Barriers to Matching New Technologies and Market Opportunities in Established Firms

In industries that produce high‐technology products or are reliant on technology for administrative or manufacturing processes, it is essential appropriately to link technologies to markets in order to increase shareholder value and to build future cash flows. Research and development (R&D) allocations in such industries are greatly dependent on forecasts of the R&D project's estimated potential contribution to future cash flows, which is related to the project's ability to satisfy current or future customer needs. The resource allocation decisions are difficult, however, since both markets and technology are likely to be highly uncertain. Although the innovation literature ably has addressed specific relationships between certain factors and new product development outcomes, less attention has been given to obstacles faced in linking technology to markets. Grounded in a literature‐based discussion of technology and market opportunity, the authors develop a conceptual framework for identifying and understanding the barriers facing managers in the process of matching technologies to market opportunities. Technology and market barriers include technology‐market linkage, technology availability, technology and market capabilities of competitors, and business model feasibility. Strategy and structure barriers include competition for limited resources, technology capabilities, technology portfolio goals, current market strategies, and competition for control of market charters. Social and cultural barriers include interpretive and communication barriers between functional units and language and cultural barriers within the technology workforce. The article concludes with implications for researchers and managers. The conceptual framework presented here can encourage the development of a stream of research in the area of technology strategy and planning processes, allowing researchers to improve our understanding of the process of technology innovation. Managers can use the framework as a guide for addressing a wide range of issues related to the process of matching technologies to market opportunities. For example, rather than relying strictly on cash flow projections for estimating the value of a new technology, managers also should consider how the technology could create new market opportunities or could reshape existing ones.     

New Product Development Practices and Early‐Stage Firms: Two In‐Depth Case Studies

New product development practices (NPD) have been well studied for decades in large, established companies. Implementation of best practices such as predevelopment market planning and cross‐functional teams have been positively correlated with product and project success over a variety of measures. However, for small new ventures, field research into ground‐level adoption of NPD practices is lacking. Because of the risks associated with missteps in new product development and the potential for firm failure, understanding NPD within the new venture context is critical. Through in‐depth case research, this paper investigates two successful physical product‐based early‐stage firms' development processes versus large established firm norms. The research focuses on the start‐up adoption of commonly prescribed management processes to improve NPD, such as cross‐functional teams, use of market planning during innovation development, and the use of structured processes to guide the development team. This research has several theoretical implications. The first finding is that in comparing the innovation processes of these firms to large, established firms, the study found several key differences from the large firm paradigm. These differences in development approach from what is prescribed for large, established firms are driven by necessity from a scarcity of resources. These new firms simply did not have the resources (financial or human) to create multi‐ or cross‐functional teams or organizations in the traditional sense for their first product. Use of virtual resources was pervasive. Founders also played multiple roles concurrently in the organization, as opposed to relying on functional departments so common in large firms. The NPD process used by both firms was informal—much more skeletal than commonly recommended structured processes. The data indicated that these firms put less focus on managing the process and more emphasis on managing their goals (the main driver being getting the first product to market). In addition to little or no written procedures being used, development meetings did not run to specific paper‐based deliverables or defined steps. In terms of market and user insight, these activities were primarily performed inside the core team—using methods that again were distinctive in their approach. What drove a project to completion was relying on team experience or a “learn as you go approach.” Again, the driver for this type of truncated market research approach was a lack of resources and need to increase the project's speed‐to‐market. Both firms in our study were highly successful, from not only an NPD efficiency standpoint but also effectiveness. The second broad finding we draw from this work is that there are lessons to be learned from start‐ups for large, established firms seeking ever‐increasing efficiency. We have found that small empowered teams leading projects substantial in scope can be extremely effective when roles are expanded, decision power is ground‐level, and there is little emphasis on defined processes. This exploratory research highlights the unique aspects of NPD within small early‐stage firms, and highlights areas of further research and management implications for both small new ventures and large established firms seeking to increase NPD efficiency and effectiveness.     

Building Dynamic Capabilities in New Product Development through Intertemporal Integration

Although successful development of a given product may help explain the current success of a firm, creating longer‐term competitive advantage demands significantly more attention to developing and nurturing dynamic integration capabilities. These capabilities propel product development activities in ways that build on and develop technological and marketing capabilities for future product development efforts and create platforms for future product development. In this article, we develop a conceptual model of a dynamic integration process in product development, which we call intertemporal integration (ITI). In its most general form ITI is defined as the process of collecting, interpreting, and internalizing technological and marketing capabilities from past new product development projects and incorporating that knowledge in a systematic and purposeful manner into the development of future new products. Research propositions outlining the relationship of ITI to performance are presented. We provide specific examples of managerial mechanisms to be used in implementing ITI. We conclude with implications for research and practice. Effective management of ITI can increase new product development success and long‐term competitive advantage. This implies that management needs to engage in activities that gather and transform information and knowledge from prior development projects so that it can be used in future development projects. Project audits, design databases in computer‐aided design (CAD) systems, engineering notebooks, collections of test and experimental results, market research and test market results, project management databases, and other activities will all be important in the acquisition of knowledge from prior new product development (NPD) projects. Managers also should initiate the creation and maintenance of databases of technical and marketing information from prior projects, job performance reports, seminars and workshops related to technological issues and advances, and publication of technical journals to assist in the process of knowledge acquisition. Similarly, techniques such as assigning project managers from earlier development projects, reusing key components and technologies, and developing a company‐wide methodology for managing projects can be used to boost the application and use of knowledge.     

Beyond the water cooler: using socialization to understand use and impact of networking services on collaboration in a business incubator

Scholars and policymakers claim that Business Incubators (BIs) add value by facilitating internal cooperation between tenant firms. Taking a tenant perspective, this research investigates the impact of a tenant's length of BI tenure on the use of formal internal networking services the BI management provides, and then on the tenant's level of intra-BI cooperation. The premise is that BI tenants use and benefit more from formal internal networking services when their socialization through participation in BI informal networking activities is low. When socialization is high they will enjoy a stronger direct effect of tenant tenure on cooperation with other tenants. Findings from data collected from a Dutch BI confirm the premise of our moderated-mediation model. Results also show that both mechanisms complement each other and that each contributes significantly to tenants' sales growth. It lends support to the effectiveness of BI formal internal networking services, but also stresses the importance of socialization through informal networking activities.     

The Role of Market and Technical Information Generation in New Product Development

Firms are investing an increasing amount of time and resources to gather information about market and technology in new product development (NPD). Yet there is a lack of consistent understanding of whether such costly information generation activities can improve product outcomes. More importantly, it is unclear how the benefit of market information and technical information generation may differ and how they may jointly impact new product performance. This study examines the role of market and technical information generation in NPD in three ways: (1) It contrasts the effects of market and technical information generation on product outcomes; (2) it identifies conditions that moderate the effects of market and technical information generation and further investigates how the moderating effects differ for these two types of activities; and (3) it examines the joint effect of market and technical information generation to understand potential synergies between them. Using survey data at the NPD project level, we find that market information generation has an inverted U‐shaped effect on new product advantage, whereas the effect of technical information generation follows a U‐shape. Furthermore, these effects are moderated differently by two conditions: a firm’s R&D intensity that influences NPD projects’ need for different types of information, and the use of multidisciplinary teams that affects the degree to which information can be shared and utilized to improve product design. The findings provide important implications for organizational learning and shed light on how to manage information generation activities to achieve NPD success.     

Developing Sustainable New Products in the Textile and Upholstered Furniture Industries: Role of External Integrative Capabilities

Environmental sustainability has become one of the key issues for strategy, marketing, and innovation. In particular, significant attention is being paid by companies, customers, media, and regulators to development and consumption of green products. It is argued that through the efficient use of resources, low carbon impacts, and risks to the environment, green products can be essential to help society toward the environmental sustainability targets. The number of green product introductions is rapidly increasing, as demonstrated by the growing number of companies obtaining eco‐labels or third party certifications for their environmentally friendly products. Hundreds of companies representing most of the industries, such as Intel, SC Johnson, Clorox, Wal‐Mart, and Hewlett–Packard, have recently introduced new green products, underlining the need to develop products that create both economic and environmental values for the firm and customers. A review of the literature shows that academic research on green product development has grown in interest. However, to date, only a few empirical studies have addressed the challenge of integrating environmental issues into new product development (NPD). Previous empirical works have mainly focused on a set of activities for the green product development process at the project level. After years of paying no or marginal attention to environmental sustainability issues, most of the companies now generally realize that it would require knowledge and competencies to develop green products on a regular basis. These knowledge and competencies can be varied, such as R&D, environmental know‐how, clean technology/manufacturing process, building knowledge on measuring environmental performance of products, etc., that may be developed internally or can be integrated through external networks. Adopting a resource‐based view of the firm, this article aims at (1) investigating the role of capabilities useful for companies to integrate knowledge and competencies from outside of the firm on green product development in terms of both manufacturing process and product design and (2) understanding whether green product development opens new product, market, and technology opportunities, as well as leads to better financial performance of NPD programs. To this end, a survey was conducted in two Italian manufacturing industries in which environmental issues are becoming increasingly important, namely textiles and upholstered furniture. A questionnaire was sent to 700 firms, and 102 useable questionnaires were returned. Results show that (1) companies engage in developing external integrative capabilities through the creation of collaborative networks with actors along the supply chain, the acquisition of technical know‐how, and the creation of external knowledge links with actors outside the supply chain; (2) external knowledge links play a key role in the integration of environmental sustainability issues into the manufacturing process, whereas capabilities such as the acquisition of technical know‐how and the creation of collaborative networks prove to be more important for integrating environmental issues into product design; and (3) the integration of environmental sustainability issues into NPD programs in terms of product design leads to the creation of new opportunities for firms, such as opening new markets, technologies, and product arenas, though not necessarily leading to improved financial performance of the NPD programs.     

Market Information Acquisition,Use, and New Venture Performance*

A substantial body of existing research has linked firm performance to the acquisition and use of customer, competitor, and other market information. This paper examines the impact on new venture performance of formal processes for market information collection and use. This study hypothesizes that new venture performance will be an increasing function of both market information and use. Two moderator hypotheses are also tested. In particular, it is expected that the impact of formal market information processes will be greater in market‐driven new ventures than in technology‐driven new ventures. These hypotheses were tested using data collected from 222 Chinese new ventures. The empirical analysis confirms the positive role of formal processes in new venture performance. However, the analysis does not support the moderator hypotheses. This study finds that (1) formal processes for information acquisition are equally important in technology‐driven and market‐driven firms and (2) formal processes for information use have a greater impact on new venture performance in technology‐driven firms than in market‐driven firms.     

Applying multiple perspectives to the design of a commercialization process

Most commercialization models begin by taking an idea through some sort of stage‐gate product development process. There is much talk about building market thinking into this process, but this paper argues that much more is required. The research identified three perspectives required to be present at all stages of product development. The first is labelled ‘technical and operational’, the second ‘strategic’ and the third ‘commercial’. The paper argues that each perspective is required at every stage to drive the right activities that lead to successful commercialization. The science, idea and opportunity stage leads onto the technology and feasibility stage, which in turn leads onto the product and market readiness stage. The research applied the grounded theory methodology to categorize and represent data obtained from interviews and desk research. The resulting model was introduced to a New Zealand Crown Research Institute during a consulting assignment in 2004. Three external experts were selected based on their particular perspectives and experience in the area of product development. Each perspective was built into the commercialization process. Applying multiple perspectives has led to a more robust approach to product development and a greater awareness of how multiple tools work together to create a holistic product development process. Each perspective of the commercialization process can be broken down into detailed stages. The technical and operational perspective addresses areas such as opportunity creation, proof of concept and market readiness. The strategic perspective addresses areas such as strategic fit, strategic analysis/choice and pathways to market. Finally, the commercial perspective addresses areas such as opportunity assessment, feasibility study/business planning and launch.After being in place for 18 months, the challenges faced in implementation were discussed with the current commercialization manager and the model was adapted to another institute wishing to develop a design‐led commercialization process. A key finding of the research was the common understanding of language and meaning across three distinct disciplines and the involvement of each discipline in the decision‐making process. All parties accepted the value of each other's contribution once the different perspectives were understood and accepted. The paper provides useful insights for those involved in the design of commercialization processes and establishes a multi‐dimensional framework that assists in facilitating the different perspectives required for successful commercialization.     

Structural and contextual correlates of charged behavior in product development teams

Firms increasingly use cross‐functional teams to develop new products, yet we know little about the processes that make teams excel. Although studies have focused on within‐team processes like cooperation between and integration of individuals from various functional areas, some emerging literature suggests that the processes that make teams excel are richer and more complex than cooperation and integration. In order to capture the processes that lead to excellent market performance of new products, we introduce the concept of charged team behavior, the extent to which cross‐functional product development teams are enthusiastically and jointly driven to develop superior new products. Charged team behavior captures not only the drive, commitment, and joy of team members, but also their collaborative behaviors to achieve an exceptional outcome. We propose and test a series of hypotheses concerning how charged behavior affects new product market performance and how charged behavior is, in turn, influenced by both team structural characteristics (physical proximity, team longevity, and outcome interdependence) and contextual factors (senior management encouragement to take risk, quality orientation, exposure to customer input, extent of competition, and interdepartmental connectedness). It is particularly important to examine the antecedents of charged behavior because there are concerns that some of the team‐related factors generally considered to be useful for teams may not necessarily lead to charged teams. Data from new consumer product development teams is analyzed though structural equation modeling for hypothesis testing. We find evidence that highly charged teams are more likely to develop successful new products. Results also indicate that outcome interdependence, exposure to customer input, extent of competition, and interdepartmental connectedness are positively related to charged behavior. Physical proximity, team longevity, encouragement to take risk, and quality orientation do not improve teams' charged behavior. Data suggests that charged team behavior: 1) fully mediates the effects of outcome interdependence and interdepartmental connectedness on performance, 2) partially mediates the influence of exposure to customer input and the extent of competition on performance, and 3) does not mediate the effects of quality orientation and physical proximity on performance. Our study highlights the importance of creating highly charged product development teams in order to achieve exceptional performance. Further, our results indicate that some of the factors suggested by traditional social psychology research for enhancing team effectiveness (e.g., physical proximity and team longevity) may not necessarily create charged teams. Instead, charged teams need a special arrangement, in which members are accountable to the team and where their evaluations and rewards are also linked to the performance of the team. In addition, although a strong emphasis on quality is considered to be beneficial for new products, as our results indicate, such emphasis cannot create a charged atmosphere. Moreover, our research suggests that if the organization structure does not permit frequent contact between individuals across functional boundaries, the creation of a strongly charged team and development of a successful new product will be hindered.     

Exploring the Nonlinear Impact of Organizational Integration on New Product Market Success

This article explores the nonlinear relationship between organizational integration and new product market success (NPMS). The concept of organizational integration was measured by assessing the degree of integration among various groups of people involved in the development of new products including new product development (NPD) teams that are typically the focal points of NPD efforts. New product market success was measured by examining four often‐used measures of NPD success. The mail survey research approach was used to gather empirical data from NPD managers in three major industries. The data gathered from this survey process were used as the basis from which to extract information to address this study's major research questions, which include: (1) How is the degree of new product market success related to the nonlinear degree to which groups of people (including NPD teams) integrate during NPD processes? and (2) How is the degree of new product market success related to the nonlinear degree to which separate groups of people (e.g., customers, suppliers, and functional departments) integrate during NPD processes? This study found that high levels of organizational integration (overall organizational integration and supplier organizational integration) during NPD processes are associated with high levels of new product market success. Additionally, this study found that the relationship between new product market success and organizational integration (customer organizational integration and functional organization integration) during NPD processes exhibit nonlinear, U‐shaped relationships. Therefore, the first important finding of this study confirms that various forms of organizational integration impact in a positive way the market success of new products. This suggests that management responsible for all NPD projects should consciously integrate important groups of people to support such developments. This study's findings also confirm and imply that new product developers in the studied industries should integrate marketing and research and development (R&D) over the duration of the NPD process. This suggests that new product managers must be proactive to assure that members of NPD teams are actively engaged with groups of supporting people within and outside new‐product–producing organizations. Unlike prior research, a major finding of this study suggests that the association between organizational integration and new product market success does not form inverted U‐shaped relationships. Data from this research imply that new product market success is linearly influenced by overall and supplier organizational integration. However, this study's data suggest that new product market success is nonlinearly influenced by customer and functional organizational integration. This study's data suggest that when customer organizational integration and/or functional organizational integration is increased, new product market success can be increased at a rate which is greater than a linear rate.     

First Product Success: A Mediated Moderating Model of Resources,Founding Team Startup Experience,and Product‐Positioning Strategy

The success of the first product is of paramount importance for the future development of the new venture. Developing and launching a first product in the Chinese market is even more challenging than in a well‐developed market economy because of weak enforcement of intellectual property laws, a general consumer distrust of new products developed by Chinese firms, and the immediate threat of copycat. This article develops a mediated moderating model to examine first product success in Chinese new ventures, in which product‐positioning strategy (conceptualized as the degree of product differentiation) mediates the impacts of marketing resources, technical resources, and founding team startup experience on product success (conceptualized as timing of product launch and product market and financial performance). Furthermore, we argue that founding team startup experience moderates the impact of marketing and technical resources on building strong product‐positioning strategy. We test our conceptual model using a sample of 909 new products developed by 909 Chinese new ventures in a two‐step selection model. The empirical results provide important insight for new ventures' first product development. Product differentiation does not mediate the impact of marketing resource on product success; but it fully mediates the impact of technical resources on timing of product launch and partially mediates the impact of technical resources on product performance. Marketing resources have significant direct positive effects on both product performance and timing of product launch. Surprisingly, the impacts of marketing resources on product differentiation and product performance are negatively, not positively, moderated by founding team experience. When the founding team has nine years or less startup experience, an increase in marketing resources leads to a significant increase in product differentiation; and when the founding team has more than nine years of startup experience, an increase in marketing resources will not lead to an increase in product differentiation. The impact of marketing resources on product performance is smaller for founding teams with more prior startup experience than those with less prior startup experience. The impacts of technical resources are not moderated by founding team startup experience. Technical resources positively affect product market and financial performance directly as well as through its positive impacts on product differentiation. However, technical resources can negatively affect timing of the product launch because developing a highly differentiated produce can potentially delay the launch of the product. Therefore, new ventures have to be mindful in managing the available resources to succeed in the first product development.     

Perspective: The Innovation Dilemma: How to Innovate When the Market Is Mature

Most companies have ambitious growth goals. The trouble is there are only so many sources of market growth. Markets in many countries and industries are mature and increasingly commoditized; achieving growth in market share is expensive; and acquisitions often do not work. For most companies, product development means line extensions, improvements, and product modifications, and only serves to maintain market share. Markets aren't growing, so firms increasingly compete for a piece of a shrinking pie by introducing one insignificant new product after another. The launch of a truly differentiated new product in mature markets is rare these days. As a result, development portfolios have become decidedly less innovative since the mid‐1990s, and R&D productivity is down. The answer is bold innovation—breakthrough products, services and solutions that create growth engines for the future. This means larger‐scope and more systems‐oriented solutions and service packages. Examples such as Apple's iPod are often cited. (Note that Apple did not invent the MP3 player, nor was this opportunity in a blue ocean; in fact there were 43 competitors when Apple launched!) What Apple did succeed in was in identifying an attractive strategic arena (MP3s) where it could leverage its strengths to its advantage and then to develop a solution that solved users’ problems. The result—an easy‐to‐use, easy‐to‐download MP3 system, which also happened to be “cool.” Our benchmarking studies reveal that five vectors must be in place to undertake this type of innovation to yield bolder and more imaginative development projects. First, develop a bold innovation strategy that focuses your business on the right strategic arenas that promise to be engines of real growth. Most businesses focus their efforts in the wrong areas—on flat markets, mature technologies, and tired product categories. Break out of this box towards more promising strategic arenas with extreme opportunities. Next, foster a climate and culture that promotes bolder innovation. Leadership is vital to success. If senior management does not have the appetite for these big concepts, then all your efforts and systems will fail. Senior management plays a vital role here in promoting an innovative climate in your business. Next, create “big ideas” for integrated product‐service solutions. The best methods for generating breakthrough new product ideas are identified in this paper. Then drive these “big concepts” to market quickly via a systematic and disciplined idea‐to‐launch system designed for major innovation initiatives. Just because these projects are imaginative and bold is no reason to throw discipline out the window. In fact, quite the reverse is true. Finally build a solid business case and focus on the winners. Most innovation teams don't get the facts, and consequently build weak business cases; the result is that many worthwhile innovations don't get the support they need to be commercialized. It's essential to do the front‐end homework, and so build a compelling business case. Then make the right investment decisions—evaluating “big concepts” for development when little information is available. Note that financial models don't work well when it comes to evaluating major innovations, because the data are often wrong. But other methods can be used to make these tough go/kill decisions. Illustrations and examples are provided from many industries and companies to show how to implement these five vectors.     

Market frictions as building blocks of an organizational economics approach to strategic management

This paper shows that market frictions are fundamental building blocks for an organizational economics approach to strategic management. Various organizational economic approaches (transaction costs, property rights, real options, and resource‐based) have distinctive focal problems and emphasize different combinations of market frictions. A wider recognition of the role of market frictions is useful for three main objectives. First, it helps identify an evolving market‐frictions paradigm in strategic management. Second, it shows how two primary questions in strategy of why firms exist and why some firms outperform others and the three primary strategic goals of cost minimization, value creation, and value capture can be better joined and evaluated. Third, different combinations of market frictions can generate new research questions and advance theory development in the strategic management field. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Interaction Orientation and Product Development Performance for Taiwanese Electronics Firms: The Mediating Role of Market‐Relating Capabilities

While academics and practitioners are increasingly aware of the value of including the customer in new product development (NPD), processes for doing so effectively remain unclear. Therefore, this study explores the process through which a firm's interaction orientation (the ability to effectively interact with customers) influences product development performance. Drawing on the resource‐based view, this study develops a research model in which two market‐relating capabilities—market‐linking and marketing capabilities—mediate the effect of interaction orientation on product development performance. The validity of this model is examined by analyzing primary data gathered from 167 Taiwanese electronics companies. The model results provide support for a process link between interaction orientation, market‐relating capabilities, and product development performance, such that a firm's capabilities enable the conversion of customer‐based resources into productive new product outcomes. More specifically, the interaction orientation–product development speed relationship is mediated by both marketing and market‐linking capabilities, while the interaction orientation–product innovativeness relationship is partially mediated by marketing capability. That is, interaction orientation has indirect effects on product innovativeness and product development speed by strengthening both marketing and market‐linking capabilities that in turn improve product development performance. In addition, the results suggest that a firm's interactive rationality moderates the relationship between interaction orientation and marketing capability. Overall, this study enhances our understanding of how firms achieve superior product development performance by developing effective customer interaction. The findings of this study provide important strategic insights into NPD.     

Building competences for new customer value creation: An exploratory study

Recent marketing literature suggests companies to become market driving (proactive business logic, changing the rules of the market) instead of market driven (reactive business logic, customer-led). This transformation implies that companies are able to boost their capacity to create new customer value. Based on survey data of business-to-business markets, we advance a tentative model that links competence development to new customer value creation. Although exploratory in its nature, our study exhibits that companies should build three types of competences: marketing practices for external knowledge absorption, general organizational competences and supply chain/network competences. Using cluster analysis, we are able to further link these competences to the capacity of new value creation. Four clusters are detected with different degrees of expertise in new value creation and each displaying their own profile of competences. Becoming market driving requires an integrated and balanced view on marketing practices.     

Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries in large corporations: a comparison of perspectives

A substantial body of literature addresses the motivation of technical professionals in large corporations. Included are considerations of the motivation of subgroups, such as contrasting the motivation of scientists and engineers. Notably absent, however, is an in‐depth, multiple‐perspective consideration of both the motivation and demotivation of the small number of individuals in nearly every corporation who contribute significantly and disproportionately to the growth and profitability of the corporation. These exceptional, high‐performing technologists, whom we refer to as technical visionaries (TVs), are the drivers of breakthrough, radical innovation. Through 64 in‐depth interviews with TVs, their direct technical managers (TMs) and their human resource managers (HRMs), this research explores the similarities and differences in perception between these three groups concerning TV motivation and demotivation. TMs predominantly apply informal, personalized, and relational management motivating techniques. HRMs predominantly perceive value in the formalized, standard corporate structures and reward systems that serve the ‘typical employee’ for motivating TVs. By comparing the perspectives of TVs, TMs, and HRMs, we observe that the TMs are in strong alignment with TV perspectives on motivation and demotivation, while the HRMs are not in alignment with TV perspectives. Interestingly, both TMs and HRMs emphasize techniques most readily available to them. Most notable relative to demotivating TVs, the HRMs are least able to articulate an understanding consistent with that of the TVs. Based on these and other observations, we offer recommendations for those who manage these critical and unique technical visionaries.     

The strategic dilemmas of innovative enterprises: proposals for high‐technology sectors

High levels of research and development (R&D) expenditure, pressure for innovation and the creation of new knowledge are features that distinguish high‐technology (high‐tech) enterprises from other, less technologically advanced, firms. Confronted with multiple contemporary approaches to strategy and turbulence in their environment, these enterprises make strategic choices continuously and dynamically. This paper proposes a model and matrix for the classification of high‐tech enterprises’ development strategies (with regard to their specific features), which are then verified. Qualitative research was conducted in 61 medium and large high‐tech companies based in Poland that operate either in Poland or in the global marketplace. The results show that high‐tech firms have the fundamental goal of developing R&D activity as a resource (and its redundancy) rather than product/market goals. The studied firms strive above all for leadership in innovation, creating new technologies based on their own R&D resources, while also using outside sources and mostly applying the personalisation approach in knowledge management. However, they choose different paths for product and market development, depending on the opportunities presented by the environment, and the firm's ability to identify and take advantage of these.     

Building a Measurement Model for Market Visioning Competence and Its Proposed Antecedents: Organizational Encouragement of Divergent Thinking,Divergent Thinking Attitudes,and Ideational Behavior

The overall question that this research seeks to answer is the following: Are there individual and/or organizational resources related to “divergent thinking” that enhance or inhibit the firm's market visioning competence in the case of radical innovation? In order to answer this question, in this paper, the key focus is on the realm of potential divergent thinking‐related resources that the firm may possess and access to aid in the creation and development of an effective market visioning competence. In particular, individual‐level factors related to divergent thinking capabilities and, at the organizational level, encouragement of such capabilities, are investigated. Specifically, we propose that two organizational‐level factors related to organizational encouragement of divergent thinking (“encouraging ideas” and “encouraging diversity”), two individual‐level divergent thinking attitudes factors (“openness” and “ability to move from divergent thinking to convergent thinking efficiently and effectively”), one individual‐level ideational behavior factor (“ability to generate new ideas”), and a further individual cognitive factor (“need for cognition”) have direct impacts on market visioning competence. Scales are then developed and tested for measuring these potential antecedents, and they are included in a measurement model with market visioning competence to enable further research.     

Market Orientation and the New Product Paradox

The extant literature shows that the strength of the market orientation–performance relationship decays as the terminal measure of performance shifts from new product success to profitability to market share. As Day (1999) concluded, a broader nomological inquiry is needed to more fully understand the nature and limits of market orientation's effects. This suggests that a broader nomological inquiry is needed to fully understand the nature and limits of market orientation's effects.
Utilizing a national sample of marketing executives, the present study's purpose is to build a fuller understanding of the effects of market orientation on firm performance. Its structural equations model includes measures of new product success, profitability, and market share.
The research reinforces a strong positive relationship between market orientation and new product success. The expanded nomological network under study, however, implies barriers to market orientation's effectiveness. First, market-orientation-inspired increases in the priority firms place on "breakthrough" learning without commensurate increases in the priority placed on "breakthrough" innovation capabilities can boomerang and negatively impact new product success. Second, market-orientation-inspired new product development programs that are unable to increase market share can negatively impact profitability. These gatekeepers to the success of market orientation underscore the need for firms to coordinate a strong market orientation with resources and capabilities that increase the effectiveness of the marketing function. Without such coordination, the positive effect of market orientation on new product success may be limited to incremental innovations, and the overall effect of successful new products on profitability may be limited.     

COMPETITION AND COST OVERRUNS IN PROCUREMENT*

Most cases of cost overruns in public procurement are related to important changes in the initial project design. This paper provides a rationale for the observed pattern in public procurement of underinvestment in design specification. We propose a two‐stage model in which the sponsor first decides how much to invest in design specification and auctions the project to horizontally differentiated contractors. After the contract has been awarded and implemented, the sponsor and contractor receive new information about the optimal project design and renegotiate the contract to accommodate changes in the initial project's design. We show that the sponsor's optimal strategy is to underinvest in design specification, which makes significant cost overruns likely. Since no such underinvestment occurs when contractors are not horizontally differentiated, cost overruns are seen to arise as a consequence of lack of competition in the procurement market.