Strategic Value Assessment and Explorative Learning Opportunities with Customers

This study recognizes that collaboration with customers for new product development may bring important financial benefits to firms, but at the same time may seriously hamper explorative learning. Many firms are approached by customers with requests to develop new products for them. While such requests may strengthen customer relationships and result in short‐term financial gains, it may force a firm in technologically undesirable directions. As a result, many firms struggle with the dilemma of, on the one hand, responding to customer requests, and on the other hand, safeguarding the long‐term competitive position of the firm. Firms with strong customer ties are particularly prone to this dilemma. Drawing on opportunity recognition literature, capability monitoring literature as well as goal setting theory, the authors have developed a framework arguing that Strategic Value Assessment (SVA) can help resolve this. SVA is defined as an a priori business evaluation of the value of a particular innovation collaboration, based on anticipated long‐term strategic benefits. It helps innovative firms to focus on collaboration with customers with lead user status and to develop intense relationships, allowing for more effective knowledge transfer and learning. The framework is tested using data collected from a sample of 136 business‐to‐business firms in the Netherlands. The sampling frame was a panel of small and medium‐sized high‐tech enterprises. The study finds positive direct and indirect effects of SVA on explorative learning. In addition, the findings show that the intense collaboration/learning relationship is positively moderated by customer lead user status, and negatively moderated by customer dependence. The findings suggest that SVA is a useful heuristic for managers to utilize opportunities for innovation involving collaboration with customers.     

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.     

Design,Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Metamodel and a Research Agenda*

Recent studies on design management have helped us to better comprehend how companies can apply design to get closer to users and to better understand their needs; this is an approach usually referred to as user‐centered design. Yet analysis of design‐intensive manufacturers such as Alessi, Artemide, and other leading Italian firms shows that their innovation process hardly starts from a close observation of user needs and requirements. Rather, they follow a different strategy called design‐driven innovation in this paper. This strategy aims at radically change the emotional and symbolic content of products (i.e., their meanings and languages) through a deep understanding of broader changes in society, culture, and technology. Rather than being pulled by user requirements, design‐driven innovation is pushed by a firm's vision about possible new product meanings and languages that could diffuse in society. Design‐driven innovation, which plays such a crucial role in the innovation strategy of design intensive firms, has still remained largely unexplored. This paper aims at providing a possible direction to fill this empty spot in innovation management literature. In particular, first it proposes a metamodel for investigating design‐driven innovation in which a manufacturer's ability to understand, anticipate, and influence emergence of new product meanings is built by relying on external interpreters (e.g., designers, firms in other industries, suppliers, schools, artists, the media) that share its same problem: to understand the evolution of sociocultural models and to propose new visions and meanings. Managing design‐driven innovation therefore implies managing the interaction with these interpreters to access, share, and internalize knowledge on product languages and to influence shifts in sociocultural models. Second, the paper proposes a possible direction to scientifically investigate the management of this networked and collective research process. In particular, it shows that the process of creating breakthrough innovations of meanings partially mirrors the process of creating breakthrough technological innovations. Studies of design‐driven innovation may therefore benefit significantly from the existing body of theories in the field of technology management. The analysis of the analogies between these two types of radical innovations (i.e., meanings and technologies) allows a research agenda to be set for exploration of design‐driven innovation, a relevant as well as underinvestigated phenomenon.     

Commercializing Technological Innovation: Learning from Failures in High‐Tech Markets*

Commercialization is known to be a critical stage of the technological innovation process, mainly because of the high risks and costs that it entails. Despite this, many scholars consider it to be often the least well managed phase of the entire innovation process, and there is ample empirical evidence corroborating this belief. In high‐tech markets, the difficulties encountered by firms in commercializing technological innovation are exacerbated by the volatility, interconnectedness, and proliferation of new technologies that characterize such markets. This is clearly evinced by the abundance of new high‐tech products that fail on the market chiefly due to poor commercialization. Yet there is no clear understanding, in management theory and practice, of how commercialization decisions influence the market failure of new high‐tech products. Drawing on research in innovation management, diffusion of innovation, and marketing, this article shows how commercialization decisions can influence consumer acceptance of a new high‐tech product in two major ways: (i) by affecting the extent to which the players in the innovation's adoption network support the new product; (ii) by affecting the post‐purchase attitude early adopters develop toward the innovation, and hence the type of word‐of‐mouth (positive or negative) they disseminate among later adopters. Lack of support from the adoption network is found to be an especially critical cause of failure for systemic innovations, while a negative post‐purchase attitude of early adopters is a more significant determinant of market failure for radical innovations. There follows a historical analysis of eight innovations launched on consumer high‐tech markets (Apple Newton, IBM PC‐Junior, Tom Tom GO, Sony Walkman, 3DO Interactive Multiplayer, Sony MiniDisc, Palm Pilot, and Nintendo NES), which illustrates how commercialization decisions (i.e., timing, targeting and positioning, inter‐firm relationships, product configuration, distribution, advertising, and pricing) can determine lack of support from the innovation's adoption network and a negative post‐purchase attitude of early adopters. The results of this work provide useful insights for improving the commercialization decisions of product and marketing managers operating in high‐technology markets, helping them avoid errors that are precursors of market failure. It is also hoped the article will inform further research aimed at identifying, theoretically and empirically, other possible causes of poor customer acceptance in high‐tech markets.     

The Interplay of Customer and Product Innovation Dynamics: An Exploratory Study

The challenges of successfully developing radical or really new products have received considerable attention from a variety of marketing, strategic, and organizational perspectives. Previous research has stressed the importance of a market‐driven customer orientation, the resolution of market and technological uncertainty, and organizational processes such as cross‐functional teams and organizational learning. However, several fundamental issues have not been addressed. From a customer's perspective, a more innovative product tends to have uncertain benefits and requires customers to learn new behaviors. Customer preferences can, therefore, change as product experience and learning increase. From a firm's perspective, it is unclear how to be customer‐oriented under such dynamic preferences, and product strategies using evolving technologies will tend to interact with how customers learn about an innovation. This research focuses on identifying unresolved issues about these customer and product innovation dynamics. A conceptual framework and series of propositions are presented that relate both changing technology and customer learning to a firm's strategic decisions in developing and launching really new products. The framework is based on in‐depth interviews with high‐tech product managers across several sectors, focusing on the business‐to‐business context. The propositions resulting from the framework highlight the need to consider relevant customer dynamics as integral to a firm's product innovation process. Successful innovation strategies and future research challenges are discussed, and applications to better understanding customer needs and theories of disruptive innovation are examined. Several key insights for innovation success hinge on a broad, downstream orientation to customer needs and product innovation dynamics. To be effective innovators, firms must know their customers' customers and competitors as well as or better than their immediate customers do. Market research must extend downstream for a comprehensive understanding of customer needs dynamics. In the context of disruptive innovation, new dimensions of customer needs may become more valuable based on perceived downstream customer trends. Firms may also innovate on secondary needs because mainstream customers do not always give firms the design freedom to radically innovate on primary features. Understanding customer commitments and how they develop under evolving needs can help firms focus resources on innovative efforts more likely to be accepted by customers.     

The Innovation Value Chain in New Technology‐Based Firms: Evidence from the U.K.

Innovation is central to the survival and growth of firms, and ultimately to the health of the economies of which they are part. A clear understanding both of the processes by which firms perform innovation and the benefits which flow from innovation in terms of productivity and growth is therefore essential. This paper demonstrates the use of a conceptual framework and modeling tool, the innovation value chain (IVC), and shows how the IVC approach helps to highlight strengths and weaknesses in the innovation performance of a key group of firms—new technology‐based firms. The value of the IVC is demonstrated in showing the key interrelationships in the whole process of innovation from sourcing knowledge through product and process innovation to performance in terms of the growth and productivity outcomes of different types of innovation. The use of the IVC highlights key complementarities, such as that between internal R&D, external R&D, and other external sources of knowledge. Other important relationships are also highlighted. Skill resources matter throughout the IVC, being positively associated with external knowledge linkages and innovation success, and also having a direct influence on growth independent of the effect on innovation. A key benefit of the IVC approach is therefore its ability to highlight the roles of different factors at various stages of the knowledge–innovation–performance nexus, and to show their indirect as well as direct impact. This in turn permits both managerial and policy implications to be drawn.     

Customer and Supplier Involvement in Design: The Moderating Role of Incremental and Radical Innovation Capability

More and more firms are leveraging design as a resource to gain the upper hand in today's competitive business market. To this end, this study draws on the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm to examine the relationship between customer and supplier involvement in the design process and new product performance. The research also extends the RBV to a contingency lens by introducing product innovation capability (incremental and radical) as a moderator to draw the boundary conditions of the impact of customer/supplier involvement in design on new product performance. Using data collected from Canadian high‐tech companies, the findings provide strong support for the hypotheses in that customer involvement in design helps new product performance under high incremental innovation capability but harms new product performance under high radical innovation capability. In contrast, supplier involvement in design was beneficial to new product performance under both high incremental and radical innovation capability. The managerial implications for the role of design under different innovation capabilities are discussed.     

Looking for a Needle in a Haystack: How to Search for Bottom‐Up Social Innovations that Solve Complex Humanitarian Problems

The worldwide increase in societal challenges is putting pressure on humanitarian organizations to develop sophisticated approaches to leverage social innovations in the humanitarian sector. Since humanitarian problems are complex problems, with the relevant knowledge being hidden, organizational search theory advocates the application of bottom‐up and theory‐guided search processes to identify the social innovations that solve these. Unfortunately, there has been no theoretical attention to understanding which approaches apply in this context. Further, established theory‐guided bottom‐up search processes, such as the lead user method, are unsuitable to the humanitarian sector, and we lack practice examples of adequate search processes. To start addressing this gap in theory and practice, procedural action research was done with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to develop a theory‐guided bottom‐up innovation search process for the real‐life humanitarian problem of recurring floods in Indonesia. It revealed that an innovation search process for this context must differ significantly concerning its objectives and the steps to be taken from the lead user method, which was used as a starting point. Further, a comparison of the technical quality and the social impacts of the identified social innovations with social innovations identified through a non‐theory‐guided bottom‐up search process (i.e., an innovation contest) suggests the superiority of this theory‐guided search process. With this conclusion and the insights derived throughout the development of the search process, this study makes important contributions to theory development in the social and open innovation literatures and delivers important recommendations for social innovation practice in the humanitarian sector.     

Market Vision and Market Visioning Competence: Impact on Early Performance for Radically New,High‐Tech Products*

Having the “right” market vision (MV) in new product scenarios involving high degrees of uncertainty has been shown to help firms achieve a significant competitive advantage, which can ultimately lead to superior financial results. Despite today's increased rate of radical innovation, and hence the importance of effective vision, relatively little research has been undertaken to improve our understanding of this phenomenon. The exploratory and empirical investigation undertaken herewith responds to this research gap by focusing on MV and its precursor, market visioning competence (MVC), for radically new, high‐tech products. MV is a clear and specific mental model/image that organizational members have of a desired and important product‐market for a new advanced technology, and MVC is a set of individual and organizational capabilities that enable the linking of advanced technologies to a future market opportunity. Based on samples of high‐tech firms involved in early technology developments, the measurement study indicates that five factors comprise MV (i.e., clarity, magnetism, specificity, form, and scope) and that four factors underlie MVC (i.e., networking, idea driving, proactive market orientation, and market learning tools). Structural equation modeling is used to demonstrate that MVC significantly and positively impacts MV and that each of these constructs significantly and positively influences certain aspects of early performance (EP) in new product development. This is the first empirical study to develop a comprehensive set of scales to measure these constructs and then to combine them in a model by which to examine their interrelationships.     

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.     

Integrating Knowledge and Knowledge Processes: A Critical Incident Study of Product Development Projects

Various scholars have argued that knowledge processes in organizations are integrally linked in practice. The extant literature though treats them separately and thereby disregards the interactions and tensions between them. A result of this way of studying knowledge processes is that little is known about their relative importance and how they work together. This paper addresses this gap in the literature through a critical incident study of knowledge processes in product development projects of high‐tech small firms. The paper starts off with a conceptual framework comprised of four knowledge processes—knowledge creation, knowledge application, knowledge integration, and knowledge retention—and their interactions. From the framework, three hypotheses are derived concerning the importance of these types of knowledge processes and their interactions, which in turn guide the empirical research. The hypotheses were tested in a retrospective study of 58 critical incidents in product development projects of 16 high‐tech small firms in the Netherlands. Data were collected through semi‐structured interviews using the critical incident interviewing technique. Interviewees were asked to “relive” and describe particular successful and unsuccessful examples of product development projects in the past. The analysis of the interview data focused upon whether there are differences between successful and unsuccessful projects in the types of knowledge processes and interactions that are performed. After coding all data into the various types of knowledge processes and interactions of the framework, t‐tests were used to test for significance of differences. The findings indicate that the difference between success and failure in these projects lies primarily in the extent to which knowledge integration and integration between knowledge processes have taken place. These findings demonstrate that, of the four knowledge processes, knowledge integration had the most significant impact on product development project success. The study demonstrates furthermore that higher degrees of interactions between knowledge processes were also associated with project success. Despite the limitations of this study, these results provide empirical support for the claim that integration is a key factor in organizations in general and in innovation projects in particular. For academics, this suggests further research on knowledge integration, and integration between knowledge processes, is warranted. For practitioners, it means that integration is a key process to be considered when choosing and executing new product development projects.     

The Role of Marketing Resources in Radical Innovation Activity: Antecedents and Payoffs

While radical product innovations represent significant engines of firm growth, questions remain over whether marketing helps or hurts (1) a firm's radical product innovation activity and (2) its rewards from radical product innovation activity. By attaching an attention‐based view of the firm to a market‐based assets view of marketing, this paper examines the role of three marketing resources—market knowledge, reputation, and relational resources—on radical innovation activity. Our conceptual framework posits differentiated effects among marketing resources as antecedents of radical innovation activity and as moderators of its impact on firms' financial performance. Using a survey of a broad set of high‐tech business‐to‐business (B2B) firms to test hypotheses, it is found that firms with strong relational resources enjoy a higher propensity for, and stronger financial rewards from, radical innovation activity. Reputational resources come with a trade‐off as they hurt the incidence of radical innovation but enhance its financial rewards. However, market knowledge resources appear to hurt both radical innovation activity and its financial rewards. Our results point to the multifaceted role of marketing in radical innovation activity, which is unlikely to come with a single benefit or liability as prior work often posits. Rather, our research heightens the alertness of managers to assess their firms' marketing strength as a bundle of stocks of several marketing resources. Managers must understand the distinct benefits and drawbacks of each resource in developing and launching radical innovations. Our research underscores the differentiated value of marketing in radical innovation activity in B2B high‐tech contrary to the entrenched idea of a limited or even stifling role of marketing in this context.     

Building product diversification through contractual R&D agreements

Firms engage in contractual R&D agreements for several reasons, including product innovation motives, firm performance goals, and technological diversification. This article demonstrates that firms also might enter into external collaborations to penetrate new markets. This study therefore explores both the effects and the strategic risks of contractual R&D agreements and their related knowledge structures for a firm's capacity to diversify into new markets. Drawing on a novel panel data set obtained from 102 Fortune high‐tech firms, the authors demonstrate that strategic alliances enable knowledge‐integrated firms to penetrate new businesses; however, these organizations should be cautious about engaging in licensing‐in agreements, which have negative effects on product diversification.     

Technology Vision: a scale development

Researchers have cited significant gaps in our knowledge regarding the early stages of vision formation in the radical innovation context and have emphasised the importance of further investigation in this area. As such, this paper aims first to build on the extant literature on organizational, project and Market Vision in order to construct a measure for Technology Vision through theory construction, scale development and modeling. The second goal is to help firms to better understand what the underlying components of Technology Vision are in order to offer themselves the best possible chance of success with the development of radically new, high‐tech products. Based on samples of firms involved with radical innovation research and development in high‐tech sectors in North America and the United Kingdom, conceptual and measurement studies conducted herewith suggest there are five factors related to Technology Vision: Technology Vision benefits, Technology Vision efficiency, Technology Vision magnetism, Technology Vision specificity, and infrastructure clarity. The paper concludes with an examination of the implications of these components of Technology Vision and discusses the need to understand its relationship with Market Vision and the performance of the firm.     

The impact of earnings pressure on exploratory innovation

While earnings expectation has been shown to determine a firm’s investment decisions, the knowledge about how such expectation influences a firm’s investment horizon for innovation is still blurred. This study therefore addresses this research issue by examining the relationship between earnings pressure and exploratory innovation while investigating the moderating effects of cross‐rival effect and resource availability. By examining high‐tech industrial firms in S&P 1500 from 2000 to 2012, the results indicate that stock analysts, as information intermediaries between innovation firms and the capital market, impose pressure through earnings forecasts on firms’ exploratory innovation. Our findings also reveal that the earnings pressure‐exploratory innovation relationship can be mitigated when its competitors encounter a higher level of earnings pressure. However, a firm’s financial slack shows less significant association to moderate the earnings pressure‐exploratory innovation relationship. Possible explanations for the results in regard to their theoretical and practical implications are discussed in this study.     

Managing Knowledge for Innovation: The Case of Business‐to‐Business Services*

The present study builds a typology of organizational knowledge in business services and empirically examines the effects of knowledge on innovation performance. It is suggested that firms differ with respect to their knowledge creation approaches and that these approaches have implications for firms' innovation activities. A conceptual framework of knowledge assets with degrees of tacitness and collectiveness as the principal axes is used to ground the empirical analysis. The organizational knowledge framework is empirically operationalized using survey data from 167 business service firms and supplementary case study evidence from 16 other firms. It is found that business service improvements and new service introductions are significantly associated with collectively held knowledge, such as codified service solutions or team‐based competences and procedures. In contrast, relying solely on tacit knowledge held by individuals may hamper innovation. The results also suggest that tacit collective knowledge is more closely associated with new service introductions, whereas explicit collective knowledge is associated with service improvements. Tacit collective knowledge is thus conducive. A managerial implication is that new service introductions necessitate team competences and routines, whereas incremental service improvements are more likely if procedures are in place to codify services into explicit solutions or technologies. Thus, the knowledge management approach should depend on the strategic orientation of the service firm toward continuous improvement of existing services or development of completely new services.     

Value creation by knowledge‐based ecosystems: evidence from a field study

A growing number of research and development‐driven companies are located in knowledge‐based ecosystems. Value creation by these ecosystems draws on the dynamics of single firms (interacting and partnering) as well as the ecosystem at large. Drawing on a field study of a Dutch high‐tech campus, two key sources of value creation are identified: (1) facilitation of the innovation process for individual companies and (2) creation of an innovation community. Furthermore, the coevolution of the ecosystem's business model with firm‐level business models explains why technology‐based firms join, stay in, or leave the ecosystem at a certain point in time. A remarkable finding is that ecosystem managers have to deliberately facilitate exit routes for companies that no longer fit the ecosystem in order to enhance and reinforce its business model. As such, this study suggests a dynamic capability perspective on knowledge‐based ecosystems that need to develop a business model at the ecosystem level to create sufficient innovative capacity and entrepreneurial fitness.     

Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software

Open innovation is a powerful framework encompassing the generation, capture, and employment of intellectual property at the firm level. We identify three fundamental challenges for firms in applying the concept of open innovation: finding creative ways to exploit internal innovation, incorporating external innovation into internal development, and motivating outsiders to supply an ongoing stream of external innovations. This latter challenge involves a paradox, why would firms spend money on R&D efforts if the results of these efforts are available to rival firms? To explore these challenges, we examine the activity of firms in open‐source software to support their innovation strategies. Firms involved in open‐source software often make investments that will be shared with real and potential rivals. We identify four strategies firms employ – pooled R&D/product development, spinouts, selling complements and attracting donated complements – and discuss how they address the three key challenges of open innovation. We conclude with suggestions for how similar strategies may apply in other industries and offer some possible avenues for future research on open innovation.     

Application and performance impact of stage–gate systems – the role services in the firm’s business focus

Although service innovation is important, knowledge of new product and service development, including the positive effect of stage‐and‐gate‐type systems, has been derived almost exclusively from studies in the manufacturing sector. In the present paper, we address two important questions: How do differences in the firm’s business focus, which describes whether a firm puts more emphasis on products or services in its business activities, influence the usage of such formal innovation processes? Is stage‐and‐gate‐type systems’ impact on innovation program performance contingent on the firm’s business focus? Unlike previous studies, we not only differentiate service and manufacturing by industry classification codes but also apply a continuous measure to take into account the blurring of boundaries between the manufacturing and service businesses. Based on a comprehensive discussion of service‐specific characteristics and their implications for innovation management and using a cross‐industry, multi‐informant sample of innovation programs from 272 firms with 1,985 informants, we find empirical support for firms with a stronger focus on the service business being less likely to use stage‐and‐gate‐type systems. Furthermore, the use of stage‐and‐gate‐type systems fosters innovation program performance, and this effect becomes stronger as the business focus shifts toward services. This result implies that service‐based firms can benefit from stage‐and‐gate‐type systems to a greater extent than product‐based firms. Our research also demonstrates the gap between the desired level of innovation process formalization and its current usage in practice, especially for firms with a dominating service business.     

Market Orientation and R&D Effectiveness in High‐Technology Firms: An Empirical Investigation in the Biotechnology Industry*

There seems to be lack of consensus among informed scholars about the importance a of market orientation for high‐technology firms. This paper gives a comprehensive review of existing empirical studies on the relationship between market orientation and innovation performance and pinpoints two limitations in this research stream that might be at the origin of such controversy. First, extant research often overlooked key innovation outcomes for high‐technology firms, such as those related to research and development (R&D) performance. Second, organizational conditions that can ensure an optimal integration of market knowledge in the innovation process have been less analyzed in the case of these firms. Against this background, the present study contributes to the literature by providing a test of the effect of market orientation on R&D effectiveness and the moderating role of knowledge integration in this relationship, using a sample of Italian biotechnology firms. The study's objectives are addressed in two steps. The first one consists of an in‐depth qualitative study based on semistructured interviews in five biotechnology firms. The second step consists of a follow‐up survey of 50 biotechnology firms. Results from hierarchical multiple regression analysis show that the different dimensions of a market orientation have diverse effects on R&D effectiveness of high‐technology firms: whereas interfunctional coordination has a positive main effect, the effect of customer orientation is moderated by knowledge integration, and competitor orientation has no effect on R&D effectiveness. Post hoc analyses also show two additional results involving a broader set of dependent variables. First, R&D effectiveness mediates the effects of customer orientation and interfunctional coordination on organizational performance. Second, market orientation does not appear to significantly affect R&D efficiency. The present study contributes to current literature in two main respects. First, it adds to previous work on market orientation and innovation by proposing a new dependent variable—R&D effectiveness—which offers a better perspective to understand the impact of market orientation on innovation performance in high‐technology contexts. Second, while part of the current debate on the role of market orientation in high‐tech markets seems to be polarized by positions that sustain its potential drawbacks or, on the contrary, its advantages, this study's findings on the moderating role of knowledge integration shed light on important contingency factors, such as organizational capabilities. The authors discuss the study's limitations and provide directions for future research.