (6), pp. 59–64; Leifer, Richard,
et al. 2000. Radical innovation: How mature companies can outsmart
upstarts. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
3. Christensen, Clayton M. 2000. The innovator’s dilemma. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, Inc; Wheelwright, Steven C. and Kim B.
Clark. 1995. Leading product development. New York: The Free Press.
4. Cooper, Robert G. 1999. Product leadership: creating and launching
superior new products. New York: Perseus Books.
5. Newman, Jerry L. 2007. The CREATIVE model of NPD
excellence. www.creativeNPD.com.
6. Newman, Jerry L. 2007. The CREATIVE R&D culture. www.
creativeNPD.com.
7. Brook, John, and Phillip Brewster. 1999. Putting the C in R&D -
customer focus for technologists. International Journal of Technology
Management 17 (6), pp. 639–645.
8. Belliveau, Paul, Abbie Griffin and Stephen Somermeyer, eds.
2002. The PDMA toolbook for new product development. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2004. The PDMA toolbook 2 for new product
development. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
9. InnovationPoint. Customer insight as a driver of strategic
innovation. www.innovation-point.com.
September—October 2009
Great R&D managers
and leaders
understand individual
innovators and help
to establish the
innovation culture.
10. Meyer, Christopher. 1993. Fast cycle time: How to align purpose,
strategy, and structure for speed. New York: The Free Press.
11. Mello, Sheila. 2002. Customer-centric product definition: the
key to great product development. Boston: PDC Professional
Publishing.
12. Hillson, David and Ruth Murray-Webster. 2005. Understanding
and managing risk attitude. Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing
Limited.
13. Roosen, Peter Paul and Tatsuya Nakagawa. 2007. Inventoritis
exposed : Building a sold bridge between marketing and engineering.
www.atomicacreative.com.
14. McGregor, Jena. 2006. How failure breeds success. BusinessWeek,
July 10, pp. 42–52; McCormick, Blaine. 2001. At work with Thomas
Edison: 10 business lessons from America’s greatest innovator. Irvine,
California: Entrepreneur Press.
15. Roberts, Royston M. 1989. Serendipity: Accidental discoveries in
science.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
16. Abraham, Gerard A. Successful Organizational Leadership:
Effective Execution through Strategic Alignment. http://www.
selfgrowth.com/articles/Abraham4.html.
17. Pinchot, Gifford and Ron Pellman. 1999. Intrapreneuring in
action: A handbook for business innovation. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Inc; Pinchot, Gifford. 1986. Intrapreneuring:
why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur.
New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
18. Bennis, Warren G. and Patricia Ward Biederman. 1997. Organizing
genius: The secret of creative collaboration. Boston: Addison-Wesley;
Sawyer, R. Keith. 2007. Group genius: The creative power of
collaboration. New York: Basic Books.
19. Katz, Ralph and Thomas J. Allen. 1982. Investigating the Not
Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure,
and communication patterns of 50 R&D project group R&D
Management. 12 (1), pp. 7–19.
20. Jain, R. K. and H. C. Triandis. 1997. Management of research and
development organizations: Managing the unmanageable. 2nd ed,
Wiley series in engineering and technology management. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
21. Zettlemeyer, Florian and John R. Hauser. 1997. Metrics to evaluate
R,D&E. Research-Technology Management. 40 (4), pp. 28–32.
22. Smith, Preston G. and Donald G. Reinertsen. 1998. Developing
products in half the time. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
23. Wheelwright, Steven C. and Kim B. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing
product development: Quantum leaps in speed. New York: The Free
Press.
24. Maccoby, Michael. 2007. Mobilizing the minds of research/
technology managers. Research-Technology Management. 50 (6),
pp. 65–67.
25. Kotter, John P. 1990. A force for change: How leadership differs
from management. New York: The Free Press.
31