Variety in the innovation process of UK research and development service firms

Research and development service firms (RDSFs) are a particular type of technology-based knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS). RDSFs provide clients with R&D services on a contract basis, and operate as knowledge intermediaries linking research and market. They are innovative in their own right, as well as supporting innovation efforts by their clients; they rely on their own innovation efforts to be competitive and to develop new value propositions for their clients. The present paper explores the innovation process in RDSFs, drawing on semi-structured interviews with founders and senior managers of 32 companies in the United Kingdom. Our findings suggest that RDSFs vary considerably in terms of their primary innovation drivers (i.e. whether they are mainly driven by market demands or by technological opportunities) and the outcomes they pursue (i.e. whether their outputs are mainly services to clients or a mixture of services and products and/or intellectual property). Four major orientations of RDSFs were identified: (i) technology-based innovation exploiters; (ii) science-focused innovation explorers; (iii) client-driven innovation integrators; and (iv) open innovation translators. This variety among firms normally belonging to the same, small subsector of KIBS, suggests the need for caution in generalising about behaviour in terms of such statistical groupings.     

Diffusing New Ideas In-House

New ideas trigger the innovation process and the development of new products. This article is concerned with new ideas generated in-house and ways to ensure that these ideas have the maximum chance of being captured and diffused. Sandra Vandermerwe reports results of an exploratory study involving an international group of senior executives concerning their attempts to introduce new ideas and gain support for them within their firms. In particular, she was alert to reports of organizational resistance, when it was reported. She asked why this resistance occurred and what might be done to improve the receptivity to new ideas. The article examines the executives' responses and highlights an interesting feature of the findings: that new technological ideas may, by their very nature, be slow-movers. Firms are encouraged to put more conscious effort into internal diffusion activity as they do externally in the marketplace. This would require new skills and a new role for originating individuals.     

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

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

Changing Strategies and Tactics for New Product Development

There has been a considerable amount of effort and writing devoted to improving the new product development process during the last two decades. Although there have been some surprises in this literature and in reports from the field on how to manage this complex business process, we now have a good view of the state-of-the-art practices that work and do not work to accelerate commercial success of new ventures. We know much less about how firms change their strategies for new product development.
In this article, we report on a study to investigate how companies change the way they originate and develop new products in manufacturing. We made no prior assumptions about what best practices might be for changing the direction of the new product development process, but we reasonably were sure there would be trends in how companies were attempting to create this strategic change. Even though one size does not fit all, there were significant trends in our findings.
We studied eight manufacturing firms using in-depth, open-ended interviews and were surprised to find that most of these companies are beginning to develop products that are new to the firm, industry, and the world (nearly half, or 10 of 21 new product projects), where they had not been eager for radical change in the past. These newer products likely are to be driven by a combination of market and technology forces, with general requirements being directed by internal forces: middle and top management. Results also indicate significantly that being able to marshal resources and capabilities is easier if change is less demanding and less radical, but when middle managers are driving the conversion of general requirements into specifications, resource issues have yet to be resolved. Implications of these findings are discussed for companies aspiring to change the entire process of new product development in their firms based on these significant results.     

The management of technological innovation in the machine tool industry: a cross-national regional survey of Britain and Switzerland

Abstract
The research was undertaken during 1983 to find out why a country such as Switzerland has been able to manage innovation in a mature industry, such as machine tools, much more successfully than Britain. The methodology used was by structured interviews of Managing Directors in a sample of firms in the two important machine tool regions of Berne and Yorkshire/Humberside. The results cover the main types of innovation in products and processes, the reasons for innovation and the problems which were encountered by the companies visited. We found that the Swiss firms were strong on product innovation. The most important innovation was the introduction of computer numerical control (CNC), and the Swiss firms had on average introduced this earlier than the British firms and it accounted for a larger proportion of their turnover. The main problem for firms in both countries was in adjusting to upstream developments in electronic controls. The Swiss had better downstream market links with their customers who were mostly in foreign countries. Some British firms were handicapped by being part of company groups and used public sector grants for their innovation, whereas the largely independent Swiss firms carried out more self-financing.     

培育和发展具有核心竞争力的大公司和大企业集团

为了增强中国经济实力和对“入世”后面对的激烈竞争，必须发展大公司和大企业集团。从目前情况看，中国的大公司和大企业集团的核心竞争力还很弱，在技术创新能力，多样化经营能力，适应市场能力和赢利能力等方面都与发达国家的大企业存在很大差距，我们必须从体制，机制，技术创新，增加人力资本，改善外部环境等方面多做工作，促进大公司和大企业集团核心竞争力的提高。     

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.     

Strategic Orientation and Product Innovation: Exploring a Decompositional Approach

While a considerable body of research examines the strategic orientation–innovation relationship, findings in that literature have been mixed. This article calls attention to an underinvestigated problem: the composite, multidimensional conceptualization and measurement of most strategic orientations, which likely contribute to the mixed findings in the literature. To address this issue, the researchers explore a decompositional approach to the strategic orientation–product innovation relationship. The authors utilize the stimulus‐organism‐response framework to select, decompose, and recast a set of strategic orientation components previously identified to be essential to product innovation. To produce more nuanced insights, the authors also decompose product innovation outcomes into breakthrough versus incremental. Furthermore, the sample is decomposed by product type to assess the generalizability of the conceptual model across manufactured goods and services firms. The authors test the conceptual model with a sample of 222 executives of services and manufacturing firms in Germany and Switzerland using partial least squares. By decomposing the strategic orientation effects into direct, indirect, total, and specific components, the detailed empirical analysis yields several new insights. Overall, the results suggest that the relationship between strategic orientation and product innovation is more complex than previously identified in the literature. For example, the results demonstrate that technology orientation works to augment innovation differently in services versus manufacturing firms. More specifically, a focus on technology boosts only breakthrough innovation in manufacturing firms, and only indirectly by enhancing an organization's open‐mindedness. In contrast, services firms extract additional benefits from investing in technology directly (and for both incremental and breakthrough innovation), as well as indirectly by increasing open‐mindedness. The authors also identify complementary as well as suppressing effects on product innovation outcomes from different strategic orientation components. Based on the findings in this study, future research avenues are identified, and managers are advised to consider each component of alternative strategic orientations individually and evaluate the capabilities aligned with components to assess their interdependencies.     

Coevolutionary Dynamics of Automotive Competition: Product Innovation,Change, and Marketplace Survival

Innovation and new model development have been paramount in the U.S. automotive industry. The industry has invested around $16–18 billion annually to launch new models and improve existing ones in response to incessant evolution of consumer preferences, competitive pressures, and changes in safety and emission regulations. Although these investments have significantly reduced cycle time and increased efficiency (e.g., through platform communization), it still costs around $1 billion to develop and launch a new model from scratch. Therefore, the strategic focus in the U.S. automotive industry is rapidly shifting away from manufacturing efficiency to product development and innovation as firms engage in an “arms race” to develop innovative new products ahead of the competition. The outcome of this new focus manifests itself in the total development time for a new platform vehicle, which is expected to drop from roughly four years in 1998 to two years in 2014. As development cycles continue to shorten, competition in the industry intensifies, and a new insight is needed to better understand how increased competition can affect the gains from innovations. The need for research to fill this gap is especially critical as executives continue to grow more cynical about returns offered by increases in research and development (R&D) expenditures and see no statistically significant relationship between R&D expenditures and firm performance. This study attempts to address this gap by adopting a coevolutionary perspective that analyzes the relationship between innovations and firm performance by accounting for the impact of competitive forces in the industry. First, this study explicitly models competitive interactions between firms, known in the ecology literature as the Red Queen competition, in which gains from innovations are relative and impermanent. Second, hypotheses are tested using a comprehensive data set comprising all automobile manufacturers ever known to compete in the U.S. automobile market at any time between 1891 and 2000. Complete coverage of 110 years enables precise analysis of the link between innovations and firm performance as well as the coevolution in the U.S. automobile industry. The results suggest that although extensiveness of an innovation is relevant, a firm's ability to keep up with the competition in the innovation arms race is a more significant driver of survival in the market. Thus, firms cannot simply evaluate their innovation efforts in a silo but must constantly assess their efforts versus the innovation launches of their key competitors. Based on the findings, automotive manufacturers must develop a structured product development program that allows for continual and steady new product introductions; otherwise, even momentary setbacks can have a damaging impact on a firm's ability to survive in the automotive marketplace.     

What Are the Effective Strategic Orientations for New Product Success under Different Environments? An Empirical Study of Chinese Businesses

Innovation is an organization's spanning process that must continually change in response to, and in anticipation of, changing business environments. Research in the fields of marketing and management has examined individual strategic orientations (SOs) (such as market orientation) and their relationship to innovation performance. Few studies, however, have compared the effectiveness of different SOs for innovation performance in a single study. It is also not clear from previous research whether the business environment influences the effectiveness of the SOs. The objective of this paper is therefore twofold: it aims to evaluate (1) whether a focus on the customer, the technology, the competitor, or the interfunctional coordination, will have the greatest impact on new product success, and (2) whether the effectiveness of a specific SO varies with the environment. Data were collected from more than 500 senior executives in a wide range of manufacturing and service firms in China. Using cluster analysis and an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model, which are commonly adopted to examine the effects of environments on the relationship between strategy and performance, we identified four subgroups of firms facing distinctively different market and competitive environments. As predicted, the results show that all four SOs have (albeit to a different degree) a significant and positive relationship with innovation performance. More importantly, the results point to the relative advantage in pursuing a specific SO by taking into account its effect under different environments and the effects of other SOs. However, the particularly strong effect of technology orientation compared to that of the other SOs on new product performance across all clusters is somewhat surprising. We offer some tentative explanations for this finding, though further research will be required to fully understand it. Overall, our findings indicate the need for managers to be responsive to environmental contexts and to allocate resources to pursue the effective (hence appropriate) strategic orientations for the specific context.     

Innovation and Product Development Strategies in the Italian Motorcycle Industry

The motorcycle industry in Italy offers fertile ground for anyone interested in developing a better understanding of the role innovation plays in enhancing a firm's competitive position. This industry includes both domestic and Japanese firms, with companies ranging from high-volume manufacturers to specialty or niche producers. Firms trying to gain a competitive edge in this crowded field must contend with not only advances in product and process technology, but also the whims of fashion. In a survey of top-level marketing and product development managers from eight leading firms in the Italian motorcycle industry, Moreno Muffatto and Roberto Panizzolo explore the innovation models these firms employ to enhance their competitive position. Their study has the following objectives: categorizing the various competitors in terms of their product and market strategies and their product development and innovation strategies; highlighting differences between the methods of Italian and Japanese firms competing in this market; analyzing the relationships between firms, as well as the roles suppliers play in the various innovation strategies; and identifying the various organizational models employed by the firms in this industry. Different product and market strategies are identified on the basis of three variables: total production volume, the number of different products offered, and the number of different engine capacities offered. Using these variables, the companies in the study are categorized as volume producers, specialists, or niche specialists. The firms are further differentiated on the basis of the relative emphasis each places on product technology and design, product innovation, product variety, and time-based competition. In the firms studied, partnerships play a key role in new product development. Nearly every firm participates in joint projects, most often involving development of either an entire vehicle or an engine. Other partnerships involve firms in countries that offer emerging markets for the motorcycle industry. Organizational structures and strategies employed by the volume producers in this study include: the large product leader, who oversees concept definition and product planning; the project leaders group, which coordinates all phases of development, including activities assigned to external groups; the project managers matrix, a matrix organizational structure with a strong product orientation; and the business unit program manager, who oversees all projects within an independent business unit.     

AGENCY CONFLICT AND CORPORATE STRATEGY: THE EFFECT OF DIVESTMENT ON CORPORATE VALUE

Among the various stakeholders of a firm, senior managers are the most likely targets for private and public political pressures. Other stakeholder groups are less visible and may be perceived as less influential in corporate strategy formulation and implementation. In some situations, consequently, senior executives may adopt corporate strategies in response to political pressures even if these strategies may be costly to shareholders. In this study, a special case is examined: the effect of divestment of South African business units on firm value. Using data from 1984 through 1990, we examine the impact that announcements of divestments have upon the stock return behavior of publicly traded firms. Our results indicate that significant and negative excess returns accrue to shares of companies announcing divestments of South African operations. These results are supportive of the premise that noneconomic pressures may influence managerial strategies rather than value-enhancement goals. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

The role of institutional arbitrage in the search for product innovation: Firm level evidence from Norway

Evolutionary theorizing conceptualizes the discovery of new products as a successful outcome from searching for innovation in which firms combine new and old knowledge and resources. Prior research has shown that the propensity for discovering new products is greatest when firms cross a technological and/or organizational boundary in the search for new knowledge. In this paper, we add a new dimension to this literature: we examine whether, and to what extent, crossing a national boundary, as when firms use knowledge from network partners in foreign countries, influences the likelihood that firms will introduce new products into the market. Drawing on theorizing on institutional arbitrage in the literature on national innovation systems (NIS) and varieties of capitalism (VOC), we propose that companies that cross a national boundary in searching for innovation are significantly more likely to introduce new products. Detailed survey data on firms; data on their network partners, including their location; and regression analysis show that the use of knowledge from actors in foreign NIS has a positive influence on product innovation.     

The latecomer strategy for global ICT standardization: Indigenous innovation and its dilemma

This article reviews China׳s changing standardization strategies amidst the standards competitions that take place both domestically in China and globally. The relevant policies in China now support indigenous innovation, particularly in the information and communication technologies (ICT) industry by using standards, encourage domestic firms to patent their standard-related technologies, and promote innovation-oriented inter-firm alliances. The three cases examined illustrate the challenges that the Chinese government faces in implementing the policies. Most of all, while the government has actively promoted indigenous innovation as a latecomer strategy for global standardization, there are possibilities of clash with the international norms for free competition and economic liberalization which China is supposed to comply with. There are also oppositions from those domestic firms that mainly export products compliant with the international standards set by advanced countries, and from local authorities that support those firms. The demands for international compliance are often strengthened by multinationals importing products compliant with the international standards. These clashes and oppositions give a dilemma to the policy makers who want to push the standardization strategy based on indigenous innovation.     

The Collaboration of Innovation Intermediaries and Manufacturing Firms in the Markets for Technology

Many manufacturing firms have opened up their product innovation processes and actively transfer knowledge with external partners in the markets for technology. However, the markets for technological knowledge have remained inefficient in comparison with the markets for most products. To reduce some of the market inefficiencies, manufacturing firms may collaborate with innovation intermediaries, which are defined as organizations that act as agents or brokers in the innovation process between two or more parties. These innovation intermediaries comprise different service providers ranging from consulting companies to Internet marketplaces for technology. In light of an increasing importance of intermediary services in the context of open innovation, this paper specifically focuses on the collaboration of manufacturing firms and innovation intermediaries, which may be critical for the success of intermediary services. Based on new interview data from 30 innovation intermediaries and 30 European manufacturing firms, this paper examines the question of how innovation intermediaries and manufacturing firms collaborate concerning the following issues, which emerged as the key themes from the interviews: potential of intermediation, roles of intermediaries, types of intermediation, drivers of intermediation, complementarity of intermediation, compensation of intermediation, and the importance of repeated collaborations. The findings indicate how manufacturing firms may reduce their transaction costs in technology markets by collaborating with intermediaries. However, intermediary services can only be regarded as a complement rather than a substitute of manufacturing firms' internal activities of managing technology transfer. Thus, manufacturing firms need sufficient internal capabilities for managing technology transfer, such as absorptive capacity and desorptive capacity.     

Business model fashion and the academic spinout firm

Studies indicate that most European new, technology–based firms (NTBFs) have been founded by relatively senior, highly–educated personnel coming from existing companies. These founders already have strong, industry and market links. A relatively small proportion have spun out of university or other public research facilities. However, this latter group has attracted particular attention from several interested groups, including governments and the scientific establishment. For governments, this has appeared to offer a means whereby public policy could have a direct and significant impact on economic development. Hence substantial public resources are increasingly being committed to support these developments in most industrialised countries. The founders of HEI spinouts are often academics aiming to commercialise nascent technologies and they face challenges which are less likely to arise for the founder with an industry background. The emerging technologies often commercialised in academic spinouts may have many potential applications. At the outset founders must make critical strategic choices of applications to develop, if they are to attract the substantial resources often needed for the risky development process. Some of these choices need an understanding of changing fashions in business models and investors' current preferences for particular industries. It is a difficult challenge for academic founders with little prior market knowledge and linkages, and no previous experience of professional investors and their requirements, to select the applications and business models which will support successful venture creation. This paper explores a number of key issues which surround these decisions and their relation to the changing business environment. It is concluded that the acceptability of novel technologies and products is mediated by systemic interactions which are ill–understood by industry and government.     

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

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

Success Through Customer-Driven New Product Development: A Comparison of U.S. and New Zealand Small Entrepreneurial High Technology Firms

Although high-tech, entrepreneurial firms may be small in size, they often play a large role in developing innovative products and thus spurring economic growth. Managers from firms of all sizes may gain useful insights by examining the new-product development (NPD) practices of these small, technology-based firms. And in an era of increasingly global competition, those managers can benefit from understanding the NPD practices of firms from various countries. William Souder, David Buisson, and Tony Garrett contribute to that understanding by describing the results of a study that compares the relative NPD proficiency of small, technology-based firms in the United States and New Zealand. The firms participating in the study (26 from the U.S. and 29 from N.Z.) operate in rapidly growing, highly competitive markets characterized by evolving customer needs. The participating companies share similar goals: creating technically superior products with unique features for emerging markets, with the ultimate goal of becoming the product and market leaders within their respective industries. Despite these similarities, the study reveals several important differences between the U.S. and N.Z. participants. Overall, the N.Z. respondents had higher levels of NPD performance than those of their U.S. counterparts. In particular, the relationship marketing and customer-focused NPD practices of the N.Z. firms set them apart from the U.S. firms. Top-level managers from the N.Z. participants report higher levels of satisfaction than their U.S. counterparts with the results of their NPD efforts. The results of the study indicate that repondents from the two countries differ in terms of the focus of their NPD mangement systems and the manner in which they strive to achieve success. For the U.S. firms in the study, their NPD management systems focus on the characteristics of the project manager. The N.Z. respondents place greater emphasis on marketing skills and NPD proficiencies. The results suggest that the higher levels of NPD performance acheived by the N.Z. firms in the study arise from greater insights into their users' needs, together with better capabilities for acting on those insights.