Advancing Managed Innovation through Structured Research
Innovation calls for inspiration, free thinking, resilience in the face of failure, and an environment that encourages individual expression. These are all entirely valid points when viewed from the nature of innovation itself and from the perspective of individual researchers. However,we cannot afford to miss development opportunities due to unpredictable timelines for research outcomes, nor can we shoulder the negative societal impressions brought about by the “innovation” that is detached from real-world management challenges and trapped in an endless cycle of academic output for its own sake. As a school grounded in applied disciplines，We support research motivated by genuine academic inquiry, and we place even greater emphasis on research that offers practical insights for institutional development and management practice.
Organized research exists to reconcile two essential dimensions: it must adhere to the laws of innovation, while also aligning with the needs of the institution; there should be mutual respect and shared growth between individual researchers and the institution. Practices have long provided us with clear answers: whether it is the “Two Bombs, One Satellite” initiative led by earlier generations of scientists, or the research and development cases adopted by leading enterprises such as Huawei, all point to the same conclusion — that through well-organized research mechanisms, it is possible to reconcile and resolve the seemingly conflicting demands.
A well-organized research system starts with the proper classification of scientific and technological activities. Research goals influence how projects are categorized; classification determines management approaches; and management, in turn, affects outcomes. Traditionally, the research has been categorized based on its inherent attributes—such as basic research, applied research, original inquiry, or problem-driven research aimed at overcoming technological bottlenecks. Now, we must shift perspectives: reclassifying research types from a management-oriented lens, focusing on three key dimensions—scientific and technological input, delivery of research outcomes, and value-driven incentive mechanisms. For the School of Management, producing more high-quality research outcomes that contribute to national strategies and the school's core focus areas depends on one critical shift: the establishment of a “project-based classification and engineering-style delivery” mechanism. This forms the foundational framework for implementing organized research.
Organized research within the school can be categorized into four types:
The first type involves projects where the school knows both the desired outcomes and the individuals capable of achieving them. These projects are implemented through commissioned research, in which specific tasks are directly assigned to designated personnel. They are characterized by clearly defined value and low risk, and are therefore regarded as the school’s priority initiatives and core areas of focus. For such projects, the school is committed to providing full support—securing both funding and talent as needed. The primary management objective is to ensure that researchers can fully dedicate their efforts to the project, thereby guaranteeing successful delivery. Key measures include strengthening process support to maximize the researchers’ capabilities and effectiveness.
The second type includes projects where the school has clear research goals but has yet to identify the right people to carry them out. These projects are managed through a competitive bidding process, where faculty members compete for project funding by demonstrating their capabilities. Although the value of these projects is well established, the risk associated with outcome delivery is relatively high. To manage this, the school will offer financial incentives with strong motivational appeal, combined with risk control measures throughout the research process. A key feature of this model is the close linkage between deliverables and rewards—a certain portion of the compensation will only be disbursed upon the successful delivery of research results.
The third type refers to projects with undefined outcomes, but with faculty members recognized for their potential to achieve exceptional results. In such cases, the school adopts an exploratory funding model, with no fixed funding ceiling, often using a phased investment approach. The key focus is on enabling agile, iterative delivery, which helps progressively clarify and refine the research direction. The clearer the research direction becomes and the greater its potential contribution to the school’s development, the more substantial the subsequent investment and support will be. Such projects are crucial for the school’s continuous renewal, sustainable growth, and maintaining a competitive edge.
The fourth type covers projects where the school lacks both clear outcomes and an understanding of the capable individuals who can achieve them. These projects follow a free exploration management model, in which the school offers angel funding, and faculty members are invited to apply freely. Funding is provided based on expert review in relevant fields. Such projects essentially represent the school’s strategic investment in uncertainty. Management focuses on discovering promising researchers and cultivating new academic frontiers. Once the timing is right, it will be transitioned into one of the first three categories for structured management.
The school provides robust support for the first two types of projects and actively encourages the latter two. We will continuously refine the technological innovation framework through the iterative transformation of these four types of projects, enhancing the controllability of faculty innovation outcomes. Additionally, these projects will serve as a means to identify, respect, and leverage individuals' unique value, fostering personalized talent development. Academician Xuesen Qian emphasized：“When developing a technological innovation, management accounts for 70%, while technology contributes 30%. Without management, technology cannot be realized.” As a School specializing in management, we should take the lead in organized research.
Lack of organizational support for the individual development of faculty is not true respect, but neglect of responsibility. Similarly, lack of institutional backing for faculty innovation is not genuine expectation, but a mere uncertainty. The school will take responsibility for fostering the value of new quality productive relations, while faculty members must also contribute to advancing the value of new quality productive forces for both the school and the nation. Only through this mutual fulfillment mechanism can research be organized, manageable, and sustainable.
