Innovacion Documentos LucasTraining

En esta página puede consultar o descargar diversos documentos que recomendamos para ampliar o complementar el contenido del curso.

Todos los documentos están en formato PDF; si no dispone del programa Adobe Acrobat Reader necesario para leer este formato, puede descargar gratuitamente la última versión del programa pinchando en el logotipo Adobe Reader que puede ver más abajo.

Las innovaciones pueden concebirse a lo largo de un "continuum" que va desde lo evolutivo a lo revolucionario. Mientras que las innovaciones evolutivas son críticas para mantener y ampliar las cuotas de mercado en los mercados existentes, las innovaciones revolucionarias residen en el corazón de la creación de riqueza (Schumpeter). De hecho, por definición, las innovaciones revolucionarias son la base de las tecnologías, productos, servicios e industrias del futuro. La expresión "innovación disruptiva" ha sido utilizada para describir aquellas innovaciones que son de naturaleza extremadamente revolucionaria o de naturaleza discontinua y que llevan a los clientes y consumidores a adoptar nuevos paradigmas descartando los ya existentes. Este trabajo explora el concepto de innovación disruptiva tal y como es presentado en la literatura, cómo se diferencia de otros tipos de innovación y el impacto especifico de tal tipo de innovación en el sector de las tecnologías de la información mediante el análisis del caso del Blogware vs. el Software para la "Gestión de Contenidos" (CMS).

The 2006 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard (Scoreboard) provides information of the top 1000 EU companies and top 1000 from outside the EU (non-EU) which invest the most in R&D. The Scoreboard comprises R&D, economic and financial data of the latest four financial years. The first section of this document summarises the key figures for the world top R&D investors, aggregating the whole set of companies and ranking them by group of top companies and industrial sectors. The full data set is presented in the second section. Company data are ranked by level of R&D investment and presented in single files for companies, industrial sectors and countries. The methodology, approach and limitations of the Scoreboard are explained in the Annex.

This study examines the role of innovation and information and communications technologies in recent OECD growth performance. It is inspired by the strong economic performance of the US economy in recent years and is thus closely related to the debate on whether a "new economy" has emerged in the United States. The study was carried out in response to a mandate of the May 1999 OECD meeting at Ministerial level. It is not exhaustive, however, and several other aspects of the OECD work on growth are covered in other studies following on the Ministerial mandate. It is also a "work in progress", as further work on growth is to be carried out in preparation for the meeting at Ministerial level that will take place in 2001.

El informe consta de dos partes. En la primera, ANÁLISIS DE LA SITUACIÓN, después de señalar los principales indicadores internacionales de referencia para situar el sistema español de innovación en el contexto de la UE y de la OCDE, se presenta la evolución reciente de los elementos descriptivos del sistema español de innovación. En la segunda parte, INFORMACIÓN NUMÉRICA, se reproducen los datos fundamentales, debidamente actualizados y presentados en tablas que ya se han incorporado a ediciones anteriores de los informes Cotec, a las que se hace referencia en los capítulos de la primera parte. Las Consideraciones finales comentan algunos aspectos relevantes de la evolución reciente del sistema español de innovación, tomando en consideración las observaciones estadísticas, los estudios institucionales, y las encuestas contenidas en las dos partes de este informe. El Informe Cotec 2005 se cierra con un anexo metodológico sobre la Elaboración de un índice sintético Cotec de opinión sobre tendencias de evolución del sistema español de innovación.

Today more than ever before, companies must exploit their innovative capabilities to develop new businesses if they are to successfully confront the disruptive effects of emerging technologies, empowered customers, new market entrants, shorter product life cycles, geopolitical instability, and market globalization. Indeed, the development of innovative capabilities is the only means by which companies can sustain a competitive advantage. Until now, innovation has been somewhat of a black art. Managers currently lack the requisite metrics to make informed decisions about their innovation programs. Admittedly, some metrics have been developed for new product development. However, such metrics are very limited. Managers have only a vague sense of their company's overall innovativeness; they have little or no means to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of a particular innovation program. They need tools with which to diagnose impediments-for example, fear of cannibalization within the existing business or a corporate culture that's excessively risk averse-to their innovation processes and to evaluate the innovative capacity of potential acquisition targets.This article offers managers both general principles in the development of innovation metrics as well as sample specific metrics that they can begin to use immediately. Our recommendations derive from our experience with Strategos, an innovation and strategy consulting firm, and the Woodside Institute, a management research laboratory whose purpose is to promote organizational resilience and renewal.

PETER Drucker has elegantly presented the three ingredients of the discipline of innovation: focus on mission, define significant results, and do rigorous assessment. But if it sounds so simple, why is it so difficult for institutions to innovate? There are two possible explanations, representing dramatically different worldviews. These opposing outlooks were first clarified nearly 40 years ago by Douglas McGregor in his groundbreaking Human Side of Enterprise: Theory X (employees as unreliable and uncommitted, chasing a paycheck) versus Theory Y (employees as responsible adults wanting to contribute). One possibility for difficulties innovating is that most people really don't care about innovation. After all, Theory X is still the prevailing philosophy in most large institutions -- certainly in the American corporate world. Few people in positions of authority would admit to that view, but our practices belie our espoused values. If we look honestly at how organizations manage people, most appear to operate with the belief that people cannot work without careful supervision. As Arie de Geus has shown in his recent book The Living Company, we treat the business enterprise as a machine for making money rather than as a living community. Consequently, we view people as "human resources" waiting to be employed (or disemployed) to the organizations' needs. (The word resource literally means "standing in reserve, waiting to be used.") (...)

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

An The Institute for the Future/IEEE Spectrum Future of Science and Technology Survey was conducted online in February and March 2006. More than 700 IEEE Fellows across the globe participated. The sample consisted of 97 percent males and 3 percent females, with an equal mix of academic researchers and those working in industry. The survey asked participants to identify key breakthroughs in their areas of expertise and then to forecast probabilities of specific developments. The respondents were then asked to forecast trends within their areas of expertise. The forecast domains included computer science, telecommunications and media, sensors and robotics, materials and nanotechnology, energy, physics, space and earth sciences, and human health and biology. The respondents were also asked the probability of each forecast's occurring over the next 50 years. If they believed that the forecast had at least a 60 percent chance of occurring, they were asked to provide a time frame in which it was likely to occur. Because the graphics here show only the most salient data, the percentages do not add up to 100 percent. Time frames were omitted when the consensus was divided or the number of respondents was small. The complete set of data can be found at Spectrum's Web site, http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep06/fellowsdata. IFTF staff who contributed to this survey include Mani Pande, Anthony Townsend, Mike Liebhold, Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, and Maureen Davis.

	Buscar en LucasTraining
Formación en Competencias y Habilidades para la Economía Digital	Inicio \| Buscar \| Contacto \| Suscribase al Canal RSS