The Impact of Front‐End Innovation Activities on Product Performance

This paper describes and tests a model of the impact of front‐end innovation activities on product performance. Data were collected from 272 companies to test the hypothesis that front‐end performance impacts new product performance in the marketplace while controlling for new product development (NPD) processes and strategy. The data support the hypothesis that front‐end performance favorably and independently impacts overall product success, time to market, market penetration, and financial performance. Front‐end performance is predicted by a set of activities, including: the actual amount of front‐end work done in various areas, specifically marketing, R&D, and concept development; the existence of a front‐end process; the existence of a champion; and agreement on the order of developmental steps in the front end. Front‐end activities are related to front‐end performance, and front‐end performance is related to NPD performance. This relationship highlights the distinction between front‐end activities and standard product development practices and the importance of building competency in the front end. This is the first study that quantifies both the nature and amount of work done in the front end and relates that work to commercial performance. This research empirically demonstrates the distinction between the front‐end and formal stages and gates types of systems. This suggests that the concept of the front end needs it own set of theoretical constructs to adequately describe and predict this categorically different set of activities. While this study demonstrates the difference between front‐end and stage‐gate systems, it does not establish the limits of those activities. From a managerial point of view recognizing that formal development and front‐end activities are different mandates that these activities must be managed differently. In particular, the skills, structures, processes, governance, leadership, performance metrics, and resources must be assessed separately and differently. These findings suggest that firms should actively manage the flow of ideas from the front end into the more formal development programs.     

The Performance Impact of Content and Process in Product Innovation Charters

The significance of product innovation charters (PICs) cannot be overemphasized, as they provide understanding and a tool for setting organizational goals, charting strategic direction, and allocating resources for new product portfolios. In a unique way, a PIC represents a sort of mission statement mutation for new products. With the backdrop of strategy formulation and product innovation literatures, this article investigates the impact of both content specificity within PICs and satisfaction with the PIC formulation process on new product performance in North American corporations. A survey was undertaken among executives knowledgeable about their organization's new product development process. The respondents included chief executive officers, vice presidents, directors, and managers. The findings demonstrate that significant differences exist both in PIC content specificity and process satisfaction between highly innovative and low innovative firms. The study also shows that PIC specificity in terms of the factors mission content and strategic directives positively influences new product performance. Further, the study demonstrates that satisfaction with the process of formulating PICs plays a positive and powerful mediating role in the PIC specificity–performance relationship. The results suggest that product innovation charters, like their mission statement cousins, may be of more value than most managers realize. The study shows that achieving a state of organizational satisfaction with a PIC's formulation process is critical for obtaining better new product performance. Directions for future research also are suggested.     

The Impact of Product Innovativeness on Performance

While many writers and strategists maintain that innovation is important, research has often demonstrated that product innovativeness does not have a major impact on the rate of success in the marketplace. Elko Kleinschmidt and Robert Cooper demonstrate that the relationship between product innovativeness and commercial success is U-shaped. That means that both high and low innovativeness products are more likely to be more successful than those in-between. The authors suggest that past research has not allowed for this non-linear relationship and that their data show that moderately innovative, middle-of-the-road products are less likely to succeed when measured by a number of performance criteria. They explore a number of implications of these results.     

The Impact of the Corporate Mind‐set on New Product Launch Strategy and Market Performance

In the last decade, there has been an increasing interest in the link between new product launch strategy and market performance. So far, new product launch research has focused on this performance relationship without giving much attention to background factors that can facilitate or inhibit successful launch strategies. However, investigating such antecedents that set the framework in which different strategic launch decisions enable or prevent the market performance of new products is useful for enhancing the current state of knowledge. Drawing on the concept of a firm's orientation, the present study discusses the influence of the corporate mind‐set on new product launch strategy and market performance. It is hypothesized that the capability to successfully launch new products is based on the interplay between a firm's mind‐set (i.e., an analytical, risk‐taking, and aggressive posture) and its strategic launch decisions on setting launch objectives, selecting target markets, and positioning the new product. A research model with mediating effects is proposed, where the corporate mind‐set determines the launch strategy decisions, which in turn impact market performance. The model is tested with data on 113 industrial new products launched in business‐to‐business markets in Germany using a multiple informant approach. The results support the mediated model as the dimensions of the corporate mind‐set have a significant impact on most strategic launch decisions, which in turn significantly contribute to market performance. It is found that while an analytical posture relates to all three strategic launch decisions, risk taking and an aggressive posture have a significant impact on two, respectively one, launch strategy elements. These findings confirm the importance of investigating antecedents for a successful new product launch, as the corporate mind‐set serves as a background resource that sets the framework for successful new product launch decisions. In the final section implications for research and managerial practice as well as limitations of this research are provided.     

Flexibility and Fairness in Liberal Market Economies: The Comparative Impact of the Legal Environment and High‐Performance Work Systems

This paper compares management flexibility in employment decision making in the United States and Canada through a cross‐national survey of organizations in representative jurisdictions in each country, Pennsylvania and Ontario, respectively, that investigates the impact of differences in their legal environments. The results indicate that, compared to their Ontario counterparts, organizations in Pennsylvania have a higher degree of flexibility in employment outcomes, such as higher dismissal and discipline rates, yet do not experience any greater flexibility or simplicity in management hiring and firing decisions. One explanation for this result may lie in the finding that organizations in Pennsylvania experience greater legal pressures on decision making, reflecting the generally more intense conflict in the employment law system in the United States. By contrast, high‐performance work systems, which some have looked to as a possible management‐driven mechanism for enhancing fairness in employment, had more modest effects.     

The Impact of Technological Innovations on Work Design in a Cellular Manufacturing Environment

The impact of developments in market and technology on grouping machinery and work design is analysed. Over time a cellular design changed into a functional system with fewer cells, fewer workers and fewer but more advanced machines. This encourages high utilisation, specialised workers and the pooling of similar resources, making operators more process-oriented.     

Only the Brave: Product Innovation,Service Business Model Innovation,and Their Impact on Performance

Recent empirical findings concerning the performance effects of service business model innovation (servitization) and its interplay with product innovation are mixed. Using the lenses of the demand‐based view on value creation and complementarity, the performance impact of two key service business models is examined: the product‐oriented model and the customer‐oriented model, implemented jointly with product innovation. Results indicate that the interplay between service business model innovation and product innovation results in long‐term performance benefits coupled with a degree of short‐term performance sacrifice. Service business model innovation in isolation from product innovation results in short‐term profit gains but long‐term knowledge loss and, thus, market performance decline. Our study suggests that firms need to look beyond the evidence on short‐term effects in order to achieve superior performance in the long run.     

How New Product Strategies Impact on Performance

What is involved in a successful new product program? Is it high spending on risky R&D? Is it close contact with customers? Is it the overall competitive strength of the firm? Well, it might be any of these things, and more, according to Robert G. Cooper, depending on your definition of success. In an exhaustive examination of the new product strategies and performances of 122 industrial products firms, Cooper found that the strategy that a firm elects for its new product program is closely linked to the performance results that firm achieves. But what's performance? Cooper's analysis uncovered three different and independent ways of viewing new product performance. He brings some clarity to the meaning of a “high-performance” product innovation program, but there's a catch—the strategies leading to high performance in one direction are quite different from the strategies leading to positive results by other measures. In his summing up, Professor Cooper proposes sets of generalized strategies—guides to action—that product innovation managers should consider.     

De‐escalation Mechanisms in High‐technology Product Innovation

Many decision‐makers struggle to reduce commitment to failing endeavors. While de‐escalation mechanisms have been documented and tested in information technology, accounting, psychology, and organizational behavior, little work has addressed de‐escalation in innovation. This study identifies and examines the applicability of de‐escalation mechanisms specifically in new product development (NPD) projects. Initially, we conducted an extensive literature review to identify de‐escalation mechanisms found in research across different academic disciplines. Subsequently, we conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews to gather primary data. In total, using a sample of organizations that compete in high‐technology industries, 31 managers and engineers in 15 NPD projects that were terminated prior to completion were interviewed regarding mechanisms used to de‐escalate commitment to failing new product innovation projects. Several mechanisms reportedly used for innovation projects parallel those identified in the previous literature. More importantly, the authors uncover novel and previously undocumented ways to discontinue or redirect poorly performing projects. Specifically, internal competitions, feature‐level de‐escalation, continual assumption assessment, benchmarking, roadmaps, and comprehensive product testing are particularly well suited for innovation projects. These findings extend the body of extant literature on de‐escalation of commitment to include innovation, notably in high‐technology settings. The study also highlights that organizations may want to accept or even encourage failure, thereby increasing the efficacy of resource use. Implications for further research and practice are offered.     

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.     

The Impact of Market Orientation, Product Advantage, and Launch Proficiency on New Product Performance and Organizational Performance

Some scholars have suggested recently that a market‐oriented culture leads to superior performance, at least in part, because of the new products that are developed and are brought to market. Others have reinforced this wisdom by revealing that a market‐oriented culture enhances organizational innovativeness and new product success, both of which in turn improve organizational performance. These scholars do not reveal, however, through which new product development (NPD) activities a market‐oriented culture is converted into superior performance. To determine how critical NPD activities are for a market‐oriented firm to achieve superior performance, our study uses data from 126 firms in The Netherlands to investigate the structural relationships among market orientation, new product advantage, the proficiency in new product launch activities, new product performance, and organizational performance. We focus on product advantage—because product benefits typically form the compelling reasons for customers to buy the new product—and on the launch proficiency—as the launch stage represents the most costly and risky part of the NPD process. Focusing on the launch stage also is relevant because it is only during the launch that it will become evident whether a market orientation has crystallized into a superior product in the eyes of the customer. The results provide evidence that a market orientation is related positively to product advantage and to the proficiency in market testing, launch budgeting, launch strategy, and launch tactics. Product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics are related positively to new product performance, which itself is related positively to organizational performance. Market orientation has no direct relationship to new product performance and to organizational performance. An important implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on organizational performance is channeled through the effects of a market orientation on product advantage and launch proficiency; subsequently through the effects of product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics on new product performance; and finally through the effect of new product performance on organizational performance. These channeling effects are much more subtle and complex than the direct relationship of market orientation on organizational performance previously assumed. Another implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on performance occurs through the launch activities rather than being pervasive to all organizational processes and activities. A reason for this finding may be that NPD is the one element of the marketing mix that predominantly is the responsibility of the firm, whereas promotion and distribution often are in control of organizations outside the firm (e.g., advertising agencies, major retailers) and whereas the channel or the market often dictates the price. Both implications provide ample opportunities for further research on market orientation and NPD.     

A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of R&D,Patents, and Product Innovation on Firm Performance

Because of increasing levels of competition and decreasing product life cycles, a firm's ability to generate a continuous stream of innovations may be more important than ever in allowing a firm to improve profitability and maintain competitive advantage This paper investigates several issues that are central to an examination of the innovation productivity in a firm. First, the relationship between a firm's commitment to research and development and its innovative outcomes is examined. Two innovative outcomes are analyzed: (1) invention, which focuses on the development of new ideas; and (2) innovation, the development of commercially viable products or services from creative ideas. Invention is measured by the number of patents granted, and innovation is assessed by the number of new product announcements. Second, because many inventions ultimately result in marketable innovations and because patents may provide protection for new products, the relationship between patents and product announcements is also investigated. Finally, the ability of a firm to benefit from its inventions and innovations is studied by examining their separate effects on firm performance, measured as return on assets (ROA) and sales growth. Drawing from a sample of 272 firms in 35 industries over 19 years, the results from a model of simultaneous equations provided support for some of the hypotheses, but several other surprising findings were found. As expected, R&D spending was positively related to patents. This finding is consistent with others who argue that internal research capabilities, particularly those with a strong basic research component, is key to enabling a firm to generate creative outputs. More surprising was the finding of increasing returns to scale to R&D spending. While this contradicts much of the existing research, it is consistent with economic arguments for the advantages of scale in innovation. Also interesting is the finding that, while a significant curvilinear relationship exists between R&D spending and product announcements, it is not the predicted inverse‐U but instead a U‐shaped relationship. Consistent with previous work, product announcements were found to be positively related to both performance measures. A negative relationship was found between patents and both ROA and sales growth. While these findings were unexpected, they are intriguing and call into question the value of patents as protection mechanisms. In addition, these results may be resulting from the rise of strategic patenting, where an increasing number of firms are using patents as strategic weapons. As expected, a positive relationship was found between patents and new product announcements.     

High‐Performance Product Management: The Impact of Structure,Process, Competencies,and Role Definition*

Product management is one of the most important functions in marketing. Yet the product management literature has focused largely on creating successful products and has relatively little to say about creating effective product management organizations. This paper focuses on the organizational determinants of high‐performance product management at three levels: (1) the product manager as an individual; (2) the marketing processes related to product management; and (3) the organization structure and role definition. The paper identifies several key factors that potentially impact product management performance. A set of qualitative interviews is conducted to develop hypotheses related to constructs that may drive product management performance. These hypotheses are used to develop a causal model for product management performance that includes constructs related to roles and responsibilities, organization structure, and marketing processes related to product management. An empirical survey of 198 product managers from a variety of industries is conducted to test the causal model. The results of the causal model suggest that performance of a product management organization is driven by structural barriers in the organization, the quality of marketing processes, roles and responsibilities, and knowledge and competencies. The findings suggest that structural boundaries and interfaces are the biggest impediment to effective product management, followed by clarity of roles and responsibilities. The research highlights the importance of organization structure and effective human resource practices in improving product management performance.     

Competitive Advantage Through Product Performance Innovation in a Competitive Market

Superior product performance does not necessarily ensure commercial success. In many industries, companies seek competitive advantage primarily through product innovation. Competition in such markets is based on claims of technological superiority. However, unless a company can clearly establish the superiority of its products in its customers' minds, a differentiation strategy based on relative product performance is likely to be ineffective. This is particularly true in markets characterized by numerous product introductions from many competitors.
Product innovation success declines as the intensity of market competition increases. This may be caused by customers' inability to differentiate products on the basis of functional performance. John H. Friar tests this hypothesis by examining an industry, medical diagnostic ultrasound equipment, that is characterized by frequent product introductions from numerous companies.
Technical experts from the competing manufacturers believe there are differences in the image quality of their equipment and strongly agree on the factors that distinguish better performance. In most cases, however, customers could not distinguish product performance. Ironically, in a market where everyone is competing by improving product performance, product performance innovation alone may not be enough to create meaningful differentiation.
To succeed in such an environment, companies must compete on two levels. Continued emphasis on product innovation is necessary to keep pace with the competition. However, because product innovation alone is not sufficient to provide market differentiation, companies must shift their competitive thrust to other dimensions.     

Passion for Work,Nonwork‐Related Excitement,and Innovation Managers’ Decision to Exploit New Product Opportunities

This article investigates the role of affect in innovation managers’ decision to exploit new product opportunities—a decision central to the innovation process. The model proposes that different types of passion can trigger managers’ exploitation decisions but that this effect is contingent on experiencing excitement from events outside their work environment. A field experiment with 90 owner–managers of young firms located in an innovation context (business incubators) shows that passion for work and nonwork‐related excitement levels interdependently impact innovation managers’ decision to exploit new product opportunities. Specifically, harmonious passion has a general positive effect on managers’ propensity to exploit. In contrast, the effect of obsessive passion is more complex and contingent on the additional excitement managers experience such that the positive relationship between obsessive passion and the decision to exploit is more positive with higher levels of excitement. These findings extend the product innovation management literature by acknowledging that decision‐makers’ affective experiences influence innovation decisions and provide a first step toward understanding the role of affect and passion in the product innovation context. Second, the finding that obsessive passion and nonwork‐related excitement interact in explaining opportunity exploitation decisions highlights the need to incorporate contingency relationships in models of innovation decision‐making. Third, in drawing on a field experiment and the experimental manipulation of managerial affect during the decision‐making task, this article answers a recent call in the project management literature to pursue less common methodological approaches and develop “broader theoretical schema” in order to enhance our understanding of innovation management. Finally, this study also has implications for practitioners because it can help innovation managers understand their own decision policies. To the extent that innovation managers are able to regulate their affective experiences, this improved understanding might prevent them from premature and faulty decision‐making.     

The Impact of Product Portfolio Strategy on Financial Performance: The Roles of Product Development and Market Entry Decisions

Innovation is one of the most important issues facing business today. The major difficulty in managing innovation is that managers must do so against a constantly shifting backdrop as technologies, competitors, and markets constantly evolve. Managers determine the product portfolio through key decisions about product development and market entry. Key strategic questions are what portfolio strategies provide the greatest reward. The purpose of this study is to understand the relative financial values of each component of a product portfolio. Specifically, the paper examines the short‐term and long‐term financial impacts of product development strategy and market entry strategy. These strategies reflect two critical tensions that must be balanced in product portfolio decision making and essentially determine a firm's product portfolio. In doing so, the paper also investigates how a firm's capabilities drive each component of a product portfolio. From the empirical analyses in the context of the biomedical device industry, the paper found important insights regarding product portfolio strategies. First, a large product portfolio helps a firm's financial performance. In particular, the pioneering new products have strongest impacts on short‐term performances, and nonpioneering mature products do not provide significant contribution. Second, the results indicate a persistent first‐mover advantage. The first‐to‐market new products yield not only an immediate effect, but also persistent long‐term effects, suggesting that it is important to be first in the market even though there may be short‐term losses. Third, the results suggest the need to balance between “mature” and “new” products. Also, firms need to balance “first‐to‐market” and “late‐entered” products. Because a new or pioneering product requires more resource, it may hurt other products in the portfolio. Thus, without support from mature or follower products, new products and pioneering products alone may not increase firm sales or profit. Fourth, from a long‐term perspective, the paper found that the financial market only rewards a firm's overall capability to deliver new products first in the marketplace. Thus, short‐term performance is mainly driven by product‐level innovativeness, whereas firm‐level innovativeness enhances forward‐looking long‐term performance. Fifth, the paper also found that pioneering new products are driven by integrating both primary and complementary technological capabilities. And nonpioneering new products are mainly driven by the capabilities in primary technology domain. These results provide important insight into the relative value and timing of return on investment in radical versus incremental innovation and alternative market entry strategies. By understanding the performance trade‐offs of these different factors in the short and long term, one can develop better guidelines for optimizing innovation strategies, and their dependence on both external and internal environmental conditions.     

Reputation for Product Innovation: Its Impact on Consumers*

Just as firms compete for customers, they also vie for reputational status across their relevant constituent groups. To many firms, a reputation as an innovative company is something that is both prized and actively sought after. Despite an abundance of anecdotal evidence pointing to several firms' active pursuit of an innovative reputation, there is little empirical evidence to evaluate the soundness of this pursuit. On a general level, this research recognizes that firms compete for competitive advantage via their tangible and intangible resources. Much of the innovation literature centers on the tangible impact that new product development initiatives have on outcomes of innovation. Yet research investigations of the less tangible facets of innovation, such as a reputation, remain relatively uninvestigated despite their promise as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. This study investigates the effects of a corporate reputation for product innovation (RPI) and its impact on consumers. Consumer involvement levels are proposed to mediate the relationship between RPI and consumer outcomes. Empirical results indicate that a high consumer perceived RPI, via the involvement construct, leads to excitement toward and heightened loyalty to the innovative firm. A more positive overall corporate image and tolerance for occasional product failures are also positive outcomes noted in the results. Contrary to expectations, a high perceived RPI does not lead to a consumer propensity to pay price premiums.