R&D,Firm Size and Innovation Outputs: Are Japanese Firms Efficient in Product Development?

Although Japanese firms in various industries enjoyed outstanding success during the 1980s, the recent economic news has been less favorable. Like their American counterparts, Japanese managers have faced difficult decisions regarding plant closures, layoffs, and moving production facilities overseas. Many Japanese business leaders attribute the innovation successes of the 1980s, at least in part, to economies of scale resulting from increases infirm size. If this assertion holds true, the current economic climate in Japan seems certain to result in diminished economies of scale for innovative activities. Ryuhei Wakasugi and Fumihiko Koyata test this assertion in a statistical study of the innovation efficiency of Japanese electrical machinery firms. In other words, their study explores whether the hypothesized economies of scale apply to the innovation inputs and outputs of these firms. They examine the manner in which R&D expenditures, patent applications, and product developments relate to the size of Japanese electrical machinery firms during the late 1980s and early 1990s—a period marked by high levels of innovative activity among these firms. For the Japanese electrical firms in this study, innovation inputs that is, R&D expenditures—increase in greater proportion than firm size. In other words, the larger firms in this study pursued their innovation efforts more aggressively than did the smaller firms in the study. In terms of R&D expenditures, however, the study does not reveal any resulting economies of scale for either patent applications or product developments. Similarly, analysis of the data in this study does not identify any economics of scale for product developments as a result of increases in firm size. In fact, the only economies of scale identified in the study involve firm size and the number of patent applications. In general terms, the statistical evidence in this study does not support the hypothesis that an increase in firm size improves the efficiency of innovation activity. To put this another way, the study does not provide evidence to support the hypothesis of economies of scale in product development.     

基于研发补贴类别的研发投入与专利产出关系研究——基于深圳中小板上市企业的经验证据

R&D补贴是政府干预企业技术创新活动的一个重要措施,其具有增加企业R&D资金,降低企业R&D成本的作用,本文以深圳中小板上市企业为样本,研究了我国的R&D补贴是否促进了企业创新绩效的提高,直接补贴和税收优惠的作用效果是否存在差异.实证结果表明,R&D直接补贴和税收优惠在R&D投资和专利产出之间起到了正向调节作用,且R&D直接补贴的正向调节作用更为显著.     

R&D Collaborations and Product Innovation*

This paper studies the relative impact on product innovation of research and development (R&D) collaborations with universities, suppliers, customers, and competitors. It argues that each type of R&D collaboration differs in terms of the breadth of new knowledge provided to the firm and in the ease of access of this new knowledge, resulting in a different impact on product innovation. As a result, it proposes that R&D collaborations with universities are likely to have the highest impact on product innovation, followed by R&D collaborations with suppliers, customers, and, finally, competitors. These arguments are tested on the R&D collaborations undertaken by a sample of 781 manufacturing firms during 1998–2002. The tests find that R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest positive impact on product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities. Surprisingly, R&D collaborations with customers do not appear to affect product innovation, and collaborations with competitors appear to harm it. Moreover, the positive influence of R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers is sustained over the long‐term, but the negative influence of R&D collaborations with competitors is, fortunately, short‐lived. These findings indicate that ease of knowledge access, rather than breadth of knowledge, appears to drive the success of R&D collaborations for product innovation. R&D collaborations with suppliers or universities, which are characterized by relatively easy knowledge access, have a positive influence on product innovation, whereas R&D collaborations with customers or competitors, which are characterized by reduced ease in knowledge access, are not related or are even negatively related to product innovation. Moreover, to achieve product innovation with the help of R&D collaborations, it appears that the collaboration must first have mechanisms in place to facilitate the transfer of knowledge; once these are in place, it is better if the partner has a relatively narrow knowledge base. Thus, while R&D collaborations with both suppliers and universities are positively related to product innovation, the narrow knowledge base provided by collaborations with suppliers appears to have a larger positive impact on product innovation than the wider knowledge base provided by collaborations with universities. These arguments and findings are important and novel. The paper is one of the first to theoretically explain and empirically show that various types of collaborations have a differential influence on product innovation. It goes beyond previous literature by providing a theoretical logic for ranking the likely impact of types of collaborations on product innovation. The study also suggests to managers to carefully select the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Collaborations with suppliers appear to be the most promising for product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities, whereas collaborations with competitors may be detrimental to product innovation.     

The Performance Impact of Content and Process in Product Innovation Charters

The significance of product innovation charters (PICs) cannot be overemphasized, as they provide understanding and a tool for setting organizational goals, charting strategic direction, and allocating resources for new product portfolios. In a unique way, a PIC represents a sort of mission statement mutation for new products. With the backdrop of strategy formulation and product innovation literatures, this article investigates the impact of both content specificity within PICs and satisfaction with the PIC formulation process on new product performance in North American corporations. A survey was undertaken among executives knowledgeable about their organization's new product development process. The respondents included chief executive officers, vice presidents, directors, and managers. The findings demonstrate that significant differences exist both in PIC content specificity and process satisfaction between highly innovative and low innovative firms. The study also shows that PIC specificity in terms of the factors mission content and strategic directives positively influences new product performance. Further, the study demonstrates that satisfaction with the process of formulating PICs plays a positive and powerful mediating role in the PIC specificity–performance relationship. The results suggest that product innovation charters, like their mission statement cousins, may be of more value than most managers realize. The study shows that achieving a state of organizational satisfaction with a PIC's formulation process is critical for obtaining better new product performance. Directions for future research also are suggested.     

The Impact of Market Orientation, Product Advantage, and Launch Proficiency on New Product Performance and Organizational Performance

Some scholars have suggested recently that a market‐oriented culture leads to superior performance, at least in part, because of the new products that are developed and are brought to market. Others have reinforced this wisdom by revealing that a market‐oriented culture enhances organizational innovativeness and new product success, both of which in turn improve organizational performance. These scholars do not reveal, however, through which new product development (NPD) activities a market‐oriented culture is converted into superior performance. To determine how critical NPD activities are for a market‐oriented firm to achieve superior performance, our study uses data from 126 firms in The Netherlands to investigate the structural relationships among market orientation, new product advantage, the proficiency in new product launch activities, new product performance, and organizational performance. We focus on product advantage—because product benefits typically form the compelling reasons for customers to buy the new product—and on the launch proficiency—as the launch stage represents the most costly and risky part of the NPD process. Focusing on the launch stage also is relevant because it is only during the launch that it will become evident whether a market orientation has crystallized into a superior product in the eyes of the customer. The results provide evidence that a market orientation is related positively to product advantage and to the proficiency in market testing, launch budgeting, launch strategy, and launch tactics. Product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics are related positively to new product performance, which itself is related positively to organizational performance. Market orientation has no direct relationship to new product performance and to organizational performance. An important implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on organizational performance is channeled through the effects of a market orientation on product advantage and launch proficiency; subsequently through the effects of product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics on new product performance; and finally through the effect of new product performance on organizational performance. These channeling effects are much more subtle and complex than the direct relationship of market orientation on organizational performance previously assumed. Another implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on performance occurs through the launch activities rather than being pervasive to all organizational processes and activities. A reason for this finding may be that NPD is the one element of the marketing mix that predominantly is the responsibility of the firm, whereas promotion and distribution often are in control of organizations outside the firm (e.g., advertising agencies, major retailers) and whereas the channel or the market often dictates the price. Both implications provide ample opportunities for further research on market orientation and NPD.     

创新行为与企业经营绩效:微观实证

创新是企业保持长久竞争力的不竭动力,创新行为对企业经营绩效会产生重要影响.运用面板随机效应模型和分位数回归方法,以2007年、2008年及2009年共3年的微观企业数据为样本,就创新行为与创业板公司的经营绩效进行了实证分析,研究表明:创新投入对经营绩效有正向促进作用,但缺乏弹性,并且其对经营业绩不好与经营业绩很好的公司影响都较小,最大受益者是经营业绩一般的公司.专利与企业经营绩效正相关,但专利对公司经营绩效条件分布的影响幅度并不稳定,表现出较大的波动性,非参数BootSrap方法表明以上回归结果具有稳健性.     

The Impact of Product Innovativeness on Performance

While many writers and strategists maintain that innovation is important, research has often demonstrated that product innovativeness does not have a major impact on the rate of success in the marketplace. Elko Kleinschmidt and Robert Cooper demonstrate that the relationship between product innovativeness and commercial success is U-shaped. That means that both high and low innovativeness products are more likely to be more successful than those in-between. The authors suggest that past research has not allowed for this non-linear relationship and that their data show that moderately innovative, middle-of-the-road products are less likely to succeed when measured by a number of performance criteria. They explore a number of implications of these results.     

A Causal Model of the Impact of Skills, Synergy, and Design Sensitivity on New Product Performance

Notwithstanding the best efforts of outstanding managers, project team members, researchers, and consultants, no product development plan can guarantee success. Every new products organization will experience its fair share of failures, but a firm can take steps to ensure that its failures do not outweigh its successes. By benchmarking the competition, a firm can gain insight into best practices–the factors that lead most directly to new product success. To help identify these best practices, X. Michael Song, William E. Souder, and Barbara Dyer develop and test a causal model of the relationships among the key variables leading to new product performance. The proposed model identifies five factors that lead to marketing and technical proficiency: process skills, project management skills, alignment of skills with needs, team skills, and design sensitivity. According to the model, marketing and technical proficiency directly determine product quality, and ultimately lead to new product success or failure. The causal model was tested using information on 65 completed projects–34 successes and 31 failures–from 17 large, multi-divisional Japanese firms. The study participants develop, manufacture, and market high-technology consumer and industrial products. These firms judged the success or failure of the projects in this study by using seven criteria: return on investment, profit, market share, sales, opportunities for technical leadership, market dominance, and customer satisfaction. These firms generally assigned the greatest importance to customer satisfaction, opportunity creation, and long-term growth. For the most part, the responses from these firms support the relationships presented in the causal model. According to the respondents, marketing proficiency and product quality have a strong, positive influence on their new product performance, as do process skills, project management skills, and alignment of skills and needs. The responses highlight the importance to these firms of responsiveness to customer wants and needs, as well as ensuring a close fit between project needs and the firm's skills in marketing, R&D, engineering, and manufacturing. Somewhat surprisingly, the responses do not support the model's suggested relationships between skills/needs alignment and technical proficiency or between technical proficiency and product quality.     

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.     

How New Product Strategies Impact on Performance

What is involved in a successful new product program? Is it high spending on risky R&D? Is it close contact with customers? Is it the overall competitive strength of the firm? Well, it might be any of these things, and more, according to Robert G. Cooper, depending on your definition of success. In an exhaustive examination of the new product strategies and performances of 122 industrial products firms, Cooper found that the strategy that a firm elects for its new product program is closely linked to the performance results that firm achieves. But what's performance? Cooper's analysis uncovered three different and independent ways of viewing new product performance. He brings some clarity to the meaning of a “high-performance” product innovation program, but there's a catch—the strategies leading to high performance in one direction are quite different from the strategies leading to positive results by other measures. In his summing up, Professor Cooper proposes sets of generalized strategies—guides to action—that product innovation managers should consider.     

R&D Cooperation,Partner Diversity,and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Analysis

Existing literature on research and development (R&D) alliances focuses on formation motives and performance impacts of these alliances but hardly on diversity of the partners' portfolio. Cooperation with a diverse set of partners leads to learning opportunities with regard to both cooperation and innovation skills and hence is expected to enhance the firm's innovation performance. This paper examines two research questions: (1) the impact of functional and geographical diversity of R&D partners on radical and incremental innovation performance of product innovating firms, and (2) the organizational determinants of partner diversity in R&D alliances. The empirical analysis is based on data from the Dutch Community Innovation Survey, R&D and Information and Communication Technology Surveys, and Production Statistics, which lead to a representative sample of 12,811 innovating firms in the period 1994–2006. Through random‐effects panel Tobit estimates, econometric models for both research questions are estimated. The results indicate that functional and geographical diversity act through different channels. Functional diversity leads to a variety of knowledge intake and synergetic effects necessary to develop and commercialize novel products. Geographical diversity results in successful adaption of existing products to different local requirements such as technical standards, market regulations, and customer preferences. The organizational determinants of both kinds of partner diversity are prior experience, patenting, and information technology infrastructure.     

A Review of Longitudinal Research in the Product Innovation Field,with Discussion of Utility and Conduct of Sequence Analysis

This paper examines how longitudinality is investigated in innovation research. A review of longitudinal methods in innovation articles, published between 2000 and 2011, is undertaken. Our findings show that longitudinal approaches to data collection are gaining some credence, in line with increased criticism of the overuse of positivist methods to study process‐based phenomena. However, results demonstrate a dearth of systematic longitudinal analytical methods employed in product innovation research. Static analytical methods are prominent. These inevitably lead to static presentation of results, and this is borne out in our findings. Second, the paper discusses the conduct and utility of a specific technique for product innovation research: sequence analysis. By drawing on two studies, which apply sequence analysis in product innovation research, sequence analysis is shown to be a useful technique to achieve rigor in analyzing longitudinal data. The paper concludes by discussing how such systematic methods for analyzing longitudinality in the innovation field demand greater usage and exploration.     

Product Innovation,Process Innovation,and Size

We test the hypothesis that large firms devote a higher proportion of their research and development (R & D) expenditure on process innovation thansmaller firms. According to the estimates, process- and product R & D expenditure rise less than in proportion to size. The size effect is somewhat stronger for process R & D but the difference to product R & D is in no way dramatic. This difference with regard to size elasticity of process- and product R & D is somewhat more pronounced when accounting for possible interrelationships between expenditure on process- and product R & D but remains statistically non-significant.     

The Intellectual Structure of Product Innovation Research: A Bibliometric Study of the Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1984–2004

Product innovation research has matured substantially in the last two decades. A great deal of knowledge has been produced on various aspects of the discipline, so it is of interest to assess the state of the art the scientific community has reached in this discipline and the route it has taken. This perspective is investigated through a bibliometric study of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM), arguably the most important specialized journal on this topic. The work reviews all journal paper contributions in JPIM from 1984 to 2004 in determined time frames, assesses the citations contained in these papers, identifies how the citations are related to the various topics of production innovation research (topic‐related citation variety, topic‐related citation consistency, variation in topic‐related citation pattern), and offers a retrospective examination of the evolution of the field. The overall analysis of citations shows that most papers in JPIM cite at least one of the top 50 works identified by this study. This testifies to the strong impact of the most influential works on the intellectual structure of product innovation research. The observed citation pattern suggests that the top 50 papers gained influence in product innovation research either because they represent a relevant contribution on a fundamental topic that already has been authoritatively studied or because they investigate in a relevant manner a new topic. The paper suggests that JPIM might benefit in its aim to consolidate its position as one of the top academic business journals if published papers increasingly drew on the most influential works to inform their research design and explicitly stated the theoretical underpinnings they draw on in their research design. Overall, the analysis of the subperiods (1984–1988, 1989–1993, 1994–1998, and 1999–2004) provides evidence for the maturation of new product innovation research. Books covering a wide range of topics are replaced by journal papers addressing a specific topic; over time, specific topics emerge and become influential for the discipline's intellectual structure; papers published in JPIM augment their methodological rigor and increasingly address contingency factors. The paper also notes that obtaining relevance for JPIM authors constitutes a necessary condition for being considered by management researchers at large as an influential contribution to product innovation research.     

技术创新资源投入对高技术企业产品创新绩效影响的实证研究

以新产品产出作为测度我国高技术企业产品创新绩效的指标,以我国2003~2008年大中型高技术企业的面板数据为样本,应用广义矩方法对包括R&D投入和非R&D投入在内的技术创新资源投入对我国高技术企业产品创新绩效的影响进行了实证分析。结果显示:包括研发经费和科技人员在内的R&D投入、非R&D投入构成要素中的技术改造、技术引进、消化吸收对提升我国高技术企业产品创新绩效具有显著的直接正向影响。同时,研究发现技术引进、国内技术购买作为调节变量,显著提升了研发经费投入对高技术企业产品创新绩效的边际贡献;消化吸收作为调节变量,显著提升了技术引进和国内技术购买对高技术企业产品创新绩效的边际贡献。根据实证研究结论,为在开放式创新环境下提升我国高技术企业的产品创新绩效,本文进一步提出了针对性的对策建议。     

产权、管理与企业绩效

20世纪90年代中期以来，关于企业困境问题，社会上流行着管理论和产权论两种对立的观点。本文评价了两者的观点及其改革主张后，指出双方的偏颇，认为产权与管理是密切相关的，而非对立的，并从产权安排与管理制度以及产权运行与管理活动两个层次论述了产权与管理的关系。产权安排决定管理制度，体现为管理制度；管理制度则服从和依赖于产权安排，但体现产权安排；产权运行即为管理活动。在此基础上，本文提出一个关于产权、管理与企业绩效的分析框架。     

An Exploratory Analysis of the Impact of Market Orientation on New Product Performance

For many firms, emphasizing the importance of market orientation has taken on a mantra-like quality. Mission statements and memos, policies, and procedures all highlight the importance of staying in touch with the customer. It is also widely assumed that the relationship between market orientation and new product performance depends on environmental conditions and product characteristics. To date, however, little empirical evidence has been presented to support the assumption that market orientation influences new product performance. Kwaku Atuahene-Gima addresses this research need in a study of 275 Australian firms. In addition to exploring the relationship between market orientation and new product development activities and performance, his study examines the effects of environmental conditions and product characteristics. Specifically, the study investigates whether the relationship between market orientation and new product performance depends on the degree of product newness to customers and the firm; the intensity of market competition and the hostility of the industry environment; and the stage of the product life cycle at which the new product was introduced. The survey results provide strong support for the basic proposition that market orientation influences new product performance and development activities. The results show a strong positive relationship between market orientation and a new product's market performance. Market orientation is also shown to have a strong positive effect on proficiency of predevelopment activity, proficiency of launch activity, service quality, product advantage, marketing synergy, and teamwork. Although market orientation is generally found to be an important factor in the success of new products, its influence varies depending on the type of new product—that is, radical versus incremental. Market orientation appears to have greater influence on new product performance when the product represents an incremental change to both the customers and the firm. However, this does not mean that a market-oriented approach is unnecessary in the development of radically hew products. Market orientation also has a greater effect when the perceived intensity of market competition and industry hostility are high, and during the early stage of the product life cycle. Because market competition and industry hostility typically intensify as the product life cycle progresses, these findings suggest that the effects of market orientation are pervasive. In other words, managers should not limit their expectations of market orientation to specific projects or specific stages of the development process and product life cycle.     

高业绩企业群体中的弱企业效应研究——以2002—2006中国500强企业为样本的分析

企业绩效差异的主要影响因素来自产业层面还是企业层面一直是企业战略理论关注的基本问题。自从Schmalensee(1985)应用方差分析技术得出其效应分布结论以来,对此问题的研究一直延续至今。战略管理学者较一致的结论是企业层面因素即企业效应是影响企业业务绩效差异的主要因素。然而,本文所作的数据分析表明,在我国高业绩企业群中,企业因素并不是绩效总差的主要解释因素,其解释能力弱于产业因素,即使是在充分竞争领域也是如此。通过对一组反馈回路的考察,本文分析了在我国弱企业效应产生和持续的原因、条件,并据此提出了一种新的关于企业经营策略性质的分类方法。     

Ordered to Innovate: A Longitudinal Examination of the Early Periods of a New Product Development Process Implementation in a Manufacturing Firm

Firms can generate rather long‐lasting growth spurts through continuous innovation. Moreover, literature suggests that, when growing organically, firm performance is enhanced through a revenue expansion emphasis encompassing new‐to‐the‐world or new‐to‐the‐firm physical goods or service augmentations. This organic approach usually outperforms cost‐reduction programs, which often yield minor improvements to existing products; or an emphasis on simultaneous revenue expansion and cost reduction. While this finding has the major implication that firms should focus and generate more radical new products for long‐term success, there is need for research that investigates how firms should implement the strategy change to organic growth via innovation. The authors present a case study, which suggests that in the short run, it might be better to commence a revenue expansion strategy by focusing on incremental new product development (NPD) efforts, rather than focusing too much on new‐to‐the‐world or new‐to‐the‐firm products. Moreover, analyses of the rich, multimethod data, collected over a two‐and‐a‐half‐year interaction with the focal firm, illustrates that to increase success prospects of an organic innovation strategy, managers should not only engage incrementally innovative new product projects initially, but also ensure proficiency in commercializing the new product with cross‐functional NPD teams. Thus, in early stages of organization transformation, the merits of the organic growth strategy will be swiftly demonstrated, the cross‐functional teaming skills are learned and tested, and the new strategy becomes institutionalized. While somewhat contradictory to other studies on this topic, this more evolutionary exploration provides a new perspective for organizational change, especially when a firm is ordered to innovate. In conclusion, the insights gleaned in this study shed light on the journey from stagnating firm to a successful serial innovator via formalized NPD process implementation.     

股权结构与公司治理绩效实证分析

本文以深、沪两市101家上市公司为样本，分行业竞争环境强弱从股权属性、股权集中度与公司治理绩效的关系进行实证分析，发现行业竞争环境强的上市公司其治理绩效与法人股比例呈三次函数关系，与流通股比例无显著相关关系；行业竞争环境弱的上市公司其治理绩效与国有股比例、法人股比例呈三次函数关系，与流通股比例无显著相关关系；行业竞争环境强的上市公司，股权分散型优于国有控股型，国有控股型优于法人控股型；行业竞争环境弱的上市公司，法人控股型结构优于国有控股型，国有控股型优于股权分散型。最后根据实证分析的结果，提出构建合理股权结构的结论性建议。