Some like it free: Innovators' Strategic use of Disclosure to slow down Competition

Why do some innovators freely reveal their intellectual property? This empirical puzzle has been a focal point of debate in the R&D literature. We show that innovators may share proprietary technology with rivals for free—even if it does not directly benefit them—to slow down competition. By disclosing IP, innovators indirectly induce rivals to wait and imitate instead of concurrently investing in innovation, which alleviates competitive pressure. In contrast with the classical strategy view, our paper also shows that imitators may not always benefit from interfirm knowledge spillovers. Specifically, imitators may want to limit the know‐how that they can freely appropriate from innovators. Otherwise, innovators have fewer incentives to quickly develop new technologies, which, ultimately, reduces the pace and profits of imitation. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How Banks Apply Marketing Expertise to Develop New Derivatives

For banks operating in the fiercely competitive derivatives market, the difference between the leaders and the also-rans often boils down to their respective approaches to product innovation. To achieve market leadership in this highly volatile field, a bank must develop and continually refine the processes and the expertise necessary for identifying new areas of business and attracting and retaining customers. Although the development of derivatives is a complex, expensive process, such development efforts provide the means for satisfying existing clients as well as attracting new customers. F. Axel Johne and M. Panos Pavlidis examine the managerial practices of banks that are acknowledged leaders in bringing new derivatives to market ahead of their competitors. In particular, they examine how those first-mover banks apply their marketing expertise and they review the advantages those banks enjoy as a result of their success in product innovation. The banks studied fall into one of two groups: highly active innovators and less active innovators. The study reveals several significant differences between the two groups with respect to managing marketing inputs for product innovation purposes. First, compared to less active banks, the highly active innovators take a more sophisticated, market-based approach to identifying innovation opportunities. Rather than looking for innovations that offer a close fit with existing products and competencies, they analyze the benefits sought by target clients and initiate innovation efforts based on those analyses. Highly active innovators recognize the important role that internal marketing plays in encouraging functional specialists to work together for the purpose of identifying follow-on development opportunities. Internal marketing also helps to ensure that all parties understand and can support the planned innovation. The highly active innovators in this study do not take a formulaic approach to the development of new derivatives; instead, they rely on marketing expertise to identify and capitalize on business opportunities. Rather than concentrate solely on improving the core technical features of a product, the highly active innovators also recognize the importance of product augmentation innovation (to ensure the appropriate support for various market segments), process innovation (so they can reduce prices, when necessary), and market innovation (to ensure that they pursue the optimal mix of markets).     

Voices from the Field: How Exceptional Electronic Industrial Innovators Innovate

This exploratory research uses in‐depth qualitative interviews to investigate how 11 exceptional innovators in the electronics industry initiated, created, and commercialized radical innovations in their firms. From the data, two initial frameworks emerged for how radical innovations were created by these individuals. Four themes emerged associated with what these innovators bring to the organization as an underpinning for being able to radically innovate. Additional themes emerged as to the process by which they innovate. Across the literatures of innovation, psychology, and management, creativity is discussed in terms of person, product, or process. This research samples on highly creative innovations (products) and finds that it appears that both person and process need to be considered in attaining radical innovation. One may not be able to consider separately the person who achieves radical innovation from the process he or she uses to achieve it. These exceptional innovators have specific personality characteristics that support radically creative behavior, supplemented by a perspective or worldview that focuses on having a business orientation yet also a somewhat idealistic attitude. They have prepared for innovation by studying deeply, within not just one primary technology topic but also a secondary or peripheral technology topic. In addition, they have prepared broadly, across technology, business, and markets. They are both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated to innovate. People communicating what problems are urgently important to them to be solved produce external motivation for the innovator, who is then intrinsically motivated to solve these people's problems by creating new products. In terms of how they innovate, these exceptional innovators are organizationally savvy and both understand and participate in the politics necessary to gain acceptance of and resources for their project. They use an innovation process that emphasizes the up‐front aspects of finding interesting problems, planning first before executing, and understanding customer needs in great detail. This allows them to generate insights into how to solve those problems profitably for the firm. Once they have obtained and validated their insights for solving the problem, they participate in the actual implementation of the concept to a commercialized product. However, this development aspect of innovating is not much spoken of, as if it is taken for granted. Finally, they actively disseminate knowledge and acceptance of the innovation postinvention.     

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.     

The commercialization of user innovations: the development of the rodeo kayak industry

In this study, we analyze the commercialization process of user innovations in open communities. We have traced 16 cases of user innovators who have commercialized their own innovations or have been involved in the commercialization process to some extent. By developing and manufacturing new products, the user innovators in our sample created a fast-growing community. They used low-cost manufacturing techniques and were able to start a new industry before established manufacturers could enter the market. The transformation process from a user innovation community to a commercial and manufacturing community brought about a number of major changes. In this paper, we track those changes as: the motives for innovating, the community size and characteristics, the type of innovation, the type of assistance and the disclosure of information, the form of communication, and competition between innovating users.     

The neglect of industrial design

This paper aims at helping innovators to rethink their overall approach to industrial design in product innovation. It examines the role of industrial design in product innovation and demonstrates with both normative and empirical evidence that industrial design is still neglected in British manufacturing industry. The research reveals that firms satisfied their industrial design needs through engineering designers in preference to professional industrial designers. It is concluded that to make the most of design and create market-winning products, the synthesising, interfacing and 'integratorial' approach of an industrial designer is of paramount importance; engineering design, while both necessary and crucial, is by itself insufficient to ensure that innovative products satisfy physical form as well as functional requirements of customers/users. The paper warns that the continued inattention to industrial design may place UK firms at a competitive disadvantage in international markets.     

Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation

This paper brings together the recent literature on industry platforms and shows how it relates to managing innovation within and outside the firm as well as to dealing with technological and market disruptions and change over time. First, we identify distinct types of platforms. Our analysis of a wide range of industry examples suggests that there are two predominant types of platforms: internal or company‐specific platforms, and external or industry‐wide platforms. We define internal (company or product) platforms as a set of assets organized in a common structure from which a company can efficiently develop and produce a stream of derivative products. We define external (industry) platforms as products, services, or technologies that act as a foundation upon which external innovators, organized as an innovative business ecosystem, can develop their own complementary products, technologies, or services. Second, we summarize from the literature general propositions on the design, economics, and strategic management of platforms. Third, we review the case of Intel and other examples to illustrate the range of technological, strategic, and business challenges that platform leaders and their competitors face as markets and technologies evolve. Finally, we identify practices associated with effective platform leadership and avenues for future research to deepen our understanding of this important phenomenon and what firms can do to manage platform‐related competition and innovation.     

Integrating inside and outside innovators: a sociotechnical systems perspective

Innovation literature stresses the importance of opening the innovation process to internal and external innovators. The question of what determines the integration of these types of innovators in the innovation process remains open. We use a sociotechnical systems perspective to address a number of challenges with respect to this matter: an organization deploying different innovation practices to open the innovation process might not be aware which types of innovators are de facto integrated in its innovation process. Alternatively, an organization targeting the integration of a particular type of innovator might not use the suitable innovation practices to integrate the knowledge of this type of innovator. To address these challenges, our comparative case-study analysis in 15 medium-sized firms derives a theoretical framework proposing that a combined analysis of innovation practices and underlying social interactions is needed to decide about the integration of a particular type of innovator in the innovation process. Being aware of these interrelations will allow organizations to act more consciously when opening their innovation processes.     

Systemic absorptive capacity: creating early-to-market returns through R&D alliances

For most complex emergent technologies, product-market success depends on efficient linkages between changing lead innovators within the R&D process. In this paper, our unit of analysis is a complex high technology product and the system of alliance linkages formed to progress a product through R&D milestones. We present a model and evidence for advancing our understanding of how achieving early-to-market returns depends on systemic absorptive capacity. This systemic absorptive capacity is the cumulative efficiency in the use of absorptive capacity to link changing lead innovators across successive milestones in R&D product development. We advance propositions of how systemic absorptive capacity can explain performance differences between rival product development systems competing for early-to-market returns with similar products through accelerating speed to market, cost and quality advantages. These explanations are contrasted with the conclusions of previous studies that have focused on absorptive capacity of single firms or single alliances in R&D.     

CONTRACTING FOR AN INNOVATION UNDER BILATERAL ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION*

We analyze licensing contracts between informed innovators and developers exerting profit‐increasing effort. Those contracts must simultaneously induce innovators to convey information on the value of their ideas, while inducing developers to exert effort and protecting the innovators' intellectual property rights. We show that the best innovators signal themselves by taking more royalties even if it reduces the developers' share of returns and their incentives. Moreover, royalties are more likely to be used when property rights are easy to enforce and pre‐contractual evidence on innovation quality is hard to produce.     

A study of innovators' experience of new product innovation in organisations

The present research uses conversations with new product innovators in commercial organisations to explore how they experience innovating in those organisations. Based on their words, the study explores how innovators experience the complex social settings and structures of their organisation, how this affects creativity, and how innovative climates are enabled or inhibited by it. Organic, self-organising working structures are shown to enable creative commercial innovation more easily than hierarchical settings. Innovators' own words also identify what motivates them. 'Excitement' and 'creative buzz' are shown to be common intrinsic motivators and 'tangible benefit' for organisation or customers is shown to reinforce this. Innovators' experience of networks is also studied, along with their experiences of leadership in organisations. While this study is exploratory in scope, it is hoped that it will be of value in organisations looking to build effective partnerships with their innovators.     

Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations

The success of an innovating firm often depends on the efforts of other innovators in its environment. How do the challenges faced by external innovators affect the focal firm's outcomes? To address this question we first characterize the external environment according to the structure of interdependence. We follow the flow of inputs and outputs in the ecosystem to distinguish between upstream components that are bundled by the focal firm, and downstream complements that are bundled by the firm's customers. We hypothesize that the effects of external innovation challenges depend not only on their magnitude, but also on their location in the ecosystem relative to the focal firm. We identify a key asymmetry that results from the location of challenges relative to a focal firm—greater upstream innovation challenges in components enhance the benefits that accrue to technology leaders, while greater downstream innovation challenges in complements erode these benefits. We further propose that the effectiveness of vertical integration as a strategy to manage ecosystem interdependence increases over the course of the technology life cycle. We explore these arguments in the context of the global semiconductor lithography equipment industry from its emergence in 1962 to 2005 across nine distinct technology generations. We find strong empirical support for our framework. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Configurations of social media-enabled strategies for open innovation,firm performance,and their barriers to adoption

The use of social media offers tremendous innovation potential. Yet, while current research emphasizes success stories, little is known about how firms can leverage the full potential of their social media use for open innovation. In this paper, the authors address this gap by conducting a configurational analysis to develop an integrative taxonomy of social media-enabled strategies for open innovation. This analysis stems from the integration of internal and external variables such as social media communication activities, organizational innovation seekers, potential innovation providers, the stages of the open innovation process, and their relationship with different performance outcomes and barriers to social media adoption for open innovation. Through an empirical study of 337 firms based in eight countries, four clusters have been identified that are characterized as distinct strategies: “marketing semi-open innovators,” “cross-department semi-open innovators,” “cross-department full process semi-open innovators” and “broad adopters open innovators.” The findings reveal the trade-offs associated with different strategies for implementing social media for open innovation and provide insights of the use of these strategies. By doing so, they suggest a more nuanced approach that contrasts with the traditionally positive (or even rosy) depiction of the effects of social media on open innovation. Accordingly, managers are encouraged to contemplate their organizational competencies, capabilities, and their strategic intent when drafting social media strategies for open innovation. Selective approaches, along with greater adoption leading to greater benefits, are shown to be more rewarding than a middle way that spreads things too thin. Avenues for further research include qualitative explorations of the trajectories unfolding through implementing social media strategies for innovation activities and the use of objective performance measures rather than subjective perceptions from informants to understand the complex relationships between social media adoption and performance.     

Strategic Mutual Learning Between Producing and Buying Firms During Product Innovation

The product innovation activities and strategies employed by successful innovators often differ from those used by firms having more mature products. Marketing strategies for innovating firms can vary along two dimensions of knowledge: technological development (stable and evolving) and market needs (known and emerging). In addition, producers often commit to forms of strategic relationships with their buyers because of the difficulties encountered when buying firms adopt and implement technological innovations. Starting with these two orienting constructs from the literature, Patricia Meyers and Gerard Athaide describe the kinds of learning that develop between producers and buyers when markets for a technological innovation are forming.     

Patented innovations developed in networks: The role of cultural looseness

The ongoing globalization tears down geographical barriers to knowledge sourcing, leaving cultural ones intact. Past research on developing innovations has largely neglected national culture or solely relied on cultural values. A recent body of research has emerged around cultural looseness – the strength of social norms and the degree of sanctioning within societies – and provided initial evidence on its importance for mastering creativity, an antecedent of innovations. However, the impact of cultural looseness on developing innovations in networks with diverse actors has not yet been tested. To this end, we develop a Multiple Indicator Multiple Causes (MIMIC) structural equation model and test it against empirical evidence from >1.25 million patented innovations. We find that in innovation networks, innovators based in culturally loose countries source knowledge of higher breadth and depth for developing innovations compared to innovators from culturally tight countries. We discuss our findings and – based on some study limitations – suggest seven streams for future research. We conclude with summarizing our contribution to theory on the impact of culture on innovation and our contribution to practice on helping managers to decide how to best source knowledge and thereby foster innovation.     

Environment and innovation: The case of the small entity

Scholarship on innovation has an extensive history, including research on national technological output, national systems to generate innovation, and the firm-level management of new product planning and development. This piece unites these strands, opening discussion on how national innovation systems affect management behavior, resulting in differences in the output of new technologies. By concentrating on one idiosyncracy of the United States, the disproportionate participation by small entity innovators, and one piece of its innovation environment, the patent system, the study is able to bring together the macro and micro evidence and analysis. Because national innovation systems, by definition, vary by country, there are important implications for managing the R&D process for optimal new products according to environmental circumstances.     

Strategies of Innovation and Imitation of Product Languages*

Nowadays, design is recognized as a strategic resource. Customers are increasingly paying attention to the aesthetic, symbolic, and emotional value of products, a value that is conveyed by the design language—that is, the combination of signs (e.g., form, colors, materials) that gives meaning to a product. As a consequence firms are devoting increasing efforts to define a proper strategy for the design language of their products. An empirical analysis was conducted on the product language strategies in the Italian furniture industry; in particular, the present article explores the relationship between innovation and variety of product languages. Companies are usually faced by two major strategic decisions. The first one concerns the innovation of product languages: To what extent should a firm proactively propose new design languages or, rather, should adopt a reactive strategy by rapidly adopting new languages as they emerge in the market? The second decision concerns the variety and heterogeneity of languages in their product range. Should a firm propose a single product language to communicate a precise identity, or should it explore different product languages? Of course, the two strategic decisions—innovativeness and variety of product languages—are closed connected. Analyzing more than 2.000 products launched by 210 firms, the present article explores how the variety of product languages is approached in the strategy of innovators and imitators. The empirical results illustrate an inverse relationship between innovativeness and heterogeneity of product signs and languages. Contrary to what is expected, innovators have lower heterogeneity of product languages. They tend to be strongly proactive and limit experimentations of new languages in the market. Imitators, instead—which would be expected to have low variety since they can invest only in languages that have been proven successful in the market—tend on the contrary to have higher product variety. Eventually, by having lower investments in research on trends of sociocultural models, they miss the capability to interpret the complex evolution of products signs and languages in the market. Strategic decisions on innovativeness and variety of product languages are therefore interrelated; counterintuitively companies should carefully analyze these decisions jointly.     

The Interplay of Customer and Product Innovation Dynamics: An Exploratory Study

The challenges of successfully developing radical or really new products have received considerable attention from a variety of marketing, strategic, and organizational perspectives. Previous research has stressed the importance of a market‐driven customer orientation, the resolution of market and technological uncertainty, and organizational processes such as cross‐functional teams and organizational learning. However, several fundamental issues have not been addressed. From a customer's perspective, a more innovative product tends to have uncertain benefits and requires customers to learn new behaviors. Customer preferences can, therefore, change as product experience and learning increase. From a firm's perspective, it is unclear how to be customer‐oriented under such dynamic preferences, and product strategies using evolving technologies will tend to interact with how customers learn about an innovation. This research focuses on identifying unresolved issues about these customer and product innovation dynamics. A conceptual framework and series of propositions are presented that relate both changing technology and customer learning to a firm's strategic decisions in developing and launching really new products. The framework is based on in‐depth interviews with high‐tech product managers across several sectors, focusing on the business‐to‐business context. The propositions resulting from the framework highlight the need to consider relevant customer dynamics as integral to a firm's product innovation process. Successful innovation strategies and future research challenges are discussed, and applications to better understanding customer needs and theories of disruptive innovation are examined. Several key insights for innovation success hinge on a broad, downstream orientation to customer needs and product innovation dynamics. To be effective innovators, firms must know their customers' customers and competitors as well as or better than their immediate customers do. Market research must extend downstream for a comprehensive understanding of customer needs dynamics. In the context of disruptive innovation, new dimensions of customer needs may become more valuable based on perceived downstream customer trends. Firms may also innovate on secondary needs because mainstream customers do not always give firms the design freedom to radically innovate on primary features. Understanding customer commitments and how they develop under evolving needs can help firms focus resources on innovative efforts more likely to be accepted by customers.     

Persistence of innovative activities, sectoral patterns of innovation and international technological specialization

In this paper, we focus on the role of persistence and heterogeneity of innovative activities at the level of the firm in determining the patterns of technological change in different industries and countries. We ask: are persistence and heterogeneity associated with higher degrees of concentration in innovative activities, stability in the ranking of innovators, and lower degrees of entry and exit in the population of innovators? Or, do the patterns of innovation depend on other variables like firm size and industrial concentration? Moreover, what are the relationships between the patterns of innovative activities, their determinants, and the technological specialization of countries? We compute indicators of persistence and heterogeneity using the OTAF-SPRU patent database at the firm level for five European countries over the period 1969–1986 for 33 technological classes. Then, we estimate the relationships between our indicators of the sectoral patterns of innovative activities and international technological specialization on the one hand, and our indicators of persistence, heterogeneity and market structure on the other. Results show that persistence and asymmetries are important (and strongly related) phenomena that affect the patterns of innovative activities across countries and sectors, while the role of market structure variables is less clear. Finally, international technological specialization is associated to a competitive core of persistent innovators.