Planning and uncertainty in new product development

The domain of New Product Development (NPD) is subject to considerable uncertainties. Aside from market‐related sources of uncertainty, the degree of innovativeness of the underlying product concept is a significant source of uncertainty, as unclear goals and specifications like, e.g. product specifications may lead to substantial delays in the project. However, companies are required to manage the innovation process as efficiently as possible. The resulting conflicting demands often leave companies struggling to achieve both efficiency as well as flexibility due to their often opposing implications for organizing and managing NPD projects. In this context, planning plays a central role; however, its usefulness for NPD project success is perceived quite differently. While there are reports about a positive influence of initial planning on various success measures, others have questioned the effectiveness of elaborated initial planning and contend that the ability to rapidly react to changes later in the process and to improvise may lead to success in NPD. This study aims at achieving a better understanding of planning in NPD by investigating a sample of 475 Research & Development projects in Japanese electrical and mechanical engineering companies. Regression analysis is used to shed more light on the interplay of planning intensity, changes, and the degree of technological newness of the NPD project and their influence on project success. Our results indicate planning to be of value for different types of innovation projects. Furthermore, the influences of the variables in question vary with the success measures that are taken into account, indicating that a more detailed and contingent understanding of planning in NPD needs to be developed.     

High-Technology Service Innovation Success: A Decision-Making Perspective

Successful innovation is crucial for firm survival in high-technology service industries. This article reports on an empirical study, exploring internal innovation success factors—success factors associated with the innovating firm's competencies—by taking a decision-making perspective. The likelihood of innovation success is associated with the systematic reduction of decision-making uncertainty, as a result of organizational information gathering, diffusion, and processing activities. Effects of interfirm differences are investigated in the new service development phase of the innovation process. Cross-sectional data were collected about 251 innovation projects from companies in Europe, the United States, and Japan. Innovation success is found to be related positively and directly to how well informed and knowledgeable decision-makers are. Furthermore, the study provides evidence that a market orientation contributes as an internal success factor: An organizational climate favorable to information sharing powerfully mediates the positive effects of intelligence gathering with respect to customers and technology. The effects of competitor orientation carry a negative sign, and managerial seniority appears not to play a major role in this turbulent business. Managerial and research implications are provided.     

The role of intermediaries in cross‐industry innovation processes

In this article, we investigate the role intermediaries play in the cross‐industry innovation process. Intermediaries are external institutions that support companies in their innovative activities. They are frequently used to bridge gaps between different industries. Our research focuses on the question of which capabilities an intermediary should have in order to achieve success in initiating a cross‐industry innovation. Our empirical base consists of a survey of 107 European manufacturing companies and an analysis of six collaborative cross‐industry innovation projects. The company survey is used to identify the capabilities an intermediary should have during each of the three phases of the innovation process. The cross‐industry projects, each of which involves a Swiss or a German industrial company and an intermediary, provide us with analyzable data. We conclude our study by identifying three types of intermediary: the innovation broadener, the innovation leverager, and the innovation multiplier.     

How Ideation Portfolio Management Influences Front‐End Success

The front end of innovation is recognized as an important driver for successful new products and business prosperity. On the one hand, companies must generate a sufficient number and variety of high‐quality ideas to obtain a well‐balanced portfolio of potentially successful innovation projects. On the other hand, companies must strictly select and prioritize promising ideas and concepts because resource constraints do not allow for the pursuit of every idea. Therefore, companies must practice ideation portfolio management to simultaneously support the variety and selection of ideas and concepts before they enter the innovation project portfolio. To date, there is no research on how ideation portfolio management affects the performance of the front end and of the eventual project portfolio. The current study addresses this research gap in an empirical cross‐industry investigation of 175 medium‐sized and large firms in Germany using a double‐informant design. Ideation portfolio management is conceptualized with three elements: ideation strategy, process formalization, and creative encouragement. We find that all three elements independently and significantly contribute to front‐end success. The results also show that front‐end success mediates the relationship between the elements of ideation portfolio management and project portfolio success. More importantly, we find significant interaction effects between creative encouragement and process formalization and between creative encouragement and ideation strategy. The findings suggest that these elements of ideation portfolio management are complementary and should be balanced to maximize the performance of the front end and the eventual innovation project portfolio.     

Technological interweavement: a means of achieving innovation success

In this paper, results are presented of an empirical study of the Lake Constance region covering a sample of 848 manufacturing companies. Based upon multivariate analyses, the paper documents that the mobilization of external resources and know-how is a critical factor for a firm's technological innovation success which in turn is the main determinant of commercial innovation success. The findings show that there are three kinds of technology-oriented external relationships, which prove to be of special importance: close contacts with customers, linkages to universities and research institutes and R&D-cooperations with other companies.     

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.     

基于神经网络的产品突破性创新机遇识别

为了帮助企业在进行技术研发之前识别出最有潜力的技术,提高产品突破性创新的成功概率,提出了一种在模糊前端阶段进行突破性创新机遇识别的定量方法。首先,通过文献研究,确定产品突破性创新的路径特征,并提取产品突破性创新的相关影响因素,通过建立解释结构模型（ISM）提取并构建产品突破性创新机遇识别特征体系。其次,对突破性创新案例和非突破性创新案例进行特征对比,以各特征因素变化趋势为自变量,建立神经网络。最后,对样本数据进行拟合,构建产品突破性创新机遇识别模型。研究结果表明,研究所提模型能够对产品的突破性创新机遇进行有效识别,可应用于产品创新设计过程的模糊前端阶段。研究可为企业在突破性创新项目中更有效地进行机遇识别提供理论指导。     

The influence of material resources on innovation projects: the role of resource elasticity

More (rather than fewer) material resources are thought to be the key driver in innovation project performance. Recent empirical evidence, however, suggests that the influence of material resource availability on innovation projects is not as simple and straightforwardly positive as it may seem. We build on the concept of an innovation project team's resource elasticity to disentangle the material resource–innovation output conundrum. This concept is analogous to the marketing concept of price elasticity and points to four types of innovation project teams based on their resource elasticity: In resource‐elastic teams, the relationship between material resources and innovation outcomes is positive (hence, they are ‘resource driven’ when able to dispose of adequate material resources or ‘resource victims’ when lacking these material resources). In contrast, and as a significant departure from previous work, resource‐inelastic teams show no or even a negative relationship between material resource adequacy and team performance (thus, the teams are ‘resourceful’ if they can perform with limited material resources or ‘resource burners’ if they show low success with adequate material resources). Because neither adequate nor inadequate material resources seem to be a reliable predictor of success, we synthesize empirical research efforts that point to each team type's key characteristics to derive novel implications for managing innovation projects.     

Scientists' commitment to underperforming research projects: linking past success and the social environment

This article investigates scientists' commitment to underperforming research projects based on the concomitant consideration of their past success and social environments. Based on escalation of commitment and network theory, the model hypothesizes that past success triggers the commitment to underperforming projects but that the strength of this influence varies depending on the characteristics of decision makers' social networks. Results from the analysis of 3,072 scenario assessments nested within 96 scientists show that the positive relationship between past success and continued investment in underperforming projects is more positive when the network is larger, when the ties within the network are stronger, and when feedback from network partners is predominantly positive. Surprisingly and contrary to model predictions, results also show that the relationship between past success and scientists' tendency to commit to underperforming projects becomes stronger with lower communication frequency with network partners. This study extends current research by exploring the boundary conditions of the impact of decision makers' social environment on commitment to failing projects. Further, it adds to literature on the downside of success by emphasizing that decision makers, particularly those in some social environments, are driven to commit additional resources to underperforming – and potentially failing – projects. Decision makers acting in such environments should be aware that they are prone to overinvestment of resources, and the findings of this study can help them increase their awareness. Based on this study's results, decision makers (including scientists) can thus better reflect on and improve their research project evaluations. Finally, the findings of this study open up various opportunities for future research.     

R&D-based strategies in the semiconductor and drug industries: rationale, organization and actions

The author's aim was to elicit the factors that determine the success or failure of corporate innovations in the European semi-conductor and pharmaceutical industries. To do this he divided firms into two groups, the members of one having a good innovation record ('prospectors') and of the other a poor one ('would-be innovators'). Members of both groups spent heavily on R&D. The author used as his data-base a combination of publicly available data, interviews and questionnaires administered to staff.
Among the success factors identified are the following: Concentrate innovation projects and related R&D into fairly restricted channels; minimise diversification; work to explicit but not too detailed top management guidelines for innovation activity; define clear and realistic goals; minimise red-tape and formality and be willing to revise plans frequently; ensure a close relationship between R&D, Marketing and Manufacturing, but allow R&D to maintain a long-range perspective; provide a stimulating, supportive and well-supervised working environment.