Context: In today’s highly competitive business environment, shortened product and technology life-cycles, it is critical for software industry to continuously innovate. To help an organisation to achieve this goal, a better understanding and control of the activities and determinants of innovation is required. This can be achieved through innovation measurement initiative which assesses innovation capability, output and performance. Objective: This study explores definitions of innovation, innovation measurement frameworks, key elements of innovation and metrics that have been proposed in literature and used in industry. The degree of empirical validation and context of studies was also investigated. It also elicited the perception of innovation, its importance, challenges and state of practice of innovation measurement in software industry. Methods: In this study, a systematic literature review, followed by online questionnaire and face-to-face interviews were conducted. The systematic review used seven electronic databases, including Compendex, Inspec, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and Business Source premier, Science Direct and Scopus. Studies were subject to preliminary, basic and advanced criteria to judge the relevance of papers. The online questionnaire targeted software industry practitioners with different roles and firm sizes. A total of 94 completed and usable responses from 68 unique firms were collected. Seven face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with four industry practitioners and three academics. Results: Based on the findings of literature review, interviews and questionnaire a comprehensive definition of innovation was identified which may be used in software industry. The metrics for evaluation of determinants, inputs, outputs and performance were aggregated and categorised. A conceptual model of the key measurable elements of innovation was constructed from the findings of the systematic review. The model was further refined after feedback from academia and industry through interviews. Conclusions: The importance of innovation measurement is well recognised in both academia and industry. However, innovation measurement is not a common practice in industry. Some of the major reasons are lack of available metrics and data collection mechanisms to measure innovation. The organisations which do measure innovation use only a few metrics that do not cover the entire spectrum of innovation. This is partly because of the lack of consistent definition of innovation in industry. Moreover, there is a lack of empirical validation of the metrics and determinants of innovation. Although there is some static validations, full scale industry trials are currently missing. For software industry, a unique challenge is development of alternate measures since some of the existing metrics are inapplicable in this context. The conceptual model constructed in this study is one step towards identifying measurable key aspects of innovation to understanding the innovation capability and performance of software firms.

Innovation is one of the most important factors behind today´s global economic growth and prosperity. In the current economic climate, increasing global competition and rapidly changing environment, an organisations ability to innovate is regarded as a key factor for success. It is widely accepted that creating new processes, products and procedures are vital for productivity and growth in all sectors. The literature on innovation measurements areas and utilities is voluminous and diverse. Assessing and measuring the complex conditions that influence a firm’s innovation capability is a challenging task, due to the inconsistency, inaccessibility, and complexity of measures. An integrative and holistic innovation capability assessment framework should include all aspects of innovation. This study attempt to address this gap, the lack of a holistic innovation capability assessment framework (HICAF) in project-based firms, by (a) reviewing the literature on innovation, innovation assessment, and measurement areas (b) through a qualitative case study exploring the factors promoting innovation in project-based firms (c) integrating the findings into a holistic assessment framework (d) generating items, in form of a statement, to address the underlying construct of each identified factor (e) applying the proposed framework within an organisation and statistically validating the instrument to achieve item homogeneity. Internal consistency reliability estimates have been utilized to produce a final framework consisting of 57 statistically validated items and eight theoretically grounded categories with 19 corresponding factors promoting innovation, also called enablers, in technology-orientated project-based organisations. In addition to the identified literature findings, the case study resulted in two new enablers, time management, and quality, which are not necessarily specific for project-based organisations, rather specific for the observed organisation. The performed case study is insufficient for determining whether there are any specific enablers for project-based organisations. The advantages of HICAF lies in its simplicity due to practical applicability in a large scale and facilitates managers to diagnose the organisation and recognize true symptoms to then apply appropriate treatment and remedies. A frequent application of HICAF can also help to study the effect of specific treatment and remedies in relation to innovation capability.

Os sistemas de mensuração e indicadores de desempenho de inovação são de grande utilidade para sua gestão. Embora explorados pela literatura acadêmica, as organizações possuem dificuldade em implementá-los. Em pequenas e médias empresas (PMEs), a limitação de recursos e capacidades organizacionais, além da dificuldade de acesso a informação, tornam os modelos teóricos pouco viáveis para serem implementados, sobretudo aqueles desenvolvidos para grandes empresas. Neste contexto, esta pesquisa se propôs a desenvolver um sistema de indicadores mais adequado para gestão da inovação de produtos em PMEs industriais tradicionais de média ou baixa intensidade tecnológica. A pesquisa foi conduzida por meio de revisão bibliográfica e estudos de caso em três fases. Iniciou-se com uma primeira compreensão da gestão da inovação em 21 empresas do perfil estudado, evoluindo até o desenvolvimento e teste da ferramenta, mediante verificação de sua aderência em três empresas selecionadas. Nas duas primeiras fases da pesquisa, verificou-se que as empresas analisadas não utilizam processo sistemático de mensuração de desempenho de inovação. Quando muito, utilizam indicadores básicos de resultado, como quantidade de novos produtos desenvolvidos e faturamento advindo de novos produtos. As eventuais mensurações não são realizadas periodicamente e dificilmente geram aprendizados que contribuem para a organização ou para seus processos. A ferramenta construída foi baseada em modelos pregressos, trazendo indicadores de entrada, processo e saída em ideação, conversão / desenvolvimento e difusão. Após verificação de aderência em três casos, o modelo proposto mostrou-se de fácil entendimento e aplicação. Embora possua as limitações naturais de uma ferramenta prescritiva, permite trazer ganhos relevantes para a gestão da inovação de produtos em PMEs do perfil estudado. / Innovation performance measurement systems and indicators are very useful for its management. Although exploited by academic literature, companies find them difficult to implement. In small and medium enterprises (SMEs), limitation of resources and organizational capacities, besides difficulty of access to information, makes theoretical models little viable to be implemented, especially those developed for large companies. In this context, this research proposed to develop a more adequate indicator system for product innovation management in traditional industrial SMEs of medium or low technological intensity. Research was conducted through literature review and case studies in three phases. It began with initial understanding of innovation management in 21 enterprises of the profile studied, evolving to tool development and testing, by verifying its adherence in three selected companies. In the first two phases of the research, it was verified that companies analyzed do not use a systematic process of measuring innovation performance. At most, they use basic result indicators, such as new products developed and revenues coming from new products. Eventual measurements are not carried out periodically and hardly generate learning that contributes to organization or its processes. Developed tool was based on previous models, bringing input, process and output indicators in ideation, conversion / development and diffusion. After testing in three cases, proposed model was easy to understand and apply. Although it has natural limitations of a prescriptive tool, it allows to bring relevant benefits for product innovation management in SMEs of the studied profile.

Os sistemas de mensuração e indicadores de desempenho de inovação são de grande utilidade para sua gestão. Embora explorados pela literatura acadêmica, as organizações possuem dificuldade em implementá-los. Em pequenas e médias empresas (PMEs), a limitação de recursos e capacidades organizacionais, além da dificuldade de acesso a informação, tornam os modelos teóricos pouco viáveis para serem implementados, sobretudo aqueles desenvolvidos para grandes empresas. Neste contexto, esta pesquisa se propôs a desenvolver um sistema de indicadores mais adequado para gestão da inovação de produtos em PMEs industriais tradicionais de média ou baixa intensidade tecnológica. A pesquisa foi conduzida por meio de revisão bibliográfica e estudos de caso em três fases. Iniciou-se com uma primeira compreensão da gestão da inovação em 21 empresas do perfil estudado, evoluindo até o desenvolvimento e teste da ferramenta, mediante verificação de sua aderência em três empresas selecionadas. Nas duas primeiras fases da pesquisa, verificou-se que as empresas analisadas não utilizam processo sistemático de mensuração de desempenho de inovação. Quando muito, utilizam indicadores básicos de resultado, como quantidade de novos produtos desenvolvidos e faturamento advindo de novos produtos. As eventuais mensurações não são realizadas periodicamente e dificilmente geram aprendizados que contribuem para a organização ou para seus processos. A ferramenta construída foi baseada em modelos pregressos, trazendo indicadores de entrada, processo e saída em ideação, conversão / desenvolvimento e difusão. Após verificação de aderência em três casos, o modelo proposto mostrou-se de fácil entendimento e aplicação. Embora possua as limitações naturais de uma ferramenta prescritiva, permite trazer ganhos relevantes para a gestão da inovação de produtos em PMEs do perfil estudado. / Innovation performance measurement systems and indicators are very useful for its management. Although exploited by academic literature, companies find them difficult to implement. In small and medium enterprises (SMEs), limitation of resources and organizational capacities, besides difficulty of access to information, makes theoretical models little viable to be implemented, especially those developed for large companies. In this context, this research proposed to develop a more adequate indicator system for product innovation management in traditional industrial SMEs of medium or low technological intensity. Research was conducted through literature review and case studies in three phases. It began with initial understanding of innovation management in 21 enterprises of the profile studied, evolving to tool development and testing, by verifying its adherence in three selected companies. In the first two phases of the research, it was verified that companies analyzed do not use a systematic process of measuring innovation performance. At most, they use basic result indicators, such as new products developed and revenues coming from new products. Eventual measurements are not carried out periodically and hardly generate learning that contributes to organization or its processes. Developed tool was based on previous models, bringing input, process and output indicators in ideation, conversion / development and diffusion. After testing in three cases, proposed model was easy to understand and apply. Although it has natural limitations of a prescriptive tool, it allows to bring relevant benefits for product innovation management in SMEs of the studied profile.

Measuring innovation as a strategic objective allows companies to gauge their performance and  stay competitive. This study examines how the introduction of a metrics-oriented governance  tool can be used to strengthen the innovation performance in an industrial setting. Key  dimensions of capabilities for innovation are identified, and the role of measurement in allowing  a company to become more innovative is discussed. The core findings of the study suggest that  the most prominent innovation capabilities are cross-functional collaboration, organisational  culture, knowledge integrating mechanisms and the existence of a formulated innovation strategy.  These capabilities should not be measured or analysed separately as they depend on each other.  Therefore the set of metrics proposed in this study are meant to provide a holistic view of the  wide range of capabilities that together form the basis for the companies innovativeness.   From a practice-oriented perspective, the thesis aims to build on these two sets of analysis to  propose a set of metrics for the monitoring of innovation capabilities at a specific large,  Swedish-based industrial company. The analysis of the innovation capabilities at the case  company serves as a diagnostary basis for understanding the issues regarding the organisations  innovativeness. A need for further research on how the innovation strategy can be aligned with  the business strategy of the company would be beneficial is also identified. / Genom att mäta innovation som ett strategiskt mål kan företag utvärdera sin prestationsförmåga  samt vidhålla sin konkurrenskraft. Den här studien undersöker hur introduktionen av ett  mätorienterat styrmedel kan stärka innovationsförmågan hos ett företag, verksamt i en industriell  miljö. Därav identifieras nyckelfaktorer som utgör ett företags innovationsförmåga samt  diskuteras rollen som mätning spelar i företagets innovationsarbete. Studien lyfter fram  tvärfunktionellt samarbete, organisationskultur, kunskapsintegrerande mekanismer samt att ha en  formulerad innovationsstrategi som de viktigaste faktorerna för företagets innovationsförmåga.  Dessa faktorer bör inte mätas separat då de till stor del beror av varandra. Därför ämnar de  mätetal som föreslås i den här studien att skapa en holistisk bild av den mängd faktorer som  tillsammans utgör företagets innovationsförmåga.  Praktiskt innebär detta att studien tar avstamp i två analysområden för att föreslå en samling  mätetal som kan användas för att överblicka innovationsförmågan hos ett specifikt större  industriellt företag. Analysen av faktorerna bakom företagets innovationsförmåga bygger en  teoretisk bas för tolkandet av identifierade innovationsproblem inom organisationen. Författarna  identifierar även ett behov av vidare studier som undersöker hur företagets innovationsstrategi  kan sammanlänkas med affärsstrategin.

Innovation measurement is one of the most essential aspects in building innovation capability as it allows organisations to capture their current innovation capabilities and understand where they need to direct their efforts to improve. Further, measuring the innovation capability enables a data driven and insightful steering management. To succeed, incumbent organisations need to understand the KSF for innovation capability and internalise them.The purpose of this study is to investigate how incumbent telecom firms can use innovation measurement to improve their innovation capability. This was done through identifying KSF for innovation capability, reviewing existing innovation measurement frameworks and then, compare and analyse the findings to empirical data - from a case study at a major telecom operator.This paper is of an interdisciplinary nature and combines the theories of innovation capability, service innovation and innovation measurement. The methods used are qualitative, including a literature review, a focus group and 19 semi-structured interviews. The thesis resulted in six KSF for innovation capability in incumbent telecom firms, which was applied in an innovation measurement framework. The main challenges associated with these KSF are also identified and concrete proposals, for improving the innovation capability through using innovation measurement, are presented. Major contributions are of both theoretical and empirical character.The thesis contributes to the research field of how innovation capability can be measured and improved, through using multidimensional metrics, in incumbent firms working with high-tech service innovation. It also provides valuable empirical data around how innovation measurement can be interpreted and used, to improve innovation capability in an industrial context. / Innovationsmätning anses vara en av de viktigaste aspekterna för att bygga en stark innovationsförmåga eftersom det ger en förståelse för den nuvarande innovationsförmågan och för hur organisationer kan prioritera resurser och aktiviteter för att förbättra innovationsförmågan. För att lyckas behöver dessa företag förstå vilka som är de avgörande faktorerna för innovationsförmåga och sedan internalisera dessa.Syftet med studien är att förstå hur stora, etablerade telekombolag kan använda innovationsmätning för att förbättra sin innovationsförmåga. Detta har gjorts genom att först identifiera de avgörande faktorerna för innovationsförmåga, granska existerande ramverk för att mäta innovation. Sedan har detta jämförts med undersökningsresultatet från den genomförda fallstudien på ett ledande, svenskt telekombolag. Studien är av interdisciplinär natur och kombinerar teorier inom innovationsförmåga, tjänsteinnovation och innovationsmätning.Studien resulterade i sex avgörande faktorer för utveckling av innovationsförmåga i stora, etablerade företag inom telekomsektorn. Dessa tillämpas sedan i ett ramverk för innovationsmätning. De huvudsakliga utmaningarna kopplade till dessa faktorer har också identifierats och konkreta förslag för att förbättra innovationsförmågan genom tillämpning av innovationsmätning presenteras.Bidragen från denna studie är av både teoretisk och empirisk karaktär. Studien bidrar till forskningen kring hur innovationsförmåga hos traditionella företag som arbetar med högteknologiska tjänster kan utvärderas och förbättras genom att använda flerdimensionella mätvärden. Den bidrar även med viktiga empiriska data kring hur innovationsmätning kan förstås och användas för att förbättra innovationsförmåga i en industriell kontext.

A inovação é um dos fenômenos mais importantes na economia e nos negócios nos tempos atuais, e, neste contexto, as instituições de pesquisa são cada vez mais vistas como veículos para a transferência de tecnologia e um canal por meio do qual a troca de conhecimento se torna mais eficaz. No Brasil, um grande marco rumo à inovação foi a publicação da lei de inovação em 2004. No âmbito do Estado de São Paulo, a publicação de lei semelhante aconteceu em 2008. Dentre os benefícios trazidos com essas leis, está a criação dos Núcleos de Inovação Tecnológica - NIT. Apesar do interesse crescente no estudo a respeito dos NIT, há poucos estudos que discutem a estrutura desses NIT, e, ainda, no Brasil, não há estudo sobre estruturação e gestão de NIT na administração direta. Assim, este trabalho, através de uma abordagem qualitativa, utilizando-se o estudo de casos múltiplos, discute a estruturação dos NIT na administração direta do estado de São Paulo, de modo que esses NIT possam impactar positivamente nos resultados de inovação do Estado de São Paulo. No que se refere à estrutura dos NIT: compartilhamento, por meio de um escritório central e unidades; estrutura híbrida, ou semicentralizada; utilização das fundações de apoio existentes para fazer a gestão dos recursos financeiros e das atividades dos NIT. As áreas identificadas como prioritárias para os NIT são: propriedade intelectual, transferência de tecnologia ou parceria, e assessoria jurídica. Outros pontos que a autora recomenda que devem ser melhorados para refletir positivamente nos resultados de inovação do Estado de São Paulo são: existência, no âmbito do Estado de São Paulo, de uma Política de Inovação; as Instituições Científicas e Tecnológicas do Estado de São Paulo devem fazer o planejamento estratégico da sua instituição, de modo a orientar as pesquisas que serão realizadas na ICTESP; definição dos objetivos a serem alcançados com a pesquisa, e implantação de um modelo estratégico para gerenciamento da Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento; a atuação do NIT precisa estar alinhada com esse planejamento estratégico da ICTESP; alinhamento e engajamento das instâncias jurídicas; é desejável que o Estado promova a aproximação dos institutos públicos com a iniciativa privada; e existência de linhas de fomento para inovação. / Innovation is one of the most important phenomena in economics and business today. In this context research institutions are increasingly seen as a vehicle for technology transfer and a channel through which knowledge exchange becomes more effective. In Brazil, a major milestone towards innovation was the publication of the innovation law, in 2004. At the State of Sao Paulo, a similar law was published in 2008. One important benefit brought by these laws is the creation of the Technology Transfer Offices - TTO. Despite the increasing interest in the study about TTO, there is a gap in study about its structure. Moreover, there is no study in Brazil about the implementation and management of TTO in public research institutions. So, this paper, through a qualitative study with multiple cases discuss about structuring TTO in public research institutions in order to these TTO positively impact the innovation results of the State of São Paulo. Regarding the structure of the TTO: sharing the office, through a central office and units; hybrid or semi-centralized structure; using existing research support foundations to manage financial resources and the TTO activities. The main areas identified for the TTO are: intellectual property, technology transfer or partnership, and legal advice. Other recommendations of the author to booster the innovations results of the State of São Paulo are: existence of an Innovation Policy to the State of São Paulo; the scientific institutions must do the strategic planning of their institutions in order to guide the researches that will be conducted at the institution; definition of the objectives to be achieved with the research, and implementation of a strategic management for Research and Development activities; the TTO activities must be aligned with the strategic planning of the research institution; alignment and engagement of legal bodies; it is desirable that the State promote the approximation of public research institutes with private enterprises; and is essential the existence of funding for innovation projects.

A inovação é um dos fenômenos mais importantes na economia e nos negócios nos tempos atuais, e, neste contexto, as instituições de pesquisa são cada vez mais vistas como veículos para a transferência de tecnologia e um canal por meio do qual a troca de conhecimento se torna mais eficaz. No Brasil, um grande marco rumo à inovação foi a publicação da lei de inovação em 2004. No âmbito do Estado de São Paulo, a publicação de lei semelhante aconteceu em 2008. Dentre os benefícios trazidos com essas leis, está a criação dos Núcleos de Inovação Tecnológica - NIT. Apesar do interesse crescente no estudo a respeito dos NIT, há poucos estudos que discutem a estrutura desses NIT, e, ainda, no Brasil, não há estudo sobre estruturação e gestão de NIT na administração direta. Assim, este trabalho, através de uma abordagem qualitativa, utilizando-se o estudo de casos múltiplos, discute a estruturação dos NIT na administração direta do estado de São Paulo, de modo que esses NIT possam impactar positivamente nos resultados de inovação do Estado de São Paulo. No que se refere à estrutura dos NIT: compartilhamento, por meio de um escritório central e unidades; estrutura híbrida, ou semicentralizada; utilização das fundações de apoio existentes para fazer a gestão dos recursos financeiros e das atividades dos NIT. As áreas identificadas como prioritárias para os NIT são: propriedade intelectual, transferência de tecnologia ou parceria, e assessoria jurídica. Outros pontos que a autora recomenda que devem ser melhorados para refletir positivamente nos resultados de inovação do Estado de São Paulo são: existência, no âmbito do Estado de São Paulo, de uma Política de Inovação; as Instituições Científicas e Tecnológicas do Estado de São Paulo devem fazer o planejamento estratégico da sua instituição, de modo a orientar as pesquisas que serão realizadas na ICTESP; definição dos objetivos a serem alcançados com a pesquisa, e implantação de um modelo estratégico para gerenciamento da Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento; a atuação do NIT precisa estar alinhada com esse planejamento estratégico da ICTESP; alinhamento e engajamento das instâncias jurídicas; é desejável que o Estado promova a aproximação dos institutos públicos com a iniciativa privada; e existência de linhas de fomento para inovação. / Innovation is one of the most important phenomena in economics and business today. In this context research institutions are increasingly seen as a vehicle for technology transfer and a channel through which knowledge exchange becomes more effective. In Brazil, a major milestone towards innovation was the publication of the innovation law, in 2004. At the State of Sao Paulo, a similar law was published in 2008. One important benefit brought by these laws is the creation of the Technology Transfer Offices - TTO. Despite the increasing interest in the study about TTO, there is a gap in study about its structure. Moreover, there is no study in Brazil about the implementation and management of TTO in public research institutions. So, this paper, through a qualitative study with multiple cases discuss about structuring TTO in public research institutions in order to these TTO positively impact the innovation results of the State of São Paulo. Regarding the structure of the TTO: sharing the office, through a central office and units; hybrid or semi-centralized structure; using existing research support foundations to manage financial resources and the TTO activities. The main areas identified for the TTO are: intellectual property, technology transfer or partnership, and legal advice. Other recommendations of the author to booster the innovations results of the State of São Paulo are: existence of an Innovation Policy to the State of São Paulo; the scientific institutions must do the strategic planning of their institutions in order to guide the researches that will be conducted at the institution; definition of the objectives to be achieved with the research, and implementation of a strategic management for Research and Development activities; the TTO activities must be aligned with the strategic planning of the research institution; alignment and engagement of legal bodies; it is desirable that the State promote the approximation of public research institutes with private enterprises; and is essential the existence of funding for innovation projects.

IC產品的產品生命週期極為短暫且市場上競爭十分地激烈，因此「創新」巳是IC設計公司求生存及求發展的不二法門。而如何有效地管理及衡量公司的創新活動以達成企業的目標，巳是以創新為首要發展要務的IC設計公司，首須面對及解決的問題。 公司在開發新產品或是新技術的過程中，往往須將許多無形資產，進行運用以及整合，而IC設計公司具有「無形資產極大化」之特色，因此在對IC設計公司進行創新活動之管理或衡量時，若能將所有無形資產納入考慮，則必可提昇創新管理或衡量之效率。 故在本研究，擬以創新管理與智慧資本理論結合之應用，建構IC設計公司在創新活動下之智慧資本衡量系統，以幫助IC設計創新活動之管理。因此，本研究擬就下述二問題，進行探討： 1、創新各階段活動（投入-流程-產出-效益）各項智慧資本為何？亦即討論各項智慧資本，何者係屬於創新投入階段所需之資源；何者係屬於創新流程階段所需之公司支援；創新產出階段之生成物對公司各項智慧資本之影響；最後在創新效益階段，則係探討創新生成物於市場上表現及所生價值，對公司各項智慧資本之影響； 2、分析創新各階段活動（投入-流程-產出-效益）中，重要之智慧資本衡量指標，以此建立創新活動下之智慧資本衡量系統，幫助公司創新活動之管理。 本研究，經對2家IC設計領導廠商深入訪談，以及15家IC設計公司，共計30名業者調查，以結合應用創新管理與智慧資本之理論。研究之結果認為： 1、IC設計公司，在創新投入階段所須投入之資源，主要是人力資本、創新資本，其次為顧客資本、關係資本，最後是組織文化資本及IT資本；創新過程中，所需之公司支援，主要是組織文化資本及人力資本，其次為IT資本、流程資本及創新資本；創新之產出，主要係對公司創新資本及流程資本產生影響；創新收益階段對公司顧客資本產生影響，其次係創新資本，最後是人力資本； 2、IC設計公司，於創新投入階段，重要投入資源之智慧資本衡量指標為：人力資本衡量指標中之員工盡責的程度、員工工作動機的強烈程度、員工專業技能的良窳、員工工作勝任程度、公司擁有吸引具潛力員工的能力；創新資本衡量指標中之產品設計與開發平均時間、公司掌握新機會的能力、公司回應市場的能力、新產品研發能力因素；組織文化資本衡量指標中之組織擁有創新文化、經營團隊的領導力因素；顧客資本衡量指標中之對客戶需求的了解程度、市場成長性、對目標市場的瞭解因素；以及關係資本衡量指標中之擁有許多堅強的策略夥伴、與策略夥伴的關係、與上中下游體系的關係因素；其中最重要者係，公司擁有吸引具潛力員工的能力、對客戶需求的了解程度、員工專業技能的良窳、公司掌握新機會的能力、擁有許多堅強的策略夥伴、與策略夥伴的關係、與上中下游體系的關係。 創新流程階段，會影響公司創新進行之智慧資本衡量指標為：人力資本中之員工盡責的程度、員工工作動機的強烈程度、每年核心員工平均流動率、員工專業技能的良窳、員工工作勝任程度；創新資本中之公司智慧財產管理制度；組織文化資本中之組織擁有學習文化、組織員工擁有互相支援的氣氛、組織擁有創新文化、組織成員團隊合作的程度、經營團隊的領導力因素；流程資本中之策略執行程度因素；IT資本中之公司資訊系統存取的容易度、員工透過科技緊密連結組織內部的工作流程因素；其中最重要者為，員工透過科技緊密連結組織內部的工作流程、組織員工擁有互相支援的氣氛、組織成員團隊合作的程度。 在創新產出階段，而主要衡量之智慧資本衡量指標為創新資本中之產品設計與開發平均時間、智慧財產數量、智慧財產品質造成影響；其中最重要者為智慧財產品質。 在創新效益階段，主要衡量之智慧資本衡量指標為創新資本中之研發領導地位，以及顧客資本中之客戶滿意度、客戶忠誠度、市場佔有率；其中最重要者市場佔有率。 / Facing the short life cycle of IC products and competitive market, “innovation” has been the only way for IC design house to survive and develop. But how to manage and measure innovation activities to reach the goal of corporate are really the problem need to be faced and solved for IC design house which reviews innovation as the most important thing. In the process of developing new products and new technologies, companies usually need to use and integrate many resources and intangible assets. IC design house has the features of “maximizing intangible assets”. If IC design house can take all the intangible assets into account when managing and measuring innovation activities, then the efficiency of innovation management and measurement will be enhanced. In this research, I construct “the measurement system of intellectual capital under innovation activities” of IC design house by combining the theories of innovation management with intelletcual capital to manage the innovation activities of IC design. Therefore, this research will discuss the following issues: 1. Which kind of intellectual capital is attributed in each innovation stage (input-process-output-outcome) ? In another word, this study explores what kind of intellectual capital is the necessary resource in the input stage of innovation ? What kind of intellectual capital is the necessary support in the process stage of innovation ? What kind of intellectual capital is influenced in the output stage of innvaiton? What kind of intellectual capital is influenced in the outcome stage of innovation when the innovation output performing and creating value in the market? 2. Based on the findings of important intellectual capital indicators in each innovation activities (input-process-output-outcome), I build the “the measurement system of intellectual capital under innovation activities” to manage the innovation activities of company. Through interviewing 2 leading IC design companies and surveying 15 IC design companies (30 investigators), and combining the theories of innovation management with intellectual capital, my conclusions are as follows : 1. For IC design house, the primary resources in the input stage of innovation are human capital and innovation capital. The secondary resources are customer capital and relationship capital ; organization culture capital and IT capital are the last. In the process stage of innovation, the primary supports are organization culture capital and human capital, then another supports include IT capital, process capital and innovation capital. The innovation outputs influence innovation capital and process capital. The innovation outcomes have the main impacts on customer capital, then on innovation capital, and on human capital at last. 2. For IC design house, the important intellectual capital indicators of resources in the stage of input are as follows : the employee’s responsibility, the employee’s motivation, the employee’s skill, the employee’s qualification and the company’s abilities to attract potential employees for human capital. In addition, another important indicators include time of product development and design, ability of catching new opportunities, ability of reponsing the market, ability of new product design for innovation capital, and innovation culture, leadership for organization culture capital. Knowing the need of customers, market growth and knowing the target market are important for customer capital. Having many alliances, relationship with alliances and relationship with value chain should be noticed for relationship capital. All in all, the company’s abilities to attract potential employees, knowing the need of customers, the employee’s skill, ability of catching new opportunities, having many alliances, relationship with alliances, and relationship with value chain are more important indicators than others. In the stage of process, the important intellectual capital indicators that will have impacts on the ongoing innovation activities are as follows : the employee’s responsibility, the employee’s motivation, turnover of keyperson per year, the employee’s skill, the employee’s qualification for human capital. Mechanism of intellectual property management is important for innovation capital. Learning culture, supportive atmosphere, innovation culture, teamwork, leadership should be considered for organization culture capital. Execution of strategy is necessary for process capital. Convenience of getting/saving information and connecting through IT infrastructure are important for IT capital. In the stage of output, the primary intellectual capital indicators are time of product development and design, quantity of intellectual property and quality of intellectual property. In summary, the quality of intellectual property is the most important. In the stage of outcome, the main intellectual capital indicators are R&D leading position for innovation capital, customer satisfication, customer royalty, and market share for customer capital. All in all, market share is the most important indicator.