Responsive and Proactive Market Orientation and New‐Product Success*

What is the relationship between market orientation and new‐product success? This important question has not been examined adequately to date because the concept of market orientation has been measured too narrowly. The concept of market orientation implies both responsive market orientation, which addresses the expressed needs of customers, and proactive market orientation, which addresses the latent needs of customers—that is, opportunities for customer value of which the customer is unaware. In the numerous market orientation–performance studies to date, the measure of market orientation has consisted virtually entirely of behaviors related to satisfying customers' expressed needs rather than satisfying their latent needs as well. The present study extends the measurement of market orientation to match the full scope of the concept—to measure both responsive market orientation and proactive market orientation. Using data from a sample of technologically diverse businesses, the present study develops a measure of proactive market orientation, refines the extant measure of responsive market orientation, and analyzes the relationship of a business's responsive and proactive market orientation to its new‐product success. The study findings imply that for any business to create and to sustain new‐product success, a responsive market orientation is not sufficient and, thus, that a proactive market orientation plays a very important positive role in a business's new‐product success. These findings make intuitive sense. For if in developing its new products a business relies solely on what customers state as their new product needs, the business is very vulnerable economically. Such a business is vulnerable not only for relying on customers' best guesses for new products, many or most of which may have little long‐term economic value for either party, but also to competitors' parallel new product responses and the inevitable resulting price competition. A business that relies solely on customers' expressed needs to develop its new products creates no new insights into value‐adding opportunities for the customer and thereby creates little or no customer dependence and foundation for customer loyalty. The important role for proactive market orientation in new‐product success is intuitively obvious—and is supported empirically in this study.     

Strategic orientations,marketing proactivity and firm market performance

Guided by strategic orientations, firms must continuously deliver superior value in order to maintain a strong position in the market over the long-term. This study explores how two prominent strategic orientations (i.e., market and technological orientations) influence a firm's marketing proactivity and performance, with marketing proactivity being the key to delivering continuously superior value. Specifically, we examine how the cultural (i.e., a proactive market orientation) and the behavioral (i.e., market pioneering) dimensions of marketing proactivity, and the interaction between them, affects a firm's market performance. A structural equation modeling analysis of survey data from 109 firms shows that a proactive market orientation and market pioneering have a significant positive impact on the sales per employee and the growth rate of a firm. Our findings suggest that market pioneering strengthens the positive relationship between proactive market orientation and sales per employee and growth rate. A firm's technological orientation is positively related to both its proactive market orientation and market pioneering. However, the responsive market orientation of a firm only has a significant positive effect on proactive market orientation, and not on market pioneering. We discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of these findings.     

Achieving Fit between Learning and Market Orientation: Implications for New Product Performance

Drawing on the learning and market orientation literature, this study examines how responsive and proactive market orientations interact with exploitative and exploratory learning to affect new product performance. Despite advancements in understanding the distinctions between the different types of learning and market orientations, little evidence exists regarding which types of market orientation work best with exploitative or exploratory learning to improve new product performance. Using a sample of 216 high‐tech Canadian firms, the authors find that new product performance is elevated only when exploratory learning is bundled with proactive market orientation. New product performance suffered when exploratory learning was complemented with responsive market orientation and when exploitative learning was complemented with proactive market orientation. Implications for marketing theory and practice are discussed.     

The Contingent Value of Responsive and Proactive Market Orientations for New Product Program Performance*

While the benefits of being market oriented are largely accepted, a group of scholars and managers remain skeptical. Marketing scholars have sought to counter the criticisms leveled against market orientation (MO) by arguing that it has both responsive and proactive dimensions. However, few studies have empirically examined the complexity of the effects of these dimensions on firm performance. Drawing on theories of resource‐based advantage and organizational search behavior, this article advances understanding by arguing that responsive and proactive market orientations have curvilinear effects on product development performance, that their interaction may be positively related to product development performance, and that their effects on new product program performance are moderated differentially by the organizational implementation conditions and marketing function power. Survey results of 175 U.S. firms indicate support for most of the hypotheses. Specifically, whereas responsive MO has a U‐shaped relationship with new product program performance, proactive MO has an inverted U‐shaped relationship with new product program performance. Contrary to the arguments presented here, the interaction of both orientations is negatively related to new product program performance. This study finds that both orientations are needed; however, new product program performance is enhanced when one is at higher level and the other is at lower level. Finally, responsive MO is only positively related to new product program performance under specific conditions such as when strategic consensus among managers is high. On the other hand, the positive effect of proactive MO on new product program performance is further strengthened when learning orientation and marketing power are high. Overall, this study suggests that the effects of responsive and proactive MO on new product program performance are more complex than previously theoretically argued and empirically examined.     

Market Orientation and R&D Effectiveness in High‐Technology Firms: An Empirical Investigation in the Biotechnology Industry*

There seems to be lack of consensus among informed scholars about the importance a of market orientation for high‐technology firms. This paper gives a comprehensive review of existing empirical studies on the relationship between market orientation and innovation performance and pinpoints two limitations in this research stream that might be at the origin of such controversy. First, extant research often overlooked key innovation outcomes for high‐technology firms, such as those related to research and development (R&D) performance. Second, organizational conditions that can ensure an optimal integration of market knowledge in the innovation process have been less analyzed in the case of these firms. Against this background, the present study contributes to the literature by providing a test of the effect of market orientation on R&D effectiveness and the moderating role of knowledge integration in this relationship, using a sample of Italian biotechnology firms. The study's objectives are addressed in two steps. The first one consists of an in‐depth qualitative study based on semistructured interviews in five biotechnology firms. The second step consists of a follow‐up survey of 50 biotechnology firms. Results from hierarchical multiple regression analysis show that the different dimensions of a market orientation have diverse effects on R&D effectiveness of high‐technology firms: whereas interfunctional coordination has a positive main effect, the effect of customer orientation is moderated by knowledge integration, and competitor orientation has no effect on R&D effectiveness. Post hoc analyses also show two additional results involving a broader set of dependent variables. First, R&D effectiveness mediates the effects of customer orientation and interfunctional coordination on organizational performance. Second, market orientation does not appear to significantly affect R&D efficiency. The present study contributes to current literature in two main respects. First, it adds to previous work on market orientation and innovation by proposing a new dependent variable—R&D effectiveness—which offers a better perspective to understand the impact of market orientation on innovation performance in high‐technology contexts. Second, while part of the current debate on the role of market orientation in high‐tech markets seems to be polarized by positions that sustain its potential drawbacks or, on the contrary, its advantages, this study's findings on the moderating role of knowledge integration shed light on important contingency factors, such as organizational capabilities. The authors discuss the study's limitations and provide directions for future research.     

The curvilinear relationships between responsive and proactive market orientations and new product performance: A contingent link

Recent research has defined market orientation as two dimensions, responsive and proactive market orientations, and further argued that an inverted U-shaped relationship exists between each of these two market orientation dimensions and new product performance. However, empirical evidence has not confirmed such a nonlinear relationship. This study argues that the curvilinear relationship between the two dimensions of market orientation and new product performance may depend on external environmental characteristics. A total of 107 new product development programs in five high tech industries constitute the analytical sample. Hierarchical regression analysis reveals that under a high level of technological turbulence, responsive market orientation becomes detrimental to new product performance beyond a certain level; the relationship between proactive market orientation and new product performance is an inverted U-shaped under a low level of technological turbulence or competitive intensity. Results also indicate that responsive and proactive market orientations are important determinants of new product performance. These findings sharpen the understanding of the relationship between market orientation and new product performance.     

The nature of NPD and role flexibility of R&D/marketing in a fast growing high‐tech setting

This study investigated the mutual learning process between marketing and R&D in the context of the information and communications technology industry. The relationship between product newness and role flexibility of R&D/marketing was examined via correlation analysis and multiple regression against a stratified sample of 171 new products. The results showed that different aspects of product newness are associated in a different way to role flexibility of R&D/marketing. Management should therefore be aware of such differences when planning their product development portfolio so that effective integration between R&D and marketing can be achieved.     

An Information Transfer Model for Integrating Marketing and R&D Personnel in New Product Development Projects

Marketing and R&D personnel are key actors in the development of new product innovations. Interdependence between the marketing and the R&D functions necessitates integration. Rudy Moenaert and William Souder feel that task specification, structural design and climate orientation are the major integration mechanisms advocated in the literature. Supported by an extensive literature review, they propose a nomological network which interrelates integration mechanisms, interfunctional information transfer, uncertainty reduction and new product innovation success. They develop a causal framework to describe the determinants of successful information transfer between marketing and R&D in the development of technologically new products.     

Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and product development performance

Various research studies have shown that a market orientation and interdepartmental integration can positively influence product development performance. Addressed in this article is whether market orientation and interdepartmental integration both equally influence product development performance, whether one of these constructs is more influential than the other, and whether such influence is dependent on the type of department being examined? Analyzing survey data from 156 marketing, manufacturing, and R&D managers, the tentative results suggest that a market orientation and interdepartmental integration correlate to improved product development and product management performance in varying degrees across these three manager sets. It appears that a positive relationship between market orientation and product development petformance is likely to be reflected by the marketing department, while marketing and manufacturing departments are likely to reflect a positive relationship between the general construct of market orientation and product management performance. Manufacturing managers also reflect a positive relationship between interdepartmental integration and product development and product management performance. Further analyses involving the elements of a market orientation and interdepartmental integration find that a customer orientation appears important to performance in the case of marketing managers, and that collaboration is important to performance in the case of manufacturing managers. R&D managers did not reflect any statistically significant relationships between market orientation, interdepartmental integration, their constructs, and performance. These results should not be taken as refuting the claim of an important relationship between market orientation and product development performance, however. The present results refine our understanding of market orientation to consider department‐specific effects, as well as temper the claims that implementing a market orientation will readily lead to improved product development performance across all departments in an organization. This may or may not be the case, depending on the focal department.     

Beyond listening: the distinct effects of proactive versus responsive customer orientation on the reduction of uncertainties at the fuzzy front end of innovation

The extent to which the intensity of R&D employees' interaction with market-oriented employees, proactive customer orientation, and responsive customer orientation affect the ability to reduce product-related uncertainties at the fuzzy front end of innovation was analyzed. They investigated 160 product innovation projects in various high-tech industries and identified proactive customer orientation as an important moderator of the link between R&D employees' interaction with market-oriented employees and the reduction of product-related uncertainties at the fuzzy front end. They also found that responsive customer orientation diminishes the ability to reduce product-related uncertainties at the fuzzy front end. The theoretical and managerial implications of the results are discussed.     

Differential Effects of the Primary Forms of Cross Functional Integration on Product Development Cycle Time

In markets characterized by high rates of technological and market change product life cycles tend to be shorter, resulting in the increased importance of competing on the basis of product development cycle time. For firms operating in these dynamic market environments, competing on the basis of cycle time may not only be a source of competitive advantage, but in some industries may actually be essential for survival.
In this investigation the relative importance of five forms of cross functional integration and R&D integration of information or knowledge from past projects were explored in terms of their effects on product development cycle time. The five forms of cross functional integration included R&D/marketing integration, R&D/customer integration, R&D/manufacturing integration, R&D/supplier integration, and strategic partnerships. A sample of 65 U.S. and Scandinavian high technology firms (or strategic business units) were studied. The sample included firms from the computer, telecommunications, instruments, specialty chemicals, biotechnology, and software industries.
The results demonstrated that R&D integration of knowledge from past projects explained the largest degree of variation in product development cycle time. R&D/marketing integration and R&D/customer integration explained the next largest degree of variation in cycle time reduction. Cross cultural generalizability tests demonstrated that the results were generalizable across the U.S. and Scandinavian samples of firms. In addition, the results were found to be generalizable across industry or product category for five of the six forms of integration.     

Integrating the R&D and Patent Functions: Implications for New Product Performance

This paper examines the impact of cross‐functional integration between the research and development (R&D) and the patent functions on new product development (NPD) performance. The attitudinal (collaboration) and the behavioral (contributions of the patent function to NPD) dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions are distinguished. It is also investigated if the level of innovativeness moderates the relationship between the attitudinal and the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. The four hypotheses are tested based on a multi‐informant sample of 101 NPD projects which are nested within 72 technology‐based firms or strategic business units from multiple industries in Germany. The results show that the attitudinal and the behavioral dimensions of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions have a significant and positive impact on NPD performance. This lends empirical support for the notion expressed in the literature that certain managerial capabilities are important for understanding the effect of patenting on appropriability outcomes such as value creation and performance. The level of cross‐functional integration between the patent and the R&D functions appears to be one of these critical patent management capabilities that affect the returns from investments into patents. There is support for the hypothesis that the context matters for the effect of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions on NPD performance. In line with the initial hypothesis, the level of innovativeness positively moderates the impact of the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department on NPD performance. In contrast to the initial hypothesis, the findings reveal no moderating effect of the level of innovativeness on the link between the attitudinal dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. This implies that joint objectives and an open and trustful working relationship between the R&D and the patent functions are not sufficient for achieving higher NPD performance if firms aim to develop very innovative products. In the case of highly innovative products, the actual behavior, that is, the specific contributions of the patent department to the NPD project, matters. Overall, these findings have important implications for improving performance by means of effectively integrating the patent and the R&D functions during NPD.     

Integration of Finance with Marketing and R&D in New Product Development: The Role of Project Stage

While the interfaces of marketing, research and development (R&D), and manufacturing in product development have been extensively studied, no large‐scale empirical study has focused on finance's role in the product development team. The present research investigates the role of finance in cross‐functional product development teams, thereby extending existing research on cross‐functional integration in product development. A set of hypotheses is tested with a survey of 389 project team leaders and top management team members from companies in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and Austria. The findings suggest that the integration of finance in cross‐functional teams positively impacts project performance and that the importance of the finance interface depends on the project development stage and the innovativeness of the product developed. The results indicate that the R&D–finance interface is most critical at the early stage of a project, while the marketing–finance interface is most important at the late stage, and that the integration between R&D and finance is especially useful in the development of less innovative products.     

The Role of Information Technologies in Enhancing R&D–Marketing Integration: An Empirical Investigation

The effective integration of research and development (R&D) and marketing contributes to the development of successful new products. Barriers such as physical separation of R&D and marketing, goal incongruity, and cultural differences hamper the cross‐functional cooperation. However, it may not be either possible or desirable to eliminate the cross‐functional integration barriers in practice. Previous research findings suggest that information technology (IT) can be used to reduce the negative impact of the barriers. This paper examines the moderating role of communication technologies (ITc) and decision‐aiding technologies (ITd) in improving the R&D–marketing integration in new product development. The empirical findings from analyzing data on 171 new product development projects suggest that both IT systems can be used to reduce the negative impact of physical separation, goal incongruity, and cultural differences on R&D–marketing integration. However, effectiveness of the two types of IT differs. While IT_c appears to be more effective than IT_d in overcoming the constraint of physical separation, IT_d is more effective than IT_c in reducing the negative impact of goal incongruity and cultural differences. IT_c is found to have the strongest effect on reducing the negative relationship of physical separation and integration, a less strong effect on cultural differences, and a weak effect on goal incongruity. Conversely, IT_d is found to have a strong effect on goal incongruity. These empirical findings provide guidelines for project managers using a specific IT to address a specific integration barrier. If the major barrier is physical separation, IT_c is the best solution. On the other hand, if the major barrier is goal incongruity, IT_d is the best solution. In addition, it is important for management to note that IT requires more than simply installing computer hardware and software. In addition to investing in those “hard” improvements, project managers should strive to create a supportive “soft” environment by consistently improving members' IT experiences and familiarity. In the process of the continuous development of IT, state‐of‐the‐art technologies should be introduced in a timely manner and be made accessible to all team members. Finally, project managers should frequently observe their industry peers' IT usage to keep up with advances.     

Examining Proactive Strategic Decision‐Making Flexibility in New Product Development

While strategic flexibility is widely accepted as a prerequisite for a firm's success, its application in strategic decision making to a firm's new product development (NPD) activities is limited to only a few studies. Furthermore, many organizations still have difficulties creating proactive strategic flexibility in their decision‐making processes. Past research studies have largely ignored the relationship between strategic decision‐making flexibility and firms' resources and/or capabilities and success in the context of NPD. This study advances strategic flexibility by adopting the proactive approach of NPD decision‐making flexibility and by examining its role in translating organizational resources and capabilities into NPD success. This study draws upon the resources, capabilities (i.e., flexibility), and performance framework to show how proactive strategic decision‐making flexibility plays a crucial role in developing new products that can create new opportunities and comply with market needs. Therefore, this research aims to (1) develop an operational definition of strategic decision‐making flexibility and (2) propose a framework to understand the drivers and the subsequent new product performance outcomes of strategic decision‐making flexibility. This study adopts the proactive perspective of strategic decision‐making flexibility and defines it as a capability that enables firms to develop NPD strategies to respond to future changes in the environment. The analysis, based on data collected from 103 European firms, shows that that the effects of long‐term orientation, strategic planning, internal commitment, and innovative climate on proactive strategic decision‐making flexibility are significant. The findings indicate specifically the roles of both champions and gatekeepers, who infuse a firm's knowledge with a clear understanding of its resources, constraints, and market needs, thereby enhancing decision makers' motivation to behave proactively to precipitate transformation. The results also reveal a positive association between proactive strategic decision‐making flexibility and NPD performance outcomes. As such, strategic flexibility provides firms with an ability to adapt to changing environments and to create new market opportunities, product, and technological arenas, and to deliver successful new products. When firms open new market, technological, and product arenas, they can easily foresee their new demands and changes and successfully deliver new products, meeting customer needs/demands, and offering benefits such as quality, cost, and timeliness. This study therefore provides a valuable reference point for future research in strategic decision‐making flexibility in NPD.     

The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating marketing and R&D

The integration of marketing and R&D is a major concern for companies that want to improve their new product performance (NPP). For this integration, companies are using mechanisms such as physical proximity, cross-functional teams, and job rotation. This study examines the effectiveness of these mechanisms by developing a model that distinguishes between indirect effects of mechanisms on NPP (i.e., through a higher level of integration) and direct effects. The model is tested with data collected from 148 pharmaceutical companies. We were able to measure and compare the effectiveness of seven different integration mechanisms, which produced insights that are interesting and relevant for theory as well as practice.
We found that housing marketing and R&D closer to each other and using an influential cross-functional phase review board are the most effective mechanisms to foster integration. Equal remuneration and career opportunities for marketing and R&D and cross-functional teams are somewhat less effective, whereas personnel movement and informal social group events contribute little. ICT appears to be a very effective tool for enhancing NPP. ICT not only fosters integration between marketing and R&D, but it also has an independent direct positive effect on NPP. Through ICT the day-to-day communication between the different parties in the companies becomes much easier, and we think that this fosters the knowledge creation process within marketing and R&D. For cross-functional phase review boards we found a negative direct effect on NPP. Notwithstanding its strong positive effect on integration, a price is paid in terms of NPP. This may be related to the amount of formalization and complexity accompanying this mechanism.     

R&D Partnerships and Innovation Performance: Can There Be too Much of a Good Thing?

R&D collaboration facilitates the pooling of complementary skills, learning from the partner as well as the sharing of risks and costs. Research therefore stresses the positive relationship between collaborative R&D and innovation performance. Fewer studies address the potential drawbacks of collaborative R&D. Collaborative R&D comes at the cost of coordination and monitoring, requires knowledge disclosure, and involves the risk of opportunistic behavior by the partners. Thus, while for lower collaboration intensities the net gains can be high, costs may start to outweigh benefits if firms perform a higher share of their innovation projects collaboratively. For a sample of 2735 firms located in Germany and active in a broad range of manufacturing and service sectors, this study finds that increasing the share of collaborative R&D projects in total R&D projects is associated with a higher probability of product innovation and with a higher market success of new products. While this confirms previous findings on the gains for innovation performance, the results also show that collaboration has decreasing and even negative returns on product innovation if its intensity increases above a certain threshold. Thus, the relationship between collaboration intensity and innovation follows an inverted‐U shape and, on average, costs start to outweigh benefits if a firm pursues more than about two‐thirds of its R&D projects in collaboration. This result is robust to conditioning market success to the introduction of new products and to accounting for the selection into collaborating. This threshold is, however, contingent on firm characteristics. Smaller and younger as well as resource‐constrained firms benefit from relatively higher collaboration intensities. For firms with higher collaboration complexities in terms of different partners and different stages of the R&D process at which collaboration takes place, returns start to decrease already at lower collaboration intensities.     

Market orientation,positioning strategy and brand performance

As the importance of B2B branding increases, literature has received considerable attention in the recent years. An underexplored area in B2B branding revolves around brand positioning and its antecedents. Towards this end, this study links market orientation (proactive and responsive) with the various positioning strategies. Specifically, we extend the extant literature by (1) exploring the possible connections (and alignments thereof) between market orientation types and brand positioning, and (2) examining the effects of these positioning strategies on brand performance. Based on data collected from individuals responsible for managing B2B brands in various industries, this study finds that both proactive and responsive market orientation types support the development of specific positioning strategies. These positioning strategies, in turn, mediate the relationship between market orientation types and brand performance. Implications for researchers and practitioners are provided.     

Whether to Integrate R&D and Marketing: The Effect of Firm Competence

Integration of research and development (R&D) with marketing remains a frequent topic in the new product development (NPD) literature, largely because it represents a critical antecedent of new product performance (NPP). Two divergent opinions about this integration exist, such that those who contend that firms should pursue high levels of integration in every case provoke criticisms from those who propose that various NPD processes require different levels of integration. This paper proposes that the two perspectives can be reconciled by taking into account the fact that R&D and marketing are integrated mainly to combine critical knowledge (technological and market) that otherwise would be separate to achieve market success. Following Danneels's approach, we investigate how the effect of R&D–marketing integration on performance change across four types of NPD processes: pure exploitation, pure exploration, technological competence exploitation, and market competence exploitation. Data derived from a deep study of 11 NPD projects by five firms, analyzed through qualitative methods, highlight the necessity to vary the level of integration according to the type of competence to be developed during the NPD process. Our analysis suggests two main conclusions. First, the effect of integration depends strictly on the type of competence that the firm uses to develop and launch a new product. Second, integration does not have a unique effect on performance, but it is necessary to distinguish between market performance (e.g., sales and market share) and process performance (e.g., meeting the planned budget and time to market). In some projects, the effect of integration on the two types of performance is diametrically opposite. In particular, we propose that (1) higher performance will be associated with lower integration in pure exploitative projects; (2) in projects that exploit existing market knowledge, higher market performance will be associated with a higher integration, although these projects tend to offer poor process performance regardless of integration level; (3) in projects that exploit technical knowledge, higher performance will be associated with higher integration; and (4) higher integration will be associated with higher market performance but poorer process performance in pure explorative projects.     

Determinants of R&D–Marketing Integration in High-Tech Japanese Firms

Although the R&D/marketing interface has been extensively studied in U.S. firms, this article reports the results of a study of this important relationship in Japanese high-tech firms. Based on published studies of U.S. firms, Mark Parry and Michael Song hypothesize that Japanese R&D managers' perceptions of the ideal level of R&D/marketing integration will reflect perceptions of both their firm's strategy and environmental uncertainty. They also hypothesize that perceptions of the level of achieved R&D/marketing integration are related to perceptions of organizational structure and climate. To test these hypotheses, they examine the survey responses of 274 Japanese R&D managers. Their analysis suggests that R&D managers' perceptions of firm strategy and the level of environmental uncertainty are significantly correlated with the perceived need for integration. Findings also indicate that R&D managers' perceptions of achieved integration reflect perceptions of the quality of R&D/marketing relations, the value placed on integration by senior management, the business background of R&D personnel and the risk-orientation of senior management.