- Title
- Innovating for ADF capability: an exploratory study of the DST product innovation process
- Creator
- Leembruggen, Ross
- Resource Type
- thesis
- Date
- 2019
- Description
- Professional Doctorate - Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)
- Description
- This exploratory study investigates the research problem (RP) ‘How may DST improve its product innovation process?’ The Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology (DST) is recognised as a national leader in safeguarding Australia, through the delivery of scientific advice and innovative technology solutions for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the wider defence industry community. With an annual budget of over $400 million, DST is Australia’s second largest publicly funded research and development (R&D) organisation. The environment for DST product innovation is characterised by high complexity, large expenditures, product innovations frequently abandoned or failed, and significant resource and operational constraints. Against this background, it could be argued that a detailed study of the DST product innovation process could contribute to both a better theoretical understanding of defence industry product innovation and a practical guide for DST product innovation process and hence improvement. A review of the literature indicates scant research to help defence industry academics and practitioners understand important aspects of defence industry innovation, including inspirations and objectives for defence innovation, stages in the defence industry innovation process, key individuals and groups involved (as well as their roles), key success factors (KSFs) and constraints associated with product innovation processes, as well as criteria to measure defence innovation outcome success. A greater understanding of these defence industry innovation factors may contribute to improved defence innovation outcomes. This study therefore seeks to address the lack of defence industry research in these areas, to develop a better understanding of those factors, which, in turn, may contribute to improving product innovation process and outcomes in DST. The RP for this study, ‘How may DST improve its product innovation process?’, has been developed into the following five research questions (RQs): RQ1: ‘What are the inspirations and objectives for DST product innovation involvement?’ RQ2: ‘What are the stages in the DST product innovation process?’ RQ3: ‘Who are the key individuals and groups involved in the DST product innovation process?’ RQ4: ‘What are the KSFs and constraints that affect the DST product innovation process?’ RQ5: ‘Can a set of criteria to measure a successful DST product innovation be specified?’ This research adopted a qualitative, multi-case study approach to develop inductive, theory-building insights into each of the five RQs and hence RP. Against a background that most DST innovations are failures, informed by literal replication logic, 30 successful DST cases were selected and analysed. The aim was to look for patterns in the data that appear consistently across the 30 successful cases, and hence, may indicate factors identified in the five RQs associated with DST product innovation process and outcome success. The interviews were guided by a semi-structured interview instrument, designed to gather data on each of the five RQs from each of the 30 successful DST cases. In addition, a large number of non-classified DST documents was accessed to provide background secondary data. Cross-case and within-case analyses were utilised to identify patterns and explanations to facilitate theory-building about what represented success for the factors identified in each RQ. Thirteen specific inspirations, including the importance of prior experience, being approached by a military partner, previous similar product shortcomings and operational need, were found consistently across the 30 successful cases, suggesting the presence of one or more of these 13 inspirations may provide important motivation for DST to pursue an innovation and hence may be associated with DST product innovation success. Six specific objectives DST wished to pursue by taking on an innovation, especially a desire to satisfy the customer, were found consistently across the 30 successful cases, suggesting pursuit of one or more of these objectives may support DST product innovation process success. These conclusions add to literature on defence industry product innovation process success. The pursuit of a systematic, eight-stage product innovation process, with an average cycle time of 6.5 years, was found consistently across the 30 successful cases, suggesting a systematic, eight-stage product innovation process, over a longer rather than shorter time, may be associated with DST product innovation process success. These conclusions support literature on defence industry product innovation process success. Both individuals and groups, external and internal to DST, undertaking a number of key roles and functions and involving a greater utilisation of informal, temporary part-time teams and networks, were found consistently across the 30 successful DST product innovation cases, suggesting a mix of external and internal individuals and groups may be associated with DST product innovation process success. These conclusions add to literature on defence industry product innovation process success. Twenty specific KSFs, especially need for management support, the right skills, expertise, strong teamwork, motivation and shared vision, and 15 constraints, notably lack of staff resources, business processes, risk-aversion and problems of competing priorities, were found consistently across the 30 successful cases, suggesting a strong focus on addressing these 20 KSFs and carefully managing the 15 constraints may help promote DST product innovation process success. These conclusions add to literature on defence industry product innovation process success. Finally, 12 specific criteria identified with innovation outcome success, especially customer satisfaction, increased capability and transition into service, were found consistently among the 30 successful case studies, suggesting a focus by DST on these 12 success criteria may be associated with successful DST product innovation outcomes. This conclusion adds to literature on defence industry innovation success. Taken together, the conclusions on the five RQs suggest how DST may improve its product innovation process. In particular, by ensuring all future product innovation activities specifically address the conclusions on the five RQs in this research, DST should, over time, experience improved product innovation processes and hence outcomes. The conclusions on the five RQs and RP have been developed into a DST Product Innovation Process Model, to guide future DST innovation. This study offers a number of theoretical contributions to the literature on the relatively poorly researched area of defence industry innovation. These contributions include identification of inspirations and objectives that may be associated with DST and hence defence industry product innovation process success, as well as identification of the typical number of innovation process stages, cycle times, composition of key personnel, KSFs and constraints that appear to play significant roles in DST and hence defence industry innovation process success. A further contribution to the defence literature is identifying specific measures of defence innovation outcome success. A final contribution to defence industry literature is a proposed DST Product Innovation Process Model, which highlights key innovation factors that DST, in particular, and potentially the Australian defence industry, in general, may focus on to improve defence product innovation processes and outcome success. This study also offers practical contributions to assist DST, other defence industry practitioners and policymakers improve defence industry product innovation processes and outcomes success. First, conducting 30 interviews among DST staff revealed a great deal of customer knowledge, insight and experience is available within DST. The chances of achieving a successful DST product innovation process outcome are potentially improved by drawing on this employee knowledge. Second, the discovery that typically successful DST product innovation processes involve eight stages, with an average cycle time of 6.5 years, with a mix of both internal and external personnel including customer and defence industry involvement, may have significant implications for DST and defence industry planning of funding, resources and timeframes needed to improve chances of defence innovation success. Further, identification of specific KSFs and constraints that appear to be associated with DST product innovation process success should be specifically accommodated in DST planning and execution of product innovation processes. The conclusions of this research also have policy-making implications for all Australian government levels. This research has pinpointed certain inspirations, objectives, process stages, involved individuals and groups, KSFs, constraints and success criteria that appear to be associated with DST and hence potentially defence industry innovation processes and outcomes success. This study may therefore help defence industry policy makers improve funding, resource and timeframe support programs that ensure these specific success factors are accommodated in the innovation processes of DST and other defence industry organisations. For instance, at the Australian Federal Government level, policy reviews of innovation programs, such as Defence White Papers, may be better informed by the findings and conclusions of this study on specific requirements that may improve DST and hence defence industry product innovation process success. This research examined only successful DST cases, giving rise to certain research limitations. The 30 successful cases selected may not be statistically representative of all successful DST product innovation projects, as the latter figure is unavailable. Further, a focus on successful DST product innovation cases means theory developed in this study focuses purely on innovation factors that may contribute to DST product innovation success; the theory (or reverse thereof) does not necessarily explain product innovation failure. Other factors not considered in this study may contribute to product innovation failure. Another limitation of this study flows from examination of each DST case at one point in time. Changes and differences over time, which could have a significant impact on DST product innovation process and outcome success, are therefore not captured by this research, limiting the generalisability of the theory developed in this study. Moreover, use of in-depth, retrospective interviews to gather data opens potential for self-serving responses, memory biases and inaccuracies to compromise the data and hence findings. A final limitation flows from all cases being selected within DST in Australia, which limits the degree to which the results may be generalised to defence industry organisations internationally. Certain directions for future research emerge from this study. First, the conclusions could be further validated by extending the research to other defence industry organisations around the world, using a similar qualitative methodology to that adopted in this study. Second, this study focused on DST product innovation process and outcome successes. DST product innovation process failures could also be studied, to alert DST, defence industry policy makers and practitioners to issues that need to be addressed to minimise failure. Third, further research could utilise a longitudinal approach to carefully and systemically track progress of the DST product innovation processes and outcomes, for success and failure factors that may only emerge over time. Finally, a different methodological approach and paradigm could be adopted by future research, such as the utilisation of a quantitative, large-sample, positivistic approach to test the theory developed in this study.
- Subject
- Australian Defence Force; technology solutions; product innovation; defence industry community; constraints
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1410487
- Identifier
- uon:36188
- Rights
- This thesis is under embargo indefiniteley and is not available to download, Copyright 2019 Ross Leembruggen
- Language
- eng
- Hits: 826
- Visitors: 788
- Downloads: 3
| Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format |
|---|