FROM EXPERIENCE: Disruptive Innovation and the Need for Disruptive Intellectual Asset Strategy

Disruption has become a popular business term, yet it is often used so loosely as to convey almost nothing of substance. Here a largely neglected factor is addressed: the role of intellectual assets in securing opportunities for or averting threats from disruptive innovations. While the literature explains why the decision-making systems in large established companies cause difficulty in responding effectively to disruptive innovation the generation of intellectual assets (e.g., patents, publications, trademarks) typically is not subject to the same cultural and structural barriers. Though it may be difficult to convince a business to invest millions in pursuit of a speculative disruptive innovation, it is much easier for a small team to gain support in pursuing low-cost intellectual assets in the name of mitigating potential threats. A two-pronged approach is proposed that builds on the authors' experience at Kimberly-Clark Corporation in dealing with disruptive threats and opportunities. The approach calls for generation of intellectual assets, often using small proactive teams, to (1) protect an existing business by reducing competitive risks from disruptive innovation, including the risk of new products with disruptive potential and the risk of associated competitive patents that might limit one's response; and (2) prepare for future new and disruptive business opportunities that could be protected or strengthened by the intellectual assets generated. Kimberly-Clark's growing experience with this approach suggests that it may be a valuable component of one's strategy for innovation and protection of the business.     

Final Offer Arbitration: Better Theory Than Practice

The theory of final offer arbitration promises more than its actual performance delivers, based on admittedly limited experience. There is no showing that fewer negotiations reach impasse than would occur under conventional arbitration. There is evidence, however, that final offer arbitration does tend to produce awards less equitable than warranted by the positions and strengths of the parties, particularly when there are multiple issues at impasse and when arbitrators may select only one overall package or another. This tendency is built-in to the process, since the whole point of final offer arbitration is deterrence, with little or no concern for getting a good settlement through arbitration. “Bad” awards cannot fail to generate irritation and to have a corrosive effect on responsible contract administration. It is possible that such awards, and their effects, will be accepted as the necessary price of a final offer selection system. What seems more likely, however, is that the system will be modified along the lines of those in Eugene and Michigan. Those modifications can be expected to have two effects. First, they will make it more likely that the parties will be able to reach their own agreement by encouraging mediation and further negotiations, even after arbitration has been invoked. Second, they will increase the possibility of an acceptable arbitrated settlement by allowing the arbitrator greater flexibility in making an award. By doing these things, however, the deterrent effect of final offer selection will be substantially weakened, and what will be left will be a useful form of mediation-arbitration but not a substitute for the strike which contains an equivalent incentive to negotiate.     

破坏性技术、组织创新与产业成长预测

本文对Christensen创立的破坏性创新理论进行了梳理，对其理论背景、分析框架、数学模型及实证研究进行了一个全方位的描述。破坏性创新作为目前世界主流管理理论尽管在中国受到了不应有的忽略，但相对于Porter的竞争理论，更适合于中国国情的研究。本文最后运用破坏性创新理论，对“中国制造”的未来产业成长选择之路进行了预测。     

我国新能源汽车产业破坏性创新的政策支持研究

提高新能源汽车产业创新水平、将新能源汽车产业置于国民经济战略性新兴产业的地位予以支持已成为世界大国博弈的重要命题.文章将破坏性创新理论用于指导我国的新能源汽车产业政策,在公共科技政策分析的基本政策工具框架下,采用内容分析法分析了2009年至今我国新能源汽车产业创新的政策支持体系;对特斯拉汽车成功进行破坏性创新的案例及对我国的启示作了实证研究,进而提出我国新能源汽车产业破坏性创新的政策建议.     

Drivers of Outsourced Innovation: An Exploratory Study*

The outsourcing of innovation has been on the rise for years, but research in this area lags behind industry practice. Interviews with managers and a theory base grounded in transaction cost analysis are used to guide the development of an exploratory model that details potential drivers of the outsourcing of innovation activities. Using industry‐level data, the proposed model is partially tested using two distinct regression analyses that reveal significant effects both contemporaneously and persisting over time. Several of the proposed drivers of outsourced innovation are shown to be significant, including exploratory research performed and profit margin. The finding that exploratory research performed is significantly related to the outsourcing of innovation activities represents a significant contribution to the innovation and organizational learning literatures. As well, finding a relationship between margins and organizational sourcing fills a gap in the business to business marketing literature. Managerial implications are drawn for both managers of the innovation process in traditional firms and those in firms wishing to garner outsourced innovation contracts. The drivers found to be significant in this study should allow for better resource planning from innovation managers in traditional firms as well as better targeting of perspective clients from firms seeking contract innovation business.     

Conceptualizing Innovation Orientation: A Framework for Study and Integration of Innovation Research*

The term innovation orientation has been frequently used in the innovation literature, but with a mix of conceptualizations and meanings. Drawing from work found in the innovation, management, and marketing literatures over the past 35 years, the concept of innovation orientation as a system is conceptualized and defined in this article. The domain of innovation orientation is delineated as a multidimensional knowledge structure and a framework for understanding innovation orientation and its consequences in an organizational context are developed. The framework defines the innovation orientation knowledge structure as composed of a learning philosophy, strategic direction, and transfunctional beliefs within an organization that define and direct the organizational strategies and actions toward specific innovation‐enabling competencies and processes. These innovation‐oriented firm competencies are in the areas of resource allocation, technology, employees, operations, and markets. The framework then explains that these appropriately developed innovation‐enabling competencies lead to innovation outcomes, specifically ideal innovation form, type, and rate that, in turn, affect firm performance. An inventory of propositions for future research that correspond to the innovation orientation concept is also presented in this comprehensive framework. This study provides two important contributions to the existing innovation literature. First, the article examines the vast innovation literature to arrive at a clear definition of the innovation orientation construct to provide a consistent conceptualization for future research. Second, the article develops a comprehensive, organized framework for understanding innovation orientation and its effects. In doing this, the framework extends the dynamic capabilities research stream by offering an explanation of how innovation orientation fosters the development of organizational competencies and makes it possible for a firm to recognize and respond to shifts in market dynamism.     

Cooperative Innovation Projects: Capabilities and Governance Mechanisms*

This paper is concerned with how firms in a project‐based industry cooperate in technological innovation projects in the construction industry. The main focus of the paper is on the sharing of capabilities in cooperative innovation projects and how these cooperations are governed. A knowledge‐based perspective is applied, and four cooperative innovation projects in the construction industry are compared. Based on the case studies, a set of propositions is defined. First, a cooperation aimed at a mutual strategic benefit in mutually gaining access to the knowledge bases of the involved firms, while maintaining their own differentiated knowledge base, can result in more stable and long term relationships with mutual trust between the cooperating firms. Second, in a cooperation aimed at a mutual strategic benefit in mutually gaining access to the knowledge bases of the involved firms, partners not only gain access to each other's technological capabilities but also develop and share knowledge about organizational aspects and market situations and gain knowledge about the way of working of the partner firm. Third, in a cooperation aimed at mutual strategic benefit in mutually gaining access to the knowledge bases of the involved firms, noncodifiability of the capabilities is conditional to create a win–win situation. And fourth, cooperation aimed at a mutual strategic benefit in mutually gaining access to the knowledge bases of the involved firms is based on mutual competence and intentional trust as its main governance mechanism, whereas contracting between market parties aimed at knowledge–output transactions is represented by limited trust and arms' length (contractual) relationships as its main governance mechanism.     

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.     

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.     

Reputation for Product Innovation: Its Impact on Consumers*

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

Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach*

In the literature on innovation, interorganizational collaboration has been advanced as beneficial for the innovative performance of firms. At the same time, large‐scale empirical evidence for such a relationship is scarce. This article examines whether evidence can be found for the idea that interorganizational collaboration supports the effectiveness of innovation strategies. This article empirically addresses this research question by analyzing data on Belgian manufacturing firms (n=221) collected in the Community Innovation Survey, a biannual survey organized by Eurostat and the European Commission aimed at obtaining insights into the innovation practices and performance of companies within the various European Union (EU) member states. Tobit analyses reveal a positive relationship between interorganizational collaboration and innovative performance. At the same time, the impact on innovative performance differs depending on the nature of the partner(s) involved. These findings strongly suggest the relevance of adopting a portfolio approach to interorganizational collaboration within the context of innovation strategies.     

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Innovation: The Roles of Internal and External Support for Innovation*

Leadership has been suggested to be an important factor affecting innovation. A number of studies have shown that transformational leadership positively influences organizational innovation. However, there is a lack of studies examining the contextual conditions under which this effect occurs or is augmented. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the impact of transformational leadership on organizational innovation and to determine whether internal and external support for innovation as contextual conditions influence this effect. Organizational innovation was conceptualized as the tendency of the organization to develop new or improved products or services and its success in bringing those products or services to the market. Transformational leadership was hypothesized to have a positive influence on organizational innovation. Furthermore, this effect was proposed to be moderated by internal support for innovation, which refers to an innovation supporting climate and adequate resources allocated to innovation. Support received from external organizations for the purposes of knowledge and resource acquisition was also proposed to moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational innovation. To test these hypotheses, data were collected from 163 research and development (R&D) employees and managers of 43 micro‐ and small‐sized Turkish entrepreneurial software development companies. Two separate questionnaires were used to collect the data. Employees' questionnaires included measures of transformational leadership and internal support for innovation, whereas managers' questionnaires included questions about product innovations of their companies and the degree of support they received from external institutions. Organizational innovation was measured with a market‐oriented criterion developed specifically for developing countries and newly developing industries. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypothesized effects. The results of the analysis provided support for the positive influence of transformational leadership on organizational innovation. This finding is significant because this positive effect was identified in micro‐ and small‐sized companies, whereas previous research focused mainly on large companies. In addition, external support for innovation was found to significantly moderate this effect. Specifically, the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational innovation was stronger when external support was at high levels than when there was no external support. This study is the first to investigate and empirically show the importance of this contextual condition for organizational innovation. The moderating effect of internal support for innovation, however, was not significant. This study shows that transformational leadership is an important determinant of organizational innovation and encourages managers to engage in transformational leadership behaviors to promote organizational innovation. In line with this, transformational leadership, which is heavily suggested to be a subject of management training and development in developed countries, should also be incorporated into such programs in developing countries. Moreover, this study highlights the importance of external support in the organizational innovation process. The results suggest that technical and financial support received from outside the organization can be a more important contextual influence in boosting up innovation than an innovation‐supporting internal climate. Therefore, managers, particularly of micro‐ and small‐sized companies, should play external roles such as boundary spanning and should build relationships with external institutions that provide technical and financial support. The findings of this study are especially important for managers of companies that plan to or currently operate in countries with developing economies.     

Subjective Performance Assessment of Innovation Projects*

Performance assessment of innovation projects is a central issue in innovation management research. Using existing literature, a model is developed to assess the performance of new product and new service development projects. In this model, project performance is defined as a combination of a formatively indicated operational performance construct and a reflectively indicated product performance construct. The validity of this model is tested based on a sample of 219 innovation projects assessed by innovation managers. Using only the innovation managers' responses, it is, however, not possible to distinguish between operational and product performance. The impact of common method bias and informant bias is subsequently assessed using a subsample of 128 of these 219 innovation projects that are assessed by the innovation manager and the project leader. These latter results show that operational and product performance are two distinct constructs. In addition, the multitrait–multimethod analyses show that especially the more abstract items of performance, such as the perceptions of quality, captured knowledge, competitive advantage, gained reputation, and customer satisfaction, suffer from random error and informant bias. Project leaders appear to be better informed to assess operational performance, while innovation managers are better in assessing product performance. The paper concludes with a qualitative comparison of several alternative performance models: the project performance model as derived from the literature, a similar (misspecified) reflective performance model, two stand‐alone models in which operational and product performance are assessed separately, and a mixed model that uses a combination of innovation managers' and project managers' data. Based on this comparison, it is advised to use either the stand‐alone models for operational performance and product performance or the mixed model whereby the project leader assesses operational performance and the innovation manager the product performance of an innovation project.     

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.     

Perspective: The Applicability of Percolation Theory to Innovation

The spread of innovation is usually characterized as a diffusion process. This article suggests that there may be some value in viewing this important phenomenon in terms of the mathematical construct known as percolation theory. J. Mort writes that phenomena and concepts such as induction periods, critical percolation thresholds, discrete propagation media, site coordination, clusters, and connective constants all have remarkable analogs in the generally observed features of product innovation. This phenomenological perspective, in which the customer emerges naturally as the controlling factor in the spread of innovations, may account for specific marketing approaches that have facilitated successful innovations such as the Xerox 914 copier. The approach may prove especially relevant in describing the spread of certain information, communication-based innovations, such as the explosive growth in facsimile (FAX), and other network-based products, as the utility and value of such products to the customer is inherently linked to the extant degree of connectivity.     

Major Innovation as a Dynamic Capability: A Systems Approach*

Major innovation (MI), composed of both radical and really new innovation, is an important mechanism for enabling the growth and renewal of an enterprise. Yet it is poorly managed in most established firms, and success stories are rare. This conceptual article draws on systems theory, recent advances in dynamic capabilities theory, and the management of innovation literature to offer a framework for building an MI dynamic capability. The framework is composed of seven elements that together form a management system rather than a process‐based approach to nurturing radical innovation. These system elements are (1) an identifiable organization structure; (2) interface mechanisms with the mainstream organization, some of which are tightly coupled and others of which are loose; (3) exploratory processes; (4) requisite skills and talent development, given that entrepreneurial talent is not present in most organizations; (5) governance and decision‐making mechanisms at the project, MI portfolio, and MI system levels; (6) appropriate performance metrics; and (7) an appropriate culture and leadership context. It is argued that dynamic capabilities for phenomena as complex as MI must be considered in a systems fashion rather than as operating routines and repeatable processes as the literature currently suggests. A set of propositions is offered regarding how each element should play out in this parallel management system. Finally, each element's role in the major innovation system is justified in terms of four criteria required by systems theory: (1) The system is identifiable, and its elements are interdependent; (2) the effect of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; (3) homeostasis is achieved through interaction and networking with the larger organization; and (4) there is a clear purpose in the larger system in which the MI management system is embedded. Examples are given to demonstrate these criteria. Systems theory offers a new way of thinking about dynamic capability development and management.     

海外包装机械市场产需情况

从目前情况看，全球的包装机械需求预计将以每年5．3％的速度增长，到2005年达290亿美元。美国拥有最大的包装设备生产商，其次是日本，其他主要生产商还包括德国、意大利和中国。但到2005年，包装设备生产增长最快的是在发展中的国家和地区。发达国家将从刺激国内需求中获利，并在发展中国家寻找当地合适的生产厂家，特