The Transformation of the Innovation Process: How Digital Tools are Changing Work,Collaboration, and Organizations in New Product Development*

Over the past several decades, digitization has invaded all areas of human activity, including innovation. The result of digitization of existing tools for design and collaboration, and the introduction of entirely new digital tools, is a far more substantive change of innovation than previous generations of tools enabled. It affects not only the quality of the output and speed of its generation, but it affects the innovation work itself, changes work content, collaboration patterns, decision authority, organizational set‐ups, governance structures, firm boundaries, and ultimately entire ecosystems. In this paper, the digitization of New Product Development (NPD), a subset of innovation, is studied to pursue two research questions: (1) How has the digital tool landscape in NPD changed over the past 15 years, and (2) how have these changes affected how firms innovate? This research uses a longitudinal multi‐method, qualitative approach to deep dive into actual use cases of digital design tools such as computer‐aided design CAD and new tools such as collaborative information technology (CIT). The changes in these tools and observations into how these tools are transforming the very nature of how things are designed is the research focus of this study. These tools have become increasingly more sophisticated while being easier to use and are integrated earlier in the design process. As a result, digital tools have a far broader reaching impact than previous generation of tools. Not only do they affect output and process efficiency, but they also increase depth and breadth of the work of individual innovators, they lead to rearrangement of the entire innovation processes, enable new configurations of people, teams, and firms, and rewrite the rules on how knowledge management acts as a critical competitive capability. The progression of digitization is laying the groundwork for changes to what firms are and do and points to different ways of organizing, specializing, and training for NPD professionals.     

Conceptualizing Innovation Orientation: A Framework for Study and Integration of Innovation Research*

The term innovation orientation has been frequently used in the innovation literature, but with a mix of conceptualizations and meanings. Drawing from work found in the innovation, management, and marketing literatures over the past 35 years, the concept of innovation orientation as a system is conceptualized and defined in this article. The domain of innovation orientation is delineated as a multidimensional knowledge structure and a framework for understanding innovation orientation and its consequences in an organizational context are developed. The framework defines the innovation orientation knowledge structure as composed of a learning philosophy, strategic direction, and transfunctional beliefs within an organization that define and direct the organizational strategies and actions toward specific innovation‐enabling competencies and processes. These innovation‐oriented firm competencies are in the areas of resource allocation, technology, employees, operations, and markets. The framework then explains that these appropriately developed innovation‐enabling competencies lead to innovation outcomes, specifically ideal innovation form, type, and rate that, in turn, affect firm performance. An inventory of propositions for future research that correspond to the innovation orientation concept is also presented in this comprehensive framework. This study provides two important contributions to the existing innovation literature. First, the article examines the vast innovation literature to arrive at a clear definition of the innovation orientation construct to provide a consistent conceptualization for future research. Second, the article develops a comprehensive, organized framework for understanding innovation orientation and its effects. In doing this, the framework extends the dynamic capabilities research stream by offering an explanation of how innovation orientation fosters the development of organizational competencies and makes it possible for a firm to recognize and respond to shifts in market dynamism.     

Digital Transformation and Innovation Management: A Synthesis of Existing Research and an Agenda for Future Studies

Management and organizational scholars have paid increasing attention to the interconnections between digital transformation and innovation management in the last decade. However, a highly fragmented understanding of this topic is what we are left with so far. In this editorial, we suggest an approach to open up the black box of the interplay between digital transformation and innovation management by providing a framework that identifies three levels of analyisis (i.e., macro, meso, and micro) along which existing and future research on the topic can be organized. This model encourages scholars to conduct theoretical and empirical studies on how digital transformation affects ecosystems’ structure and governance, how industries and firms compete and organize for innovation in a digitalized world, how the processes for developing new products and services change under the effect of digital technologies, and the implications of digital transformation on managing people and teams involved in the innovation process, among the other topics. We also provide a synthesis of the eight papers published in the Special Issue that this editorial introduces and develop an agenda for future research that will hopefully contribute to encourage and shape future scholarly efforts into this field.     

The Gordian Knot of Practicing Digital Transformation: Coping with Emergent Paradoxes in Ambidextrous Organizing Structures*

Despite increasing scholarly attention on digital transformation, there are only limited micro‐level insights into how incumbent firms organize and manage their digital transformation efforts on a daily basis. Through a longitudinal, exploratory qualitative case study of a large firm, this article investigates how organizational members respond to an ambidextrous organizing model designed to accelerate digital innovations. The firm relied on a hybrid model of separation and integration to organize and manage its digital transformation efforts. This study unfolds the implications and consequences of such a model at the micro‐level. By applying a paradox lens, it shows how the coping actions of organizational members affected the digital transformation. The article illustrates how the hybrid organizing model led to the emergence of three paradoxes at the organizational level (paradoxes of organizing, attention, and knowledge sharing) that organizational members had to cope with. It shows how organizational members, through their coping with these paradoxes, indirectly affected the organizing model by altering its original design; and how the management, influenced by these learnings, subsequently adapted the model to enable a better sustainability over time. Overall, the findings show and explain why organizing for digital transformation is a particularly complex and paradoxical endeavor. They also provide important insights to managers and organizational developers, helping them to become aware of possible tensions in their organizing efforts as well as of coping strategies and practices to tackle these tensions. Finally, the article suggests different paths for further research in digital transformation and digital innovation from a micro‐level perspective.     

Digital Transformation Through Exploratory and Exploitative Internet of Things Innovations: The Impact of Family Management and Technological Diversification*

This study examines the impact of family management on digital transformation with specific regard to the firm’s development of Internet of Things (IoT) innovations. Drawing on the distinctive characteristics of firms with family managers, such as the focus on family‐centered noneconomic goals, long tenure, emotional ties to existing assets, and rigid mental models, it hypothesizes that increasing family involvement in the top management team is negatively related to the development of IoT innovations that are distant from a firm’s existing technology base (i.e., exploratory IoT innovations) compared to exploitative IoT innovations. Further, the study proposes that the firm’s degree of technological diversification, especially in unrelated forms, reinforces this relationship. The longitudinal analysis between 2002 and 2013 on a sample of publicly traded German firms allows us to test our hypotheses from the beginning of the emergence of the IoT concept. Our findings show that due to the particular characteristics of their managers, family‐managed firms do not welcome the risks related to exploratory IoT innovations, and the benefit of risk diversification from technological diversification is lower than the cost of abandoning family‐centered goals. As our results imply that the involvement of family managers constrains the development of exploratory IoT innovation, the top management team composition in firms that intend to be at the forefront of the digital transformation should be accurately designed by avoiding a high proportion of family members.     

财务职能转变中的标杆对比

随着经济全球化的发展,传统的财务职能正经受着严峻的挑战,面临着不可避免的变革。本文主要探讨了财务职能转变的必要性以及使用标杆对比这一工具来转变财务职能使企业价值实现持续不断的增长。     

The Search for Flexibility: Skills and Workplace Innovation in the German Pump Industry

The German skill-creation system has been a vital part of the success of its 'diversified quality production' model. Some argue that this success is now threatened by the spread of lean production and that the existing skill-creation system may hinder, rather than help, German manufacturers to restructure. We explore this argument in a detailed study of a nationally representative sample of German pumpmakers. We find that the existence of a highly skilled work-force may deter the adoption of multifunctional work teams, but that countervailing strengths of the German skill-creation system have the potential to help firms develop a new, distinctive German production model.     

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

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

Bid Coordination in Sponsored Search Auctions: Detection Methodology and Empirical Analysis*

Bid delegation to specialized intermediaries is common in internet ad auctions. When the same intermediary bids for competing advertisers, its incentive to coordinate client bids might alter the functioning of the auctions. This study develops a methodology to detect bid coordination and presents a strategy to estimate a bound on the search engine revenue losses imposed by bid coordination. When the method is applied to data from auctions held on a major search engine, coordination is detected in 55% of the cases of delegated bidding and the search engine's revenue loss ranges between 5.3% and 10.4%.     

Managing External Information in Manufacturing Firms: The Impact on Innovation Performance*

Drawing upon a sample of 206 medium‐sized manufacturing firms, this article investigates the extent to which management of external information is associated with innovation performance. The overall purpose of the article is to examine whether or not those organizations that are better at managing external information are also those that are the better innovators. The research strategy used was a survey, and data were collected by means of mail questionnaires (with a 62.4% response rate). A multiple regression analysis was used for hypothesis testing. The results show that scanning the technological sector of the environment was positively associated with innovation performance, while scanning customers, suppliers, and competitors proved to be negatively correlated with innovation performance. Cross‐functional integration in the form of collaboration also proved significantly correlated with innovation performance, while interaction showed no such relationship. Further, decision‐making based on information from the industry environment correlated significantly with innovation performance. Research and managerial implications of these findings are presented and are discussed.     

Evolution and Transformation of Innovation in the Global Automotive Industry

The automotive industry is an integral component of the global economy and is unique in that it encompasses every aspect of the value chain—from raw materials to design and development, manufacturing, sales and service, and even disposal. All of these value‐creating areas are undergoing significant innovative change as a result of environmental and competitive forces. In this issue, we explore some of the most salient topics related to innovation and product management in the context of the contemporary global automotive industry.     

PERSPECTIVE: The World's Top Innovation Management Scholars and Their Social Capital*

Using 959 articles reflecting the work of 1,179 scholars, this study ranks the world's top scholars in innovation management (IM) on the basis of the number of research articles published across 14 top academic journals in technology and innovation management, marketing, and management between 1990 and 2004. Twenty‐three scholars have at least eight articles in this period. Michael Song has the most (31), followed by Robert Cooper, Roger Calantone, William Souder, and Elko Kleinschmidt, who have published at least 17 articles in the 15‐year period. Surprisingly, the list of schools that either trained or currently employ these top scholars is quite different from Linton's (2004) recent ranking of the top business schools in the management of technology. Guided by social capital theory, the present study analyzes the embeddedness characteristics of IM scholars to determine the extent to which social capital explains scholarly productivity. A current controversy in the social capital literature is the embeddedness characteristics that create social capital. On the one hand, the closure perspective argues that social capital results from strong relational ties with others in a dense, local neighborhood of actors who are relatively disconnected from others. On the other hand, the brokerage perspective argues that social capital is created when actors have relational ties that span these dense, local neighborhoods. The findings in the present study support both perspectives. Furthermore, the results suggest that strategic orientation is a contingency variable that clarifies the conditions in which closure‐ or brokerage‐based embeddedness is appropriate. Specifically, scholars pursuing an entrepreneurial publication strategy are more productive when their relational embeddedness is consistent with the brokerage perspective of social capital creation, whereas scholars pursuing a focused publication strategy are more productive when their relational embeddedness is consistent with the closure perspective of social capital creation. The results have implications for both the IM scholar community and the social capital literature. Whether IM scholars are pursuing an entrepreneurial strategy that capitalizes on emergent knowledge across various theories and perspectives or pursuing a focused strategy by concentrating on gaining deep understanding of a specific stream of research, there are many avenues and opportunities for improving publication performance through the formation of new social capital. Finally, the empirical support for the contingency variable strategic orientation is consistent with recent speculation that both perspectives are important and suggests that future work should focus on further identification and clarification of contingency factors associated with them.     

Global Innovation in MNCs: The Effects of Subsidiary Self‐Determination and Teamwork*

The ability of multinational corporations (MNCs) to leverage their innovation competencies across globally dispersed subsidiaries is an increasingly valuable source of competitive advantage. As multinational enterprises turn to foreign subsidiaries for research and development (R&D) and product development, questions arise regarding the most effective organizational structures for global innovation. Although organizational conditions that satisfy the needs for self‐determination and teamwork have long been considered intrinsic motivators, past research has not analyzed the consequences of intrinsic motivators on global innovation. The basic research question is this: In globally dispersed subsidiary R&D units, what organizational conditions and motivators are associated with the highest knowledge output? A sample of 275 globally dispersed R&D subsidiaries were studied from 1995 to 2002. Data were collected from a postal survey, field and telephone interviews, and secondary sources. Subsidiary self‐determination and teamwork were found to have a significant effect on knowledge output, as objectively measured by patent citations. Subsidiary self‐determination on inputs such as sourcing and hiring, and self‐determination on outputs such as marketing and product development, emerged as positive determinants of knowledge generation in R&D subsidiaries. In addition, interteam cooperation and intrateam cooperation were significant determinants of knowledge generation by subsidiaries. These findings highlight the importance of self‐determination, teamwork, and cooperation to knowledge creation and innovations. Managers face the tough challenge of how to motivate globally dispersed knowledge workers to conduct research that will generate knowledge and will strengthen firm performance. The results provide theoretical and practical insights on how MNCs can leverage their innovation competencies across foreign R&D subsidiaries.     

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

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

世界创新竞争驱动制造业转型的机理与验证

梳理人类工业化进程中的创新史可以看出,世界创新竞争与制造业转型具有历史耦合性。世界创新竞争会从动力驱使、要素注入、竞争互动等方面驱动制造业转型,本文也据此构建了两者内在作用机理的“三维”模型。在此理论模型指导下,本文以10个代表性国家为例,运用面板数据计量方法实证分析了2003～2012年世界创新竞争与制造业转型的关系,结果却显示世界创新竞争与制造业转型之间存在着与理论相悖的负相关关系。表明在过去的创新竞争中,发达国家把创新的重点放在了虚拟经济领域,而发展中国家创新不足导致了制造业领域“创新忽视”和创新资源的稀缺。应以实体经济为基础,积极调整创新战略,充分发挥创新竞争对制造业转型升级的积极作用。     

The Role of Suppliers in Market Intelligence Gathering for Radical and Incremental Innovation*

Drawing on transaction cost economics theory, this study addresses the following research questions: (1) Does supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities have a greater impact on innovation success in predesign or commercialization activities? and (2) Does supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities have a greater impact on success in radical or incremental product innovation? Hypotheses are tested using both subjective and objective measures of success from a study of 205 incremental and 110 radical new product development projects. Results from the estimation of a two‐group path model suggest that this theoretical framework is useful in providing guidance as to when product developers should emphasize the gathering of market intelligence through suppliers. Consistent with conventional wisdom, the findings suggest that supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities are positively related to success in incremental innovations across predesign and commercialization activities. However, supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities is found to have no significant impact on market share and is negatively associated with perceived product performance in radical innovations in predesign tasks. Also, while there was no significant difference in market share for supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities between radical and incremental innovation in commercialization activities, supplier involvement in these activities did have a greater impact on perceived product performance in radical innovation than it did in incremental innovation. Although current practice suggests that teams allocate fewer resources to the gathering of market intelligence through their suppliers during predesign activities in incremental innovation projects compared with radical innovation projects, the findings in this study suggest that they should do the opposite. Shifting resources allocated for engaging suppliers in market information gathering activities in predesign activities from radical innovation projects to incremental innovation projects could increase the return on these investments. Alternatively, these resources currently allocated to the gathering of market intelligence through suppliers in predesign activities of radical innovation projects could also provide greater benefits if allocated to commercialization activities of radical innovation projects, where they have the greatest positive impact.     

Innovation Management Practices Compared: The Example of Project‐Based Firms*

The importance of project‐based firms is increasing, as they fulfill the growing demands for complex integrated systems and knowledge‐intensive services. While project‐based firms are generally strong in innovating their clients' systems and processes, they seem to be less successful in innovating their own products or services. The reasons behind this are the focus of this paper. The characteristics of project‐based firms are investigated, how these affect management practices for innovation projects, and the influence of these practices on project performance. Using survey data of 203 Dutch firms in the construction, engineering, information technology, and related industries, differences in characteristics between project‐based and nonproject‐based firms are identified. Project‐based firms are distinguished from nonproject‐based firms on the basis of organizational configuration, the complexity of the operational process, and the project management capabilities of the firm. Project‐based firms also differ with regard to their level of collaboration and their innovation strategy, but not in the level of autonomy. A comparison of 135 innovation projects in 96 of the firms shows that project‐based firms do not manage their innovation projects different from other firms. However, the effects of specific management practices on project performance are different, particularly the effects of planning, multidisciplinary teams and heavyweight project leaders. Differences in firm characteristics provide an explanation for the findings. The implication for the innovation management literature is that “best” practices for innovation management are firm dependent.