From the Editors
Authors: T. Doolen; E. V. Van Aken
Year: 2017

As co-Editors-in-Chief of the Engineering Management Journal (EMJ), we are pleased to bring you the second issue of 2017. The June 2017 issue contains five articles representing authors from the U.S., Iran, Pakistan, and Taiwan. The topics addressed include performance measurement systems, innovation, team leadership, engineering leadership, project management, and project complexity. Interestingly, a methodological theme underlying three of the articles is the use of decision analysis tools such as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Additional research methodologies reflected in the articles in this issue include case study, interviews, Delphi method, and survey questionnaire. Thus, this issue demonstrates the rich breadth of methodologies utilized by engineering management scholars. In the first article, “An Approach to Quantify the Factors that Affect Performance Measurement System Implementation,” Keathley-Herring investigates the relationship between potential critical success factors and successful adoption of performance measurement systems. In this study, the author adapts an approach for defining performance metrics as part of the design of a performance measurement system to the identification of success factors influencing successful implementation of performance measurement systems. Using the results from a previous systematic literature review, the author identifies a subset of themost frequently-studied potential success factors, which are then represented in a cognitive map to reflect the inter-relationships between each factor and successful adoption, as well as between factors. Analytic network process (ANP) is then used to quantify the effects of the factors on overall successful adoption. Compared to prior research on performance measurement system success factors, this study provides a unique contribution in using cognitive mapping and ANP to quantify these inter-relationships; prior research has often used other research methodologies, such as interviews, case study, or survey questionnaire. Practitioners can utilize the findings from this study to develop more robust implementation strategies and processes for performance measurement systems in order to increase the likelihood of successful implementation. Our second article takes a somewhat similar approach as the first article. In “Determining the Critical Factors of Radical Innovation Using an Integrated Model of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process-Fuzzy Kano With a Case Study in Mobarakeh Steel Company,” Shahin, Barati, and Geramian use a systematic approach to identify and quantify the importance of success factors related to radical innovation. The authors apply their approach, which utilizes the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), in a steel company operating in the Middle East and North Africa. One of the ways this study is distinct from prior ones is in the attempt to identify a comprehensive set of potential success factors. One of the primary findings is the identification of leadership and knowledge management as the two most important factors influencing radical innovation based on expert practitioner ratings and comparisons in the case study company. With respect to leadership, important activities identified by the authors which can influence radical innovation include coordinating functions, mission and vision articulation, setting clear objectives and goals, and providing structure and management systems throughout the organization. For knowledge management, important activities include training and the creation, transfer, and application of new knowledge. Engineering managers can utilize these findings in managing new product development and innovation processes, for instance, in recruiting leaders with the abilities identified in this work. Further, engineering managers can focus on creating an environment in which the expansion of knowledge is encouraged and, more importantly, the frequency of sharing knowledge and innovation among personnel is increased. A team of authors from Taiwan — Chan, Chen, Hung, Tsai, and Chen — also address the topic of innovation in our third article, “Open Innovation and Team Leaders’ Innovation Traits.” A unique contribution of this study is the investigation of team leader characteristics needed for open innovation, as compared to the current literature. The study focused on the role of team leaders on innovation archetypes — inbound innovation (adopting external technologies or knowledge for internal use), outbound innovation (using existing technologies to collaborate with other organizations or providing resources to other companies), and coupled innovation activities. Based on a review of the literature, the authors developed a conceptual framework identifying four overall criteria defining team leader innovation traits (innovation cognitive capability, personality style, innovation motivation, and innovation knowledge), along with corresponding sub-criteria. The authors used a survey questionnaire to assess these leader traits and administered it to university faculty, investigators at research institutes, and senior managers and executives from high-tech industries leading innovation teams in Taiwan. Study results suggest that team leaders possessing strong innovation cognitive capability, personality style, and innovation knowledge are suitable for leading coupled innovation activities, while team leaders with strong innovation motivation are suitable for leading inbound open innovation teams. The fourth article in this issue also addresses leadership, in this case, developing leadership capabilities in engineering students. In “Developing Engineering Leaders: An Organized Innovation Approach to Engineering Education,” Perry, Hunter, Currall, and Frauenheim conduct an extensive study of the experiences of students within Engineering Research Centers. Exhaustive data collection and analysis encompassed qualitative and quantitative data involving face-to-face and telephone interviews, on-site visits of ERCs, survey questionnaire, and review of multiple years of reports submitted by ERCs to the National Science Foundation. In this article, the authors propose a framework, called the Organized Innovation Model for Education, that can be used by universities and academic programs to foster and instill leadership capabilities in engineering students without necessarily having the structure afforded by an ERC. The three pillars in the framework — Channeled Curiosity, Boundary Breaking Collaboration, and Orchestrated Commercialization — represent strategies engineering programs can use to