Commercializing Technological Innovation: Learning from Failures in High‐Tech Markets*

Commercialization is known to be a critical stage of the technological innovation process, mainly because of the high risks and costs that it entails. Despite this, many scholars consider it to be often the least well managed phase of the entire innovation process, and there is ample empirical evidence corroborating this belief. In high‐tech markets, the difficulties encountered by firms in commercializing technological innovation are exacerbated by the volatility, interconnectedness, and proliferation of new technologies that characterize such markets. This is clearly evinced by the abundance of new high‐tech products that fail on the market chiefly due to poor commercialization. Yet there is no clear understanding, in management theory and practice, of how commercialization decisions influence the market failure of new high‐tech products. Drawing on research in innovation management, diffusion of innovation, and marketing, this article shows how commercialization decisions can influence consumer acceptance of a new high‐tech product in two major ways: (i) by affecting the extent to which the players in the innovation's adoption network support the new product; (ii) by affecting the post‐purchase attitude early adopters develop toward the innovation, and hence the type of word‐of‐mouth (positive or negative) they disseminate among later adopters. Lack of support from the adoption network is found to be an especially critical cause of failure for systemic innovations, while a negative post‐purchase attitude of early adopters is a more significant determinant of market failure for radical innovations. There follows a historical analysis of eight innovations launched on consumer high‐tech markets (Apple Newton, IBM PC‐Junior, Tom Tom GO, Sony Walkman, 3DO Interactive Multiplayer, Sony MiniDisc, Palm Pilot, and Nintendo NES), which illustrates how commercialization decisions (i.e., timing, targeting and positioning, inter‐firm relationships, product configuration, distribution, advertising, and pricing) can determine lack of support from the innovation's adoption network and a negative post‐purchase attitude of early adopters. The results of this work provide useful insights for improving the commercialization decisions of product and marketing managers operating in high‐technology markets, helping them avoid errors that are precursors of market failure. It is also hoped the article will inform further research aimed at identifying, theoretically and empirically, other possible causes of poor customer acceptance in high‐tech markets.     

中部崛起的突破口：提升科技创新能力

中部六省如何抓住21世纪头20年的战略机遇期实现中部崛起，在很大程度上取决于是否拥有自己的核心竞争力。因此，大力提升科技创新能力，尤其是自主创新能力，是实现中部崛起的突破口。文章分析了中部地区科技创新能力不强的原因，并在此基础上提出了提升中部地区科技创新能力的对策建议。     

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.     

Platform Price Parity Clauses and Consumer Obfuscation*

Several antitrust authorities have investigated platform price parity clauses around the world. I analyze the impact of these clauses when platforms design a search environment for sellers and buyers to interact. In a model where platforms choose the unit search cost faced by consumers, I show when platforms can profitably obfuscate consumers through high search costs. Then, I show that price parity clauses, when exogenously given, can increase or reduce obfuscation, prices, and consumer surplus. Finally, when price parity clauses are endogenous, they are only observed in equilibrium if they hurt consumers.     

基于创新协同理论的企业技术创新能力评价指标体系研究

企业是技术创新的主体,在科技高速发展的今天,企业该如何提高自身的技术创新能力,使其能够持续、快速、健康地发展,便成为一个不可忽视的问题。本文在对企业技术创新能力研究综述的基础上,从协同的角度进一步完善了企业技术创新能力评价理论基础,给出了企业创新协同系统的概念和企业技术创新能力要素。遵循科学性、系统性、可操作性和代表性的原则,从研发能力、财务能力、协同能力和产出能力四个方面,选取了15个有代表性的评价指标,构建出了基于创新协同理论的企业技术创新能力评价指标体系。     

协同技术创新中的技术互补、资源互补与技术创新能力研究

本文基于柯布--道格拉斯生产函数,结合微观经济学的相关理论,分析了协同技术创新对高技术企业与传统企业生产过程的提升作用。同时,通过实证研究和回归分析,结果表明,高技术企业和传统企业之间的技术互补和资源互补对高技术企业和传统企业的技术创新能力都有着积极显著的影响。     

基于创新协同理论的大中型工业企业技术创新能力评价研究

在科技高速发展的今天,大中型工业企业该如何提高自身的技术创新能力,使其能够持续、快速、健康地发展,成为一个不可忽视的问题。本文从研发能力、财务能力、协同能力和产出能力四个方面,选取了15个有代表性的评价指标,构建出了基于创新协同的企业技术创新能力评价指标体系。然后搜集了2011年东部和中部十九个省市大中型工业企业的指标数据,运用因子分析法进行综合分析。研究结果表明,我国大中型工业企业技术创新能力呈现出明显的从东部沿海地区向中部地区由高到低的递减分布。     

我国区域大中型工业企业技术创新能力评价及差异测度

运用熵权TOPSIS方法和锡尔指数对2005～2009年我国区域大中型工业企业技术创新能力发展水平进行了综合评价和差异测度.研究结果表明,当前我国区域大中型工业企业技术创新能力发展水平存在显著差异,两极分化现象严重;对于区域内部差异而言,西部最大,东部次之,中部最小;三大区域之间差异最为突出,对区域总体差异贡献最大.     

GA －BP 神经网络模型在地区工业技术创新能力评价中的应用

针对当前技术创新能力评价方法大多建立在线性模型的基础上,且技术创新能力影响因素较多,可能存在多重共线性的缺陷,本文提出了遗传算法优化的BP神经网络模型。GA－BP神经网络模型在以下几方面做出了改进：①利用了神经网络强大的非线性关系映射能力,避免了传统线性模型的缺陷。②利用遗传算法对评价指标进行了降维,去除了多重共线性。③使用遗传算法从全局搜寻BP神经网络权值和阀值向量,优化了BP神经网络模型,避免了BP神经网络由于使用梯度下降算法,容易陷入局部最优解的缺陷。本文最后选取2008～2013年全国31个省市规模以上工业企业技术创新能力124条数据作为训练样本,31条数据作为测试样本,分别测试遗传算法优化的BP神经网络和未优化的BP神经网络,测试结果显示遗传算法优化的BP神经网络模型预测准确率高于未优化的BP神经网络模型。     

Learning to Reduce Interorganizational Learning: An Analysis of Architectural Product Innovation in Strategic Alliances*

There is wide agreement in analyses of strategic alliances that, regardless of the purpose of the alliance, members of the partner organizations should engage in intensive mutual learning to make the alliance a success. In contrast to this view, the present article shows that in strategic alliances aimed at product innovations by recombining partners' extant technologies, learning between specialists can be reduced considerably without jeopardizing success. This is made possible through four interconnected mechanisms integrated into the concept of transactive organizational learning (TOL): (1) modularization, which allows specialists of different domains to develop modules to a large extent independently of each other and to concentrate communication between themselves on the design of interfaces between modules; (2) storing of knowledge in artifacts instead of in organizational members' memories; (3) localization of knowledge not present in the project team but for which a need has arisen through transactive memory; and (4) knowledge integration by prototyping (i.e., by repeated testing of modules and of interactions between modules until a satisfactorily working end product is achieved). Although these four mechanisms reduce the need for cross‐learning between specialists of different domains, some common knowledge and some cross‐learning between the partners' specialists is still required. Case studies on four of SAP's strategic alliances for product innovation with different partners lend empirical support to this study's concept. The article concludes with implications for practice: Companies should find out whether the TOL mechanisms that reduce time to market are present, to what extent their potential is exploited, and how well they work together.     

Education and Technological Capability Building in the Gulf

Technology concerns knowledge not merely artifacts. To transfer it effectively requires prepared minds on the part of the receivers and some measure of shared cognitive frameworks. It also requires co-ordinated policies on investment, education and training, employment, the economy and development. In the Gulf, specifically the UAE, educational administration and schooling are not well adapted to these purposes. Transfer of educational technology is needed, yet education is culture-saturated and the educational bureaucracy is not well developed. Higher cognitive processes are techniques for handling reality and are thus themselves a technology. Transferring these may be the most important transfer of all.     

技术创新外部性与重复技术创新博弈研究

从博弈论视角来看,技术创新中博弈参与人的个体利益与整体利益的不一致,可能造成“囚徒困境”的状况.企业之间无限次重复技术创新博弈模型表明,静态技术创新博弈中的“囚徒困境”可能在无限次重复技术创新博弈中解决,但这一可能性受到企业的得益贴现因子、本企业技术创新收益与成本、技术创新外溢收益、技术创新外溢学习成本等因素的影响.     

In Search of Innovation and Customer‐related Performance Superiority: The Role of Market Orientation,Marketing Capability,and Innovation Capability Interactions

Understanding the mechanisms through which firms realize the value of their market‐based knowledge resources such as market orientation is a central interest of innovation scholars and practitioners. The current study contends that realizing the performance impact of market orientation depends on know‐how deployment processes and their complementarities in functional areas such as marketing and innovation that co‐align with market orientation. More specifically, this study addresses two research questions: (1) to what extent can market orientation be transformed into customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes via marketing and innovation capabilities; and (2) does the complementarity between marketing capability and innovation capability enhance customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes? Drawing upon the resource‐based view and capability theory of the firm, a model is developed that integrates market orientation, marketing capability, innovation capability, and customer‐ and innovation‐related performance. The validity of the model is tested based on a sample of 163 manufacturing and services firms. In answer to the first research question, the findings show that market orientation significantly contributes to customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes via marketing and innovation capabilities. This finding is important in that market‐based knowledge resources should be configured with the deployment of marketing and innovation capabilities to ensure better performance. In answer to the second research question, the findings indicate that market orientation works through the complementarity between marketing and innovation capabilities to influence customer‐related performance but not innovation‐related performance. Managers are advised to have a balanced approach to managing the deployment of capabilities. If they seek to achieve superiority in customer‐related performance, marketing capability, innovation capability, and their complementarity are essential for attracting, satisfying, building relationships with, and retaining customers. On the other hand, this complementarity would be considerably less important if firms placed greater emphasis on achieving superiority in innovation‐related performance. In contrast to many existing studies, this study is the first to model the roles of both innovation capability and marketing capability in mediating the relationship between market orientation and specific performance outcomes (i.e., innovation‐ and customer‐related outcomes).     

Managing the Exploitation/Exploration Paradox: The Role of a Learning Capability and Innovation Ambidexterity

Some researchers have proposed that practices facilitating learning and knowledge transfer are particularly important to innovation. Some of the practices that researchers have studied include how organizations collaborate with other organizations, how organizations promote learning, and how an organization's culture facilitates knowledge transfer and learning. And while some have proposed the importance of combining practices, there has been a distinct lack of empirical studies that have explored how these practices work together to facilitate learning and knowledge transfer that leads to the simultaneous achievement of incremental and radical innovation, what we refer to as innovation ambidexterity (IA). Yet, a firm's ability to combine these practices into a learning capability is an important means of enabling them to foster innovation ambidexterity. In this study, learning capability is defined as the combination of practices that promote intraorganizational learning among employees, partnerships with other organizations that enable the spread of learning, and an open culture within the organization that promotes and maintains sharing of knowledge. This paper examines the impact of this learning capability on innovation ambidexterity and innovation ambidexterity's effect on business performance. The resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm is used to develop a conceptual foundation for combining these practices. This study empirically examines whether these practices constitute a learning capability by analyzing primary data gathered from 214 Taiwanese owned strategic business unit (SBUs) drawn from several industries where innovation is important. The results of this study make four important contributions. First, they demonstrate that the combination of these practices has a greater impact on innovation ambidexterity than any one practice individually or when only two practices are combined. Second, the results demonstrate a relationship between innovation ambidexterity and business performance in the form of revenues, profits, and productivity growth relative to competitors. Third, the results suggest that innovation ambidexterity plays a mediating role between learning capability and business performance. That is, learning capability has an indirect impact on business performance by facilitating innovation ambidexterity that in turn fosters business performance. This study also contributes to our understanding of ambidexterity literature in a non‐Western context, i.e., Taiwan.     

Incapability of Technological Capability: A Case Study on Product Innovation in the Japanese Facsimile Machine Industry

Technological leadership in an industry certainly seems like a ticket to ongoing success. However, overemphasis on existing technological capabilities may produce a form of myopia in product development. In other words, by focusing primarily on developing and improving their core technologies, organizations miss opportunities to exploit new technologies and thus create breakthrough products. Ken Kusunoki proposes that problem-solving approaches in a technologically leading firm paradoxically may impede radical product innovation. Suggesting that such firms are inherently oriented toward incremental innovation, he presents a conceptual framework of the dynamic interaction between technological and product development problem-solving in the context of product innovation. He then illustrates this conceptual framework by examining a case of radical innovation in the Japanese facsimile industry. For a technological leader, product innovation typically is driven by technology development. In other words, such a firm quite reasonably relies on the technological advantage it holds over competitors as the basis for its product developments. By refining and enhancing its industry-leading technological capabilities, the firm can successfully introduce incremental innovations in its products. Because of this strong emphasis on exploiting existing technological capabilities, however, the technological leader may fail to capitalize on new technologies that can produce radical innovations. In the race to develop high-speed, digital facsimile equipment during the early 1970s, for example, Matsushita held a decided technological advantage over competitors such as Ricoh. Notwithstanding Matsushita's technological edge, however, Ricoh brought this radical innovation to market two years before Matsushita introduced its first digital machine, causing a serious decline in Matsushita's market share. Ricoh's approach to technological and product problem-solving—an autonomous team structure, with a strong project manager and frequent transfers of engineers among interdependent units—contrasts dramatically with Matsushita's functional structure and strong emphasis on technological problem-solving. Interestingly, Matsushita regained its technological advantage by 1976, thanks to a rapid series of incremental innovations in its product technologies.     

Cognitive Frames,Learning Mechanisms,and Innovation Ambidexterity

While there is general agreement about the need for firms to both exploit and explore, there has been little empirical research that has focused on understanding how firms can manage the tension that arises from engaging in these two activities. Some writers have theorized that the cognitive frames that individuals, teams, and organizations possess may play an important role in managing these tensions and fostering ambidextrous outcomes. However, a review of the extant literature on cognition and cognitive frames reveals that their role in managing this tension has not been examined at any level, including the strategic business unit (SBU) level. This paper has taken a first step in providing empirical validation for the notion that ambidextrous cognitive frames play an important role in generating innovation ambidexterity. To test the hypotheses, primary data were gathered from 178 Taiwanese companies (190 SBUs) operating in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, financial management, mechanical engineering, and electronic engineering sectors. Questionnaires were administered to senior level managers and middle‐level managers in each SBU. Because the theory and hypotheses of this study require an SBU level of analysis, respondents' individual scores on each variable were aggregated, and the SBU mean responses for each question were computed. Multiple regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses. Different cognitive styles were found to impact different types of learning. An independent cognitive style was found to have a positive impact on intra‐SBU learning, while a reflection cognitive style had a positive impact on inter‐SBU learning. More importantly, ambidextrous cognitive frames, i.e., the combination of these two styles, were found to indirectly foster innovation ambidexterity by facilitating intra‐SBU learning and inter‐SBU learning simultaneously. These results suggest that managing the tension that arises from exploiting and exploring begins with the presence of dual cognitive styles. Ambidextrous cognitive frames enable SBUs to cognitively juxtapose contradictions and tensions in ways that allow them to “embrace” rather than avoid or deny these tensions. These findings provide validation for viewing SBUs as separate, holistic entities that collaboratively shape their cognitive frames. And it is these cognitive frames that enable their information processing which in turn causes the SBU to act or perform in a distinctive or characteristic manner. Additionally, these findings suggest that management teams may need to adopt ambidextrous cognitive frames that broaden the “problem space” to include multiple sources of learning that emanate from inside, as well as outside of the SBU or organization.     

Technological Innovation and Employment in Telecommunications

In this paper we examine how the diffusion of technological innovation in the telecommunications industry influences employment levels across occupations and how a firm chooses among alternative personnel mechanisms to reach its target employment levels. We find that technological change has influenced the demand for different types of workers and has centralized office functions. The adjustment patterns to these demand changes differ by the union status, tenure, age, and gender composition of the affected occupations.     

技术学习成本的分担方式与企业创新绩效关系的实证研究

本文选取2009～2013年中国医药行业上市公司作为研究样本,分别对技术学习的企业内部投入成本与社会外部投入成本对企业创新绩效的影响进行了实证分析,同时探讨了技术学习的两种承担方式之间的关系。研究结果表明,技术学习过程中的企业投入与社会投入均对企业创新绩效产生显著正向影响,技术学习的投入越大,企业创新绩效越好。但政府以税收优惠与财政补贴等政策方式分担企业技术学习成本的效果并不显著。     

Competition,Innovation and the Use of Innovations

I examine the effect of competition on the production and use of innovations using evidence from a natural experiment of policy reform, the introduction of cartel legislation in the U.K. in the late 1950’s. I compare manufacturing industries which had been collusive and were therefore affected by the policy with those that had been competitive and were not affected. The intensification of competition following the abolition of cartels caused a short‐run decrease in innovations produced, but had no significant effect in the long run. In contrast, innovations used increased both in the short run and in the long run.     

Radical Product Innovation Capability: Literature Review,Synthesis, and Illustrative Research Propositions

Product innovation is a key to organizational renewal and success. Relative to other forms of innovation, radical product innovations offer unprecedented customer benefits, substantial cost reductions, or the ability to create new businesses, any of which should lead to superior organizational performance. In other words, a radical product innovation capability is a dynamic capability, one that enables the organization to maintain alignment with rapidly evolving customer needs in high‐velocity environments. Extensive research has been conducted on the antecedents to an incremental/general product innovation capability, and meta‐analyses have been conducted to integrate the results from the various studies. However, whether and how a radical product innovation capability differs from an incremental product innovation capability is also critical. The purpose of this work is to develop a testable model of the antecedents to radical product innovation success. Based on an extensive literature review, a comprehensive set of organizational components that comprise a firm's radical product innovation capability is identified. These organizational components include senior leadership, organizational culture, organizational architecture, the radical product innovation development process, and the product launch strategy. Of course, each of these components has subcomponents that provide even more texture. This review highlights how the components of a radical innovation capability function differently from those for an incremental capability. In addition, this review strongly suggests that the direct effects models that dominate this literature underestimate the complexity of the interplay of components that comprise a radical product innovation capability. Thus, a model to demonstrate this interplay of these organizational components is provided. Illustrative research propositions are offered to provide guidance to researchers. Suggestions for executives and managers who are involved in the product development process and for scholars who seek to advance the state of knowledge in this area are offered in the conclusion.