Concept of matrix readiness methodology application development for managing innovative digitalization projects
https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2023-12-53-61
Abstract
The article is devoted to the development of using matrix readiness concept to manage innovative digitalization projects. One of the concept features is the application of existing methodologies for assessing the readiness level of innovation and considering them in the conditions of the VUCA-world and the BANI-world. To do this, these concepts, their structure, influence and role in the modern world have been described in more detail. To develop the concept, existing methodologies were used to assess the technology readiness level (manufacturing readiness level, customer readiness level), as well as their totality. The relationship between the product lifecycle model and the matrix readiness methodology has been analyzed thoroughly. Various types of existing business intelligence, strategic and project management matrices considered. In addition, the importance of digitalization and its applicability to the methodology of matrix readiness have been outlined. The principle of flexibility in the enterprise structure has been considered.
About the Authors
V. A. Shiboldenkov
Bauman Moscow State Technical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vladimir A. Shiboldenkov, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Assoc. Prof.
Business Informatics Department
Moscow
D. A. Bastamova
Bauman Moscow State Technical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Daria A. Bastamova, Student
Moscow
K. A. Yakovleva
Bauman Moscow State Technical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kristina A. Yakovleva, Student
Moscow
References
1. Mack O. Khare A., Kramer A. Burgartz T. Managing in VUCA world. London: Springer; 2015. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16889-0
2. Jamais Cascio. Facing the Age of Chaos. Springer; 2020.
3. Schenthaler D.F. Success in the digital world of VUCA: Flexibility and Efficient Supply chains (PROMATIS Group). Karlsruhe Technology Region; 2018. (In Russian).
4. Deepak P., Maheshkumar P.D., Arun S., Rajen K.G. Disruptive innovations and dynamic opportunities in emerging economies: Data from the Indian automotive sector 2017. (In Russian).
5. World Economic Forum. About Klaus Schwab. https://www.weforum.org/about/klaus-schwab (accessed 01. 10. 2023).
6. Mikhnenko P.A. Digital management: models of concept development. Innovations in management. 2020;3(25):30–39. (In Russian).
7. Capgemini Consulting. The Digital Advantage: how digital leaders outperform their peers in every industry. https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The_Digital_Advantage__How_Digital_Leaders_Outperform_their_Peers_in_Every_Industry.pdf (accessed 01. 10. 2023).
8. Rachinger M., Rauter R., Muller C., Vorraber W., Schirgi E. Digitalization and its influence on business model innovation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 2019;30(8):1143–1160. doi: 10.1108/JMTM-01-2018-0020
9. Jamier V., Irwin B., Osche K. Demystification of TRL for complex technologies. https://projects.leitat.org/demystifying-trls-for-complex-technologies / (accessed 02. 10. 2023). (In Russian).
10. Sartori A.V., Sushkov P.V., Mantsevich N.M. (ed.) Principles of lean R&D management based on the methodology of readiness levels of innovative projects. economics of science. Economics of science.2019;6(1–2):22–34. (In Russian).
11. Ferreira С.V., Biesek F., Scalice R. Product innovation management model based on manufacturing readiness level (MRL), design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA) and technology readiness level (TRL). Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering. 2021;43(7):1–18. doi: 10.1007/s40430-021-03080-8
12. Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology. GOST R 57316-2016. Innovation management. Standardization of key indicators of innovative capabilities of small and medium-sized enterprises. Moscow: Standartinform; 2020. (In Russian).
13. Ibarra D., Ganzarain J., Igartua J.I. Business model of innovation through Industry 4.0: an overview. Procedia Manuf. 2018:4(10):12–18.
14. Ardilio A., Seidenstricker S., Schmit M. Measurement and assessment of technology readiness for specific applications. International Journal of Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology. 2015;5(6):475–480. (In Russian).
15. Strawn G. Open science and the curve of technology development. Intel data. 2021;3:1–7. (In Russian).
16. Dinh B.H.A. Using the Hoffer matrix in strategic business analysis for Nguyen Hoang Group in Vietnam. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research and Growth Assessment. 2021;2(4):61–66. (In Russian).
17. Zulkarnain A., Wahyuningtias D., Putranto T. S. Analysis of IFE, EFE and QSPM matrix on business development strategy. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2018;126:62. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/126/1/012062
18. Komarov A.V., Petrov A.N., Sartori A.V. Model of integrated assessment of technological readiness of innovative scientific and technological projects. Economics of science. 2018;4(1):47–57. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Shiboldenkov V.A., Bastamova D.A., Yakovleva K.A. Concept of matrix readiness methodology application development for managing innovative digitalization projects. Vestnik Universiteta. 2023;(12):53-61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2023-12-53-61
Views:
316
Email this article 