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.     

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.     

The Innovation Value Chain in New Technology‐Based Firms: Evidence from the U.K.

Innovation is central to the survival and growth of firms, and ultimately to the health of the economies of which they are part. A clear understanding both of the processes by which firms perform innovation and the benefits which flow from innovation in terms of productivity and growth is therefore essential. This paper demonstrates the use of a conceptual framework and modeling tool, the innovation value chain (IVC), and shows how the IVC approach helps to highlight strengths and weaknesses in the innovation performance of a key group of firms—new technology‐based firms. The value of the IVC is demonstrated in showing the key interrelationships in the whole process of innovation from sourcing knowledge through product and process innovation to performance in terms of the growth and productivity outcomes of different types of innovation. The use of the IVC highlights key complementarities, such as that between internal R&D, external R&D, and other external sources of knowledge. Other important relationships are also highlighted. Skill resources matter throughout the IVC, being positively associated with external knowledge linkages and innovation success, and also having a direct influence on growth independent of the effect on innovation. A key benefit of the IVC approach is therefore its ability to highlight the roles of different factors at various stages of the knowledge–innovation–performance nexus, and to show their indirect as well as direct impact. This in turn permits both managerial and policy implications to be drawn.     

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

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

New Product Management Practices of Small High Technology Firms

Various methods exist for managing the planning, cost estimating, scheduling and statusing of new product development projects. David Boag and Brenda Rinholm investigate whether the use of formal management procedures and structured frameworks are the most effective methods for achieving control over new product development activities. This article describes the new product development management practices of 33 small and medium-sized high technology companies. The authors employ a judgmental procedure to group the firms into three stages of development for their management of new products. Findings indicate that success at new product development is greater for more formalized companies than for companies which are less formalized or which use informal methods.     

Managing Knowledge for Innovation: The Case of Business‐to‐Business Services*

The present study builds a typology of organizational knowledge in business services and empirically examines the effects of knowledge on innovation performance. It is suggested that firms differ with respect to their knowledge creation approaches and that these approaches have implications for firms' innovation activities. A conceptual framework of knowledge assets with degrees of tacitness and collectiveness as the principal axes is used to ground the empirical analysis. The organizational knowledge framework is empirically operationalized using survey data from 167 business service firms and supplementary case study evidence from 16 other firms. It is found that business service improvements and new service introductions are significantly associated with collectively held knowledge, such as codified service solutions or team‐based competences and procedures. In contrast, relying solely on tacit knowledge held by individuals may hamper innovation. The results also suggest that tacit collective knowledge is more closely associated with new service introductions, whereas explicit collective knowledge is associated with service improvements. Tacit collective knowledge is thus conducive. A managerial implication is that new service introductions necessitate team competences and routines, whereas incremental service improvements are more likely if procedures are in place to codify services into explicit solutions or technologies. Thus, the knowledge management approach should depend on the strategic orientation of the service firm toward continuous improvement of existing services or development of completely new services.     

From Invention to Innovation: Toward Developing an Integrated Innovation Model for Biotech Firms*

A review of extant literature reveals various theories on innovation, including technology push, market pull, and an organizational approach. All of these theories have been criticized for their lack of integration and inapplicability to today's competitive environment. An integrated view of innovation has emerged that synthesizes the variables in previous approaches. However, the application of this view has been restricted to investigating the innovation processes within the computer and manufacturing industries, whereas the biotechnology industry has been ignored. This is despite biotech managers' well‐acknowledged thirst for innovation and the ability of biotech to shape the way we live. The present article contributes to the literature by applying an integrated approach to the biotech industry, thereby extending understanding of innovation management beyond the traditional field of inquiry. An integrated approach is of particular relevance to biotech companies, given the complexities of managing the industry's long development cycle and intense collaborative activities. In‐depth interviews with eight organizations in Maryland formed the basis for an investigation into the challenges of managing the innovation process in biotechnology firms. The findings revealed that biotech entrepreneurs are ill prepared to lead their organizations through several transformations necessary along the product life cycle because of their fixation on a technology‐push approach and lack of an understanding of integrated innovation. These leaders also lack the commercialization knowledge necessary to push products to markets, resulting in avoidable delays and loss of productivity. The existing research has dispelled myths associated with biotech. Specifically, it suggests biotech entrepreneurs cannot rely solely on inventions but must invest in a timely application of knowledge to organizational and market forces to take full advantage of the innovation potential associated with the industry. This article presents a conceptual framework for applying the integrated innovation model to biotech firms and makes the case for incorporating market‐oriented mechanisms, building and using appropriate organizational capabilities, developing effective collaborations, and creating parallel interactions as major elements in a general strategy toward the success and improved efficiency of biotech companies. The limitations of current research are discussed, and avenues are highlighted for much‐needed future research into the biotech industry.     

煤炭企业管理创新与实践

介绍了煤炭企业应对宏观形势提升管理的重要性,并结合新矿集团华丰煤矿的实际情况,对实施管理提升工程进行了探讨。分析了企业围绕工作重点,进行了强管理、控成本、促销售的创新做法和成效,提出煤炭企业加强成本管控、拓展销售渠道和销售方式等管理创新提升的措施。     

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.     

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.     

PERSPECTIVE: Ranking the Technology Innovation Management Journals*

A citation analysis of the 10 leading technology and innovation management (TIM) specialty journals is conducted to gain insights into the relative ranking of the journals. The journals are ranked based on number of citations, citations adjusted for publication frequency, citations corrected for age, citations corrected for self‐citation, and an overall score. The top 50 journals in management of technology based on citation analysis are listed. Overall, the top 10 journals based on citation analysis are Journal of Product Innovation Management, Research Policy, Research‐Technology Management, Harvard Business Review, Strategic Management Journal, Management Science, Administrative Science Quarterly, R&D Management, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, and Academy of Management Review. The top 10 specialty journals in the technology innovation management specialty are Journal of Product Innovation Management, Research Policy, Research‐Technology Management, R&D Management, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, International Journal of Technology Management, Technovation, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, and Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. It is found that many of the TIM journals, although focused on TIM, have additional foci based on traditional management disciplines. Each of the 10 leading TIM specialty journals is considered from the perspective of traditional management disciplines; how the journals relate to each other and the related implications of these findings are considered.     

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.     

涡北煤矿创新物资管理工作的实践

立足物资管理工作实际,按照新区新机制要求,从加速储备金周转、改善库存结构入手,深入分析、总结了创新物资管理模式的实践过程和效果。     

Exit, Voice and 'Mandate': Management Strategies and Labour Practices of Japanese Firms in Britain

This paper draws on case-study research on four Japanese transplants in one locality to trace the evolving and unsettled relationship between company policies and labour market conditions. It shows that managements continue to face problems of recruiting and retaining labour in this greenfield and non-union setting, as worker dissatisfactions are expressed more through 'exit' than 'voice'. It then analyses the variety of ways in which managers have sought to build a 'mandate' to manage, and the scope and limits of management hegemony within these workplaces. Finally, it suggests that differences in management policies reflect differences in ownership patterns, corporate histories and roles within intra- and inter-firm divisions of labour.     

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.     

The Fuzzy Front‐End of Discontinuous Innovation: Insights for Research and Management

In an article by Reid and de Brentani, a theoretical model of the process and structure for the fuzzy front‐end (FFE) of new product development (NPD) for discontinuous innovations was proposed. Its basic premise is that information flow in the early development of such innovations moves from the environment into the firm, facilitated by individuals playing three key roles at three decision‐making interfaces: (1) the boundary spanner at the boundary interface, (2) the gatekeeper at the gatekeeping interface, and (3) what is identified in this paper as the “project broker” at the project interface. The current paper builds on and augments the ideas presented in this theoretical model with the primary objective of formulating a set of propositions detailing factors affecting the flow of information, and thus role effectiveness at each of these interfaces for discontinuous innovations. The focus is on radically new innovations both because this type of innovation has the highest level of uncertainty during the FFE and because the development of products resulting from such innovations entails the greatest lack of understanding and the fewest strategies for effective management. To achieve this objective, individual, social system, and environmental factors, which promote and/or inhibit the effectiveness of the roles played during the three FFE phases, are examined in terms of both the speed and the quality of information flow. This is done with the goal of substantially improving NPD information as it proceeds through the FFE. In turn, it can help researchers, managers, and team players to better anticipate and meet the navigational challenges of this intrinsically complex, risky, but high potential, NPD scenario.     

Creating University Spin‐Offs: A Science‐Based Design Perspective*

Academic entrepreneurship by means of university spin‐offs commercializes technological breakthroughs, which may otherwise remain unexploited. However, many universities face difficulties in creating spin‐offs. This article adopts a science‐based design approach to connect scholarly research with the pragmatics of effectively creating university spin‐offs. This approach serves to link the practice of university spin‐off creation, via design principles, to the scholarly knowledge in this area. As such, science‐based design promotes the interplay between emergent and deliberate design processes. This framework is used to develop a set of design principles that are practice based as well as grounded in the existing body of research on university spin‐offs. A case‐study of spin‐off creation at a Dutch university illustrates the interplay between initial processes characterized by emergent design and the subsequent process that was more deliberate in nature. This case study also suggests there are two fundamentally different phases in building capacity for university spin‐off creation. First, an infrastructure for spin‐off creation (including a collaborative network of investors, managers and advisors) is developed that then enables support activities to individual spin‐off ventures. This study concludes that to build and increase capacity for creating spin‐offs, universities should do the following: (1) create university‐wide awareness of entrepreneurship opportunities, stimulate the development of entrepreneurial ideas, and subsequently screen entrepreneurs and ideas by programs targeted at students and academic staff; (2) support start‐up teams in composing and learning the right mix of venturing skills and knowledge by providing access to advice, coaching, and training; (3) help starters in obtaining access to resources and developing their social capital by creating a collaborative network organization of investors, managers, and advisors; (4) set clear and supportive rules and procedures that regulate the university spin‐off process, enhance fair treatment of involved parties, and separate spin‐off processes from academic research and teaching; and (5) shape a university culture that reinforces academic entrepreneurship by creating norms and exemplars that motivate entrepreneurial behavior. These and other results of this study illustrate how science‐based design can connect scholarly research to the pragmatics of actually creating spin‐offs in academic institutions.