Strategic relationships between boundary-spanning functions: Aligning customer relationship management with supplier relationship management

This review focuses on the potential impact of enhanced strategic relationships between the boundary-spanning functions in supplier organizations. Specifically, the concern is with alignment between the organizational groups managing: marketing, sales and strategic account management; purchasing and supply strategy; and, collaborations and external partnerships. The topic is framed by the organizational evolution being driven by market change, and the search for superior innovation capabilities and business agility. These changes bring new challenges in cross-boundary integration and managing complex market networks. The logic is that strategic external relationships (with customers, supplier and partners) should be mirrored in strategic internal relationships (between the functions with lead responsibilities for managing relationships with customers, supplier and partners). Approaches to enhancing this capability include process management, internal partnering strategies and internal marketing activities. The discussion identifies a number of implications for practice and new research directions.     

A platform approach in solution business: How platform openness can be used to control solution networks

This paper explores how customer solution providers leverage digital platform architectures and particularly platform openness to exert control over complex organizational networks. A multiple case-study approach studies three companies with digital platforms that orchestrate solution networks in the LED and ICT industries. Our findings show that the features of product modules (core or peripheral), service modules (relationship intensity and customization), and knowledge modules (explicit, tacit and codified) have differential influence on the levels of platform openness. By managing platform openness of different subsystems accordingly, the solution providers can achieve different control benefits, including ensuring module quality, increasing offering variety, reducing dependence on module providers, and facilitating resource sharing. We contribute to the literature on solution business by reconceptualising the platform approach from a two-level perspective. We also deepen the field's understanding of the role of digital platforms in solution business from an architectural perspective.     

Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance

This paper draws on the social and behavioral sciences in an endeavor to specify the nature and microfoundations of the capabilities necessary to sustain superior enterprise performance in an open economy with rapid innovation and globally dispersed sources of invention, innovation, and manufacturing capability. Dynamic capabilities enable business enterprises to create, deploy, and protect the intangible assets that support superior long‐ run business performance. The microfoundations of dynamic capabilities—the distinct skills, processes, procedures, organizational structures, decision rules, and disciplines—which undergird enterprise‐level sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring capacities are difficult to develop and deploy. Enterprises with strong dynamic capabilities are intensely entrepreneurial. They not only adapt to business ecosystems, but also shape them through innovation and through collaboration with other enterprises, entities, and institutions. The framework advanced can help scholars understand the foundations of long‐run enterprise success while helping managers delineate relevant strategic considerations and the priorities they must adopt to enhance enterprise performance and escape the zero profit tendency associated with operating in markets open to global competition. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The role of digital technologies in open innovation processes: an exploratory multiple case study analysis

Digital transformation has undoubtedly become a key enabler of innovation as evidenced by the numerous firms that use digital technologies to manage their innovation processes. This issue is even more relevant today when innovation processes have become more open and require greater resources in the different implementation phases to capture and transfer knowledge within and outside the firm's boundaries. This implies additional challenges in managing the increasing amount of knowledge and information flows. Accordingly, digital technologies can be used and implemented to manage open innovation processes through easier access and sharing the knowledge created and transferred. Nevertheless, literature in these fields does not provide a structured view of how and why digital technologies are used to manage innovation processes in an open perspective. This paper aims to bridge this gap by adopting the theoretical lenses of change management to identify the managerial actions at organizational and process level that companies perform to implement digital technologies in their open innovation processes. Accordingly, the paper investigates how and why these managerial actions required for and enabled by digital technologies help firms to develop and nurture open innovation. From an empirical point of view, the exploratory multiple case study analyzes nine firms operating in different industries and varying in size, market share, and organizational structure.     

How Firms Develop Capabilities for Crowdsourcing to Increase Open Innovation Performance: The Interplay between Organizational Roles and Knowledge Processes

In recent years, crowdsourcing has emerged as a promising open innovation strategy for firms searching for solutions to technical problems. Previous research has shown that crowdsourcing can provide quick access to distant knowledge at relatively low costs, when compared to other forms of innovation governance such as internal sourcing or contract research. Recent studies, however, indicate that firms differ considerably in their ability to reap the benefits from crowdsourcing. Drawing upon recent work on the microfoundations of capabilities, we hypothesize how three types of lower level organizational elements may affect gains from crowdsourcing: informal organizational roles, formal organizational roles, and knowledge processes. Following a mixed‐method research design and drawing on rich quantitative and qualitative data, we find that informal and formal organizational roles work through processes of knowledge articulation and codification in developing a firm’s crowdsourcing capability. By going beyond the direct effects of the three antecedents, our research sheds light on the process of capability development for open innovation.     

Cooperative Innovation Projects: Capabilities and Governance Mechanisms*

This paper is concerned with how firms in a project‐based industry cooperate in technological innovation projects in the construction industry. The main focus of the paper is on the sharing of capabilities in cooperative innovation projects and how these cooperations are governed. A knowledge‐based perspective is applied, and four cooperative innovation projects in the construction industry are compared. Based on the case studies, a set of propositions is defined. First, a cooperation aimed at a mutual strategic benefit in mutually gaining access to the knowledge bases of the involved firms, while maintaining their own differentiated knowledge base, can result in more stable and long term relationships with mutual trust between the cooperating firms. Second, in a cooperation aimed at a mutual strategic benefit in mutually gaining access to the knowledge bases of the involved firms, partners not only gain access to each other's technological capabilities but also develop and share knowledge about organizational aspects and market situations and gain knowledge about the way of working of the partner firm. Third, in a cooperation aimed at mutual strategic benefit in mutually gaining access to the knowledge bases of the involved firms, noncodifiability of the capabilities is conditional to create a win–win situation. And fourth, cooperation aimed at a mutual strategic benefit in mutually gaining access to the knowledge bases of the involved firms is based on mutual competence and intentional trust as its main governance mechanism, whereas contracting between market parties aimed at knowledge–output transactions is represented by limited trust and arms' length (contractual) relationships as its main governance mechanism.     

Performance of Global New Product Development Programs: A Resource-Based View

Gaining a competitive edge in today's turbulent business environment calls for a commitment by firms to two highly interrelated strategies: globalization and new product development (NPD). Although much research has focused on how companies achieve NPD success, little of this deals with NPD in the global setting. The authors use resource‐based theory (RBT)—a model emphasizing the resources and capabilities of the firm as primary determinants of competitive advantage—to explain how companies involved in international NPD realize superior performance. The capabilities RBT model is used to test how firms achieve superior performance by deploying organizational capabilities to take advantage of key organizational resources relevant for developing new products for global markets. Specifically, the study evaluates (1) organizational NPD resources (i.e., the firm's global innovation culture, attitude to resource commitment, top‐management involvement, and NPD process formality); (2) NPD process capabilities or routines for identifying and exploiting new product opportunities (i.e., global knowledge integration, NPD homework activities, and launch preparation); and (3) global NPD program performance. Based on data from 387 global NPD programs (North America and Europe, business‐to‐business), a structural model testing for the hypothesized mediation effects of NPD process capabilities on organizational NPD resources was largely supported. The findings indicate that all four resources considered relevant for effective deployment of global NPD process capabilities play a significant role. Specifically, a positive attitude toward resource commitment as well as NPD process formality is essential for the effective deployment of the three NPD process routines linked to achieving superior global NPD program performance; a strong global innovation culture is needed for ensuring effective global knowledge integration; and top‐management involvement plays a key role in deploying both knowledge integration and launch preparation. Of the three NPD process capabilities, global knowledge integration is the most important, whereas homework and launch preparation also play a significant role in bringing about global NPD program success. Tests for partial mediation suggest that too much process formality may be negative and that top‐management involvement requires careful focus.     

Creating Dynamic Capability: The Role of Intertemporal Integration, Knowledge Retention, and Interpretation

Uncertainty about the ability for technological knowledge to be transformed to meet market demands, lack of complementary technologies, the lack of developed markets for a given technical feature, and other types of uncertainty add significant challenges to organizations as they develop products for future markets. In spite of these significant challenges, some organizations develop a dynamic capability in new product development that becomes a powerful source of competitive advantage and a source of renewal, growth, and adaptation as the environment changes. Many approaches to new product development (e.g., cross‐functional development teams, quality function deployment, early supplier involvement, heavyweight product development teams) address the need to integrate knowledge more rapidly and effectively within projects. These approaches do not address, however, how knowledge is integrated over time or how integration of knowledge from previous new product development efforts influences the firm's new product development performance. This study focuses on providing a greater understanding of the integrative practices that contribute to this capability in new product development. Based on insights from the innovation and learning literatures, this study proposes relationships about the influence of knowledge retention and interpretation activities on the organization's ability to integrate knowledge developed in prior new product development projects and on new product development performance. Data collected from a sample of new product development professionals are employed to test the proposed relationships among knowledge retention, knowledge interpretation, integration of prior knowledge, and new product development performance. The findings suggest that knowledge retention and interpretation activities positively impact a firm's new product development performance. In particular, practices that enable the retention and interpretation of knowledge improve new product development performance indirectly through the firm's enhanced ability to apply knowledge developed in prior product development projects to subsequent projects. Practices that enable the interpretation of knowledge in the firm's current strategic context also improve new product development performance directly. These findings lead to important implications for managing new product development.     

Perspective: Leveraging Open Innovation through Paradox

In search of fresh ideas, firms increasingly engage with external contributors in open innovation collaborations. However, research has found that such collaborations frequently fail, and has pointed to conflicting demands of control and openness. On the one hand, firms want controlled and selective participation, clarity of purpose, and a choice of ideas based on their own current capacity and value appropriation strategies. On the other, their external contributors tend to want open and unfettered participation, the creative potential of the idea per se, and unrestricted knowledge sharing. This article proposes to shift the conceptual frame from looking at the tensions between control and openness as problems to looking at them as synergies. Drawing on the literature of open innovation and organizational paradox, this article contributes a novel perspective on open innovation that suggests how firms can leverage open innovation collaborations through paradox by combining practices based on differentiation and integration.     

Exploring the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities for social innovation in a humanitarian aid supply network setting

This paper explores the microfoundations of the dynamics capabilities (DCs) needed for social innovation in a humanitarian aid context. We aim to reveal how humanitarian aid supply networks should develop DCs to achieve social innovation by meeting societal needs in highly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environments. We conducted a qualitative content analysis on the activities of Logistics Cluster (LC), which is an organization that coordinates and guides local and international organizations to support worldwide humanitarian aid interventions. We primarily examined the LC's lessons-learned reports, supported by semi-structured interviews with the managers of LC and its supply network members. The findings revealed that: (i) early anticipation of needs in disaster-affected areas and lessons-learned exercises are the microfoundations of sensing capabilities; (ii) building capacity, supply network service provision, collaboration with logistics service providers, local partner engagement, building trust, and reconciliation are the microfoundations of seizing capabilities; and (iii) coordination and adaptability are the microfoundations of reconfiguring capabilities in the humanitarian aid context. Additionally, we identified relevant microprocesses for this context, which are preparing, engaging, strengthening, streamlining, and responding. Based on these findings, we propose a framework for social innovation in highly dynamic settings.     

Product Development as Core Competence: How Formal Product Development Practices Differ for Radical,More Innovative,and Incremental Product Innovations

Although universally recognized as an important consideration in building product development (PD) competency, the effect of a firm's ability to vary its PD practices to develop winning products has been given scant attention in large‐scale, multiorganizational, quantitative studies. This research explores differences in formal new PD practices among three project types—incremental, more innovative, and radical. Using a sample of 380 business units, this research investigates how development practices differ across these three classes of innovation with respect to the formal PD process, project organization, PD strategy, organizational culture, and senior management commitment. Our results diverge from several commonly held beliefs about formal PD processes and the management of radical versus incremental innovations. Our results indicate that radical projects are managed less flexibly than incremental projects. Instead of being an offshoot of less strategic planning, radical projects are just as strategically aligned as incremental projects. Instead of being informally introduced entrepreneurial adventures, radical projects are often the result of more formal ideation methods. While these results may be counterintuitive to suppositional models of how to radical innovation happens, it is the central theme of this research to show how radical innovation actually happens. Our findings also provide a foundation for reexamining the role of control in the management of innovation. As the level of innovativeness increased, so too did the amount of controls imposed—e.g., less flexibility in the development process, more professional, full‐time project leadership, centralized executive oversight for new products, and formal financial assessments of expected NP performance.     

Managing the Exploitation/Exploration Paradox: The Role of a Learning Capability and Innovation Ambidexterity

Some researchers have proposed that practices facilitating learning and knowledge transfer are particularly important to innovation. Some of the practices that researchers have studied include how organizations collaborate with other organizations, how organizations promote learning, and how an organization's culture facilitates knowledge transfer and learning. And while some have proposed the importance of combining practices, there has been a distinct lack of empirical studies that have explored how these practices work together to facilitate learning and knowledge transfer that leads to the simultaneous achievement of incremental and radical innovation, what we refer to as innovation ambidexterity (IA). Yet, a firm's ability to combine these practices into a learning capability is an important means of enabling them to foster innovation ambidexterity. In this study, learning capability is defined as the combination of practices that promote intraorganizational learning among employees, partnerships with other organizations that enable the spread of learning, and an open culture within the organization that promotes and maintains sharing of knowledge. This paper examines the impact of this learning capability on innovation ambidexterity and innovation ambidexterity's effect on business performance. The resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm is used to develop a conceptual foundation for combining these practices. This study empirically examines whether these practices constitute a learning capability by analyzing primary data gathered from 214 Taiwanese owned strategic business unit (SBUs) drawn from several industries where innovation is important. The results of this study make four important contributions. First, they demonstrate that the combination of these practices has a greater impact on innovation ambidexterity than any one practice individually or when only two practices are combined. Second, the results demonstrate a relationship between innovation ambidexterity and business performance in the form of revenues, profits, and productivity growth relative to competitors. Third, the results suggest that innovation ambidexterity plays a mediating role between learning capability and business performance. That is, learning capability has an indirect impact on business performance by facilitating innovation ambidexterity that in turn fosters business performance. This study also contributes to our understanding of ambidexterity literature in a non‐Western context, i.e., Taiwan.     

How to Build an AI Climate-Driven Service Analytics Capability for Innovation and Performance in Industrial Markets?

AI climate-driven service analytics capability has been anecdotally argued as a viable strategy to enhance service innovation and market performance in B2B markets. While AI climate refers to the shared perceptions of policies, procedures, and practices to support AI initiatives, cognitive service analytics capability refers to the analytical insights driven by AI climate and augmented by both machines and humans to make marketing decisions. However, there is limited knowledge on the antecedents of such analytics capabilities and their overall effects on service innovation and market performance. Drawing on service analytics literature and the microfoundations of dynamic capability theory, this study fills this research gap using in-depth interviews (n = 30) and a survey (n = 276) of service analytics managers within the AI climate in Australia. The findings confirm the five microfoundations of cognitive service analytics capabilities (cognitive technology, cognitive information, cognitive problem solving, cognitive knowledge & skills, cognitive training & development). The findings also highlight the significant mediating effect of service innovation in the relationship between analytics climate and market performance and cognitive service analytics capability and market performance.     

Organizing for Radical Innovation: An Exploratory Study of the Structural Aspects of RI Management Systems in Large Established Firms

To escape the intense competition of today's global economy, large established organizations seek growth options beyond conventional new product development that leads to incremental changes in current product lines. Radical innovation (RI) is one such pathway, which results in organically driven growth through the creation of whole new lines of business that bring new to the world performance features to the market and may result in the creation of entirely new markets. Yet success is elusive, as many have experienced and scholars have documented. This article reports results of a three-year, longitudinal study of 12 large established firms that have declared a strategic intent to evolve their RI capabilities. In contrast to other academic research that has analyzed specific projects to understand management practices appropriate for RI, the present research reported explores the evolution of management systems for enabling radical innovation to occur repeatedly in large firms and reports on one aspect of this management system: organizational structures for enabling and nurturing RI. To consider organizational structure as a venue for capability development is new in the management of innovation and dynamic capabilities literatures. Conventional wisdom holds that RIs should be incubated outside the company and assimilated once they have gained traction in the marketplace. Numerous experiments with organizational structures were observed that instead work to manage the interfaces between the RI management system and the mother organization. These structures are described here, and insights are drawn out regarding radical innovation competency requirements, transition challenges, senior leadership mandates, and business-unit ambidexterity. The centerpiece of this research is the explication of the Discovery–Incubation–Acceleration framework, which details three sets of necessary, though not sufficient competencies, for building an RI capability.     

Do not miss the boat to outside-in open innovation: Enable your employees

In a highly competitive business environment, firms are increasingly opening up to external partners and gathering their knowledge to improve internal innovation processes. Although researchers have found that outside-in open innovation (OI) has a multitude of positive outcomes (e.g., improved innovation performance), few have studied its antecedents, and especially the “softer” ones. Thus, this study aims to empirically examine three “softer” drivers of outside-in OI (i.e., entrepreneurial culture, OI support, and OI enablement), based on a cross-industry sample of 104 firms. The results show that the relationship between entrepreneurial culture and outside-in OI is fully and positively mediated by OI enablement, whereas the mediating role of OI support in such relationship is not significant. This implies that entrepreneurial culture is unlikely to increase the level of outside-in OI, unless firms enable their employees, through systematic training and the deployment of teams, to effectively gather relevant knowledge from external partners.     

Knowledge sharing and strategic fit in integrated product development proejcts: An empirical study

While product strategy has been approached from a variety of perspectives, the role of strategic fit as a critical linkage of knowledge sharing practices and new product development outcomes have not been adequately explored. This paper discusses how strategic fit is instrumental for cross-functional teams to integrate product development outcomes. This paper identifies critical knowledge sharing components that enhances the extent of strategic fit that in turn improves the success of product development efforts. Strategic fit or alignment requires knowledge sharing practices of the product development team. Teams with a shared knowledge base are more capable of thinking strategically, adapting their actions to their project environment and accordingly engaging in innovative problem-solving while ultimately achieving project goals of time, cost and value. This paper presents and tests a research model using a sample of 285 product development projects of firms from USA, Canada and Spain. The results suggest that strategic fit is associated with greater knowledge sharing and enhance product development outcomes in both small and large firms as well as diverse regions (i.e., USA, Canada and Spain).     

Innovation Management Practices Compared: The Example of Project‐Based Firms*

The importance of project‐based firms is increasing, as they fulfill the growing demands for complex integrated systems and knowledge‐intensive services. While project‐based firms are generally strong in innovating their clients' systems and processes, they seem to be less successful in innovating their own products or services. The reasons behind this are the focus of this paper. The characteristics of project‐based firms are investigated, how these affect management practices for innovation projects, and the influence of these practices on project performance. Using survey data of 203 Dutch firms in the construction, engineering, information technology, and related industries, differences in characteristics between project‐based and nonproject‐based firms are identified. Project‐based firms are distinguished from nonproject‐based firms on the basis of organizational configuration, the complexity of the operational process, and the project management capabilities of the firm. Project‐based firms also differ with regard to their level of collaboration and their innovation strategy, but not in the level of autonomy. A comparison of 135 innovation projects in 96 of the firms shows that project‐based firms do not manage their innovation projects different from other firms. However, the effects of specific management practices on project performance are different, particularly the effects of planning, multidisciplinary teams and heavyweight project leaders. Differences in firm characteristics provide an explanation for the findings. The implication for the innovation management literature is that “best” practices for innovation management are firm dependent.     

A paradox within the paradox of openness: The knowledge leveraging conundrum in open innovation

Firms’ innovative capabilities and performance increasingly rely on successful search and integration of internal and external knowledge. To this end, firms engage in various open innovation relationships, aiming to create and capture value in multi-actor contexts. This can give rise to a “paradox of openness” due to the contradictory role of knowledge as a key resource that creates value when shared, but also as a source of appropriability challenges. We explore the concept of a “paradox within a paradox;” the knowledge-leveraging paradox embedded within the paradox of openness. We integrate a knowledge-based view with paradox theory and develop a conceptual model to pinpoint core knowledge-related transferability and exposure tensions. We then show how these tensions are inversely moderated by innovation-related knowledge ambiguity. This ambiguity amplifies transferability tensions by making the knowledge more difficult to transfer and integrate across organizational boundaries, while relieving exposure tensions for the same reasons. We discuss potential solutions for resolving these core knowledge-related tensions by identifying separation and restructuring mechanisms that can facilitate simultaneous knowledge transfer and alleviate exposure hazards.     

Exploiting knowledge across networks through reputation management

The emerging paradigm of network competition is increasingly in evidence across many industrial sectors and provides further support for the idea that ‘supply chains compete, not companies’. It can be argued that network competition requires a much greater focus on managing the interfaces that connect the individual players in that network and exchanging and leveraging knowledge across the network. This paper sets out to establish a framework whereby the critical interfaces and the knowledge sharing benefits can be identified and how the strength of the relationships at those interfaces can become the basis for building organisational reputation and create an environment more conducive to co-operation and knowledge sharing. Finally, the paper analyses the potential impact of reputational risks in influencing the perception of stakeholders about the organisation.Whilst the idea of value-adding networks based on closely connected providers of capabilities and resources is appealing, it should be recognised that, if not properly managed, the actions of the stakeholders in those networks can impact the risk profile of the business significantly—particularly reputational risk. The more that organisations become part of complex global networks, the more dependent they become upon the other network members for knowledge and other resources. Because of this dependency there is always the danger that the reputation of the focal firm can be damaged by the actions of other network members, hence reducing the likelihood of future collaborative working and knowledge exploitation.Using examples drawn from a variety of industries, the paper highlights the potential for reputational risk if the critical network interfaces are not closely managed. It will be argued that by actively managing relationships with stakeholders in the network the risk to the organisation's reputation can be mitigated and the sharing of knowledge simultaneously enhanced.     

Communities of Practice versus Organizational Climate: Which One Matters More to Dispersed Collaboration in the Front End of Innovation?*

Dispersed collaboration provides many benefits such as members' closeness to local cultures and markets and reachability of talent worldwide. Hence, it is no surprise that dispersed collaboration is frequently being used by product development teams. A necessary but not sufficient condition for innovation performance is the sharing of tacit, non‐codified and explicit, codified knowledge by the team. Situated learning theory, however, predicts that tacit knowledge sharing will be largely prevented by “decontextualization.” Therefore, increasing usage of dispersed collaboration will decrease levels of tacit knowledge—crucial to innovation and organizational performance—in the business unit. This research investigates the moderating role of mechanisms believed to enable tacit knowledge transfer in the front end of innovation. Using data from 116 business units, the moderating role of communities of practice and organizational climate on the relationship between the proficiency of dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance is investigated. Encouragement of communities of practice is found to moderate the relationship between proficiency of dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance on the business unit level. More specifically, proficiency of dispersed collaboration is not related at all to front end of innovation performance in business units with low support for communities of practice; but a positive relationship exists in business units with high support for communities of practice. This study does not provide support for the moderating effect of organizational climate on the relationship between proficiency in dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance. However, supportiveness of climate has a significant direct effect on front end of innovation performance. The findings of this study suggest that managers should simultaneously invest in increasing proficiency in dispersed collaboration and supporting communities of practice. Either one by itself is insufficient. Because of its significant direct effect, managers should also nurture an open climate favoring risk taking, trust, and open interaction.