First postdoc papers on Value; which to tackle first...

I have arranged for four weeks leave from my work at ANDS (Australian National Data Service), so tomorrow I can start writing my first postdoc papers on Value and Innovation. But which paper to work on first. Here are the options:

• A value theory of innovation (value in theory)
  Target Journal: Australian Journal of Emerging Technology, Research Policy, Journal of Product Innovation Management, IM Policy and Practice and ultimately Harvard Business Review
  
  
• Value management: managing innovation, creating value (value in practice)
  Target Journal: Sloan Management Review 1000, 5000 words
  
  
• Measuring innovation: a value approach (value in practice)
  Target Journal: Research Policy
  
  
• Value Frontier: visualising value (a value tool)
  Target Journal: Sloan Management Review 1000 words
  
  
• A fifth paper, I thought about today is: Accounting for Research and Innovation and why accounting concepts are poorly suited for business and government measuring innovation, and why value is a better framework to assess innovation by.
  Target Journal:
  
  
• A sixth paper is about a value interpretation of using case studies to measure research impact. See Dept of Innovation Discussion Paper on Measuring Research Impact: http://www.innovation.gov.au/impact for which comments are due shortly on August 16.
  Target Journal: Research Policy

So the next question is how do I decide the order. The last paper is the smallest, pointing at a tool. The first paper is the largest and the most theoretical, introducing the concepts. The second and third papers are implications of the value theory. The fourth paper is an explanation of a value tool; the Value Frontier for visualising value in multiple dimensions.

The first paper, to make it more manageable could be split into two papers:

1. Dimensions of value: what consumers value in 3G mobile phones
2. The process of value: how consumers construct value in 3G mobile phones

So there are several issues. The second, third and fourth papers rely on the concepts in the first paper/s. But the first will be the longest to develop. So should I write a fast tools paper with no conceptual basis, or grind through the theoretical paper. Perhaps I can write them all together and jump backwards and forwards between them to keep me fresh and motivated. But I am concerned that I might go around and around and not get to the end of any of them. Hmmm...

Which paper would be the most fun and keep me most motivated? Probably the tools paper.
Which paper is the obvious choice to start with? The theory paper, but it is a drag... and likely long and slow... and I am impatient for progress...
Which paper makes most sense to start with?

So ultimately this becomes a value question. The tools paper is 'fun' and 'quick', 'interesting' and 'lower impact', but the theory paper is 'slow' and 'laborious' but with 'high impact'. The tools paper also would make less sense without the theory paper to explain what is going on. However, I could likely reference the PhD document heavily for the conceptual basis.

Hmmm... your comments appreciated...

...after sleeping on it... I have realised the Dimensions of Value is the right place to start. See Ferrers (2009) for an early mention.