Key Factors Affecting Customer Evaluation of Discontinuous New Products

Common sense, as well as plenty of research, tells us that customer feedback can play an important role in successful product development efforts. By understanding the key factors that affect customers' evaluations of a new product, a project team improves its chances of making the right decisions throughout the design and development effort. However, customers typically lack a useful frame of reference for evaluating discontinuous, or really new products. In all likelihood, the key factors that affect customers' evaluations of radically new products differ from those for incremental innovations. Robert Veryzer describes the results of a study that examines the customer research efforts and findings of seven firms involved in the development of discontinuous new products. This study has the following objectives: gaining insight into the customer research inputs such companies use during the development of discontinuous new products, and exploring the critical factors that influence customers' evaluations of these really new products. The subjects in this study conducted relatively little formal customer research during the early stages of the NPD projects. The methods used for obtaining customer input during the concept generation and exploration stages were primarily qualitative. Although the companies in the study still did not focus consistently on customer issues during the technical development and design stage, the less discontinuous projects did use such traditional quantitative techniques as concept tests, clinics, and experiments during this phase of NPD. Throughout the projects in this study, the real opportunities for obtaining customer input came during the prototype testing and commercialization phases of the NPD projects. Several key factors appeared to influence customer evaluations of the products that were being developed by the NPD teams in this study. Lack of familiarity was manifested in customers' resistance to the new products in the study. Similarly, unfamiliarity with these new products often seemed to lead customers to focus on product attributes that development team members viewed as relatively unimportant. Other factors that affected customer evaluation of the products in this study included customer uncertainty about the benefits and risks associated with the product, customers' ability to understand how the product operates, perceptions of the product's safety, and product aesthetics.     

Managing Design in Small High-Growth Companies

Cost-cutting measures may keep investors happy, but such belt-tightening does little for a company's long-term growth. In an era of ever-shrinking product life cycles, effective product design skills are essential to any company's ongoing vitality. To remain competitive, even the largest manufacturers must learn to replicate the entrepreneurial drive and innovativeness that characterize small, high-growth firms. To foster a better understanding of the product design skills of small, high-growth firms, Peter Dickson, Wendy Schneier, Peter Lawrence, and Renee Hytry describe the results of a survey of CEOs from companies that have been included in the Inc. 100 or Inc. 500 lists. On average, 50% of the sales for these companies came from new products launched during the past 3 years. The survey addresses three fundamental questions. First, which aspects of design management do the CEOs of small, high-growth firms believe they manage well, and which give them difficulty? Second, to what extent are the CEOs involved in design decisions? Finally, how important is good product design to these firms? The respondents face the most difficulty in making the transition from sequential to concurrent engineering and design. Many cite a need for improved management of such skills as design for manufacturability, involvement of suppliers in the design process, estimation of costs during the design process, and the use of computer-aided design tools during the design process. In contrast to these engineering-related aspects of product design, the respondents are more confident in their ability to handle such marketing-related tasks as generating new design ideas and involving customers in the design process. The survey results indicate that CEOs of small, high-growth firms are deeply involved in design decisions. In over half the companies surveyed, CEOs indicated they had primary responsibility for design decisions. Most respondents also reported increasing their investment in design, with approximately 75% increasing their investment in product/service design over the past 3 years and almost 50% increasing their investment in packaging design. CEOs of Inc. 100 and Inc. 500 firms clearly recognize the importance of design. Approximately 70% of the respondents believe that design issues will be of increasing importance for U.S. firms' competitiveness in the coming years, and the majority feel it is important that their managers be knowledgeable about design. Approximately 75% of the CEOs believe that adopting new, fast-track approaches to new product design would improve their firms' competitiveness.     

The Total Product Design Concept and an Application to the Auto Market

As traditional sources of competitive advantage shrink, firms seek new ones. One such source of competitive advantage is product design because of its effects on customer experience. To understand the role and impact of product design on customer experience, we propose an integrated, customer‐based framework for product design that we call the total product design concept (TPDC). We define a product's TPDC as consisting of three elements, namely functionality, aesthetics, and meaning, each of which arises from more elemental product characteristics. We elaborate on the structure of a product's TPDC, its three elements, and the links between those elements and customers' experience with a product. We provide an illustrative application of the TPDC using data from the U.S. auto market. The findings from that application support the proposed three‐dimensional view of the TPDC, and demonstrate heterogeneity both in the TPDC's structure and its effects on customer satisfaction. For all three segments, functionality enhances customer satisfaction. For the largest segment of customers, functionality is the most important factor, followed by aesthetics. For the other two segments, customer satisfaction is most influenced by the meaning element of TPDC. We discuss the implications of these findings for the auto industry in particular, and the potential use of the TPDC more generally.     

Seller–Buyer Interactions During the Commercialization of Technological Process Innovations

For buyers and sellers alike, high-tech process innovations can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, technological process innovations (e.g., computer hardware and software, factory automation equipment) offer buyers the potential for reduced production costs and enhanced product quality. However, early adoption of such innovations is often a risky proposition. For the seller, successful commercialization requires stimulating not only adoption, but also successful implementation of the innovation. In other words, effective management of seller—buyer relations during the development and commercialization process go a long way toward determining the success of a high-tech process innovation. Gerard A. Athaide, Patricia W. Meyers, and David L. Wilemon examine the relationship marketing activities employed by successful sellers of high-tech process innovations. They identify eight strategic marketing objectives that underlie these relationship marketing activities: product customization, information gathering on product performance, product education and training, ongoing product support, proactive political involvement (to encourage support for the innovation from the various affected parties in the buyer's organization), product demonstration and trial, real-time problem-solving assistance, and clarification of the product's relative advantage. Their findings suggest that successful sellers engage in relationship marketing activities throughout all phases of the commercialization process. Rather than simply trying to close a deal, these firms seek active involvement from potential customers, ranging from codesigning of products to seeking feedback on product-related problems or desired modifications. This broader scope of customer involvement necessitates cooperation among various groups in the seller's organization. Product development and engineering work closely with the customer during product customization. Those groups must communicate effectively with the salespeople who demonstrate the product and with the customer support people who obtain feedback and provide real-time problem-solving support. In other words, these relationship marketing activities cut across functional barriers. Consequently, a clear understanding of the buyer's needs and environment is essential throughout the seller's organization, not just in the sales and marketing departments.     

Risky Business or Competitive Power? Supplier Involvement in Japanese Product Design

Notwithstanding the alleged risks of outsourcing design work, leading manufacturers in the Japanese automotive industry collaborate closely with their key suppliers. Despite widespread recognition of the effectiveness of these close-knit supplier networks, however, little research exists on the factors that affect the purchase of design work from suppliers. S. Nazli Wasti and Jeffrey K. Liker fill this gap by exploring the factors that affect Japanese automotive firms' purchase of design work from their component suppliers. Using data from a survey of 122 Japanese automotive component suppliers, their study addresses two key questions. First, what factors lead Japanese buyers to involve some suppliers heavily in design while giving others relatively little control over design decisions? And second, does the Japanese practice of involving suppliers in design offer performance benefits? The study focuses on first-tier suppliers of parts, assemblies, and complete subsystems (e.g., audio, fuel and emissions, heating and air conditioning). The study does not include suppliers of raw materials and chemicals, assembly and processing equipment, indirect materials, tooling and dies, computers and software, or engineering and business consulting services. The study breaks down the broad concept of supplier involvement in design work into three measurable elements: the extent to which the supplier influences decision-making during the early stages of product development; the amount of control the buyer retains over the design; and the frequency of design-related communication between the buyer and the supplier. Factors that have a positive effect on the level of supplier involvement among the companies studied include technological uncertainty of the component and the supplier's in-house technical capabilities. For companies in the study, the level of competition in the supplier market has a negative effect on the degree of supplier involvement in design. The responses indicate that supplier involvement offers performance benefits for both the supplier and the buyer. For the supplier firms studied, increased involvement in the design process permits greater focus on design for manufacturability (DFM). And of course, supplier-generated design improvements clearly benefit the buyers, allowing these firms to capitalize on the experience and the insight that their suppliers have regarding the parts that they supply.     

Virtual Customer Environments: Testing a Model of Voluntary Participation in Value Co-creation Activities

An increasing number of firms are hosting virtual customer environments (VCEs) to involve their customers in product development and product support activities. While the benefits to companies from hosting such VCEs are clear, another closely related issue has received far less attention: Why do customers participate voluntarily in value cocreation (here, product support) activities in such virtual customer environments? This study seeks to answer this question by developing and testing a conceptual model that draws on the uses and gratifications approach to consider an integrated set of four benefits that customers gain from their interactions in VCEs. The research model also incorporates the interaction‐based antecedents of these customer benefits. Drawing on concepts and insights from the areas of computer‐mediated communication and brand communities, the key characteristics of customers' interactions in the VCE are identified and related to the aforementioned four types of benefits. The study hypotheses are tested using data collected from customer participants of the VCEs of two firms, Microsoft and IBM. The dependent variable, customers' actual participation in the VCE, is operationalized as a time‐lagged variable, and the data for this are sourced from the Netscan database. Results offer strong support for the model and indicate that customers' participation in product support activities in a VCE is motivated not just by their “citizenship” or norm‐related behavior but stems primarily from their beliefs concerning the benefits of engaging in such activities. Results also show the impact of key interaction characteristics of VCEs on such perceived benefits and imply the need for firms to carefully design their VCEs to enhance customers' perceptions regarding potential benefits. The research model and the findings hold important implications for research and practice in customer coinnovation and product development. The model provides the basis for identifying the appropriate set of VCE design features. Companies can test the efficacy of their VCE design features by focusing on how such features augment the four types of benefits discussed and thereby ensure continued customer participation. The study findings also hold broader implications for practice in the customer relationship management area, particularly with regard to the potential to combine customers' VCE interactions with appropriate offline product‐related activities and to view the VCE as an integral element of the firm's overall customer relationship management initiative.     

New Product Development Structures: The Effect of Customer Overload on Post-Concept Time to Market

In corporate policy statements, seminars, journal articles—even in television commercials—the message comes through loud and clear: To remain competitive, we must do a better job of listening to our customers. Through close contact with customers, designers can more accurately identify market requirements, quickly refine product specifications, and thus reduce time to market. However, too much customer input can create confusion and duplication of effort, which ultimately increases time to market. In other words, some firms run the risk of over-listening to their customers. In a study of three global players in the electronic component industry, Srikant Datar, Clark Jordan, Sunder Kekre, Surendra Rajiv, and Kannan Srinivasan explore the effects of having too much input from customers. Specifically, they examine the relationship between a company's new product development structure and the volume of customer input, which in turn can affect time to market. The high-tech, fast-cycle firms examined in this study employ two distinct new product development structures: concentrated and distributed. A concentrated structure locates all product designers in one facility. This facilitates cross-product learning among designers, but limits designers' contact with customers and process engineers. A distributed structure disperses new product development among numerous manufacturing sites, giving designers close contact with customers and process engineers. However, a distributed structure limits designers' opportunities for cross-product learning. Analysis of 220 new product efforts reveals that the distributed structure offered a time-to-market advantage as long as these firms efficiently managed the level of customer interaction. When designers received input on the product design from no more than 25 customers, the distributed structure provided shorter time to market than the concentrated structure. Beyond the 25-customer level, time-to-market performance of the distributed structure degraded quickly and at an increasing rate. In such cases, more effective management of customer interaction might allow firms employing a distributed structure to enjoy the benefits not only of customer input, but also of improved coordination between product designers and process engineers.     

Customer and Supplier Involvement in Design: The Moderating Role of Incremental and Radical Innovation Capability

More and more firms are leveraging design as a resource to gain the upper hand in today's competitive business market. To this end, this study draws on the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm to examine the relationship between customer and supplier involvement in the design process and new product performance. The research also extends the RBV to a contingency lens by introducing product innovation capability (incremental and radical) as a moderator to draw the boundary conditions of the impact of customer/supplier involvement in design on new product performance. Using data collected from Canadian high‐tech companies, the findings provide strong support for the hypotheses in that customer involvement in design helps new product performance under high incremental innovation capability but harms new product performance under high radical innovation capability. In contrast, supplier involvement in design was beneficial to new product performance under both high incremental and radical innovation capability. The managerial implications for the role of design under different innovation capabilities are discussed.     

Understanding a Two‐Sided Coin: Antecedents and Consequences of a Decomposed Product Advantage*

This paper investigates the antecedents and consequences of two product advantage components: product meaningfulness and product superiority. Product meaningfulness concerns the benefits that users receive from buying and using a new product, whereas product superiority concerns the extent to which a new product outperforms competing products. The present paper argues that scholars and managers should make a deliberate distinction between the two components because they are theoretically distinct and also have different antecedents and consequences. Data were collected through an online survey on 141 new products from high‐tech companies located in The Netherlands. The results reveal that new products need to be meaningful as well as superior to competing products to be successful. This finding is consistent with the prevailing aggregate view on product advantage in the literature. However, the results also show that the effects of the two components on new product performance are moderated by market turbulence. Although each component is important in that it forms a necessary precondition for the other to affect new product performance under circumstances of moderate market turbulence, meaningfulness is most important for new product performance in turbulent markets where preferences have not yet taken shape. In contrast, when markets become more stable, the uniqueness of meaningful attributes decreases, and new products that provide advantage by fulfilling their functions in a way that is superior to competing products are more likely to perform well. In addition, the study shows that the firm's customer and competitor knowledge processes independently lead to product meaningfulness and superiority, respectively. The findings also reveal that under conditions of high technological turbulence the customer and competitor knowledge processes complement each other in creating product meaningfulness and superiority. This implies that the level of technological turbulence puts requirements on the breadth of firms' market knowledge processes to create a new product with sufficient advantage to become successful. The paper concludes that neglecting the distinction between product meaningfulness and superiority when assessing a new product's advantage may lead to an incomplete insight on how firms can improve the performance of their new products.     

Customer-Driven Product Development Through Quality Function Deployment in the U.S. and Japan

Quality Function Deployment is a tool for bringing the voice of the customer into the product development process from conceptual design through to manufacturing. It begins with a matrix that links customer desires to product engineering requirements, along with competitive benchmarking information, and further matrices can be used to ultimately link this to design of the manufacturing system. Unlike other methods originally developed in the U.S. and transferred to Japan, the QFD methodology was born out of Total Quality Control (TQC) activities in Japan during the 1960s and has been transferred to companies in the U.S. This article reports on the results of a 1995 survey of more than 400 companies in the U.S. and Japan using QFD. The research questions investigated in this study were developed both inductively from QFD case studies in the U.S. and Japan and deductively from the literature. The reported results are in part counterintuitive. The U.S. companies reported a higher degree of usage, management support, cross‐functional involvement, use of QFD driven data sources, and perceived benefits from using QFD. For the most part, the main uses of QFD in the U.S. were restricted to the first matrix (“House of Quality”) that links customer requirements to product engineering requirements and rarely was this carried forward to later matrices. U.S. companies were more apt to use newly collected customer data sources (e.g., focus groups) and methods for analyzing customer requirements. Japanese companies reported using existing product data (e.g., warranty) and a broader set of matrices to a greater extent. The use of analytical techniques in conjunction with QFD (e.g., simulation, design of experiments, regression, mathematical target setting, and analytic hierarchy process) was not wide spread in either country. U.S. companies were more likely to report benefits of QFD in improving cross‐functional integration and better decision‐making processes compared to Japanese companies. Possible reasons for these cross‐national differences as well as their implications are discussed.     

Institutional forces and customer participation in new product development: A Yin-Yang perspective

Despite the growing research interest in customer participation, few studies explore how institutional forces affect a firm's decision to engage customers in their new product development (NPD). Building on the Yin-Yang perspective, we investigate how distinct institutional characteristics of emerging markets, namely legal inadequacy and dysfunctional competition, as perceived by managers, have differential relationships with customer participation in firms' NPD process, which in turn relate to new product performance. Using a sample of 238 high-tech firms in China, we find that perceived legal inadequacy negatively relates to customer participation, whereas perceived dysfunctional competition is positively associated with customer participation. Further, the negative relationship between perceived legal inadequacy and customer participation is more salient for domestic firms than foreign firms, and the positive association between perceived dysfunctional competition and customer participation is weaker when the focal firm has longer partner experience. In highlighting the significance of institutional drivers, our study extends the literature by developing a holistic and dualistic explanation of customer participation in the B2B marketing context.     

Measuring New Product Success: The Difference that Time Perspective Makes

Management is often criticized for overemphasizing short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth. On the other hand, although numerous studies have explored the factors underlying new product success and failure, such studies rarely distinguish between short- and long-term success. In fact, little research has been conducted to explore the relationship between a company's time perspective and its choice of criteria for measuring new product success. For that matter, little consensus exists as to just what we mean by the term success. Expanding on work done by a PDMA task force on measurement of new product success and failure, Erik Jan Hultink and Henry S.J. Robben identify 16 core measures of new product success. In a survey of large Dutch companies, they explore managers' perceptions of new product success, hypothesizing that the importance attached to each of the 16 core measures depends on the company's time perspective. For example, they propose that criteria such as development cost and speed-to-market are more important in the short term, and return-on-investiment (ROI) is more important in the long term. The study also examines the type of market served, the innovation strategy, and the perceived innovativeness of the company's products. It is hypothesized that these factors will influence the importance the company attaches to the core measures of new product success. For example, it is expected that speed-to-market is probably more important for technological innovators than for fast imitators or cost minimizers. The findings support the hypothesis that the firm's time perspective influences the perceived importance of the core measures of success. For the short term, the respondents emphasize product-level measures such as speed-to-market and whether the product was launched on time. In the long term, the focus is on customer acceptance and financial performance, including attaining goals for profitability, margins, and ROI. Four factors are perceived as being equally important for short-term and long-term success: customer satisfaction, customer acceptance, meeting quality guidelines, and product performance level. Customer satisfaction was found to be the most important measure, regardless of a company's time perspective. Contrary to expectations, the perceived importance of the 16 core measures does not differ on the basis of the type of market, the innovation strategy, or the product's perceived innovativeness. In addition, the firm's functional orientation—technology push or market pull—does not affect the importance attached to the core measures of new product success.     

An Exploratory Analysis of the Impact of Market Orientation on New Product Performance

For many firms, emphasizing the importance of market orientation has taken on a mantra-like quality. Mission statements and memos, policies, and procedures all highlight the importance of staying in touch with the customer. It is also widely assumed that the relationship between market orientation and new product performance depends on environmental conditions and product characteristics. To date, however, little empirical evidence has been presented to support the assumption that market orientation influences new product performance. Kwaku Atuahene-Gima addresses this research need in a study of 275 Australian firms. In addition to exploring the relationship between market orientation and new product development activities and performance, his study examines the effects of environmental conditions and product characteristics. Specifically, the study investigates whether the relationship between market orientation and new product performance depends on the degree of product newness to customers and the firm; the intensity of market competition and the hostility of the industry environment; and the stage of the product life cycle at which the new product was introduced. The survey results provide strong support for the basic proposition that market orientation influences new product performance and development activities. The results show a strong positive relationship between market orientation and a new product's market performance. Market orientation is also shown to have a strong positive effect on proficiency of predevelopment activity, proficiency of launch activity, service quality, product advantage, marketing synergy, and teamwork. Although market orientation is generally found to be an important factor in the success of new products, its influence varies depending on the type of new product—that is, radical versus incremental. Market orientation appears to have greater influence on new product performance when the product represents an incremental change to both the customers and the firm. However, this does not mean that a market-oriented approach is unnecessary in the development of radically hew products. Market orientation also has a greater effect when the perceived intensity of market competition and industry hostility are high, and during the early stage of the product life cycle. Because market competition and industry hostility typically intensify as the product life cycle progresses, these findings suggest that the effects of market orientation are pervasive. In other words, managers should not limit their expectations of market orientation to specific projects or specific stages of the development process and product life cycle.     

Do New Product Development Managers in Large or High-Market-Share Firms Perceive Marketing-R&D Interface Principles Differently?

In the quest for successful innovation, the importance of the R&Dlmarketing interface is virtually unquestioned. For many organizations, however, effective integration of technical and marketing functions is difficult, if not impossible. Despite seemingly widespread understanding of fundamental new product principles, some companies still manage to gain a larger share of the market than their competitors. This raises the question of whether managers in more successful companies have special insights into R&D'/'marketing interface principles that give them an edge over their competitors. To gain a better understanding of managers' perceptions of new product principles defined in the academic literature, Ted Haggblom, Roger J. Calantone, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto conducted a survey of 687 nonacademic members of the Product Development and Management Association. The basis for the survey was a set of 78 product management principles compiled from a search of more than 500 books and articles from various disciplines. From this survey, 14 of the 78 principles were selected as relevant to the study reported in this article. The principles discussed in this article involve such issues as resistance to change, short-term orientation, communication and trust between marketing and technical people, the effect of centralized decision-making on innovation, the importance of open communication flows, senior management's role in the R&D I marketing interface, and the necessity of a product champion. The primary quesstion addressed in this study is whether managers from successful companies perceive these principles differently from managers of less successful firms. The study provides partial support for the proposition that managers' perceptions of these new product principles depend on their company's success. In other words, the survey results suggest that managers in companies with higher market shares tend to agree more strongly with these principles than their counterparts in less successful firms. The study also explores the relationship between firm size and agreement with these principles of new product success. Specifically, the study assesses whether the perceptions of managers from smaller, more entrepreneurial companies differ from those of managers in larger companies. Although managers from small and large firms may view these principles from different perspectives, there were no statistically significant differences in the perceptions of managers from small and large firms.     

Contingent Product Design and Marketing Strategies Influencing New Product Success and Failure in U.S. and Japanese Electronics Firms

The commercial success or failure of a product doesn't rest solely on the whims of the marketplace. The myriad, often interdependent, strategic trade-offs made throughout the product development process go a long way toward determining whether a product succeeds or fails. The key to success often rests in finding the right combination of product design and market choice decisions. Toward that end, William E. Souder and X. Michael Song examine the relationship between product success and several product design and market choice strategies. In particular, they explore the possibility that the correct strategy combination differs depending on a firm's perception of market uncertainty, which they measure in terms of the respondents' perceived familiarity with the market for a product, perceived understanding of customer needs, and perceived capability to translate those needs into product performance specifications. Recognizing that the correct combination of strategic choices may also depend on firm size, industry, and culture, the study focuses on small U.S. suppliers of electronics components. Fortune 500 producers of electronics final products, and Japanese producers of electronics final products. For the small U.S. firms in the study, an emphasis on performance superiority, technical superiority, or radically new products provides a recipe for failure under low market uncertainty. Even under high market uncertainty, these characteristics do not equate to success for the small U.S. firms in this study. The findings suggest that these firms should focus on design compatibility with a purchaser's installed base. The responses from Fortune 500 firms and Japanese companies indicate that under low market uncertainty these larger organizations should consider emphasizing compatibility and avoiding radical designs. For markets that the larger firms perceive to be highly uncertain, the results suggest that these companies should emphasize performance superiority, technical superiority, and radical designs. The findings related to market choice strategies also support the notion that the correct combination of strategic decisions depends on firm size, culture, and the perceived level of market uncertainty. However, the guidelines presented in this study should not be construed as hard-and-fast rules for formulating product strategy. Instead, the results presented here will be helpful for challenging assumptions and guiding actions, as one element in the effort to shape an effective product strategy.     

An empirical analysis of the determinants of technology roadmap utilization

For many years now, firms have managed their research and development (R&D) by applying various approaches drawn from the discipline of technology roadmapping (TRM). The underlying rationale of these roadmapping approaches is to align firms' product and technology developments with their business goals. By visually representing firms' technology strategy, roadmaps support intra‐firm communication and facilitate the coordination of strategic decisions and activities within the technology management domain. Most previously published research on TRMs has focused on the design and implementation of roadmapping processes; that is, relatively few empirical or quantitative studies describe the use and evaluation of roadmapping techniques. This paper seeks to address this gap by conducting a survey of 186 different R&D units within stock market‐listed companies in Korea that have implemented TRM. The paper attempts to identify the antecedent factors behind firms' successful use of roadmaps, further identifying correlations between these antecedent factors through an analysis of the R&D units. It also empirically highlights these antecedent factors by empirically analyzing and verifying correlations between roadmap utilization and R&D performance.     

Assessment of hidden and future customer needs in Finnish business‐to‐business companies

The development of new products should be based on the needs expected to exist even several years ahead – at the moment of market introduction and during the whole lifecycle of the product. To develop successful new products in the toughening business environment, companies should be able to surpass customers' expectations and to assess emerging customer needs proactively. Early, thorough understanding of the customer's real needs, including the assessment of hidden and future customer needs and requirements, plays a very important role in the successful development of new products.
The purpose of our paper is to study the assessment of new (hidden and future) customer needs for product development in Finnish business‐to‐business companies. We have carried out a survey in 93 Finnish business‐to‐business companies and SBUs to study their common problems in the assessment of unrecognized customer needs and potentially effective ways in clarifying new customer needs and dealing with important problems. On the basis of the results, we propose several possible ways to facilitate the assessment of unrecognized customer needs.     

Absorptive capacity and performance: The role of customer relationship and technological capabilities in high-tech SMEs

This study focuses on how the interplay between a firm's absorptive capacity (ACAP), and its technological and customer relationship capability contributes to its overall performance. Using structural equation modeling in a sample of 158 firms (316 questionnaires, two respondents per firm) from South Korea's semiconductor industry, we find that a firm's ACAP leads to better performance in terms of new product development, market performance and profitability when used in combination with the firm's capability to engage state of the art technologies in its new product development program (NPD) (technological capability) as well as cultivate strong customer relationships to gain customer insight in NPD (customer relationship capability). By highlighting the interactive nature of absorptive capacity's antecedents and how these relate to firms' performance, this study contributes to the understanding of the role of ACAP as a mechanism for translating external knowledge into tangible benefits in high-tech SMEs, thus leading to important theoretical and practical implications.     

How Do Interaction Activities among Customers and between Customers and Firms Influence Market Performance and Continuous Product Innovation? An Empirical Investigation of the Mobile Application Market

Mobile application markets (MAMs) significantly differ from other existing marketplaces at least in two aspects. First, customers (app users) and firms (app providers) frequently interact with each other in real time, which is not common in the conventional marketplaces. Second, many app providers incorporate customers’ opinions or suggestions into their software upgrades, representing one of the most unique and interesting aspects of MAMs. Therefore, it has become critical to understand the impact of interaction activities not only among customers, but also between customers and firms on the market performances of new products in MAMs. One of the most significant issues firms face is whether firms reflect on customers’ postpurchase interaction activities, and the next interesting question is how firms respond to them. This study explores the effects of customer‐to‐customer (C2C), customer‐to‐firm, and firm‐to‐customer interaction activities on market performance. In addition, this study investigates how communication activities influence a firm's tendency to pursue continuous product innovation through research and development (R&D). Using data obtained from a major MAM, T store, three models that are respectively related to product sales, product lifetime, and a firm's R&D activity for product upgrades, are applied to empirically test hypotheses concerning the effects of interaction activities. In our analyses of market performance, a hierarchical log regression model with 10,840 weekly transactions data set related to product sales (model A) and 291 aggregate transactions related to product lifetime (model B) is used. Results indicate that C2C and customer‐to‐firm communication activities have a positive impact on sales, but little relationship with product lifetime. However, a firm's continuous product R&D has a positive impact on both sales and lifetime performance. Our analysis of a firm's R&D (model C) shows that C2C and customer–firm communication increases a firm's R&D activity. Taken together, these results have important implications for customer–firm interactions, market performance, and R&D strategies.     

Harnessing Product Complexity: Step 2—Measuring and Evaluating Complexity Levels

In today's market, companies are forced to balance the requirements of sales growth through increased product complexity against the requirements of cost control and operational efficiency. Therefore, how to meet the increasing needs of customers while managing the impact of product complexity becomes a great challenge for a company to gain competitive advantage.

Although some have tackled the issue of product complexity, it still remains a theoretical concept. There is yet no generalized approach to identify complexity sources, measure complexity levels, and manage its impact throughout the different stages of the product's lifecycle. Our work seeks to help formulate strategies to manage the cost impacts of product complexity. This article builds on prior work that identified sources and indicators of product complexity, categorized them into five dimensions, and linked the indicators to direct and indirect costs. Now, we develop a product complexity measurement framework as a second step in establishing the overall methodology and support tool. The article also describes the application of the developed framework to existing product lines.