Speed-to-Market and New Product Performance Trade-offs

When pressed to accelerate a development effort, more than a few managers have responded in terms such as “Good, fast, cheap … Pick any two.” Time-to-market decisions clearly play an important role in determining the ultimate success or failure of a new product. Just as clearly, however, speed to market is not the sole determinant of success. The seemingly offhanded “Pick any two” response points to the tradeoffs that product development managers must make in their decisions about development time and costs. Barry Bayus discusses the relationship between product development time and costs, and he fomulates a mathematical model that simultaneously considers the decisions regarding time-to-market and product performance levels. He applies the model to two competitive scenarios, and he identifies the optimal entry timing and product performance decisions for various market, demand, and cost conditions. In the first scenario, a firm must decide whether to accelerate development efforts to catch a competitor that has just introduced a new product. Analysis of the tradeoffs among the various parameters in the model suggests that fast development of low-performance products is optimal under the following conditions: a relatively short window of market opportunity, a weak competitor, and relatively high development costs. For example, if the competitor is weak, high performance levels are not necessary and the firm can safely reduce time-to-market. Under the same scenario (that is, accelerating development to catch a competitor), the analysis suggests that fast development of products with high performance levels is optimal under conditions of relatively high sales and relatively flat development costs. In the second scenario, the firm must decide whether to speed development efforts to beat the competition to market. Analysis of the various tradeoffs for this scenario suggests that first-to-market status for a product with a high performnace level is optimal under the following conditions: a relatively long window of market opportunity, relatively high sales, and relatively flat development costs. With a long product lifecycle, stable margins, and high sales, the firm can generate sufficient revenue to offset the increased cost incurred in speeding a high-performance product to market. Beating a competitor to market with a low-performance product is never optimal for the cases considered here.     

How Banks Apply Marketing Expertise to Develop New Derivatives

For banks operating in the fiercely competitive derivatives market, the difference between the leaders and the also-rans often boils down to their respective approaches to product innovation. To achieve market leadership in this highly volatile field, a bank must develop and continually refine the processes and the expertise necessary for identifying new areas of business and attracting and retaining customers. Although the development of derivatives is a complex, expensive process, such development efforts provide the means for satisfying existing clients as well as attracting new customers. F. Axel Johne and M. Panos Pavlidis examine the managerial practices of banks that are acknowledged leaders in bringing new derivatives to market ahead of their competitors. In particular, they examine how those first-mover banks apply their marketing expertise and they review the advantages those banks enjoy as a result of their success in product innovation. The banks studied fall into one of two groups: highly active innovators and less active innovators. The study reveals several significant differences between the two groups with respect to managing marketing inputs for product innovation purposes. First, compared to less active banks, the highly active innovators take a more sophisticated, market-based approach to identifying innovation opportunities. Rather than looking for innovations that offer a close fit with existing products and competencies, they analyze the benefits sought by target clients and initiate innovation efforts based on those analyses. Highly active innovators recognize the important role that internal marketing plays in encouraging functional specialists to work together for the purpose of identifying follow-on development opportunities. Internal marketing also helps to ensure that all parties understand and can support the planned innovation. The highly active innovators in this study do not take a formulaic approach to the development of new derivatives; instead, they rely on marketing expertise to identify and capitalize on business opportunities. Rather than concentrate solely on improving the core technical features of a product, the highly active innovators also recognize the importance of product augmentation innovation (to ensure the appropriate support for various market segments), process innovation (so they can reduce prices, when necessary), and market innovation (to ensure that they pursue the optimal mix of markets).     

Price and quality discrimination in durable goods monopoly with resale trading

We examine a durable goods monopolist’s optimal dynamic price and product quality strategy when buyers are rational and can trade used durables among themselves. In contrast to the usual credibility problem of the durable goods monopolist, intertemporal quality discrimination introduces a time-inconsistency problem of not raising prices against high-valuation consumers who delay purchase for quality upgrades. Resale trading ameliorates this time-inconsistency problem and allows the monopolist to effectively price discriminate, especially when the buyers are patient. The monopolist’s optimal price and quality offers in the new good market exhibit complex dynamic patterns, and new good prices can fall as product quality improves even in the absence of entry threats or learning economies. Initial quality distortions are followed by steady-state quality allocations that are always efficient for the high-valuation buyers, but sometimes also for the marginal consumer-types. Both the resale trading frequency and the price discount for secondhand goods are driven by the pace of strategic quality obsolescence in the new good market.     

Strategies of Innovation and Imitation of Product Languages*

Nowadays, design is recognized as a strategic resource. Customers are increasingly paying attention to the aesthetic, symbolic, and emotional value of products, a value that is conveyed by the design language—that is, the combination of signs (e.g., form, colors, materials) that gives meaning to a product. As a consequence firms are devoting increasing efforts to define a proper strategy for the design language of their products. An empirical analysis was conducted on the product language strategies in the Italian furniture industry; in particular, the present article explores the relationship between innovation and variety of product languages. Companies are usually faced by two major strategic decisions. The first one concerns the innovation of product languages: To what extent should a firm proactively propose new design languages or, rather, should adopt a reactive strategy by rapidly adopting new languages as they emerge in the market? The second decision concerns the variety and heterogeneity of languages in their product range. Should a firm propose a single product language to communicate a precise identity, or should it explore different product languages? Of course, the two strategic decisions—innovativeness and variety of product languages—are closed connected. Analyzing more than 2.000 products launched by 210 firms, the present article explores how the variety of product languages is approached in the strategy of innovators and imitators. The empirical results illustrate an inverse relationship between innovativeness and heterogeneity of product signs and languages. Contrary to what is expected, innovators have lower heterogeneity of product languages. They tend to be strongly proactive and limit experimentations of new languages in the market. Imitators, instead—which would be expected to have low variety since they can invest only in languages that have been proven successful in the market—tend on the contrary to have higher product variety. Eventually, by having lower investments in research on trends of sociocultural models, they miss the capability to interpret the complex evolution of products signs and languages in the market. Strategic decisions on innovativeness and variety of product languages are therefore interrelated; counterintuitively companies should carefully analyze these decisions jointly.     

The Form of Relationship between Firm‐Level Product Innovativeness and New Product Performance in Developed and Emerging Markets

This study compares the new product performance outcomes of firm‐level product innovativeness across a developed and emerging market context. In so doing, a model is constructed in which the relationship between firm‐level product innovativeness and new product performance is anticipated to be curvilinear, and in which the nature of this relationship is argued to be dependent on organizational and environmental factors. The model is tested using primary data obtained from chief executive officers and finance managers in 319 firms operating in the United Kingdom, an advanced Western market, and 221 firms from Ghana, an emerging Sub‐Saharan African market. The model is assessed using a structural equation model multigroup analysis approach with LISREL 8.5. In the United Kingdom and Ghana, the basic form of the relationship between firm‐level product innovativeness and business success is inverted U‐shaped, but the strength and/or form of this relationship changes under differing levels of market orientation, access to financial resources, and environmental dynamism. While commonalities are identified across the two countries (market orientation helps firms leverage their product innovativeness), differences are also observed across the samples. In Ghana, access to financial resources enhances the relationship between product innovativeness and new product performance, unlike in the United Kingdom where no moderation is observed. Furthermore, while U.K. firms leverage product innovativeness to their advantage in more dynamic environments, Ghanaian firms do not benefit in this way: here, high levels of innovation activity are less useful when markets are more dynamic. If the study's findings generalize, there are a number of implications for managers of both emerging and developed market businesses. First, managers in both developed and developing market firms should focus on determining and managing an optimal balance of novel and intensive product innovativeness within the context of their unique institutional environments. Second, for emerging market firms, a market orientation capability helps businesses leverage local market intelligence, enabling them to compete with multinational giants flocking to emerging markets, but typical developed market learning approaches may be insufficient for multinational firms when seeking to compete in emerging markets. Third, for emerging market firms, access to finances helps deliver product innovation success (although this is not the case for developed market firms, possibly due to strong financial institutions). Finally, unlike developed market firms, burdened by institutional voids at home, emerging market firms appear to be less capable of competing on an innovation front in more dynamic market conditions. Accordingly, policymakers in emerging markets should consider identifying ways to help businesses raise market orientation levels, and seek to create conditions that enhance access to financial capital (e.g., direct financing, matching grants, tax rebates, or rewarding firms that innovate creatively and intensely). Likewise, since environmental dynamism is likely to be a growing issue for emerging markets, efforts to help firms become more adept at keeping up with more agile developed market counterparts are needed.     

Consumer Response to Product Form in Technology‐Based Industries

Product design is a key driver of competitive advantage and new product success. Relative to its importance, product design remains an underresearched area. The authors address this issue by examining the moderating effects of consumer innovativeness and design acumen on consumer response to product form—i.e., the product's visual appearance. Using subjects from the United Kingdom, these effects were tested with a technology‐based product that is expected to be introduced to market in the near future. A technological innovation was chosen because such products are often characterized by an accelerating pace of innovation and shortening life cycles. In such contexts, the product's visual appearance is often critical to success because it drives inferences about the technical capabilities and functional novelty. Our findings indicate that for more innovative consumers, an innovative product form can further enhance perceived value, product liking, and purchase intention. Furthermore, for consumers who possess more design acumen, an innovative product form can increase perceived value and product liking. An innovative product form was not found to enhance purchase intention for consumers with higher levels of design acumen. A primary implication of the study is to consider target market characteristics such as consumer innovativeness and design acumen when selecting a product form strategy. Additional implications include involving consumer innovators in the development and evaluation of product forms and involving consumers with greater design acumen early in the product's introduction so that they may influence other buyers.     

Understanding and Managing International Product Launch: A Comparison between Developed and Emerging Markets

With the developed market becoming increasingly saturated, companies have turned to the rapidly growing emerging market. To compete effectively in the global marketplace, firms need to develop global market competences, such as effective product launch. Although considerable efforts have been devoted to identifying principles of effective new product launch, most of the literature focuses on a single country (i.e., the domestic market) and provides little direct cross‐national comparison. The objective of this study is to provide a better understanding of the patterns of effective product launch in the developed and emerging markets. Drawing from the contingency perceptive, the authors propose a conceptual model that emphasizes the central role of tactical launch decisions and the need to cope with the internal and external constraints for maximum new product performance. The research model is tested on 284 new products launched in the United States and 97 in Taiwan. Although prior literature suggested certain elements of global product launch may be standardized for purposes of efficiencies, the empirical data from this study suggests that global launch requires some degree of customization. The insights of the findings reveal that while some tactical launch decisions are effective for both emerging and mature markets, some are detrimental to each other. For example, customer education preannouncement and promotion discount pricing strategy enhance new product performance and preemption preannouncement strategy upset consumers for both the Taiwan and U.S. market. However, there are some cross‐national differences. Emotional advertising strategy is generally appreciated in the U.S. market but not in the Taiwan market. For management practice, the findings suggest the distinct patterns of effective product launch for the emerging and mature market using the United States and Taiwan as examples.     

The impact of technological convergence on firms' product portfolio strategy: an information-based imitation approach

Technological convergence in the electronics industry has enabled disparate new functionalities to be added to existing basic products. Although the main drivers of technological convergence have been examined by the technological change literature, the impact of technological convergence on firms' product portfolio strategies remains a largely unexplored issue. Drawing on the technological change and information-based imitation literatures, we develop hypotheses on how the introduction in the market of technologies from other product categories affects the way firms modify their product portfolio vis-à-vis the market leader. Data on nearly 300 imitation strategies at the product portfolio level, which cover over 3,500 handset models introduced by 55 mobile phone vendors from 1994 to 2010, show that the relationship between the level of technological convergence in a product category and the firms' level of imitation of the market leader product portfolio strategy is U-shaped. Data also show that the firm's prior experience plays an important role in moderating this curvilinear relationship.     

Using Product Bundling to Facilitate the Adoption Process of Radical Innovations*

Generally, radical innovations are not easily adopted in the market. Potential adopters experience difficulties to comprehend and evaluate radical innovations due to their newness in terms of technology and benefits offered. Consequently, adoption intentions may remain low. This paper proposes bundling as an instrument to address these problems. More specifically, this paper examines how consumer comprehension, evaluation, and adoption intention of radical innovations may be enhanced by bundling such products with existing products. In addition, it is argued that the proposed effects are contingent upon the level of fit perceived to exist between the radical innovation and the product that accompanies it in the bundle. Furthermore, consumers' prior knowledge may affect the influence of bundling on the innovation adoption process as the interpretation of the meaning of new products may be strongly related to prior knowledge. This study therefore investigates whether consumer prior knowledge has such a moderating effect. Hypotheses are tested by means of an experimental study with three different radical innovations and distinguishing among offering the radical innovation separately, offering the radical innovation in a bundle with moderate perceived fit between the products, and offering the radical innovation in a bundle with high perceived fit between the products. Results show that product bundling enhances the new product's evaluation and adoption intention, although it does not increase comprehension of the radical innovation. Moreover, the results show that comprehension, evaluation and adoption intention of the innovation significantly decrease when consumers perceive a moderate fit between the products in a bundle. Taken together, these findings contribute to the bundling literature by showing not only that product bundling may indeed be an effective instrument to introduce a radical innovation but also that product bundling may be counterproductive when ignoring the critical role of perceived product fit as core characteristic of a product bundle. In addition, the notion that product bundling helps to enhance the evaluation and purchase intention of new and relatively complex products suggests a suitable strategy for new product managers to enhance benefits and reduce learning costs for radical innovations. Moreover, the effects of bundling on consumer appraisals of radical innovations are also shown to depend on the level of knowledge respondents possess regarding the product category of the radical innovation. More specifically, if bundled with a familiar product, novices tend to evaluate the innovative product more positively, but for experts no such effect can be detected. As such, these results provide additional specific implications for managers when introducing radical innovations in the market. Offering a radical innovation in a product bundle could be a fruitful strategy for companies that target customers with little or no prior knowledge in the product domain.     

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

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

Product price and performance level in one market or two separated markets under various cost structures and functions

Market characteristics, including intrinsic demand and customer sensitivity on price and product performance level, are distinct at different markets. Comparisons of various product development strategies in one market or two geographically separated markets are conducted for three classes of products: development intensive products (DIPs) with constant unit cost, marginal cost-intensive products (MIPs) with constant fixed cost, and marginal and development intensive products (MDIPs) with non-constant unit cost and fixed cost. Results show that larger demand size, less customer sensitivity on price and/or more sensitivity on performance level lead to more profit, a higher sale price and a not-lower product performance. The customer reservation or the saturation performance level should be generally adopted though the optimal performance level does exist occasionally. Unit cost and/or fixed cost must increase in performance at an increasing rate for the existence of one optimal performance level. Due to the impact of demand size, one high-end (low-end) MDIP or DIP could be introduced into one low-end (high-end) market at a different price if the demand size is significantly large in the low-end market. For DIPs, offering one niche high-end product is not worse than offering the low-end product into two markets. For MIPs with negligible fixed cost, the product line strategy is not worse than the standard product development strategy. Additionally, the product cost reduction approach adopted in one product line has significant effects on the best product development strategy and sequence.     

Help or Hindrance? Causal Ambiguity and Supplier Involvement in New Product Development Teams

Suppliers are increasingly being involved in interorganizational new product development (NPD) teams. Successful management of this involvement is critical both to the performance of the new product and to meeting the project's goals. Yet the transfer of knowledge between buyer and supplier may be subject to varying degrees of causal ambiguity, potentially limiting the effect of supplier involvement on performance. Understanding the dynamics of causal ambiguity within interorganizational product development is thus an important unanswered empirical question. A theoretical model is developed exploring the effect of supplier involvement practices (supplier involvement orientation, relationship commitment, and involvement depth) on the level of causal ambiguity experienced within interorganizational NPD teams, and the subsequent impact on time to competitor imitation, new product advantage, and project performance. The model also serves as a test of the paradox that causal ambiguity both inhibits imitation by competitors, but adversely affects organizational outcomes. Survey data collected from 119 research and development‐intensive manufacturing firms in the United Kingdom largely support these hypotheses. Results from structural equation modeling show that supplier involvement orientation and long‐term relationship commitment lower causal ambiguity within interorganizational NPD teams. The results also shed light on the causal ambiguity paradox showing that causal ambiguity during interorganizational NPD decreases both product and project performance, but has no significant effect on time to competitor imitation. Instead, competitor imitation is delayed by the extent to which the firm develops a new product advantage within the market. A product development strategy based upon maintaining interfirm causal ambiguity to delay competitor imitation is thus unlikely to result in a sustainable competitive advantage. Instead, managers are encouraged to undertake supplier involvement practices aimed at minimizing the level of knowledge ambiguity in the NPD project, and in doing so, improve product and project‐related performance.     

How Experienced Product Innovators Organize

It seems that reorganizing the product development function is a common and regularly administered solution to any perceived new product malaise. It's as though new product managers keep seeking some perfect form of organization that will lift their work to new levels of success. This article helps with the search. Axel Johne believes that experience can be a good teacher so he examined how experienced product innovators organize, in comparison to firms which are not so experienced. His results are interesting to all managers who wonder how product innovation can best be managed.     

The Adverstising Market in a Product Oligopoly

A model is developed in which producers in a differentiated product market compete in prices and informative advertising. The model also includes commercial media, which are linked to producers through the advertising market and to consumers through the media market. We investigate how certain market parameters, such as media market differentiation or product market differentiation, affect the competitive level advertising chosen in the market. The model shows that less product differentiation or more media differentiation leads to a higher market level of advertising. In the case of sufficiently high media differentiation, levels of advertising are in excess of the social optimum.     

Waterfall Versus Sprinkler Product Launch Strategy: Influencing the Herd

A seller decides the price and sequence in which a product of unknown value is introduced to consumers. Consumers inspect the product before consumption and observe past prices and sales. Consumption at a high price is informative for later consumers as it indicates that the product is likely to be of high value. I show that on an average prices decrease over time. However, expected revenue on an average rises over time. For a high enough discount factor, I find that for extreme beliefs the firm introduces the product to all consumers but for intermediate values the product is introduced only to one consumer.     

Does innovation stimulate employment? A firm-level analysis using comparable micro-data from four European countries

We study the impact of process and product innovations introduced by firms on employment growth with random samples of manufacturing and services from France, Germany, Spain and the UK for 1998–2000, totaling about 20,000 companies. We develop and estimate a model relating firms' and industry's employment to innovation, that leads us to the conclusions that follow. Trend increases in productivity reinforced by process innovation are an important source of reduction of employment requirements for a given output, but the growth of demand for the old products tends to overcompensate these displacement effects. The switch of production towards new products does not reduce employment requirements, and the growth of the demand for the new products is the strongest force behind employment creation. Reallocation due to business stealing is estimated at a maximum of one third of the net employment created by product innovators. The growth of employment originated from the market expansion induced by the new products can be as important as another third.     

Decomposing Product Innovativeness and Its Effects on New Product Success

Does product innovativeness affect new product success? The current research proposes that the ambiguity in findings may be due to an overly holistic conceptualization of product innovativeness that has erroneously included the concepts of product advantage and customer familiarity. This article illustrates how the same measures have often been used to assess product advantage with product innovativeness and product innovativeness with customer familiarity. These paired overlaps in measurement use are clarified in this research, which decomposes dimensions of product innovativeness along conceptual lines into distinct product innovativeness, product advantage, and customer familiarity constructs. To further support this decomposition, structural equation modeling is used to empirically test the distinctions. The measurement model supports the conceptual separation, and the path model reveals contingent effects of product innovativeness. Although product innovativeness enhances product advantage, a high level of innovativeness reduces customer familiarity, indicating that product innovativeness can be detrimental to new product success if customers are not sufficiently familiar with the nature of the new product and if innovativeness fails to improve product advantage. This exercise in metric development also reveals that after controlling for product advantage and customer familiarity, product innovativeness has no direct effect on new product profitability. This finding has strong implications for firms that mistakenly pursue innovation for its own sake. Consideration of both distribution and technical synergy as driving antecedents demonstrates how firms can still enhance new product success even if an inappropriate level of innovativeness is present. This leads to a simple but powerful two‐step approach to bringing highly innovative products to market. First, firms should only emphasize product innovativeness when it relates to the market relevant concepts of product advantage and customer familiarity. Second, existing technical and distribution abilities can be used to enhance product quality and customer understanding. Distribution channels in particular should be exploited to counter customer uncertainty toward newly introduced products.     

Measuring New Product Success: The Difference that Time Perspective Makes

Management is often criticized for overemphasizing short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth. On the other hand, although numerous studies have explored the factors underlying new product success and failure, such studies rarely distinguish between short- and long-term success. In fact, little research has been conducted to explore the relationship between a company's time perspective and its choice of criteria for measuring new product success. For that matter, little consensus exists as to just what we mean by the term success. Expanding on work done by a PDMA task force on measurement of new product success and failure, Erik Jan Hultink and Henry S.J. Robben identify 16 core measures of new product success. In a survey of large Dutch companies, they explore managers' perceptions of new product success, hypothesizing that the importance attached to each of the 16 core measures depends on the company's time perspective. For example, they propose that criteria such as development cost and speed-to-market are more important in the short term, and return-on-investiment (ROI) is more important in the long term. The study also examines the type of market served, the innovation strategy, and the perceived innovativeness of the company's products. It is hypothesized that these factors will influence the importance the company attaches to the core measures of new product success. For example, it is expected that speed-to-market is probably more important for technological innovators than for fast imitators or cost minimizers. The findings support the hypothesis that the firm's time perspective influences the perceived importance of the core measures of success. For the short term, the respondents emphasize product-level measures such as speed-to-market and whether the product was launched on time. In the long term, the focus is on customer acceptance and financial performance, including attaining goals for profitability, margins, and ROI. Four factors are perceived as being equally important for short-term and long-term success: customer satisfaction, customer acceptance, meeting quality guidelines, and product performance level. Customer satisfaction was found to be the most important measure, regardless of a company's time perspective. Contrary to expectations, the perceived importance of the 16 core measures does not differ on the basis of the type of market, the innovation strategy, or the product's perceived innovativeness. In addition, the firm's functional orientation—technology push or market pull—does not affect the importance attached to the core measures of new product success.     

In a Network Industry,Does Product Quality Matter?

The role of product quality in industries influenced by network effects has been the subject of significant debate among management theorists. Some have suggested that network effects can result in inferior products, as consumers value a large cohort of fellow adopters over the technical quality of a given product. Others argue that cases of market domination by inferior products are quite rare and that product quality is an important aspect of network‐based competition. Thus, a fundamental question has arisen from this debate: in industries influenced by network effects, does product quality matter? This research uses a sample of product releases in the application software industry from 1986 to 1998 to test the impact of product quality on installed base growth for a given product line. Using software quality measures from archival trade publication reviews, quality is found to have a positive and significant impact on growth, even after controlling for installed base size and other product, firm, and segment characteristics. This finding suggests that the first‐mover advantages often ascribed to network industries may be more complex than previously thought. Rather, effective strategy in network competition appears to center on the trade‐off between early product releases, with the intent of establishing an early installed base, and later product releases, with the intent of improving the quality of the focal product. Several potential extensions of this work are offered, with a specific focus on (1) the impact of variation in the strength of network effects across industries, and (2) the dueling incentives faced by incumbents in network industries, who may possess greater capabilities to produce high‐quality products but limited incentive to do so. Other potential contributions for theory and practice are offered and discussed.     

Heterogeneous Firm‐Level Effects of Knowledge Exchanges on Product Innovation: Differences between Dynamic and Lagging Product Innovators*

Product innovation is the result of a constant interaction between the in‐house research and development (R&D) department and knowledge exchanges with the firm's environment. Knowledge exchanges come in different forms. They break down into information gathering applied in new product development, research cooperation on particular innovation projects, and managing information outflows allowing the consequent appropriation of the results of product innovation through specific methods. The way firms handle knowledge exchanges affects their performance. This paper looks at three related indicators of performance: (1) research intensity (a measure of innovative input); (2) the share of revenue realized through innovative product sales (a measure of innovative output); and (3) their impact on the growth in total revenue. The bulk of the econometric literature looking into these matters only allows general statistical statements on the behavior of an “average” firm. This paper takes on another view by using the quantile regression method to stress the heterogeneity of innovative firms in their dealing with knowledge exchange and the effect this has on their performance. A first key finding is that research intensity is positively influenced by knowledge externalities, research cooperation, and appropriability, and it is through this that these variables affect innovative revenue and also the growth in total revenue. By using quantile regression these relationships are further refined to screen for differences in behavior between dynamic and lagging innovators. This refinement indicates that, in the case of research intensity, the knowledge externalities gain in importance in the higher quantiles and are insignificant in the lower ones. Next, research cooperation remains important in all quantiles, but a higher significance is observed in the higher quantiles as well. Finally, appropriability is extremely important for the lower quantiles, but it becomes insignificant in the highest. These findings corroborate the assumptions made in the literature on open innovation: knowledge externalities and research collaboration are vital for those opening up their firm for new ideas and who are, at the same time, reluctant to protect their findings through specific appropriation measures. In the case of innovative revenue all variables on knowledge exchange operate through the research intensity irrespective of the quantile, although the impact of research intensity on this type of revenue is higher in the upper quantiles. As for the growth in revenue, the effect of the innovative revenue is, again, higher in the higher quantiles. This suggests that dynamic product innovators have the most efficient R&D process and the strongest growers are so, especially, because they are successful product innovators.