The Impact of Front‐End Innovation Activities on Product Performance

This paper describes and tests a model of the impact of front‐end innovation activities on product performance. Data were collected from 272 companies to test the hypothesis that front‐end performance impacts new product performance in the marketplace while controlling for new product development (NPD) processes and strategy. The data support the hypothesis that front‐end performance favorably and independently impacts overall product success, time to market, market penetration, and financial performance. Front‐end performance is predicted by a set of activities, including: the actual amount of front‐end work done in various areas, specifically marketing, R&D, and concept development; the existence of a front‐end process; the existence of a champion; and agreement on the order of developmental steps in the front end. Front‐end activities are related to front‐end performance, and front‐end performance is related to NPD performance. This relationship highlights the distinction between front‐end activities and standard product development practices and the importance of building competency in the front end. This is the first study that quantifies both the nature and amount of work done in the front end and relates that work to commercial performance. This research empirically demonstrates the distinction between the front‐end and formal stages and gates types of systems. This suggests that the concept of the front end needs it own set of theoretical constructs to adequately describe and predict this categorically different set of activities. While this study demonstrates the difference between front‐end and stage‐gate systems, it does not establish the limits of those activities. From a managerial point of view recognizing that formal development and front‐end activities are different mandates that these activities must be managed differently. In particular, the skills, structures, processes, governance, leadership, performance metrics, and resources must be assessed separately and differently. These findings suggest that firms should actively manage the flow of ideas from the front end into the more formal development programs.     

The Impact of Product Innovativeness on Performance

While many writers and strategists maintain that innovation is important, research has often demonstrated that product innovativeness does not have a major impact on the rate of success in the marketplace. Elko Kleinschmidt and Robert Cooper demonstrate that the relationship between product innovativeness and commercial success is U-shaped. That means that both high and low innovativeness products are more likely to be more successful than those in-between. The authors suggest that past research has not allowed for this non-linear relationship and that their data show that moderately innovative, middle-of-the-road products are less likely to succeed when measured by a number of performance criteria. They explore a number of implications of these results.     

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.     

The Impact of a Creativity‐supporting Work Environment on a Firm's Product Innovation Performance

Many scholars and practitioners have suggested that a creativity‐supporting work environment contributes to a firm's product innovation performance. Although there is evidence that such an environment enhances innovative behavior at individual level, very few studies address the effect of a creativity‐supporting work environment on product innovation performance at firm level, and the results are inconsistent. This paper examines the relationship between a firm's creativity‐supporting work environment and a firm's product innovation performance in a sample of 103 firms. For measuring a firm's creativity‐supporting work environment, a comprehensive and creativity‐focused framework is used. The framework consists of 9 social‐organizational and 12 physical work environment characteristics that are likely to enhance employee creativity. These characteristics contribute to the firm's overall work environment that supports creativity. The firm's product innovation performance is defined by two distinct concepts: new product productivity (NP productivity), which is the extent to which the firm introduces new products to the market, and new product success (NP success), which is the percentage of the firm's sales from new products. In most firms, different knowledgeable informants provided the data for the variables. The results show that firms with creativity‐supporting work environments introduce more new products to the market (NP productivity), and have more NP success in terms of new product sales (NP success). NP productivity partly mediates the relationship between creativity‐supporting work environment and NP success. The mediation model shows that the two paths from a creativity‐supporting work environment to NP success are about equally important: the direct path between creativity‐supporting work environment and NP success has a coefficient of .22, and the coefficient of the indirect path via NP productivity is .23. The creativity‐supporting work environment framework can be used in managerial practice to enhance employee creativity for product innovation. It allows applying a flexible and broad approach by influencing both social‐organizational and physical characteristics of the work environment.     

Only the Brave: Product Innovation,Service Business Model Innovation,and Their Impact on Performance

Recent empirical findings concerning the performance effects of service business model innovation (servitization) and its interplay with product innovation are mixed. Using the lenses of the demand‐based view on value creation and complementarity, the performance impact of two key service business models is examined: the product‐oriented model and the customer‐oriented model, implemented jointly with product innovation. Results indicate that the interplay between service business model innovation and product innovation results in long‐term performance benefits coupled with a degree of short‐term performance sacrifice. Service business model innovation in isolation from product innovation results in short‐term profit gains but long‐term knowledge loss and, thus, market performance decline. Our study suggests that firms need to look beyond the evidence on short‐term effects in order to achieve superior performance in the long run.     

The Impact of Market Orientation, Product Advantage, and Launch Proficiency on New Product Performance and Organizational Performance

Some scholars have suggested recently that a market‐oriented culture leads to superior performance, at least in part, because of the new products that are developed and are brought to market. Others have reinforced this wisdom by revealing that a market‐oriented culture enhances organizational innovativeness and new product success, both of which in turn improve organizational performance. These scholars do not reveal, however, through which new product development (NPD) activities a market‐oriented culture is converted into superior performance. To determine how critical NPD activities are for a market‐oriented firm to achieve superior performance, our study uses data from 126 firms in The Netherlands to investigate the structural relationships among market orientation, new product advantage, the proficiency in new product launch activities, new product performance, and organizational performance. We focus on product advantage—because product benefits typically form the compelling reasons for customers to buy the new product—and on the launch proficiency—as the launch stage represents the most costly and risky part of the NPD process. Focusing on the launch stage also is relevant because it is only during the launch that it will become evident whether a market orientation has crystallized into a superior product in the eyes of the customer. The results provide evidence that a market orientation is related positively to product advantage and to the proficiency in market testing, launch budgeting, launch strategy, and launch tactics. Product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics are related positively to new product performance, which itself is related positively to organizational performance. Market orientation has no direct relationship to new product performance and to organizational performance. An important implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on organizational performance is channeled through the effects of a market orientation on product advantage and launch proficiency; subsequently through the effects of product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics on new product performance; and finally through the effect of new product performance on organizational performance. These channeling effects are much more subtle and complex than the direct relationship of market orientation on organizational performance previously assumed. Another implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on performance occurs through the launch activities rather than being pervasive to all organizational processes and activities. A reason for this finding may be that NPD is the one element of the marketing mix that predominantly is the responsibility of the firm, whereas promotion and distribution often are in control of organizations outside the firm (e.g., advertising agencies, major retailers) and whereas the channel or the market often dictates the price. Both implications provide ample opportunities for further research on market orientation and NPD.     

NPD Planning Activities and Innovation Performance: The Mediating Role of Process Management and the Moderating Effect of Product Innovativeness

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of planning and control on the performance of new product development (NPD) projects. It is hypothesized that (1) thorough business planning at the beginning of a project creates a basis for proficient project and risk planning; (2) the proficiency of project planning, risk planning, and process management activities each improves innovation performance directly; (3) the relationship of planning and success is mediated by process management; and (4) the strength of these relationships is moderated by uncertainty, as determined by the degree of innovativeness. To test the hypotheses, data from 132 NPD projects were collected and analyzed. A measurement model was used to establish valid and reliable constructs, a path model to test the main effects, and a multiple-moderated regression analysis for the moderator hypotheses. The results suggest that the proficiency of project planning and process management is important predictors of NPD performance. Specifically, project risk planning and goal stability throughout the development process are found to enhance performance significantly. Business planning proves to be an important antecedent of the more development-related planning activities such as project planning and risk planning. Additionally, the results lend support to the hypotheses regarding the mediating role of process management in the planning–performance relationship. Project planning and risk planning support the quality of process management and thus impact NPD performance indirectly. Only to a limited extent are the strengths of these relationships moderated by the degree of innovativeness of the NPD project.     

A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of R&D,Patents, and Product Innovation on Firm Performance

Because of increasing levels of competition and decreasing product life cycles, a firm's ability to generate a continuous stream of innovations may be more important than ever in allowing a firm to improve profitability and maintain competitive advantage This paper investigates several issues that are central to an examination of the innovation productivity in a firm. First, the relationship between a firm's commitment to research and development and its innovative outcomes is examined. Two innovative outcomes are analyzed: (1) invention, which focuses on the development of new ideas; and (2) innovation, the development of commercially viable products or services from creative ideas. Invention is measured by the number of patents granted, and innovation is assessed by the number of new product announcements. Second, because many inventions ultimately result in marketable innovations and because patents may provide protection for new products, the relationship between patents and product announcements is also investigated. Finally, the ability of a firm to benefit from its inventions and innovations is studied by examining their separate effects on firm performance, measured as return on assets (ROA) and sales growth. Drawing from a sample of 272 firms in 35 industries over 19 years, the results from a model of simultaneous equations provided support for some of the hypotheses, but several other surprising findings were found. As expected, R&D spending was positively related to patents. This finding is consistent with others who argue that internal research capabilities, particularly those with a strong basic research component, is key to enabling a firm to generate creative outputs. More surprising was the finding of increasing returns to scale to R&D spending. While this contradicts much of the existing research, it is consistent with economic arguments for the advantages of scale in innovation. Also interesting is the finding that, while a significant curvilinear relationship exists between R&D spending and product announcements, it is not the predicted inverse‐U but instead a U‐shaped relationship. Consistent with previous work, product announcements were found to be positively related to both performance measures. A negative relationship was found between patents and both ROA and sales growth. While these findings were unexpected, they are intriguing and call into question the value of patents as protection mechanisms. In addition, these results may be resulting from the rise of strategic patenting, where an increasing number of firms are using patents as strategic weapons. As expected, a positive relationship was found between patents and new product announcements.     

Adoption of Product and Process Innovations in Differentiated Markets: The Impact of Competition

The paper examines the effects of the degree of competition on firms'decisions to innovate in differentiated markets. Firms favor productinnovations if they produce close substitutes (so competition is severe) andfavor process innovations if products are differentiated (so competition isless severe). Assumptions on the strategic complementarity of product andprocess innovations and on the decreasing returns of a product innovationare found to be the critical assumptions in the sense of Milgrom and Roberts (1994).     

High‐Performance Product Management: The Impact of Structure,Process, Competencies,and Role Definition*

Product management is one of the most important functions in marketing. Yet the product management literature has focused largely on creating successful products and has relatively little to say about creating effective product management organizations. This paper focuses on the organizational determinants of high‐performance product management at three levels: (1) the product manager as an individual; (2) the marketing processes related to product management; and (3) the organization structure and role definition. The paper identifies several key factors that potentially impact product management performance. A set of qualitative interviews is conducted to develop hypotheses related to constructs that may drive product management performance. These hypotheses are used to develop a causal model for product management performance that includes constructs related to roles and responsibilities, organization structure, and marketing processes related to product management. An empirical survey of 198 product managers from a variety of industries is conducted to test the causal model. The results of the causal model suggest that performance of a product management organization is driven by structural barriers in the organization, the quality of marketing processes, roles and responsibilities, and knowledge and competencies. The findings suggest that structural boundaries and interfaces are the biggest impediment to effective product management, followed by clarity of roles and responsibilities. The research highlights the importance of organization structure and effective human resource practices in improving product management performance.     

How New Product Strategies Impact on Performance

What is involved in a successful new product program? Is it high spending on risky R&D? Is it close contact with customers? Is it the overall competitive strength of the firm? Well, it might be any of these things, and more, according to Robert G. Cooper, depending on your definition of success. In an exhaustive examination of the new product strategies and performances of 122 industrial products firms, Cooper found that the strategy that a firm elects for its new product program is closely linked to the performance results that firm achieves. But what's performance? Cooper's analysis uncovered three different and independent ways of viewing new product performance. He brings some clarity to the meaning of a “high-performance” product innovation program, but there's a catch—the strategies leading to high performance in one direction are quite different from the strategies leading to positive results by other measures. In his summing up, Professor Cooper proposes sets of generalized strategies—guides to action—that product innovation managers should consider.     

The Impact of Product Portfolio Strategy on Financial Performance: The Roles of Product Development and Market Entry Decisions

Innovation is one of the most important issues facing business today. The major difficulty in managing innovation is that managers must do so against a constantly shifting backdrop as technologies, competitors, and markets constantly evolve. Managers determine the product portfolio through key decisions about product development and market entry. Key strategic questions are what portfolio strategies provide the greatest reward. The purpose of this study is to understand the relative financial values of each component of a product portfolio. Specifically, the paper examines the short‐term and long‐term financial impacts of product development strategy and market entry strategy. These strategies reflect two critical tensions that must be balanced in product portfolio decision making and essentially determine a firm's product portfolio. In doing so, the paper also investigates how a firm's capabilities drive each component of a product portfolio. From the empirical analyses in the context of the biomedical device industry, the paper found important insights regarding product portfolio strategies. First, a large product portfolio helps a firm's financial performance. In particular, the pioneering new products have strongest impacts on short‐term performances, and nonpioneering mature products do not provide significant contribution. Second, the results indicate a persistent first‐mover advantage. The first‐to‐market new products yield not only an immediate effect, but also persistent long‐term effects, suggesting that it is important to be first in the market even though there may be short‐term losses. Third, the results suggest the need to balance between “mature” and “new” products. Also, firms need to balance “first‐to‐market” and “late‐entered” products. Because a new or pioneering product requires more resource, it may hurt other products in the portfolio. Thus, without support from mature or follower products, new products and pioneering products alone may not increase firm sales or profit. Fourth, from a long‐term perspective, the paper found that the financial market only rewards a firm's overall capability to deliver new products first in the marketplace. Thus, short‐term performance is mainly driven by product‐level innovativeness, whereas firm‐level innovativeness enhances forward‐looking long‐term performance. Fifth, the paper also found that pioneering new products are driven by integrating both primary and complementary technological capabilities. And nonpioneering new products are mainly driven by the capabilities in primary technology domain. These results provide important insight into the relative value and timing of return on investment in radical versus incremental innovation and alternative market entry strategies. By understanding the performance trade‐offs of these different factors in the short and long term, one can develop better guidelines for optimizing innovation strategies, and their dependence on both external and internal environmental conditions.     

Strategies of Product and Process Innovation: A Loglinear Analysis

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

Competitive Advantage Through Product Performance Innovation in a Competitive Market

Superior product performance does not necessarily ensure commercial success. In many industries, companies seek competitive advantage primarily through product innovation. Competition in such markets is based on claims of technological superiority. However, unless a company can clearly establish the superiority of its products in its customers' minds, a differentiation strategy based on relative product performance is likely to be ineffective. This is particularly true in markets characterized by numerous product introductions from many competitors.
Product innovation success declines as the intensity of market competition increases. This may be caused by customers' inability to differentiate products on the basis of functional performance. John H. Friar tests this hypothesis by examining an industry, medical diagnostic ultrasound equipment, that is characterized by frequent product introductions from numerous companies.
Technical experts from the competing manufacturers believe there are differences in the image quality of their equipment and strongly agree on the factors that distinguish better performance. In most cases, however, customers could not distinguish product performance. Ironically, in a market where everyone is competing by improving product performance, product performance innovation alone may not be enough to create meaningful differentiation.
To succeed in such an environment, companies must compete on two levels. Continued emphasis on product innovation is necessary to keep pace with the competition. However, because product innovation alone is not sufficient to provide market differentiation, companies must shift their competitive thrust to other dimensions.     

The Strategy-Performance Link in Product Innovation

The strategy a firm elects for its new product program is a critical element of the firm's corporate strategy. But little research has probed the performance results of firms' new product programs, and the strategy-performance link. This article reports the results of an empirical study of 122 firms, whose purpose was to identify the levels of new product performance achieved, and the strategies leading to different types of performance. Eight different performance gauges yielded three independent dimensions of new product performance. A total of five different types or clusters of "performers" were identified. And the strategies and characteristics that the "top performers" shared are described.     

高弹性聚酯纤维制造技术和产品性能

讨论了高弹性聚酯纤维的制造技术,包括传统的DT和DTY方法、不对称加工法、非对称冷却成形法、热流喷射法、新聚酯、双组分复合纺丝法以及综合法（PTT/PET并列复合中空纤维制造方法）。针对不同制造技术及其产品弹性的各异,提出采用新聚酯、复合纺丝技术制得纤维的弹性性能更加突出,可以作为新型材料应用于现代纺织等领域。     

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.