Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Product innovation is alive and well in Australia. There was overwhelming support for and interest in the topic, as evidenced by the large crowds we had at the various events on our recent tour; attendees were bubbling with enthusiasm when they spoke about their companies, their innovation activities, and their new product successes. Australia has the good fortune of being a Western-style, English-speaking economy, and has many international firms operating there; thus, Australia is well plugged into the methods, practices and thinking in terms of innovation management that we are familiar with in North America. But the country is also sufficiently geographically isolated that it has developed a certain degree of independence from other Western countries, and so it has many home-grown products that are not simply copies or imported designs or concepts from a sister or parent company (for example, GM and Ford both develop unique cars locally in Australia, and Australian winemakers have been particularly innovative in recent years, both in terms of product development and marketing). In many respects, Australia resembles Canada more than the United States when it comes to product development. It is a large country with a relatively small population, concentrated largely in a handful of coastal cities. It is a resource-rich and hence largely resource-based economy, and thus, not surprisingly, spends relatively less on RD minerals and steel; forestry products; and the like. And like Canada, Australia tends to lag the U.S. in terms of adoption of new management techniques. Many companies had only been recently introduced to new-product portfolio management, and even idea-to-launch processes (such as my Stage-Gate system) were a novelty to many. Five Major Themes Perhaps the greatest insights of the tour came from the intense breakout sessions we ran as part of our events. Their purpose was to identify the major problems, challenges and issues faced by Australian companies in product innovation. Five major themes emerged from these sessions, which were attended by almost 200 directors and managers--in R&D, new product development and marketing--from over 80 companies: 1. A lack of understanding and commitment from the top.--Machoism is flourishing in Australia. A very common theme across almost all companies was that there are too many executive pet projects--projects driven by some senior executive, no matter how bad the project is! Senior management does not really understand its role in leading the NPD effort. Additionally, in too many Australian firms, senior management is not really committed to NPD, has failed to lead the development of an innovation strategy for the business, and suffers from a short-term and immediate-profits focus. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,033 |
| Communication savante | 0,029 | 0,031 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,028 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,020 | 0,028 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,027 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».