why research and development is important for innovation

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

Innovation in Business: What It Is & Why It’s Important

• 08 Mar 2022

Today’s competitive landscape heavily relies on innovation. Business leaders must constantly look for new ways to innovate because you can't solve many problems with old solutions.

Innovation is critical across all industries; however, it's important to avoid using it as a buzzword and instead take time to thoroughly understand the innovation process.

Here's an overview of innovation in business, why it's important, and how you can encourage it in the workplace.

What Is Innovation?

Innovation and creativity are often used synonymously. While similar, they're not the same. Using creativity in business is important because it fosters unique ideas . This novelty is a key component of innovation.

For an idea to be innovative, it must also be useful. Creative ideas don't always lead to innovations because they don't necessarily produce viable solutions to problems.

Simply put: Innovation is a product, service, business model, or strategy that's both novel and useful. Innovations don't have to be major breakthroughs in technology or new business models; they can be as simple as upgrades to a company's customer service or features added to an existing product.

Access your free e-book today.

Types of Innovation

Innovation in business can be grouped into two categories : sustaining and disruptive.

• Sustaining innovation: Sustaining innovation enhances an organization's processes and technologies to improve its product line for an existing customer base. It's typically pursued by incumbent businesses that want to stay atop their market.
• Disruptive innovation: Disruptive innovation occurs when smaller companies challenge larger businesses. It can be classified into groups depending on the markets those businesses compete in. Low-end disruption refers to companies entering and claiming a segment at the bottom of an existing market, while new-market disruption denotes companies creating an additional market segment to serve a customer base the existing market doesn't reach.

The most successful companies incorporate both types of innovation into their business strategies. While maintaining an existing position in the market is important, pursuing growth is essential to being competitive. It also helps protect a business against other companies affecting its standing.

Learn about the differences between sustaining and disruptive innovation in the video below, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

The Importance of Innovation

Unforeseen challenges are inevitable in business. Innovation can help you stay ahead of the curve and grow your company in the process. Here are three reasons innovation is crucial for your business:

• It allows adaptability: The recent COVID-19 pandemic disrupted business on a monumental scale. Routine operations were rendered obsolete over the course of a few months. Many businesses still sustain negative results from this world shift because they’ve stuck to the status quo. Innovation is often necessary for companies to adapt and overcome the challenges of change.
• It fosters growth: Stagnation can be extremely detrimental to your business. Achieving organizational and economic growth through innovation is key to staying afloat in today’s highly competitive world.
• It separates businesses from their competition: Most industries are populated with multiple competitors offering similar products or services. Innovation can distinguish your business from others.

Innovation & Design Thinking

Several tools encourage innovation in the workplace. For example, when a problem’s cause is difficult to pinpoint, you can turn to approaches like creative problem-solving . One of the best approaches to innovation is adopting a design thinking mentality.

Design thinking is a solutions-based, human-centric mindset. It's a practical way to strategize and design using insights from observations and research.

Four Phases of Innovation

Innovation's requirements for novelty and usefulness call for navigating between concrete and abstract thinking. Introducing structure to innovation can guide this process.

In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar teaches design thinking principles using a four-phase innovation framework : clarify, ideate, develop, and implement.

• Clarify: The first stage of the process is clarifying a problem. This involves conducting research to empathize with your target audience. The goal is to identify their key pain points and frame the problem in a way that allows you to solve it.
• Ideate: The ideation stage involves generating ideas to solve the problem identified during research. Ideation challenges assumptions and overcomes biases to produce innovative ideas.
• Develop: The development stage involves exploring solutions generated during ideation. It emphasizes rapid prototyping to answer questions about a solution's practicality and effectiveness.
• Implement: The final stage of the process is implementation. This stage involves communicating your developed idea to stakeholders to encourage its adoption.

Human-Centered Design

Innovation requires considering user needs. Design thinking promotes empathy by fostering human-centered design , which addresses explicit pain points and latent needs identified during innovation’s clarification stage.

There are three characteristics of human-centered design:

• Desirability: For a product or service to succeed, people must want it. Prosperous innovations are attractive to consumers and meet their needs.
• Feasibility: Innovative ideas won't go anywhere unless you have the resources to pursue them. You must consider whether ideas are possible given technological, economic, or regulatory barriers.
• Viability: Even if a design is desirable and feasible, it also needs to be sustainable. You must consistently produce or deliver designs over extended periods for them to be viable.

Consider these characteristics when problem-solving, as each is necessary for successful innovation.

The Operational and Innovative Worlds

Creativity and idea generation are vital to innovation, but you may encounter situations in which pursuing an idea isn't feasible. Such scenarios represent a conflict between the innovative and operational worlds.

The Operational World

The operational world reflects an organization's routine processes and procedures. Metrics and results are prioritized, and creativity isn't encouraged to the extent required for innovation. Endeavors that disrupt routine—such as risk-taking—are typically discouraged.

The Innovative World

The innovative world encourages creativity and experimentation. This side of business allows for open-endedly exploring ideas but tends to neglect the functional side.

Both worlds are necessary for innovation, as creativity must be grounded in reality. You should strive to balance them to produce human-centered solutions. Design thinking strikes this balance by guiding you between the concrete and abstract.

Learning the Ropes of Innovation

Innovation is easier said than done. It often requires you to collaborate with others, overcome resistance from stakeholders, and invest valuable time and resources into generating solutions. It can also be highly discouraging because many ideas generated during ideation may not go anywhere. But the end result can make the difference between your organization's success or failure.

The good news is that innovation can be learned. If you're interested in more effectively innovating, consider taking an online innovation course. Receiving practical guidance can increase your skills and teach you how to approach problem-solving with a human-centered mentality.

Eager to learn more about innovation? Explore Design Thinking and Innovation ,one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you're not sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

MIT Technology Review

• Newsletters

Building a culture of innovation in research and development

Semiconductor memory chip company Micron prioritizes a fail fast mentality and diversity to meet market demands.

• MIT Technology Review Insights archive page

In association with Micron

Memory and storage solutions for technology are built into our everyday life, from mobile applications, cars, health-care systems, and more. To meet that need and help propel innovation, Micron Technology said it would invest $150 billion into research and development to build factories for its semiconductor memory chips. This investment looks to expand not only the reach of memory chips but also to innovate new solutions to common problems, says Naga Chandrasekaran, senior vice president of technology development at Micron.

“The day we stop innovating, not just in memory, but as a human race, the day we stop innovating, we stop progressing and that's not where we want to be. We want to continue to drive innovation,” says Chandrasekaran.

With each iteration of new technology, from phones to cars, consumers are looking for improved performance, lower latency, more storage, and lower costs. Meeting these expectations means finding solutions at an atomic scale and making micro changes to push the boundaries of what’s possible.

Since its inception 44 years ago, Micron has developed over 50,000 patents. While Chandrasekaran emphasizes that patents are just one part of fostering innovation, they do represent the strides toward greater innovations and the company culture that Micron has worked to establish.

While having strong team members is important, the culture that a company fosters is just as crucial when it comes to seeing positive results. Chandrasekaran says that building successful teams that can create so many patents and build technologies with an eye on innovation requires a certain company mindset that doesn’t shy away from mistakes or failure.

“So we are taking risks on a regular basis, but the key is to make sure we can fail fast and not see those failures as a mistake, but actually learn from them.” Chandrasekaran continues, “That's why failing fast is important, but not being afraid of failing.”

In addition to taking risks, diversity has become a significant contributor to driving new solutions. Between 2017 and 2021, the number of women listed as inventors on Micron patent applications quadrupled. Chandrasekaran says that for any sustained success and innovation to be possible, diversity is necessary.

“No matter what we say, we are all limited in our thought process in how we approach problems, in how we approach solutions. And even with a growth mindset, we have limitations, because we are who we are based on the experiences and the exposures that we have gained,” says Chandrasekaran. “So diversity brings in not just from a gender diversity or ethnic diversity, but if we look at diversity from a broader scale, it's diversity of thought process.”

This episode of Business Lab is produced in association with Micron Technology.

Laurel Ruma: From MIT Technology Review, I'm Laurel Ruma and this is Business Lab. The show that helps business leaders make sense of new technologies coming out of the lab and into the marketplace.

Our topic today is technological innovation. Patents play a key role in technology development and innovation for many companies, especially ones that focus on collaboration, efficiency, and ingenuity, and with investments in research and development increasing, they could also be a key competitive differentiator.

Two words for you: patent pending.

Joining me is Naga Chandrasekaran, senior vice president of technology development at Micron Technology. Naga himself has a number of patents on various technologies.

This podcast is sponsored by Micron Technology.

Welcome, Naga.

Naga Chandrasekaran: Thank you, Laurel. Thanks for having me for this podcast. And I'm excited to share some of my thoughts.

Laurel: Great to have you. So, last fall Micron said it would invest more than $150 billion on research and development to build memory semiconductor chip factories. How will the company's focus on innovation help it reach this goal?

Naga : For the listeners benefit, I want to do a quick introduction on Micron. Micron is the leader in semiconductor memory technology development and manufacturing. And we provide a wide range of memory and storage solutions that all the listeners might experience, whether it's in a compute solution or mobile applications, graphics, automotive, and edge solutions. Our mission is to transform how the world uses information to enrich life for all. Semiconductor memory is everywhere. And all the listeners either directly or indirectly are getting touched by this innovative technology every day from the time we wake up to making coffee or looking at our phones when we drive our car to work or where we want to go, and to complex applications like health care, bioinformation, and security details.

In order to deliver to this wide range of applications and to meet the mission of transforming how we use information, semiconductor memory technology is playing a very important role, and Micron, as a leader in this space, we consider it as our responsibility and a priority to make the right investments to continue to drive innovation and enhancements in this technology. So, the $150 billion in research and development that we announced recently, it's in line with this belief that we have, that the requirements for semiconductor based innovation will grow, not only in volume, which is more capacity for innovations, but also in the breadth, in the type of applications that we have to enable, in new solutions that we can provide to make life better for everyone and the advancements in solutions for better capabilities and insights that we can gain from data.

So, Micron's investment in the research and development is to make sure we are continuing to further the semiconductor memory technology, but with it, we want to make sure the world is now able to take the data that it is generating and gain more insights from it in real time. And for that, we are continuing to make sure that from process technology all the way to systems software and the whole end solution is provided so that customers can see better value from the data that they're generating.

Laurel: How does Micron use research and development to differentiate itself from competitors?

Naga : Semiconductor industry is a tough one. Over the last four or five decades since the invention of the transistors, the industry has been on a constant treadmill of continuing to develop new solutions that are better for performance, lower power, more density, and lower cost. It is an amazing industry if you go back and look at the history of how year over year, we have been able to provide faster solutions, more storage, but continuing to push to a lower cost. And all of this requires us to keep pushing the boundaries of physics. We are moving from millimeters to micrometers to nanometers. And now what we are doing is in the atomic scale, we are actually dealing with atoms and electrons. And in some cases there are so few electrons in the solutions we provide that we jokingly say, we know the electrons by their first name.

So, as we keep pushing the boundaries so much, it depends on our industry continuing to drive the innovation treadmill. And that goes unnoticed a lot of times. And in order to keep this innovation going, we have to invest into our research and development, not only for today and the next three years, but 10 years down the road and 15 years down the road where we need to be. From the industry wise, definitely there's a lot of competition and every semiconductor memory manufacturer wants to be in leadership when it comes to technology or manufacturing. But I want to see it as how we differentiate eventually depends on our customers' success. So, Micron works very close with our customers to make sure we understand their requirements, what end markets they are driving and what are the end users' needs, whether it's a cell phone manufacturer who might want to continue to drive lower power and better performance so that our end users can take advantage of the new 5G revolution that's happening.

It's in the automotive industry where reliability is a big requirement, and we try to make sure our solutions can deliver better quality in graphics, whether it's gaming industry, where the gamers are looking for faster performance, how can we deliver these fast performance and higher bandwidth? So we constantly drive ourselves to say, how can we be leaders in technology? That's foundation for Micron. We want to make sure we are technology leaders. And that's where innovation comes in to make sure we can enable revolutionary experience for our users. It's not just technology for the sake of building something. We have to take it to manufacturing and eventually deliver it at the right cost point for our customers.

So leadership in manufacturing also requires a lot of innovation to meet supply efficiency and cost targets. And like I said earlier, the technology solutions today are vertically integrated from silicon to systems, there's a lot of trade-offs that happens, whether it's in the hardware, software and the services that we provide, we have to make sure there's innovation and we are enabling a complete ecosystem. So the R&D dollars and the R&D effort that we are taking is applying our brilliant R&D staff across all these vectors, silicon technology to hardware, software, and continuing to make sure we are differentiating ourselves by the solutions we provide so that we can meet our end customer requirements.

Laurel: Well, thank you for giving that background on how vast the semiconductor business really is. So really, it's from your cell phone to your car, to almost unimaginable applications at this point. So when we take that, especially being at the atomic level of where you are now, that is a far journey from 44 years ago when the company was first founded. So in that 44 years, Micron has had issued almost 50,000 patents on various technologies. What has the role of these patents played in building this kind of legacy?

Naga : It's a great question. And backing up on your previous comment, the breadth of how semiconductor solutions and in particular, the memory solutions touch all of us, we forget about it and take it for granted. And it's these atomic scale solutions that are even in our refrigerators and coffee machines and alarm clocks today, waking us up. And I hope our listeners take a minute to actually appreciate the type of technology innovation that we are surrounded by today. So back to the question on the patents, in my opinion, patent is just one aspect of innovation. It's a representation of the innovative culture that a company has. The patents that Micron has developed over the last 44 years, as you clearly highlighted, placed a foundational role in our technologies that we are delivering. Our patent portfolio is very broad. It's in the process technology area, whether it's in developing new material solutions or new process solutions, it's in the manufacturing area, how do we run more efficient factories and make them continue to deliver better output and meet the supply chain requirements?

We are touching almost every material in the periodic table and starting to look at how we can continue to deliver new solutions using advanced materials. And we have several innovations in the area of material signs. So this is where our journey started. And the areas that I highlighted continue to be a focus for us. That's around the silicon development from circuit design to materials, to new processes. But as Micron has grown over these 44 years and started to provide more vertically integrated solutions, we have started generating our IP in the ADS of system solutions, software and firmware. And now we are starting to generate intellectual property to enable faster solution time for delivering our technologies in the area of data science machine learning. In fact, we are partnering to generate new innovations in health care and bioinformatics and how we are able to store and move data in the cloud.

So, the patent portfolio that we have is in a very broad set of areas, but eventually underpinning them to the memory technology and the storage technologies that we are developing and delivering to our customers. Circling back to my first point, I don't want to just say patent is the only way to showcase our innovation because many times there are ideas that we do not patent, and innovation is a daily occurrence, every minute occurrence, and there's innovation that's happening all around Micron in every area from finance to human resources, to legal, and these innovations, whether they are in the business process are in hardcore technology. All of them underpin Micron's solutions that we deliver to our customers. And a patent is a way for us to show the world and our customers that Micron's a strong technology company. We have a breadth of solutions and by delivering these patents–50,000 plus–what we are driving both internally and externally is the visibility to how innovation is the foundation to Micron and the whole memory industry success.

Laurel: And that is certainly so important, but you too have played such a major role in that type of success. So, can you tell us a little bit more about the patents you have worked on and filed?

Naga : Yeah, and my patent portfolio is minuscule compared to the 50,000 patents that Micron has, but I do take pride just as any other innovator in the patents that I have contributed to Micron. In fact, we have a wall in Micron technology development in Boise here, and we call it the wall of fame. And the wall is started with patents that have been issued for Micron. And the first time I took my kids to the factory and showed them around, I was actually standing there trying to figure out where my patents were, so that I can show them my name and the patents that were issued against my name. And it was a moment of pride for me. And every Micron employee is proud of the patents that they have contributed towards. So I joined Micron in 2001 and joined as a process development engineer. And over the last 20 years that I've worked for Micron, I've had the privilege and the opportunity to have over 40 patents issued in my name.

And they have been in the area of, again, process technology, material science, underpinning towards memory solutions. And I've had some patents in solar and more recently starting to get engaged in machine learning and data science and writing some disclosures even today in those areas, because innovation never stops. And like I said, you can innovate no matter which position you are in, but that's my past. And today as a senior vice president for technology development, I shoulder the responsibility to make sure we are continuing to drive an innovative culture. The day we stop innovating, not just in memory, but as a human race, the day we stop innovating, we stop progressing and that's not where we want to be. We want to continue to drive innovation. So, my role today is to see how I can drive innovative culture and continue to enable innovation inside the walls of Micron so that we can continue to be technology leaders and develop solutions.

Laurel: Well, 40 patents is quite impressive from where I sit. So, congratulations on that feat. And I love the thought of you and your kids and the hallway. What a nice way to make a physical celebration of something that is so difficult to understand otherwise. So, I think that hall of fame is actually quite nice to show off.

Naga : Yeah. And I've seen everyone who has their name up there is very excited. And when we bring our new hires into Micron, the next generation of hires into Micron, we show them our wall of fame. And many of them want to get their name up there. So it's also a motivation to start writing disclosures and getting patents issued.

Laurel: Well, speaking of that, how do you then build these kinds of successful teams that can create and file so many patents and build these technologies with an eye on innovation? Because, really, without teamwork, you're not getting to those 50,000 patents.

Naga : Yeah. Yeah. It's a very good question, because it's our teams that are driving the innovation. And like I said, again, our goal is to innovate every day, and a patent is an end result, but it is not the only way to showcase your innovation. If you get a patent out of an innovation, that's great, but there are so many reasons why certain innovations might get patented and some might remain a trade secret and not get patented. So we don't measure our innovation purely by the patents, but eventually by how our innovative culture is flourishing and how many innovations we are generating that eventually end up in our products and help our customers. So, we have to develop this innovative culture within the company. And for a technology company it's relatively easy, but extremely important to remind people constantly that innovation is the only way that we stay as leaders and innovation is the only way that we are going to continue to make progress.

And we call it our DNA and keep reminding our people that it's what we do and how we innovate is what's going to make a change around us in the world we live in, and also for the people around us, innovation is going to be important. So how we drive it, a big part of innovation is risk taking. And one of the things that can stifle innovation is the fear of failure. So we constantly remind our team that you have to take risks and you have to be willing to explore into areas that have never been explored before. In fact, we are in the frontiers of science with challenging physics every day and challenging different technologies to see how we can keep pushing ourselves. So we are taking risks on a regular basis, but the key is to make sure we can fail fast and not see those failures as a mistake, but actually learn from them. That's why failing fast is important, but not be afraid of failing. And we constantly tell our teams to take risks and continue to bring it out and celebrate sometimes that we have failed, but failed fast and learned from it. And we are as a result coming up with new innovations.

The other piece that we do with our developing the innovative culture is to make sure the innovations that we are coming up with are not just innovation for the sake of innovation, but they become a core part of our end process and product so that our team members can see that what they have innovated is not just the patent that's a plaque sitting on a wall or in a wall of fame, but it's actually made into a product.

And that product is now released in the industry. And there are users, including their family members who are using it, and they can proudly point out that, hey, I contributed to this innovation, or the company that I work for contributed to this innovation that we all now have smartphones. And we are able to change how we lead our life, where we don't need maps to go around and we can have maps on our phones that tells us how to reach from point A to point B. Well, memory technology enabled it also. So that pride, we continue to showcase with our team members. And in order to help them feel the pride and feel rewarded, we have several programs where we recognize the wall of fame as one, but we actually innovated in how we recognize our innovators every year, giving them cubes that have embedded in them elements from the periodic table that are used in our semiconductor manufacturing process. So here's a great example of how we innovated and how we reward.

And in fact, it's such a cool cube that you can display on your desk that recently I wrote a disclosure just to get one of those cubes. And there's going to be several of these every year, we'll circle through the periodic table. And as a result, it's forcing me to write at least one disclosure every year. So it's not just a monetary reward, but the pride of showcasing these cubes on our desk that others can see and recognize us as innovators. So Micron has implemented a great reward program in how we recognize and celebrate our innovators. All of these are pieces that are contributing to our innovative culture and how we are building this teams to have the innovative mindset as part of their DNA.

Laurel: What a clever idea, because some of those elements of the periodic table are quite rare, and a little bit of competition never hurts, but to put that in perspective in 2021, nearly 1,500 employees contributed to 2,600 patent grants. So, that's a lot of grants being issued in one year, and granted, that was a record. With that kind of success, how do you see that evolving the culture at Micron versus the fail forward fast, people think of that as a Silicon Valley mantra, but here you are in Boise, Idaho in the middle of the United States. And this is a different perspective that the company has taken on realizing to stay competitive, it also has to innovate and change the culture itself.

Naga : And to be fair, Micron's a very global company. We started in Boise, Idaho, 44 years back, but today as a global company, Micron has teams within the US in several states and in California, in Virginia. And we also have teams in Japan, Italy, India, Taiwan, Singapore, and many other places where we have our design centers, in Germany and different locations. So, it's a global mindset. What started locally back in 1978, today it has flourished and grown to a global company, not just within our employee base, but also with our customer base that we are working with is global. So, we had to make the transformation from being local to global, and that has helped us to drive our innovation as well. That global mindset thought process has helped us quite a bit. So today we don't, even though Boise is seen not as the Silicon Valley, the global nature of Micron has actually helped us drive this innovative culture across the company and in Boise.

And I actually say that in Idaho, there are two chips that are famous. One is the potato chips and the other one is the semiconductor chip. And Micron, the world's leading semi connector memory manufacturer, is in Boise, Idaho, and we have the coolest R&D factory here. And we have gotten a very diverse set of employees and a melting pot of cultures here in Boise now within the Micron walls you will see a really global mindset and a global dispersion of people from different parts of the world here. So I don't think it has been challenging at all for us to have this innovative culture built inside Micron because of the global mindset that we have developed here.

Laurel: The number of women listed as innovators, sorry, inventors on those patent applications was four times greater in 2021 than 2017. What steps is Micron taking to further increase diversity? And how does diversity contribute to that success? You talked a bit about the global diversity itself, but you still have to really work that into the culture everywhere.

Naga : Yeah, it's a very good question and a very, very important one given some of the things happening around us. I strongly believe and Micron as a company strongly believes that diversity and innovation go hand in glove. We cannot have innovation or sustained innovation if we do not have diversity. No matter what we say, we are all limited in our thought process in how we approach problems, in how we approach solutions. And even with a growth mindset, we have limitations, because we are who we are based on the experiences and the exposures that we have gained. So, diversity brings in not just from a gender diversity or ethnic diversity, but if we look at diversity from a broader scale, it's diversity of thought process. And the diversity of thought process starts bringing in the diverse nature of the problems that we have to deal with. And in the end it also brings diverse solution possibilities. And we strongly believe that's required for sustained innovation to happen.

That's the diversity piece. So I'll address the specific question that you were asking about the women as inventors. I think it's very important for us to make sure in our workforce we have equal representation. And with that equal representation, we have the right inclusive culture that's going to enable everyone to be inventors, and everyone to be recognized as inventors across the company. So Micron has had several women inventors, but we made a conscious effort to continue to make sure we can give more opportunities that is more inclusive of our workforce and make sure we can have more women enlisted as inventors who in turn can be examples for other women that we are hiring and coming onto Micron so that they can see them as examples and continue to follow the path.

So one of the things that we came up with recently was a program, within our employee resource group we have a Micron Women Leadership Network Resource Group. And as part of it, we started a program called women inventors or women innovators. And we walked with them about the importance of innovation, but more importantly, trying to help educate them as to how a disclosure is written and what ideas qualify as disclosures and not worry about in the end, whether they become patents or not, but continue to display your innovation ideas and write them into disclosures. And a good thing here was we actually had a diverse group of sponsors and teachers who were in this group educating all the women about the possibilities of disclosures that we can write. And the program was very well received. And we had several disclosures that the team wrote and many of them were awarded for the patent reward in the end.

But what really excited me was in the subsequent years where we had new cohorts, but the cohorts from the first year, majority of them had repeat innovations that they submitted. Now they had started understanding about the disclosures and they started getting recognized and it became now a habit of writing up your innovation, writing the disclosures and getting it to be recognized as patents. So the repeat inventors were something that really gave us commitment to this program and we are continuing to drive it forward. So for me, it's being able to highlight and recognize the growing contributions of their team members, giving them the opportunity, bringing it to light and showcasing it that there is no limit here, everyone can be inventors and I'm continuing to reward them and celebrate them has paved the way for more women to become inventors as well. So, that's one that we are very proud of in how we are continuing to drive this diversity.

And if I may continue on this a little bit to also talk about another aspect of this diversity is collaboration. And there is, at least for some people, a misconception that collaboration and innovation are two different things. Inventors are always individuals, so then how can you collaborate? I actually think collaboration enhances innovation. It goes hand in hand with this diversity. When you have a diverse team sitting together and talking about problems and brainstorming about ideas, they can come up with new solutions that a single mind was never able to come up with. So collaboration and diversity together are really driving forward innovation. And collaboration, innovation are both key core values for Micron. And we are very proud of how we celebrate them here.

Laurel: We've talked quite a bit about culture in our conversation, but with that culture of innovation and collaboration also comes performance. So, it's the performance of technologies, it's the performance of the teams, it's the performance of the company. So, what performance barriers need to be overcome to bring better products to market?

Naga : I'm assuming here, Laurel, that you're talking to the product performance barriers that we have to deliver to the market. Performance is always a critical consideration. I call there are different levels of performance and the performance has to meet a certain level as an entry point. That's a requirement. So from the solutions that we deliver, we constantly talk about speed, and speed we refer to it as performance with respect to how fast our memory is able to operate. What is the latency? For example, if you have a phone and you have 5G connection, you are connected to the network, you want to be able to download things faster, store more of this information and be able to pay less for that phone. So, that's the specs. And every phone that we buy, we have gotten into the habit of buying a phone every year. And these phones now have to be faster, more storage, but not cost more, have better battery life and be able to have more applications downloaded and operating in parallel.

So, when we look at our performance consideration, there are a few things across the spectrum of products that we define. One is the performance/speed. Second is power, which we have to always reduce. The third is the latency in reducing it all the time, improving the overall efficiency of our hardware and software in how it's able to run, like I said, more applications in parallel. And eventually it still has to be at a cost point so that it can have deeper penetration across the world with all our customers. The first time we start a project, we call it a technology node year over year. And it's a hard project for us to bring a new solution to market every year. We are typically working on the solution five years earlier, we started the project five years earlier and for a memory that's going to come out next year, it was started four years before.

And then we are starting at that point, we are defining these specs and the first reaction is always, wow, I don't know how to do it, because nobody else has done it. And we'll have to first break that mindset barrier that it cannot be done, because the day we say it cannot be done, we have stopped progressing and innovating. So while it sounds daunting because there is no solution like that exists today, we have to look at our past and say, “hey, we have come as a semiconductor industry for the last 50, 60 years progressing year over year. And when the first transistors were invented, they probably never thought about today's world.”

So, actually the big challenge is to get over that mindset barrier first and start changing the question from, start changing it from a statement of it cannot be done to how can it be done? And once the question changes to how can it be done? Now an idea starts coming out and you're now starting to make a down selection to which ideas have better chances of success, or how do you fail fast and then start putting it together into a plan and start working towards it. And in this five years, we'll have hundreds of failures, but we'll have those golden nuggets of success that eventually deliver us to better product performance. So while there are performance barriers that we'll have to overcome through technology solutions with new materials, new architecture, new design, new equipment, new software solutions, the first step is to overcome the human mindset barrier. Once we do it, the rest of that happens.

Laurel: So, we've really talked about a number of things throughout our conversation today, and that culture is so important in collaboration and innovation. So how do you keep building that culture that really enables future technological innovations?

Naga : Yeah, it's a very good question, Laurel, and a challenging one, because I've read somewhere that culture eats strategy for breakfast, something along those lines. And it is really that culture that's going to drive, not just companies but societies and whether it's a culture around the technological breakthrough or culture around diversity, or the culture around sustainability. All of these require us to invest in the next generation of inventors and human beings who are going to continue to drive this culture. So one of the things that keeps me up at night outside of the technology challenges is—like I said, I have been in the industry now for 21 years—and I'm looking at the new hires who are coming on board with lots of dreams today. And the challenge that keeps me up at night is to say, how are we going to build the right culture that this team is going to now learn, but also start developing their own culture for innovation going forward and how are they going to sustain Micron and the industry for the next 20 years, 25 years and pass it on?

And it is a big challenge. So the main thing that we start doing here is to start building our storyline around how Micron has been successful in the industry over the last 45 years, 44 years. And it is through innovation, it is through coming up with technological breakthroughs. It is by being first to market with new ideas and start weaving in the story of how these innovations are not just about a business top line or bottom line. It is also about how we are making changes in people's lives. And these innovations matter beyond a memory chip that gets hidden into an end device and is just going to perform faster or better, but how is it transforming lives?

And we are proud to showcase those stories, how a memory solution is now helping to beat cancer faster. How memory solutions enable doctors to diagnose diseases faster. How memory solutions are helping us get more intelligence from the data we are generating so that it's helping make this world more greener by getting to a better sustainable product solution. And that resonates more with the employees that we are hiring today is the end purpose. So, the culture of innovation, the culture of continuing to drive technological breakthroughs is enabled by helping everyone understand the bigger picture of how their innovations are going to change the world and making everything a better place beyond just delivering a memory solution. That's at a very high level. We are trying to connect how memory is making a difference in this world and how their innovations are actually helping build a better society.

On a tactical front, I already talked about some of the programs that we are driving, some of the reward programs, continuing to have a more inclusive, innovative culture, and how we can have more innovators be recognized, rewarded, and celebrated. All of those are helping us to build the culture. And on an organization front, trying to make sure we are setting the clear problem statement to our team members and trying to make sure they understand the priorities and help these problem statements be the sparks for innovative thinking and help them to continue to understand that the process of innovation involves diversity, the process of innovation involves collaboration and the process of innovation involves sharing and recognizing each other. And eventually we are doing this to be better as a human being, but also building better societies and have fun doing it. That's the key in the end is if we don't have fun innovating, then we won't do it. So how do we make innovation a fun process?

Those are the things that we are working on. I said, I highlighted a lot of things there, but building a culture, you can do so much, but eventually the culture has to build itself and start evolving and developing new things within the culture for it to sustain in the long term. And that's what we are trying to do is to help teach our teams why this is important and let them continue to define the culture as we move forward with the goal of making sure we can continue to drive technology towards the future.

Laurel: That's excellent. Naga, thank you so much for joining us today on the Business Lab.

Naga : Thank you very much, Laurel.

Laurel: That was Naga Chandrasekaran, senior vice president of technology development at Micron Technology, who I spoke to from Cambridge, Massachusetts, the home of MIT and MIT Technology Review overlooking the Charles River.

That's it for this episode of Business Lab, I'm your host, Laurel Ruma. I'm the global director of Insights, the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review. We were founded in 1899 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And you can find us in print, on the web and at events each year around the world. For more information about us and the show, please check out our website at technologyreview.com.

This show is available wherever you get your podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, we hope you'll take a moment to rate and review us. Business Lab is a production of MIT Technology Review. This episode was produced by Collective Next. Thanks for listening.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Humans and technology

Building a more reliable supply chain.

Rapidly advancing technologies are building the modern supply chain, making transparent, collaborative, and data-driven systems a reality.

Backed by heritage, ready for the future

Building a data-driven health-care ecosystem.

Harnessing data to improve the equity, affordability, and quality of the health care system.

Let’s not make the same mistakes with AI that we made with social media

Social media’s unregulated evolution over the past decade holds a lot of lessons that apply directly to AI companies and technologies.

• Nathan E. Sanders archive page
• Bruce Schneier archive page

Stay connected

Get the latest updates from mit technology review.

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.

• Incremental
• Development

Essential Book Reviews

The wide lens, making innovation work, the innovator’s solution, the future of management, what matters now, reverse innovation, innovator’s dillema, leading the revolution, blue ocean strategy, the other side of innovation: solving the execution challenge, relentless innovation, the importance of r&d to innovation.

Research and Development plays a critical role in the innovation process. It’s essentially an investment in technology and future capabilities which is transformed into new products, processes, and services.

In industry and technology sectors R&D is a crucial component of innovation and a key factor in developing new competitive advantages (Heneric, Licht, and Gofka in Europe’s Automative Industry On The Move: Competitiveness In A Changing World ).

One company in particular has devoted itself to R&D and as a result constantly soars ahead of its competition. If you want a great example of an innovative firm…

Look No Further Than Intel

When it comes to R&D and innovation Intel is the holy grail company. This absolutely massive company entered the market with a bang, slid back slightly in the early 2000s but from 2006 onward has been doing spectacular.

What happened in 2006? Intel greatly sped up its product lifecycle process. Through something called Tick-tock, an alternating system of innovation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock ) which uses microarchitecture innovation and process innovation to continually drive ahead. This is fancy computer engineer speak for the fact that each year they modify one of two things that are critically important for the speed and power of microprocessors.

Intel regularly blows away their competition. The truth is that with their massive investment in R&D and never ending ability to ship new and better product other companies simply cannot keep up.

Where Intel releases products and people are delighted, competitors like AMD release theirs to not quite the same surprise.

Is R&D Really That Important?

Remember back to the article on the recipe for innovation? One of those ingredients was knowledge, another technology. R&D directly supports the development of both of these things (depending on your industry but certainly the former of the two).

When a company takes the time to invest in R&D they get a huge influx of knowledge. This is what makes Intel so amazingly successful: Their R&D all boils down to useful knowledge that the company can use to further develop its main product lines.

R&D really is that important – note that it is merely a tool (and an expensive one at that). R&D exists to gain knowledge, not as an entity in itself.

What About Small and Medium Business?

Companies like Intel have billions to spend on R&D but most smaller businesses do not have the same capabilities. That does not mean R&D is impossible. The OECD released a book called Science, Technology and Innovation: Implications for Growth . In it they mention how government funding has been increasing for R&D to small and medium enterprises and venture capitalists have also recognized the importance of these smaller entries.

While they note that the role of venture capital is not to support R&D with technology businesses in particular it often ends up where venture capital money flows into R&D of increasingly risky investments.

Additionally, do not forget that while R&D is typically internal your business can take advantage of public resources and eternal knowledge to get its hands on the knowledge because, at the end of the day, useful knowledge is the most important thing your company needs. The R&D department is worthless on its own – the knowledge is what you’re after and such knowledge can often be purchased through acquisitions, patents, hiring employees, etc.

Running A Better R&D Department For Innovation

Matheson and Matheson identified nine factors in their book The Smart Organization: Creating Value Through Strategic R&D in which best practices can be found for R&D departments.

Those 9 areas are:

• The decision basis
• Technology strategy
• Portfolio management
• Project strategy
• Proper organization and process
• Relationship with internal customers
• Relationship with external customers
• R&D culture and values
• Improving decision quality

They gathered these 9 areas through looking at companies with extraordinarily high “hit rates,” firms like Gillette and 3M which really seems to succeed more than they fail. Running a great R&D department goes beyond the scope of the site but we would invite you to check out their book. It is of extremely high quality and when it comes to management and R&D it’s hard to find a better or more comprehensive resource.

From here a great place to look is at knowledge acquisition. Is your R&D department delivering what it should be? If you don’t have an R&D department, what knowledge does your firm need to acquire and how can it obtain it?

About The Author

• Search for:

Innovation Management Software

• Exago Markets

Innovation Management Development

Innovation management overview, incremental innovation, innovation execution, measuring innovation.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Research and Development?

• Understanding R&D
• Types of R&D
• Pros and Cons
• Considerations
• R&D vs. Applied Research
• R&D Tax Credits

The Bottom Line

• Business Essentials

What Is Research and Development (R&D)?

Investopedia / Ellen Lindner

Research and development (R&D) is the series of activities that companies undertake to innovate. R&D is often the first stage in the development process that results in market research product development, and product testing.

Key Takeaways

• Research and development represents the activities companies undertake to innovate and introduce new products and services or to improve their existing offerings.
• R&D allows a company to stay ahead of its competition by catering to new wants or needs in the market.
• Companies in different sectors and industries conduct R&D—pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and technology companies generally spend the most.
• R&D is often a broad approach to exploratory advancement, while applied research is more geared towards researching a more narrow scope.
• The accounting for treatment for R&D costs can materially impact a company's income statement and balance sheet.

Understanding Research and Development (R&D)

The concept of research and development is widely linked to innovation both in the corporate and government sectors. R&D allows a company to stay ahead of its competition. Without an R&D program, a company may not survive on its own and may have to rely on other ways to innovate such as engaging in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) or partnerships. Through R&D, companies can design new products and improve their existing offerings.

R&D is distinct from most operational activities performed by a corporation. The research and/or development is typically not performed with the expectation of immediate profit. Instead, it is expected to contribute to the long-term profitability of a company. R&D may often allow companies to secure intellectual property, including patents , copyrights, and trademarks as discoveries are made and products created.

Companies that set up and employ departments dedicated entirely to R&D commit substantial capital to the effort. They must estimate the risk-adjusted return on their R&D expenditures, which inevitably involves risk of capital. That's because there is no immediate payoff, and the return on investment (ROI) is uncertain. As more money is invested in R&D, the level of capital risk increases. Other companies may choose to outsource their R&D for a variety of reasons including size and cost.

Companies across all sectors and industries undergo R&D activities. Corporations experience growth through these improvements and the development of new goods and services. Pharmaceuticals, semiconductors , and software/technology companies tend to spend the most on R&D. In Europe, R&D is known as research and technical or technological development.

Many small and mid-sized businesses may choose to outsource their R&D efforts because they don't have the right staff in-house to meet their needs.

Types of Research and Development (R&D)

There are several different types of R&D that exist in the corporate world and within government. The type used depends entirely on the entity undertaking it and the results can differ.

Basic Research

There are business incubators and accelerators, where corporations invest in startups and provide funding assistance and guidance to entrepreneurs in the hope that innovations will result that they can use to their benefit.

M&As and partnerships are also forms of R&D as companies join forces to take advantage of other companies' institutional knowledge and talent.

Applied Research

One R&D model is a department staffed primarily by engineers who develop new products —a task that typically involves extensive research. There is no specific goal or application in mind with this model. Instead, the research is done for the sake of research.

Development Research

This model involves a department composed of industrial scientists or researchers, all of who are tasked with applied research in technical, scientific, or industrial fields. This model facilitates the development of future products or the improvement of current products and/or operating procedures.

The largest companies may also be the ones that drive the most R&D spend. For example, Amazon has reported $1.147 billion of research and development value on its 2023 annual report.

Advantages and Disadvantages of R&D

There are several key benefits to research and development. It facilitates innovation, allowing companies to improve existing products and services or by letting them develop new ones to bring to the market.

Because R&D also is a key component of innovation, it requires a greater degree of skill from employees who take part. This allows companies to expand their talent pool, which often comes with special skill sets.

The advantages go beyond corporations. Consumers stand to benefit from R&D because it gives them better, high-quality products and services as well as a wider range of options. Corporations can, therefore, rely on consumers to remain loyal to their brands. It also helps drive productivity and economic growth.

Disadvantages

One of the major drawbacks to R&D is the cost. First, there is the financial expense as it requires a significant investment of cash upfront. This can include setting up a separate R&D department, hiring talent, and product and service testing, among others.

Innovation doesn't happen overnight so there is also a time factor to consider. This means that it takes a lot of time to bring products and services to market from conception to production to delivery.

Because it does take time to go from concept to product, companies stand the risk of being at the mercy of changing market trends . So what they thought may be a great seller at one time may reach the market too late and not fly off the shelves once it's ready.

Facilitates innovation

Improved or new products and services

Expands knowledge and talent pool

Increased consumer choice and brand loyalty

Economic driver

Financial investment

Shifting market trends

R&D Accounting

R&D may be beneficial to a company's bottom line, but it is considered an expense . After all, companies spend substantial amounts on research and trying to develop new products and services. As such, these expenses are often reported for accounting purposes on the income statement and do not carry long-term value.

There are certain situations where R&D costs are capitalized and reported on the balance sheet. Some examples include but are not limited to:

• Materials, fixed assets, or other assets have alternative future uses with an estimable value and useful life.
• Software that can be converted or applied elsewhere in the company to have a useful life beyond a specific single R&D project.
• Indirect costs or overhead expenses allocated between projects.
• R&D purchased from a third party that is accompanied by intangible value. That intangible asset may be recorded as a separate balance sheet asset.

R&D Considerations

Before taking on the task of research and development, it's important for companies and governments to consider some of the key factors associated with it. Some of the most notable considerations are:

• Objectives and Outcome: One of the most important factors to consider is the intended goals of the R&D project. Is it to innovate and fill a need for certain products that aren't being sold? Or is it to make improvements on existing ones? Whatever the reason, it's always important to note that there should be some flexibility as things can change over time.
• Timing: R&D requires a lot of time. This involves reviewing the market to see where there may be a lack of certain products and services or finding ways to improve on those that are already on the shelves.
• Cost: R&D costs a great deal of money, especially when it comes to the upfront costs. And there may be higher costs associated with the conception and production of new products rather than updating existing ones.
• Risks: As with any venture, R&D does come with risks. R&D doesn't come with any guarantees, no matter the time and money that goes into it. This means that companies and governments may sacrifice their ROI if the end product isn't successful.

Research and Development vs. Applied Research

Basic research is aimed at a fuller, more complete understanding of the fundamental aspects of a concept or phenomenon. This understanding is generally the first step in R&D. These activities provide a basis of information without directed applications toward products, policies, or operational processes .

Applied research entails the activities used to gain knowledge with a specific goal in mind. The activities may be to determine and develop new products, policies, or operational processes. While basic research is time-consuming, applied research is painstaking and more costly because of its detailed and complex nature.

R&D Tax Credits

The IRS offers a R&D tax credit to encourage innovation and significantly reduction their tax liability. The credit calls for specific types of spend such as product development, process improvement, and software creation.

Enacted under Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code, this credit encourages innovation by providing a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax obligations. The eligibility criteria, expanded by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015, now encompass a broader spectrum of businesses. The credit tens to benefit small-to-midsize enterprises.

To claim R&D tax credits, businesses must document their qualifying expenses and complete IRS Form 6765 (Credit for Increasing Research Activities). The credit, typically ranging from 6% to 8% of annual qualifying expenses, offers businesses a direct offset against federal income tax liabilities. Additionally, businesses can claim up to $250,000 per year against their payroll taxes.

Example of Research and Development (R&D)

One of the more innovative companies of this millennium is Apple Inc. As part of its annual reporting, it has the following to say about its research and development spend:

In 2023, Apple reported having spent $29.915 billion. This is 8% of their annual total net sales. Note that Apple's R&D spend was reported to be higher than the company's selling, general and administrative costs (of $24.932 billion).

Note that the company doesn't go into length about what exactly the R&D spend is for. According to the notes, the company's year-over-year growth was "driven primarily by increases in headcount-related expenses". However, this does not explain the underlying basis carried from prior years (i.e. materials, patents, etc.).

Research and development refers to the systematic process of investigating, experimenting, and innovating to create new products, processes, or technologies. It encompasses activities such as scientific research, technological development, and experimentation conducted to achieve specific objectives to bring new items to market.

What Types of Activities Can Be Found in Research and Development?

Research and development activities focus on the innovation of new products or services in a company. Among the primary purposes of R&D activities is for a company to remain competitive as it produces products that advance and elevate its current product line. Since R&D typically operates on a longer-term horizon, its activities are not anticipated to generate immediate returns. However, in time, R&D projects may lead to patents, trademarks, or breakthrough discoveries with lasting benefits to the company. 

Why Is Research and Development Important?

Given the rapid rate of technological advancement, R&D is important for companies to stay competitive. Specifically, R&D allows companies to create products that are difficult for their competitors to replicate. Meanwhile, R&D efforts can lead to improved productivity that helps increase margins, further creating an edge in outpacing competitors. From a broader perspective, R&D can allow a company to stay ahead of the curve, anticipating customer demands or trends.

There are many things companies can do in order to advance in their industries and the overall market. Research and development is just one way they can set themselves apart from their competition. It opens up the potential for innovation and increasing sales. However, it does come with some drawbacks—the most obvious being the financial cost and the time it takes to innovate.

Amazon. " 2023 Annual Report ."

Internal Revenue Service. " Research Credit ."

Internal Revenue Service. " About Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities ."

Apple. " 2023 Annual Report ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

What Role Does Research Play in Innovation?

By: Rob Hoehn

A lot of innovation programs have naturally grown out of research and development groups, but most true innovation is a departure from what’s come before so what role does the “research” in “research and development” play in innovation?

Well, the answer is quite a lot. Research is an intrinsic aspect of the idea development process. Research helps guide numerous decisions that turn an idea into an innovation. So what are some of the crucial points in the idea lifecycle when you have to perform quality research?

Problem Development

Harvard Business Review asks “are you solving the right problem?” Before you start throwing out new ideas and testing solutions, it’s important that you thoroughly understand the problem you’re trying to solve so that you do more than address symptoms, but can instead respond to root causes.

Market Research

It’s important to see what your customers (and the rest of the world) care about. If you’re solving a problem that’s not relevant to a percentage of the population, then it’s unlikely that your innovation will take hold. So ask lots of questions, go for diversity, and identify some key trends to help guide your idea development.

Is It Time to Create the Virtual Innovation Lab?

COVID reshaped every department—including your innovation department. Find out how some organizations adapted to the remote work age by creating the virtual innovation lab, and how you can create your own by downloading this complimentary infographic.

Download Here

Competitive research.

Don’t ignore the competition (maybe don’t spend all your time copying them either), but it’s important to know where you sit in the competitive landscape and where you can define your own value.

Feasibility & Requirements Research

Once you have an idea, start giving it some bones. Identify some experts to offer feedback and have them tell you what the idea will truly require. Outline your project requirements (of course they might change, but they’ll provide guideposts for successful project milestones). This research step (perhaps more than any of the other examples) is absolutely critical to implementation of a big idea.

Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) is an open, networked community that brings together science, data and information technology practitioners. Their mission is to foster connection between “the functional sectors of observation, research, application, education and use of Earth science.” So say you have a researcher who’s gathered a great deal of data for one of their experiments, they can then connect that research to a government agency who can use that data to inform policy. There are always new ways to connect and unpack the research. Nowadays, ESIP brings those people and projects together in the same place with an IdeaScale community.

To learn more about Earth Science Information Partners and their use of IdeaScale to connect earth scientists, download the full case study here.

By Rob Hoehn

About the author

Featured image via Yayimages .

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Privacy overview.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, innovation in research and development: tool of strategic growth.

Journal of Management Development

ISSN : 0262-1711

Article publication date: 24 October 2008

To describe research and development (R&D) as a tool of strategic growth. The world's top performing companies share a common characteristic: their superior ability to develop and introduce new products faster and cheaper than their competitors. As a matter of fact, effective product innovation is the key to growth, even survival, for almost any business.

Design/methodology/approach

The author discusses how innovation in R&D could serve as a differentiating strategic business tool. The paper is based upon the authors 15 years of experience in the area of R&D and new product development. The paper is very creative in two respects. First, it looks at strategic R&D as the differentiating strategic “weapon” companies can use to separate themselves from the competition. Second, it uses many of the manufacturing, operations management tools and methodologies and applies these to innovation in R&D. The paper discusses methods to optimize a company's R&D efforts.

The executives emphasized the importance and criticality of organic growth and innovation as a major business concern and opportunity for their companies' future success. While strategies including acquisitions and continuous process improvement have proven successful but very difficult to sustain, expensive and risky to integrate, “Innovation, and innovation in research and development” in particular, can provide the advantage that world class organizations need to create the sustainable growth year after year. Innovation in R&D can be a strategic weapon in which top companies employ definable strategies and practices to catalyze high levels of organic growth, support above average margins even in mature businesses, and separate themselves from the competition.

Originality/value

This paper is a very interesting read for high‐level managers and executives interested in the field of R&D and new product development.

• Research and development
• Optimization techniques

Holtzman, Y. (2008), "Innovation in research and development: tool of strategic growth", Journal of Management Development , Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 1037-1052. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810916295

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2008, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets & Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Social Impact
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Services
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events

How Innovation Drives Economic Growth

Three Stanford scholars explore how we measure innovation, how innovation drives productivity, and how productivity affects inequality.

June 24, 2019

How do you measure innovation, and how does it impact the economy? Three Stanford scholars discussed those questions and more during a recent panel discussion. | Reuters/Jason Lee

In 1500, China’s economy was the strongest in the world. But by the 19th century, the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan had leapfrogged over China by churning out goods and services in vast quantities while the former superpower stalled.

Why? Some economists argue that China’s lack of free markets and unencumbered innovation in the West led to the shift. But what is the relationship between innovation and markets, productivity, and inequality?

The answer to that puzzle and others were explored during a recent forum on the relationship of innovation to economic growth at the Hoover Institution. Three Stanford professors, all Hoover fellows — Stephen Haber , Edward Lazear , and Amit Seru — spoke on a panel moderated by Jonathan Levin , dean of Stanford Graduate School of Business.

The panelists offered thoughts on how innovation is measured, the role of markets, and what types of firms are likely to innovate. They examined how productivity affects wages, skills, and social inequality, and considered what kind of policies might ensure that the pace of innovation remains brisk.

How Do You Measure Innovation?

Like art, everyone knows innovation when they see it, but defining and measuring it, says Amit Seru, “is a holy grail” for researchers. Studying patents might be key to answering that question.

Seru and his colleagues used big data techniques to analyze 9 million U.S. patents filed over two centuries. Although the Silicon Valley ethos holds that startups are the wellspring of innovation, the researchers found that established firms were also very innovative, as measured by high-quality patenting activity. They also concluded that both private and public firms contributed to innovation and that universities and some government entities were also quite innovative.

The first step in that analysis was to construct a measure of high-quality innovation. The researchers did so by comparing the texts of all the patents in the database and tabulating the occurrence of important words. If there was little overlap between the text of a patent and its predecessors, the patent was likely a novel innovation. If words in subsequent patents were similar, the subject patent was likely an important innovation that other patents had built upon. Patents meeting both criteria, i.e., novel and important, were considered “high quality,” says Seru, a Stanford GSB professor of finance. As a check, the researchers compared their list of high-quality patents to those already deemed significant by economic historians. The two lists were quite similar, they found. Using this measure of high-quality innovation, the researchers examined which entities contributed to breakthrough innovations over time and what patterns were consistently associated with these events.

Quote If there is a threat to prosperity, it comes from people who believe they are doing good by using the power of the state to decide which innovations are just and which are unjust. Attribution Stephen Haber

“What is consistent is the notion of creative destruction” and the rational reallocation of resources around such events, Seru says. When firms innovate, profits go up, and labor and financing flow to them and away from their competitors, who suffer from this creative destruction. For this to occur, labor and capital markets need to function efficiently. While creative destruction and associated patterns are not a new notion, what is different today is that innovation might occur across different entities — such as government as well as public or private firms — and inventors working across geographic boundaries. Innovation remains brisk, but if markets in the U.S., which have functioned efficiently for centuries, are hindered, innovation could falter, Seru argues.

What Happened to China?

Like Seru, Stephen Haber and his colleagues used big data to analyze economic growth. To build their geographical representation of economically powerful regions, they geocoded every major city in the world and, using a variety of sources, researched the level of economic activity at 100-year intervals. The study took three years.

During the period when China was economically more advanced than the West, it traded goods like spices, silk, and tea for silver. At the time, the West had little else that the Chinese needed, Haber says. But that changed, and by 1800 the West had pulled ahead. Innovation made the difference — modern chemistry, steam power applied to transportation, and interchangeable parts — but not just innovations in technology. Modern economic growth also came from organizational innovations in the military, transportation, and the legal and financial worlds, Haber says.

One major example: the concept of the patent as a tradable property right.

“Places where people were free to experiment, to simultaneously compete and cooperate through a market where no one was in charge of deciding which technologies would be adopted, which would be rejected, and which would be forbidden, flourished,” Haber says.

Historically, China took the opposite approach: The state wielded the power to reject certain technologies. For example, the development of railroads was drastically slowed by China’s emperor because he feared their spread would undo the agrarian society and threaten his rule, Haber says.

That lesson, he says, should not be lost on today’s leaders. “If there is a threat to prosperity, it comes from people who believe they are doing good by using the power of the state to decide which innovations are just and which are unjust.”

How Are Productivity and Inequality Linked?

There are two ways to achieve economic growth: Add population or make people more productive, says Edward Lazear, a professor of economics at Stanford GSB. Economic growth in the 20th century was tremendous. The standard of living doubled every 33 years, but that made a challenging target for the 21st century. Slower population growth and aging of the current population imply that we will need productivity increases to do more of the work in the future.

Productivity feeds into wage growth, but as productivity has slowed in recent years, so have wages, Lazear says. In the late 1990s, productivity grew by about 3% a year; now it’s only about one-third of that. So it’s no surprise that wages have also been flat. But the pain of flat wages is not shared equally throughout the population.

The productivity — and wages — of highly educated workers has soared over the last 30 years. But the opposite is true for less educated segments of the population.

Making matters worse, the industries that have grown are the ones that employ highly educated workers, while the industries that have shrunk are the ones employing people with less education.

However, artificial intelligence and other technologies are not to blame and will not put everyone out of work, Lazear says. As measured by participation in the labor force, jobs as a whole don’t disappear when new technologies change the nature of work. There was never a transformation as radical as the Industrial Revolution, he notes, yet the labor force grew.

“The concern is not that people won’t be working. The concern is that they will work in crummy jobs,” Lazear says. To alleviate the problem, it will be necessary to rethink education and job training. The key, Lazear says, is this: “Lower the skills gap.”

For media inquiries, visit the Newsroom .

Explore More

The brain gain: the impact of immigration on american innovation, to discover breakthrough ideas, look to the outsiders, how to survive the a.i. revolution, editor’s picks.

• Priorities for the GSB's Future
• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Business Transformation
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Get Involved
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• Career Advancement
• Career Change
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• Information for Recommenders
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• After You’re Admitted
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• Videos, Code & Data
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Reading Materials
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

Understanding Research and Development in Business: A Comprehensive Guide

Learn about the crucial role of Research and Development (R&D) in business and how it can drive innovation, growth, and competitive advantage.

Barrie Dowsett

Chief Executive Officer

10 minute read

Research and Development (R&D) is a key driver of innovative and competitive business practices, as it enables companies to stay ahead of the curve in industries that are constantly evolving. Companies in Ireland recognise this and have been investing more in R&D over the past decade, with funding from government grants and tax incentives such as the R&D tax credit .

R&D encompasses a variety of activities aimed at generating new and improved products and services, as well as enhancing existing ones. It involves systematic investigation, experimentation, and exploration to discover new knowledge and improve existing products, processes, or services. R&D takes place in various forms, such as design, testing, prototyping, and scaling up, and the outcomes can range from products, inventions, patents, or knowledge.

There are many benefits to investing in R&D for Irish businesses. For one, R&D can help improve their market position, generate revenue and enhance their competitive advantage. By innovating through R&D, companies can offer unique, high-quality products or services that can set them apart from their competitors. Moreover, companies can develop new technologies, insights and knowledge that can be leveraged to create future products and services.

However, R&D is not without its challenges. Investing in R&D can be costly and uncertain, and it can take time to see the return on investment. Furthermore, companies need to ensure that they have the right talent, resources, and infrastructure in place to support their R&D initiatives.

In this blog, we will provide a comprehensive guide to understanding R&D for Irish businesses. We will explore the various forms of R&D, its importance for business growth and innovation, and how to implement effective R&D strategies in your business. Whether you are a startup or an established business, this guide will provide you with valuable insights to help you succeed through R&D.

Benefits of R&D in Business

One significant benefit of R&D is its ability to drive innovation and growth by bringing new products and services to the market. Through R&D, companies can better understand their customers' needs, identify new market opportunities, and develop new technologies and products that meet those needs. This not only diversifies a company's product offerings but also strengthens their market position by increasing their revenue streams and expanding their customer base.

Furthermore, R&D enables businesses to gain a competitive advantage by developing unique products and services that differentiate them from their competitors. Companies that invest in R&D can develop and maintain a strong intellectual property portfolio that can prevent competitors from copying their innovations. R&D also helps companies stay ahead of the curve in terms of technology, enabling them to leverage new advancements and establish themselves as leaders within their industries.

In addition, R&D can lead to significant improvements in product quality and performance by allowing companies to develop and test new materials, techniques, and designs. This, in turn, can increase customer satisfaction and loyalty, as well as drive sales and create long-term value for the business.

Finally, R&D can help companies reduce costs and increase efficiency by identifying ways to streamline processes or develop new technologies that are more cost-effective. This can include developing more efficient supply chains or reducing waste through sustainable production methods.

Overall, companies that invest in R&D can reap significant benefits in terms of innovation, growth, and competitive advantage. By continually developing new products and services that meet evolving customer needs and redefining industry standards, these businesses can establish themselves as leaders in their fields and remain sustainable for years to come.

Types of R&D Activities

Research and Development (R&D) activities are broadly categorized into three types: basic research, applied research, and development. Basic research is conducted to gain knowledge about a certain field, phenomenon, or theory without any immediate application. For instance, a pharmaceutical company conducting research on the molecular structure of a protein without any specific drug in mind. Basic research often leads to the discovery of new ideas, theories, and inventions that can eventually be applied in various industries.

Applied research, on the other hand, aims to solve a specific problem or answer a particular question in a practical setting. It involves taking information generated from the basic research and using it to develop useful solutions for specific needs. Applied research is often conducted by companies to improve their products, enhance their services, or identify new opportunities. For instance, a cosmetic company conducting market research to identify customer preferences and develop new products accordingly.

Development involves the translation of applied research findings into a practical form. It involves creating prototypes or models that can be tested and modified to ensure that they meet the desired goals of the project. Development activities can involve various stages, including design, testing, and modification, until the final product or service is produced. For instance, an engineering firm conducting research and development to design and build a new piece of equipment for a specific application.

In summary, basic research provides foundational knowledge and understanding of a certain field, applied research applies this knowledge to address specific problems, and development uses applied research to design and develop new products and services. Each type of R&D plays a crucial role in driving innovation and achieving competitive advantages in the business world. By understanding the different types of R&D activities, businesses can better leverage them to drive growth and success.

Steps Involved in Effective R&D

Effective Research and Development (R&D) requires specific steps to ensure that it addresses the business's needs and goals. The first step is defining the research problem, which means identifying what issues the company wants to address through research. After that, market research must be conducted to gather information about the target market and its needs, preferences, and behaviours. This information is essential in formulating research objectives, which are clear and concise statements about what research aims to achieve. The objectives should align with the research problem identified earlier and should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).

Developing a research plan follows, which involves deciding on the research design, sample size, and data collection methods. The research design could either be qualitative or quantitative, depending on the research question and objectives. The next step is conducting experiments and collecting data using the research plan developed, which could be primary or secondary data. Primary data involves collecting original data through surveys, interviews or observations, while secondary data includes using data that is previously collected and publicly available.

After collecting data, the next step is analysing and interpreting it. In analysing, the data collected should be organised, cleaned, and summarised, after which it can be subjected to various statistical tests to draw conclusions. When interpreting, the findings from the tests are used to answer the research question and match the research objectives. A clear communication mechanism of the findings and recommendations to the relevant stakeholders is essential, and it should be precise, concise, and in a format that is understandable to the recipients.

Finally, R&D should be seen as an ongoing process aimed at improvement and innovation in a business. Continuously redefining research objectives, updating research plans and implementing effective R&D strategies is critical in staying ahead of the competition, remaining relevant, and meeting the evolving needs of the market. Companies should embrace R&D practices as a strategic tool for long-term success, growth and profitability.

Implementing R&D Strategies in Business

Creating an r&d budget.

Creating an R&D budget is a critical step in implementing an effective R&D strategy. Setting aside a budget for R&D activities enables businesses to allocate resources towards research and experimentation that can lead to breakthrough innovations. In general, it is recommended that companies allocate anywhere from 5% to 15% of their revenue towards R&D. However, the exact amount will depend on the industry, the size of the company, and its growth goals.

Building an R&D team

Building an R&D team is also crucial to the success of any R&D strategy. Skilled and diverse R&D teams can bring a range of perspectives and expertise to the table. This can lead to cross-functional collaborations that can uncover new ideas and solutions. Depending on the nature and scale of the R&D activities, companies can consider hiring full-time R&D staff, collaborating with academics or other external experts, or engaging with freelancers or contract workers.

Establishing an R&D process

Establishing an R&D process can help ensure that R&D activities are conducted systematically and efficiently. This can include defining clear research objectives, identifying target markets and customers, conducting feasibility studies, developing prototypes, and conducting trials and tests. Companies can also consider adopting agile methodologies or lean startup principles to foster iterative and lean R&D processes.

Leveraging technology and partnerships

Leveraging technology and partnerships can also help boost the effectiveness of R&D strategies. Technology tools such as virtual and augmented reality simulators, 3D printing, and artificial intelligence can facilitate faster and more cost-effective R&D processes. Partnerships with other companies, suppliers, startups, or research institutions can provide access to complementary expertise, technologies, and markets. Collaborating with customers can also yield valuable insights into their needs and preferences, and can help companies create customer-centric solutions.

Implementing effective R&D strategies requires careful planning, investment, and execution. By creating a dedicated R&D budget, building a skilled and diverse R&D team, establishing clear R&D processes, and leveraging technology and partnerships, Irish businesses can unlock the full potential of R&D to drive innovation, growth, and competitive advantage.

Challenges of R&D in Business

While Research and Development (R&D) is critical for innovation and growth in a business, it is not without its challenges. One challenge that businesses face is cost and resource constraints. R&D requires substantial investment in terms of time, money, and skilled employees. Small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs), in particular, may struggle to allocate sufficient resources towards R&D due to budgetary constraints. They may have limited funds to invest in R&D, which can hamper innovation and limit the scope of the research. Similarly, larger corporations may have the funds to invest in R&D, but may struggle with resource constraints such as a shortage of skilled employees, a lack of facilities or equipment, or finding the right partners for collaboration.

Another challenge of R&D is the inherent uncertainty and risk associated with research activities. The outcome of R&D efforts is often uncertain, and there is no guarantee that the research will lead to a successful innovation. Additionally, R&D can be a lengthy process, and businesses may not see returns on their investment for months or even years. This can make it difficult to justify investment in R&D, especially for SMEs that need to show immediate returns in cash flow.

Finally, there is the challenge of protecting intellectual property. R&D often leads to the creation of intellectual property, such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Protecting this intellectual property is crucial, as it can give businesses a competitive advantage and help generate revenue. However, protecting intellectual property can be a time-consuming and expensive process, and businesses must be vigilant in monitoring their intellectual property and taking legal action against infringement.

Cost and resource constraints, uncertainty and risk, and intellectual property protection are just some of the challenges that businesses must navigate to successfully implement effective R&D strategies. Nonetheless, with careful planning, investment, and a reliable R&D process, businesses can successfully leverage R&D to drive innovation, growth, and competitive advantage.

In conclusion, Research and Development (R&D) is a critical tool for businesses looking to drive innovation, growth, and competitive advantage. Without R&D, businesses risk stagnation and getting left behind in a rapidly evolving marketplace. In this blog, we have discussed the importance of R&D in business and how it can drive success.

Businesses looking to implement effective R&D strategies should focus on building a culture of innovation, investing in the right people and resources, and staying up to date with the latest technological advancements. Effective R&D strategies involve identifying market gaps and customer needs, experimenting with new ideas, and using data-driven insights to make informed decisions. Looking to the future, R&D will continue to be a key driver of growth and success for businesses, especially in an increasingly digital and globalized economy.

As market competition grows, businesses will need to invest more in R&D to stay ahead and achieve long-term success. By continuing to innovate and work towards new and exciting breakthroughs, businesses can unlock new opportunities and realize their full potential in today's fast-paced business landscape.

Bring in the experts

Whether you’ve already got a comprehensive R&D strategy in progress or you’re just starting out from scratch, the experts at Myriad Associates are here to help.

We work across the field of innovation funding, with years of experience in  R&D Tax Credits  and  R&D Grants  specifically. We will work alongside you for as long as you need us, whether you require support in creating an effective R&D department, or in planning a particular R&D project. We’ll also be able to discuss which funding options would best suit your needs, helping your R&D bring you the best return on investment.

Contact us today

If you wish to discuss anything we’ve discussed in this article, or about R&D funding for Irish companies, simply call us on call us on +353 1 566 2001 or  send us a message . We’re working remotely during this time and will be pleased to assist you.

Latest news

Who benefits from the top 6 corporate tax incentives in ireland.

At 12.5%, it’s a well-known fact that corporation tax in Ireland is one of the lowest in the world. But there are also plenty of tax reliefs and incentives, especially for those who wish to invest in research and innovation.

Which Industries Engage in the Most R&D in Ireland?

In a bid to establish themselves as a “global innovation leader, Irish government spending on R&D has reached record levels. But which industries are making the most out of this investment?

What financial help is available for small businesses and start-ups in Ireland?

Starting a successful business is scary - but you’re not alone. To help you financially along the way, there’s a massive range of grants, loans, tax breaks and other funding available.

Get in touch

Please contact us to discuss how working with Myriad Associates can maximise and secure R&D funding opportunities for your business.

Cookie Policy

We use cookies to improve your online experience and the service we offer. To accept cookies continue browsing as normal. Read our  cookies policy  for more information.

Why Is Innovation So Important?

We knew when we gave our Centennial year the tagline “Innovation for the Next 100 Years” that we would be asked to define what, exactly, innovation means—and how The Rockefeller Foundation plans to continue our legacy of innovation into the next century.

But I was often asked another question: Why is innovation so important? And, more specifically, why do we spend so much time and resources on innovation when incremental improvements to existing solutions could take far less effort?

I admit, it’s a pretty good question. And, now that our Centennial is drawing to close, I’m able to articulate one important part of the answer.

To do so, I go back to where The Rockefeller Foundation began.

In the early 20th century, one of the Rockefeller philanthropies was devoted to improving education in the United States, particularly in the rural South.

As it spent more time in schools in the South, it became clear that a student’s achievement was directly related to his or her health. Hookworm infection was often the culprit for missed class and poor performance. In many rural countries, infection rates were as high as 60 percent.

A commission was formed in 1909 with the purpose to “bring about a co-operative movement of the medical profession, public health officials, boards of trade, churches, schools, the press and other agencies for the cure and prevention of hookworm disease .”

But this wasn’t the only goal.

This rampant yet easily curable disease also provided a “favorable wedge,” allowing the commission to promote the creation of an organized and well-funded public health network across the southern United States in order to solve future health problems.

When the commission eventually disbanded, it had examined more than 1 million people and treated over 440,000 in just five years. The organization evolved into the International Health Division and the Foundation moved on to new global public health goals , including malaria, tuberculosis and yellow fever.

Which brings us back to the question of why innovation is so important: it solves problems today in a way that positions us to address the unforeseen problems of tomorrow.

“ Incremental improvements have far less potential for future impact. “

I recently returned from a trip to Africa where I visited the iHub in Nairobi—an open collaboration space for the tech community. There I learned about the potential for the global positioning system (GPS)—originally developed by the military in the 1970s—to help save the rhinoceros. Apparently, you can now implant small GPS chips into their horns. When chased by poachers, rhinos accelerate in such a way that can be sensed by these chips, and this leads to the dispatch of wardens to the rhinos’ location.

GPS was invented decades ago, is currently a staple feature on every smartphone, and now stands poised to help preserve a precious endangered species. That’s the continued benefit of innovation. Incremental improvements, on the other hand, have far less potential for future impact.

This interplay between present and future benefit is why The Rockefeller Foundation is constantly scanning the horizon for promising innovations. We can apply our risk capital and convening capacity to help civil society, government, and the private sector overcome the temptation to privilege incremental solutions over the bold ideas that can yield benefits today—and a hundred years down the road.

Leave a comment

• WordPress.org
• Documentation
• Learn WordPress

Product Development Use Cases

Risks with product development, what product development engineers do, what are product development strategies, is product development part of r&d, why product development is necessary, is product development agile, product development key skills, stages to product development.

What Is Research Development and Innovation?

What really is research development and innovation? Let’s take a closer look at its definition and why it is important now.

Research and development is  creative  work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture, and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications.

Innovation is the practical application of research. It is also the design and development of new products, processes, services, or techniques.

In order for a company to grow and develop new innovations, R&D is essential. As a result, a great deal of a company’s budget is typically devoted to R&D.

Research development and innovation involve many things. It requires knowledge of many areas, including technology, economics, business , law, science, and medicine.

Research is essential when it comes to the development of new products in any sector. For one thing, it is the way in which we discover and develop new information. So, businesses can help improve or create services or products.

Research may also involve the testing of products using scientific methods in order to ensure safety and quality standards. 

Development involves working on a new product idea or prototype , applying engineering principles to it until it becomes a finished product. 

The product may have been invented by someone else or it may be something that has never existed before.

Why Is Research Development and Innovation Important Now?

Research and development is a key business activity. It is a complex, time-consuming and costly process. 

Because of the expense and complexity involved, it is not surprising that some businesses find it difficult to make a profit from their R&D activities. 

Nonetheless, research serves as the driving force behind many successful businesses.

Research shows that companies that engage in R&D can expect higher growth rates than those that do not. 

In other words, the more money a company invests in R&D, the greater its chances of growing and developing new innovations.

Research also has a strong correlation with productivity gains and enhanced growth.

Research also plays an important role in ensuring a country’s economic growth and competitiveness.

Research can help us to achieve a number of goals: 

• Improve the quality of life for all people 
• Provide meaningful employment opportunities 
• Increase our standard of living 
• Provide better healthcare 
• Protect the environment 
• Ensure national security 
• Ensure our technological competitiveness in the global marketplace

In order for this to happen, we need to continue to encourage innovation. Research Development and Innovation are essential for growth. 

They are the driving force behind the creation of new products, services, and processes, which can help to improve our lives, enhance our standard of living and protect the environment.

Research and development is the way in which we design and develop new services and products. It is a complex, time-consuming and costly process.

Nevertheless, it plays an important role in ensuring a country’s economic growth and competitiveness.

It also serves as the driving force behind many successful businesses. In order for this to happen, we need to continue to encourage innovation.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

More Stories

Is product development agile? If not, how can you make it agile? What are the steps you need to do? To find...

Product Development Factors

What are some of the most important product development factors that you need to know? How can these help you...

Why New Product Development Is Important

There are many reasons why new product development is important. These are the reasons why you need to do this process meticulously....

Product Development Qualifications

What are some of the product development qualifications that you need to have? How do you ensure you have these...

Product Development Lead

A product development lead is a person that has many responsibilities within the company he is working for. What are...

Product Development vs Market Development

Product development vs market development. What are the differences and similarities between these two? What is their purpose? To know...

Recent Post

Top category, vp research and development.

Why are Research and Development Important?

R&D Innovation During Economic Challenges

Research and development, or R&D, is an essential part of the creation or improvement of products and services across a wide range of industries. In engineering sectors, R&D is often the first stage of a project and a career area that presents a lot of opportunities for candidates to utilise lateral thinking skills and get involved in developing exciting new ideas.

Fuelling innovation through research and development requires investment however, and we’re living in a time when this kind of funding is becoming less easily available to businesses that need it. The work is still incredibly important, but economic uncertainty means that any investment requires a lot more certainty than it may have done before.

Companies and engineering candidates involved in R&D may be wondering how this area of the industry is going to develop in light of a potential UK recession and what this might mean for job prospects or investment opportunities . In this article, we explore why research and development are still so important for innovation, and discuss how they might be impacted by current and future financial challenges.

The Benefits of Research and Development

Research and development projects are beneficial no matter what industry they’re taking place in. In engineering, R&D is used to gather data, highlight risks, run preliminary tests and conduct feasibility studies, as well as support product development and help to ensure the safety and quality of project deliverables.

A key benefit of R&D is that it leads to the creation of new and innovative products and services. This is a massive benefit to individual businesses, giving them a competitive advantage in the market and providing them with a previously untouched customer base to market their products.

R&D is a very valuable investment for a company, as the findings of research and development processes help to refine products and systems and highlight potential issues before a project is completed. Not only will R&D help to reduce project costs in the long run, but you’ll likely benefit from the data you’ve collected or ideas you’re uncovered long after the work has been done.

For small businesses in particular, a benefit of research and development is that there is a range of funding options available for R&D projects which makes it easier for you to get ideas off the ground. If a project is working towards an innovative product or solution, you’re also more likely to gain the interest of investors and venture capitalists that may also financially back your business.

Along with the benefits of R&D on innovation, it can also be a really useful method of improving and refining existing processes and products. This can increase efficiency and reduce internal costs, allowing more of your resources to be spent on pursuing new ideas and sources of income.

The innovation brought about by research and development also benefits the wider engineering industry, as new discoveries and ideas influence other companies and can transform more products or processes as a knock-on effect. It also benefits the industry by presenting opportunities for collaboration and learning from one another, forging partnerships that allow everyone involved to benefit.

The partnerships created by R&D opportunities can also be a useful way for smaller businesses to improve their reputation through associating with a trusted partner or institution, you’ll gain more recognition through this association and may also gain additional, useful business contacts.

Finally, successful and innovative research and development can provide benefits to a company’s recruitment efforts . High-quality candidates tend to be more attracted to organisations that are leading the way in terms of industry innovation, and R&D is one of the key ways that you can facilitate this.

The Importance of Research and Development for Innovation

Research and development facilitate innovation because they provide the necessary data and insight to launch new products and services. At the beginning of any innovative project, there’s an R&D team conducting the necessary research and tests that the rest of the work will use as a foundation until the project is complete. Without this research, plenty of projects wouldn’t have the necessary direction and focus to succeed.

New ideas can also be trialled and modelled through research and development instead of a team taking a gamble that an idea will work and running with it without any proper testing. This can save a lot of money and make it easy to highlight issues or potential setbacks right at the start of the project, minimising wasted costs and delays.

R&D is also an important component of innovation because it is often what uncovers a concept or data point that is then developed into a new, innovative idea. Researchers might have been looking for something completely different to begin with, but in pursuing a hypothesis or seeking evidence to back up an idea, there are plenty of instances where the seeds for more innovation may be sown.

There’s evidence that investment in research and development makes it more likely that a company’s output is going to be innovative. This won’t always be the case, but the clear link between R&D and innovation suggests that the latter is almost always a product of the former.

Innovation During Economic Challenges

Now we’ve looked at the benefits of R&D and how it links to innovation, how does this relate to the current state of the engineering industry and the impact that the economy is currently having on research and development?

The UK is not officially in a recession under the technical definition of the term, but many banks and financial advisors have started to use the word to describe the country’s current economic state. We are also facing a significant cost of living crisis that is placing a lot of financial pressure on companies and individuals, reducing the likelihood that a lot of money will be invested in research and development projects in the near future.

Investors are much more hesitant to support new projects and start-ups when the state of the economy is so uncertain, but the research and development industry has already been seeing a decrease in funds for several years, spurred on by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. It might seem as though the future of R&D will be bleak whilst we ride this wave of financial difficulty, but it’s worth noting that innovation is often born out of challenging situations like this.

If we look at the impact of coronavirus for example, a study by McKinsey found that three-quarters of executives from over 200 organisations agreed that this crisis led to new opportunities for growth. Whilst only medical and pharmaceutical companies dedicated time and resources to innovation during this period, almost every industry has been changed by the effect of national lockdowns and changing attitudes to work, health and travel, demonstrating how this challenging period of time led to plenty of innovative ideas.

Another study looking at the impact of the Great Depression on US innovation identified that, whilst this major period of financial hardship reduced the number of new ideas and products coming from independent creators and businesses, innovation remained relatively steady from larger companies. This is thought to be because investors feel more secure supporting established organisations during economic difficulties, so innovation is still facilitated by these businesses.

A recession or extended period of financial difficulty is a stressful time for businesses, but it’s important to remember that a crisis can often be a catalyst for innovation. When external events force you to reevaluate your priorities or present new challenges that require urgent solutions, you’ll likely have to think outside the box to overcome these situations and can use this to your advantage.

Situations like a cost of living crisis and a recession also mean that your customer’s priorities are likely to change, which again creates opportunities for innovative ideas that respond to these new needs and challenges. There will be a demand for more cost-effective products and services or methods of managing money more effectively, creating problems that businesses and R&D projects can solve.

Should Companies Invest in R&D?

If you’re part of a company considering a new research and development project or line of enquiry, it’s understandable to be worried about the stability of this investment. Not only could you be concerned about a lack of funding to complete necessary research, but you may also be preparing for the fact that your usual target audience may not be as inclined to purchase a new product or service because of their own financial struggles.

It’s wise to be wary about large investments at a time when the economy feels unstable, but companies shouldn’t abandon their investment in R&D altogether. As we’ve already highlighted, there’s a lot of potential for successful innovation during times of economic crisis, and businesses should look for opportunities because of this. Technological innovation, especially in electronics and embedded systems engineering, is happening rapidly at the moment, and this progress should still be pursued.

Of course, companies should take more time to properly assess their spending when it comes to research and development at the moment, as it’s incredibly important to ensure that you’re using your budget efficiently and aren’t going to be left in a difficult financial situation later on. Innovation should be pursued when you are certain that there’s a market for it, otherwise you may end up with a product that isn’t going to make it on the current market.

You should also be prepared for fewer funding opportunities to support your research and development efforts. Competition for remaining funding is also likely to be fiercer, so be prepared to have to fight for additional support and put together incredibly convincing proposals for the R&D work you’d like to complete.

Should Engineers Look for R&D Jobs?

From a candidate’s perspective, research and development in the engineering industry isn’t a sector that you should shy away from when it comes to looking for a new role. It’s not a position that is in excessively high demand, but it will continue to see a steady stream of opportunities across a range of engineering disciplines.

As we’ve explained above, R&D is an area that may feel the impact of financial struggle and see a lot less funding and interest than it has in previous years, especially as part of smaller companies and start-ups. However, R&D roles in large corporations are likely to remain and will be requiring candidates that have the necessary skills to conduct research to support innovative projects.

There’s a lot of potential for innovation in research and development, so if you’re a candidate looking for opportunities to support the development of new products and services, there will be important work to be done in the coming years. It’s wise to stay informed about how the country’s economic state may impact this sector, but at this stage, there’s no reason to believe that R&D candidates will be too badly impacted.

Research and development in the electronics and embedded systems engineering sectors have a lot of potential for innovation, particularly when looking at the applications of Internet of Things technology. Clients and candidates in this area should stay aware of the changes in this sector in light of the UK’s financial challenges, but should also remember that these moments in time can often be the perfect opportunity for new developments to make a real difference.

If you’re an employer in the embedded systems or electronics industry looking for recruitment support in the coming months, KO2 is a specialist agency that can help develop a successful strategy. Equally, we have a range of job opportunities for candidates in these sectors that are ideal for those wanting to work in research and development. Get in touch to speak to our team and find out more about the services we offer.

About the Author

Chris is an award-winning recruitment consultant who has specialised in the electronics and embedded systems sector since 2008. Chris is passionate about technology and customer service.

Looking to hire

We provide contract and permanent solutions to electronics and embedded systems businesses throughout the UK and Ireland.

Looking for work

If you’re looking for a contract or permanent role within an electronics and embedded systems business, we can help you. Get in touch below.

Sign up to our job alerts and get automatically notified when any jobs come in which match your skill set!

Home Clients Candidates Blog About Us Privacy Policy Sitemap

Recruitment

Expertise CV Upload Jobs

Information

© 2024 KO2 Recruitment. All Rights Reserved.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

• Report PDF (690 KB)
• Report - All Formats .ZIP (1.1 MB)
• Share on X/Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Send as Email

Business R&D Performance in the United States Tops $600 Billion in 2021

September 28, 2023

Funds spent for business R&D performed in the United States, by type of R&D, source of funds, and size of company: 2018–21

i = more than 50% of the estimate is a combination of imputation and reweighting to account for nonresponse.

a Domestic R&D performance is the cost of R&D paid for and performed by the respondent company and paid for by others outside of the company and performed by the respondent company. b R&D comprises creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge and to devise new applications of available knowledge. This includes (1) activities aimed at acquiring new knowledge or understanding without specific immediate commercial applications or uses (basic research), (2) activities aimed at solving a specific problem or meeting a specific commercial objective (applied research), and (3) systematic work, drawing on research and practical experience and resulting in additional knowledge, which is directed to producing new processes or to improving existing products—goods or services—or processes (development). c Includes foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies. d Includes companies located inside and outside the United States; U.S. state government agencies and laboratories; U.S. universities, colleges, and academic researchers; and all other organizations located inside and outside the United States. e Includes only companies with 10 or more domestic employees.

Detail may not add to total because of rounding.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and Census Bureau, Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey.

R&D Performance, by Type of R&D, Industry Sector, and Source of Funding

In 2021, of the $602 billion that companies spent on R&D, $40 billion (7%) was spent on basic research, $86 billion (14%) on applied research, and $476 billion (79%) on development ( table 1 ). In 2021, companies in manufacturing industries performed $326 billion (54%) of domestic R&D , defined as R&D performed in the 50 states and Washington, DC ( table 2 ). Most of the funding came from these companies’ own funds (88%). Companies in nonmanufacturing industries performed $276 billion of domestic R&D (46% of total domestic R&D performance), 87% of which was paid for from companies’ own funds.

The U.S. federal government was a large source of external funding for R&D ( also referred to as R&D paid for by others ) across all industries. Of the $75 billion paid for by others, the federal government accounted for $24 billion. Seventy-four percent of federal government funding went to three industry groups: aerospace products and parts (North American Industry Classification System [NAICS] code 3364) ($11 billion), scientific research and development services (NAICS 5417) ($4 billion), and computer and electronic products (NAICS 334) ($3 billion). Companies also received funds from other U.S. companies ($27 billion) and foreign companies—including foreign parent companies of U.S. subsidiaries ($23 billion). Eighteen billion dollars (69%) of all business R&D funded by other U.S. companies was for scientific research and development services (NAICS 5417). The distribution of foreign company R&D funding was spread more broadly across multiple industries ( table 2 ). (See “ Survey Information and Data Availability ” for information on the availability of data tables with full industry detail.)

Funds spent for business R&D performed in the United States, by source of funds, selected industry, and company size: 2021

D = suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information; i = more than 50% of the estimate is a combination of imputation and reweighting to account for nonresponse; r = relative standard error is more than 50%.

NAICS = North American Industry Classification System; nec = not elsewhere classified.

a All R&D is the cost of R&D paid for and performed by the respondent company and paid for by others outside of the company and performed by the respondent company. b Includes foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies ($32.1 billion). c Includes foreign parent companies of U.S. subsidiaries ($20.8 billion) and unaffiliated companies ($2.5 billion). Excludes funds from foreign subsidiaries to U.S. companies paid for through intercompany transactions ($32.1 billion). d Includes U.S. state government agencies and laboratories ($0.3 billion); U.S. universities, colleges, and academic researchers (< $0.01 billion); and all other organizations located inside ($0.7 billion) and outside the United States (< $0.01 billion). e Includes only companies with 10 or more domestic employees.

Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Industry classification was based on the dominant business code for domestic R&D performance, where available. For companies that did not report business codes, the classification used for sampling was assigned. Statistics are representative of companies located in the United States that performed or funded $50,000 or more of R&D.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and Census Bureau, Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey, 2021.

Sales, R&D Intensity, and Employment of Companies That Performed or Funded R&D

U.S. companies that performed or funded R&D reported domestic net sales of $13 trillion in 2021 ( table 3 ). ​ Determining the amount of domestic net sales and operating revenues was left to the reporting company. However, guidance was given to include revenues from foreign operations and subsidiaries and from discontinued operations and to exclude intracompany transfers, returns, allowances, freight charges, and excise, sales, and other revenue-based taxes. For all industries, the R&D intensity (R&D-to-sales ratio) was 4.6%; for manufacturers, 5.0%; and for nonmanufacturers, 4.2%. Manufacturing industries with high levels of R&D intensity in 2021 were pharmaceuticals and medicines (NAICS 3254) (16.1%) and computer and electronic products (NAICS 334) (13.0%). Among the nonmanufacturing industries, industries with high levels of R&D intensity were scientific research and development services (NAICS 5417) (41.2%), software publishers (NAICS 5112) (12.9%), and computer systems design and related services (NAICS 5415) (10.2%).

Businesses that performed or funded R&D employed 23.7 million people in the United States in 2021 ( table 3 ). ​ Employment statistics in this InfoBrief are headcounts unless they are designated as full-time equivalent (FTE) estimates. R&D employees include researchers (defined as R&D scientists and engineers and their managers) and the technicians, technologists, and support staff members who work on R&D or who provide direct support to R&D activities. Approximately 2.1 million (9%) were business R&D employees. ​ The number of persons employed who were assigned full time to R&D plus a prorated number of employees who worked on R&D only part of the time was 1.9 million FTEs, of which 1.3 million FTEs were R&D researchers.

Of the 2.1 million people working on R&D in companies that performed or funded business R&D in 2021, 1.5 million were men and 0.6 million were women; 48% of the men and 45% of the women worked in manufacturing industries ( table 4 ). Researchers—that is, scientists, engineers, and their managers—accounted for 1.4 million of the 2.1 million R&D workers (67%). Of the R&D workers, 130,000 (9%) held PhD degrees. R&D technicians numbered 501,000, and 205,000 were grouped as other supporting staff.

Sales, R&D, R&D intensity, and employment for companies that performed or funded business R&D in the United States, by selected industry and company size: 2021

a Dollar values are for goods sold or services rendered by R&D-performing or R&D-funding companies located in the United States to customers outside of the company, including the U.S. federal government, foreign customers, and the company's foreign subsidiaries. Included are revenues from a company’s foreign operations and subsidiaries and from discontinued operations. If a respondent company is owned by a foreign parent company, sales to the parent company and to affiliates not owned by the respondent company are included. Excluded are intracompany transfers, returns, allowances, freight charges, and excise, sales, and other revenue-based taxes. b All R&D is the cost of R&D paid for and performed by the respondent company and paid for by others outside of the company and performed by the respondent company. c R&D intensity is the cost of domestic R&D paid for by the respondent company and others outside of the company and performed by the company divided by domestic net sales of companies that performed or funded R&D. d Data recorded on 12 March represent employment figures for the year. e Headcounts of researchers, R&D managers, technicians, clerical staff, and others assigned to R&D groups. f Includes only companies with 10 or more domestic employees.

Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Industry classification was based on the dominant business code for domestic R&D performance, where available. For companies that did not report business codes, the classification used for sampling was assigned.

Domestic employment, R&D employment by sex and work activity, R&D researchers by level of education, and full-time equivalent researcher employment for companies that performed or funded business R&D in the United States, by industrial sector: 2021

NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.

a Data recorded on 12 March represent employment figures for the year. b Includes R&D scientists and engineers and their managers. c Includes clerical staff and others assigned to R&D groups. d The number of persons employed who were assigned full time to R&D, plus a prorated number of employees who worked on R&D only part of the time.

Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Industry classification was based on the dominant business code for domestic R&D performance, where available. For companies that did not report business codes, the classification used for sampling was assigned. Excludes data for federally funded research and development centers. Also available in the full set of data tables are statistics on domestic R&D employment, by state; foreign R&D personnel headcounts, by country; and headcounts of leased (i.e., external) R&D personnel, by function.

R&D Performance, by Company Size

Small- and medium-sized companies (10–249 domestic employees) performed 9.8% of the nation’s total business R&D in 2021 ( table 3 ). Frascati Manual ; see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2015. Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological, and Innovation Activities . Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/frascati-manual-2015_9789264239012-en . Anderson and Kindlon (2019) provide estimates of R&D performance and employment using these new classifications over 2008–15. The authors also compare the trends to those observed in SIRD for the time prior to 2008. The ABS, also cosponsored by NCSES and the Census Bureau, collects R&D data from companies with fewer than 10 employees for 2017 and beyond. See Anderson G, Kindlon A; NCSES. 2019. Indicators of R&D in Small Businesses: Data from the 2009–15 Business R&D and Innovation Survey . InfoBrief NSF 19-316. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19316/ ." data-bs-content="Company size classifications changed for 2017 and subsequent years in response to the revised Frascati Manual ; see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2015. Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological, and Innovation Activities . Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/frascati-manual-2015_9789264239012-en . Anderson and Kindlon (2019) provide estimates of R&D performance and employment using these new classifications over 2008–15. The authors also compare the trends to those observed in SIRD for the time prior to 2008. The ABS, also cosponsored by NCSES and the Census Bureau, collects R&D data from companies with fewer than 10 employees for 2017 and beyond. See Anderson G, Kindlon A; NCSES. 2019. Indicators of R&D in Small Businesses: Data from the 2009–15 Business R&D and Innovation Survey . InfoBrief NSF 19-316. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19316/ ." data-endnote-uuid="bbd761ec-4ed8-45ec-810e-9b53647fe422">​ Company size classifications changed for 2017 and subsequent years in response to the revised Frascati Manual ; see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2015. Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological, and Innovation Activities . Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/frascati-manual-2015_9789264239012-en . Anderson and Kindlon (2019) provide estimates of R&D performance and employment using these new classifications over 2008–15. The authors also compare the trends to those observed in SIRD for the time prior to 2008. The ABS, also cosponsored by NCSES and the Census Bureau, collects R&D data from companies with fewer than 10 employees for 2017 and beyond. See Anderson G, Kindlon A; NCSES. 2019. Indicators of R&D in Small Businesses: Data from the 2009–15 Business R&D and Innovation Survey . InfoBrief NSF 19-316. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19316/ . For these companies as a group, the R&D intensity was 8.8%. These companies accounted for 5% of sales and employed 7% of the 23.7 million employees who worked for R&D-performing or R&D-funding companies. They employed 18% of the 2.1 million employees engaged in business R&D in the United States.

Large companies with 250–24,999 domestic employees performed 52% of the nation’s total business R&D in 2021, and their R&D intensity was 4.7%. They accounted for 51% of sales, employed 42% of those who worked for R&D-performing or R&D-funding companies, and employed 51% of R&D employees in the United States.

The largest companies (25,000 or more domestic employees) performed 38% of the nation’s total business R&D in 2021, and their R&D intensity was 4.0%. They accounted for 44% of sales, employed 51% of those who worked for R&D-performing or R&D-funding companies, and employed 31% of business R&D employees in the United States.

R&D Performance, by State

In 2021, of the $602 billion of R&D performed in the United States, businesses in California alone accounted for 35.1% ( table 5 ). Other states with large amounts of business R&D were Washington (8.1% of the national total in 2021), Massachusetts (6.6%), Texas (4.7%), New York (4.4%), and New Jersey (4.2%). Over Half of U.S. Business R&D Performed in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2015 . InfoBrief NSF 19-322. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19322/ . Also see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2020. Businesses Performed 60% of Their U.S. R&D in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2018 . InfoBrief NSF 21-331. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21331 . Information and statistics on U.S. state trends in R&D, science and engineering education, workforce, patents and publications, and knowledge-intensive industries is also available in the Science and Engineering State Indicators data tool at https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states ." data-bs-content="In addition to statistics for all states and for all states by industry, below-state level statistics are available in the full set of data tables and in other InfoBriefs; see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2019. Over Half of U.S. Business R&D Performed in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2015 . InfoBrief NSF 19-322. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19322/ . Also see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2020. Businesses Performed 60% of Their U.S. R&D in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2018 . InfoBrief NSF 21-331. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21331 . Information and statistics on U.S. state trends in R&D, science and engineering education, workforce, patents and publications, and knowledge-intensive industries is also available in the Science and Engineering State Indicators data tool at https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states ." data-endnote-uuid="8051c6cd-6983-4989-9a6c-bbc5713eaaa4">​ In addition to statistics for all states and for all states by industry, below-state level statistics are available in the full set of data tables and in other InfoBriefs; see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2019. Over Half of U.S. Business R&D Performed in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2015 . InfoBrief NSF 19-322. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19322/ . Also see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2020. Businesses Performed 60% of Their U.S. R&D in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2018 . InfoBrief NSF 21-331. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21331 . Information and statistics on U.S. state trends in R&D, science and engineering education, workforce, patents and publications, and knowledge-intensive industries is also available in the Science and Engineering State Indicators data tool at https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states .

Funds spent for business R&D performed in the United States, by state and source of funds: 2021

a All R&D is the cost of domestic R&D paid for by the respondent company and others outside of the company and performed by the respondent company. b Includes data reported that were not allocated to a specific state by multi-establishment companies. For single-establishment companies, data reported were allocated to the state in the address used to mail the survey form.

Capital Expenditures

Companies that performed or funded R&D in the United States in 2021 spent $793 billion on capital, that is, assets with expected useful lives of more than 1 year ( table 6 ). Of this amount, $53 billion (7%) was for assets used for domestic R&D operations (i.e., land acquisitions, buildings and land improvement, equipment, capitalized software, and other assets). Companies in manufacturing industries spent $28 billion on capital for domestic R&D, and companies in nonmanufacturing industries spent $24 billion. Industries with high levels of capital expenditures on assets used for domestic R&D in 2021 were pharmaceuticals and medicines (NAICS 3254) ($7.5 billion, or 14% of national capital expenditures on assets used for R&D) and semiconductor and other electronic products (NAICS 3344) ($5 billion, or 9%). Among all types of capital assets, manufacturing industries spent the most on equipment ($15 billion, or 53% of total capital assets used for domestic R&D), and nonmanufacturing industries disbursed the most on capitalized software ($13.7 billion, or 56%).

Capital expenditures in the United States, total and used for domestic R&D, by type of expenditure, industry, and company size: 2021

* = amount < $500,000; i = more than 50% of the estimate is a combination of imputation and reweighting to account for nonresponse; r = relative standard error is more than 50%.

a Domestic R&D is the R&D paid for by the respondent company and others outside of the company and performed by the company. b Capital expenditures are payments by a business for assets that usually have a useful life of more than 1 year. The value of assets acquired or improved through capital expenditures is recorded on a company’s balance sheet. BERD Survey statistics exclude the cost of assets acquired through mergers and acquisitions. c Capital expenditures for long-lived assets used in a company’s R&D operations are not included in its R&D expense, but any depreciation recorded for those assets is included in its R&D expense. For 2021, depreciation associated with domestic R&D paid for and performed by the company was $18.4 billion and with domestic R&D performed by the company and paid for by others was $2.7 billion. d Includes the cost of purchased or improved buildings and other facilities that are fixed to the land. e Includes the cost of other capital expenditures, including purchased patents and other intangible assets, and expenditures not distributed among the categories shown. f Includes only companies with 10 or more domestic employees.

Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Industry classification was based on dominant business code for domestic R&D performance, where available. For companies that did not report business codes, the classification used for sampling was assigned. An estimate range may be displayed in place of a single estimate to avoid disclosing operations of individual companies.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau, Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey, 2021.

Survey Information and Data Availability

The sample for the BERD Survey was selected to represent all for-profit, nonfarm companies that were publicly or privately held, had 10 or more employees in the United States, and performed or funded R&D either domestically or abroad. The estimates in this InfoBrief are based on responses from a sample of the population and may differ from actual values because of sampling variability or other factors. As a result, apparent differences between the estimates for two or more groups may not be statistically significant. All comparative statements in this InfoBrief have undergone statistical testing and are significant at the 90% confidence level unless otherwise noted. The variances of estimates in this report were calculated using design-based formulas. Also, because the statistics from the survey are based on a sample, they are subject to both sampling and nonsampling errors. (See the 2021 “Technical Notes” at https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/business-enterprise-research-development/ .) ​ The Census Bureau reviewed the information in this InfoBrief for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and approved the disclosure avoidance practices applied (Project No. P-7504682, Disclosure Review Board (DRB) approval number: CBDRB-FY23-0161).

Beginning in survey year 2018, companies that performed or funded less than $50,000 of R&D were excluded from tabulation.

In this InfoBrief, money amounts are expressed in current U.S. dollars and are not adjusted for inflation. A company is defined as a business organization located in the United States, either U.S. owned or a U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent company, of one or more establishments under common ownership or control.

For 2020, a total of 47,500 companies were sampled to represent the population of 1,140,000 companies; for 2021, a total of 47,500 companies were sampled, representing 1,137,000 companies. The actual numbers of reporting units in the sample that remained within the scope of the survey between sample selection and tabulation were 44,500 for 2020 and 44,000 for 2021. These lower counts represent the number of reporting units that were determined to be within the scope of the survey after all data collected were processed. Reasons for the reduced counts include mergers, acquisitions, and instances where companies had fewer than 10 employees in the United States or had gone out of business in the interim. Of these in-scope reporting units, 67% were considered to have met the criteria for a complete response to the 2020 survey; 69% fulfilled the 2021 complete response criteria. Coverage of the previous year’s known positive R&D stratum for 2020 was 92%; the coverage rate for 2021 was also 92%. Industry classification was based on the dominant business activity for domestic R&D performance, where available. For reporting units that did not report business activity codes for R&D, the classification used for sampling was assigned.

The estimation methodology for state estimates in the BERD Survey takes the form of a hybrid estimator, combining the unweighted reported amount, by state, with a weighted amount apportioned (or raked) across states with relevant industrial activity. The hybrid estimator smooths the estimate over states with R&D activity, by industry, and accounts for real observed change within a state. Table 5 shows the adjusted state estimates after this estimation methodology was applied.

The full set of data tables from the 2021 survey will be available at the BERD Survey page . Individual data tables and tables with relative standard errors and imputation rates from the 2021 survey are available from the author in advance of the full release. To minimize reporting burden, survey items are rotated on and off the survey on an odd- and even-numbered year schedule. Statistics on patents, intellectual property, and technology transfer activities were rotated off the survey for 2021. Items rotated on the survey for 2021 include questions on R&D performed by others by type of performer, federal R&D by government agency, and R&D by application area.

The BERD Survey contains confidential data that are protected under Title 13 and Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Restricted microdata can be accessed at the secure Federal Statistical Research Data Centers (FSRDCs) administered by the Census Bureau. FSRDCs are partnerships between federal statistical agencies and leading research institutions. FSRDCs provide secure environments supporting qualified researchers using restricted-access data while protecting respondent confidentiality. Researchers interested in using the microdata can submit a proposal to the Census Bureau, which evaluates proposals based on their benefit to the Census Bureau, scientific merit, feasibility, and risk of disclosure. To learn more about the FSRDCs and how to apply, please visit https://www.census.gov/about/adrm/fsrdc.html .

Suggested Citation

Britt R; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2023. Business R&D Performance in the United States Tops $600 Billion in 2021 . NSF 23-350. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at http://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23350 .

1 NSF has cosponsored an annual business R&D survey since 1953. The Survey of Industrial Research and Development (SIRD) collected data for 1953–2007, and its successor, the Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS), collected data for 2008–16. Beginning with 2017, the collection of innovation data was moved to the Annual Business Survey (ABS), another survey cosponsored with the Census Bureau, and BRDIS became the Business Research and Development Survey (BRDS). Beginning with 2019, the business R&D data collection reported here was renamed the Business Enterprise Research and Development (BERD) Survey for international comparability.

2 Determining the amount of domestic net sales and operating revenues was left to the reporting company. However, guidance was given to include revenues from foreign operations and subsidiaries and from discontinued operations and to exclude intracompany transfers, returns, allowances, freight charges, and excise, sales, and other revenue-based taxes.

3 Employment statistics in this InfoBrief are headcounts unless they are designated as full-time equivalent (FTE) estimates. R&D employees include researchers (defined as R&D scientists and engineers and their managers) and the technicians, technologists, and support staff members who work on R&D or who provide direct support to R&D activities.

4 The number of persons employed who were assigned full time to R&D plus a prorated number of employees who worked on R&D only part of the time was 1.9 million FTEs, of which 1.3 million FTEs were R&D researchers.

5 Company size classifications changed for 2017 and subsequent years in response to the revised Frascati Manual ; see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2015. Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological, and Innovation Activities . Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/frascati-manual-2015_9789264239012-en . Anderson and Kindlon (2019) provide estimates of R&D performance and employment using these new classifications over 2008–15. The authors also compare the trends to those observed in SIRD for the time prior to 2008. The ABS, also cosponsored by NCSES and the Census Bureau, collects R&D data from companies with fewer than 10 employees for 2017 and beyond. See Anderson G, Kindlon A; NCSES. 2019. Indicators of R&D in Small Businesses: Data from the 2009–15 Business R&D and Innovation Survey . InfoBrief NSF 19-316. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19316/ .

6 In addition to statistics for all states and for all states by industry, below-state level statistics are available in the full set of data tables and in other InfoBriefs; see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2019. Over Half of U.S. Business R&D Performed in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2015 . InfoBrief NSF 19-322. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19322/ . Also see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2020. Businesses Performed 60% of Their U.S. R&D in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2018 . InfoBrief NSF 21-331. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21331 . Information and statistics on U.S. state trends in R&D, science and engineering education, workforce, patents and publications, and knowledge-intensive industries is also available in the Science and Engineering State Indicators data tool at https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states .

7 The Census Bureau reviewed the information in this InfoBrief for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and approved the disclosure avoidance practices applied (Project No. P-7504682, Disclosure Review Board (DRB) approval number: CBDRB-FY23-0161).

Report Author

Ronda Britt Survey Manager NCSES Tel: (703) 292-7765 E-mail: [email protected]

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences National Science Foundation 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W14200 Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel: (703) 292-8780 FIRS: (800) 877-8339 TDD: (800) 281-8749 E-mail: [email protected]

Source Data & Analysis

Data Tables (NSF 23-351)

Get e-mail updates from NCSES

NCSES is an official statistical agency. Subscribe below to receive our latest news and announcements.

Research and Development is More Important Than You Think

February 23, 2021

Research and development is a key component in the successful discovery and development of new drugs and medical devices entering the market. It’s also an area of big business, with investments in R&D experiencing historic growth year after year.

With such impressive growth comes a need for companies to have a sound R&D strategy . Here, we talk about the importance of R&D and how to improve your R&D processes.

What is Research and Development?

Research and development is defined by innovation and obtaining new knowledge. Before introducing new products and services into the marketplace or improving existing similar tools, companies must first engage in the R&D process to fully understand the applications of that innovation.

Types of R&D

There are three main types of research and development as defined by the National Science Foundation :

• Basic research is a broad approach to research that may not have specified end goals in mind. The focus is on gaining knowledge, which can then be linked to a company’s stated goals.
• Applied research is a more defined approach with a means to an end in mind. A company may have identified a specific objective and is now looking for ways to meet that objective with a product or service.
• Development is using research gathered in new innovations or in improving existing products and services. The development process can also lead to additional paths for research.

Why is Research and Development Important?

The importance of R&D, particularly in the biotechnology research and development space, is tangible. Innovation can lead to improvements in the overall health of a population. But research and development is also critical to the health of companies doing the research.

Important Results That Prolong and Save Lives

Consider the work being done with the genome-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 , a tool that could have a wide range of applications in the treatment and cure of diseases that link back to genetics. This includes everything from cancer to high cholesterol.

While challenges certainly exist, particularly in the effective planning and execution of research and development programs, these programs’ value goes beyond innovation when run successfully.

Improve Upon Existing Products

Once products such as new drugs or medical devices hit the market, the need for continued research into the efficacy of those products continues.

Research teams consistently monitor data to account for potential side effects, unknown variables, or new applications for existing products. With the overwhelming amount of big data in medical science that emerges via R&D, working with a resource management team helps ensure ongoing data management is monetized properly.

In the coming years, R&D will explode with the possibilities of personalization. Patients are looking for personalized responses to their healthcare needs. The general public is becoming more and more aware of just how unique their genome and physiologies are. Research and product development that focuses on a more granular approach to health solutions will not only provide reliable revenue for biotech, but better answers for consumers.

Economic Growth

Despite research and development costs, investment in R&D is critical for biotech to remain competitive in the market. New, unique products mean fresh sales and fresh eyes on an organization, on top of tax credit opportunities . Aggressive research and development strategies are then critical to a company’s business plan.

R&D also supports economic growth on a global scale in both direct and indirect ways. In the biopharmaceutical industry alone, R&D is a top driver of high-quality, well-paid employment opportunities, generates revenue for a company through innovative products, and can be an internal investment tool in statewide clinical trials.

Recruitment Boosts

Companies known for innovation have an easier time recruiting and keeping talent. Talented researchers seek environments where they can do work that leads to important results. Therefore, these researchers will seek out companies that have a developed R&D process.

A robust R&D program drives not only new products and devices but also entices top talent. Progress comes as a result of efficient, effective teams doing the difficult work to improve health outcomes.

How to Improve Your R&D Process

Now that you know the importance of research and development, it’s just as important to ensure that your R&D strategy is sound. Take the following steps to improve your R&D process :

• Set priorities that align with company-wide goals and growth strategies.
• Improve, standardize and automate processes.
• Take advantage of the wealth of data available and adopt big data strategies.
• Prioritize risk assessment across all aspects of company operations.
• Implement processes that preserve data integrity, such as electronic audit trails.
• Pursue opportunities for strategic collaboration.

Trust the Experts

ProPharma experts support you in your endeavors to innovate and ensure that your R&D processes are efficient and effective. While many challenges exist, identifying and mitigating difficult obstacles often takes “fresh eyes,” something only outside, experienced consultants can provide.

ProPharma insights help you move your R&D strategy to the next level so you can focus on big picture innovations and exciting new products central to your market.

TAGS: R&D strategy R&D Clinical Research Solutions

Related Articles

July 10, 2023

Benefits of Decentralized Clinical Trials

In recent years, the landscape of clinical trials has undergone a remarkable transformation with the emergence of decentralized clinical trials (DCTs). These innovative approaches leverage technology...

May 1, 2023

7 Considerations When Implementing and Maintaining a Research Data Management Platform

Investments in digital transformations are expected to grow from $594.5 billion USD in 2022 to $1.548.9 billion USD by 2027, with the goal of improving the generation, collation, storage, and...

June 10, 2021

6 Ways Data Science Can Improve Your Life Sciences Operations

The proper use of data science and predictive analytics can improve any online business, in or out of the medical field, but plays a particularly unique role in the life sciences. Science seeks truth...

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Early diagnosis is not...

Early diagnosis is not always an unmitigated good, we need to make it useful for patients and clinicians

• Related content
• Peer review
• Margaret McCartney , senior lecturer 1 ,
• Peter J Liu , chief executive 2 ,
• Anne Fearfull , lay representative 3 ,
• Helen Macdonald , publication ethics and content integrity editor 4 ,
• Peter D Donnelly , chair in public health 1
• 1 University of St Andrews School of Medicine
• 2 Oxford Cancer Analytics
• 3 NHS Tayside Public Partners

We need to define the concept of early diagnosis

The importance of early diagnosis, particularly in cancer, has been covered widely in the media. Improving early diagnosis rates is a politically popular target. Innovation and new technology have also been proposed by the government—for example, through Academic Health Science Networks—as means to stimulate economic growth. UK policy emphasises the need to support fast track processes to approve new interventions for NHS use. This has resulted in calls for established and new technologies to be rapidly developed—for example, artificial intelligence, in vitro diagnostics, population screening tests for multiple cancer markers, and digital interventions such as remote monitoring. 1

Post-Brexit, the UK is no longer required to adhere to EU stipulations on medical device development and licensing procedures. In early 2024 the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency published a “roadmap” as a framework for regulation of medical devices. 2 New UK regulation is planned to tackle the classification of medical devices, claims manufacturers can make, and clinical investigations required. 3

There are substantial challenges, however, including the need to more clearly define the concept of early diagnosis which, despite appearances, is not always an unmitigated good. To be useful to patients, seeking it should be part of a process that improves quality of life or mortality. Tests should be accurate, minimally invasive, and cost effective. Even the concept of early diagnosis requires interrogation as it may be used to describe both asymptomatic testing (screening) or symptomatic testing. This may be self-directed, directed by primary or secondary care, or through organised programmes of screening. Unintended consequences of early diagnosis programmes include overdiagnosis and false positives and negatives. Correct diagnoses may include stage shifts that do not lead to patient benefit.

It is, therefore, essential to agree on what “success” is when applied to “early diagnosis” to ensure that technologies are brought to market in ways that are beneficial to patients. This should be supported by effective legislation, regulation, and commissioning. Various mechanisms have been developed in the NHS to facilitate the rapid development and uptake of selected new products, including those for early diagnosis. Questions about the appropriateness of such pathways have been raised, however. Products selected for fast track innovation may bypass processes carried out by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assessment. 4

Some have argued against the generally accepted standard of effectiveness being evaluated in randomised controlled trials and suggest that “real world” evidence of innovative products should be used preferentially, not just because it is cheaper, but because the outcomes are more valid and generalisable. Pragmatic studies can indeed produce valid and more generalisable results. 5 6 Without an adequate control group, however, this cannot be a sole measure of successful early diagnosis as lead time bias may be difficult to exclude. Nor should using diagnosis rates alone as an outcome measure indicate success, given the risk of overdiagnosis, inaccurate diagnosis, and the need to demonstrate meaningful patient benefit. It is, for example, relatively straightforward to increase the diagnosis rates of prostate cancer by screening asymptomatic older men, but this does not translate into clinical benefit. Instead, outcome measures should reflect patient centred outcomes, which would not have been evident without the test, and should include cost effectiveness evaluations that are independent of commercial conflicts of interest. Studies evaluating the success of early cancer detection should include patient cohorts similar to the intended patient population. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the test should therefore be included, contextualising these performance indicators to the intended patient population.

Criticisms have been levelled at clinicians for failing to adopt new technologies. An inadequate evidence base, clinical caution, and a lack of resources may, however, result in minimal uptake. 7 Systematic problems that reduce the valid uptake of a quality test need to be identified and tackled. If clinicians do not, however, have confidence in the validity and reliability of a novel diagnostic test, the upfront investment may be wasted, impacting not just the manufacturer, but potentially the taxpayer.

Primary care may be particularly disadvantaged by a market providing poor quality, direct-to-consumer tests, which lack clinical interpretation and an assessment of the true costs to the health service. These costs may include re-testing, referrals for further investigation, and clinical time for information sharing and discussion. Members of the public may feel they get inadequate information about such tests and have to turn to their GP. Consultations to discuss tests that did not originate in the NHS are becoming commonplace. 8

The use of imaging and endoscopy services after false positive screening tests may increase already long waiting lists. 9 These, in turn, may disadvantage symptomatic people on the waiting list who may have a higher chance of disease, but a consequently longer wait for further tests.

Unless the public are provided with high quality information about tests which offer early diagnosis in a manner appropriate for a lay readership and taking account of the personal sensitivities around serious illness, people may believe that tests offered through the NHS are restricted solely because of cost, rather than effectiveness.

Diagnostic technology holds great potential to benefit individuals and society. New UK regulation represents an opportunity to improve the trust that professionals and citizens can have in the technology and improve the status quo for all. To use this opportunity, it is essential that industry, academia, regulatory authorities, patients, commissioners, and clinicians agree on what an evidence based, cost effective, early diagnostic intervention looks like. At the outset, criteria for adoption are required to maximise the potential for effective technologies. These features should be designed into the developmental process in a framework that all parties recognise as valid, transparent, and fair.

To develop this dialogue, the first Evidence Based Early Diagnosis conference will be held in St Andrews University in partnership with The BMJ and the University of Oxford from 29 May to 31 May. We welcome all those who will be using these tests, as patients or as professionals, and those who are researching, inventing, regulating, or writing policy on them. We look forward to collaborative and stimulating discussions to drive further work and improve patient care.

Acknowledgments

This opinion piece arose from discussions between the authors regarding the forthcoming Evidence Based Early Diagnosis conference to which Frank Sullivan, University of St Andrews Medical School; Andreas Halner, Oxford Cancer Analytics; Daniel Szulc, Oxford Cancer Analytics; and Carl Heneghan, University of Oxford also contributed. They are all involved in organising or speaking at the conference.

MMC, PJL, AF, HM, and PDD are on the steering committee for the inaugural conference on Evidence Based Early Diagnosis which will be held at the University of St Andrews in May 2024, where we hope to begin to find areas of agreement.

• ↵ 0-Year Cancer Plan: call for evidence. www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/10-year-cancer-plan-call-for-evidence/10-year-cancer-plan-call-for-evidence
• ↵ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/659d3539aaae22001356dc3c/Roadmap_towards_the_future_regulatory_framework_for_medical_devices__Jan_24.pdf
• ↵ Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Implementation of the future regulations. www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementation-of-the-future-regulation-of-medical-devices/implementation-of-the-future-regulations
• Turnbull C ,
• Sullivan R ,
• ↵ British In Vitro Diagnostics Association. Leveraging partnerships to realise the UK’s potential in genomics. Final Report. www.bivda.org.uk/Portals/0/documents/Reports/BIVDA%20Genomics%20Paper%2015.5.23.pdf?ver=2023
• Treweek S ,
• Sullivan F ,
• Thorpe KE ,
• Zwarenstein M
• ↵ Novartis scraps drug trial in blow to UK life sciences ambitions. Financial Times . 2023 www.ft.com/content/d7685eaa-5635-4e64-a390-b48908874bfe
• ↵ House of Commons Science Committee. Direct-to-consumer testing. 2021. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmsctech/94/9402.htm
• ↵ Kings Fund. Waiting times for elective (non-urgent) treatment: referral to treatment. 2023. www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/waiting-times-non-urgent-treatment

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. You can change your cookies in your browser at any time.

• Skip to content
• Skip to menu

• Find a course

Championing regional innovation

Anthony Walker, Strategic Manager at LJMU for Horizons – a project backed by government funding to foster economic growth and innovation in the Liverpool City Region with the help of universities – shares his industry insight into the impact of the Spring Budget 2024 and the importance of driving forwards innovation.  

Spring Budget 2024: Why the lack of funding for Net Zero and regional AI development are missed opportunities

In March, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt presented the Spring Budget for 2024, delivering a string of tax cuts and promising a “budget for long-term growth”.

However, with little focus on incentives to drive forward progress towards the UK’s Net Zero ambitions and a £100m investment into AI granted to the Alan Turing Institute in London, the Budget marked a missed opportunity to increase investment into a sustainable future for the UK and support levelling up ambitions on a national scale outside of the capital.

The investment case for Net Zero

The UK government’s commitment to reaching Net Zero by 2050 is one of the biggest challenges facing the country, and translating ambition into action requires significant investment.

Hunt’s Budget included a number of announcements regarding decarbonising the UK’s energy system, including confirmation of the budget for the upcoming Contracts for Difference (CfD) Auction at over £1bn and a £120m investment increase for the Green Industries Growth Accelerator (GIGA) to support the expansion of sustainable clean energy supply chains across the nation.

However, aside from these welcome extensions to existing schemes, there was an evident lack of more concrete measures to bolster the UK’s Net Zero economy. The Chancellor did not offer any new policies to boost the roll-out of low-carbon technologies or electrification, leaving energy industry members and businesses committed to Net Zero disheartened.

If the UK is to achieve its Net Zero mission, innovation will be key. Technological innovation has a crucial role to play in the development and deployment of cleaner energy solutions and in supporting businesses in investing in a sustainable future. The International Energy Agency projects that almost half of emissions reductions over the next three decades will come from technologies that are currently at the demonstration or prototype stage.

Above all, this requires investment. The Climate Change Committee estimates that investment in decarbonisation must scale up to £50bn each year from 2030 in order to deliver Net Zero. The radical transformation required will not happen on the necessary scale or at the necessary pace without government spending, regulation and incentives.

In the face of the investment required, it’s easy to forget that the transition to a Net Zero economy – which grew by 9% last year – also presents an opportunity for growth. A recent report from the London School of Economics suggests that the UK government should increase annual public investment in tackling climate change by the equivalent of about 1% of GDP in order to improve public growth. Without public investment, there will likely be a continuation of stagnant productivity and weak economic growth.

While innovation is crucial if the UK is to meet Net Zero by 2050, in turn the drive towards a Net Zero economy fosters innovation, attracting investment in green finance and positioning UK businesses as leaders in sustainable solutions. Action through investment now will unlock long-term gains for our economy, cutting costs later by ending costly reliance on imported gas, improving resource efficiency and building knowledge clusters in burgeoning clean-tech and green finance sectors.

Besides the potential to contribute to the UK’s future prosperity and economic growth, the transition to a cleaner, greener economy also presents an opportunity to help reduce regional equalities across the UK by generating regionally balanced growth. According to the Economy 2030 Inquiry, although patents tend to be concentrated in the ‘golden triangle’ regions around London, Oxford & Cambridge, other regions tend to be more specialised in clean technologies. Establishing strong regional clusters for greener innovation will see returns in these regions, as well as generating spillovers for the country as a whole.

Artificial Intelligence – regional innovation readiness

While Net Zero remains one of the most pressing issues facing our country, the Budget’s failure to address regional inequalities in its announcement of a £100m investment boost for Britain’s growing AI sector marks another missed opportunity for investment.

While the UK boasts world-class AI research institutions, talent is concentrated primarily in London and the South East. In doubling funding for the Alan Turing Institute in London, Hunt wishes to harness the power of AI to improve the country’s productivity and unlock economy growth, focusing on three key areas: transforming healthcare, creating a sustainable future, and strengthening defence and national security. However, the potential for regional AI development has gone overlooked.

While a £7.4m AI upskilling fund pilot was also announced to help SMEs develop AI skills, until it is clearer how the funding will be allocated, the question remains of how regional inequalities will be addressed.

Ignoring regional discrepancies hinders the UK’s capacity to tackle diverse challenges and address specifics needs across the country, such as the optimisation of agricultural practices, improving transportation networks, and providing healthcare solutions in underserved regions.

Recent research by the Institute for the Future of Work (IFOW) suggests that the adoption of AI, robotics and automated equipment is having an overall positive impact on jobs, with more than three-quarters of firms reporting that the use of AI has created new roles, and the majority reporting that job equality has improved.

There is caution, however, that the pace at which automation is spreading, if not properly addressed, could exacerbate regional inequalities, as a result of discrepancies in “regional innovation readiness”. Determined by the level of investment in a particular region and the levels of education and skills among the region’s workers, London and the South East, unsurprisingly, score much better in terms of regional innovation readiness, and are therefore more likely to benefit from the adoption of AI.

To allow businesses across the country to realise the benefits of technologies such as AI, ensuring the right foundations are in place to allow access to digital infrastructure and skills provisions is essential. Regional businesses and SMEs must be able to access the support and funding necessary to allow them to augment their capabilities through automation.

It’s this regional innovation that we are supporting with our Horizons project , a partnership between the University of Liverpool’s VEC (Virtual Engineering Centre), Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) and Edge Hill University to support business innovation across the Liverpool City Region.

Led by the VEC, the £5.1m Horizons programme is funded by the government through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) and will support more than 100 SMEs in its pilot phase, providing the expertise, facilities, and funding businesses need to drive innovation. Critically, it is targeted support administered across the region in partnership with local universities that understand the nuances of regional businesses and the unique challenges and pressures they face.

Final thoughts

Though the Chancellor’s Spring Budget went some way to addressing the urgency of transitioning to a greener economy and progressing the adoption of digital technologies such as AI, further investment in innovation is crucial if the UK is to meet its ambitious Net Zero targets and address the regional inequalities our country faces in terms of the benefits of automation.

The UK must prioritise driving innovation, spearheading the development and deployment of clean technologies, and investment is crucial to achieving this mission. What’s needed is a holistic and coordinated growth strategy aligned with the decarbonisation mission, one which prioritises innovation for an efficient and productive Net Zero economy.

Moreover, the implementation of AI among regional businesses and SMEs must be considered as part of the UK government’s “levelling up” agenda. The adoption of AI has the potential to lead to net job creation, improved job quality and economic growth, but without a commitment to ensuring access to all, the impact of a digital transformation could exacerbate existing regional inequalities.

The original article was published with Maddyness .

Get support for your business through Horizons

Horizons is dedicated to supporting SMEs across the Liverpool City Region who want to improve their competitiveness and productivity. The programme provides practical, hands-on assistance that fosters economic growth and innovation.

Find out how your business could be supported – visit the Horizons project joint website .

• Engineering
• Place and Partnership

News from around LJMU

The Secrets of the Neanderthals

Scientists from LJMU and Cambridge help piece together human remains and the story of the Neanderthal cave dwellers of Shanidar

New facilities mark 175 years of pharmacy education

LJMU is marking 175 years of pharmacy education in the city by officially launching its innovative new specialist facilities.

Get in touch with the Press Office on 0151 231 3369 or

[email protected]

Cookie Settings

Essential cookies cannot be turned off as they are key in helping you to navigate through our website and use its features.

These cookies collect information about your browsing habits in order to make advertising more relevant to you and your interests, and measure the effectiveness of advertising campaigns.

These cookies capture anonymous data that helps us to understand how people are using our site, so that we can continually improve it.

These cookies allow the website to remember the choices you make and provide enhanced, more personal features.

Learn more about our cookies

• Open access
• Published: 26 April 2024

Exploring a revised interprofessional learning curriculum in undergraduate health education programs at Linköping University

• Elin A. Karlsson 1 ,
• Susanne Kvarnström 1 &
• Maria Kvarnström 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  466 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

109 Accesses

Metrics details

Interprofessional education aiming at providing competencies require evaluation in order to ensure that outcomes match the needs and ambitions. Health professionals today need a broad range of skills and competencies in order to provide high quality care, including interprofessional competence. Linköping University has been a pioneer in interprofessional learning for decades and this study provides one example of how a curriculum revision can be carried out. The aim of this study was to study the intentions and outcomes of a revised interprofessional learning curriculum in health professions education programs.

This was a qualitative study, including documents ( n  = 143) and complementary interviews with key individuals ( n  = 4). Data included syllabuses, study guides, educational program plans, supervisor guides, and interview transcripts. A qualitative document analysis and a content analysis with a directed approach was used, applying a theoretical framework for curriculum development that guided the analysis.

The analysis resulted in one overarching theme named “A planned, lived, and attended curriculum” including four main categories inspired by a theoretical framework. The findings demonstrate a variety of aspects relating to the why and how of curriculum revision. The introduction of a programme director in interprofessional learning, with a mandate equal to respective program directors, seemed to contribute to legitimacy. Further, the partnership between the university and the healthcare sector had an impact on the curriculum revision, in that healthcare had a say in the revision regarding what suggestions to implement or not. The expectations of the teachers involved were high, although clear support structures seemed to be lacking.

Conclusions

This study has identified some of the important links between teachers, organizational prerequisites, and healthcare when revising an existing fully integrated curriculum in interprofessional learning for health professions education programs. The aim of this curriculum revision was to legitimize and provide education that is up to date with current healthcare needs and to provide students with competencies to collaborate in teams to ensure patient safety. When redesigning a curriculum there seems to be a fine balance between pedagogical innovation and pragmatism. This study identified that the links provided between organizational support structures and the expectations on teachers were not aligned.

Peer Review reports

Today’s Health Professions Education (HPE) needs to contain high quality learning activities that provide students from various programs the opportunity to learn with, from, and about each other in order for them to develop interprofessional competence [ 1 ]. This is a matter that is increasingly highlighted globally, in terms of what responsibility educating universities should have for facilitating students’ development of skills in collaboration and patient safety, where various professionals’ competencies might be needed [ 1 , 2 ]. In parallel, interprofessional science has developed and established itself as an international research field over the last three decades [ 3 ]. Many HPEs around the world that support interprofessional learning (IPL) at their faculties use different learning approaches, sometimes including a fully integrated curriculum specifically for IPL. Without a fully integrated interprofessional curriculum as the umbrella, there are other approaches to organize IPL, often referred to as extra-curricular or partially integrated. Those include, for example, shorter courses, clinical rotations, and simulations with various numbers of educational programs participating. There are abundant examples of curriculum for IPL in the literature [ 4 ], including ways to develop IPL curriculum [ 5 ] and models for IPL [ 4 ]. However, previous research on IPL commonly focuses on students learning outcomes and factors that may facilitate, or hinder, implementation [ 6 , 7 ] rather than how a curriculum is created, implemented, performed, and revised. There is a need for studies on how curriculum development is performed, and there is a lack of studies exploring the changes in a curriculum over time. In Sweden there are national degree objectives regarding teamwork and collaborative competences for all HPEs. Thus, the development of curriculums in IPL is important in order to ensure that HPE students enter the labor market with appropriate interprofessional skills. This is essential for their colleagues, employers (i.e., healthcare organizations) and patients.

The IPL-curriculum of Linköping University

At Linköping University, the medical faculty has been a pioneer regarding IPL, which has been a clear feature since its origin, in 1986 [ 8 , 9 ]. There is a shared model for IPL at the faculty: a fully integrated curriculum for IPL. The curriculum includes three modules that are designed to promote a progression of IPL throughout the HPE programs, mandatory for all participating students. Further, at Linköping University, problem-based learning (PBL) and student-centered learning are central features whereby students commonly work in groups with so called scenarios (i.e., cases meant to spur questions, discussions, and learning) [ 10 ]. In 2012, the medical faculty addressed the need for reforms in how IPL was organized and facilitated and an investigation to produce solid suggestions for how to perform such a curriculum development was initiated [ 11 ]. One of the major reasons for this project were to relate to global changes to a new generation of teachers and students, as well as an increasing number of students, to address healthcare needs which called for strengthened interprofessional education [ 12 ]. This work resulted in a report [ 12 ] that was the foundation for the curriculum development. To establish how to modify and carry out educational activities in IPL, a committee with representatives from all of the involved programs was appointed to this work. These programs were within biomedical laboratory science (BMLS), medical biology, medicine (M), nursing (N), occupational therapy (OT), physiotherapy (PT) and speech and language pathology (SLP). The last iteration of the bachelor’s program in medical biology began in the autumn semester of 2017 and was replaced from autumn 2018 by another bachelor program within biomedicine. The new biomedicine program, which is international and thus uses the English language, does not participate in the current IPL curriculum. Thus, the current IPL curriculum at Linköping University includes six different HPE programs at the medical faculty. When using the term “medical faculty” we, thus, refer to the faculty at the University in which all the above mentioned HPE programs are situated. Parallel with the implementation of the revised IPL curriculum, the medical program was decentralized to multiple sites, requiring additional organizational structure. This is enacted before the second IPL module, and these medical students, may thus, perform the module in either of three different healthcare regions (previously called county councils) in Sweden (and four different cities), as in the third module.

Since the implementation of the current IPL curriculum in autumn 2016, the curriculum encompasses 8 weeks of full-time studies in total. The three modules are Professionalism in Healthcare (6 credits), Quality Improvement and Learning in Practice (3 credits), and Professional Perspectives in Collaboration (3 credits). The first module, referred to as IPL1, focuses on professionalism in healthcare and the common denominators for future healthcare workers, such as having a holistic biopsychosocial perspective on health and the common values based on regulations and ethical principles. The majority of the HPE programs attend this module during their first semester (see Table  1 ). The second module, referred to as IPL2, has a slightly different focus as the students are supposed to learn about improvement science and are assigned a quality improvement scenario in a practical healthcare setting. Commonly this is carried out during the end of the students’ education. The third module, referred to as IPL3, focuses on professional perspectives in collaboration at interprofessional training wards (IPTW) and interprofessional training primary healthcare centres where students are stationary at the ward/center throughout the placement and work in teams to plan and deliver the care of the patients. The wards and centers are driven by the healthcare regions with clinically active team supervisors, employed by the regions, and most but not all programs participate (see Table  1 ). The third module run in 2-weeks periods consecutively over the semester. At the IPTWs and student are responsible for the full care of the patients at the ward, under supervision by profession specific supervisors as well as team supervisors (more details about the IPTWs with the ones in Linköping as an example are described by Törnqvist et al. [ 13 ]. Commonly, the HPE programs participate in the modules in numeric order, with exception of the medical program that has the third module before the second.

Alongside the activities in the three different IPL modules, there are also other interprofessional learning activities involving students from two or more different programs, such as interprofessional simulations and clinical activities.

This study provides an example of how a fully integrated curriculum in IPL can be revised and staged over time. The study also uses a theoretical framework for curriculum development [ 14 ], appropriate for theorizing the findings and for facilitating that others may benefit from the lessons learnt during the process at Linköping University.

The aim of this study was to study the intentions and outcomes of a revised interprofessional learning curriculum in HPE programs.

Research questions

Why and how was the current curriculum revised?

How can the intentions and outcomes of the curriculum revision be understood and theorized in a model for curriculum development?

What lessons are to be learnt from this work and what areas need deepened knowledge?

Study procedures

Theoretical framework.

This is a qualitative document study together with supplementary interviews with key individuals, in which we used a theory-based evaluation in accordance with Lilliedahl et al. [ 15 ]. Further, to facilitate the interpretation and theorizing of empirical findings, we used a theoretical framework derived from the four interrelated dimensions for curriculum development processes as described by Lee et al. [ 14 ], i.e., (1) Identifying future orientation of Health practices; (2) Defining and understanding capabilities; (3) Teaching, learning and assessment; and (4) Supporting institutional delivery [ 14 ]. These dimensions were used as a structured tool to facilitate the interpretation and theorizing of empirical findings.

“Material culture”, such as documents, records, artefacts and archives, provide a valuable source of information regarding organizations and HPE, since they can give a behind-the-scenes look at different processes [ 16 ]. In this study, we used documents and texts from different periods of time as well as different sources.

As supplementary data, to further expand the understanding of some of the elements that emanated during the analysis of the documents, four individual interviews were performed with key persons who were active in the curriculum revision in 2014–2016.

Context of the documents

When using documents as data, it is important to define their context as well as their original purpose and who documented them [ 17 , 18 ]. The documents used in this study served primarily as the foundation for students’ education in terms of educational program plans, syllabuses, and study guides. These kinds of documents have been documented primarily for the students undertaking the HPE programs but are also eminently relevant for the teachers involved. These documents are generally written by teachers, and management of the specific HPE programs whereas program and course syllabuses are determined by the educational board of the medical faculty. These two kinds of documents are more formal in their character and include the learning objectives for each specific course during the whole educational program. There is one overarching program syllabus for each program, and these have been included in the analysis. The course syllabuses were collected for each program and each course in which one of the three IPL modules was integrated. A study guide is a document that is directed solely from the course management within each program, or within each IPL module, and is thus more flexible in terms of revisions. Apart from the goals of the specific course, the study guide also includes more detailed content regarding the current learning activities, examination forms, and the organization of these. There are study guides for both the program-specific courses and for the unique IPL module that is organized within the programs’ specific courses. These study guides were collected for the specific IPL modules, as well as for the program-specific courses in which the IPL modules are integrated. For the third module of IPL, information is generally derived from both the university’s and the region’s digital platform, in which the specific care units and care centres share information directed towards the students placed there. Thus, this information tends to differ as it is context bound.

We have also included teacher guides for the IPL modules, which is a document written by the course management, for the teachers and tutors who are assigned to work in one or more of the learning activities involved. Further, in order to be able to capture the intentions and arguments for the revision of the curriculum, we chose to include formal decision documents and directives for the implementation of the present curriculum, written by dean and the faculty board of the medical faculty.

Timeline of the documents

The documents were collected in accordance with a specific timeline, as illustrated in Table  2 below: Phase (1) Formal decisions and directives from the planning process during the years 2012–2015; Phase (2) Before the curriculum revision, during spring semester in 2016; Phase (3) The semester in which the revised curriculum was first implemented, autumn 2026 to autumn 2021; and (4) The current design of the modules, spring semester 2022, as some parts may have been tried out and further revised. An overview of the documents is presented in Table  2 . In total, 143 documents were included, representing four different time phases that will be referred to in this paper in order to facilitate keeping track on the time aspect and the context of these documents. The number of documents differs throughout the phases. This is due to, for instance, the fact that some of the older documents were not found in the archive.

Interview participants

Supplementary data were collected using a purposive sampling strategy [ 19 ], to obtain perceptions from people who held positions with a mandate at a significant executive level, and who were involved in the developmental process of the revised IPL curriculum. Four key individuals were invited to participate in separate interviews. Written information about the study was given, and all four agreed to participate. All participants had clinical backgrounds as healthcare professionals. All interviews were performed by SK and conducted during May 2023. The interviews were carried out either in the participants’ work premises or in their home and lasted between 60 and 90 min. The semi-structured interview form consisted of, apart from background data, each respondent’s perceptions of the process, and specific questions that had arisen in connection with the initial document analysis, such as when and why the respondent perceived that a certain learning activity had been replaced in syllabuses (Appendix 1 ).

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using a qualitative document analysis [ 18 ] together with a content analysis using a directed approach [ 20 ] where the four dimensions of Lee et al. [ 14 ] constituted the theoretical framework. Our analysis included features of both manifest and latent data, and a process including skimming, careful reading and interpretations of patterns within the data. The process requires focused re-reading and review of the coding and category construction, to uncover themes relevant to a specific phenomenon [ 18 ]. In this study, documents were initially skimmed, then read more carefully as meaning units were discovered and categorized. The first author performed these steps, in the software NVIVO [ 20 ], version 14. Four main categories were created in accordance with the chosen theoretical framework (i.e., Lee et al., [ 14 ]), relating to (1) The future orientation of health practices; (2) The desired competencies and capabilities for the students; (3) Activities for teaching, learning and assessment; and (4) Organizational requirements, supporting institutional delivery [ 14 ]. Initially, all authors read and coded a selected set of documents and discussed the coding and categorization of these in order to calibrate and to ensure a purposeful analysis. The analysis was thereafter performed by the first author and discussed with the other authors. The preliminary analysis file in NVIVO was shared with the second author and another researcher who went through a selection of the meaning units to review and refine the categories and to ensure that no meaning units of relevance were omitted. Within the four main categories based on the dimensions, subcategories were then developed. The process moved from being deductive to inductive, back and forth as categories were revised and new subcategories identified. The analytical process was continuously discussed with all authors during physical meetings in which the first author showed the NVIVO file on a large screen, including the coding of meaning units, ideas for subcategories, and noted suggestions for quotes. In this study, the usage of NVIVO facilitated a transparent process in which all authors to some extents were involved in the analysis. The analysis of the documents generated unresolved questions that the collected documents could not answer. These questions were noted and added to the interview guide. Further, based on the questions that had emerged during the document analysis, we decided on who we needed to invite to gain a deeper understanding of these specific questions about the curriculum revision. The labels of each main category and subcategory were revised to mirror the empirical material in it, and representative quotes were selected. The four main categories yielded were (1) Curriculums in interprofessional education within healthcare professions – an extended matter of providing high quality care to patients; (2) Interprofessional competences and goals expressed increasingly coherently over time; (3) The design of learning activities in an interprofessional curriculum; and (4) Organizational prerequisites when staging the current curriculum – a transformed distribution of responsibilities and structure.

The supplementary interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, generating 106 pages of data. The text of the interviews was analysed using content analysis with a directed approach [ 21 ], based on the theoretical framework of Lee et al. [ 14 ], and preliminary categories were developed. The preliminary categories were then merged into the categories identified in the document analysis described above. Because the documents were analysed first, and included an extensive amount of data, the interviews were a complementary strategy primarily intended to fill some of the knowledge gaps. However, these interviews yielded interesting findings and all the data that was relevant for this study in accordance with the four dimensions of Lee et al. [ 14 ], was, thus, included.

Ethical considerations

Verbal consent from interview participants was obtained, including assurances of confidentiality and of participant withdrawal from the study at any time without any explanation whatsoever. To further protect the confidentiality of the participants, transcribed interview excerpts do not appear in the Result section. The collected data are securely stored in password-secured computers and not shared beyond the research group. In accordance with the advisory remark from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority, ethical approval for this study was not needed (Dnr 2022-06875-01).

The analysis resulted in one overarching theme named “A planned, lived, and attended curriculum”, including four main categories inspired by Lee et al. [ 14 ]. The first: “Curriculums in interprofessional education within healthcare professions – an extended matter of providing high quality care to patients”, included the arguments for developing and nurturing IPL for healthcare professionals, commonly referred to as being a crucial matter for ensuring that patients are given optimal and appropriate care. The second category, “Interprofessional competences and goals expressed increasingly coherently over time”, related to how learning outcomes and desired competencies in IPL have been articulated increasingly coherently between programs over the years. The third category, “The design of learning activities in an interprofessional curriculum”, reflected how learning activities were designed and revised before and during the current curriculum. Lastly, the fourth category, “Organizational prerequisites when staging the current curriculum – a transformed distribution of responsibilities and structure”, described the organizational challenges and structures in the context of the IPL curriculum, in which the role of teachers was prominent.

Curriculums in interprofessional education within healthcare professions – an extended matter of providing high quality care to patients

This first category was derived primarily from decisional documents and directives from the university at an early stage (phase 1, see Table  2 ). However, the motives for, and benefits of, IPL were also highlighted in course documents in phases 2–4, on each HPE and module. One aspect that brought about the curriculum revision was a striving for unity in study guides and syllabuses, and the intention that the IPL modules should be looked upon as an integrated part of the respective program, i.e., not something that stood out or were perceived as peripheral to the program-specific content. In particular, it was desired that the interprofessional competence should be seen as part of the professional competence. Different professional cultures and norms were visible through the documents, before the curriculum revision (i.e., phase 2, see Table  2 ), as IPL and its content tended to be described in various terms and were permitted various amounts of space in the respective programs’ course documents. The aspect of uniformity as a driving force to revise the IPL curriculum was also visible in the interview data with key persons. The following quote illustrates one strategy to achieve unity across programs, in terms of a standardized text that was implemented within the curriculum revision in all of the six participating programs educational program and course syllabuses, for all the courses in which an IPL module was included:

‟Interprofessional learning means that students from several professions learn with, about and from each other. This form of work stimulates and supports the students’ development of professional competence and prepares them for interprofessional teamwork and collaboration in the future professional practice.” [The quote can be found in all of the six participating programs’ syllabus, for the courses where the three IPL modules are included, and in their educational program plan at spring semester 2022, i.e., phase 4].

In terms of an IPL curriculum specifically designed for future healthcare professionals, there were prominent arguments relating to the importance of IPL and teamwork with reference to the quality of care, patient safety and as something that is necessary in order to manage the demands of future healthcare. Early documents (from phase 1) emphasized that IPL in general was significant for global health and innovation. This was also reflected in some syllabuses and educational program plans in some programs, through phases 2–4, although to a limited extent. The presentation of IPL as significant for good care and patient safety seemed to be emphasized even more in the more recent documents of current curriculum and could be observed in the documents from the spring semester 2022 at several levels directed towards faculty management, teachers and students. These findings are closely related to research questions 1–2, in terms of why the curriculum was revised and how these intentions can be understood and theorized.

Interprofessional competences and goals expressed increasingly coherently over time

The second category concluded that although learning objectives and assessment criteria only have changed marginally since the introduction of the current curriculum, there were differences in how the interprofessional goals and the program specific goals and competencies were written, and given space in the documents. As mentioned in the previous category, IPL was given various amounts of space in the respective programs’ course documents. This was also reflected upon goals and expected learning outcomes, and how and where these are articulated. For instance, during phase 2, the goals and content of IPL was sometimes highlighted first in a syllabus, even though IPL consists of fewer credits compared to the program specific parts of the course. On the contrary, some programs chose to refer to the interprofessional content as “other”, with reference to an appendix at the end of syllabus. Before the curriculum revision (phase 2), this was quite prominent and in line with previous examples. Nowadays (phase 4), differences of the same magnitude do not occur, although they have not completely gone. Instead, the learning objectives in the programs’ syllabus were outlined together, without distinguishing between what concerns an interprofessional module and what does not and are now structured in accordance with the three domains ‛knowledge and understanding’, ‛skills and abilities’, and ‛values and attitudes’, i.e., the European system for increasing coherence in higher education: Bologna. The findings of the second main category primarily answers research questions 1–2, by demonstrating the intentions and outcomes of interprofessional competencies and goals, and how the goals were revised in the curriculum. A lesson learned (relating to research question 3) is that syllabuses and other course documents can be valuable tools for reducing variations between programs and for increasing cohesion and clarity in an interprofessional curriculum.

Furthermore, the medical faculty’s profile regarding interprofessional education appeared in the programs’ educational program plans both before and after the curriculum revision, thus phase 2 and 3–4, where one of the local goals for education programs at the medical faculty at Linköping University was for the students to ‟have achieved interprofessional competence …”. However, this local goal has been adjusted between spring 2016 (phase 2) and spring 2022 (phase 4). Previously, the end of the goal read ‟"… to increase employability”, which were changed to ‟… to be able to work in teams with other professional groups”, which is increasingly in line with the intentions and arguments of the curriculum revision as described in the first category.

The design of learning activities in an interprofessional curriculum

The third category describes how the problem-based approach, central at the medical faculty at Linköping University, was justified in reports and decision documents as supporting deep learning and an interactive learning environment.

‟Problem-based learning thus moves from example to theory, unlike traditional education, which often starts from a principle or theory that is then illustrated with examples … a better strategy for deepening the student’s understanding than a lecture-based educational design, where the relevance of the theoretical concepts can be more difficult to discern.” [Report, 2014, phase 1.]

The content included in the IPL modules is similar nowadays as before the curriculum development, although the forms of learning activities have been modified. Regarding the two latter IPL modules, the changes were minimal, except that the interprofessional training wards have been expanded with interprofessional training centres in primary healthcare. Learning activities commonly consisted of group work, seminars and lectures that concern topics relevant to future healthcare professionals, such as ethics, health theories, and improvement science (see Table  1 ). However, learning activities did not include theory about IPL, and what it is, but the students instead gathered around other topics that they were reading.

In referral letters from phase 1, commenting on the suggested curriculum revision, the programs raised the question early of how the interprofessional modules should successfully fit together with the program-specific content that is provided in parallel at the beginning of the students’ education and, to some extent, also regarding the second IPL module. There was a request for greater clarity in how content and scheduling should be integrated with the program-specific content. At the start of the revised curriculum, one learning activity that was stated to support the integration between IPL and the program-specific content was that the scenarios for the IPL group also reappeared in the program-specific groups, albeit with a different focus, referred to as “cut-outs”. However, in present-day syllabuses (i.e., phase 4), the scenarios for the IPL student groups were no longer repeated in the subsequent program-specific groups. One of the findings in the analysis of the supplementary interviews with key individuals was perceptions of difficulties for new teachers to understand the new integrated pedagogical ideas and to explain them to students, and for the IPL management to maintain a perceived complex learning activity design over time.

In addition, change have occurred also within the current curriculum, (phase 3 to 4). For instance, the number of seminars has been reduced. When the second IPL module was planned in phase 1, the suggestion was to change the content and let the student group meet simulated stroke patients and have simulation training in teams. Syllabuses from the current curriculum (phase 4) show, however, that this was not adopted, and that the focus on improvement science remains. Letters of comment from phase 1 demonstrated that the suggested removal of improvement science received resistance, in particular from representatives from regions and municipalities, indicating that they wanted to retain improvement science as they viewed this as a natural and important part of IPL, and an essential competence for healthcare professionals. The established cooperation between the university and healthcare was, according to the interviewed key individuals, a powerful factor that contributed to not changing this IPL module. Also, an initial idea with portfolio as a pedagogical tool and examination, seems to have become fragmented in phase 4. In early letters of comment (phase 1), both teachers and students highlighted a concern about how such a portfolio examination would be assessed, and whether this would be legally secure and fair. The findings from interviews with key individuals indicated that the portfolio was perceived by teachers as a complex task to assess, and in particular to use as an examination with the formalities connected to an exam. This caused insecurity and frustration among teachers and may, thus, have caused difficulty for the IPL management to, what one key individual illustratively referred to as “balance pedagogical innovation and pragmatism”.

Further, although it was rare, it was notable that some programs have managed to integrate goals and learning outcomes related to IPL in program-specific assignments (in phase 4). The occupational therapy program, during its fifth semester, has integrated learning outcomes from the second IPL module in program-specific content by acknowledging interprofessional collaboration between different stakeholders within vocational rehabilitation. The syllabuses could, in this way, reveal variety in how the programs have designed their courses that include an IPL module, and in their strategies to integrate the program-specific content with the interprofessional content, beyond what is already included in the IPL module. Lessons learned from this category (research question 3) relates for instance to the need for sensitivity and flexibility with regards to the teachers and stakeholders involved. This category puts the outcomes (research question 2) of the curriculum revision in a different light, reflecting the necessity of pragmatism.

Organizational prerequisites when staging the current curriculum – a transformed distribution of responsibilities and structure

The fourth category contains the contextual conditions that affected the staging of the interprofessional modules. The following content reflects all three research questions, in terms of how the curriculum revision was carried out, the organizational outcomes of it, and what we can learn from this process. A clearly prominent feature was the demands on teachers’ competence, as well as the organizational challenges that the revised curriculum entailed. For example, the revised curriculum meant that the programs were given greater responsibility for the IPL modules. It was desired that the teachers who were involved in the first semester also would be involved in the first interprofessional module, in order to create a more cohesive feeling of IPL and the program-specific elements. Previously, on some programs, this had been arranged separately by a small group of teachers involved in IPL and another group of teachers in the program-specific elements. Further, PBL was previously introduced during the first interprofessional module and thus included in the credits related to IPL. However, due to the curriculum revision, PBL had to be introduced in the respective programs before IPL (starting in phase 3), which contributed considerably to an increased responsibility on the programs when it comes to introduction of the pedagogical framework PBL. In letters of comment (phase 1), there was a concern that the introduction of PBL would take valuable time away from program-specific content. It was also considered important that all students received the same introduction.

The documents also revealed that the curriculum revision led to the introduction of a programme director for IPL, at the same hierarchical level as the respective programs’ directors, as decided by the faculty deans. One of the findings in the analysis of the interview data was perceptions that this decision constituted a vital step that provided a clear signal from the faculty management to the programs that IPL was equally important. It also provided a forum for continuous discussion and meetings which have been beneficial for preserving the interprofessional perspective on various matters.

A total of six programs are now included in the interprofessional modules (see Table  1 ), and there have previously also been intentions to include other programs, such as the psychology program and the sociology program, which have not been realized. Before the introduction of the current curriculum (phase 2), the interprofessional training wards (i.e., the third IPL module) were located at hospitals run by the same region. But since then, the medical program has been decentralized to other locations after which interprofessional training centres have started in healthcare settings operated by the local regions also in these locations. This has led to organizational differences as students now carry out the third IPL module with a varied range of healthcare students who come from other universities.

The role of the teachers – expectations, requirements and support

The role of the teachers is characterized by demands and expectations placed on teachers through the curriculum revision, in all phases, and the support available to them for meeting this need. An early decision document concluded that it was important to develop how teachers are introduced to the IPL modules:

‟How teachers are introduced to the modules of IPL and are constantly given the opportunity for a continuous education to participate in the development of these modules.”” [Decision document of Linköping University in 2012, phase 1.]

The changes that the current curriculum entailed contributed to an increased need for competence development in teachers and new forms of administration. The document analysis revealed that a course for teachers was created in 2015. However, data obtained from interviews with key individuals indicated that the request for teachers to participate in such a course was perceived as problematic, and that the course was discontinued after a few terms. A new course was later created for supervision and the role of teaching in IPL, where, however, it was required that teachers had taken other higher education courses in order to be qualified.

It was clear from study guides and supervisor guides of the interprofessional modules, before the current curriculum was staged (i.e., phases 1–2), that there was and still are (i.e., in phase 4), high expectations for these particular teachers. An assumption that pervades the quote below, is that these supervisors was expected to possess a high level of competence in terms of the pedagogical model of PBL, the content, and the supervision of different groups, and were also expected to take responsibility for actively further developing these skills:

‟Most of you are very experienced as supervisors … Those of you who are new, take help from your experienced colleagues and feel free to contact us if you have questions … It is important that you − are knowledgeable in problem-based learning, feel confident in your role as supervisor and have solid experience of being a supervisor in problem-based learning groups … have knowledge and interest in the content and take responsibility for further developing this knowledge, for example by attending the lectures.” [Study guide with supervisor comments, the first IPL module, spring semester 2016, phase 2.]

Also, other documents stated that the teachers who work within the interprofessional modules should have good competence in both PBL and IPL. The introduction of a mentoring system where experienced teachers support new teachers, was highlighted as a recommended strategy in an early report (phase 1), but does not seem to have had an impact as is does not seem to have been implemented. Several letters of comment from phase 1 pointed towards the need for resources for competence development regarding the supervision of IPL. But beyond support structures such as supervisor meetings and study guides for teachers, such support seems sparse.

This study aimed to study intentions and outcomes of a revised interprofessional education curriculum, developed to educate HPE students in interprofessional competencies, using a theory-based evaluation. In particular, we were interested in why and how the curriculum was revised (research question 1), how the intentions and outcomes could be theorized in Lees model [ 14 ] for curriculum development (research question 2), and what lessons were to be learnt from this work (research question 3). Using theory to analyse the data was important to make sure to recognize the multi-dimensional and dynamic context of several different stakeholders that surrounds the curriculum [ 14 ].

A curriculum in pace with healthcare needs

The findings of this study identify a variety of aspects relating to the why and how of curriculum revision (research question 1), such as what drives a change like this and what facilitates making it work. The importance of IPL is visible throughout the documents; this is in line with contemporary research which recognizes the need to connect curriculums to larger political, economic, and social issues surrounding the context whereby the students are about to work in their future professions [ 14 ]. A systematic review demonstrated a positive impact of IPL in healthcare systems, in terms of improving HPE program students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards collaborative teamwork [ 22 ]. One of the major arguments for the revision of the curriculum in this study was to ensure high quality IPL by keeping pace with the demands of current healthcare, because IPL is considered essential for present and future healthcare professionals and their patients, relating to Lees’ [ 14 ] first dimension regarding future orientation but also affecting the third on learning activities. The latter is identified in the results of this study, as the planning of the IPL modules was impacted by factors outside of the university, for example the healthcare sector, which forms a strong voice as stakeholder in how the educational content is enacted in the healthcare context. For example, the initial suggestion from the university to change the content in the second module from improvement science to stroke simulation was criticized by the healthcare sector, and later, the suggested changes were withdrawn from the curriculum. The second and third modules in the IPL curriculum include cooperation between students, faculty, and healthcare, which is clearly a valuable stakeholder with regard to making the curriculum work. This might explain why some of the outcomes for the curriculum revision did not turn out the way that initially was intended, relating to the second research question. Historical and cultural forces influence the kind of reshaping of current curriculum that it is possible to implement [ 14 ], and it is crucial to acknowledge these factors and consider how to address these issues. In this case, the university seemed to observe the objections and decided not to go through with the suggested changes.

Organizational facilitators for increasing legitimacy of curriculum development

The findings also identify facilitating organizational factors that we can learn from (research question 3), essential for providing legitimacy and cooperation during the revision. For instance, the introduction of a programme director for IPL, and the occurrence of some committed leaders on the respective HPE programs. Similar findings are described in other studies where a coordinator for interprofessional activities was considered important for progress and implementation, and that the support from the management of the departments and faculties highlighted IPL as equally important as other pedagogical activities [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. In this study’s setting, however, IPL has been a natural feature for decades, and legitimacy has also, to some extent, existed before, although current legitimacy may have been further rooted along with the revision of the curriculum. Loughlin et al. [ 26 ] highlight a similar function as described above but refer to “change champions”, i.e., people in senior position leading the change and promoting the cause [ 26 ].

Friction and resistance during curriculum revision may cause power struggles and difficulties in cooperation, not least between departments and HPE programs. In this study we discovered that IPL modules today are more coherently described in course documents. This is potentially a consequence of the coordination and leadership within IPL, and thus primarily relates to Lees’ [ 14 ] fourth organization-focused dimension but also influences the structure of learning outcomes, i.e., dimension two. There are indeed challenges related to IPL curriculum development as these tend to span over multiple departments and/or faculties, as well as geographical locations, requiring solid arguments and mutual goals to bridge these silo-like structures [ 23 , 27 ]. IPL has been described as a parallel topic that tends to be less prioritized than profession focused content [ 28 ]. Current literature on IPL commonly focuses on students learning outcomes and factors that may facilitate, or hinder, implementation [ 6 , 7 ] rather than how a curriculum is created, revised or performed. This study, thus, contributes to the field by providing an example of how a curriculum revision in IPL can be carried out and how it may drift over time.

The balance between pedagogical innovation and pragmatism, and the requirements of teachers

As in all curriculum development, independent of subject and content, there is an important element that regards the involved teachers who are expected to carry out the desired changes. The pedagogical models used as well as resources and competence of the team of teachers, are essential for how a curriculum revision is accepted and performed. Research findings emphasizes that the time available, the understanding of the change, and the level of commitment of the teachers involved in the change [ 11 , 26 ], as well as using realistic cases [ 29 ], are crucial for creating high quality curriculum. In this study, the pedagogical finesse with, for instance, the “cut-outs” was to create learning situations for the students that would develop their interprofessional competence and integrate the professional content with the interprofessional content of a course. Such integration has been pointed at as being inextricably intertwined in IPL curriculum development, requiring a high degree of awareness [ 11 ]. As this learning activity was considered too complicated by teachers and removed, we can conclude, in accordance with statements from the interview data, that there is a fine line between pedagogical creativeness and pragmatism, that can be related to both the fourth and third dimension of Lees’ [ 14 ] model; i.e., what is beneficial from a learning perspective for students may not be practically feasible for the team of teachers, at least not immediately (research questions 2–3). Creative pedagogical models for teaching students the content of IPL may need time to settle, and resources for proper implementation. This study can also conclude that the faculty had high expectations on the competences of the teachers who were supposed to work according to the renewed curriculum, but there were few activities described in the documents that actively supported the teachers to reach those high expectations. It is argued in the literature that the success of a revised curriculum rests heavily on the teachers who are the ones who should put the reforms into practice [ 30 ]. It is important to educate teachers how to use new educational tools and how to properly introduce them to the students. Also, as some of the teaching staff in Swedish HPE are clinical practitioners, finding time to take part in pedagogical developments may prove challenging. There is a need for future research to further explore how we can facilitate participation in the IPL modules for clinical practitioners, so that these teachers have appropriate resources to let students benefit from their competence and experience.

More research is needed regarding the teachers’ and students’ perspectives on the curriculum revision in this study, in order to gain an understanding of the extent to which teachers were “on board” when the changes were implemented, and what improvement suggestions they might have on the performance of this curriculum revision (research question 3).

Methodological considerations

This was a document study which provided a unique insight into other components of the lived experience [ 17 ]; in this case, intentions and outcomes of the development of a revised curriculum in IPL. As in all qualitative research, considerations must be made regarding how to evaluate spoken or unspoken responses [ 17 ]. A written word may have different meanings in different contexts, which naturally increases the possibility of different interpretations compared to the spoken word [ 17 ]. In a qualitative document study, the documents’ relevance must be evaluated as well as their representativeness and authenticity [ 18 ], along with evaluating the study’s trustworthiness in terms of transferability, credibility, dependability and confirmability [ 16 ]. To begin with, the documents were considered relevant since they mirror the intentions of decision-makers as well as instructions for teachers and students, and thus, provide a multifaceted picture of the phenomena of curriculum development. The individual interviews contributed to supplementary data, to an increased understanding of the process and to further strengthening the analysis.

This study has identified important lessons to be learnt when revising an existing fully-integrated IPL curriculum in health professions education programs. The main ambition for this IPL curriculum revision was to legitimize and provide education that is up to date with current healthcare needs, and which provides students with competencies to collaborate in teams to ensure patient safety. When redesigning a curriculum, there seems to be a fine balance between pedagogical innovation and pragmatism. Orchestrating a curriculum that is both a creative learning activity for students and comprehensible for teachers with a variety of experiences, is no easy task. This study identified that the links between organizational support structures provided and the expectations put on teachers were not aligned.

Availability of data and materials

The documents are available upon request from the corresponding author. The key individuals, however, have only consented to participate in studies conducted by this research group, and we thus lack their consent to share the interview data.

World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. 2010.

Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376(9756):1923–58.

Article   Google Scholar  

Xyrichis A. Interprofessional science: an international field of study reaching maturity. J Interprof Care. 2020;34(1):1–3.

Grace S. Models of interprofessional education for healthcare students: a scoping review. J Interprof Care. 2021;35(5):771–83.

Maddock B, Kumar A, Kent F. Creating a collaborative care curriculum framework. Clin Teach. 2019;16:120–4.

Gonçalves JRSN, Gonçalves RN, da Rosa SV, Orsi JSR, Moysés SJ, Werneck RI. Impact of interprofessional education on the teaching and learning of higher education students: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2021;56:103212.

Lawlis TR, Anson J, Greenfield D. Barriers and enablers that influence sustainable interprofessional education: a literature review. J Interprof Care. 2014;28(4):305–10.

Savage C, Brommels M. Innovation in medical education: how Linköping created a Blue Ocean for medical education in Sweden. Med Teach. 2008;30(5):501–7.

Wilhelmsson M, Pelling S, Ludvigsson J, Hammar M, Dahlgren LO, Faresjö T. Twenty years’ experiences of interprofessional education in Linköping–ground-breaking and sustainable. J Interprof Care. 2009;23(2):121–33.

Hammar M, Hanberger H. Clinical training in a problem-based Undergraduate Medical Curriculum. In: Hammar M, Bergdahl B, Öhman L, editors. Celebrating the past by expanding the future. The faculty of health sciences, Linköping university 1986–2006. Linköping: Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences; 2006.

Lindh Falk A, Dahlberg J, Ekstedt M, Heslyk A, Whiss P, Abrandt Dahlgren M. Creating spaces for interprofessional learning: strategic revision of a common IPL curriculum in undergraduate programs. In: Vyt A, Pahor M, Tervaskanto-Maentausta T, editors. Interprofessional education in Europe: policy and practice. Antwerpen: Garant Publishers Limited; 2015. p. 49–66.

Google Scholar  

Abrandt Dahlgren M. I takt med framtiden: Utveckling av ett nytt interprofessionellt curriculum vid Hälsouniversitetet i Linköping [Keeping pace with the future: the development of a new interprofessional curriculum at Linköping University]. In Swedish. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press; 2015.

Törnqvist T, Lind Falk A, Tingström P. Sharing knowledge: final-year healthcare students working together at an interprofessional training ward. J Interprof Educ Pract. 2023;33:100670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2023.100670 .

Lee A, Steketee C, Rogers G. Towards a theoretical framework for curriculum development in health professional education. Focus Health Prof Educ. 2013;14(3):64–77.

Lilliedahl J, Sundberg D, Wahlström N. Teoribaserad utvärdering som svar på det tidiga 2000-talets frågor om utbildningsreformer. [Theory-based evaluation in response to the early 2000s questions about education reforms]. In Swedish. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige. 2016;21(1–2):9–29.

Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. London: SAGE; 2002.

Hodder, I. The Interpretation of Documentsand Material Culture. Sage, 2012.

Bowen GA. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J. 2009;9(2):27–40.

Silverman D. Qualitative research. 5th ed. London: SAGE; 2021.

Alfasoft. NVivo. Available: https://alfasoft.com/uk/software/statistics-and-data-analysis/qda-qualitative-data-analysis/nvivo/ . Accessed 16 Apr 2024.

Hsieh H, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

Guraya SY, Barr H. The effectiveness of interprofessional education in healthcare: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2018;34(3):160–5.

Wong PS, Chen YS, Saw PS. Influencing factors and processes of interprofessional professional education (IPE) implementation. Med Teach. 2021;43(1):39–45.

Einarsson S, Johansson A, Kautto E, Lindberg V, Ljusbäck AM, Rydén P, et al. Thinking and re-thinking: a qualitative study of university teachers’ perspectives on the development process for a new online interprofessional education curriculum in a Swedish higher education institution. Nordic Stud Educ. 2023;43(3):225–40.

Gribbe J. Förändring och kontinuitet. Reformer inom högre utbildning och forskning 1940–2020. [Change and continuity. Reforms in higher education and research 1940–2020]. In Swedish. Stockholm: Universitetskanslersämbetet; 2022.

Loughlin WA, Whiteford CM, Geelan DR, Brown RAJ. Barriers and levers driving change in a STEM science subject in the Australian higher education sector: a focused study. Res Sci Technol Educ. 2023;41(1):1–21.

Loversidge J, Demb A. Faculty perceptions of key factors in interprofessional education. J Interprof Care. 2015;29(4):298–304.

Lindqvist S, Vasset F, Iversen HP, Hofseth Almås S, Willumsen E, Ødegård A. University teachers’ views of interprofessional learning and their role in achieving outcomes: a qualitative study. J Interprof Care. 2019;33(2):190–9.

Shorten A, Cruz Walma DA, Bosworth P, Shorten B, Chang B, Moore MD, et al. Development and implementation of a virtual ‟collaboratory” to foster interprofessional team-based learning using a novel faculty-student partnership. J Prof Nurs. 2023;46:155–62.

Huizinga T, Handelzalts A, Nieveen N, Voogt JM. Teacher involvement in curriculum design: need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. J Curric Stud. 2014;46(1):33–57.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the key individuals for participating in clarifying interviews, and Marie Stensby for facilitating access to the documents. Also, we would like to thank Lisa Hjelmfors for contributing to this paper, for instance by validating the analysis.

Open access funding provided by Linköping University. This study received no funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Elin A. Karlsson, Susanne Kvarnström & Maria Kvarnström

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

EK collected the documents while SK conducted the interviews. Analysis was carried out by EK and discussed with all authors. EK wrote the main parts of the manuscript. MK coordinated and planned the performance of this study, together with the other authors. All authors regularly discussed the study and provided feedback on drafts of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elin A. Karlsson .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects; key individuals gave verbal consent to participate. The Swedish Ethical Review Authority concluded that ethical approval for this study was not needed (Dnr 2022-06875-01).

Consent for publication

Verbal consent for publication has been obtained from the key individuals.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Karlsson, E.A., Kvarnström, S. & Kvarnström, M. Exploring a revised interprofessional learning curriculum in undergraduate health education programs at Linköping University. BMC Med Educ 24 , 466 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05458-3

Download citation

Received : 27 November 2023

Accepted : 23 April 2024

Published : 26 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05458-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Interprofessional learning
• Interprofessional education
• Curriculum development
• Health professions Education (HPE)
• Interprofessional competence
• Document analysis
• Theory based evaluation

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

share this!

April 29, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

Fueling the future: Researchers evaluate emissions in the aviation industry

by Tsinghua University Press

A research group led Prof. Fei Wei and Chenxi Zhang in Tsinghua University has published a perspective paper that evaluates the progression from deep-rooted fossil-fuel-dependent technologies to innovative strategies aimed at carbon neutrality, with a specific focus on the formulation of sustainable aviation fuel from CO 2 .

The paper provides an analytical review of the cutting-edge methodologies for CO 2 -to-jet fuel conversion with an assessment of the practicality of current industrial models.

On April 10, 2024, their perspective paper was published in Carbon Future .

The concentration of greenhouse gases has steeply increased in the atmosphere due to dependency on carbon-intensive energy sources. In particular, CO 2 and CH 4 have been especially challenging to reincorporate into the chemical industry because of high energy demands and current technological constraints. Amid this great challenge, numerous governments have adopted different strategies to reduce carbon emissions .

"Among the diverse strategies employed for the recycling of carbon emissions, such as CO 2 and CH 4 , for application in the chemical industry , the integration of renewable energy sources to transform carbon emissions into value-added products is a viable pathway.

"Therefore, committing to the development of renewable energy is not only the key to controlling CO 2 emissions as a responsible country, but also an inevitable choice for energy independence ," said Wei, a professor at Tsinghua University.

The team notes the ways that countries are working in the area of renewable energy. The European Union's Renewable Energy Directive III represents a seminal step in this direction, setting a precedent for the integration of sustainable energy practices within statutory mandates. They also note the accelerated research progress in China, especially in the area of photovoltaic (PV) technology.

"A significant surge in solar PV and wind system endeavors has been witnessed in China, as evidenced by the investment in intellectual property, which accounts for the first place globally in this domain. In addition, the complete industrial chain of renewable energy provides development opportunities for CO 2 to Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)," said Wei.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) refers to a liquid hydrocarbon fuel derived from non-fossil resources, that is, green jet fuel. Aviation fuel uses C-C and C-H chemical bonds as energy storage, and its energy density is 80 times that of commercial lithium-ion batteries. The huge gap in energy density makes it difficult for the aviation field to quickly achieve electrification, so SAF has become the main route to net-zero emissions in the world's aviation industry.

By the end of 2020, a total of 65 countries around the world had implemented mandatory blending policies for SAF, and by 2027, ICAO's Carbon Reduction Offset Mechanism (CORSIA) will be fully enforced. The European Union (EU) Renewable Energy Directive stipulates that the proportion of SAF blending shall not be less than 5% in 2030 and 70% in 2050, of which the proportion of electric fuels produced through carbon dioxide capture (eFuel) shall not be less than 35% by 2050.

And the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides a tax deduction for SAF, aiming to achieve 100% SAF as an alternative to fossil fuels for aviation fuel by 2050. The aviation industry's "green barrier" allows SAF to sell for four times as much as petroleum-based jet fuel, making SAF the "holy grail" of the energy sector and a precursor to the profitable process of green energy.

The "CO 2 to SAF (CO2AFTM)" technology harnesses CO 2 as a carbon feedstock, integrating it with green hydrogen produced via electrolysis of water using renewable energy sources such as wind or solar. This process synthesizes liquid jet fuel that boasts a high energy density.

"Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) plays a key role in ensuring national energy security in the aerospace sector and achieving net-zero emissions in the world's aviation industry. This approach utilizes liquid fuel as a novel form of energy storage across seasons and years; concurrently, renewable aviation fuel is recognized globally in the aviation industry as a viable pathway for carbon reduction. The high added value of this process establishes it as an important, profitable industrialization method," said Wei.

The research team includes Guo Tian, Zhang, and Fei Wei. They work at the Beijing Key Laboratory of Green Chemical Reaction Engineering and Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. Zhang also works at Ordos Laboratory and the Institute for Carbon Neutrality at Tsinghua University. Wei also works at Ordos Laboratory.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Researchers find use of olivine in cement production could result in carbon negative concrete

Researchers create massive open dataset to advance AI solutions for carbon capture

2 hours ago

Random robots are more reliable: New AI algorithm for robots consistently outperforms state-of-the-art systems

6 hours ago

Natural language boosts LLM performance in coding, planning and robotics

18 hours ago

Science has an AI problem: Research group says they can fix it

21 hours ago

A new roadmap to close the carbon cycle

A miniature wireless robot that can effectively move through tubular structures

May 1, 2024

Methane emissions from landfill could be turned into sustainable jet fuel with plasma-driven process

Apr 30, 2024

AI speech analysis may aid in assessing and preventing potential suicides, says researcher

New research reports on buckling: When structures suddenly collapse

Related stories.

E-kerosene strategy unveiled to achieve carbon-neutral air travel

Feb 27, 2024

Southwest Airlines spending $30 million on green fuel refinery, investment fund

Feb 29, 2024

Researchers create potential method for making net-zero aviation fuel

Nov 29, 2022

Using sustainable aviation fuels could reduce emissions by up to 80%, scientists find

Oct 13, 2023

All-in-one solar-powered tower makes carbon-neutral jet fuel

Jul 20, 2022

Research finds sustainable aviation fuel is not a silver bullet for the industry's colossal climate woes

May 17, 2023

Recommended for you

Research team improves voltage of aqueous rechargeable batteries in the quest for safer, cheaper options

Analysis of future EV load using real-world data shows major upgrade needed for California in the coming decades

Apr 29, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Tech Xplore in any form.

Your Privacy

This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, collect data for ads personalisation and provide content from third parties. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use .

E-mail newsletter