INNT9001 Innovation Management Assignment Brief 2026 | TU Dublin

University	Technological University Dublin (TUD)
Subject	INNT9001 Innovation Management

INNT9001 Assignment Brief

This document summarises the three assessed elements of the module:

Type	Individual/Group	% Marks	Due Date
Critique	Group	25	7^th Dec 2025
Presentation	Group	25	7^th Dec 2025
Audit Essay	Individual	25	2^nd Nov 2025

1. Innovation Audit Essay

“…..an audit that intends to investigate and improve a firm’s capabilities to innovate and perform innovation processes” (Björkdahl & Holmén, 2016: p842).

The existence of a strong and positive relationship between a company’s capacity to innovate and its continued market prosperity underpins the literature on innovation. Despite myriad tools and frameworks to facilitate ‘next practice’ (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004, P.5) innovation, organisations apply processes arbitrarily or neglect to apply any at all. A consequence of this is that companies fail to review their approach to innovation, potentially undermining business growth. Firms who develop and sustain competitive advantage are those who are disciplined in their pursuit of innovation, particularly as this enables them to develop and deploy new products or services more efficiently, effectively and profitability (Cormican & O’Sullivan, 2004).

The rationale for this assignment originates in the complexity of innovation management. The literature on innovation audits helps to uncover that complexity. One example – the fast audit, based on the Pentathlon Framework (Figure 1), is designed to offer a simple overview of an organisation’s capacity to innovate. According to Goffin and Mitchell (2017, p.354) the aims of an audit are to:

Identify an organisation’s innovation capability – the strengths and weaknesses of its innovation processes – by gaining the views of a representative sample of managers and employees (you are not being asked to undertake an audit).
Collect ideas on how to make improvements.

Figure 1: The Innovation Pentathlon Framework (Goffin and Mitchell, 2017, p.29).

Please use the following to structure your essay:

Why is innovation auditing of interest? What makes it significant and worthy of focus?
What management challenge/opportunity does innovation auditing address?
How might an organisation you are familiar with[1], apply an innovation audit?
- Select key themes (5 max) that you would employ/adapt from the theory?
- B. You are not being asked to carry out or pilot an audit
Identify five key implications of your learning on your current/future management practice

SUBMISSION

All essays must contain a typed declaration by the participant, that they have sole authorship.
Each report must be supported by a bibliography.
Please use 11 pt. font, 1.15 line spacing and adequate margins.
1,200 words (+/-10%) excluding appendices, diagrams, and bibliography.
Deferred submission: Standard penalties apply
Marks 25%

The following criteria will be used to assess your paper

Evidence of critique, synthesis of frameworks and theories and application of knowledge and concepts
Ideas expressed clearly/Appreciation of barriers and enablers to auditing and implementation
Quality and qualification of the overall rationale and recommendations
Logical argument, clear presentation, quality of structure and flow
Referencing standard per Style Guide and overall quality of the document see http://www.apastyle.org/ (excellent blog/e.g. quick answers on formatting)

2. Critique Assignment [Group]

The critique topic and a suggested anchor reading is given for each group. Participants will take ownership of the learning by selecting refereed journal articles[2] (one core reference per group member – and you may refer to other sources, e.g. grey literature) to support their understanding of the topic and to create a platform for a critique which will ultimately be presented to the cohort, in a presentation and synthesised/cited in MindMap form[3]. The group will engage independently in a discussion forum on the merits/demerits of the supplementary articles before progressing to a critique which leverages the collective review of the literature. Subsequently, this forms the basis of the group presentation. The assignment invites you to delve into the literature on Innovation Management while exploring the topics, issues and questions outlined in the brief below. It will also facilitate peer learning and peer teaching, drawing the competencies and experience of cohort members.

Focus on relevance to practice in conjunction with conceptual rigor – this approach largely underpins your assigned work within this Level 9/MSc programme.

TIMELINE:	TOPIC

Topic 1	New Product Development
	Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016). The Agile–Stage‐Gate Hybrid Model: A Promising New Approach and a New Research Opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 513-526.
The original Stage-Gate system was created in the 1980s, based on an in-depth study of successful “intrapreneurs” within major corporations as they drove successful new products to market. Their practices and the lessons they learned provided the foundation for that early stage-and gate model. Over the years, Stage-Gate has evolved and incorporated many new practices (see, for instance. Cooper 1994, 2008, 2011). Some companies have also developed their own versions of Stage-Gate, building in some positive elements, but also some negative ones.
Topic 2	Service Development
	Carlborg, P., Kindström, D., & Kowalkowski, C. (2014). The evolution of service innovation research: a critical review and synthesis. The Service Industries Journal, 34(5), 373-398.
The number of service innovation articles has increased dramatically in the past 25 years. By reviewing 128 articles published between 1986 and 2010, primarily in leading marketing and innovation journals, this study analyzes the progression of service innovation research according to topicality and perspective. The authors summarize prior research by clustering it into three evolutional phases and drawing parallels with the evolution of the wider services marketing field. Overall, the view of service innovation has evolved, from a complement of traditional product innovation to a multidimensional, all-encompassing notion that entails several functions, both within and outside the firm.
Topic 3	Design Thinking
	Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124-148.
Design thinking has attracted considerable interest from practitioners and academics alike, as it offers a novel approach to innovation and problem-solving. However, there appear to be substantial differences between promoters and critics about its essential attributes, applicability, and outcomes. To shed light on current knowledge and conceptualizations of design thinking we undertook a multiphase study. First, a systematic review of the design thinking literature enabled us to identify 10 principal attributes and 8 tools and methods. To validate and refine our findings, we then employed a card sorting exercise with professional designers. Finally, we undertook a cluster analysis to reveal structural patterns within the design thinking literature. Our research makes three principal contributions to design and innovation management theory and practice.

Your initial objective is to create a group discussion around the allocated theme (see group setting on Brightspace) and subsequently to use that as the basis for your group presentation. The critique will follow the headings below. Upload your annotated presentation deck to Brightspace.

Key Criteria for the Discussion, Slide deck & Presentation

1.	Abstract/ Business Issue	Settle on a concise interpretation of the innovation theme along with relevant implications for practice. Avoid flat summaries but rather employ an analytical approach – be brief about the ‘What’ and more elaborate about the ‘So What and Now What’.
2.	Mind Map	Create a Mind Map (check free tools e.g. https://coggle.it/ ) providing a summary overview of core components of the topic
3.	Models/Frameworks	Discuss the usefulness of any frameworks and their potential application to practice. Do not focus on computational aspects of papers other than to reflect the credibility of the contributions.
4.	Illustrate by example	Provide two examples of the theme by reference to practice as illustrated in public sources or drawing on the groups’ experience
5.	Implications	Conclude by presenting four key ideas or arguments emerging from the group’s analysis of the concept and its application to business – consider your work context and your fellow class members in crafting this.
	Referencing/ Coherence	The work should reflect critical, creative and reflective thinking encompassing a logical structure and appropriate referencing and citation per the College of Business style guide http://www.apastyle.org/ is an additional resource which will serve you throughout your studies
	Timeline	All Groups
	Presentation detail	The group presentation will run to 18 slides @12 minutes max. All group members are expected to contribute, but not necessarily to present. After the introduction, the group will use a mind mapping tool of their choice to share a synthesis of their learning (1 slide), this may include video clips, images, etc. The presentation should address the prescribed topic – using the headings above as a guide. Evidence of practical interpretation of the theoretical ideas and concepts is a priority.
		The annotated (confine notes to the space available) 18 slide presentation should be uploaded to Brightspace by 11:59pm on December 8^th presented on 9^th Monday in class.

Some tips to make the task easier

Trial the discussion board to familiarize yourself with the functionality.

Stick to the PowerPoint page limit and don’t make the pages too long, focus on quality not quantity. Your bibliography does not count toward the page total.
It is better to include all the information and then edit it rather than try to exclude it from the outset. That way, content can be synthesized/moved rather than excluded.
If you are having a problem – the forums, your group and your tutor are there to resolve it. Chances are it is a very common concern and can be easily fixed.
Remember that the written word is a powerful tool. Use it wisely and remain professional at all times.

Workload

The objective of creating the discussion board is not length, it is relevance, depth and quality. Thereafter you will produce a high quality, concise guide to a particular topic.

There are a number of ways you can project manage the work including underlying roles such as; researcher, editor, writer and communicator etc. There is one cardinal rule when working online – be upfront about what you can do and follow through. Your group will rely on each other. Set a course and work together to achieve it. You will have an opportunity at the next seminar to talk it through, but don’t leave the work until the deadline. Start early.

Please remember

Your group timeline is up to you, manage the time you have well. You can (and should) embed multimedia, link to websites and reference articles and cases as necessary.

Grading

Grades are assigned using the standard grade descriptors which detail the relevant standards.

Your grades will be assigned using the following criteria:

The completion of the assignment objectives in the format provided by the given due date.
The overall standard of the information included in the presentation in terms of its relevance, clarity and applicability to a level 9 course
The interpretation and application of the information assembled in the discussion/presentation as it pertains to the management of innovation and creativity in organisations
Your participation at all stages of the idea generation and on the clarity and coherence of the presentation.

Groups

	Group Allocations – See Brightspace
New Product Development Process [ ]
Service Innovation [ ]
Design Thinking [ ]

3. Appendix 1: Innovation Audit References (Individual)

Selected material – note that this is not exhaustive

Adams, R., J. Bessant, R. Phelps and M. K. Bedfordshire (2006) ‘Innovation management measurement: A review’, International Journal of Management Reviews 8(1): 21-47.

Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management decision, 47(8), 1323-1339.

Birchall, D. W., Chanaron, J. J., & Soderquist, K. (1996). Managing innovation in SMEs: a comparison of companies in the UK, France and Portugal. International Journal of Technology Management, 12(3), 291-305.

Björkdahl, J., & Börjesson, S. (2012). Assessing firm capabilities for innovation. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 5(1-2), 171-184. **

Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2004) Bench Marking Best NPD Practices – I. Research Technology Management, 47, 31–43. See series (more Product than Company oriented – use in exceptional cases only).

Chiesa, V., P. Coughlan and C. A. Voss (1996) ‘Development of a Technical Innovation Audit’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 13(2): 105-136.

Cormican, K. and D. O’Sullivan (2004) ‘Auditing best practice for effective product innovation management’, Technovation 24(10): 819-829. **

Goffin, K. and R. Mitchell (2017) Innovation management: Strategy and implementation using the pentathlon framework: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hallgren, E. W. (2009) ‘How to Use an Innovation Audit as a Learning Tool: A Case Study of Enhancing High-Involvement Innovation’, Creativity & Innovation Management 18(1): 48-58.

Hansen, M. T., & Birkinshaw, J. (2007). The innovation value chain. Harvard business review, 85(6), 121. **

Holt, D. T., & Daspit, J. J. (2015). Diagnosing Innovation Readiness in Family Firms. California Management Review, 58(1), 82-96.

Lemon, M. and P. S. Sahota (2004) ‘Organizational culture as a knowledge repository for increased innovative capacity’, Technovation 24(6): 483-498.

Loewe, P. and J. Dominiquini (2006) ‘Overcoming the barriers to effective innovation’, Strategy & Leadership 34(1): 24-31. **

Noke, H. and Z. J. Radnor (2004) ‘Navigating innovation: a diagnostic tool supporting the process’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 15(2): 172-183.

Ortt, J. R., & van der Duin, P. A. (2008). The evolution of innovation management towards contextual innovation. European journal of innovation management, 11(4), 522-538.

Radnor, Z. J. and H. Noke (2006) ‘Development of an audit too for product innovation: The Innovation Compass’, International Journal of Innovation Management 10(1): 1-18.

Rush, H.,J. Bessant, et al. (2007). “Assessing the technological capabilities of firms: developing a policy tool.” R&D Management 37(3): 221-236.

Tidd, J., J. Bessant (2009) ‘Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change’: Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Tidd, J. and Hull, F.M. (2006) Managing Service Innovation: The Need for Selectivity rather than ‘Best Practice’. New Technology, Work and Employment, 21, 139–61.

Appendix 2: Broad Theme-based References (Group)

New Product Development

Barczak, G., A. Griffin and K. B. Kahn (2009) ‘Perspective: Trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 26(1): 3-23.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of management review, 20(2), 343-378.

Bonabeau, E., Bodick, N., & Armstrong, R. W. (2008). A more rational approach to new-product development. Harvard business review, 86(3), 96.

Cooper, R. G. (2016). Agile-Stage-Gate Hybrids. Research Technology Management, 59(1), 21-29. doi:10.1080/08956308.2016.1117317.

Cooper, R. G. (2017). Idea-to-Launch Gating Systems Better, Faster, and More Agile Leading firms are rethinking and reinventing their idea-to-launch gating systems, adding elements of Agile to traditional Stage-Gate structures to add flexibility and speed while retaining structure. Research Technology Management, 60(1), 48-52. doi:10.1080/08956308.2017.1255057.

Cooper, R. G. (2018). The drivers of success in new-product development. Industrial Marketing Management. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.005.

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004a). BENCHMARKING BEST NPD PRACTICES-I. Research Technology Management, 47(1), 31-43. doi:10.1080/08956308.2004.11671606.Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004b). Benchmarking Best NPD Practices – II. Research Technology Management, 47(3), 50-59. doi:10.1080/08956308.2004.11671630.

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004c). Benchmarking Best NPD Practices – III. Research Technology Management, 47(6), 43-55. doi:10.1080/08956308.2004.11671662.

Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016a). Agile-stage-gate: New idea-to-launch method for manufactured new products is faster, more responsive. Industrial Marketing Management, 59, 167-180. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.10.006.

Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016b). The Agile-Stage-Gate Hybrid Model: A Promising New Approach and a New Research Opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 513-526. doi:10.1111/jpim.12314.

Ettlie, J. E. and J. M. Elsenbach (2007) ‘Modified Stage-Gate® Regimes in New Product Development*’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 24(1): 20-33.

Lenfle, S., & Loch, C. (2010). Lost Roots: How Project Management Came to Emphasize Control Over Flexibility and Novelty. California Management Review, 53(1), 32-55. doi:10.1525/cmr.2010.53.1.32.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111-125.

Ries, E., & Euchner, J. (2013). What Large Companies Can Learn from Start-ups. Research-Technology Management, 56(4), 12-16.

Schwaber, K., (2004). Agile Project Management with Scrum. Microsoft Press, Washington.

Sommer, A. F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I., and Steger-Jensen, K. (2015). Improved product development performance through Agile/Stage-Gate hybrids: The next-generation Stage-Gate process? Research-Technology Management 58(1): 34–44.

Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2012). Product design and development (5th ed.). London; New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

[1] Make two or three references (max) to the organization to provide context

[2] Articles should be available through one of the electronic databases in the library and will ideally it will be from a high ranking journal.

[3] https://coggle.it/

Get Help By Expert

TU Dublin students often find the INNT9001 Innovation Management Individual Assignment challenging due to critical innovation audit analysis, theory synthesis, and applying frameworks to real organisations. Many struggle to structure a strong rationale, critique innovation processes, or translate learning into practical management implications. There’s no need to worry—Ireland Assignments provides expert tu dublin assignments help aligned fully with TU Dublin academic standards. You can also review expert-written management assignment samples to build trust and clarity. Order today with online assignment help and get your INNT9001 assignment written exclusively for you.