Product Innovativeness Dimensions and Their Relationships with Product Advantage,Product Financial Performance,and Project Protocol

A considerable body of research informs the relationship of product innovativeness with firm and environmental variables as well as the impact of product innovativeness on product financial success. While providing significant insight, the extant literature exhibits conflicting findings that raise questions as to how, specifically, product innovativeness contributes to product financial performance. This study ties together several streams of research related to the product innovativeness construct to enhance understanding of the product innovativeness—product financial performance relationship. The product innovativeness construct is deconstructed by conceptualizing the relationships among three dimensions of product innovativeness: technological discontinuity, marketing discontinuity, and customer discontinuity. Product innovativeness is distinguished from product advantage, and the relationships among product innovativeness dimensions, product advantage, and product financial performance are empirically tested. The results reveal that, indeed, product innovativeness consists of three separate dimensions that exhibit no or moderate correlations with product advantage. Furthermore, product advantage positively and marketing discontinuity negatively influence product financial performance. Finally, the study also examines how project protocols impact the product innovativeness dimensions. Project protocols, also known as product definitions, describe the general parameters a new product should exhibit (i.e., target segments, product functions and features, base technology, pricing, communication and distribution channels, and required resources) as well as the priorities of the general parameters. Because they guide product design and set priorities and have been found to be a dominant driver of product financial performance, project protocols are important. The present study enhances understanding of how project protocols influence the dimensions of product innovativeness, finding that project protocols positively impact product financial performance indirectly through product advantage and marketing discontinuity.     

It Won't Fit! For Innovative Products,Sometimes That's for the Best

The degree of overlap (i.e., fit) between product development organizations' resources and the product development projects pursued has powerful performance implications. Drawing on organizational learning theory and the resource‐based view, this research conceptualizes and empirically tests the interrelationships between the levels of fit, innovativeness, speed to market, and financial new product performance. After reviewing the research literature relevant to resource fit and new product performance, the level of innovativeness is posited to be an important moderating and mediating factor, which is validated by analysis of data gathered from 279 product developing firms. Technological fit has a negative direct effect on both technological and market innovativeness, while the use of existing marketing resources (i.e., a high degree of marketing fit) positively impacts technological innovativeness. This suggests, consistent with findings from market orientation research, that a deep, long‐held customer understanding can promote technological innovativeness. The moderating hypotheses proposed are also well supported: First, a high degree of marketing fit has a more positive impact on performance for market innovative products (e.g., products which address a new target market or use a nontraditional channel for the firm). Drawing on a deep customer understanding is more critical to performance for market innovative products. Conversely, the benefits of marketing fit are limited where market innovativeness is lacking. Interestingly, the counterpart moderating role of technological innovativeness on technological fit's performance effect is not significant; the level of technological innovativeness does not significantly impact the performance impact of technological fit. There are also significant moderating effects across dimensions. Our results show that the financial benefit of using existing marketing resources is lessened for technologically innovative products. Technological innovations necessitate drastic adaptation of marketing resources (i.e., channel and brand); firms drawing only on existing marketing resources for a technologically innovative new product will incur reduced profit. Similarly, the positive implications of using existing technological resources are limited for products which are highly market innovative. Generally, resource fit is seen to have an (oft‐overlooked) dark side in product development, though several of our findings suggest that marketing resources are more flexible than are technological resources.     

Synergy,environmental context,and new product performance: A review based on manufacturing firms

This study adopts a meta-analytic approach to review the effects of technology synergy, marketing synergy and environmental context on new product performance by aggregating the empirical evidence documented in studies published from 1979 to 2011. Based on this aggregation, the results from a structural equation analysis show that (a) increasing technology and marketing synergies improves new product performance and the performance effect of marketing synergy is stronger than that of technology synergy; (b) increasing technology synergy enhances product advantage, which increases new product performance, whereas increasing marketing synergy does not; (c) increasing technology and marketing synergies may hinder product innovativeness; and (d) improving product innovativeness increases new product performance through product advantage. These findings suggest that ignoring the intermediary roles of product advantage and innovativeness may lead to an incomplete understanding of the relationships among technology and marketing synergies, environmental context, and new product performance. The results also demonstrate that technological turbulence affects new product performance through product innovativeness and advantage; in contrast, market intensity has a direct effect on new product performance. Future studies can examine the relationships among synergy, product effectiveness, and new product performance by constructing a mediated moderation or moderated mediation framework based on the environmental context.     

The Impact of Product Innovativeness on the Link between Development Speed and New Product Profitability*

A review of the literature reveals that the relationship between development speed and new product profitability is not as strong and straightforward as conventional wisdom suggests. A number of studies show positive results, others show mixed results, and some present no evidence of a relationship. In other words, the valence of the link between development speed and new product profitability is unclear at this time. Therefore, this study investigates whether or not speeding new products to market has positive or negative effects on new product profitability. Prior research shows that product innovativeness influences both development speed and new product profitability. This raises the question of whether increasing speed is equally successful in improving profitability across new products that differ in their degree of innovativeness. Therefore, this study also investigates the moderating effect of product innovativeness on the relationship between development speed and new product profitability. The results from a survey‐based study of 233 manufacturers of industrial products in the Netherlands reveal an inverted U‐shaped relationship between development speed and new product profitability. The findings also show that the optimal point is different for two new product types—product improvements and line additions—that vary in their innovativeness. These results provide an onset for the development of a decision tool that helps managers to determine how much to spend on accelerating the development of individual new products and how they should allocate that spending across products in their new product portfolio.     

Augmenting innovation project portfolio management performance: the mediating effect of management perception and satisfaction

Firms face the challenge of efficiently and effectively investing scarce resources in innovation projects in order to sustain or develop a firm's long‐term competitive advantage and sustainable growth. Innovation project portfolio management (IPPM) describes a firm's dynamic capability to assess the challenge of evaluating, selecting, and prioritizing innovation projects. The particular impacts of method usage, criteria usage, IPPM design, information availability, and internal interactions on management perception and satisfaction as well as on IPPM performance and innovativeness are hypothesized and tested. We found that methods and criteria play a negligible role in the IPPM context. IPPM design elements, like transparency and formality, are key drivers of high IPPM performance. Information availability is a key construct in driving IPPM performance, as well as management perception and satisfaction. Relevance of IPPM is supported by revealing IPPM performance's positive impact on firm performance, innovation project performance, and firm's innovativeness.     

How do internal capabilities and external partnerships affect innovativeness?

How do a firm’s internal capabilities and external partnerships contribute to its product and process innovativeness? How do their impacts differ? Based on the theoretical framework of exploitation and exploration, we develop an integrative model linking the impact of both internal capabilities and external partnerships on product and process innovativeness. Survey responses from Taiwanese biotechnology firms indicate that research and development (R&;D), marketing, and manufacturing capabilities have different effects on product and process innovativeness. Of the four types of external partnerships, only partnerships with universities and research institutes seem to add value, whereas partnerships with suppliers, customers, and competitors do not contribute to innovativeness. Moreover, marketing capability and customer partnerships have a positive interaction effect on product innovativeness, while manufacturing capability and supplier partnerships have a positive interaction effect on process innovativeness.     

How entrepreneurial orientation can leverage innovation project portfolio management

Innovation project portfolio management (IPPM) is a key task in R&D management because this decision‐making process determines which R&D projects should be undertaken and how R&D resources are allocated. Previous research has developed a good understanding of the role of IPPM in R&D strategy implementation and of successful IPPM practices. But the fundamental orientations that drive the strategy formation and implementation process have never been investigated in the context of IPPM, and it is unclear whether successful practices are equally valid for different strategic orientations. This study, therefore, investigates the moderating impact of a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation on the relationship between strategic portfolio management practices and portfolio success. An empirical analysis of 257 firms shows that both innovativeness and risk taking as entrepreneurial orientation’s dimensions positively moderate the relationship between managerial practices and performance. Specifically, we find that firms high in innovativeness profit more from stakeholder engagement compared to firms low in innovativeness. Firms high in risk‐taking profit more from a clearly formulated strategy. With increasing innovativeness and risk‐taking propensity, firms also profit more from business case monitoring and agility in portfolio steering. The results suggest that a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation can leverage the effect of IPPM practices. Vice versa, a lacking entrepreneurial orientation can render these practices ineffective. Strategic orientation and IPPM practices should, therefore, be aligned with each other to enable firms to better implement their strategy and generate competitive advantage.     

What Makes a Family Firm Innovative? CEO Risk‐Taking Propensity and the Organizational Context of Family Firms

Investigating the new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms connects two important topics that have recently received considerable attention in innovation and family firm research. First, new product portfolio innovativeness has been identified as a critical determinant of firm performance. Second, research on family firms has focused on the questions of if and why family firms are more or less innovative than other organizational forms. Research investigating the innovativeness of family firms has often applied a risk‐oriented perspective by identifying socioemotional wealth (SEW) as the main reference that determines firm behavior. Thus, prior research has mainly focused on the organizational context to predict innovation‐related family firm behavior and neglected the impact of preferences and the behavior of the chief executive officer (CEO), which have both been shown to affect firm outcomes. Hence, this study aims to extend the previous research by introducing the CEO's disposition to organizational context variables to explain the new product portfolio innovativeness of small and medium‐sized family firms. Specifically, this study explores how the organizational context (i.e., ownership by top management team [TMT] family members and generation in charge of the family firm) of family firms interacts with CEO risk‐taking propensity to affect new product portfolio innovativeness. Using a sample of 114 German CEOs of small and medium‐sized family firms operating in manufacturing industries, the results show that CEO risk‐taking propensity has a positive effect on new product portfolio innovativeness. Moreover, the analyses show that the organizational context of family firms impacts the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness. Specifically, the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness is weaker if levels of ownership by TMT family members are high (high SEW). Additionally, the effect of CEO risk‐taking propensity on new product portfolio innovativeness is stronger in family firms at earlier generational stages (high SEW). This result suggests that if SEW is a strong reference, family firm‐specific characteristics can affect individual dispositions and, in turn, the behaviors of executives. Therefore, this study helps extend the knowledge on the determinants of new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms by considering an individual CEO preference and the organizational context variables of family firms simultaneously.     

Product innovativeness from the firm's perspective: Its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance

There has recently been tremendous interest in product innovativeness. However, it seems that we need a better understanding of exactly what product innovativeness means. This article presents a conceptual framework to clarify its meaning. The framework first distinguishes customer and firm perspectives on product innovativeness. From the customer's perspective, innovation attributes, adoption risks, and levels of change in established behavior patterns are regarded as forms of product newness. Within the firm's perspective, environmental familiarity and project-firm fit, and technological and marketing aspects are proposed as dimensions of product innovativeness.
Next, the article offers a tentative empirical test of the proposed dimensions of product innovativeness from the firm's perspective. A well-known dataset of 262 industrial new product projects is used to: I) clarify the product innovativeness construct and examine its underlying dimensions, 2) examine the relation of product innovativeness with the decision to pursue or kill the project, and 3) examine the relationship between product innovativeness and product performance. Five dimensions of product innovativeness are found which have distinct relations with the Go/No Go decision and product performance: market familiarity, technological familiarity, marketing fit, technological fit, and new marketing activities. Most strikingly, measures of fit are related to product performance, whereas measures of familiarity are not.
The article concludes that researchers need to be careful about which definitions and measures of product innovativeness they employ, because depending on their choice they may arrive at different findings. New product practitioners are encouraged to evaluate new product opportunities primarily in terms of their fit with their firm's resources and skills rather than the extent to which they are "close to home".     

Balancing your technology‐sourcing portfolio: How sourcing mode diversity enhances innovative performance

With external innovation becoming more and more important, many firms struggle with the question of how to balance their technology‐sourcing portfolio. This study addresses this issue by looking at the effects of portfolio diversity on performance outcomes and the conditions under which diversity is most likely to materialize. Using a dataset of strategic investments by pharmaceutical firms, the results show that the variance in relative technological proximity between the focal firm and its partners exhibits an inverted U‐shaped relationship with innovative performance and that this relationship is affected by the diversity of the external sourcing modes used in the portfolio.     

How do young firms manage product portfolio complexity? The role of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity

Building a complex portfolio of products can be beneficial for young firms due to increased sales growth and competitiveness. Yet, the benefits from product portfolio complexity (PPC) are often outweighed by rising costs, leading to an inverted U‐shaped relationship between PPC and performance. Recent research has called for an increased understanding of how firms are able to better manage higher levels of PPC. We suggest that absorptive capacity and ambidexterity are vital to enhancing the benefits and mitigating the costs of increasing PPC. Using a sample of 215 young high technology firms, we find support for positive moderating effects of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity on the inverted U‐shaped relationship between PPC and firm performance. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Determinants of Alliance Portfolio Complexity and Its Effect on Innovative Performance of Companies*

Alliance formation is often described as a mechanism used by firms to increase voluntary knowledge transfers. Access to external knowledge has been increasingly recognized as a main source of a firm's innovativeness. A phenomenon that has recently emerged is alliance portfolio complexity. In line with recent studies this article develops a measure of portfolio complexity in technology partnerships in terms of diversity of elements of the alliance portfolio with which a firm must interact. The analysis considers an alliance portfolio that includes different partnership types (competitor, customer, supplier, and university and research center). So far factors that determine portfolio complexity and its impact on technological performance of firms have remained largely unexplored. This article examines firms' decisions to form alliance portfolios of foreign and domestic partners by two groups of firms: innovators (firms that are successful in introducing new products to the market), and imitators (firms that are successful at introducing products which are not new to the market). This study also assesses a nonlinear impact of the portfolio complexity measure on firms' innovative performance. The empirical models are estimated using data on more than 1800 firms from two consecutive Community Innovation Surveys conducted in 1998 and 2000 in the Netherlands. The results suggest that alliance portfolios of innovators are broader in terms of the different types of alliance partners as compared to those of imitators. This finding underlines the importance of establishing a “radar function” of links to various different partners in accessing novel information. Specifically, the results indicate that foremost innovators have a strong propensity to form portfolios consisting of international alliances. This underlines the importance of this type of partnership in the face of the growing internationalization of R&D and global technology sourcing. Being an innovator or imitator also increases the propensity to form a portfolio of domestic alliances, relative to non‐innovators; but this propensity is not stronger for innovators. Innovators appear to derive benefit from both intensive (exploitative) and broad (explorative) use of external information sources. The former type of sourcing is more important for innovators, while the latter is more important for imitators. Finally, alliance complexity is found to have an inverse U‐shape relationship to innovative performance. On the one hand, complexity facilitates learning and innovativeness; on the other hand, each organization has a certain management capacity to deal with complexity which sets limits on the amount of alliance portfolio complexity that can be managed within the firm. This clearly suggests that firms face a certain cognitive limit in terms of the degree of complexity they can handle. Despite the noted advantages of an increasing level of alliance portfolio complexity firms will at a certain stage reach a specific inflection point after which marginal costs of managing complexity are higher than the expected benefits from this increased complexity.     

Innovation Field Orientation and Its Effect on Innovativeness and Firm Performance

New product development (NPD) has become a prime source for gaining a competitive edge in the market. Although a large body of research has addressed the question of how to successfully manage individual innovation projects, the management of a firm's new product portfolio has received comparably less research attention. A phenomenon that has recently emerged on the research agenda is innovation field orientation. Such orientation is understood as the deliberate setup and management of multiple thematically related NPD projects. However, the facets and effects of innovation field orientation are still unexplored. In particular, this study is interested in (1) developing a concept of innovation field orientation, (2) investigating the extent to which innovation field orientation is an established part of the corporate strategic planning practice, and (3) assessing the direct and indirect performance effects of innovation field orientation. For the empirical analysis, data were collected through a mail survey and document analyses from 122 publicly listed firms. Tobin's q was used as an objective performance metric directly related to shareholder value. The results confirm that innovation field orientation is a phenomenon that prevails in practice. In addition, all defining aspects of this orientation have either direct or indirect effects on firm performance. Hence, those firms that deliberately specify and manage innovation fields have a more innovative product portfolio and are more successful than others. Specifically, the findings underline the performance relevance of formally framing innovation fields and assigning a critical mass of resources to them. In addition, empirical support is lent to the suggestion that innovation field orientation has strong indirect performance effects mediated by the innovativeness of the firm's new product portfolio. This implies that firms that deliberately specify focus areas, assign resources to, provide organizational framing for, and stimulate synergies between related NPD projects stand a better chance to achieve a more innovative new product portfolio. This again is highly appreciated by investors and results in a superior stock market evaluation of these firms.     

The joint impact of quality and innovativeness on short-term new product performance

In the last decade a number of conceptualizations of product quality and innovativeness have been suggested, and academics as well as managers have begun to understand that the relationships between quality, innovativeness and new product performance are more complicated than they may initially seem to be. While an innovation-oriented strategy depends on the exploration of new possibilities through search, risk-taking and experimentation, a high quality strategy requires the exploitation of existing certainties through efficiency, standardization and control. In this research, we demonstrate that the interaction effects of quality (objective and subjective) and innovativeness (for the firm and for the customer) on new product performance are different than the isolated impact of these variables. In addition, by focusing on the main and joint impact of these variables on short-term new product performance, we provide valuable recommendations for new product launch decisions.“The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.”—Oscar Wilde     

The Contingent Value of Responsive and Proactive Market Orientations for New Product Program Performance*

While the benefits of being market oriented are largely accepted, a group of scholars and managers remain skeptical. Marketing scholars have sought to counter the criticisms leveled against market orientation (MO) by arguing that it has both responsive and proactive dimensions. However, few studies have empirically examined the complexity of the effects of these dimensions on firm performance. Drawing on theories of resource‐based advantage and organizational search behavior, this article advances understanding by arguing that responsive and proactive market orientations have curvilinear effects on product development performance, that their interaction may be positively related to product development performance, and that their effects on new product program performance are moderated differentially by the organizational implementation conditions and marketing function power. Survey results of 175 U.S. firms indicate support for most of the hypotheses. Specifically, whereas responsive MO has a U‐shaped relationship with new product program performance, proactive MO has an inverted U‐shaped relationship with new product program performance. Contrary to the arguments presented here, the interaction of both orientations is negatively related to new product program performance. This study finds that both orientations are needed; however, new product program performance is enhanced when one is at higher level and the other is at lower level. Finally, responsive MO is only positively related to new product program performance under specific conditions such as when strategic consensus among managers is high. On the other hand, the positive effect of proactive MO on new product program performance is further strengthened when learning orientation and marketing power are high. Overall, this study suggests that the effects of responsive and proactive MO on new product program performance are more complex than previously theoretically argued and empirically examined.     

Strategic Alignment and New Product Development: Drivers and Performance Effects

Strategic alignment is widely accepted as a prerequisite for a firm's success, but insight into the role of alignment in, and its impact on, the new product development (NPD) process and its performance is less well developed. Most publications on this topic either focus on one form of alignment or on one or a limited set of NPD performance indicators. Furthermore, different and occasionally contradictory findings have been reported. NPD scholars have long argued for the importance of fit between context and NPD activities. However, this body of literature suffers from the same weakness: most publications have a limited scope and the findings are not always consistent with results reported previously. This study addresses these deficiencies by examining (1) the effects of various internal and external factors on different forms of alignment, and (2) the effects of these forms of alignment on a set of NPD performance indicators. Strategic planning and innovativeness appear to affect technological, market, and NPD‐marketing alignment positively. Environmental munificence is negatively associated with NPD‐marketing alignment, but has no effect on the two other forms of alignment. Technological change has a positive effect on technological alignment, a negative effect on NPD‐marketing alignment, but no effect on market alignment. These findings suggest that internal capabilities are more likely to be associated with the development of strategic alignment than environmental factors are. Furthermore, technological and NPD‐marketing alignment affect NPD performance positively, while market alignment does not have any significant performance effects.     

Scale and performance in publicly funded collaborative research and development

This paper reports the results of an extensive empirical investigation on the role of project scale (reflected in consortium size and in project budget) on various performance dimensions of publicly funded collaborative research and development (R&D) projects. Recent trends in European research policy are founded on the premise that such scale economies do exist, hence the emphasis placed on the critical mass of R&D projects. We argue that large scale in collaborative R&D confers both positive and negative effects, and thus we hypothesize an inverse U‐shaped relation between scale and performance. We only find an inverse U‐shaped effect of consortium size on networking impacts and a U‐shaped effect of project budget on goal achievement. No other statistically significant relationships were found for the remaining performance dimensions (i.e. scientific outputs, technological outputs, and research capacity impacts). More generally, and consistent with recent work on the relation between quality and quantity in academic research, our analyses offer little evidence to support the idea that increasing scale generally improves collaborative R&D performance. It appears that the simple assumption ‘bigger is better’ in European Union‐financed collaborative R&D may need to be reconsidered.     

Supplier traits for better customer firm innovation performance

Previous research on embedded ties with suppliers in an innovation context has ignored the need for customer firms to assess and select suppliers on the basis of market orientation strategies and relationship marketing attributes. To address this void, this study investigates the effects of suppliers' downstream customer orientation and supplier-customer homophily (i.e., similarity of the supplier and the customer) on the customers' innovation performance. Data pertaining to new product development projects with contributions from supplier firms was collected on both sides of the supplier-customer dyad. The analysis shows that downstream customer orientation and supplier-customer homophily have a significant impact on the customer firms' new product efficiency (i.e., project cost and project speed) and new product effectiveness (i.e., innovativeness), which in turn positively influence new product performance in terms of profitability, market share, and growth.     

The Impact of Product Portfolio Strategy on Financial Performance: The Roles of Product Development and Market Entry Decisions

Innovation is one of the most important issues facing business today. The major difficulty in managing innovation is that managers must do so against a constantly shifting backdrop as technologies, competitors, and markets constantly evolve. Managers determine the product portfolio through key decisions about product development and market entry. Key strategic questions are what portfolio strategies provide the greatest reward. The purpose of this study is to understand the relative financial values of each component of a product portfolio. Specifically, the paper examines the short‐term and long‐term financial impacts of product development strategy and market entry strategy. These strategies reflect two critical tensions that must be balanced in product portfolio decision making and essentially determine a firm's product portfolio. In doing so, the paper also investigates how a firm's capabilities drive each component of a product portfolio. From the empirical analyses in the context of the biomedical device industry, the paper found important insights regarding product portfolio strategies. First, a large product portfolio helps a firm's financial performance. In particular, the pioneering new products have strongest impacts on short‐term performances, and nonpioneering mature products do not provide significant contribution. Second, the results indicate a persistent first‐mover advantage. The first‐to‐market new products yield not only an immediate effect, but also persistent long‐term effects, suggesting that it is important to be first in the market even though there may be short‐term losses. Third, the results suggest the need to balance between “mature” and “new” products. Also, firms need to balance “first‐to‐market” and “late‐entered” products. Because a new or pioneering product requires more resource, it may hurt other products in the portfolio. Thus, without support from mature or follower products, new products and pioneering products alone may not increase firm sales or profit. Fourth, from a long‐term perspective, the paper found that the financial market only rewards a firm's overall capability to deliver new products first in the marketplace. Thus, short‐term performance is mainly driven by product‐level innovativeness, whereas firm‐level innovativeness enhances forward‐looking long‐term performance. Fifth, the paper also found that pioneering new products are driven by integrating both primary and complementary technological capabilities. And nonpioneering new products are mainly driven by the capabilities in primary technology domain. These results provide important insight into the relative value and timing of return on investment in radical versus incremental innovation and alternative market entry strategies. By understanding the performance trade‐offs of these different factors in the short and long term, one can develop better guidelines for optimizing innovation strategies, and their dependence on both external and internal environmental conditions.     

An empirically-based typology of product innovativeness for new financial services: Success and failure scenarios

During the last decade, an increasing number of studies have been concerned with the factors that lead to new service success. Quite a few studies, however, have examined the role of product innovativeness in new service development and performance. The present article aims to test empirically a widespread, yet under‐researched argument, according to which, different innovative types may be associated with different development patterns and performance outcomes. On the basis of a detailed literature review we designed the conceptual framework for the present study. More specifically, we propose that the performance outcome of a new service is the result of the development process followed, which, in turn, is influenced by the innovativeness of the new service. The development process is examined through three blocks of variables, namely new service development activities (i.e., the “what” component), process formality (i.e., the “how” component) and cross‐functional involvement (i.e., the “who” component). Performance is viewed in relation to both financial and non‐financial outcomes. The different dimensions of innovativeness form the basis of our classification scheme. To collect the data, we followed the “dropping off method. That is, we handed in self‐administered questionnaires to participants and, a picking‐up appointment was set. Respondents were NSD project leaders who were asked to select two financial services, one successful and one unsuccessful, that they had developed within the last three years and reply to all questions relating to the development and launching of these services. Overall, 84 financial companies participated in the study, providing data for 132 new financial services (80 successes and 52 failures) developed and marketed in Greece. Data analysis revealed that six distinct service innovativeness types exist. They can be represented in the form of a continuum depending on the degree of innovativeness that characterizes each type. At the most innovative extreme of the continuum we find the new‐to‐the‐market services followed by new‐to‐the‐company services, new delivery processes, service modifications, service line extensions, while at the least innovative end service repositionings are placed. These six types are found to be associated with different development patterns in terms of activities, formality and cross‐functional involvement as well as performance outcomes. Interestingly enough, our data suggest an almost inverted U‐shaped relationship between the degree of innovativeness of a new financial service and financial performance. On the other hand, the major service innovations make the strongest contribution on non‐financial performance, while “me‐too” offerings are the least successful ones. The study has a number of research contributions as well as implications for managers involved in new service development in the financial services industry. The conceptualization of the continuum of innovativeness helps disclosing the critical points of the NSD process and its structuring which, depending of the type of new service and the degree of innovativeness that characterizes it, ensures that the management's objectives regarding the performance of the new service are attained.