R&D Collaborations and Product Innovation*

This paper studies the relative impact on product innovation of research and development (R&D) collaborations with universities, suppliers, customers, and competitors. It argues that each type of R&D collaboration differs in terms of the breadth of new knowledge provided to the firm and in the ease of access of this new knowledge, resulting in a different impact on product innovation. As a result, it proposes that R&D collaborations with universities are likely to have the highest impact on product innovation, followed by R&D collaborations with suppliers, customers, and, finally, competitors. These arguments are tested on the R&D collaborations undertaken by a sample of 781 manufacturing firms during 1998–2002. The tests find that R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest positive impact on product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities. Surprisingly, R&D collaborations with customers do not appear to affect product innovation, and collaborations with competitors appear to harm it. Moreover, the positive influence of R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers is sustained over the long‐term, but the negative influence of R&D collaborations with competitors is, fortunately, short‐lived. These findings indicate that ease of knowledge access, rather than breadth of knowledge, appears to drive the success of R&D collaborations for product innovation. R&D collaborations with suppliers or universities, which are characterized by relatively easy knowledge access, have a positive influence on product innovation, whereas R&D collaborations with customers or competitors, which are characterized by reduced ease in knowledge access, are not related or are even negatively related to product innovation. Moreover, to achieve product innovation with the help of R&D collaborations, it appears that the collaboration must first have mechanisms in place to facilitate the transfer of knowledge; once these are in place, it is better if the partner has a relatively narrow knowledge base. Thus, while R&D collaborations with both suppliers and universities are positively related to product innovation, the narrow knowledge base provided by collaborations with suppliers appears to have a larger positive impact on product innovation than the wider knowledge base provided by collaborations with universities. These arguments and findings are important and novel. The paper is one of the first to theoretically explain and empirically show that various types of collaborations have a differential influence on product innovation. It goes beyond previous literature by providing a theoretical logic for ranking the likely impact of types of collaborations on product innovation. The study also suggests to managers to carefully select the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Collaborations with suppliers appear to be the most promising for product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities, whereas collaborations with competitors may be detrimental to product innovation.     

Strategies of Product and Process Innovation: A Loglinear Analysis

Utterback and Abernathy (1975) developed a dynamic innovation model to explain the patterns of product and process innovation and to show which types of innovation would be most strategically appropriate for firms with particular objectives. In this paper the relation-ships between type and/or source of innovation and a number of firm-characteristic variables are examined. Loglinear regression is employed to determine the extent of the postulated relationships in a set of actual industry data on product innovation. The loglinear model provided results which were highly consistent with predictions made on the basis of previous research into product and process innovation.     

Innovation and Product Development Strategies in the Italian Motorcycle Industry

The motorcycle industry in Italy offers fertile ground for anyone interested in developing a better understanding of the role innovation plays in enhancing a firm's competitive position. This industry includes both domestic and Japanese firms, with companies ranging from high-volume manufacturers to specialty or niche producers. Firms trying to gain a competitive edge in this crowded field must contend with not only advances in product and process technology, but also the whims of fashion. In a survey of top-level marketing and product development managers from eight leading firms in the Italian motorcycle industry, Moreno Muffatto and Roberto Panizzolo explore the innovation models these firms employ to enhance their competitive position. Their study has the following objectives: categorizing the various competitors in terms of their product and market strategies and their product development and innovation strategies; highlighting differences between the methods of Italian and Japanese firms competing in this market; analyzing the relationships between firms, as well as the roles suppliers play in the various innovation strategies; and identifying the various organizational models employed by the firms in this industry. Different product and market strategies are identified on the basis of three variables: total production volume, the number of different products offered, and the number of different engine capacities offered. Using these variables, the companies in the study are categorized as volume producers, specialists, or niche specialists. The firms are further differentiated on the basis of the relative emphasis each places on product technology and design, product innovation, product variety, and time-based competition. In the firms studied, partnerships play a key role in new product development. Nearly every firm participates in joint projects, most often involving development of either an entire vehicle or an engine. Other partnerships involve firms in countries that offer emerging markets for the motorcycle industry. Organizational structures and strategies employed by the volume producers in this study include: the large product leader, who oversees concept definition and product planning; the project leaders group, which coordinates all phases of development, including activities assigned to external groups; the project managers matrix, a matrix organizational structure with a strong product orientation; and the business unit program manager, who oversees all projects within an independent business unit.     

Reputation for Product Innovation: Its Impact on Consumers*

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

Sustainability,Social Media Driven Open Innovation,and New Product Development Performance*

Sustainability and social media use in open innovation play important roles in a firm's new product development (NPD) process. This research examines, in conjunction, the roles of sustainability and social media driven inbound open innovation (SMOI) for a firm's NPD performance, and further, takes a more refined approach by differentiating between different types of SMOI activities. To this end, this research develops and tests a conceptual framework, which predicts that (1) a firm's sustainability orientation (SO) is positively associated with its NPD performance, (2) customer focus (CF) partially mediates the SO–NPD performance link, and (3) particular SMOI activities moderate the CF–NPD performance link. The empirical results, using data from the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA)'s comparative performance assessment study, provide support for most of the framework. Notably, this research documents a positive link between SO and NPD performance, as well as a partial mediating role of CF. The results further suggest that social media driven open innovation activities focused on gathering market insights enhance CF directly, while social media driven open innovation activities that garner technical expertise enhance the link between CF and NPD performance. This paper bridges the separate literatures on sustainability and open innovation, and contributes to the NPD research. The findings suggest that managers should take a strategic approach to sustainability and embed it in the NPD process. Furthermore, managers should manage social media based open innovation carefully to fully benefit the firm during the front end and back end of NPD.     

Legitimacy‐Seeking Mechanisms in Product Innovation: A Qualitative Study*

Product innovation research adopts a rational choice perspective to examine resource allocation decisions for product innovation. This research emphasizes strategic alignment between the innovation and the organization as the key factor shaping these decisions. In contrast, organizational research suggests that to access resources, product innovations have to be perceived as legitimate by corporate sponsors. Legitimacy is rooted in alignment with the prevalent corporate norms, beliefs, and cultural model. Adopting an institutional perspective and relying on an in‐depth case study of three product innovations, this study explores legitimacy‐seeking behavior in product innovation. The findings indicate that the rational perspective emphasized in most product innovation research is complemented by efforts to seek both moral and cognitive legitimacy to resource product innovation. The study clarifies the critical role that the organizational context plays in triggering legitimacy‐seeking behavior. The analysis unpacks legitimacy‐seeking behavior, revealing patterns of legitimating mechanisms (lobbying, relationship building, and gathering feedback) that are deployed as part of legitimacy strategies (conforming, selecting, and manipulating) to achieve a range of legitimacy outcomes (pragmatic, moral, and cognitive). The analysis reveals the existence of a hierarchy of legitimacy outcomes as actors prioritize one type of legitimacy versus another. The study also finds interdependencies between mechanisms and strategies to reinforce particular outcomes as legitimacy‐seeking behavior evolves over time.     

Heterogeneous Firm‐Level Effects of Knowledge Exchanges on Product Innovation: Differences between Dynamic and Lagging Product Innovators*

Product innovation is the result of a constant interaction between the in‐house research and development (R&D) department and knowledge exchanges with the firm's environment. Knowledge exchanges come in different forms. They break down into information gathering applied in new product development, research cooperation on particular innovation projects, and managing information outflows allowing the consequent appropriation of the results of product innovation through specific methods. The way firms handle knowledge exchanges affects their performance. This paper looks at three related indicators of performance: (1) research intensity (a measure of innovative input); (2) the share of revenue realized through innovative product sales (a measure of innovative output); and (3) their impact on the growth in total revenue. The bulk of the econometric literature looking into these matters only allows general statistical statements on the behavior of an “average” firm. This paper takes on another view by using the quantile regression method to stress the heterogeneity of innovative firms in their dealing with knowledge exchange and the effect this has on their performance. A first key finding is that research intensity is positively influenced by knowledge externalities, research cooperation, and appropriability, and it is through this that these variables affect innovative revenue and also the growth in total revenue. By using quantile regression these relationships are further refined to screen for differences in behavior between dynamic and lagging innovators. This refinement indicates that, in the case of research intensity, the knowledge externalities gain in importance in the higher quantiles and are insignificant in the lower ones. Next, research cooperation remains important in all quantiles, but a higher significance is observed in the higher quantiles as well. Finally, appropriability is extremely important for the lower quantiles, but it becomes insignificant in the highest. These findings corroborate the assumptions made in the literature on open innovation: knowledge externalities and research collaboration are vital for those opening up their firm for new ideas and who are, at the same time, reluctant to protect their findings through specific appropriation measures. In the case of innovative revenue all variables on knowledge exchange operate through the research intensity irrespective of the quantile, although the impact of research intensity on this type of revenue is higher in the upper quantiles. As for the growth in revenue, the effect of the innovative revenue is, again, higher in the higher quantiles. This suggests that dynamic product innovators have the most efficient R&D process and the strongest growers are so, especially, because they are successful product innovators.     

Investigating the Drivers of Innovation and New Product Success: A Comparison of Strategic Orientations*

The notion of producing innovations and achieving new product success has received a great deal of attention. Though many have investigated these effects in marketing and various fields within management, there has been little cross‐fertilization between fields of study to explain the basis for this superior performance. Though research has examined the resource‐based view (RBV) and market orientation individually, none has evaluated and compared their effect on firm innovation and new product success in one study. Furthermore, although empirical work has been conducted between market orientation and organizational learning, comparatively less research has been conducted to evaluate the relationship between organizational learning and the RBV to examine their combined effects on a firm's ability to innovate and succeed. Subsequently, the purpose of the present article is to investigate whether a focus on the customer (i.e., market orientation) or the firm (i.e., RBV) will drive the ability to (1) innovate within the firm and (2) succeed in terms of new product success, financial performance, market share, and customer value. The present article examines the relationship between organizational learning and the RBV and market orientation. It presents an empirically testable framework that investigates the relationship that RBV and market orientation have with performance outcomes. Data were collected from 249 senior executives. LISREL was applied to evaluate the relationships. Confirmatory factor analysis and related techniques were applied to assess the robustness of the measures used. Findings show that organizational learning is strongly associated with market orientation, which in turn impacts various performance outcomes including customer value. The RBV had a significant relationship with new product success. These results suggest that managers seeking innovation and new product success should focus less on the provision of customer value. Instead they should look toward developing their resources within the firm, including investing in human resources, to ultimately provide value to the firm. Findings indicate that this unique offering—innovations—will have an indirect effect on customer value and financial performance. In contrast, those in pursuit of positive financial performance and customer value should focus on the development of market orientation. Even though this will not necessarily lead to the development of innovative processes and new product success according to the present study, this approach may lead to a greater market share in the long term. This article reviews theoretical and managerial implications in more depth, providing an impetus for further research.     

Industrial New Product Launch Strategies and Product Development Performance

Just as reporters must answer a few fundamental questions in every story they write, decision-makers in the new product development (NPD) process must address five key issues: what to launch, where to launch, when to launch, why to launch, and how to launch. These decisions involve significant commitments of time, money, and resources. They also go a long way toward determining the success or failure of any new product. Deeper insight into the tradeoffs these decisions involve may help to increase the likelihood of success for product launch efforts. Erik Jan Hultink, Abbie Griffin, Susan Hart, and Henry Robben present the results of a study that examines the interplay between these product launch decisions and NPD performance. Noting that previous launch studies focus primarily on the tactical decisions (that is, how to launch) rather than on the strategic decisions (what, where, when, and why to launch), they explore not only which decisions are important to success, but also the associations between the two sets of decisions. Because the strategic launch decisions made early in the NPD process affect the tactical decisions made later in the process, their study emphasizes the importance of launch consistency—that is, the alignment of the strategic and tactical decisions made throughout the process. The survey respondents—managers from marketing, product development, or general management in U.K. firms—provided information about 221 industrial new products launched during the previous five years. The responses identify associations between various sets of strategic and tactical decisions. That is, the responses suggest that the strategic decisions managers make regarding product innovativeness, market targeting, the number of competitors, and whether the product is marketing- or technology-driven are associated with subsequent tactical decisions regarding branding, distribution expenditure and intensity, and pricing. The study also suggests that different sets of launch decisions have differing effects on performance of industrial new products. In this study, the greatest success was enjoyed by a small group of respondents categorized as Niche Innovators. Their launch strategy involves a niche focus, targeting innovative products into markets with few competitors. Tactical decisions made by this group include exclusive distribution, a skimming pricing strategy, and a broad product assortment.     

Firm Size and Product Innovation

The linkage between firm size and product innovation has frequently been discussed by both researchers and other writers. John Ettlie and Albert Rubenstein report the results of a study which, by distinguishing between the incorporation of radical and incremental technology, attempts to resolve some of the controversy surrounding this issue. In particular, the authors hypothesize that up to a certain point, large firms with greater resources are more likely to commercialize radically new products successfully. Findings generally support this theory but refinements to the model are now possible. For example, firms with 1000 employees or less need not be excluded from radical product introduction if they resolve critical funding and research problems. This size-radicalness distribution is shaped like a fish hook or a claw. That is, up to about 1000 employees, there is no significant relationship between number of employees and radicalness of a new product. Between 1200 and 11,000 employees there is a significant, direct relationship. Finally, very large organizations (in excess of about 45,000 employees) are unlikely to introduce radically new products. Larger firms were significantly more likely to adopt ambitious new processing technologies in order to introduce these new products. Also, new product success was significantly predicted by the absence of funding problems in introducing the innovation and the degree to which the new product was a radical departure from existing practice.     

Product Innovation,Process Innovation,and Size

We test the hypothesis that large firms devote a higher proportion of their research and development (R & D) expenditure on process innovation thansmaller firms. According to the estimates, process- and product R & D expenditure rise less than in proportion to size. The size effect is somewhat stronger for process R & D but the difference to product R & D is in no way dramatic. This difference with regard to size elasticity of process- and product R & D is somewhat more pronounced when accounting for possible interrelationships between expenditure on process- and product R & D but remains statistically non-significant.     

服务创新与有形产品创新之比较

服务业的迅猛发展使其在国民经济中的地位越来越重要,已经成为或正在成为现代经济生活的主导。在这样的背景下,服务创新受到了学术界和产业界的广泛关注。由于服务产品具有不同于有形产品的独特特征,服务创新也与有形产品创新有很多的不同。本文着重分析了服务创新与有形产品创新的不同之处,指出了二者之间的联系,明确了服务创新独特性,以便更好地探索服务创新的方法和规律。     

Uses of Agent‐Based Modeling in Innovation/New Product Development Research*

Little has been written in the new product development literature about the simulation technique agent‐based modeling, which is a by‐product of recent explorations into complex adaptive systems in other disciplines. Agent‐based models (ABM) are commonly used in other social sciences to represent individual actors (or groups) in a dynamic adaptive system. The social system may be a marketplace, an organization, or any type of system that acts as a collective of individuals. Agents represent autonomous decision‐making entities that interact with each other and/or with their environment based on a set of rules. These rules dictate the behavioral choices of the agents. In these simulation models, heterogeneous agents interact with each other in a repetitive process. It is from the interactions between agents that aggregate macroscale behaviors or trends emerge. The simulated environment can be thought of as a “virtual” society in which actions taken by one agent may have an effect on the resulting actions of another agent. This article is an introduction to the ABM methodology and its possible uses for innovation and new product development researchers. It explores the benefits and issues with modeling dynamic systems using this methodology. Benefits of ABMs found in sociology and management studies have found that as the heterogeneity of individuals increase in a system or as network effects become more important in a system, the effectiveness of ABMs as a methodology increases. Additionally, the more adaptive a system or the more the system evolves over time, the greater the opportunity to learn more about the adaptive system using ABMs. Limitations to using this methodology include some knowledge of computer‐programming techniques. Three potential areas of research are introduced: diffusion of innovations, organizational strategy, and knowledge and information flows. A common use of ABMs in the extant literature has been the modeling of the diffusion process between networked heterogeneous agents. ABMs easily allow the modeling of different types of networks and the impact of these networks on the diffusion process. A demonstrative example of an agent‐based model to address the research question of how should manufacturers allocate resources to research (exploration) and development (exploitation) projects is provided. Future courses of study using ABMs also are explored.     

Making Up Is Hard to Do: Knowledge Acquisition Strategies and the Nature of New Product Innovation

Innovation creates significant challenges for firms in high‐technology industries. This article examines how the use of external knowledge acquired from mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and joint ventures (JVs) influence the nature of innovative competence in the global pharmaceutical industry. We create a unique database on never‐before approved products that measure the scientific merit of new, exploratory product innovations, ranging from radical to incremental. We then follow their market success by recording the number of new exploitative product innovations that stem from these product innovations and that are later approved and subsequently marketed. Using a large data set spanning a 15‐year period, we find that firms were able to “make up” for their lack of exploitation or exploration innovative capabilities through the use of M&As and JVs. These external knowledge acquisition strategies were found to overcome internal processes that otherwise could cause firms to overemphasize exploitation over exploration and vice versa. Our findings suggest that acquiring external knowledge via M&As is associated with diminished exploratory product innovation, while assimilating external knowledge sourced from JVs is associated with a reduction in new exploitative product innovation.     

Product Replacement: Strategies for Simultaneous Product Deletion and Launch

John Saunders and David Jobber report results of their study of strategies for the simultaneous deletion and introduction of new products. Companies' long-term survival depends upon their replacement of existing products with new ones. Managers have to accomplish the task successfully. This article explores product replacement and examines the difference between successful and unsuccessful replacements. Qualitative research helps formulate a conceptual model of product replacement strategies and to set hypotheses. A quantitative study of American and British firms helps to test the hypotheses.     

Learning to Reduce Interorganizational Learning: An Analysis of Architectural Product Innovation in Strategic Alliances*

There is wide agreement in analyses of strategic alliances that, regardless of the purpose of the alliance, members of the partner organizations should engage in intensive mutual learning to make the alliance a success. In contrast to this view, the present article shows that in strategic alliances aimed at product innovations by recombining partners' extant technologies, learning between specialists can be reduced considerably without jeopardizing success. This is made possible through four interconnected mechanisms integrated into the concept of transactive organizational learning (TOL): (1) modularization, which allows specialists of different domains to develop modules to a large extent independently of each other and to concentrate communication between themselves on the design of interfaces between modules; (2) storing of knowledge in artifacts instead of in organizational members' memories; (3) localization of knowledge not present in the project team but for which a need has arisen through transactive memory; and (4) knowledge integration by prototyping (i.e., by repeated testing of modules and of interactions between modules until a satisfactorily working end product is achieved). Although these four mechanisms reduce the need for cross‐learning between specialists of different domains, some common knowledge and some cross‐learning between the partners' specialists is still required. Case studies on four of SAP's strategic alliances for product innovation with different partners lend empirical support to this study's concept. The article concludes with implications for practice: Companies should find out whether the TOL mechanisms that reduce time to market are present, to what extent their potential is exploited, and how well they work together.     

Fostering Innovation in Complex Product Development Settings: The Role of Team Member Identity and Interteam Interdependence*

Much of the existing research on innovation has concentrated on the study of individuals in small group settings. However, projects marked by multiple teams, high task interdependence, long duration, and large scale have become increasingly common in practice. Very little is known about how extant research findings related to innovation may generalize to such complex settings. Taking a multilevel theoretical approach, individuals' propensity to innovate is hypothesized as the product of individuals' relationship with their work team (team member identification) and their team's relationship to other teams within the organizational system (interteam interdependence). A large, diversified manufacturing firm engaged in a multibillion dollar project that involved the development of a technologically intense, highly innovative, new product served as the research site. Based on archival and survey data (n=118), five hypotheses were tested. The findings indicate that individuals' strong team identification and their perceptions of high interteam interdependence each had positive main effects on individuals' intentions to innovate. However, these two variables also interacted negatively to significantly decrease innovation intentions. Therefore, high identification with team may lead individuals to view interdependence with another team as a threat deflecting attention from innovation. The finding related to the role of identity, although consistent with work linking identity to other team behaviors, usefully broadens the reach of identification theories to demonstrate their impact on innovation. Additionally, this study is the first to demonstrate the impact of interteam interdependence on innovation. The alternative operationalizations of interdependence used in this paper highlight the fact that it must be strongly perceived and experienced by individuals to affect their innovation attitudes. The findings of this study also have implications for managerial practice in complex project settings. Since team identification has a direct effect on innovation, managers might employ strategies related to the creation of social bonds to complement task related connections among team members. Further, managers should configure staffing and incentive mechanisms to reinforce team identification. Finally, the results suggest that managers need to carefully attend to individuals' perceptions of each team's interdependence with other teams. Although perceptual interdependence can be an enabler of innovation, it can also be a disabler, through its interaction with team identification. Recognizing this potential for negative effects, managers might emphasize the benefits that can come from cooperating across teams, thus encouraging team members to identify not only at the team level but at the overall project level as well. Such actions might deflect negative identity threats that can derail positive innovation intentions.     

The Role of Value‐Informed Pricing in Market‐Oriented Product Innovation Management*

Although the positive effect of a market orientation on new product success is widely accepted and the market orientation literature has increased its understanding of how a market orientation leads to performance, the extant literature has overlooked the role of value‐informed pricing in the relationship. Value‐informed pricing is a pricing practice in which the decision makers base the price of the new product on the customers' perceptions of the benefits that the product offers and how these benefits are traded by customers against the price (that has yet to be determined). Considering that pricing mistakes may hit hard on the profitability of product innovations, it is important to firms to have a good understanding of its role. This study develops a framework in which value‐informed pricing is integrated in the relationship between market orientation and new product performance. A distinction is made between customer and competitor orientations, and relative product advantage is also included in the conceptual model. The model is tested on data obtained from managers based on a cross sectional sample of 144 firms. The respondents were involved in a decision‐making process of the pricing of a new product. The model is tested using structural equations modeling. The results show that value‐informed pricing has a strong effect on new product performance. It also reveals that each component of a market orientation fulfills a specific role in a market‐oriented organization. Value‐informed pricing is found to have important mediating effects in the market orientation–new product performance relationship. Results show that firms with a strong customer orientation engage in value‐informed pricing and develop superior benefits to customers in an advantageous product. In turn, both value‐informed pricing and relative product advantage positively affect new product market performance. However, no significant effect of competitor orientation on value‐informed pricing is found. Combined with the finding that competitor orientation negatively affects relative product advantage, this suggests that competitor orientation may hurt new product performance when this orientation is not balanced with a strong customer orientation. The results also portray that value‐informed pricing leads to higher product advantage. Interestingly, this relation is contingent on the degree of interfunctional coordination within the firm. This suggests that the relationship between market orientation and new product performance is strongest if firms integrate value‐informed pricing in the new product development process. In this sense, a market‐oriented firm mirrors the customer value perception that makes a trade‐off between benefits and price.