BIBLIOGRAFÍA

• Abdel-Kader, M. G., y Dugdale, D. 1998. Investment in Advanced Manufacturing Technology: A study of Practice in large U.K. Companies. Management Accounting Research 9(3): 261–284.
   Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. 1998. How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review 76(5): 76–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. C., y Gerbing, D. W. 1982. Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional constructs measures. Journal of Marketing Research 19(4): 453–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armistead, W. H. 1981. Research and development in large manufacturing corporations. Research Management 24(6): 28–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg, P.; Leinonen, M., and Pihlajamaa, J. 2002. Assesment of quality and maturity level of R&D. International Journal Production Economics 78(1): 29–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BERGER CONSULTING. 2002. Innovation Management. Disponible en: http://www.rolandberger.com (consultado el 8 de mayo de 2004).
   Google Scholar
• Branch, B. 1974. Research and development activity and profitability: A distributed lag analysis. Journal of Political Economy 82(5): 999–1011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bremser, W. G., y Barsky, N. P. 2004. Utilizing the Balance Scorecard for R&D Performance Measurement. R&D Management 34(3): 229–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, L. 2001. Total Quality Management in a Research and Development Environment. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12(2): 94.
   Google Scholar
• Brenner, M. S., y Rushton, B. M. 1989. Sales growth and R&D in the chemical industry. Research Technology management 32(2): 8–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooking, A. 1996. Intellectual Capital. Core Asset for the third Millenium Enterprise. London: International Thomson Business Press, 1.a Ed.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M. G. 1996. Keeping Score: Using the Right Metrics to Derive World Class Performance. Quality Resources. 902 Broadway. New York. NY 10010.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. L., y Eisenhardt, K. M. 1995. Product Development: Past Research. Present Findings and Future Directions. The Academy of Management Review 20(2): 343–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, M. G., y Svenson, R. A. 1998. Measuring R&D productivity. Research Technology Management 41(6): 30–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bueno, E. 1998. El Capital Intangible como Clave Estratégica en la Competencia Actual. Boletín de Estudios Económicos 164: 207–229.
   Google Scholar
• Cañibano, L.; García-Ayuso, M.; Sánchez, P.; Chaminade, C.; Olea, M., y Escobar, C. G. 1999. Medición de Intangibles. Discusión de los Indicadoress seleccionados. Estudio de un caso español. Comunicación presentada al X Congreso de la Asociación Española de Contabilidad y Administración de Empresas, Zaragoza.
   Google Scholar
• Chiesa, V., y Frattini, F. 2007. Exploring the differences in performance measurement between research and development: evidence from a multiple case study. R&D Management 37(4): 283–301.
   Google Scholar
• Chiesa, V.; Frattini, F.; Lazzarotti, V., y Manzini, R. 2009. Performance measurement in R&D: exploring the interplay between measurement objectives, dimensions of performance and contextual factors. R&D Management 39(5): 488–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chryssochoidis, G. M., y Wong, V. 2000. Customization of product technology and international new product success: Mediating effects of new product development and rollout timeliness. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 17: 268–285.
   Google Scholar
• Coombs, R., y Gómez-Mejia, L. R. 1991. Cross-functional Pay Strategies in High-Technology Firms. Compensation and Benefits Review 23(5): 40–48.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, R. G. 1993. Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch. Reading, Massachusets: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Cordero, R.; Ditomaso, N., y Farris, G. F, 1996. Gender and race/ethnic composition of technical work groups: relationship to creative productivity and morale. Journal of Engineering Technology Management 13(3–4): 205–221.
   Google Scholar
• Cordero, R. 1999. Developing the knowledge and skills of R&D Professionals to achieve process outcomes in cross-functional teams. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 10(1): 61–78.
   Google Scholar
• Cózar escalante, J. M. 2005. Principio de precaución y medio ambiente. Revista Española de Salud Pública 79(2): 113–144.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis, C. C., y Ellis, L. W. 1998. Satisfy customers while speeding R&D and staying profitable. Research Technology Management 41(5): 23–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewar, R. D., y Dutton, J. E. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science 32(11): 1422–1433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del monte, A., y Papagni, E. 2003. R&D and the growth of firms: empirical analysis of a panel of Italian firms. Research Policy 32(6): 1003–1014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirag, I. S. 1998. Corporate Governance, Accountability, and Pressures to Perform: An international Study. Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting, Vol. 8. London: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Di benedetto, C. A. 1999. Identifying the key success factors in new product launch. Journal of Product Innovation Management 16(6): 530–544.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowdell, T. D., y Press, E. 2004. The impact of SEC Scrutiny on Financial Statement Reporting of Inprocess research and development expense. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 23(3): 227–244.
   Google Scholar
• Dunegan, K. J.; Tierney, P., y Duchon, D. 1992. Perceptions of an innovate climate: examining the role of divisional affiliation, work group interaction and leader/subordinate exchange. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 39(3): 227–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edvinson, L. & Malone, M. 1999. El Capital Intelectual. Barcelona: Gestión 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Ely, R. J., y Thomas, D. A. 2001. Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(2): 229–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliatl, H.; Golany, B., y Shtub, A. 2006. R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and Balance Score-card approach. Omega The International Journal of Management Science (36): 895–912.
   Google Scholar
• Ernst, H. 2001. Patent applications and subsequent changes on performance: evidence from timeseries cross-section analyses on the firm level. Research Policy 30(1): 143–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EUROPEAN FOUNDATION FOR QUALITY MANAGEMENT. 2003. Modelo EFQM de Excelencia. Versión para Grandes Empresas y Unidades de Negocio u Operativas. Club de Gestión de Calidad.
   Google Scholar
• EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (EIRMA). 1995. Effective Collaborative R&D. Report of EIRMA Workshop VI. Paris. http://www.eirma.asso.fr (consultado 10 junio 2005).
   Google Scholar
• EIRMA. 1996. Core competences and R&D, European Industrial Research Management Institute. Paris. Workshop VII Report.
   Google Scholar
• EIRMA. 2004. Effective Collaborative R&D and Knowledge Transfer. Bruselas. Conference Report.
   Google Scholar
• Farris, G. F., y Cordero, R. 2003. What do we know about managing scientists and engineers: a review of recent Literature. Paper. Centre for Innovation Management Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Flynn, B. B.; Schroeder, R. G., y Sakakibara, S. 1994. A Framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Research 1(4): 339–366.
   Google Scholar
• Fournier, R. 2001. Teamwork is the key to Remote Development. Info World March: 48–50.
   Google Scholar
• Galende DEL Canto, J., y Suárez gonzález, I. 1998. Los Factores Determinantes de Las Inversiones Empresariales en I+D. Economía Industrial 319: 63–76.
   Google Scholar
• García-Valderrama, T., y Mulero-Mendigorri, E. 2005. Content Validation of a Measure of R&D effectiveness. R&D Management 35(3): 311–331.
   Google Scholar
• García-Valderrama, T.; Mulero-Mendigorri, E., y Revuelta-Bordoy, D. 2008. A Balance Scorecard framework for R&D. European Journal of Innovation Management 11(2): 241–281.
   Google Scholar
• Gemser, G., y Leenders, M. A. 2001. How integrating industrial design in the product development process impacts on company performance. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18(1): 28–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, A.; Raj, S. P., y Wilemon, D. 1987. Managing the R&D-Marketing interface. Research Management 30(2): 38–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, A. K.; Wilemon, D., y Atuahene-Gima, K. 2000. Excelling in R&D. Research Technology Management 43(3): 52–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagedoorn, J., y Cloodt, M. 2003. Measuring innovative Performance: Is there and Advantage in using multiple Indicators? Research Policy 32(8): 1365–1379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R., y Black, W. 1999. Análisis Multivariante. Madrid: Pretice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, B. 1987. The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US Manufacturing sector. Journal of Industrial Economics 35(4): 583–606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, R. G.; Drasdo, A. L.; Lumley, C. E., y Walker, S. R. 1997. The allocation of resources for R&D in the world's leading pharmaceutical companies. R&D Management 27(1): 63–77.
   Google Scholar
• Halls, R. 1992. The Strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources. Strategic Management Journal 12(2): 135–144.
   Google Scholar
• Heidenberger, K.; Schillinger, A., y Stummer, C. 2003. Budgeting for research and development: a dynamic financial simulation approach. Socio-economic Planning Sciences 37(1): 15–27.
   Google Scholar
• Henri, F. 2006. Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective. Accounting, Organization and Society 31(6): 529–558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirst, G., y Mann, L. 2004. A model of R&D leadership and team communication: The relationship with project performance. R&D Management 34(2): 147–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoyt, J., y Gerloff, E. A. 2000. Organizational environment, changing economic conditions, and the effective supervision of technical personnel: a management challenge. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 10(2): 275–293.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu, K. H. 2005. Using Balance Scorecard and Fuzzy Data Envelopment Analysis for Multinational R & D Project Performance Assessment. The Journal of the American Academy of Business 7(1): 189–196.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, E., y Ling, S-C. 2006. How R&D management practice affects innovation performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106(7): 966–996.
   Google Scholar
• Iansiti, M. 1997. From technological potential to product performance: an empirical analysis. Research Policy, 26(3): 345–365.
   Google Scholar
• INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICA (INE). 2008. Encuesta sobre innovación tecnológica de las empresas. Madrid.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn, K., y Mcdonough, E. F. 1997. An empirical study of the relationships among co-location, integration, performance and satisfaction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(3): 161–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, R. S., y Norton, D. P. 1992. The Balance Scorecard measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70(1): 71–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, R. S., y Norton, D. P. 1996. Using the Balance Scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review 74(1): 75–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, R. S., y Norton, D. P. 2001. The Strategy-Focused Organisation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business school Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C., y Cook, A. 1997. Design principles for the development of measurement systems for research and development processes. R&D Management 27(4): 345–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koksaldi, S., e Iyigun, I. 2006. A Framework for R&D Processes from Quality Management Perspective. IEEE Xplore. Marzo: 532–535.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, M.; Son, B., y Lee, H. 1996. Measuring R&D Effectiveness in Korean Companies. Research Technology Management 39(6): 28–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S-H.; Wong, P.-K., y Chong, C.-L. 2005. Human ans Social Capital Explanations for R&D Outcomes. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management 52(1): 59–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leenders, M., y Wierenga, B. 2002. The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating marketing and R&D. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 19(4): 305–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, G., y Dalton, D. 2003. Balance Scorecard for I+D. Pharmaceutical Executive 23(3): 84–90.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, C.; Bertram, T., y Chang, S. 2002. The critical factors for technology absorptive capacity. Industrial Management and Data Systems 102(6): 300–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loch, C. H., y Tapper, U. A. S. 2000. R&D Performance Measures that are linked to strategy. Working Paper.
   Google Scholar
• López-Mielgo, N.; Montes péon, J., y Vázquez ordás, C. 2004. Fuentes tecnológicas para la innovación. Algunos datos para la industria española. Revista Madrid, 20 diciembre 2003-enero 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Maltz, E.; Souder, W., y Kumar, A. 2001. Influencing R&D/Marketing Integration and the use of market information by R&D managers: Intended and Unintended Effects of managerial actions. Journal of Business Research 52(1): 69–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez arias, R. 1996. Psicometría: Teoría de los Test Psicológicos y Educativos. Madrid: Síntesis.
   Google Scholar
• Mcdonough iii, E. F. 2000. Investigation of factors contributing to the success of Cross-Functional Teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 17(3): 221–235.
   Google Scholar
• Mcwilliams, A., y Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review 26(1): 117–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morbey, G. K. 1988. R&D: Its relationship to company performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 5(2): 191–200.
   Google Scholar
• Morbey, G. K., y Reithner, R. M. 1990. How R&D affects sales growth, productivity and profitability. Research Technology Management 33(3): 11–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison, C. J., y Siegel, D. 1996. Scale and Agregation effects in US Manufacturing: Evidence on returns to capital. The Canadian Journal of Economics 29(2): 570–596.
   Google Scholar
• Mumford, M. D. 2000. Managing creative people: Strategies and Tactics for Innovation. Human Resource Mangement Review 10(3): 313–351.
   Google Scholar
• Nejad, J. B. 1997. Technological innovation in developing countries: Special reference to Iran. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Bradford.
   Google Scholar
• Neufeld, G. A.; Simeoni, P. A., y Taylor, M. A. 2001. High-performance research organizations. Research Technology Management 44(6): 2–52.
   Google Scholar
• Nunally, J. C. 1987. Teoría Psicométrica. México: Trillas.
   Google Scholar
• OCDE. 1991. OCDE Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data (Oslo Manual), DSTI/STII/IND/STO (91) 3, París.
   Google Scholar
• OCDE. 1996. Main definitions and conventions for the measurement of research and experimental development. A summary of the Frascati manual 1993. OCDE/GD(94) 84. París.
   Google Scholar
• OCDE. 2005. OCDE Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (Oslo Manual). París.
   Google Scholar
• Odagiri, H. 1983. R&D expenditures, royalty payments, and sales growth in Japanese manufacturing corporations. The Journal of Industrial Economics 32(1): 61–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odagiri, H., y Iwata, H. 1986. The impact of R&D on productivity increase in Japanese manufacturing companies. Research Policy 15(1): 13–19.
   Google Scholar
• Ojanen, V., y Vuola, O. (2006). Coping with the multiple dimensions of R&D performance analysis. International Journal Technology Management 33(2–3): 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• O'leary-Kelly, S. W., y Vokurka, R. J. 1998. The empirical assessment of construct validity. Journal of Operations Management 16(4): 387–405.
   Google Scholar
• Olve, N.; Roy, J., y Wetter, M. 1999. Performance Drivers: A Practical Guide to Using the Balance Scorecard. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Omta, S. W. F., y Van engelen, J. M. L. 1998. Preparing the 21st century. Research Technology Management 41(1): 31–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osama, A. 2003. Multi-Attribute Strategy and Performance Architectures in R&D. Ph. D. dissertation, Pardee RAND Graduate School. Pittsburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, M. L. 1998. From experience: linking product innovation to business growth. Journal of Product Innovation Management 15(5): 390–402.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, A. W.; Nixon, W. A., y Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C. 2000. R&D as a business—what are the implications for performance measurement? R&D Management 30(4): 355–366.
   Google Scholar
• Pelled, L. H., y Adler, P. S. 1994. Antecedents of Intergroup Conflict in Multifunctional Product Development Teams: A Conceptual Approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 41(1): 21–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, R. A. 1994. A Meta-analysis of Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha. Journal of Consumer Research 21(2): 381–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, L. W., y Bagozzi, R. P. 1986. On measuring organizational properties of distribution channels: methodologies issues in the use of key informants. Research in Marketing 8: 313–369.
   Google Scholar
• Presley, A., y Liles, D. 2000. R&D validation planning: a methodology to link technical validations to benefits measurement. R&D Management 30(1): 55–65.
   Google Scholar
• Pulido san román, A. 2005. Indicadores de calidad en la evaluación del profesorado universitario. Estudios de Economía Aplicada 23(3): 667–684.
   Google Scholar
• Queling, B. 2000. Core competences, R&D Management and Partnerships. European Management Journal, 18(5): 476–487.
   Google Scholar
• Roos, R., y Roos, J. 1997. Measuring your Company's Intellectual Performance. Long Range Planning 30(3): 413–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roos, G. & Roos, J.; Edvinsson, L., y Dragonetti, N. C. 1997. Intellectual Capital. Navigating in the new Business Landscape. Londres: McMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Sakakibara, S.; Flynn, B. B., y Schroeder, R. G. 1993. A framework and measurement instrument for just-in-time manufacturing. Production and Operations Management 2(3): 177–194.
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez pérez, M., y Sababia sánchez, F. J. 1999. Validez y fiabilidad de escalas. En Sababia sánchez, F. J. (Eds.): Metodología para la investigación en Marketing y Dirección de Empresas. Madrid: Pirámide.
   Google Scholar
• Saraph, J. V.; Benson, P. G., y Schroeder, R. G. 1989. An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences 20(4): 810–829.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman, J. D.; Souder, W. E., y Jenssen, S. A. 2000. Differential effects of the primary forms of cross functional integration on product development cycle time. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 17(4): 257–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, M. H., y Yasin, M. M. 1997. Advanced manufacturing technology: Implementation policy and performance. Journal of Operations Management 15(4): 349–370.
   Google Scholar
• Souitaris, V. 2002. Firm-specific competencies determining technological innovation: a survey in Greece. R&D Management 32(1): 61–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stojilkovic, M. 1998. Measuring and Reporting Intangibles in a Management Control. Master Thesis. Stockholm University.
   Google Scholar
• Sveiby, R. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth. BSan Francisco, California: Berret-Koehler.
   Google Scholar
• Szakonyi, R. 1994. Measuring R&D effectiveness. Research Technology Management 37(2): 27–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swan, J. A.; Newel, S., y Robertson, M. 1999. Central agencies in the diffusion and design of technology: a comparison of the UK and Sweden. Organizational Studies 20(6): 905–931.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• THE CONFERENCE BOARD. 1997. Communicating Corporate Performance: A Delicate Balance. Special Report, 97–1. New York.
   Google Scholar
• Tracey, M.; Vonderembse, M., y Lim, J. S. 1999. Manufacturing Technology and Strategy Formulation: Keys to Enhancing Competitiveness and Improving Performance. Journal of Operations Management 17(4): 411–428.
   Google Scholar
• Tsui, A. S.; Egan, T. D., y O'reilly iii, C. A. 1992. Being Different: Relational Demography and Organizacional Attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly 37(4): 549–579.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urraca ruiz, A. 1998. I+D y Recursos Alternativos a la Innovación en la Industria Española. Economía Industrial 319: 391–104.
   Google Scholar
• Veugelers, R., y Cassiman, B. 1999. Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy 28(1): 63–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakelin, K. 2001 Productivity growth and R&D expenditure in UK manufacturing firms. Research Policy 30(7): 1079–1090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, P. T.; Leong, G. K., y Boyer, K. K. 1994. Manufacturing proactiveness and performance. Decision Science 25(3): 337–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, M. 1994. Innovation and training. En Dogson, M., y Rothwell, R. (Eds.): The Handbook of Industrial Innovation. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Weggeman, M. P., y Groneveld, M. J. 2005. Applying the Business Excellence Model to a Research Organization. Research Technology Management 48(4): 9–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wentling, R. M., y Palma rivas, N. 1998. Current Status and Future Trenes of Diversity Initiatives in the Workplace: Diversity Experts' Perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly 9(3): 235–253.
   Google Scholar
• Young, S. M. 1997. Implementing management innovations successfully: Principles for lasting change. Journal of Cost Management 11(5): 16–20.
   Google Scholar