Proactive/Responsive Market Orientation and Marketing—Research and Development Integration

The level of integration between the marketing and research and development (R&D) functions may be gauged by degree of communication, information sharing, and collaboration between the functions during the new product development process. This article examines how a firm's strategic choice regarding market orientation may influence the relationship between marketing and R&D personnel, and how this relationship may affect organizational success. Under examination are both the responsive form of market orientation, in which a firm focuses on immediate customer needs and tends to be market driven, and the proactive form, in which the firm focuses on future market needs and tends to be invention driven. It is theorized that responsive market orientation will be more positively related to marketing‐R&D integration due to the market‐driven nature of the orientation. Conversely, it is theorized proactive market orientation will be more positively related to organizational success than responsive market orientation due to the innovation‐driven nature of the orientation. The study was implemented via a Web‐based survey and data analysis was performed using structural equation modeling techniques. The results of this study provide empirical evidence that both proactive and responsive market orientation exhibit a positive relationship with marketing–R&D integration, indicating that both forms of market orientation may lead to closer collaboration between the marketing and R&D functions. Despite the assumption that a proactive orientation is driven by innovation and technology in which R&D may play a more significant role, there is evidence that a high degree of synergy is developed between the groups when the focus is on future market needs. A market‐driven responsive orientation by necessity requires high integration between departments to commercialize products in a timely manner to meet current market needs. Proactive market orientation exhibits a positive relationship with market performance, whereas responsive market orientation does not. The result may show evidence of the “new product paradox," whereby developing products to address immediate market needs may result in lower market performance because the new products may be replacements for obsolete offerings or are actually cannibalizing sales of existing products.     

A Closer Look at Cross‐functional R&D Cooperation for Innovativeness: Innovation‐oriented Leadership and Human Resource Practices as Driving Forces

Because cross‐functional research and development (R&D) cooperation appears to drive innovation, many firms have invested considerably in it. However, despite substantial efforts to improve information and communication infrastructures or to bring departments in closer proximity with one another, structural investments often fail to produce the desired positive impact on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. This failure may arise because firms undertaking these structural investments do not manage their employees adequately. Extant research acknowledges the importance of motivating and enabling members of the R&D function to cooperate with other functions. Yet empirical studies investigating the relative importance of leadership and different human resource (HR) practices for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation are scarce. Drawing on the resource‐based view and organizational support theory, this study investigates how innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices might support members of the R&D function and encourage cross‐functional R&D cooperation, which enhances product program innovativeness. Specifically, members of the R&D function who are supported in their innovation efforts through innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices should reciprocate for the support they receive by intensifying their cross‐functional cooperation to achieve greater product program innovativeness. Relying on multi‐informant data from 125 firms with assessments from marketing and R&D managers, this study shows that innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices have different effects on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. A structural equation modeling‐based analysis of the hypothesized relationships reveals that innovation‐oriented leadership, rewards, and training and development have considerable positive effects. In contrast, recruitment does not drive cross‐functional R&D cooperation. Because firms usually operate in dynamic markets, and increasingly acquire relevant information from customers when generating innovations, this study also considers market‐related dynamism and customer integration as important contingency factors. For firms facing market‐related dynamism and those relying on customer integration, leadership and training and development are particularly effective for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation. By integrating two theoretical perspectives, this study not only advances knowledge on the antecedents of cross‐functional R&D cooperation, but also helps explain differences in their relative effectiveness. Furthermore, it both adds to the discussion of whether monetary rewards are appropriate means to foster innovation and challenges existing assumptions about the role of recruiting for innovation.     

Differential Effects of the Primary Forms of Cross Functional Integration on Product Development Cycle Time

In markets characterized by high rates of technological and market change product life cycles tend to be shorter, resulting in the increased importance of competing on the basis of product development cycle time. For firms operating in these dynamic market environments, competing on the basis of cycle time may not only be a source of competitive advantage, but in some industries may actually be essential for survival.
In this investigation the relative importance of five forms of cross functional integration and R&D integration of information or knowledge from past projects were explored in terms of their effects on product development cycle time. The five forms of cross functional integration included R&D/marketing integration, R&D/customer integration, R&D/manufacturing integration, R&D/supplier integration, and strategic partnerships. A sample of 65 U.S. and Scandinavian high technology firms (or strategic business units) were studied. The sample included firms from the computer, telecommunications, instruments, specialty chemicals, biotechnology, and software industries.
The results demonstrated that R&D integration of knowledge from past projects explained the largest degree of variation in product development cycle time. R&D/marketing integration and R&D/customer integration explained the next largest degree of variation in cycle time reduction. Cross cultural generalizability tests demonstrated that the results were generalizable across the U.S. and Scandinavian samples of firms. In addition, the results were found to be generalizable across industry or product category for five of the six forms of integration.     

Make,buy, organize: The interplay between research,external knowledge,and firm structure

We bridge current streams of innovation research to explore the interplay between R&D, external knowledge, and organizational structure—three elements of a firm's innovation strategy, which we argue should logically be studied together. Using within‐firm patent assignment patterns, we develop a novel measure of structure for a large sample of American firms. We find that centralized firms invest more in research, and patent more per R&D dollar, than decentralized firms. Both types access technology via mergers and acquisitions, but their acquisitions differ in terms of frequency, size, and integration. Consistent with our framework, their sources of value creation differ: while centralized firms derive more value from internal R&D, decentralized firms rely more on external knowledge. We discuss how these findings should stimulate more integrative work on theories of innovation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Creating incentives for innovation? The relationship between pay dispersion in R&D groups and firm innovation performance

Innovation is a critical organizational outcome for its potential to generate competitive advantage. While the contribution of knowledge workers to the generation of innovation is widely recognized, little is known about how organizational incentive mechanisms stimulate or inhibit these workers' behaviors that promote innovation. This study examines the relationship between pay dispersion in R&D groups and firm innovation using employee‐level compensation data in US high‐technology firms. The results show that (1) pay dispersion in R&D groups is negatively related to firm innovation and (2) this negative relationship is alleviated in firms with greater financial slack. This study contributes to the innovation literature by illuminating the implications of organizational incentive systems for successful innovation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Vital Role of Problem‐Solving Competence in New Product Success*

Problem solving, a process of seeking, defining, evaluating, and implementing the solutions, is considered a converter that can translate organizational inputs into valuable product and service outputs. A key challenge for the product innovation community is to answer questions about how knowledge competence and problem‐solving competence develop and sustain competitive advantage. The objective of this study is to theoretically examine and empirically test an existing assumption that problem‐solving competence is an important variable connecting market knowledge competence with new product performance. New product projects from 396 firms in the high‐technology zones in China were used to test the study's theoretical model. The results first indicate that problem‐solving speed and creativity matter in new product innovation performance by playing mediator roles between market knowledge competence and positional advantage, which in turn sustains superior performance. This new insight suggest that mere generation of market knowledge and having a marketing–research and development (R&D) interface will not affect new product performance unless project members have the ability to use the information and to interact to identify and solve complex problems speedily and creatively. Second, these results suggest that different market knowledge competences (customers, competitors, and interactions between marketing and R&D) have distinct impacts on problem‐solving speed and creativity (positive, negative, or none), which underscore the need to embrace a more fine‐grained notion of market knowledge competence. The results also reveal that the relative importance of some of these relationships depends on the perceived level of turbulence in the environment. First, competitor knowledge competence decreases problem‐solving speed when perceived environmental turbulence is low but enhances problem‐solving speed when perceived turbulence is high. Second, competitor knowledge competence has a positive relationship with new product performance when the environmental turbulence is high but no relationship when the environmental turbulence is low. Third, the positive relationship between problem‐solving speed and product advantage is stronger when the perceived environmental turbulence is high than when it is low, which implies that problem solving is more important for creating product advantage when environmental turbulence is high and change is fast and unpredictable. Fourth, the negative relationship between problem‐solving speed and new product performance is stronger when the perceived environmental turbulence is high than when it is low, which means that problem‐solving speed is more harmful for new product performance when change is fast and unpredictable. And fifth, the positive relationship between product quality and new product performance is stronger when perceived environmental turbulence is low than when it is high, which implies that product quality may more likely lead to new product performance when the environment is stable and changes are easy to predict, analyze, and comprehend.     

Non‐R&D innovation and firms’ new product performance: the joint moderating effect of R&D intensity and network embeddedness

Non‐R&D innovation increasingly plays a critical role in explaining firms’ new product performance. Yet, there has been little research on the consequences and contingent mechanisms of non‐R&D innovation for firms embedded in collaborative network environments. To address this research gap, we investigated a conceptual framework of non‐R&D innovation using data drawn from Chinese manufacturing firms. First, we found that non‐R&D innovation positively affects firms’ new product performance. Second, we discovered that high R&D intensity positively strengthens the impact of firms’ non‐R&D innovation on new product performance. Third, we provided critical analysis of the role of non‐R&D innovation in promoting new product performance, accomplished by enhancing R&D investment while simultaneously improving the degree of network embeddedness. Our findings extend both the non‐R&D innovation literature and open innovation literature while providing managers with several key recommendations.     

Lifting the veil on the link between absorptive capacity and innovation: The roles of cross-functional integration and customer orientation

Drawing on the integration of organizational learning, contingency theory, and theory of jobs to be done, this study develops a moderated mediation model of how a firm's absorptive capacity influences innovation performance. We hypothesize that cross-functional integration may mediate the absorptive capacity-innovation performance link and that customer orientation may positively moderate the mediating effect of cross-functional integration. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a mail survey of manufacturing firms, obtaining 456 valid responses for data analysis. Regression and bootstrap analyses reveal that cross-functional integration partially mediates the effect of absorptive capacity on innovation and that customer orientation enhances the mediated effect. Specifically, the mediating effect of cross-functional integration is stronger and significant when customer orientation is high. In contrast, the mediating effect of cross-functional integration is weaker and insignificant when customer orientation is low. Overall, this study's findings contribute to advances in marketing theory on innovation by identifying cross-functional integration and customer orientation as two key factors that together explain why and under what conditions absorptive capacity affects innovation. The findings also advise managers that in addition to developing absorptive capacity, firms should cultivate a strong customer orientation, which directs cross-functional integration toward converting external knowledge into increased innovation performance.     

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.     

From Invention to Innovation: Toward Developing an Integrated Innovation Model for Biotech Firms*

A review of extant literature reveals various theories on innovation, including technology push, market pull, and an organizational approach. All of these theories have been criticized for their lack of integration and inapplicability to today's competitive environment. An integrated view of innovation has emerged that synthesizes the variables in previous approaches. However, the application of this view has been restricted to investigating the innovation processes within the computer and manufacturing industries, whereas the biotechnology industry has been ignored. This is despite biotech managers' well‐acknowledged thirst for innovation and the ability of biotech to shape the way we live. The present article contributes to the literature by applying an integrated approach to the biotech industry, thereby extending understanding of innovation management beyond the traditional field of inquiry. An integrated approach is of particular relevance to biotech companies, given the complexities of managing the industry's long development cycle and intense collaborative activities. In‐depth interviews with eight organizations in Maryland formed the basis for an investigation into the challenges of managing the innovation process in biotechnology firms. The findings revealed that biotech entrepreneurs are ill prepared to lead their organizations through several transformations necessary along the product life cycle because of their fixation on a technology‐push approach and lack of an understanding of integrated innovation. These leaders also lack the commercialization knowledge necessary to push products to markets, resulting in avoidable delays and loss of productivity. The existing research has dispelled myths associated with biotech. Specifically, it suggests biotech entrepreneurs cannot rely solely on inventions but must invest in a timely application of knowledge to organizational and market forces to take full advantage of the innovation potential associated with the industry. This article presents a conceptual framework for applying the integrated innovation model to biotech firms and makes the case for incorporating market‐oriented mechanisms, building and using appropriate organizational capabilities, developing effective collaborations, and creating parallel interactions as major elements in a general strategy toward the success and improved efficiency of biotech companies. The limitations of current research are discussed, and avenues are highlighted for much‐needed future research into the biotech industry.     

Determinants of the Level of Knowledge Application: A Knowledge‐Based and Information‐Processing Perspective*

Knowledge application is of key importance in the development of successful new products. Knowledge application refers to an organization's timely response to technological change by utilizing the knowledge and technology generated into new products and processes. This study uses the knowledge‐based theory of the firm and considers its roots in the information‐processing approach to organization theory to identify and structure potential antecedents of knowledge application. This study develops four hypotheses concerning antecedents of knowledge application. The hypotheses are tested using data collected from 277 high‐technology firms. Empirical results indicate that a long‐term orientation supported by a research and development (R&D) budget, formal rewards, and information technology directly increases the level of knowledge application, while R&D co‐location indirectly increases the level of knowledge application. It is surprising to find that an increase in the level of organizational redundancy reduces the level of knowledge application. The findings also suggest that information technologies, lead‐user, and supplier networks do not appear to significantly influence organizational redundancy.     

An Information Transfer Model for Integrating Marketing and R&D Personnel in New Product Development Projects

Marketing and R&D personnel are key actors in the development of new product innovations. Interdependence between the marketing and the R&D functions necessitates integration. Rudy Moenaert and William Souder feel that task specification, structural design and climate orientation are the major integration mechanisms advocated in the literature. Supported by an extensive literature review, they propose a nomological network which interrelates integration mechanisms, interfunctional information transfer, uncertainty reduction and new product innovation success. They develop a causal framework to describe the determinants of successful information transfer between marketing and R&D in the development of technologically new products.     

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.     

Organizing for Inbound Open Innovation: How External Consultants and a Dedicated R&D Unit Influence Product Innovation Performance

Firms increasingly acquire technological knowledge from external sources to improve their innovation performance. This strategic approach is known as inbound open innovation. The existing empirical evidence regarding the impact of inbound open innovation on performance, however, is ambiguous. The equivocal results are due to moderating factors that influence a firm's ability to acquire technological knowledge from external sources and to transform it into innovation outputs. This paper focuses on a relevant yet overlooked category of moderating factors: organization of research and development (R&D). It explores two organizational mechanisms: one informal and external‐oriented (involvement of external consultants in R&D activities) and one formalized and internal‐oriented (existence of a dedicated R&D unit), in the acquisition of technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing, a particular contractual form for inbound open innovation. Drawing on a capabilities perspective and using a longitudinal dataset of 841 Spanish manufacturing firms observed over the period 1999–2007, this paper provides a fine‐grained analysis of the moderating effects of the two organizational mechanisms. The involvement of external consultants in R&D activities strengthens the impact of inbound open innovation on innovation performance by increasing marginal benefits of acquiring external technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing. Moreover, it reduces the level of inbound open innovation to which the highest innovation performance corresponds. Instead, the existence of a dedicated R&D unit makes the firm less sensitive to changes in the level of inbound open innovation, by reducing marginal benefits of acquiring external technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing, and increases the level of inbound open innovation to which the highest innovation performance corresponds. The results regarding the role of informal and formalized R&D organizational mechanisms contribute to research on open innovation and absorptive capacity, and also inform managers as to what organizational mechanism is recommended to acquire external technological knowledge, depending on the objectives that the firm pursues.     

Supportiveness of Organizational Climate, Market Orientation, and New Product Performance in Chinese Firms

Most knowledge development efforts in new product development have focused on Western economies and companies. However, due to its size, rapid growth rate, and market reforms, China has emerged as an important new context for new product development. Unfortunately, current understanding of the factors associated with new product success in China remains limited. We address this knowledge gap using mixed methods. First, we conducted 19 in‐depth interviews with managers involved in new product development in 11 different Chinese firms. The qualitative fieldwork indicated that firm behaviors and employee perceptions consistent with the phenomena of market orientation and the supportiveness of organizational climate both are viewed as important drivers of the new product performance of Chinese firms. Drawing on the marketing, management, and new product development literature this study develops a hypothetical model linking market orientation, supportiveness of organizational climate, and firms' new product performance. Direct relationships are hypothesized between both market orientation and supportiveness of organizational climate and firms' new product performance, as well as a relationship between supportiveness of organizational climate and market orientation. Data to test the hypothetical model were collected via an on‐site administered questionnaire from 110 manufacturing firms in China. The hypothesized relationships are tested using structural equation modeling. Results indicate a positive direct relationship of market orientation on firms' new product performance, with an indirect positive effect of supportiveness of organizational climate via its impact on market orientation. However, no support is found for a direct relationship between the supportiveness of a firm's organizational climate and its new product performance. These findings are consistent with resource‐based view theory propositions in the marketing literature indicating that market orientation is a valuable, nonsubstitutable, and inimitable resource and with similar propositions in the management literature concerning organizational culture. However, this study's findings also indicate that in contrast to a number of organizational culture theory propositions and empirical findings in some consumer service industries, the impact of organizational climate on firm performance in a new product context is indirect via the firm's generation, dissemination, and responsiveness to market intelligence. These results suggest that an effort to improve firms' new product performance by enhancing the flow and utilization of market intelligence is an appropriate allocation of resources. Further, this study's findings indicate that managers should direct at least some of their efforts to enhance a firm's market orientation at improving employee perceptions of the supportiveness of the firm's management and of their peers. This study indicates a need for further research concerning the role of different dimensions of organizational climate in firms' new product processes.     

How does the partner type in R&D alliances impact technological innovation performance? A study on the Korean biotechnology industry

The number of strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry is sharply increasing. Some studies show that each alliance partner type has different alliance motives, resources and capabilities, organizational structures and cultures, and degrees of competition with partners, which can lead to different performances of strategic alliances. In this regard, this study conducts an empirical analysis of the different impact of each type of alliance partner on technological innovation performance and finds the moderating effect of absorptive capacity and potential competition by categorizing strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry into three types: vertical-downstream alliances, vertical-upstream alliances, and horizontal alliances. This study analyzed 206 Korean biotechnology firms and their strategic alliances for a total of 292 R&D activities. The results of the analysis showed that vertical alliances have a positive impact on technological innovation performance, while horizontal alliances have an inverted U-shaped relationship with technological innovation performance caused by the effect of competition. Additionally, it was confirmed that the R&D intensity of biotechnology firms has a moderating effect of increasing the impact of vertical-upstream alliances on technological innovation performance.     

Organizing for continuous technology acquisition: the role of R&D geographic dispersion

External technology acquisition has been proved to be an important strategy to enhance firms’ innovation performance. However, previous studies claim that companies acquiring technologies tend to not carry on with this strategy over time, thus limiting their attitude toward continuous technology acquisition. Moreover, the extant literature also highlights that this attitude is strongly influenced by their organizational structure. Therefore, in the present paper, we investigate the relationship between how firms organize R&D activities and continuous technology acquisition. Specifically, given the increasing globalization of technological development, we focus on the role of R&D geographic dispersion, and how its influence is moderated by firms’ technological diversification. We tested our hypotheses on longitudinal data of 303 biotechnology firms that acquired, at least, one USPTO patented technology over the period 1982–2012. Results reveal that R&D geographic dispersion is curvilinearly (inverted U-shaped) related to continuous technology acquisition, with negative returns occurring earlier in technology-diversified companies.     

The Credibility–Cooperation Connection at the R&D-Marketing Interface

Research and development (R&D) managers' perceptions of both marketing information and marketing managers are analyzed using an information and source credibility framework. The findings are based on a study of R&D directors in 80 technology-intensive companies and focus on activities and interactions during the new product development process. The authors found that the R&D managers' perceptions differed significantly in high and low integration companies. These perceptions also were influenced by various organizational practices. The R&D-marketing cooperation was highest where organizational practices were conducive to cooperation and R&D perceived marketing input as credible. Several implications for creating a corporate climate conducive to interfunctional cooperation are developed.     

R&D Partnerships and Innovation Performance: Can There Be too Much of a Good Thing?

R&D collaboration facilitates the pooling of complementary skills, learning from the partner as well as the sharing of risks and costs. Research therefore stresses the positive relationship between collaborative R&D and innovation performance. Fewer studies address the potential drawbacks of collaborative R&D. Collaborative R&D comes at the cost of coordination and monitoring, requires knowledge disclosure, and involves the risk of opportunistic behavior by the partners. Thus, while for lower collaboration intensities the net gains can be high, costs may start to outweigh benefits if firms perform a higher share of their innovation projects collaboratively. For a sample of 2735 firms located in Germany and active in a broad range of manufacturing and service sectors, this study finds that increasing the share of collaborative R&D projects in total R&D projects is associated with a higher probability of product innovation and with a higher market success of new products. While this confirms previous findings on the gains for innovation performance, the results also show that collaboration has decreasing and even negative returns on product innovation if its intensity increases above a certain threshold. Thus, the relationship between collaboration intensity and innovation follows an inverted‐U shape and, on average, costs start to outweigh benefits if a firm pursues more than about two‐thirds of its R&D projects in collaboration. This result is robust to conditioning market success to the introduction of new products and to accounting for the selection into collaborating. This threshold is, however, contingent on firm characteristics. Smaller and younger as well as resource‐constrained firms benefit from relatively higher collaboration intensities. For firms with higher collaboration complexities in terms of different partners and different stages of the R&D process at which collaboration takes place, returns start to decrease already at lower collaboration intensities.