Incremental and Radical Innovation in Coopetition—The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Appropriability

This study examines why some firms are better able than others to reap benefits from collaborating with their competitors in innovation. Whereas on the general level, collaborative innovation has been studied widely, and firm‐specific success factors in collaboration between competitors (i.e., coopetition) have not been exhaustively addressed. Earlier literature describes coopetition as a risky but potentially rewarding relationship in which sharing, learning, and protection of knowledge are recognized as the key issues determining the possible benefits and hazards. This study provides evidence of factors related to this, suggesting that the firm's ability to acquire knowledge from external sources (potential absorptive capacity) and to protect its innovations and core knowledge against imitation (appropriability regime) are relevant in increasing the innovation outcomes of collaborating with its competitors. This study also distinguishes between incremental and radical innovations as an outcome of coopetition, and provides differing implications for the two innovation types. The empirical evidence for the study was gathered from a cross‐industry survey conducted on Finnish markets. The data are analyzed with multivariate multiple regression analysis. The results of the analysis suggest that (1) potential absorptive capacity and appropriability regime of the firm both have a positive effect in the pursuit of incremental innovations in coopetition, and (2) in the case of radical innovations, appropriability regime has a positive effect, while the effect of absorptive capacity is not statistically significant. However, the results also indicate that there is a moderating relationship between these variables, in that the potential absorptive capacity is positively associated with creation of radical innovations within high levels of appropriability regime. These results yield important theoretical and managerial implications. As a whole, the results presented in this study provide new evidence on which types of firms can reap success in the challenging task of collaborative innovation with rivals. In the case of incremental innovation, a firm‐level emphasis on knowledge sharing and learning will positively affect the results of coopetition, as will an emphasis on knowledge protection. Thus, when incremental developments are pursued in coopetition, firms should not only seek to exchange knowledge to create value but also remember to secure the firm‐specific core knowledge within the firm's borders to stay competitive. On the other hand, when the firm is pursuing radical innovation with its rivals, the heaviest emphasis should be on protecting its existing core knowledge and also emerging novel innovations and market opportunities. Capabilities in knowledge acquisition are also beneficial in these cases, but the full benefits of knowledge exchange realize only when the firm's knowledge protection mechanisms are sufficiently strong, allowing for safe knowledge exchange between rivals.     

Customer and Supplier Involvement in Design: The Moderating Role of Incremental and Radical Innovation Capability

More and more firms are leveraging design as a resource to gain the upper hand in today's competitive business market. To this end, this study draws on the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm to examine the relationship between customer and supplier involvement in the design process and new product performance. The research also extends the RBV to a contingency lens by introducing product innovation capability (incremental and radical) as a moderator to draw the boundary conditions of the impact of customer/supplier involvement in design on new product performance. Using data collected from Canadian high‐tech companies, the findings provide strong support for the hypotheses in that customer involvement in design helps new product performance under high incremental innovation capability but harms new product performance under high radical innovation capability. In contrast, supplier involvement in design was beneficial to new product performance under both high incremental and radical innovation capability. The managerial implications for the role of design under different innovation capabilities are discussed.     

Market Learning and Radical Innovation: A Cross Case Comparison of Eight Radical Innovation Projects

Does customer input play the same key role in every successful new-product development (NPD) project? For incremental NPD projects, market information keeps the project team focused on customer wants and needs. Well-documented methods exist for obtaining and using market information throughout the stages of an incremental NPD project. However, the role of market learning seems less apparent if the NPD project involves a really new product—that is, a radical innovation that creates a line of business that is new not only for the firm but also for the marketplace. In all likelihood, customers will not be able to describe their requirements for a product that opens up entirely new markets and applications. To provide insight into the role that market learning plays in NPD projects involving really new products, Gina Colarelli O'Connor describes findings from case studies of eight radical innovation projects. Participants in the study come from member companies of the Industrial Research Institute, a consortium of large company R&D managers. With a focus on exploring how market learning for radical innovations differs from that of incremental NPD projects, the case studies examine the following issues: the nature and the timing of market-related inquiry; market learning methods and processes; and the scope of responsibility for market learning, and confidence in the results. Observations from the case studies suggest that the market-related questions that are asked during a radical innovation project differ by stage of development, and they differ from the questions that project teams typically ask during an incremental NPD effort. For example, assessments of market potential, size, and growth were not at issue during the early stages of the projects in this study. Such issues came into play after the innovations were proven to work under controlled conditions and attention turned to finding applications for the technology. For several projects in the study, internal data and informal networks of people throughout relevant business units provide the means for learning about the hurdles the innovation faces and about markets that are unfamiliar to the development group. The projects in this study employ various techniques for reducing market uncertainty, including offering the product to the most familiar market and using a strategic ally who is familiar with the market to act as an intermediary between the project team and the marketplace.     

Adaptation and Organizational Connectedness in Corporate Radical Innovation Programs*

This research examines how established companies organize programs for fostering technology‐based radical innovation. It addresses conflicts revealed in the innovation literature concerning the appropriate design of the strategic, structural, and process components of these programs. In developing innovation strategies, managers must balance the desire for strategic clarity with the need to allow for creativity and exploration. They must structure programs that ensure innovations benefit from the organization's resources while minimizing the numerous constraints that can impede these unconventional activities. Additionally, though they may favor management processes that provide accountability and effective resource allocation, managers must also ensure these do not restrict the flexibility required for successful innovation. The study is a longitudinal, comparative case analysis of interviews with managers involved in innovation programs in 12 industry‐leading multinational corporations. Site visits at each company were followed by biannual interviews with key managers in each company. A total of 81 follow‐up interviews were conducted over a three‐year period. These interviews were aimed at identifying the changes and progress in the programs over time and internal and external impacts on the organization's innovation activity. The analysis reveals (1) distinct but evolving objectives that maintain a logical strategic connection, (2) adaptive structures that shift and transform but preserve relationships with the broader organization, and (3) flexible processes that are understandable beyond the innovation program and are modifiable, both for the context and in response to learning over time. This suggests that programs introducing high uncertainty and risk into mature corporate environments are highly flexible systems that maintain organizational connectedness as they evolve. For academics, this implies a need to understand the evolution of innovation programs as an adaptive learning process that, regardless of form and purpose, preserves its connection to the traditional organization. For practitioners, it highlights the importance of considering the process, strategic, and structural connections to the broader organization when designing innovation programs and suggests the need for feedback mechanisms to help adapt these elements over time.     

The Role of Marketing Resources in Radical Innovation Activity: Antecedents and Payoffs

While radical product innovations represent significant engines of firm growth, questions remain over whether marketing helps or hurts (1) a firm's radical product innovation activity and (2) its rewards from radical product innovation activity. By attaching an attention‐based view of the firm to a market‐based assets view of marketing, this paper examines the role of three marketing resources—market knowledge, reputation, and relational resources—on radical innovation activity. Our conceptual framework posits differentiated effects among marketing resources as antecedents of radical innovation activity and as moderators of its impact on firms' financial performance. Using a survey of a broad set of high‐tech business‐to‐business (B2B) firms to test hypotheses, it is found that firms with strong relational resources enjoy a higher propensity for, and stronger financial rewards from, radical innovation activity. Reputational resources come with a trade‐off as they hurt the incidence of radical innovation but enhance its financial rewards. However, market knowledge resources appear to hurt both radical innovation activity and its financial rewards. Our results point to the multifaceted role of marketing in radical innovation activity, which is unlikely to come with a single benefit or liability as prior work often posits. Rather, our research heightens the alertness of managers to assess their firms' marketing strength as a bundle of stocks of several marketing resources. Managers must understand the distinct benefits and drawbacks of each resource in developing and launching radical innovations. Our research underscores the differentiated value of marketing in radical innovation activity in B2B high‐tech contrary to the entrenched idea of a limited or even stifling role of marketing in this context.     

Market Vision and the Front End of NPD for Radical Innovation: The Impact of Moderating Effects

“Market vision” is a mental model that helps focus the organization on a new market application for an advanced technology during the fuzzy front end of the new product development process. Previous research demonstrates that firms involved in the development of radically new, high‐tech products need to develop a market visioning competence (MVC) in order to develop an effective market vision (MV), and these capabilities, in turn, have been found to have a positive effect on key aspects of the early performance (EP) of these firms—specifically, the ability to attract capital and early success with customers. Based on a major empirical study of the nanotechnology sector, the research described in this paper takes an important step forward by focusing on factors in both the external and internal environment of the firm, and their moderating impact on the paths that link MVC, MV, and EP. External structural factors relevant to the firm's competitive environment as well as internal factors, including firm resources, size, incumbency, and technology, are shown to have significant moderating effects both on the way in which MV unfolds and on its capacity for affecting positive returns for the firm when undertaking radical innovation. Five of seven hypotheses were supported by the research. Both level of incumbency (the extent to which the firm has taken part in previous generations of a given technology) and resource availability are shown to positively impact the link between MVC and MV. Also, appropriability (i.e., protection for innovations) and reputation of the firm were found to positively impact the path to EP. Finally, a low level of industry concentration—that is, a large number of small firms—were found to have a positive effect on the path to EP. In sum, the findings support the structure of the model and the majority of the hypothesized moderating relationships, suggesting important implications for management.     

Consistency Matters in Formally Selecting Incremental and Radical New Product Ideas for Advancement

Several new product development (NPD) scholars have argued that formal processes should be used when selecting incremental new product ideas for advancement at the very beginning of the fuzzy front end (FFE), but that such formal processes may be less beneficial when selecting radical new product ideas. However, arguments also exist for using formal idea selection processes for both types of new product ideas. In practice, informal processes are used for selecting both idea types and more formal processes are used for selecting radical ideas. Unequivocal empirical evidence for either of the opposing views or practices is lacking. This study sheds light on this matter using data from 161 of the firms that participated in the Product Development and Management Association's latest (2012) Comparative Performance Assessment Study. The results reveal that the highest idea success rate (i.e., the proportion of selected ideas that are eventually launched as new products and are successful in the marketplace) is associated with firms’ use of formal processes to select the vast majority of both incremental and radical new product ideas for advancement. This finding supports earlier claims that even for (raw) idea selection processes that take place at the very beginning of the FFE, managers need to adopt a portfolio perspective and consistently use formal idea advancement selection processes to ensure attaining the right balance between radical and incremental projects in later stages of the NPD pipeline to enhance overall NPD success. Notably, this finding shows that common managerial practices of using inconsistent approaches for selecting radical and incremental ideas for advancement need to be reconsidered.     

Design,Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Metamodel and a Research Agenda*

Recent studies on design management have helped us to better comprehend how companies can apply design to get closer to users and to better understand their needs; this is an approach usually referred to as user‐centered design. Yet analysis of design‐intensive manufacturers such as Alessi, Artemide, and other leading Italian firms shows that their innovation process hardly starts from a close observation of user needs and requirements. Rather, they follow a different strategy called design‐driven innovation in this paper. This strategy aims at radically change the emotional and symbolic content of products (i.e., their meanings and languages) through a deep understanding of broader changes in society, culture, and technology. Rather than being pulled by user requirements, design‐driven innovation is pushed by a firm's vision about possible new product meanings and languages that could diffuse in society. Design‐driven innovation, which plays such a crucial role in the innovation strategy of design intensive firms, has still remained largely unexplored. This paper aims at providing a possible direction to fill this empty spot in innovation management literature. In particular, first it proposes a metamodel for investigating design‐driven innovation in which a manufacturer's ability to understand, anticipate, and influence emergence of new product meanings is built by relying on external interpreters (e.g., designers, firms in other industries, suppliers, schools, artists, the media) that share its same problem: to understand the evolution of sociocultural models and to propose new visions and meanings. Managing design‐driven innovation therefore implies managing the interaction with these interpreters to access, share, and internalize knowledge on product languages and to influence shifts in sociocultural models. Second, the paper proposes a possible direction to scientifically investigate the management of this networked and collective research process. In particular, it shows that the process of creating breakthrough innovations of meanings partially mirrors the process of creating breakthrough technological innovations. Studies of design‐driven innovation may therefore benefit significantly from the existing body of theories in the field of technology management. The analysis of the analogies between these two types of radical innovations (i.e., meanings and technologies) allows a research agenda to be set for exploration of design‐driven innovation, a relevant as well as underinvestigated phenomenon.     

The Impact of Team Cognitive Styles on Performance of Radical and Incremental NPD Projects

Although prior studies increased our understanding of the performance implications of new product development (NPD) team members' functional backgrounds and demographic variables, they remained relatively silent on the impact of underlying psychological characteristics such as the team members' cognitive styles on project performance. The goal of this study is to explore the effects of NPD teams' cognitive styles on project performance in different kinds of NPD projects. Based on survey data from members of 95 NPD teams gathered in four Dutch manufacturing companies, hypotheses about the relationships between teams' cognitive styles and project performance of radical and incremental NPD projects are tested. Results of linear regression analyses show that the level of teams' analytical information processing positively affects project performance in both incremental and radical NPD projects, whereas the relationship between the level of teams' intuitive information processing and project performance depends on the radicalness of the project. These findings contribute to the academic discussion on team innovation, suggesting that, next to demographic and functional characteristics, cognitive styles in teams also significantly influence project performance.     

Fostering Innovation in Complex Product Development Settings: The Role of Team Member Identity and Interteam Interdependence*

Much of the existing research on innovation has concentrated on the study of individuals in small group settings. However, projects marked by multiple teams, high task interdependence, long duration, and large scale have become increasingly common in practice. Very little is known about how extant research findings related to innovation may generalize to such complex settings. Taking a multilevel theoretical approach, individuals' propensity to innovate is hypothesized as the product of individuals' relationship with their work team (team member identification) and their team's relationship to other teams within the organizational system (interteam interdependence). A large, diversified manufacturing firm engaged in a multibillion dollar project that involved the development of a technologically intense, highly innovative, new product served as the research site. Based on archival and survey data (n=118), five hypotheses were tested. The findings indicate that individuals' strong team identification and their perceptions of high interteam interdependence each had positive main effects on individuals' intentions to innovate. However, these two variables also interacted negatively to significantly decrease innovation intentions. Therefore, high identification with team may lead individuals to view interdependence with another team as a threat deflecting attention from innovation. The finding related to the role of identity, although consistent with work linking identity to other team behaviors, usefully broadens the reach of identification theories to demonstrate their impact on innovation. Additionally, this study is the first to demonstrate the impact of interteam interdependence on innovation. The alternative operationalizations of interdependence used in this paper highlight the fact that it must be strongly perceived and experienced by individuals to affect their innovation attitudes. The findings of this study also have implications for managerial practice in complex project settings. Since team identification has a direct effect on innovation, managers might employ strategies related to the creation of social bonds to complement task related connections among team members. Further, managers should configure staffing and incentive mechanisms to reinforce team identification. Finally, the results suggest that managers need to carefully attend to individuals' perceptions of each team's interdependence with other teams. Although perceptual interdependence can be an enabler of innovation, it can also be a disabler, through its interaction with team identification. Recognizing this potential for negative effects, managers might emphasize the benefits that can come from cooperating across teams, thus encouraging team members to identify not only at the team level but at the overall project level as well. Such actions might deflect negative identity threats that can derail positive innovation intentions.     

A Philosophy for Innovation: The Role of Unconventional Individuals in Innovation Success

For those of us trying to understand the nature of innovation, the role of the scientist or engineer presents a conundrum. Such individuals are often sources of innovation in both products and processes, yet routine science and engineering is typically carried out in an environment that stresses structure, order, and adherence to prescribed methods–exactly the wrong setting for successful innovation. To help explain the diminishing role of science and the burgeoning role of individuals in innovation, Carol J. Steiner presents a philosophy of innovation. Suggesting that unconventional individuals, rather than conventional science or engineering, are central to innovation success, this philosophy of innovation is derived from a philosophy of human nature formulated by Martin Heidegger. Heidegger identified three elements of human nature: (1) it is human nature to be practically involved in a complex world rather than rationally involved with a conceptually simplified world; (2) it is human nature to be authentic (i.e., unconventional, uncommitted to one's paradigm) at least some of the time; and (3) it is human nature to be cooperative. In other words, the methods and organizational structures that characterize “good” science are in direct conflict with human nature. By examining things in isolation from their natural linkages, the scientist misses the holistic view–the big picture–necessary for successful innovation. Central to this philosophy of innovation is individuality understood as authenticity. The term authenticity refers to both an unconventional (i.e., unscientific) approach to the world and an openness to alternative viewpoints. This openness is the basis for cooperative rather than competitive interaction. The fundamental themes of this philosophy of innovation are the importance of individual experience, the importance of unconventional (free) interpretations, and the importance of respect for individual uniqueness. The magic moments of innovation arise when scientists or engineers assert their individuality, break free from the structured thinking of their traditional methods, and synthesize novel interpretations that move their projects in new directions. This philosophy of innovation is not presented as a means for determining why innovation succeeds or fails. Instead, it provides a framework for assessing organizational or personal approaches to innovation. In other words, it gives managers a means for understanding and interpreting the human elements of particular innovation projects.     

Managing Innovation Champions: The Impact of Project Characteristics on the Direct Manager Role*

A key challenge for organizations seeking to improve the management of innovation lies in determining when to lend direct managerial support, and how much support, to those championing such projects. This research provides insights into the connection between project characteristics and the type and frequency of direct manager involvement. As such, it addresses the following research question: how does the level of project innovativeness, strategic relatedness, and resource requirements impact the level of empowerment of innovation champions and the sponsor or supervisor role played by managers? The research method involves a survey of 89 project champions from four divisions of large, multinational Korean companies. The results show that when innovativeness was high but projects were strategically related, there was greater project champion empowerment but also a more frequent managerial sponsor role. This suggests it may be best to allow innovators, who are close to the project's markets, technologies, and industry conditions, to have greater freedom over objectives and decisions. Yet they may also need the advice and support of their managers to function optimally under the highly uncertain conditions that characterize innovative projects. This combination of empowerment and a sponsor role, though appropriate for highly innovative projects, may also require high strategic relatedness, however. On the other hand, when projects are less strategically related and when resource requirements are high, the analysis suggests managers are more likely to exert control. Managers may therefore need to become more closely involved in decision making for costly ventures representing new strategic directions for their organizations. Overall, this research suggests that both empowerment and manager roles are relevant to the management of innovation. These results offer academic value in recognizing the nature of the direct manager role under different innovation project conditions. It further reveals a need for academics to recognize both the supervisor and sponsor roles in the management of innovation. For managers, the findings suggest that for organizations to effectively develop and commercialize innovations managers need to recognize when certain projects call for different levels and types of involvement.     

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Innovation: The Roles of Internal and External Support for Innovation*

Leadership has been suggested to be an important factor affecting innovation. A number of studies have shown that transformational leadership positively influences organizational innovation. However, there is a lack of studies examining the contextual conditions under which this effect occurs or is augmented. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the impact of transformational leadership on organizational innovation and to determine whether internal and external support for innovation as contextual conditions influence this effect. Organizational innovation was conceptualized as the tendency of the organization to develop new or improved products or services and its success in bringing those products or services to the market. Transformational leadership was hypothesized to have a positive influence on organizational innovation. Furthermore, this effect was proposed to be moderated by internal support for innovation, which refers to an innovation supporting climate and adequate resources allocated to innovation. Support received from external organizations for the purposes of knowledge and resource acquisition was also proposed to moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational innovation. To test these hypotheses, data were collected from 163 research and development (R&D) employees and managers of 43 micro‐ and small‐sized Turkish entrepreneurial software development companies. Two separate questionnaires were used to collect the data. Employees' questionnaires included measures of transformational leadership and internal support for innovation, whereas managers' questionnaires included questions about product innovations of their companies and the degree of support they received from external institutions. Organizational innovation was measured with a market‐oriented criterion developed specifically for developing countries and newly developing industries. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypothesized effects. The results of the analysis provided support for the positive influence of transformational leadership on organizational innovation. This finding is significant because this positive effect was identified in micro‐ and small‐sized companies, whereas previous research focused mainly on large companies. In addition, external support for innovation was found to significantly moderate this effect. Specifically, the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational innovation was stronger when external support was at high levels than when there was no external support. This study is the first to investigate and empirically show the importance of this contextual condition for organizational innovation. The moderating effect of internal support for innovation, however, was not significant. This study shows that transformational leadership is an important determinant of organizational innovation and encourages managers to engage in transformational leadership behaviors to promote organizational innovation. In line with this, transformational leadership, which is heavily suggested to be a subject of management training and development in developed countries, should also be incorporated into such programs in developing countries. Moreover, this study highlights the importance of external support in the organizational innovation process. The results suggest that technical and financial support received from outside the organization can be a more important contextual influence in boosting up innovation than an innovation‐supporting internal climate. Therefore, managers, particularly of micro‐ and small‐sized companies, should play external roles such as boundary spanning and should build relationships with external institutions that provide technical and financial support. The findings of this study are especially important for managers of companies that plan to or currently operate in countries with developing economies.     

The Role of Value‐Informed Pricing in Market‐Oriented Product Innovation Management*

Although the positive effect of a market orientation on new product success is widely accepted and the market orientation literature has increased its understanding of how a market orientation leads to performance, the extant literature has overlooked the role of value‐informed pricing in the relationship. Value‐informed pricing is a pricing practice in which the decision makers base the price of the new product on the customers' perceptions of the benefits that the product offers and how these benefits are traded by customers against the price (that has yet to be determined). Considering that pricing mistakes may hit hard on the profitability of product innovations, it is important to firms to have a good understanding of its role. This study develops a framework in which value‐informed pricing is integrated in the relationship between market orientation and new product performance. A distinction is made between customer and competitor orientations, and relative product advantage is also included in the conceptual model. The model is tested on data obtained from managers based on a cross sectional sample of 144 firms. The respondents were involved in a decision‐making process of the pricing of a new product. The model is tested using structural equations modeling. The results show that value‐informed pricing has a strong effect on new product performance. It also reveals that each component of a market orientation fulfills a specific role in a market‐oriented organization. Value‐informed pricing is found to have important mediating effects in the market orientation–new product performance relationship. Results show that firms with a strong customer orientation engage in value‐informed pricing and develop superior benefits to customers in an advantageous product. In turn, both value‐informed pricing and relative product advantage positively affect new product market performance. However, no significant effect of competitor orientation on value‐informed pricing is found. Combined with the finding that competitor orientation negatively affects relative product advantage, this suggests that competitor orientation may hurt new product performance when this orientation is not balanced with a strong customer orientation. The results also portray that value‐informed pricing leads to higher product advantage. Interestingly, this relation is contingent on the degree of interfunctional coordination within the firm. This suggests that the relationship between market orientation and new product performance is strongest if firms integrate value‐informed pricing in the new product development process. In this sense, a market‐oriented firm mirrors the customer value perception that makes a trade‐off between benefits and price.     

Innovation and Design in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

At the heart of any innovation process lies a fundamental practice: the way people create ideas and solve problems. This “decision making” side of innovation is what scholars and practitioners refer to as “design.” Decisions in innovation processes have so far been taken by humans. What happens when they can be substituted by machines? Artificial Intelligence (AI) brings data and algorithms to the core of the innovation processes. What are the implications of this diffusion of AI for our understanding of design and innovation? Is AI just another digital technology that, akin to many others, will not significantly question what we know about design? Or will it create transformations in design that current theoretical frameworks cannot capture? This paper proposes a framework for understanding the design and innovation in the age of AI. We discuss the implications for design and innovation theory. Specifically, we observe that, as creative problem-solving is significantly conducted by algorithms, human design increasingly becomes an activity of sensemaking, that is, understanding which problems should or could be addressed. This shift in focus calls for the new theories and brings design closer to leadership, which is, inherently, an activity of sensemaking. Our insights are derived from and illustrated with two cases at the frontier of AI—Netflix and Airbnb (complemented with analyses of Microsoft and Tesla)—which point to two directions for the evolution of design and innovation in firms. First, AI enables an organization to overcome many past limitations of human-intensive design processes, by improving the scalability of the process, broadening its scope across traditional boundaries, and enhancing its ability to learn and adapt on the fly. Second, and maybe more surprising, while removing these limitations, AI also appears to deeply enact several popular design principles. AI thus reinforces the principles of Design Thinking, namely: being people-centered, abductive, and iterative. In fact, AI enables the creation of solutions that are more highly user centered than human-based approaches (i.e., to an extreme level of granularity, designed for every single person); that are potentially more creative; and that are continuously updated through learning iterations across the entire product life cycle. In sum, while AI does not undermine the basic principles of design, it profoundly changes the practice of design. Problem-solving tasks, traditionally carried out by designers, are now automated into learning loops that operate without limitations of volume and speed. The algorithms embedded in these loops think in a radically different way than a designer who handles the complex problems holistically with a systemic perspective. Algorithms instead handle complexity through very simple tasks, which are iterated continuously. This paper discusses the implications of these insights for design and innovation management scholars and practitioners.     

In Search of Innovation and Customer‐related Performance Superiority: The Role of Market Orientation,Marketing Capability,and Innovation Capability Interactions

Understanding the mechanisms through which firms realize the value of their market‐based knowledge resources such as market orientation is a central interest of innovation scholars and practitioners. The current study contends that realizing the performance impact of market orientation depends on know‐how deployment processes and their complementarities in functional areas such as marketing and innovation that co‐align with market orientation. More specifically, this study addresses two research questions: (1) to what extent can market orientation be transformed into customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes via marketing and innovation capabilities; and (2) does the complementarity between marketing capability and innovation capability enhance customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes? Drawing upon the resource‐based view and capability theory of the firm, a model is developed that integrates market orientation, marketing capability, innovation capability, and customer‐ and innovation‐related performance. The validity of the model is tested based on a sample of 163 manufacturing and services firms. In answer to the first research question, the findings show that market orientation significantly contributes to customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes via marketing and innovation capabilities. This finding is important in that market‐based knowledge resources should be configured with the deployment of marketing and innovation capabilities to ensure better performance. In answer to the second research question, the findings indicate that market orientation works through the complementarity between marketing and innovation capabilities to influence customer‐related performance but not innovation‐related performance. Managers are advised to have a balanced approach to managing the deployment of capabilities. If they seek to achieve superiority in customer‐related performance, marketing capability, innovation capability, and their complementarity are essential for attracting, satisfying, building relationships with, and retaining customers. On the other hand, this complementarity would be considerably less important if firms placed greater emphasis on achieving superiority in innovation‐related performance. In contrast to many existing studies, this study is the first to model the roles of both innovation capability and marketing capability in mediating the relationship between market orientation and specific performance outcomes (i.e., innovation‐ and customer‐related outcomes).     

The Valley of Death as Context for Role Theory in Product Innovation

The purpose of this paper is to define and explain the front end of product innovation as a discrete segment of development between research and product development. The Valley of Death is used as a metaphor to describe the relative lack of resources and expertise in this area of development. The metaphor suggests that there are relative more resources on one side of the valley in the form of research expertise and on the other side by commercialization expertise and resources. Within this valley a set of interlocking roles are examined that move projects from one side to the other. The empirical methodology used in this study gathered data from 272 Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) members with extensive experience in the front end of product development using a Web‐based survey instrument. Extensive pretests with experienced practitioners were conducted to develop the instrument. Results indicate that significant development takes place before projects enter into a firm's formal product development process. The data also support the roles of champion, sponsor, and gatekeeper as major actors that work together to develop and promote projects for introduction into the formal process. Champions make the organization aware of opportunities by conceptualizing the idea and preparing business cases. Sponsors support the development of promising ideas by providing resources to demonstrate the project's viability. Gatekeepers set criteria and make acceptance decisions. The data also reveal a dynamic interdependence between role players. It is concluded that the Valley of Death is a productive tool for identifying and understanding a critical area of development that has not been adequately addressed. This research finds a dynamic interplay between roles to accomplish tasks that are not well understood in practice or the literature. The implications of this research are far‐ranging. It suggests that companies must understand the challenges in the valley, must develop the skills, and must make resources available to master the front end of product innovation. Recognizing roles, providing resources, and establishing expectations and accountability in this area of development become manageable in light of these results. Theoretically, this research informs role theory of a dynamic set of relationships previously treated as static. It also empirically investigates an area of product development where there is limited data. This paper opens profitable inquiries by focusing on an area of development not adequately researched yet drives the activities and investment made in subsequent steps of product development.     

标准在企业走向国际市场中的作用

阐述了标准在企业生产经营活动中的作用，通过对国际标准、WTO、WTO/TBT协议的情况介绍，分析了标准对于开展国际贸易的重要性，明确了国际标准是WTO协议的技术基础，是消除贸易技术壁垒的有效手段；明晰了标准在企业走向国际市场中的作用即在新的经济形势下，标准不仅一如既往的在企业的生产和经营中发挥着重要的作用，而且在企业走向国际市场的过程中，又架起了通向国际市场的桥梁。