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.     

Value-chain innovation in aquaculture: insights from a New Zealand case study

We report a case study of value-chain innovation in a niche, export-oriented aquaculture industry, namely, Chinook/King salmon, that contrasts with the much more common Atlantic/Norwegian salmon. The firm in question is vertically integrated, thus offering a 'cradle-to-grave' vista of innovation that spans 'production' (i.e. farming), processing, marketing, and distribution. A major finding is the need for a delicate balance between the relative expenditures on production research and developmental research in integrated aquaculture firms, especially those that focus on niche species. Interaction effects between the two research strands complicate the trade-off: production research adds value at the fish farm by lowering the unit cost of production – and in turn facilitates new product development as it is easier to add value to a lower-cost product than a higher-cost product. From the case study findings, we synthesize a process model of value-chain innovation that is applicable for integrated aquaculture firms. We also induce several implications for the management of Research & Development and innovation in such firms.     

大数据成为现实生产要素的企业实现机制:产品创新视角

数字经济的崛起,使数据成为新的生产要素,但现有研究对数据成为现实生产要素的企业实现过程缺乏理论剖析与实证研究。鉴于产品创新是企业活动中各种生产要素最具集成特征的一环,本文从产品创新视角,构建“大数据资源—企业能力—产品创新绩效”链式中介模型开展实证研究,探讨大数据从可能的生产要素成为企业现实生产要素的实现机制。基于特征映射逻辑,将大数据分析、组织学习、惯例更新、行业竞争压力、行业信息技术使用强度分别视为劳动、知识、管理、资本、技术的替代变量,将企业的产品创新实现机制映射为数据与其他五个生产要素相结合成为现实生产要素的实现路径模型,提出数据是将现有生产要素进一步联系起来的桥梁型生产要素的观点,形成对数据作为生产要素的新认知。本文结论为数据作为新生产要素的思想提供了企业产品创新视角的理论解释,也为企业大数据创新实践提供了管理启示。     

The effects of complementarity of knowledge and capabilities on joint innovation capabilities and service innovation: The role of competitive intensity and demand uncertainty

Service innovation has become increasingly important for the growth of developed and developing countries. Despite an extensive body of literature on the role of joint innovation capabilities in improving a firm's innovativeness, the multivariate influences of operant resources and joint innovation capabilities, as well as the interplay among these in the prediction of service innovation have not been scrutinized in the context of B2B SMEs in a developing country. This study aims to fill this gap by testing a model that shows the relationships among complementarity of knowledge and capabilities as operant resources, joint innovation capabilities, and service innovation. We derive hypotheses about these relationships and test them using data from a sample of 302 respondents from 151 firms operating in the UAE. The results show that the relationships between complementarity of knowledge and joint innovation capabilities, and between joint innovation capabilities and service innovation, are significant and positive. They also show that the mediation effect of joint innovation capabilities on the relationship between complementarity of knowledge and service innovation is positive and full. This study also tests the moderating roles of competitive intensity and demand uncertainty in the relationship between joint innovative capabilities and service innovation and finds that their connection is stronger when competitive intensity is high.     

Soaking It Up: Absorptive Capacity in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams

Prior research has acknowledged the importance of an organization's absorptive capacity—the ability to acquire new knowledge and information, assimilate, transform, and exploit it—for innovation purposes. Because innovations are usually developed by project teams, this suggests that absorptive capacity, as a construct, may also be usefully applied at the team level. Consequently, this study developed a measure for team‐level absorptive capacity, investigated the potential influencing factors, and examined its relationship to team effectiveness in terms of product innovativeness in an interorganizational context. Specifically, building on the theory of homophily and information and decision‐making theories, three factors (social‐category similarity, work‐style similarity, and knowledge complementarity between the recipient and the partner organization teams) were identified as likely antecedents of team absorptive capacity. The hypotheses were tested on data from 98 interorganizational new product development teams and included responses from team members, team leaders, and team‐external managers. With regard to the antecedents of team absorptive capacity in interorganizational settings, the results showed a significant positive association with partners' work‐style similarity and an inverted U‐shaped relationship with partners' knowledge complementarity. Social‐category similarity was not significantly associated with team absorptive capacity. We also examined whether team absorptive capacity was related to interorganizational team effectiveness and found a significant positive relationship between team absorptive capacity and product innovativeness. The study demonstrates that absorptive is indeed related to team effectiveness outcomes in an interorganizational context, which underlines the importance of team‐level absorptive capacity for product innovation management and suggests paying more attention to the lower levels of absorptive capacity.     

Where to search for process innovations? The mediating role of absorptive capacity and its impact on process innovation

While the potential of open innovation to develop product-related improvements through the use of external knowledge sources is undeniable, our understanding of how firms become process innovators remains limited. Distinguishing between product and process innovation is important, as insights gleaned from investigating product innovation may not relate directly to the study of process innovation. This study provides new insight into open innovation and absorptive capacity by proposing the mediating role of absorptive capacity – potential and realized – on the relationship between knowledge search from external sources and process-related innovation activities. We test our model using a sample of 171 auto component suppliers in Iran, and find evidence that the learning effects of external scanning increase when a firm learns how to better manage external searches in terms of external absorptive capacity routines. Our results indicate that, while knowledge search from value chain partners is related to process innovation, knowledge search from universities and other research organizations is not, and that potential absorptive capacity mediates the relationship between external knowledge search and process innovation. These findings shed further light on the relationship between a firm’s openness and its process innovation.     

Business model innovation and competitive imitation: The case of sponsor‐based business models

This paper provides the first formal model of business model innovation. Our analysis focuses on sponsor‐based business model innovations where a firm monetizes its product through sponsors rather than setting prices to its customer base. We analyze strategic interactions between an innovative entrant and an incumbent where the incumbent may imitate the entrant's business model innovation once it is revealed. The results suggest that an entrant needs to strategically choose whether to reveal its innovation by competing through the new business model, or conceal it by adopting a traditional business model. We also show that the value of business model innovation may be so substantial that an incumbent may prefer to compete in a duopoly rather than to remain a monopolist. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Experience-based learning in innovation and production

How can we model and document the impact of experience in product innovation? We use data on the innovation and production histories of 294 product platforms to explore experience‐based learning. We extend learning curve concepts from their traditional domain – the production process – into the product innovation process to build and test a richer, quantitative model of learning. The results suggest that learning occurs differently in the innovation process than in production. They also suggest that how and where a firm learns depend in part on the complexity of product components and sub‐systems. Finally, we discuss the competitive implications for product innovation.     

Open Innovation in Practice: Goal Complementarity and Closed NPD Networks to Explain Differences in Innovation Performance for SMEs in the Medical Devices Sector

Cooperation with other organizations increases the innovation performance of organization, especially for small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) as they encounter liabilities of “smallness” (e.g., limited financial resources, and manpower). In the medical devices sector, collaboration with external partners for NPD becomes increasingly important due to the complexity of the products and the development process. About 80% of companies in this sector are SMEs. These companies operate in a highly regulated sector, which affects the organization of the external network required for the new product development (NPD) process. SMEs are practicing extensively open innovation activities, but in practice face a number of barriers in trying to apply open innovation. This paper examines multiple network characteristics simultaneously in relation to innovation performance and thereby aligns with and builds further on configuration theory. Configuration theory posits that for each set of network characteristics, there exists an ideal set of organizational characteristics that yields superior performance. In this research, the systems approach to fit is used. Fit is high to the extent that an organization is similar to an ideal profile along multiple dimensions. This ideal profile represents the network profile that the 15% highest performing companies use. It is argued that the smaller the distance between the ideal profile and the network profile that is used, the higher the performance. The objective of this research is (1) to examine the relation between the ideal profile and innovation performance and (2) to examine which organization of the network profile is related to high innovation performance. Quantitative survey data (n = 60, response rate 61.9%) form the core of this research. The quantitative results are clarified and have been triangulated with qualitative interview data (n = 50). Our findings suggest the presence of an “ideal” NPD network profile (in terms of goal complementarity, resource complementarity, fairness trust, reliability trust, and network position strength): the more a company's NPD network profile differs from this ideal profile, the lower the innovation performance. In addition, the results of our study indicate that the NPD network profiles of successful and less successful SMEs in the medical devices sector significantly differ in terms of “goal complementarity,” while this is less the case for trust and resource complementarity labeled distinctive by previous research. Finally, results show that a relatively closed, focused, and consistent “business‐like” NPD networking approach, which is characterized by result orientation and professionalism, is related to high innovation performance. It is recommended that SMEs in the medical devices sector aiming to distinguish themselves from competitors in terms of innovation performance focus on goal complementarity while adopting such a business‐like attitude toward their NPD network partners.     

Building and leveraging competence exploitation and exploration for firm new product success

We theorize that industry conditions of collaboration intensity and innovation intensity drive the development of competence exploitation and exploration in manufacturer-manufacturer collaborations, and that such competencies can be leveraged to increase firm-level new product sales and market share, contingent on the firm's establishment of non-proprietary knowledge transfer capability. We test our model using a survey of 224 manufacturer-manufacturer collaborations. Our findings indicate that collaboration intensity drives firms to build both competence exploration and exploitation while innovation intensity drives neither. We also find that while non-proprietary knowledge capability enhances the influence of competence exploration on a firm's new product sales and market share, it dampens the firm's ability to leverage competence exploitation for firm-level new product success.     

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).     

Technological and non-technological innovations,performance and propensity to innovate across industries: The case of an emerging economy

Innovation in a firm may be non-technological, such as organizational and marketing innovation, and technological, such as product and process innovation. The aim of this article is to explore how different types of innovation affect the innovation development of the firm across industries. We chose Chile as an emerging market context. Our results show that only product innovations affect significantly innovation performance across industries. However, different types of propensities to innovate are affected differently by technological and non-technological innovations. We discuss implications for managers and policy makers in emerging economies, in which data tends to be scarce to develop new policy models and increase the effect of non-technological innovation on innovative performance.     

Antecedents and Consequences of Creativity in Product Innovation Teams

The generation of creative ideas and their manifestation as new products (NPs) are fundamental innovation activities of product innovation teams. Despite the importance of generating creative ideas at the fuzzy front end of the product innovation process, our understanding of antecedents and consequences of creativity of product innovation teams is limited. Drawing on Shane and Ulrich's organization design perspective of innovation, this study aims at examining the intermediary role of creativity as a critical link between team dynamics and product competitive advantage. In this study, the authors focus on NP and marketing program (MP) creativity in product innovation teams. They develop and empirically test a model that examines how internal and external team dynamics influence NP and MP creativity, and how NP and MP creativity affect product competitive advantage as a strategic innovation outcome. The study uses 206 matched responses from senior managers and product team leaders in high‐tech manufacturing firms in the United States to avoid common‐method bias. The authors use maximum likelihood estimation in a structural equation model to empirically test the proposed model. They find that two separate dimensions of creativity—novelty and meaningfulness—are differentially affected by team dynamics. For example, NP novelty as a result of divergent process is predominantly influenced by external team factors such as market‐based reward system and planning process formalization. On the other hand, NP meaningfulness as a result of convergent process is dominantly influenced by internal team factors such as social cohesion and superordinate identity. In addition, MP novelty is determined by social cohesion, superordinate identity, planning process formalization, and encouragement to take risks, while MP meaningfulness is influenced by social cohesion and planning process formalization. Our findings also suggest that NP novelty and meaningfulness, but not MP novelty and meaningfulness, play important intermediary roles in determining product competitive advantage. This study contributes to narrowing the important gap in the literature by examining the effect of team dynamics on creativity and by linking creativity to strategic innovation outcomes. Our study suggests that a firm's ability to manage team dynamics toward generating creative NPs and MPs constitutes a dynamic capability that can provide a competitive advantage over the competition.     

The effect of radical innovation in/congruence on new product performance

Radical innovation is critical for many firms and for society. This research focuses on the impact of radical innovation congruence — the degree to which management values regarding radical innovation match radical innovation norms in the business unit. We offer a model and empirically test it to assess the impact of radical innovation congruence on new product performance. We find that radical innovation norms are positively associated with new product performance, whereas we find no such association for management values and new product performance. Contrary to our expectations, we did not find a significant effect of radical innovation congruence on new product performance; however, we did find that radical innovation incongruence can have a positive effect on new product performance but only when radical innovation norms are higher than management values. Thus, we suggest that the unintended situation of radical innovation incongruence may result in some positive consequences after all. Further, high radical innovation norms, far more than management values, seem to be critical determinants of new product performance.     

Complementary technologies,knowledge relatedness,and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions

Prior research on M&As and invention outcomes has not systematically examined the influence of two types of knowledge differences. Knowledge relatedness has typically been equated with knowledge similarity and the separate influence of knowledge complementarity has been overlooked. Similarly, studies examining innovation outcomes of M&As have typically focused on the role of technological knowledge and overlooked the influence of scientific knowledge. We develop a model of relatedness and invention performance of high‐technology M&As that considers science and technology similarity and complementarity as important drivers of invention. We test the model using a sample of M&As from the drug, chemical, and electronics industries and a fine‐grained measure of knowledge relatedness that distinguishes between science and technology relatedness. We find that complementary scientific knowledge and complementary technological knowledge both contribute to post‐merger invention performance by stimulating higher quality and more novel inventions. This suggests that high‐technology firms seeking acquisitions should search for, identify, and acquire businesses that have scientific and technological knowledge that is complementary to their own. Our results also suggest that similarities in knowledge facilitate incremental renewal, while complementarities would make discontinuous strategic transformations more likely, and that absorptive capacity research should be expanded to consider complementarities as well as similarities. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Does innovation stimulate employment? A firm-level analysis using comparable micro-data from four European countries

We study the impact of process and product innovations introduced by firms on employment growth with random samples of manufacturing and services from France, Germany, Spain and the UK for 1998–2000, totaling about 20,000 companies. We develop and estimate a model relating firms' and industry's employment to innovation, that leads us to the conclusions that follow. Trend increases in productivity reinforced by process innovation are an important source of reduction of employment requirements for a given output, but the growth of demand for the old products tends to overcompensate these displacement effects. The switch of production towards new products does not reduce employment requirements, and the growth of the demand for the new products is the strongest force behind employment creation. Reallocation due to business stealing is estimated at a maximum of one third of the net employment created by product innovators. The growth of employment originated from the market expansion induced by the new products can be as important as another third.     

Choosing the right target: Relative preferences for resource similarity and complementarity in acquisition choice

Research summary : Corporate acquisition is a popular strategic option for firms seeking new resources. However, little research exists on the question of why one firm is chosen over another. We develop a model relating characteristics of similarity and complementarity between acquirers' and target firms' key resources, including their products and R&D pipelines, to the likelihood of the acquirers choosing a particular firm. We construct measures of similarity and complementarity between and across products and R&D pipelines, and test their effects using a novel application of the choice model. Findings reveal that acquirers view similarity and complementarity differently, based on the resource they are comparing. When making comparisons to their own R&D pipelines, acquirers prefer similarity over complementarity whereas when making comparisons to their product portfolios, they prefer complementarity over similarity. Managerial summary : Corporate acquisition is a popular way for firms to grow and obtain innovative resources. However, we know little about why acquirers choose one firm over another. We capture the influence of similarity and complementarity between acquirers' and target firms' products (current innovative value) and R&D pipelines (future innovative value) on whether a particular target firm is acquired. Insights from the pharmaceutical industry reveal that acquirers value similarity and complementarity in target firms differently, based on whether the comparison being made is with respect to their products or their R&D pipelines. Regarding their R&D pipelines, acquirers prefer that the target firm has similar, rather than complementary, resources. However, the opposite is true concerning their own products: acquirers prefer that the target firm has complementary, versus similar, resources. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Subjective Performance Assessment of Innovation Projects*

Performance assessment of innovation projects is a central issue in innovation management research. Using existing literature, a model is developed to assess the performance of new product and new service development projects. In this model, project performance is defined as a combination of a formatively indicated operational performance construct and a reflectively indicated product performance construct. The validity of this model is tested based on a sample of 219 innovation projects assessed by innovation managers. Using only the innovation managers' responses, it is, however, not possible to distinguish between operational and product performance. The impact of common method bias and informant bias is subsequently assessed using a subsample of 128 of these 219 innovation projects that are assessed by the innovation manager and the project leader. These latter results show that operational and product performance are two distinct constructs. In addition, the multitrait–multimethod analyses show that especially the more abstract items of performance, such as the perceptions of quality, captured knowledge, competitive advantage, gained reputation, and customer satisfaction, suffer from random error and informant bias. Project leaders appear to be better informed to assess operational performance, while innovation managers are better in assessing product performance. The paper concludes with a qualitative comparison of several alternative performance models: the project performance model as derived from the literature, a similar (misspecified) reflective performance model, two stand‐alone models in which operational and product performance are assessed separately, and a mixed model that uses a combination of innovation managers' and project managers' data. Based on this comparison, it is advised to use either the stand‐alone models for operational performance and product performance or the mixed model whereby the project leader assesses operational performance and the innovation manager the product performance of an innovation project.     

Development and return on execution of product innovation capabilities: The role of organizational structure

This paper conceptualizes and tests an integrated model that combines the dual-core and ambidextrous models of product innovation. The integrated model distinguishes the development and return on execution of radical and incremental product innovation capabilities. The authors argue that organizational structure plays an important dual role as an (a) antecedent to the development of radical and incremental product innovation capabilities and (b) as a moderator in determining the new product performance returns from executing such capabilities. Using a sample of high-tech firms, the study finds that organizational structure is more consistent in predicting the execution of product innovation capabilities into new product performance than in predicting the development of such capabilities. For example, the effect of radical product innovation capability on new product performance is negative but nonsignificant under a formal structure, while the same effect is positive under an informal structure. Conversely, the effect of incremental product innovation capability on new product performance is positive under a formal structure, while the same effect is negative under an informal structure. The implications for managing different types of product innovation capabilities under formal versus informal structures and their effects on new product performance are discussed.     

Achieving superior innovation-based performance outcomes in SMEs through innovation resource-capability complementarity

Firms are increasingly identifying new avenues to enhance their market position. One such effort involves the firms' ability to continuously learn. Learning has the capacity to enable firms to develop and implement more efficient and effective innovation-focused strategies, resulting in the ability to develop and deliver more products in a timelier manner. This study tests the relationship between innovation resource-capability complementarity and innovation-based performance. This study further elaborates that while innovation resource-capability complementarity drives innovation-based performance; their relationship will be enhanced via the firms' possession of superior learning capability. The findings show a significant effect of innovation resource-capability complementarity on innovation-based performance. The results also show that firms that possess superior learning capability are willing to question their operational processes and routines and make adjustments following the feedback obtained from customers and channels; thereby enhancing their abilities to develop more new products and increase their speed in delivering products to the customers.