Do Social Media Tools Impact the Development Phase? An Exploratory Study

Over the past two decades, firms have increasingly adopted information technology (IT) tools and services to improve the new product development (NPD) process. Recently, social media tools and/or tools that include social networking features are being utilized to allow users both inside and outside the organization to easily communicate and collaboratively design, manage, and launch new products and services. Unfortunately, there is little empirical evidence to suggest what influence these new IT tools have on NPD performance. Through a project‐level, exploratory, empirical study, the impact of these new IT tools on the development phase of the NPD process is investigated. We find that the use of these new tools is significantly lower than the adoption of traditional IT tools such as e‐mail and computer‐aided‐design. Traditional tools have a significant, positive impact on NPD outcomes, including team collaboration, the concepts/prototypes generated, and management evaluation. Interestingly, new media tools such as project wikis and shared collaboration spaces also have a significant, positive impact on concepts/prototypes generated, and management evaluation. Surprisingly, social networking tools like weblogs and Twitter negatively impact management evaluation while having no impact on NPD team collaboration and concepts/prototypes generated. These results suggest that social networking tools in their current guise are not helpful to the NPD team and may in fact be distracting to innovation management during the development phase.     

A Comparison of New Service versus New Product Development: Configurations of Collaborative Intensity as Predictors of Performance

Collaboration among firms for innovation has received considerable attention. However, little is known about how firm‐to‐firm collaboration is configured in new service development (NSD) versus new product development (NPD). This study takes a multidimensional approach and measures firm‐to‐firm collaboration on different intensity dimensions of (1) processes (mutual communication, joint engagement, sharing responsibilities) and (2) ownership (relationship commitment and mutual trust). By showing that the phenomenon of collaboration is multifaceted, this study is able to knit a more comprehensive and cohesive understanding of the differences between NSD and NPD success as the result of different patterns of collaboration. Specifically, it utilizes survey data collected from 194 alliances to substantiate how NSD and NPD differ on these collaborative dimensions and then explores their impact on NSD versus NPD performance. The findings suggest that collaboration between firms in NSD is configured and works differently than collaboration between firms in NPD. The results further show that there is a stronger, positive relationship of intensity levels of joint engagement among firms involved in product development and performance than when a new service is developed. However, the intensity of mutual trust has a stronger, positive relationship with development performance when a new service is developed than when a new product is developed. Implications are discussed, and suggestions for future research are given.     

Connecting Interfirm and Intrafirm Collaboration in NPD Projects: Does Innovation Context Matter?

Interfirm collaboration is an important strategy for firms to generate new products and services. Whereas existing research emphasizes the importance of interfirm collaboration engagement to realize synergistic benefits in interfirm NPD projects, it remains surprisingly silent on the potential impact of intrafirm relational processes and how they can impact the interfirm setting. In this article, we therefore explore the impact of intrafirm collaboration engagement on the relationship between interfirm collaboration engagement and new product development (NPD) performance in interfirm NPD projects. Relying on insights from information processing theory, the authors hypothesize that intrafirm collaboration engagement increases firms' capacity to process complex information flows in the case of extensive interfirm collaboration engagement. Moreover, it is expect that the added value of extensive intrafirm collaboration engagement depends on the innovation objective (i.e., incremental versus radical new product development) of the interfirm NPD project. In particular, we hypothesize that the positive moderating impact of intrafirm collaboration engagement on the relationship between interfirm collaboration engagement and NPD performance is stronger for radical interfirm projects than incremental interfirm projects. Analyzing 195 interfirm NPD projects, a negative interaction effect between interfirm and intrafirm collaboration engagement is observed in radical interfirm NPD projects, whereas significant interactions between them remain absent in incremental interfirm NPD projects. Jointly, these findings provide first evidence that intrafirm relational processes can substantially impact partners' ability to realize relational rents in interfirm settings. Moreover, the negative interaction effect between interfirm and intrafirm collaboration engagement points to potential trade‐offs between inward‐looking and outward‐looking absorptive capacity.     

Early supplier integration: the dual role of purchasing in new product development

Interest in early supplier integration in new product development (NPD) has increased as an open innovation approach has become more common in firms. To support supplier integration, the purchasing function of a firm can assume a new ‘dual’ role: contributing to NPD while also managing overall costs. Previous research has offered few insights into how the purchasing function should best be organised so that it will fulfil this dual role. This paper reports on the results of a consortial benchmarking study in which an industry–academic consortium visited and analysed six best‐practice firms. The findings describe how innovative firms organise their purchasing function, distinguishing between ‘advanced sourcing’ and ‘life‐cycle sourcing’ units. The results include the tools that these firms use, such as regular innovation meetings with suppliers and technology roadmaps linking firm strategy, innovation strategy and sourcing strategies. The paper also recommends that researchers shift from a narrow focus on a single project to a broader consideration of supplier and organisational issues in NPD.     

Effects of Collaborative Communication on NPD Collaboration Results: Two Routes of Influence

Although NPD collaboration with external partners has become the next generation in NPD practice, the discussion concerning how to organize collaboration so as to obtain better results is far from over. Since communication is the most important element in successful interfirm exchange, this study focuses on the impact of collaborative communication and its facets—frequency, formality, reciprocal feedback, and rationality—on NPD collaboration results. In order to explain how collaborative communication can best be managed to enhance NPD collaboration results, this research combines the relational and resource‐based views, proposing the existence of two routes of influence: the direct resource‐based route and the indirect relational route mediated by trust. Using a sample of 207 NPD collaboration projects of innovative firms, empirical findings indicate that reciprocal feedback–rationality and frequency play an important role in product quality and adherence to budget and schedule, respectively, even without trust. Moreover, the trust between partners substantially reinforces the positive influence of reciprocal feedback–rationality on NPD collaboration results and makes the effect of formality significant. Therefore, the two alternative routes are confirmed as important paths to new product success, which provides relevant managerial implications.     

Your new product development (NPD) is only as good as your process: an exploratory analysis of new NPD process design and implementation

Given industry competitiveness, how do firms' new product development (NPD) process designs differ when responding to an innovation mandate? How do NPD design elements differ across firms when implementing NPD processes? These design elements are strategic business unit (SBU) senior management involvement, business case content, customer interactions, and cross‐functional integration. What are the consequences of different combinations of NPD process design elements for innovation productivity? We explore these questions via a collective case study of newly implemented NPD process designs at three different SBUs of a major US‐based international conglomerate, 1 year after receiving the mandate to grow through innovation. Our analysis suggests that industry competitiveness and firm characteristics influence the NPD process design as SBUs employ distinct combinations of NPD design elements. The differential emphasis on design elements leads to variation in process design and divergence in innovation productivity.     

PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study*

Since 1990, the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) has sponsored best practice research projects to identify trends in new product development (NPD) management practices and to discern which practices are associated with higher degrees of success. The objective of this ongoing research is to assist managers in determining how to improve their own product development methods and practices. This paper presents results, recommendations, and implications for NPD practice stemming from PDMA's third best practices study, which was conducted in 2003. In the eight years since the previous best practices study was conducted, firms have become slightly more conservative in the portfolio of projects, with lower percentages of the total number of projects in the new‐to‐the‐world and new‐to‐the‐firm categories. Although success rates and development efficiencies have remained stable, this more conservative approach to NPD seems to have negatively impacted the sales and profits impact of the new products that have been commercialized. As formal processes for NPD are now the norm, attention is moving to managing the multiple projects across the portfolio in a more orchestrated manner. Finally, firms are implementing a wide variety of software support tools for various aspects of NPD. NPD areas still seriously in need of improved management include idea management, project leadership and training, cross‐functional training and team communication support, and innovation support and leadership by management. In terms of aspects of NPD management that differentiate the “best from the rest,” the findings indicate that the best firms emphasize and integrate their innovation strategy across all the levels of the firm, better support their people and team communications, conduct extensive experimentation, and use numerous kinds of new methods and techniques to support NPD. All companies appear to continue to struggle with the recording of ideas and making them readily available to others in the organization, even the best. What remains unclear is whether there is a preferable approach for organizing the NPD endeavor, as no one organizational approach distinguished top NPD performers.     

Building mutual trust in collaborative green NPD: Evidence from China's digital infrastructure

The increasing green NPD (new product development) efforts in Asian markets gains increasing popularity among academic research and managerial practice. Given the prevailing knowledge about NPD collaboration drawing on traditional Western culture-centric approach, this study sets up a new analytical framework and investigates the dynamic trust-building mechanisms among multiple stakeholders in the collaborative green NPD process in China's national cultural context. Based on qualitative research using a longitudinal case study of China's digital infrastructure, three distinct collaborative green NPD phases including “innovation in peripheral components, incremental innovation in core components and radical innovation in core components” are identified. Besides, summaries of trust measures among suppliers, buying firms, and regulators are presented to open the black box of the antecedences and dynamics to facilitate the understanding of the truly complex nature of trust-building. During the phased collaborative green NPD processes, the role of China's national culture including “high degrees of power distance, low degrees of individualism, low degrees of uncertainty avoidance, high degrees of long-term orientation and high degrees of masculinity” is also discussed.     

The use of information technology tools in new product development phases: Analysis of effects on new product innovativeness, quality, and market performance

Extant research has largely ignored empirically examining how information technology (IT) affects new product effectiveness. Using the knowledge-based theory as a foundation, this study examines if, and how, particular IT tools used in the discovery, development, and commercialization phases of the new product development (NPD) process influence NPD effectiveness dimensions, namely, market performance, innovativeness, and quality of a new product. Based on data collected from NPD managers in the US and Canada, the findings indicate that specific IT tools contribute to various measures of new product effectiveness differently. Moreover, the results show the positive effect of these IT tools in different phases of the NPD process. This suggests that with regard to NPD, a decompositional approach that examines the role of IT within each phase of the NPD process is best. Based on these findings, the authors discuss theoretical and managerial implications of the study and suggest paths for future research. Managerially, some interesting results of our study are that decision support systems, file transfer protocols, and concept testing tools would significantly improve NPD effectiveness regardless of the phase they are used.     

Identifying Technology Commercialization Opportunities: The Importance of Integrating Product Development Knowledge

New product development (NPD) is a knowledge‐intensive activity, perhaps even more so in recent years given the shift toward more open innovation processes, which involve active inward and outward technology transfer. While the extant literature has established that knowledge is critical for NPD performance, knowledge generated through NPD can have an additional impact on external technology exploitation—as when firms go beyond pure internal application of knowledge to commercialize their technologies, for example, by means of technology outlicensing. Grounded in the knowledge‐based view of the firm, this paper examines how the integration of domain‐specific knowledge, procedural knowledge, and general knowledge generated through NPD affects a firm's proficiency in identifying technology commercialization opportunities. Additionally, analysis of how technology opportunity identification relates to technology commercialization performance is provided. Empirically, the paper draws on survey data from 193 Swedish medium‐sized manufacturing firms in four industries active with NPD, and regression analyses and structural equation modeling were used to test the hypotheses. The results highlight the importance of integrating domain‐specific and general NPD knowledge to proficiently identify technology licensing opportunities. The empirical findings also provide strong support for a subsequent link between technology opportunity identification and technology commercialization performance. Altogether, these results point to strong and previously unexplored complementarities between inward and outward technology exploitation, that is, between NPD and technology licensing. As such, the results provide important theoretical implications for research into the fields of knowledge integration, technology exploitation, opportunity identification, and technology markets. Moreover, the results have significant managerial implications concerning how knowledge generated through NPD can help firms to achieve both strategic and monetary benefits when trying to profit from technology. In particular, to set up proficient technology commercialization processes, it appears beneficial for firms to integrate knowledge that is gained through the ordinary activities of developing and commercializing products. Specifically, the integration of domain‐specific knowledge and general knowledge helps firms to match their technologies with new applications and markets, which is often the critical barrier to successful technology commercialization activities. Managers are thus encouraged to integrate domain‐specific knowledge and general knowledge from NPD to reap additional benefits in profiting from investments in innovation and technology.     

Inter-firm collaboration in new product development in Chinese pharmaceutical companies

High-tech firms increasingly rely on inter-firm collaboration (IFC) in new product development (NPD). While there is a growing research interest in exploring the economic rationale of IFC through the transaction cost economics (TCE) and the resource synergy of IFC through the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), little attention has been given to the institution-based view (IBV) that also has important implications for firms’ choice of IFC. In particular, how national institutional environment affects IFC in the NPD process remains under-researched. This study aims to contribute to the literature by extending our understanding of the role of IFC in firms’ NPD process, taking into account transactional, resource, and institutional factors. Based on a case study of two firms: a state-owned and a private pharmaceutical firm in China, our research identifies three key forms of IFC, which are dynamic at different stages of NPD and contingent upon an array of institutional, resource, and transactional rationales underpinning firms’ choice of different forms of IFC. Our study is the first one that investigates the role of IFC in the NPD process bringing together the IBV, RBV, and TCE perspectives.     

Project Suspensions and Failures in New Product Development: Returns for Entrepreneurial Firms in Co‐Development Alliances

Entrepreneurial biotech and large pharmaceutical firms often form alliances to co‐develop new products. Yet, new product development (NPD) is fraught with challenges that often result in project suspensions and failures. Considering this, how can firms increase the chances that their co‐development alliances will create value? To answer this question, the authors build on insights from signaling theory to argue that prior project suspensions provide positive signals leading to an increase in value creation, while project failures have the opposite effect. In addition, drawing on insights from temporal construal theory, this research predicts that the strength of these effects is contingent on the stage along the exploration–exploitation continuum at which the alliance is formed. The authors undertook event study analyses of 248 alliances formed by 104 biotechnology firms from the United States and Europe listed on eight stock exchanges over an 8‐year period between 1996 and 2003. The results confirm that prior NPD project suspensions have a stronger value creation effect (or prior failures have a weaker value destruction effect) in the case of exploration alliances in the upstream of NPD processes than in the case of moderate‐scale exploitation alliances in the downstream of NPD. This study is among the first to examine how both prior NPD project suspensions and failures of firms affect the abnormal returns achieved from co‐development alliances. This research therefore contributes to the innovation literature by honing a better understanding of setbacks and failures in NPD. Moreover, the findings contribute to the literature on strategic alliances by identifying new conditions under which firms can create or preserve value. This research also contributes to signaling theory by providing evidence of the moderation effect caused by the signaling environment. Finally, this study contributes to the entrepreneurial literature on value creation for entrepreneurial firms in alliances following adverse events.     

New Product Development Practices and Early‐Stage Firms: Two In‐Depth Case Studies

New product development practices (NPD) have been well studied for decades in large, established companies. Implementation of best practices such as predevelopment market planning and cross‐functional teams have been positively correlated with product and project success over a variety of measures. However, for small new ventures, field research into ground‐level adoption of NPD practices is lacking. Because of the risks associated with missteps in new product development and the potential for firm failure, understanding NPD within the new venture context is critical. Through in‐depth case research, this paper investigates two successful physical product‐based early‐stage firms' development processes versus large established firm norms. The research focuses on the start‐up adoption of commonly prescribed management processes to improve NPD, such as cross‐functional teams, use of market planning during innovation development, and the use of structured processes to guide the development team. This research has several theoretical implications. The first finding is that in comparing the innovation processes of these firms to large, established firms, the study found several key differences from the large firm paradigm. These differences in development approach from what is prescribed for large, established firms are driven by necessity from a scarcity of resources. These new firms simply did not have the resources (financial or human) to create multi‐ or cross‐functional teams or organizations in the traditional sense for their first product. Use of virtual resources was pervasive. Founders also played multiple roles concurrently in the organization, as opposed to relying on functional departments so common in large firms. The NPD process used by both firms was informal—much more skeletal than commonly recommended structured processes. The data indicated that these firms put less focus on managing the process and more emphasis on managing their goals (the main driver being getting the first product to market). In addition to little or no written procedures being used, development meetings did not run to specific paper‐based deliverables or defined steps. In terms of market and user insight, these activities were primarily performed inside the core team—using methods that again were distinctive in their approach. What drove a project to completion was relying on team experience or a “learn as you go approach.” Again, the driver for this type of truncated market research approach was a lack of resources and need to increase the project's speed‐to‐market. Both firms in our study were highly successful, from not only an NPD efficiency standpoint but also effectiveness. The second broad finding we draw from this work is that there are lessons to be learned from start‐ups for large, established firms seeking ever‐increasing efficiency. We have found that small empowered teams leading projects substantial in scope can be extremely effective when roles are expanded, decision power is ground‐level, and there is little emphasis on defined processes. This exploratory research highlights the unique aspects of NPD within small early‐stage firms, and highlights areas of further research and management implications for both small new ventures and large established firms seeking to increase NPD efficiency and effectiveness.     

PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices

Product development professionals may have the feeling that yet another buzzword or magic bullet always lurks just around the corner. However, researchers have devoted considerable effort to helping practioners determine which tools, techniques, and methods really do offer a competitive edge. Starting 30 years ago, research efforts have aimed at understanding NPD practices and identifying those which are deemed “best practices.” During the past five years, pursuit of this goal has produced numerous privately available reports and two research efforts sponsored by the PDMA. Abbie Griffin summarizes the results of research efforts undertaken during the past five years and presents findings from the most recent PDMA survey on NPD best practices. This survey, conducted slightly more than five years after PDMA's first best-practices survey, updates trends in processes, organizations, and outcomes for NPD in the U.S., and determines which practices are more commonly associated with firms that are more successsful in developing new products. The survey has the following objectives: determining the current status of NPD practices and performance; understanding how product development has changed from five years ago; determining whether NPD practice and performance differ across industry segments; and, investigating process and product development tools that differentiate product development success. The survey findings indicate that NPD processes continue to evolve and become more sophisticated. NPD changes continually on multiple fronts, and firms that fail to keep their NPD practices up to date will suffer an increasingly marked competitive disadvantage. Interestingly, although more than half of the respondents use a cross-functional stage-gate process for NPD, more than one-third of all firms in the study still use no formal process for managing NPD. The findings suggest that firms are not adequately handling the issue of team-based rewards. Project-completion dinners are for the most frequently used NPD reward; they are also the only reward used more by best-practice firms than by the rest of the respondents. The best-practice firms participating in the study do not use financial rewards for NPD. Compared to the other firms in the study, best-practice firms use more multifunctional teams, are more likely to measure NPD processes and outcomes, and expect more from their NPD programs.     

Performance of Global New Product Development Programs: A Resource-Based View

Gaining a competitive edge in today's turbulent business environment calls for a commitment by firms to two highly interrelated strategies: globalization and new product development (NPD). Although much research has focused on how companies achieve NPD success, little of this deals with NPD in the global setting. The authors use resource‐based theory (RBT)—a model emphasizing the resources and capabilities of the firm as primary determinants of competitive advantage—to explain how companies involved in international NPD realize superior performance. The capabilities RBT model is used to test how firms achieve superior performance by deploying organizational capabilities to take advantage of key organizational resources relevant for developing new products for global markets. Specifically, the study evaluates (1) organizational NPD resources (i.e., the firm's global innovation culture, attitude to resource commitment, top‐management involvement, and NPD process formality); (2) NPD process capabilities or routines for identifying and exploiting new product opportunities (i.e., global knowledge integration, NPD homework activities, and launch preparation); and (3) global NPD program performance. Based on data from 387 global NPD programs (North America and Europe, business‐to‐business), a structural model testing for the hypothesized mediation effects of NPD process capabilities on organizational NPD resources was largely supported. The findings indicate that all four resources considered relevant for effective deployment of global NPD process capabilities play a significant role. Specifically, a positive attitude toward resource commitment as well as NPD process formality is essential for the effective deployment of the three NPD process routines linked to achieving superior global NPD program performance; a strong global innovation culture is needed for ensuring effective global knowledge integration; and top‐management involvement plays a key role in deploying both knowledge integration and launch preparation. Of the three NPD process capabilities, global knowledge integration is the most important, whereas homework and launch preparation also play a significant role in bringing about global NPD program success. Tests for partial mediation suggest that too much process formality may be negative and that top‐management involvement requires careful focus.     

Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining Entrepreneurial Effectuation and Managerial Causation

This article reports a multimethod study of product innovation processes in small manufacturing firms. Prior studies found that small firms do not deploy the formalized processes identified as best practice for the management of new product development (NPD) in large firms. To explicate small firms' product innovation, this study uses effectuation theory, which emerged from entrepreneurship research. Effectuation theory discerns two logics of decision‐making: causation, assuming that means are selected to attain goals; and effectuation, assuming that goals are created based upon available means. The study used a process research approach, investigating product innovation trajectories in five small firms across 352 total events. Quantitative analyses revealed early effectuation logic, which increasingly turned toward causation logic over time. Further qualitative analyses confirmed the use of both logics, with effectual logic rendering product innovation resource‐driven, stepwise, and open‐ended, and with causal logic used especially in later stages to set objectives and to plan activities and invest resources to attain objectives. Because the application of effectuation logic differentiates the small firm approaches from mainstream NPD best practices, this study examined how small firms' product innovation processes deployed effectuation logic in further detail. The small firms: (1) made creative use of existing resources; (2) scoped innovations to be realizable with available resources; (3) used external resources whenever and wherever these became available; (4) prioritized existing business over product innovation projects; (5) used loose project planning; (6) worked in steps toward tangible outcomes; (7) iterated the generation, selection, and modification of goals and ideas; and (8) relied on their own customer knowledge and market probing, rather than early market research. Using effectuation theory thus helps us understand how small firm product innovation both resembles and differs from NPD best practices observed in larger firms. Because the combination of effectual and causal principles leverages small firm characteristics and resources, this article concludes that product innovation research should more explicitly differentiate between firms of different sizes, rather than prescribing large firm best practices to small firms.     

Improving Marketing's Contribution to New Product Development

In many firms, the marketing department plays a minor role in new product development (NPD). However, recent research demonstrates that marketing capabilities more strongly influence firm performance than other areas such as research and development. This finding underscores the importance of identifying relevant capabilities that can improve the position of marketing within the NPD process as part of the quest to improve innovation performance. However, thus far, it has remained unclear precisely how the marketing department can increase its influence on NPD to enhance a firm's innovation performance. The results of this study demonstrate that the relationship between marketing capabilities and innovation performance is generally mediated by the decision influence of marketing on NPD. In particular, both marketing research quality and the ability to translate customer needs into product characteristics serve to increase marketing's influence on NPD. This increased influence, in turn, positively contributes to overall firm innovation performance. Hence, these results show that in addition to having the appropriate marketing capabilities, the marketing department must achieve a status in which these capabilities can translate into performance implications.     

Examining Proactive Strategic Decision‐Making Flexibility in New Product Development

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

Differentiating Major and Incremental New Product Development: The Effects of Functional and Numerical Workforce Flexibility*

This study seeks to explain the differential effects of workforce flexibility on incremental and major new product development (NPD). Drawing on the resource‐based theory of the firm, human resource management research, and innovation management literature, the authors distinguish two types of workforce flexibility, functional and numerical, and hypothesize differential effects on NPD outcomes. A large‐scale sample of 284 Dutch firms across various manufacturing goods and business services industries serves to test these hypotheses. The results suggest that functional flexibility positively influences incremental NPD only, internal numerical flexibility negatively influences incremental NPD only, and external numerical flexibility positively influences major NPD only. Thus, differences between major and incremental NPD are grounded in the human resource flexibility of the firm. This complements research that found that such differences lie in critical development activities, learning processes, and capabilities. It also complements product innovation research on flexibility in NPD processes and on flexibility in organizational structures and routines. It extends the resource‐based theory of the firm suggesting that human resource flexibility is part of the dynamic capabilities that allow firms to reconfigure existing competencies. The conclusions imply that managers of manufacturing and service firms may use training and education and create a functional flexible workforce that can progressively enhance incremental NPD outcomes. They may want to avoid paying overtime, because such internal numerical flexibility hampers incremental NPD, but use fixed‐term contracts to expand external numerical flexibility to enhance major NPD.     

Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

In the ‘knowledge economy’ upheld by the European Lisbon strategy, knowledge‐intensive services are considered a key driver for innovation and competitiveness. A category of knowledge‐intensive services that has become of utmost importance in the last few decades is new product development (NPD) services, which interconnect distant knowledge domains with the client firms. In addition to NPD service providers, web‐based innovation intermediaries have started to help innovative firms access dispersed bodies of knowledge. Despite the heterogeneity of their characteristics, however, a clear typology of the strategies used by traditional NPD service providers and web‐based intermediaries to interact with their knowledge sources and with their clients is missing. This typology would be very useful for those firms that are willing to collaborate with innovation intermediaries because it could highlight the typologies of NPD problems different intermediaries are apt to address and the managerial challenges that working with them entails. Developing such a classification framework is the main goal of this paper. The typology proposed in this paper suggests that innovation intermediaries should be distinguished based on the following: (1) the way they access their distributed knowledge sources and (2) the way they deliver value to their clients. By combining these two dimensions, four categories of innovation intermediaries are identified, which are named brokers, mediators, collectors and connectors. A multiple case study analysis involving four innovation intermediaries and 12 of their clients is presented in the paper. The analysis provides exploratory insights into (1) the typologies of NPD problems that each class of intermediaries addresses and (2) the managerial challenges that working with each of them entails. These preliminary findings call for further theoretical and empirical research into the complex interaction among innovation intermediaries, their dispersed sources of knowledge and their clients.