Investigation and evaluation of key success factors in technological innovation development based on BWM

Article history: Received October 3, 2016 Received in revised format: October 22, 2016 Accepted December 8, 2016 Available online December 9 2016 Developing innovation, based on knowledge and technology, as a driving force of the economy, is necessary for survival and is required in having strong interactions within the globalized world of business. Innovation and technology development require an intertwined network of organizational interactions between public and private sector. The activities and interactions of these firms are the reasons for innovation development in the framework of innovation systems. Following strategies is of crucial necessity and importance in industries such as aerospace and remotely-piloted helicopters (RPH) with their complex characteristics, costly and time-consuming processes. Understanding the business environment and identifying the success factors is a significant step towards adopting innovative strategies and planning for technology development. The aim of this article is to evaluate the key success factors in technological innovation development of remotely-piloted helicopters (RPH) industry. The methodology used in this article is Best-Worst method which is considered as one of the most prominent and effective MCDM methods. Based on a case study and by reviewing the extant and relevant literature, the key success factors of technological innovation development of remotely-piloted helicopters (RPH) industry in Iran were identified. Then by applying the “Best-Worst” method and the experts’ opinions, the key success factors were analyzed and prioritized. Finally, some suggestions are made by considering the results of the study. Growing Science Ltd. All rights reserved. 7 © 201

[1]  Adrian Smith,et al.  Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management , 2009 .

[2]  Allan Afuah,et al.  Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation, and Profits , 1997 .

[3]  Huo-Tsan Chang,et al.  How do established firms improve radical innovation performance? The organizational capabilities view , 2012 .

[4]  T. Khalil,et al.  Management of Technology: The Key to Competitiveness and Wealth Creation , 2012 .

[5]  Anna Johnson,et al.  Functions in Innovation System Approaches , 1998 .

[6]  J. Pinto,et al.  Critical factors in project implementation: a comparison of construction and R&D projects , 1989 .

[7]  Anna Bergek,et al.  Shaping and Exploiting Technological Opportunities: The Case of Renewable Energy Technology in Sweden , 2002 .

[8]  Robert L. Malone,et al.  The Personnel Effectiveness Grid (PEG): A New Tool for Estimating Personnel Department Effectiveness. , 1975 .

[9]  Rosanna Garcia,et al.  A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review , 2002 .

[10]  J. Tidd,et al.  Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 2007 .

[11]  Lori Tavasszy,et al.  Multi-criteria decision-making for complex bundling configurations in surface transportation of air freight , 2017 .

[12]  Jeffrey L. Furman,et al.  The Determinants of National Innovative Capacity , 2000 .

[13]  J. Rezaei.  Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model , 2016 .

[14]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change , 2007 .

[15]  Walid Belassi,et al.  A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects , 1996 .

[16]  H. Gemünden,et al.  The impact of a company's business strategy on its technological competence, network competence and innovation success , 2004 .

[17]  Rob Raven,et al.  Transitions and strategic niche management: towards a competence kit for practitioners , 2010, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[18]  Robert G. Cooper,et al.  Identifying industrial new product success: Project NewProd , 1979 .

[19]  J. Rezaei,et al.  A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method , 2016 .

[20]  R. Cooper,et al.  Winning Businesses in Product Development: The Critical Success Factors , 1996 .

[21]  K. Soderquist,et al.  Managing innovation in SMEs: a comparison of companies in the UK, France and Portugal , 2014 .

[22]  C. Leeuwis,et al.  Learning towards system innovation. Evaluating a systemic instrument , 2010 .

[23]  Larry J. LeBlanc,et al.  A comparison of US and Japanese technology management and innovation , 1997 .

[24]  Howard Frederick.  Innovation and entrepreneurship in New Zealand , 2001 .

[25]  Lori Tavasszy,et al.  Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using Best Worst Method , 2015, Expert Syst. Appl..

[26]  M. Parry,et al.  Identifying New Product Successes in China , 1994 .

[27]  Marshall Goldsmith,et al.  Leading for innovation and organizing for results , 2002 .

[28]  William C. Clark,et al.  Making technological innovation work for sustainable development , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  R. Calantone,et al.  Controllable Factors of New Product Success: A Cross-National Comparison , 1996 .

[30]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis , 2008 .

[31]  Christina Wirawan,et al.  Open Innovation Implementation to Sustain Indonesian SMEs , 2012 .

[32]  R. Smits,et al.  The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy , 2004 .

[33]  Jakki J. Mohr,et al.  Successful Development and Commercialization of Technological Innovation: Insights Based on Strategy Type , 2006 .

[34]  M. Porter.  Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy , 2000 .

[35]  A cross-national study of success factors in innovation project : China and western developed countries , 2008 .

[36]  J. Rezaei.  Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method , 2015 .

[37]  Watts S. Humphrey,et al.  A comparison of US and Japanese software process maturity , 1991, [1991 Proceedings] 13th International Conference on Software Engineering.