Innovative versus incremental new business services: Different keys for achieving success

In companies where new product development plays an important strategic role, managers necessarily contend with a portfolio of projects that range from high technology, new‐to‐the‐world, innovations to relatively simple improvements, adaptations, line extensions, or imitations of competitive offerings. Recent studies indicate that achieving successful outcomes for projects that differ radically in terms of innovativeness requires that firms adjust their NPD practices in line with the type of new product project they are developing. Based on a large‐scale survey of managers knowledgeable about new product development in their firm, this study focuses on new business‐to‐business service projects in an attempt to gain insights about the influence of product innovativeness on the factors that are linked to new service success and failure. The research results indicate that there are a small number of “global” success factors which appear to govern the outcome of new service ventures, regardless of their degree of newness. These include: ensuring an excellent customer/need fit, involving expert front line personnel in creating the new service and in helping customers appreciate its distinctiveness and benefits, and implementing a formal and planned launch program for the new service offering. Several other factors, however, were found to play a more distinctive role in the outcome of new service ventures, depending on how really new or innovative the new service was. For low innovativeness new business services, the results suggest that managers can enhance performance by: leveraging the firm's unique competencies, experiences and reputation through the introduction of new services that have a strong corporate fit; installing a formal “stage‐gate” new service development system, particularly at the front‐end and during the design stage of the development process; and ensuring that efforts to differentiate services from competitive or past offerings do not lead to high cost or unnecessarily complex service offerings. For new‐to‐the‐world business services, the primary distinguishing feature impacting performance is the corporate culture of the firm: one that encourages entrepreneurship and creativity, and that actively involves senior managers in the role of visionary and mentor for new service development. In addition, good market potential and marketing tactics that offset the intangibility of “really new” service concepts appear to have a positive performance effect.     

Bricolage as a Path to Innovativeness for Resource‐Constrained New Firms

Evidence suggests that both nascent and young firms (henceforth: “new firms”)—despite typically being small and resource‐constrained—are sometimes able to innovate effectively. Such firms are seldom able to invest in lengthy and expensive development processes, which suggests that they may frequently rely instead on other pathways to generate innovativeness within the firm. In this paper, we develop and test arguments that “bricolage,” defined as making do by applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities, provides an important pathway to achieve innovation for new resource‐constrained firms. Through bricolage, resource‐constrained firms engage in the processes of “recombination” that are core to creating innovative outcomes. Based on a large longitudinal dataset, our results suggest that variations in the degree to which firms engage in bricolage behaviors can provide a broadly applicable explanation of innovativeness under resource constraints by new firms. We find no general support for our competing hypothesis that the positive effects may level off or even turn negative at high levels of bricolage.     

Speed to Market for Innovative Products: Blessing or Curse?

The relationships among speed to market, quality, and costs are important to managers as they attempt to best establish incentives and set goals for new product development teams, allocate resources for new product development, or create positional advantage in the market. The existing literature suggests that the economic consequences of being late to the market are significant, including higher development and manufacturing costs, lower profit margins, and lessening of the firm's market value. Therefore, traditional logic has held that new product development managers need to manage the trade‐offs among speed to market, quality, and costs. While both scholars and managers have often acquiesced to performance trade‐offs among “faster, better, and cheaper,” this research attempts to improve understanding of the interrelationships between these objectives, and ultimately profit. Based on a survey of 197 managers, faster speed to market is shown to be related to better quality and lower costs; it is not necessary to sacrifice one of these outcomes. Further, the moderating roles of two dimensions of innovativeness (innovativeness to the firm and to the market) are examined on the relationships between speed and quality, as well as speed and profit. Both dimensions of innovativeness positively moderate the relationship between speed to market and quality. For more innovative products (both to the firm and the market), there is a stronger positive relationship between speed and quality than for less innovative products. Further, innovativeness to the firm negatively moderates the relationship between speed and profit. Thus, speed has a less positive impact on profit for highly innovative‐to‐the‐firm products compared with less innovative‐to‐the‐firm products. By being conscious of the projects’ levels of innovativeness (along with prioritizing various performance measures), managers can more rationally decide when to emphasize speed to market based on this study's findings.     

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

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

NSD Processes and Practices in Experiential Services*

This paper examines new service development (NSD) in a distinctive set of services: experiential services. Organizations delivering experiential services place the customer experience at the core of the service offering. They focus on the experience of customers when interacting with the organization rather than just the functional benefits following from the products and services delivered. Increasingly, organizations are recognizing that managing customer experiences is a powerful way of differentiating from competitors, establishing emotional connections, and increasing customer loyalty. Studying experiential services sheds light on this highly intangible type of services and, by representing an extreme end of the service spectrum, can advance the knowledge on the wider area of new product and service development. This paper addresses three research questions: (1) What are the processes and practices used in the development and design of experiential services? (2) How are these processes and practices similar to or distinct from established NSD practices? (3) How do these findings reflect on the wider area of NSD? The study concentrates on five dimensions of NSD: (1) the process; (2) market research; (3) tools and techniques; (4) metrics and performance measurement; and (5) organization. For each of these areas propositions are formulated and refined with empirical data. Using the case research methodology, empirical data were collected in 17 case companies: experiential service providers, design agencies, and consultancies known for focusing on the customer experience. The main method of data collection was interviews with those involved in experiential service design, such as founders, executives, or experienced designers. The case data revealed a number of practices specific to experiential services. These include a strong emphasis on gathering customer insights, in several cases obtained through empathic research and ethnographic research techniques. Other specific practices for experiential services include mapping customer journeys or touchpoints and storytelling. The case study companies also revealed a trade‐off between relatively formal, tight methodologies and more flexible, loose methodologies in NSD. More research is required to investigate the contingency factors surrounding tight or loose methodologies. The results also revealed the use of more broadly used NSD practices, such as a systematic NSD process, multiple performance measures, cross‐functional teams, and front‐line involvement. The observations from this study are captured in a set of seven propositions concerning NSD in experiential services. Reflecting on NSD in general, this study highlights the important role of service process innovation compared with service product innovation and the importance of continuous innovation requiring NSD processes and practices that are more flexible, iterative, and nonlinear. The study also supports the argument that different types of services may require different NSD processes and practices.     

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

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

Differential Potency of Factors Affecting Innovation Performance in Manufacturing and Services Firms in Australia

Whether or not industrialized nations are experiencing a fundamental shift from a manufacturing- to a service-based economy may be a matter of debate. However, the service sector is clearly growing at an explosive rate, particularly in comparison with manufacturing. With this in mind, we need to better understand how the successful development of new services differs from that of new products. Such understanding requires identifying the critical success factors for new service development (NSD), as well as contrasting them with the factors underlying successful new product development (NPD). Kwaku Atuahene-Gima describes the results of a study comparing the innovation activities of Australian services firms and manufacturers. The study explores managers' perceptions of the factors necessary for successful NSD and NPD. In addition to comparing the differing perceptions of managers of services firms and manufacturers, the study highlights implications of these differences for managers striving for improved NSD. Services and manufacturing firms focus on similar factors for improving innovation performance. However, the relative importance of those factors depends on the type of firm. The critical factor for services—the importance accorded to innovation activity in the firm's human resource strategy—ranks third in importance for manufacturers. Manufacturers focus primarily on product innovation advantage and quality. In contrast, service innovation advantage and quality ranks third in importance for service firms. Surprisingly, technology synergy is found to have a negative effect on new service performance. If a new service is a close fit with a firm's current technologies, competitors will likely be able to quickly imitate the new service. As a result, NSD efforts based on technology synergy will not provide a competitive advantage. Compared to manufacturers, successful service firms must place greater emphasis on the selection, development, and management of employees who work directly with the customer. Through effective self management, these contact personnel shape the quality of the customer relationship. In addition, their close contact and potentially long-term relationships with customers make such employees an important source of new ideas in the firm's NSD process. Such relationships also cast contact personnel in a make-or-break role in the launching of new services.     

Signaling Strategies for Innovative Design: A Study on Design Tradition and Expert Attention

There is increasing acknowledgement that innovative product design has a positive effect on financial performance. However, innovative design may require specific efforts to aid interpretation and appreciation by the market. So far, little is known about how companies can enhance their chances of success when introducing innovative designs. This study contributes to the development of this area of research. Drawing on signaling theory, it examines the role of two types of signals that may act as enablers for market acceptance of innovative design: adherence to a national design tradition, and attention from experts and specialized media. Using data collected from Danish design‐intensive companies, findings show that design innovativeness has a positive impact on financial performance. The analyses demonstrate that the effect is reinforced if a novel design adheres to a national design tradition. In addition, novel designs will be more positively accepted if they receive attention from design experts and attract media coverage. Research also contributes to signaling theory, as it shows how intrinsic—design innovativeness and adherence to a design tradition—and extrinsic—expert and media attention—cues interact and influence financial performance. The paper concludes by discussing managerial implications, particularly in relation to the new product development process and the role of design, and by suggesting avenues for further research.     

New Service Development: An Analysis of 27 Years of Research *

This study examines the state of the art in new service development (NSD) research published in the period between 1982, when the first NSD article appeared in an academic journal, and 2008. First, a multisource search was conducted, which resulted in the identification of 145 NSD‐related articles. Then, a content analysis was performed of these articles using multiple classifier variables with regard to general publication characteristics, focus of the research, and the research methodology that was employed. By examining the results, a number of developments in and patterns of scholarly research in NSD are revealed. More specifically, it appears that the greatest attention in the early writings was on a narrow set of NSD topics like critical success factors and the NSD process, which were predominantly investigated through large‐scale surveys with single respondents in the U.S., Canadian, and U.K. financial services industry. The analytical techniques that were used at that time were rather simple. In contrast, in recent NSD works there is an expansion of research topics (such as customer involvement and the organization of NSD) that are increasingly investigated in high‐tech service industries in Europe through qualitative research designs. Also, multiple respondent studies have started to appear in NSD investigations, while analytical techniques have also become more advanced. This pattern clearly uncovers signs of increasing maturation for the NSD discipline. In addition, some underresearched areas are identified, leading to suggestions for future research into this growing and important field.     

A Comparison of New Service versus New Product Development: Configurations of Collaborative Intensity as Predictors of Performance

Collaboration among firms for innovation has received considerable attention. However, little is known about how firm‐to‐firm collaboration is configured in new service development (NSD) versus new product development (NPD). This study takes a multidimensional approach and measures firm‐to‐firm collaboration on different intensity dimensions of (1) processes (mutual communication, joint engagement, sharing responsibilities) and (2) ownership (relationship commitment and mutual trust). By showing that the phenomenon of collaboration is multifaceted, this study is able to knit a more comprehensive and cohesive understanding of the differences between NSD and NPD success as the result of different patterns of collaboration. Specifically, it utilizes survey data collected from 194 alliances to substantiate how NSD and NPD differ on these collaborative dimensions and then explores their impact on NSD versus NPD performance. The findings suggest that collaboration between firms in NSD is configured and works differently than collaboration between firms in NPD. The results further show that there is a stronger, positive relationship of intensity levels of joint engagement among firms involved in product development and performance than when a new service is developed. However, the intensity of mutual trust has a stronger, positive relationship with development performance when a new service is developed than when a new product is developed. Implications are discussed, and suggestions for future research are given.     

Looking Innovative: Exploring the Role of Impression Management in High‐Tech Product Adoption and Use

Although consumer adoption of high‐tech innovations is certainly influenced by the product's functional benefits, can the use of a new product confer social benefits as well? Specifically, can the mere use of an innovative product convey the impression that the user is an innovative person? Impression management (IM) is a well‐established phenomenon in social psychology that refers to the human tendency to monitor, consciously or unconsciously, the efficacy of his or her communication of self to others. This research explores the role that IM motivations, or “looking innovative,” play in consumers' use of new high‐tech products, especially in the workplace—an environment in which innovativeness is clearly valued by employers and, thus, individuals have strong motivations to convey innovativeness as a personal characteristic. Data from both ethnographic and experimental methods demonstrate that (1) the use of new high‐tech products can be a surprisingly effective social signal of one's “tech savvy” and personal innovativeness; (2) this impression even significantly increases positive evaluations of secondary traits such as leadership and professional success; and (3) this effect differs by gender. Intriguingly, stronger benefits accrue for women than for men—a finding that runs counter to the backlash effect typically found in IM research in business settings (i.e., female job evaluations typically suffer after engaging in the same self‐promoting IM strategies that benefit their male counterparts). Further, the data show that, even for professional recruiters, a momentary observation of a job candidate using a new high‐tech product versus a low‐tech equivalent significantly increases the candidate's evaluation and likelihood of being hired.     

Sectoral Heterogeneity in New Service Development: An Exploratory Study of Service Types and Success Factors

The service industry is of fundamental relevance for the economies of industrialized countries, as the service industry produces the highest growth in the gross domestic product. In this regard, new service development (NSD) represents a critical resource for competitive survival and a decisive factor of growth in the service industry. However, service firms across many industries are increasingly faced with the challenge of determining how best to manage their development of new service offerings. Although researchers have shown growing interest in NSD issues, this area is still underutilized. Furthermore, although the heterogeneity of the service industry has been emphasized for years, the current body of research on NSD mainly focuses on specific service environments, providing data that are often not comparable across different service sectors. Additionally, there is no study to date that comprehensively examines innovation activities and the relevance of service innovations’ success factors within different service industries. The aim of this exploratory study is to establish a more balanced picture of the nature of innovation activities in terms of NSD characteristics and success factors in the heterogeneous service industry. From this perspective, this paper begins with an examination of the factors that contribute to the success of NSD. Based on a meta‐analysis of new service success factor studies, 17 different success determinants are classified and aggregated to service‐related success determinants. Subsequently, a cluster analysis of 1016 service companies is used to identify different service innovation types. For the service sector, four service innovation types are determined: efficient developers, innovative developers, interactive adopters, and standardized adopters. Furthermore, based on interviews with service innovation managers, the previously identified success factors are examined for each innovation type using a standardized survey. Finally, based on the results of this exploratory study, the paper concludes with recommendations for NSD management and research propositions for each service innovation type. These propositions support innovation managers to successfully manage service innovations for the innovation type they are operating in.     

Thematic Thinking and Individual Performance in Research and Development

Individuals differ in their preference for processing information on the basis of taxonomic, feature‐based similarity, or thematic, relation‐based similarity. These differences, which have been investigated in a recently emerging research stream in cognitive psychology, affect innovative behavior and thus constitute an important antecedent of individual performance in research and development (R&D) that has been overlooked so far in the literature on innovation management. To fill this research gap, survey and test data from the employees of a multinational information technology services firm are used to examine the relationship between thematic thinking and R&D professionals' individual performance. A moderated mediation model is applied to investigate the proposed relationships of thematic thinking and individual‐level performance indicators. Results show a positive relationship between thematic thinking and innovativeness, as well as individual job performance. While the results do not support the postulated moderation of the innovativeness–job performance relationship by employees' political skill, they show that the relationship between thematic thinking and job performance is fully mediated by R&D professionals' innovativeness. The present study is thus the first to reveal a positive relationship between thematic thinking and innovative performance.     

Vertical and Horizontal Cross‐Ties: Benefits of Cross‐Hierarchy and Cross‐Unit Ties for Innovative Projects

Social networks are an important driver for successful innovation, both at the individual level as well as the organizational level. Recent research has also shaped that networks within teams can enhance performance. Innovative project teams are embedded in an organizational context, however, and teams typically consist of people with expertise from diverse backgrounds, and from different units. Team members may have ties to other teams, business units, and hierarchical levels. Although it seems clear that such ties can influence team performance, remarkably little research has focused on what is here referred to as vertical and horizontal cross‐ties. Previous research may have ignored the possibility that vertical and horizontal bridging ties may have different performance outcomes. Although the literature suggests that diversity of input, or horizontal cross‐unit ties will benefit team performance and innovativeness, there is reason to believe that ties to higher levels in the organization might have an effect on project team performance and innovativeness too. This article in particular studies the role of vertical cross‐hierarchy ties. In an exploratory analysis combining quantitative and qualitative results, it is distinguished between horizontal cross‐unit and vertical cross‐hierarchy ties and their contribution to new business development (NBD) project performance, thereby making a substantial contribution to both academic literature and managerial practice. Our study is based on a multiple case‐study approach of several NBD project teams in a large European financial service provider. Our results show that successful innovation project teams are characterized by a large number of cross‐unit ties in combination with a large number of cross‐hierarchical ties compared with less successful project teams. Additionally, proof is found that vertical cross‐hierarchy ties should be concentrated rather than scattered across project members.     

Mixing rich and asynchronous communication for new service development performance

This article explores the nature of relationships between internal communication modes, new service development (NSD) competencies (specifically learning and development competencies) and NSD performance. To do so, it draws on and advances communication theory by comparing and contrasting the contingent approach, favoured by media richness theory and media synchronicity theory, with the multiplicative manner of dual coding theory. Antecedent roles of rich and asynchronous communication modes for two NSD competencies are investigated, and their function as critical contingency variables affecting the competencies–performance link is unravelled. An empirical quantitative study of senior managers of leading service firms was conducted, with a survey‐based methodology. Results show that a learning competency drives development competency which in turn drives NSD performance. Asynchronous communication is essential for learning competency but not for development competency. In contrast, rich communication underpins development but has no direct effect on learning competency. Rich communication is essential for NSD performance when a firm has a low development competency. The interaction between asynchronous and rich communication is shown to be positive for learning, whereas surprisingly it is negative for development competency.     

Heading for new shores: Do service and hybrid innovations outperform product innovations in industrial companies?

This study investigates the financial outcomes of product, service, and hybrid innovations in industrial markets. To date, empirical research has focused on product innovations, yet industrial firms are increasingly competing with innovative services to maintain their competitive edge. This study assesses the financial impact of service and hybrid innovations compared with more traditional product innovations. We develop a unique data set that combines information on companies' innovation activities with objective financial data. From a sample of 348 German industrial firms, the analysis reveals that service innovations do not outperform product innovations in industrial markets. A focus on service innovations only pays off in highly price-conscious markets. In contrast, hybrid innovations, referring to the simultaneous market introduction of new products and services, have a positive effect on firm performance above and beyond pure product innovations. This effect is particularly pronounced in competitive markets and under conditions of high customer concentration. In sum, this study demonstrates that hybrid innovations outperform both, pure product and service innovations in industrial markets.     

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

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

Technological Innovativeness as a Moderator of New Product Design Integration and Top Management Support

Many war stories, as well as a number of empirical research studies, point to the value of design integration and top management support in new product development (NPD) efforts, where design integration is conceptualized as the coordination of product and process design activities performed by various organizational groups. However, some emerging evidence suggests that these aspects of program management are not equally valuable in all NPD contexts. Furthermore, the benefits of these approaches may not extend to all dimensions of NPD performance. This article addresses these issues as they relate to technological innovativeness. The author reports the results of a research study designed to (1) assess the direct contributions of design integration and top management support to several dimensions of NPD performance, and (2) identify potential moderating influences of technological innovativeness on these direct effects. A survey of 136 NPD projects drawn from firms representing most of the major U.S. manufacturing industries provides data for the study. The overall goals of the study were to amplify our understanding of management's role in NPD and to further the development of contingency theory explaining new product success. The results indicate that design integration is positively associated with higher design quality in NPD, but it is not significantly linked with better financial performance. In addition, design integration appears to be an important influence on achieving NPD time goals, but only in cases of high technological innovativeness. This result suggests that increased design integration produces its greatest impacts when development processes are full of uncertainty. Top management support is positively associated with better time‐based performance, design quality, and financial performance on the whole. However, a significant interaction effect suggests that high levels of top management support are ineffective in securing good financial performance in high technologically innovative environments. Other forces appear to be at work in these circumstances, making top management support less important. The article discusses the implications of these findings for management practice, a contingency‐oriented view of NPD processes, and future research.     

Software innovativeness: outcomes on project performance, knowledge enhancement, and external linkages

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between product innovativeness and groups of outcomes flowing from the computer software product development process and the associated knowledge acquisition process. Data from interviews of managers in 94 software projects are analysed, and three groups of outcomes are measured: project performance, knowledge enhancement, and the strengthening of linkages to external actors/sources. The high innovative products show higher project performance for all measures of project performance compared with low innovative products. Similar results were found for all measures of personnel knowledge enhancement outcomes. Changes in the importance of linkages to nine different external sources of knowledge used by the firms during the knowledge acquisition process, also show some positive outcomes with respect to rising innovativeness levels. Strengthening of external linkages is found for 66% of the investigated linkages between one or two innovativeness levels. Of these, the linkages to hardware manufacturers, co-operation partners, and universities and other research institutions show strengthening when high innovativeness products are compared with low-level products. As the project performance and knowledge enhancement outcomes are due, in part, to knowledge gained within linkages to external actors/sources, managers could consider whether giving special attention to managing these linkages would be a winning innovation strategy for their particular firm.     

Can Quality‐Oriented Firms Develop Innovative New Products?

Research suggests that a strong focus on quality improvement can adversely affect exploration and thus the development of innovative new products. The focus on quality improvement including total quality management (TQM) has been termed quality orientation. The literature suggests that one way to reduce the adverse effect of a quality orientation on innovativeness is to adopt ambidextrous or dual organizational forms. However, dual organizational forms are cumbersome and expensive to implement. This paper argues that a less demanding structural arrangement for developing innovative products in quality‐oriented organizations involves the creation of cross‐functional teams that are explicitly encouraged to take risk and granted autonomy. In this model, the two dimensions of innovativeness—namely, novelty and appropriateness— are treated separately because quality orientation and encouragement to take risk can have differential effects on these two dimensions. A survey of 141 new product development projects reveals that quality orientation does not adversely affect product novelty in cross‐functional product development teams. However, encouragement given to cross‐functional teams to take risk leads to more novel products. On the other hand, while a quality orientation improves product appropriateness, encouragement to take risk affects it adversely. Quality orientation is able to mitigate the adverse effect of encouragement to take risk on appropriateness. But encouragement to take risk does not influence the relationship between a quality orientation and novelty. Autonomy improves the positive effect of encouragement to take risk on new product novelty but does not influence the effect of a quality orientation on novelty. Both novelty and appropriateness enhance a new product's performance, and both these dimensions of innovativeness partially mediate the effect of quality orientation and fully mediate the effect of encouragement to take risk on new product performance.