Product–service innovation and performance: the role of collaborative partnerships and R&D intensity

Treating the intersection of the strategic partnerships, R&D intensity and servitisation literatures, this study explores empirically whether external collaborative service development and provision and industrial R&D intensity help to unpack the complex relation between product–service innovation (servitisation) and performance. We argue that manufacturing firms implementing services benefit from strategic partnerships with Knowledge‐Intensive Business Service (KIBS) firms. KIBS partnering provides opportunities for downsizing, externalising risks and sharing knowledge. Additionally, manufacturers in R&D‐intensive industries are more likely to benefit from implementing service provision than firms in other sectors because of industry dynamics and reduced customer uncertainty. The study surveys executives in 370 large manufacturers worldwide. Results reinforce the importance of concentric strategic partnerships to successful product–service innovation in high R&D industries.     

The strategic dilemmas of innovative enterprises: proposals for high‐technology sectors

High levels of research and development (R&D) expenditure, pressure for innovation and the creation of new knowledge are features that distinguish high‐technology (high‐tech) enterprises from other, less technologically advanced, firms. Confronted with multiple contemporary approaches to strategy and turbulence in their environment, these enterprises make strategic choices continuously and dynamically. This paper proposes a model and matrix for the classification of high‐tech enterprises’ development strategies (with regard to their specific features), which are then verified. Qualitative research was conducted in 61 medium and large high‐tech companies based in Poland that operate either in Poland or in the global marketplace. The results show that high‐tech firms have the fundamental goal of developing R&D activity as a resource (and its redundancy) rather than product/market goals. The studied firms strive above all for leadership in innovation, creating new technologies based on their own R&D resources, while also using outside sources and mostly applying the personalisation approach in knowledge management. However, they choose different paths for product and market development, depending on the opportunities presented by the environment, and the firm's ability to identify and take advantage of these.     

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.     

Compensation strategy: does business strategy influence compensation in high‐technology firms?

Drawing on the strategic employee group concept, this study empirically examines whether a firm's innovation strategy influences compensation systems for strategic employee groups in the high‐technology industry. We focus on compensation packages for R&D employees who play a critical role in successful implementations of innovation strategy. Using compensation data for middle‐level managers and professional employees from 237 firms in the high‐technology industry, we found that a firm's strategic intention to pursue innovation has a significant influence on the relative pay level, compensation time horizon, and stock option vesting period lengths of this strategic employee group. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Technology management as part of strategic planning – some empirical results

During the past years R&D management has been broadened into technology management, and the fruitfulness of its integration into strategic management has become clear. Empirical research has shown that R&D contributes relatively more to conventional output measures of firms that capital, and might therefore be expanded. However, whether its strategic direction should be aligned with that of other business functions is less than clear. Better information, including competitor technological intelligence information, is needed to better support strategic decisions.     

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.     

How Do Interaction Activities among Customers and between Customers and Firms Influence Market Performance and Continuous Product Innovation? An Empirical Investigation of the Mobile Application Market

Mobile application markets (MAMs) significantly differ from other existing marketplaces at least in two aspects. First, customers (app users) and firms (app providers) frequently interact with each other in real time, which is not common in the conventional marketplaces. Second, many app providers incorporate customers’ opinions or suggestions into their software upgrades, representing one of the most unique and interesting aspects of MAMs. Therefore, it has become critical to understand the impact of interaction activities not only among customers, but also between customers and firms on the market performances of new products in MAMs. One of the most significant issues firms face is whether firms reflect on customers’ postpurchase interaction activities, and the next interesting question is how firms respond to them. This study explores the effects of customer‐to‐customer (C2C), customer‐to‐firm, and firm‐to‐customer interaction activities on market performance. In addition, this study investigates how communication activities influence a firm's tendency to pursue continuous product innovation through research and development (R&D). Using data obtained from a major MAM, T store, three models that are respectively related to product sales, product lifetime, and a firm's R&D activity for product upgrades, are applied to empirically test hypotheses concerning the effects of interaction activities. In our analyses of market performance, a hierarchical log regression model with 10,840 weekly transactions data set related to product sales (model A) and 291 aggregate transactions related to product lifetime (model B) is used. Results indicate that C2C and customer‐to‐firm communication activities have a positive impact on sales, but little relationship with product lifetime. However, a firm's continuous product R&D has a positive impact on both sales and lifetime performance. Our analysis of a firm's R&D (model C) shows that C2C and customer–firm communication increases a firm's R&D activity. Taken together, these results have important implications for customer–firm interactions, market performance, and R&D strategies.     

Building product diversification through contractual R&D agreements

Firms engage in contractual R&D agreements for several reasons, including product innovation motives, firm performance goals, and technological diversification. This article demonstrates that firms also might enter into external collaborations to penetrate new markets. This study therefore explores both the effects and the strategic risks of contractual R&D agreements and their related knowledge structures for a firm's capacity to diversify into new markets. Drawing on a novel panel data set obtained from 102 Fortune high‐tech firms, the authors demonstrate that strategic alliances enable knowledge‐integrated firms to penetrate new businesses; however, these organizations should be cautious about engaging in licensing‐in agreements, which have negative effects on product diversification.     

Family Ownership and R&D Intensity in Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Firms

Research was largely consistent in predicting a negative relationship between family ownership and research and development (R&D) intensity until Chrisman and Patel, using a behavioral agency model (BAM), called this general assumption into question. They argued that publicly owned family firms typically invest less in R&D than nonfamily‐owned firms. This behavior may however be reversed if economic performance levels are below family aspirations or if family long‐term goals, such as pursuing strong transgenerational family control, are highly valued. While most researchers, like Chrisman and Patel, primarily focused on large listed firms, more research on the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity in privately held small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) is required. This is because firm size can play an important role in understanding the innovation management behavior of firms. Building on the BAM perspective, in the present paper it is argued that Chrisman and Patel's results can be extended to the context of SMEs, albeit with one important specification: the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is likely to be contingent on the way the family has invested its wealth. Specifically, it is contended that in the context of SMEs, where goals are more fluid and mixed, when there is a high overlap between family wealth and firm equity (i.e., most of the family's wealth is invested in the firm) the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is negative because of the family owners' greater desire to protect their socioemotional wealth (SEW). However, if the overlap between the family's total wealth and single firm equity is low (i.e., firm equity is just a small part of the total family wealth), the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is positive as the low overlap between family wealth and firm equity reduces the family's loss aversion propensity. In such a situation, family ownership is likely to foster R&D intensity because of the long‐term orientation of family owners that increases the family firm's propensity to bear the risk of investing in R&D activities. The hypothesis is tested and confirmed in a study of 240 small‐ and medium‐sized firms based in Italy. The paper contributes to the literature in several ways. First, adding to the literature on innovation management and R&D intensity, it increases the understanding of what drives or inhibits R&D investments in SMEs when a family is involved in the ownership of the firm. This is particularly important because research on innovation management, as well as research on R&D intensity in family firms, is primarily focused on large firms and much less on SMEs. Second, the study complements arguments from prior research on the correlates of R&D intensity in large listed firms, showing that the BAM and SEW perspective offer a theoretical framework that is also able to illustrate the complex nature of innovation management in the context of SMEs. Third, the study contributes to research on the effects of family ownership on the general functioning of a firm. In particular, it provides new insights into how family ownership may affect R&D intensity.     

R&D Cooperation,Partner Diversity,and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Analysis

Existing literature on research and development (R&D) alliances focuses on formation motives and performance impacts of these alliances but hardly on diversity of the partners' portfolio. Cooperation with a diverse set of partners leads to learning opportunities with regard to both cooperation and innovation skills and hence is expected to enhance the firm's innovation performance. This paper examines two research questions: (1) the impact of functional and geographical diversity of R&D partners on radical and incremental innovation performance of product innovating firms, and (2) the organizational determinants of partner diversity in R&D alliances. The empirical analysis is based on data from the Dutch Community Innovation Survey, R&D and Information and Communication Technology Surveys, and Production Statistics, which lead to a representative sample of 12,811 innovating firms in the period 1994–2006. Through random‐effects panel Tobit estimates, econometric models for both research questions are estimated. The results indicate that functional and geographical diversity act through different channels. Functional diversity leads to a variety of knowledge intake and synergetic effects necessary to develop and commercialize novel products. Geographical diversity results in successful adaption of existing products to different local requirements such as technical standards, market regulations, and customer preferences. The organizational determinants of both kinds of partner diversity are prior experience, patenting, and information technology infrastructure.     

How to leverage the impact of R&D on product innovation? The moderating effect of management innovation

Although research and development (R&D) is a key indicator of (technological) innovation, scholars have found mixed results regarding its effect on product innovation and firm performance. In this paper, we claim that variations in R&D effectiveness can be explained by changes in a firm’s social system, in particular in its management innovation. It is still unclear how management innovation influences R&D effectiveness in terms of product innovation. In this study, we address this theoretical and empirical gap in the innovation literature. Our theoretical arguments and findings from a large-scale survey among Dutch firms show that R&D has a decreasingly positive relationship with product innovation, particularly for firms with low levels of management innovation. However, in firms with high levels of management innovation, this relationship becomes more J-shaped, especially in small and medium-sized firms. Our findings also appear to indicate that management innovation may be more important for competitive advantage than just R&D. Overall, our insights reveal that management innovation is a key moderator in explaining firms’ effectiveness in transforming R&D into successful product innovation.     

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.     

R&D spending,domestic competition,and export performance of Japanese manufacturing firms

This paper examines three factors influencing the export performances of Japanese manufacturing firms: R&D spending, domestic competitive position, and firm size. Export sales are positively associated with (1) R&D expenditures, (2) size of a firm, and (3) average R&D intensity of an industry. A firm's export ratio is related to the size of the firm, but not to the firm's and the industry's R&D intensities. Follower firms are characterized by higher export ratios than market leaders. The results indicate a relationship between the patterns of domestic competition and the international competitiveness of Japanese firms.     

Does business group affiliation encourage R&D activities? Evidence from India

The decision to undertake investment in innovative activities is an important strategic choice made by firms. This study investigates the relationship between business group (BG) affiliation and research & development (R&D) activities of Indian firms. Using an empirical approach that accounts for endogeneity and selection bias, we observe that BG affiliation has significant positive influence on the sample firms’ R&D activities. Employing various proxies for institutional development, we show that the effect of BG affiliation on R&D declines with the improvements in institutional and regulatory mechanisms. Further, this study explores the linkages between diversification strategies at the group level and R&D investments by firms affiliated with BGs. Results show that degree of related diversification is positively associated with the affiliates’ innovation efforts.     

Strategic control systems and relative r&d investment in large multiproduct firms

This paper hypothesizes that tight financial controls associated with large diversified M-form firms lead to a short-term, low-risk orientation and thereby lower relative investment in R&D. Further, it is hypothesized that increasing levels of diversification require different control systems which have significant implications for investing in R&D. Results of the study of 124 major U.S. firms suggest that less diversified U-form firms invest more heavily in R&D than more diversified M-form firms after controlling for size and industry effects. Additionally, dominant business firms invested more in R&D than either related or unrelated business firms. Finally, the relationship between R&D intensity and market performance was negative for related and unrelated firms. The findings suggest that the market evaluates R&D investment more positively for firms that are organized to seek synergy than for those that are organized to pursue a hedging (or diversification) strategy.     

Technology Acquisition in Family and Nonfamily Firms: A Longitudinal Analysis of Spanish Manufacturing Firms

Technology acquisition from external sources has been identified as a critical competence for sustained success in innovation, and research has paid a good deal of attention to studying its advantages, drawbacks, determinants, and outcomes. Traditionally, research has modeled the choice to acquire technology from outside a firm's boundaries as the result of a trade‐off between the benefits of external acquisition (e.g., higher return on investment, lower costs, increased flexibility, access to specialized skill sets, and creativity) and its drawbacks (e.g., opening the market to new entrants, risk of imitation of core competencies, and reduced value appropriability). Yet, this view does not capture the behavioral considerations that may potentially encourage or discourage managers from sourcing technology outside the firm's boundaries. This behavioral aspect is especially important if one wants to understand the conduct in external technology acquisition of family firms, which are found to favor strategic actions that preserve the controlling families' control and authority over business, even at the cost of giving up potential economic benefits. Thus, external technology acquisition is likely to be interpreted differently in family and nonfamily firms. Despite its importance, how the involvement of a controlling family affects decisions in technology and innovation management and specifically external technology acquisition is an overlooked topic in extant research and requires further theoretical and empirical examination. This study attempts to fill these gaps by extending the tenets of the behavioral agency model and prior research pointing to particularistic decision‐making in family firms to uncover the behavioral drivers of external technology acquisition in family and nonfamily firms. Theory is developed that relates performance risk, family management, and the contingent effect of the degree of technology protection on external technology acquisition, and the hypotheses are tested with longitudinal data on 1540 private Spanish manufacturing firms. The analyses show that managers are more likely to acquire technology from external sources through research and development contracting when firm performance falls below managers' aspirations. Family firms are generally more reluctant to acquire external technology, and the effect of negative aspiration performance gaps becomes less relevant as family management is higher, which is attributed to family managers' attempts to avoid losing control over the trajectory that technology follows over time. However, family firms become more favorable to considering the adoption of an open approach to technology development when some protection mechanisms (specifically, the filing of patents on the firm proprietary technologies) increase the managers' perceptions of control over the technology trajectory. As such, this study makes a contribution to the understanding of the behavioral factors driving external technology acquisition, and it offers important insights regarding technology strategy in family firms.     

Proactive/Responsive Market Orientation and Marketing—Research and Development Integration

The level of integration between the marketing and research and development (R&D) functions may be gauged by degree of communication, information sharing, and collaboration between the functions during the new product development process. This article examines how a firm's strategic choice regarding market orientation may influence the relationship between marketing and R&D personnel, and how this relationship may affect organizational success. Under examination are both the responsive form of market orientation, in which a firm focuses on immediate customer needs and tends to be market driven, and the proactive form, in which the firm focuses on future market needs and tends to be invention driven. It is theorized that responsive market orientation will be more positively related to marketing‐R&D integration due to the market‐driven nature of the orientation. Conversely, it is theorized proactive market orientation will be more positively related to organizational success than responsive market orientation due to the innovation‐driven nature of the orientation. The study was implemented via a Web‐based survey and data analysis was performed using structural equation modeling techniques. The results of this study provide empirical evidence that both proactive and responsive market orientation exhibit a positive relationship with marketing–R&D integration, indicating that both forms of market orientation may lead to closer collaboration between the marketing and R&D functions. Despite the assumption that a proactive orientation is driven by innovation and technology in which R&D may play a more significant role, there is evidence that a high degree of synergy is developed between the groups when the focus is on future market needs. A market‐driven responsive orientation by necessity requires high integration between departments to commercialize products in a timely manner to meet current market needs. Proactive market orientation exhibits a positive relationship with market performance, whereas responsive market orientation does not. The result may show evidence of the “new product paradox," whereby developing products to address immediate market needs may result in lower market performance because the new products may be replacements for obsolete offerings or are actually cannibalizing sales of existing products.     

Synthesizing R&D planning and business strategy: some preliminary findings

The need for firms to compete in the longer run by offering superior products at competitive prices requires better integration of R&D, and technology in general, into business strategy development. A survey based on personal interviews of 40 respondents from "Fortune 500" U. S. industrial firms reveals that their shift in emphasis toward new product/process R&D is providing the impetus for placing R&D in a strategic context. However, R&D has not been fully integrated into the strategic planning process of many organizations. The results of the survey reveal that certain communication channels can be more fully utilized to meld R&D planning into business strategy. Specific suggestions to facilitate information exchange, dissemination of planning data, and integration of various R&D plans into a cohesive technology strategy are given.     

Synthesizing R&D planning and business strategy: some preliminary findings

The need for firms to compete in the longer run by offering superior products at competitive prices requires better integration of R&D, and technology in general, into business strategy development. A survey based on personal interviews of 40 respondents from “Fortune 500” U. S. industrial firms reveals that their shift in emphasis toward new product/process R&D is providing the impetus for placing R&D in a strategic context. However, R&D has not been fully integrated into the strategic planning process of many organizations. The results of the survey reveal that certain communication channels can be more fully utilized to meld R&D planning into business strategy. Specific suggestions to facilitate information exchange, dissemination of planning data, and integration of various R&D plans into a cohesive technology strategy are given.     

Can entrepreneurial orientation improve R&D alliance performance? An absorptive capacity perspective

Research and Development (R&D) alliance studies maintain that alliance partners’ entrepreneurial interactions that pursue innovation opportunities through collective exploitation and exploration of knowledge resources lead to alliance success. Despite the importance of productive resource exchange and generation through such interactions, performance-by-alliance mechanisms remain under-researched. In this study, we develop a theoretical framework hypothesizing that the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) of alliance firms, which underlies their approach to seeking and utilizing resources productively, has a potential impact on their R&D alliance performance, depending on their absorptive capacity (AC). To specify the value creation and capture mechanism in the alliance, we adopt two performance indicators: technological competitiveness and business performance. Findings from a study of 218 small technology-intensive firms conducting R&D alliance projects show that EO translates into business performance through technological competitiveness and that AC leverages the alliance performance implications of EO. The results suggest that EO–AC complementarity is a strategic stimulant that triggers firms to extract greater benefits from R&D alliances.