Networks for the commercialization of innovations: A review of how divergent network actors contribute

Successful commercialization is of great importance to innovative firms, and the recent literature has increasingly acknowledged that networks make a contribution not only to research and development but also to commercialization. However, research on networks facilitating the commercialization of innovations is scattered across divergent disciplines. A single company is rarely capable of generating successful diffusion in the commercialization of an innovation; success often requires cooperation between individual actors and organizations, and support from stakeholders. Consequently, the network aspect of commercialization is crucial. The aim of this study is thus to integrate the knowledge on how current research and business has employed the network approach in commercialization, and how contributors external to the innovator firm can facilitate the commercialization of innovations. On the basis of an extensive metatheoretical literature review and a qualitative and quantitative content analysis on articles linking networks explicitly to commercialization, this study produces a conceptual synthesis on network actors' contribution potential to commercialization. The analysis identified divergent network approaches to commercialization and gathered extant knowledge on “commercialization networks” from the multidisciplinary literature of innovation management, marketing, management, technology, entrepreneurship, and other relevant disciplines. Networks for commercialization have been linked to divergent network approaches, such as industrial networks, social networks, strategic networks, and entrepreneurship networks. According to the findings, customers and users, distributors, complementaries, suppliers, investors, associations, public organizations, and policy makers and regulators can support commercialization by performing practical commercialization tasks, facilitating innovation adoption/diffusion and creating markets. We also identified four modes of contribution. In terms of methods, qualitative research dominates current examinations on the topic while longitudinal research and investigations from multiple network actors' perspectives are almost absent. The results also indicate a need to develop coherent conceptualizations and accumulate knowledge that would strengthen the theoretical basis of the research. A pivotal contribution of this article is that it is the first to generate an integrative framework and a research agenda on networks for commercialization — a theme that is emergent, multifaceted, and crucial to innovative companies.     

Paths Toward Radical Service Innovation in Manufacturing Companies—A Service‐Dominant Logic Perspective

Research on servitization of manufacturing companies concentrates on typologies of product–service bundles, on transition pathways to increased servitization, and on resource and capabilities configurations necessary to accomplish this transition. Missing from existing research is an analysis of the degree of novelty of service innovations introduced by manufacturing companies. Therefore, this article shifts the focus from the transition process itself to the question of how manufacturing companies can introduce radical service innovations to the market. This article links servitization literature with service innovation literature and investigates how manufacturing companies can introduce radically new services in terms of three forms of innovations: service concept innovations, customer experience innovations, and service process innovations. Service‐dominant logic (SDL) is applied as the theoretical lens because it covers four significant factors influencing the success of companies’ innovation activities: actor value networks, resource liquefaction, resource density, and resource integration. Based on a multiple case study of 24 Danish business‐to‐business manufacturing small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises and through a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, different configurations of the principles of SDL are analyzed. They describe the paths to radical service innovation. Digitalization appears as a central causal condition in the bulk of the configurations. Big and rich data generated internally within the focal company in combination with for instance customer data can enhance the innovativeness of the service offerings. However, digitalization is not a sufficient condition for launching radical service innovation—it should be combined with an efficient mobilization of resources internally within the focal company and/or collaboration with other organizations within the value system. In addition, the analysis hints to a need to detach from immediate customers as the prime driver of service innovation.     

Actors' Heterogeneity in Innovation Networks

Several interpretations converge in defining innovation networks as formed by heterogeneous actors, mainly identified in universities, research centers, and business companies. While the issue of actors' heterogeneity has generated active debate in strategy and organization studies, there has been little discussion so far in exploring the role of this diversity in innovation networks.Drawn from previous literature, we identify six attributes of actors' heterogeneity which seem to matter for the development of collaborative innovation: goals, knowledge bases, capabilities and competences, perceptions, power and position, culture. This paper is aimed at pursuing issues in need of further investigation. In particular 1. how the interplay of diverse actors' attributes shapes the interaction process in the development of collaborative innovation; 2. if and how combinations of their attributes are more likely to generate certain consequences in interaction; and 3. the degree to which heterogeneity is preferable to homogeneity for the effectiveness of innovation networks. In a recursive relationship, we also call for more research on the mechanisms that lead actors' attributes to change as an effect of interaction as well as on the interaction capabilities actors apply to manage heterogeneity.     

Service network value co-creation: Defining the roles of the generic actor

The traditional goods dominant logic lexicon assumes pre-specified and static roles of market participants. Fixed roles such as ‘supplier’ and ‘customer’ imply that value creation occurs between two parties (the dyad) and occurs in a specified direction (i.e., from a supplier to a customer). In contrast, service dominant logic suggests that markets are comprised of generic actors engaged in bilateral actor-to-actor exchanges. However, the generic actor concept is not well developed in existing literature. We contribute to the literature by providing a typology of generic actor roles and identifying multiple types of value that may be co-created in a network. To empirically ground the concepts and generate propositions, we follow the development and deployment of a self-service technology, the Green Fingerprint, in the Swedish commercial real estate industry. Within a service network we find that generic actors assume several roles simultaneously, and may perceive multiple forms of co-created value. Theoretically, this paper offers a basis for further study of the generic actor and types of value, as well as an understanding of how network value co-creation emerges and evolves. Managerially, it offers insights into the existing value and co-creation potential of all actors, even those who are currently passive or reject a value proposition.     

Understanding commercialization of technological innovation: taking stock and moving forward

The commercialization of technological innovation, which is key to entrepreneurial success, represents a combination of several entrepreneurial activities. Building on research in management, strategy, entrepreneurship, and economics, this research summarizes 194 articles from 62 journals, categorizing them into six broad entrepreneurial activity themes: sources of innovations, types of innovation, market entry competence and feasibility, protection, development, and deployment. This review and synthesis suggest a framework of commercialization and an agenda for future research along with recommendations and guidance for future research. The proposed agenda provides topics and research questions for research, as well as related recommendations regarding the study and practice of the commercialization of innovation.     

Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining Entrepreneurial Effectuation and Managerial Causation

This article reports a multimethod study of product innovation processes in small manufacturing firms. Prior studies found that small firms do not deploy the formalized processes identified as best practice for the management of new product development (NPD) in large firms. To explicate small firms' product innovation, this study uses effectuation theory, which emerged from entrepreneurship research. Effectuation theory discerns two logics of decision‐making: causation, assuming that means are selected to attain goals; and effectuation, assuming that goals are created based upon available means. The study used a process research approach, investigating product innovation trajectories in five small firms across 352 total events. Quantitative analyses revealed early effectuation logic, which increasingly turned toward causation logic over time. Further qualitative analyses confirmed the use of both logics, with effectual logic rendering product innovation resource‐driven, stepwise, and open‐ended, and with causal logic used especially in later stages to set objectives and to plan activities and invest resources to attain objectives. Because the application of effectuation logic differentiates the small firm approaches from mainstream NPD best practices, this study examined how small firms' product innovation processes deployed effectuation logic in further detail. The small firms: (1) made creative use of existing resources; (2) scoped innovations to be realizable with available resources; (3) used external resources whenever and wherever these became available; (4) prioritized existing business over product innovation projects; (5) used loose project planning; (6) worked in steps toward tangible outcomes; (7) iterated the generation, selection, and modification of goals and ideas; and (8) relied on their own customer knowledge and market probing, rather than early market research. Using effectuation theory thus helps us understand how small firm product innovation both resembles and differs from NPD best practices observed in larger firms. Because the combination of effectual and causal principles leverages small firm characteristics and resources, this article concludes that product innovation research should more explicitly differentiate between firms of different sizes, rather than prescribing large firm best practices to small firms.     

Negotiating innovation: product renewal as the outcome of a complex bargaining process

In this paper, it is argued that innovation can be the result of a repetitive, multi-actor negotiation process. We present the case of an environment-related product innovation in a large multinational company that emerged as the outcome of a complex interaction process in which numerous external and internal actors negotiated to safeguard their own interests. This negotiation perspective challenges conventional economic views of innovations, in which new products and processes are regarded as exogenous variables, the outcomes of deliberately planned research, or the combination of technology (pushing) and market (pulling) inducements. Instead, innovation may be a non-linear, unpredictable process that involves multiple actors with divergent interests and that leads to outcomes that are collectively acceptable but not necessarily (sub)optimal.     

Controlling and combining resources in networks — from Uppsala to Stanford, and back again: The case of a biotech innovation

This paper explores how resources are controlled and combined in a biotech network that spans from Uppsala, Sweden, to Stanford, USA. A case study is reported that describes and analyses how the original discovery, developed at the Department of Genetics and Pathology at Uppsala University, Sweden, was combined with other innovations at Stanford University, California, and under the influence and control of several different actors, including venture capitalists, were exploited within a newly founded company, ParAllele.The paper analyzes the resources that are created, combined and controlled in the network around these scientific discoveries and the company hosting them. This analysis shows how actors are using and are exposed to different control mechanisms, such as action, results and personnel controls, in the innovation process. Our discussion emphasizes how the involved actors apply various types of controls on resources in order to reach their objectives. Forms of control that both entail mobilizing other actors and preventing actions in the emerging network are of importance. We conclude the paper by pointing out the features of control in innovation processes as well as obstacles to control in a business network setting.     

Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes

The Papa Andina network employs collective action in two novel approaches for fostering market chain innovation. The participatory market chain approach (PMCA) and stakeholder platforms engage small potato producers together with market agents and agricultural service providers in group activities to identify common interests, share market knowledge and develop new business opportunities. These forms of collective action have generated commercial, technological and institutional innovations, and created new market niches for Andean native potatoes grown by poor farmers in remote highland areas. These innovations have benefited small farmers as well as other market chain actors. This paper describes Papa Andina’s experiences with collective action for market chain innovation. It then discusses the implications of these experiences for the understanding of collective action and the policy implications for research and development organizations.     

Appropriability regime for radical and incremental innovations

In the present day markets, new product development and innovation are essential for value creation. Innovation, however, hardly provides benefits if rivals are able to copy it with little or no extra cost. Consequently, being able to build an appropriability regime that provides effective protection against imitation and enables getting returns on investments in innovation is necessary. The problem is that choosing the methods to protect different kinds of innovations is not straightforward. In this paper we study appropriating from radical and incremental innovations. It is widely known that many significant differences exist between the two innovation types, and the appropriability conditions are no exception. Empirical evidence on the topic is provided by analyzing survey data collected among 299 companies. As a result, the effects of environmental dynamism and research and development (R&D) intensity on radical and incremental innovation are illustrated, and knowledge is provided on the role of the appropriability regime in enhancing the potential to profit from radical and incremental innovations.     

Technological and non-technological innovations,performance and propensity to innovate across industries: The case of an emerging economy

Innovation in a firm may be non-technological, such as organizational and marketing innovation, and technological, such as product and process innovation. The aim of this article is to explore how different types of innovation affect the innovation development of the firm across industries. We chose Chile as an emerging market context. Our results show that only product innovations affect significantly innovation performance across industries. However, different types of propensities to innovate are affected differently by technological and non-technological innovations. We discuss implications for managers and policy makers in emerging economies, in which data tends to be scarce to develop new policy models and increase the effect of non-technological innovation on innovative performance.     

Toward A Theory on the Reproduction of Social Innovations in Subsistence Marketplaces

Social innovations and their diffusion are critical in bridging the multiplicity of deprivations experienced by those in subsistence contexts. Yet they often do not diffuse as expected. To better understand this prevalent problem, this article develops a theory of diffusion that explains the reproduction (duplication) of social innovations in subsistence contexts. The theory utilizes a bottom‐up perspective that considers what attributes of innovations and capacities of actors matter to reproduction, particularly for subsistence user‐producers. Adopting an inductive, case‐based approach, the authors draw on examples of social innovations in sub‐Saharan Africa. Based on the authors' research and extant literature, this article builds a typology that captures different modes of reproduction. The typology delineates three archetypes of reproduced social innovations: mimetic, facilitated, and complex, and notes how frugal innovations can emerge from these archetypes. These archetypes are based on the interactions of: (1) a product's resource and knowledge complexities, and (2) the knowledge capabilities or resources of various actors, including subsistence user‐producers and bridging agents. The typology thus illuminates the conditions under which subsistence user‐producers might independently reproduce a social innovation (mimetic innovations), when they need assistance from bridging agents (facilitated innovations), and when the mix of resources and knowledge are beyond their capacity (complex innovations). Moreover, by exploring reproduction experiences of subsistence users, this article recognizes the implications of low literary, close social networks, and physical limitations. By examining who controls the knowledge and resources imperative to reproduction, the authors go beyond a focus on the social benefits of innovations to consider how intellectual property and profits matter to different actors. This article pulls together these various insights and identifies key implications that social innovators and intermediaries should consider when working to reproduce social innovations in subsistence contexts and with subsistence user‐producers.     

Conflict between engineers and marketers: the experience of German engineers

An effective interface between engineering and marketing is considered to be vital for the successful development and commercialization of new products. Studies in the US, Japan and the UK have, however, identified that conflict between engineers and marketers can act as a barrier to effective cooperation. This study aims to further our understanding in this important area by studying conflict between engineers and marketers, from the engineer's perspective, in German companies. This study has found that German engineers recognize the importance of trust, good understanding, common knowledge, integration and teamwork in building a good relationship with marketers. Although the levels of integration between the two functions and the quality of the relationship were found to be relatively low, so too was the level of perceived conflict. The main sources of conflict between German engineers and their marketing colleagues are differences in education and training and different goals and priorities. Both managers and educators of engineers and marketers need to understand how the differences in education and training influence the relationship, and to develop courses, which will help the two functions to become more sensitive to each other's needs.     

Radical innovation through internal corporate venturing: Degussa's commercialization of nanomaterials

Internal corporate venturing enables radical innovation within established firms in mature markets. Without effectively designed and managed internal corporate ventures, the organizational constraints of established firms will strongly favour incremental innovation over radical innovation. This paper investigates the evolution of a successful internal corporate venture within a large, incumbent chemical firm, now known as Evonik Degussa, to reveal the challenges, organizational design, and management strategies of their commercialization of radical nanomaterials technology. The commercialization of nanomaterials technology is of great interest to incumbent materials and chemical firms and to independent ventures, but the radical, generic, and capital intensive nature of nanomaterials technology requires organizational and managerial innovation. This case study demonstrates a model to enable growth through radical innovation in nanomaterials, while taking advantage of an incumbent firm's capabilities and complementary assets. Organizational strategies include incubation from a risk-adverse culture, relatively long timelines for evaluation, and a high-level steering committee. Managerial strategies focus on product development, risk reduction, and active risk management.     

Roles, role performance, and radical innovation competences

Despite the importance of radical innovations (RI), few firms have the capability to develop such innovations internally; success is increasingly linked with relationships and networks. However, the way(s) in which relationships and networks support RI is less clear. Successfully launching RIs requires the development of four distinctive competences; discovery, incubation, acceleration and commercialization. This paper examines how networks support the development of RIs, focusing on when and how network partners become involved and how their role performances support the development of the four competences. The study context is the automotive industry, which is heavily dependent upon RI and complex interrelationships. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with network participants involved in developing several RIs. Five task-oriented and three network-oriented roles are uncovered and the performance of these roles supports the development of different competences, with some roles being exclusively connected with particular competences and others supporting several competences. Focusing on role performance offers a useful means for distinguishing between acontextual actors, and the activities and resources they bring. In doing so, the paper enhances understanding of the links between network participants, role performances and the development of RI competences, and identifies a number of important implications for theory and practice.     

Implementation of green innovations – The impact of stakeholders and their network relations

Green innovation is becoming increasingly important for companies and whole societies, and the research in this field has essentially increased in recent years. As green innovation is expected to ensure both environmental sustainability and economical profitability, it might seriously affect the partly colliding interests of various groups of stakeholders. However, from previous studies less is known about the impact that various groups of stakeholders and particularly the relationships among these stakeholders exert on the implementation of green innovations. To address this gap we first substantiate the relevance of the stakeholder theory for innovation studies in general and green innovations in particular. Furthermore, we argue that from the innovator's perspective green innovations are likely to be affected by the interactions with as well as between many primary and secondary stakeholders. To explore this issue in-depth we conducted a case study of the implementation of an offshore wind farm in Germany. Our research revealed that network ties among stakeholders can be both conducive and detrimental to the green innovation. The insights gained in our study contribute to the stakeholder analysis for the implementation of green innovations.     

Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation

This paper reviews research on open innovation that considers how and why firms commercialize external sources of innovations. It examines both the “outside‐in” and “coupled” modes of open innovation. From an analysis of prior research on how firms leverage external sources of innovation, it suggests a four‐phase model in which a linear process—(1) obtaining, (2) integrating, and (3) commercializing external innovations—is combined with (4) interaction between the firm and its collaborators. This model is used to classify papers taken from the top 25 innovation journals, complemented by highly cited work beyond those journals. A review of 291 open innovation‐related publications from these sources shows that the majority of these articles indeed address elements of this inbound open innovation process model. Specifically, it finds that researchers have front‐loaded their examination of the leveraging process, with an emphasis on obtaining innovations from external sources. However, there is a relative dearth of research related to integrating and commercializing these innovations. Research on obtaining innovations includes searching, enabling, filtering, and acquiring—each category with its own specific set of mechanisms and conditions. Integrating innovations has been mostly studied from an absorptive capacity perspective, with less attention given to the impact of competencies and culture (including “not invented here”). Commercializing innovations puts the most emphasis on how external innovations create value rather than how firms capture value from those innovations. Finally, the interaction phase considers both feedback for the linear process and reciprocal innovation processes such as cocreation, network collaboration, and community innovation. This review and synthesis suggests several gaps in prior research. One is a tendency to ignore the importance of business models, despite their central role in distinguishing open innovation from earlier research on interorganizational collaboration in innovation. Another gap is a tendency in open innovation to use “innovation” in a way inconsistent with earlier definitions in innovation management. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research that include examining the end‐to‐end innovation commercialization process, and studying the moderators and limits of leveraging external sources of innovation.     

Exploring and exploiting network relationships to commercialize technology: A biofuel case

We seek to understand how ambidexterity of exploring and exploiting is managed in an innovation context. We contribute to the literature by elaborating exploring and exploiting as three processes shared between actors in a dynamic business network. An innovator firm needs to (1) explore the current business network to find partners and gain access to resources, (2) develop business relationships for exploiting the emerging network, and (3) explore and find a network-technology fit inside a future business network. The final process is essential to innovation and commercialization. Further, the quality of the network-technology fit will affect the speed and success of the other two processes. Our contribution provides an understanding of the way in which managers are exploring and exploiting the business network to adapt and commercialize a breakthrough technology. A longitudinal case study of biofuel development and commercialization exemplifies the conceptual issues. Final sections address managerial and research implications.     

A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review

A plethora of definitions for innovation types has resulted in an ambiguity in the way the terms ‘innovation’ and ‘innovativeness’ are operationalized and utilized in the new product development literature. The terms radical, really‐new, incremental and discontinuous are used ubiquitously to identify innovations. One must question, what is the difference between these different classifications? To date consistent definitions for these innovation types have not emerged from the new product research community. A review of the literature from the marketing, engineering, and new product development disciplines attempts to put some clarity and continuity to the use of these terms. This review shows that it is important to consider both a marketing and technological perspective as well as a macrolevel and microlevel perspective when identifying innovations. Additionally, it is shown when strict classifications from the extant literature are applied, a significant shortfall appears in empirical work directed toward radical and really new innovations. A method for classifying innovations is suggested so that practitioners and academics can talk with a common understanding of how a specific innovation type is identified and how the innovation process may be unique for that particular innovation type. A recommended list of measures based on extant literature is provided for future empirical research concerning technological innovations and innovativeness.

相似文献   

Commercializing a radical innovation: Probing the way to the market

Needs, market structures, business models, and relationships concerning radical innovations (RIs) are unpredictable and, consequently, firms face critical challenges in commercialization. Therefore, this study examines the commercialization of RIs as a process complicated by divergent challenges. By drawing on the literature on innovation management, RIs, and the commercialization and adoption of innovations, and by analyzing six longitudinal cases, the study generates its contribution: a dynamic process model for the commercialization of RIs. The model captures the iterative and partially unpredictable commercialization process comprising transits back and forth between three main zones: strategic marketing decision making, market creation and preparation, and sales creation and development. Over this probing process, a firm faces major commercialization challenges: 1) choosing a feasible strategy in conditions of uncertainty, 2) understanding the benefits of innovation from the customer's perspective, 3) creating credibility, 4) acquiring support from stakeholders and the ecosystem, 5) overcoming adoption barriers, and 6) creating sales. For managers, the results suggest diligence in the neglected market creation and preparation zone instead of attempting rushed sales creation.