Nurturing All-round Engineering and Product Designers

This paper discusses how a curriculum should be revised to nurture all-round engineering and product designers to meet new social and industrial needs. It first reviews the limitations of the current engineering and product design education, and argues that it is biased either towards the acquisition of engineering and technological knowledge and skills but not critical thinking skills; or towards the nurturing of so-called creative thinking, while ignoring the conducting of in-depth investigations. This paper uses Hong Kong as a case study to further identify new social and industrial needs. To meet these needs, it proposes the consideration of `Eight Cs' for the engineering and product design curriculum, that is: Competent, Comprehensive, Compulsory, Critical, Creative, Curious, Collaborative, and Continuous. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

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.     

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.     

Significant Issues for the Future of Product Innovation

What's happening in the world of product innovation? What are the tough issues that managers are facing? And what's going to happen in the remaining years of this decade? In this article, several members of the Editorial Board of The Journal of Product Innovation Management offer their ideas about where the important problems lie. This is the fodder for a good round table discussion and through the medium of this journal we'll engage in such a discussion in this and a subsequent issue.     

Significant Issues for the Future of Product Innovation

In this issue, William Souder and Robert Thomas present their thoughts on two issues they feel will shape aspects of our approach to effective new product development in coming years. Souder, stimulated by a recent trip to New Zealand, reflects on the different approaches to the management of new products he found in a variety of smaller, family-controlled businesses he visited. Both the need for documented processes and the emphasis on time-to-market were diminished in these organizations, characterized by family involvement and continuity in operations. In these companies, expectations for growth were set by those running and owning the business. There was time to work on projects and fund progress from cashflows. Does this reflect persistence, or flexibility? Souder simply points out that it seems to provide an effective platform for business growth in certain international arenas, asks us to ponder the consequences for ourselves, and states that we should not be too quick to label these practices as limited in scope or only suitable for low-tech products. Robert Thomas reminds us that new product forecasting no longer is limited to projections of future sales. He writes about evolution in the field, with a particular emphasis on our growing need to forecast based on analogies. As we increasingly have access to information about products in other companies and in other lands, we have an increasing opportunity to discover ways to incorporate this knowledge into our business plans. These essays continue a year-long series of contributions that the editor-in-chief solicited from members of the editorial board. Members were asked to reflect upon changes and opportunities that they see influencing our profession during the coming decade. Both of these short essays are designed to introduce new perspectives. It is not essential that you agree with the recommendations, but we hope that you are stimulated as you reflect on the issues they discuss.     

Significant Issues for the Future of Product Innovation

The value of a technology strategy has been increasingly discussed by R&D personnel and those involved in product development and business planning efforts. In this issue Albert Rubenstein and Americo Albala elevate this discussion by showing the importance of preparing a firm to compete by stressing the development of important, relevant technologies. Discovery and development must be channeled into areas that will be needed to support business initiatives likely to occur in the future. Albala stresses the importance of this change for the development of economies in nations that have been disappointed by the lack of success of importing technologies from more developed nations, while Rubenstein maintains that the pace of marketplace change requires a technology strategy in order to reduce the misapplication of scarce resources within the firm and the possibility of being blindsided by competitive developments. These essays continue a year-long series of contributions that the editor-in-chief solicited from members of the editorial board. Members were asked to reflect upon changes and opportunities that they see influencing our profession during the coming decade. Both of these short essays are designed to introduce new perspectives. It is not essential that you agree with the recommendations, but we hope that you are stimulated as you reflect on the issues they raise.     

Significant Issues for the Future of Product Innovation

Product innovation management, by definition, requires that we become comfortable dealing with change. As this journal enters its eleventh year of publication, the editor-in-chief asked each member of the editorial board to reflect upon changes and opportunities that they see influencing our profession during the coming decade. In our first installment of these essays, George Day, Bela Gold and Thomas Kuczmarski discuss the value of managing ideas, embracing a longer-term view of development opportunities, and creating a senior executive position charged with developing such opportunities. Each of these short essays is designed to introduce new perspectives. It is not essential that you agree with the recommendations, but we hope that you are stimulated as you reflect on the issues they present.     

Significant Issues for the Future of Product Innovation

In this issue, Merle Crawford and Milton Rosenau present their thoughts on some of the issues confronting product development professionals. Both reflect on the emergence of new products management as a profession—a field with its own requirements for success. Crawford wonders about the sustainability of our current use of teams for much of our work, the need for improved measurements, and the overall relationship between the management of new initiatives and the ongoing work of the organization. As new products work become more integrated with corporate operations, what new responsibilities will we face, beyond our current challenges? Rosenau looks squarely at the complex issues of rewards and compensation. How can we modify systems that have traditionally evaluated individual performance and adjust them to fit various cooperative work patterns necessary in new product development? He calls for formal study of these important issues. These essays continue a year-long series of contributions that the editor-in-chief solicited from members of the editorial board. Members were asked to reflect on changes and opportunities that they feel will influence our profession during the coming decade. Both of these short essays are designed to introduce new perspectives. It is not essential that you agree with the recommendations, but we hope that you are stimulated as you reflect on the issues that are raised.     

Integrating Product Innovation and Market Development to Strengthen Long-Term Planning

The steel industries of Europe and the United States are among the worst casualties of the industrial turmoil that has shaken the economic order during the past ten years, Other heavy manufacturing industries can claim similar suffering. In this article, Bela Gold draws on his long years of experience in studying the technology, productivity, and competitive structure of such industries. He suggests that traditional planning approaches won't haul heavy industry onto a winning track. A new long-term approach, based on an integration of product innovation and market development, is needed to meet the changing pressures these industries are facing.     

The Performance Impact of Content and Process in Product Innovation Charters

The significance of product innovation charters (PICs) cannot be overemphasized, as they provide understanding and a tool for setting organizational goals, charting strategic direction, and allocating resources for new product portfolios. In a unique way, a PIC represents a sort of mission statement mutation for new products. With the backdrop of strategy formulation and product innovation literatures, this article investigates the impact of both content specificity within PICs and satisfaction with the PIC formulation process on new product performance in North American corporations. A survey was undertaken among executives knowledgeable about their organization's new product development process. The respondents included chief executive officers, vice presidents, directors, and managers. The findings demonstrate that significant differences exist both in PIC content specificity and process satisfaction between highly innovative and low innovative firms. The study also shows that PIC specificity in terms of the factors mission content and strategic directives positively influences new product performance. Further, the study demonstrates that satisfaction with the process of formulating PICs plays a positive and powerful mediating role in the PIC specificity–performance relationship. The results suggest that product innovation charters, like their mission statement cousins, may be of more value than most managers realize. The study shows that achieving a state of organizational satisfaction with a PIC's formulation process is critical for obtaining better new product performance. Directions for future research also are suggested.     

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.     

The Intellectual Structure of Product Innovation Research: A Bibliometric Study of the Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1984–2004

Product innovation research has matured substantially in the last two decades. A great deal of knowledge has been produced on various aspects of the discipline, so it is of interest to assess the state of the art the scientific community has reached in this discipline and the route it has taken. This perspective is investigated through a bibliometric study of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM), arguably the most important specialized journal on this topic. The work reviews all journal paper contributions in JPIM from 1984 to 2004 in determined time frames, assesses the citations contained in these papers, identifies how the citations are related to the various topics of production innovation research (topic‐related citation variety, topic‐related citation consistency, variation in topic‐related citation pattern), and offers a retrospective examination of the evolution of the field. The overall analysis of citations shows that most papers in JPIM cite at least one of the top 50 works identified by this study. This testifies to the strong impact of the most influential works on the intellectual structure of product innovation research. The observed citation pattern suggests that the top 50 papers gained influence in product innovation research either because they represent a relevant contribution on a fundamental topic that already has been authoritatively studied or because they investigate in a relevant manner a new topic. The paper suggests that JPIM might benefit in its aim to consolidate its position as one of the top academic business journals if published papers increasingly drew on the most influential works to inform their research design and explicitly stated the theoretical underpinnings they draw on in their research design. Overall, the analysis of the subperiods (1984–1988, 1989–1993, 1994–1998, and 1999–2004) provides evidence for the maturation of new product innovation research. Books covering a wide range of topics are replaced by journal papers addressing a specific topic; over time, specific topics emerge and become influential for the discipline's intellectual structure; papers published in JPIM augment their methodological rigor and increasingly address contingency factors. The paper also notes that obtaining relevance for JPIM authors constitutes a necessary condition for being considered by management researchers at large as an influential contribution to product innovation research.     

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

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

Wizards and Champions: The Kingdom of New Venture Management

We have learned recently that the stories of King Arthur and his Round Table may be more fact than fable. There is certainly more fact than fable in the story told here by Irving Calish and Donald Gamache. They deal with the realities of managing new ventures.     

科技型企业创新网络结构与创新绩效影响关系研究

创新知识增量成为科技型企业创新的驱动力,更多的企业有意愿与其他组织结合形成创新网络结构进行协同创新。从创新网络结构的联结特征来看,可划分为以价值链为导向的纵向网络和以企业竞合为导向的横向网络。在分析科技型企业创新网络结构的基础上,结合网络环境及特征要素,对诸要素对科技型企业创新绩效的影响作用进行了分析。利用灰色关联分析方法测算了我国科技型企业创新绩效的主要影响要素,其中关键环境要素包括:市场运行环境、政府政策环境;关键创新网络结构要素包括:网络创新导向性、网络位置、网络异质性。最后,从促进科技型创新绩效的视角提出了加强创新网络联结的改进措施与建议。     

江浙区域技术创新效率比较分析

本文以江浙区域技术创新的“效率悖论”为切入点,提出区域技术创新所引致的效率涵盖了区域技术创新的市场效率和社会效率。在分析和比较江浙区域技术创新模式特点的基础上,揭示了其区域创新效率的差异,并解释了“效率悖论”。笔者认为,创新收益分配机制(市场机制)的完善、区域技术创新网络的建设,以及政府对区域创新的促进(制度供给和制度创新)可以提升区域技术创新效率。     

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.