Success and Failure in New Industrial Services

The critical role of innovation has long been recognized in physical goods; however, the development of innovative services has received much less attention. The research described here reports on an early major study of success and failure in new industrial services. Building on her integration of two literatures on new product innovation and services marketing, Ulrike de Brentani reports how companies measure new service performance and the factors which are associated with success. She reports that new industrial services share some important success factors with physical goods, such as the firm's market orientation, a formal service development process, project synergy and a truly superior new service offering. Yet she finds that firms must adjust their approach to the distinctive character of services, including customer perceptions of service quality, features that successfully differentiate services in competitive terms and cost reduction.     

Understanding success and failure in customer relationship management

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems can help organizations manage customer interactions more effectively. Like many new technologies, CRM has been accompanied by vendor hype and stories of implementation failure. Work on critical success factors (CSFs) should encourage more appropriate implementation practice; however many CSF studies conclude with a list of factors but provide little further guidance. In particular, there is a need for stronger theoretical models of the entire CRM innovation process which can be used by managers to understand better the underlying causes of success and failure. This paper adopts a novel approach to this problem by firstly developing a conceptual model of CRM innovation and then converting this model into a dynamic simulation model. Some early simulation results illustrating changes in CRM benefits and organizational support over time are presented together with a discussion of the underlying causes and suggestions for how managers can counteract potential innovation failure.     

High-Technology Service Innovation Success: A Decision-Making Perspective

Successful innovation is crucial for firm survival in high-technology service industries. This article reports on an empirical study, exploring internal innovation success factors—success factors associated with the innovating firm's competencies—by taking a decision-making perspective. The likelihood of innovation success is associated with the systematic reduction of decision-making uncertainty, as a result of organizational information gathering, diffusion, and processing activities. Effects of interfirm differences are investigated in the new service development phase of the innovation process. Cross-sectional data were collected about 251 innovation projects from companies in Europe, the United States, and Japan. Innovation success is found to be related positively and directly to how well informed and knowledgeable decision-makers are. Furthermore, the study provides evidence that a market orientation contributes as an internal success factor: An organizational climate favorable to information sharing powerfully mediates the positive effects of intelligence gathering with respect to customers and technology. The effects of competitor orientation carry a negative sign, and managerial seniority appears not to play a major role in this turbulent business. Managerial and research implications are provided.     

Determinants of technological innovation success and failure: Does marketing innovation matter?

Innovation is attracting increasing attention from public authorities, enterprises, and academics. Although emerging evidence has indicated that marketing innovation should be regarded as critical as technological innovations for enhancing companies' competitiveness, few studies have considered this topic.This study aims to address this gap by examining the role of marketing innovation in the relationship between technological innovation and innovation success and failure. This study analyses the 2010–2012 Community Innovation Survey sample of German enterprises by using a double hurdle model and a probit model with sample selection. The results show that when enterprises undertake a technological innovation, introducing a marketing innovation is observed not to play a significant role regarding innovation success and failure. Notably, when the four types of marketing innovations are disentangled in the analysis, new findings emerge. Innovation in product packaging and design is positively related to innovation success. Innovation in product promotion is negatively related to innovation success and positively related to probability of innovation failure. Academics are called to study the role of marketing innovation, regarding innovation success and failure, by devoting their attention to the level of each marketing innovation. Enterprises should then carefully consider which marketing innovation should be introduced.     

Sectoral Heterogeneity in New Service Development: An Exploratory Study of Service Types and Success Factors

The service industry is of fundamental relevance for the economies of industrialized countries, as the service industry produces the highest growth in the gross domestic product. In this regard, new service development (NSD) represents a critical resource for competitive survival and a decisive factor of growth in the service industry. However, service firms across many industries are increasingly faced with the challenge of determining how best to manage their development of new service offerings. Although researchers have shown growing interest in NSD issues, this area is still underutilized. Furthermore, although the heterogeneity of the service industry has been emphasized for years, the current body of research on NSD mainly focuses on specific service environments, providing data that are often not comparable across different service sectors. Additionally, there is no study to date that comprehensively examines innovation activities and the relevance of service innovations’ success factors within different service industries. The aim of this exploratory study is to establish a more balanced picture of the nature of innovation activities in terms of NSD characteristics and success factors in the heterogeneous service industry. From this perspective, this paper begins with an examination of the factors that contribute to the success of NSD. Based on a meta‐analysis of new service success factor studies, 17 different success determinants are classified and aggregated to service‐related success determinants. Subsequently, a cluster analysis of 1016 service companies is used to identify different service innovation types. For the service sector, four service innovation types are determined: efficient developers, innovative developers, interactive adopters, and standardized adopters. Furthermore, based on interviews with service innovation managers, the previously identified success factors are examined for each innovation type using a standardized survey. Finally, based on the results of this exploratory study, the paper concludes with recommendations for NSD management and research propositions for each service innovation type. These propositions support innovation managers to successfully manage service innovations for the innovation type they are operating in.     

Success Factors for Service Innovation: A Meta‐Analysis

Service sectors form a considerable part of the world economy. Contrary to the logical assumption that service innovation research should represent a significant share of all innovation research, the vast majority of innovation studies focus on products as opposed to services. This research presents a meta‐analysis of the antecedents of service innovation performance conducted on 92 independent samples obtained from 114 articles published between 1989 and 2015. This research contributes to our understanding of service innovation in three major ways. First, this is the first meta‐analysis that specifically assesses the relative importance of antecedents of service innovation performance, while also pinpointing the differences in meta‐analytic findings between antecedents of service and product innovation performance. Although there are some universal success factors that transcend the boundaries between services and products, the presence of marked differences implies that it would be wrong to treat the development of new services and new products as the same. Second, the meta‐analysis demonstrates that the antecedents of service innovation performance are contingent on the sector context (i.e., explicit versus tacit services). Comparing results between products and services, and between tacit and explicit services, there appears to be a continuum where explicit services sit interstitial between tacit services on one side and products on the other. Third, the meta‐analysis compares and contrasts the antecedents of two dimensions of service innovation performance (i.e., commercial success and strategic competitive advantage). Previous meta‐analyses treated these two dependent variables collectively, which falls short of identifying issues that may affect management decisions when faced with different objectives. Additionally, this research investigates the effect of several other moderators (i.e., culture, unit of analysis, journal quality, and year of publication) on the relationships between the antecedents and service innovation performance. The results are discussed in relation to their implications for research and managerial practice.     

The drivers of success in new-product development

Why are some new products so successful and some companies outstanding performers in new-product development? The article identifies success factors from numerous research studies into NPD (new-product development) performance in industry. Three categories of success drivers have been defined. First, success drivers, that explain the success of individual new-product projects, are more tactical: They capture the characteristics of new product projects, such as certain executional best practices (building in voice-of-customer; doing the front-end homework; and adopting a global orientation for the project), and well as the nature of the product itself (a compelling value proposition, for example). A second category is drivers of success at the business level: They include organizational and strategic factors, such as the business's innovation strategy and how the firm makes its R&D investment decisions; how it organizes for NPD; climate and culture; and leadership The third category of success divers identified is the systems and methods the firm has in place for managing NPD, for example gating systems, Agile development approaches, and ideation methods. The details of each of these 20 success drivers, along with their managerial implications, are outlined in the article.     

Measuring New Product Success: The Difference that Time Perspective Makes

Management is often criticized for overemphasizing short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth. On the other hand, although numerous studies have explored the factors underlying new product success and failure, such studies rarely distinguish between short- and long-term success. In fact, little research has been conducted to explore the relationship between a company's time perspective and its choice of criteria for measuring new product success. For that matter, little consensus exists as to just what we mean by the term success. Expanding on work done by a PDMA task force on measurement of new product success and failure, Erik Jan Hultink and Henry S.J. Robben identify 16 core measures of new product success. In a survey of large Dutch companies, they explore managers' perceptions of new product success, hypothesizing that the importance attached to each of the 16 core measures depends on the company's time perspective. For example, they propose that criteria such as development cost and speed-to-market are more important in the short term, and return-on-investiment (ROI) is more important in the long term. The study also examines the type of market served, the innovation strategy, and the perceived innovativeness of the company's products. It is hypothesized that these factors will influence the importance the company attaches to the core measures of new product success. For example, it is expected that speed-to-market is probably more important for technological innovators than for fast imitators or cost minimizers. The findings support the hypothesis that the firm's time perspective influences the perceived importance of the core measures of success. For the short term, the respondents emphasize product-level measures such as speed-to-market and whether the product was launched on time. In the long term, the focus is on customer acceptance and financial performance, including attaining goals for profitability, margins, and ROI. Four factors are perceived as being equally important for short-term and long-term success: customer satisfaction, customer acceptance, meeting quality guidelines, and product performance level. Customer satisfaction was found to be the most important measure, regardless of a company's time perspective. Contrary to expectations, the perceived importance of the 16 core measures does not differ on the basis of the type of market, the innovation strategy, or the product's perceived innovativeness. In addition, the firm's functional orientation—technology push or market pull—does not affect the importance attached to the core measures of new product success.     

Launch Decisions and New Product Success: An Empirical Comparison of Consumer and Industrial Products

Many articles have investigated new product development success and failure. However, most of them have used the vantage point of characteristics of the product and development process in this research. In this article we extend this extensive stream of research, looking at factors affecting success; however, we look at the product in the context of the launch support program. We empirically answer the question of whether successful launch decisions differ for consumer and industrial products and identify how they differ. From data collected on over 1,000 product introductions, we first contrast consumer product launches with industrial product launches to identify key differences and similarities in launch decisions between market types. For consumer products, strategic launch decisions appear more defensive in nature, as they focus on defending current market positions. Industrial product strategic launch decisions seem more offensive, using technology and innovation to push the firm to operate outside their current realm of operations and move into new markets. The tactical marketing mix launch decisions (product, place, promotion and price) also differ markedly across the products launched for the two market types. Successful products were contrasted with failed products to identify those launch decisions that discriminate between both outcomes. Here the differences are more of degree rather than principle. Some launch decisions were associated with success for consumer and industrial products alike. Launch successes are more likely to be broader assortments of more innovative product improvements that are advertised with print advertising, independent of market. Other launch decisions uniquely related to success per product type, especially at the marketing mix level (pricing, distribution, and promotion in particular). The launch decisions most frequently made by firms are not well aligned with factors associated with higher success. Additionally, comparing the decisions associated with success to the recommendations for launches from the normative literature suggests that a number of conventional heuristics about how to launch products of each type will actually lead to failure rather than success.     

Keys to new product success and failure

This article reports the findings of a 1985–1986 study of success and failure determinants for new industrial products that had recently reached commercialization. In particular, the paper seeks to identify underlying factors for success and to test whether perceived success and failure factors vary with new product “experience” levels and/or with the degree of innovation in the company's new product program. The paper concludes that companies with more innovative and/or hightech new product programs have significantly different success and failure factors at work than their less innovative and/or lower technology counterparts, and that across a sample of companies from many industries, wide variety of situation- specific success and failure variables need to be addressed by industrial marketers.     

Case history studies in ICI Agricultural Division Research and Development Department 1968–1975

During the period 1968–1972 several projects which were initiated in Agricultural Division Research & Development Department were studied in some depth, the main objective being to try to establish the reasons for the successes and the failures. A set of six precepts (AGCAST criteria) likely to lead to success was derived from these studies. These precepts were then combined with six precepts resulting from the SAPPHO study of industrial innovation. From 1973 onwards the twelve precepts were applied; firstly to studies of finished projects, with a saving in the effort required, secondly to two ‘live’ projects which were examined so as to make suggestions for improving the management of these projects. Unfortunately, both projects were abandoned before the suggestions could be applied. Use has also been made of case studies and the AGCAST/ SAPPHO list in the design of an internal course for project managers. This is arguably the most valuable application of these studies.     

Beating the odds in the innovation arena: The role of market and technology signals classification and noise

Innovation is a risky business. Notwithstanding the attention in research on the determinants of innovation success, the estimates of the extremely high failure rates (ranging from 40% to 90%) have not come down. As a result, new approaches have to be found to address the issues that prevent organizations from reaching innovation success over a longer period of time. In this study, Signal Detection Theory (SDT) is introduced to show that it may be less important to improve innovation practices in companies, than it is to change the nature of the projects that enter the corporate innovation funnel. In our empirical study of 44 innovation projects in the pharmaceutical and electronics industry, we show that pursuing more noisy signals (uncertain technological and market opportunities) is currently beneficial for innovation success. In general, companies allocate too few resources to noisy innovation opportunities. Interestingly, we find a positive, and not an inverted U-shaped, relationship between noise/signal ratios and innovation success. This indicates that there are almost no companies that take too much risk in the current competitive environment and that many can gain from increasing their noise tolerance. The implications from this study are quite counter-intuitive in a sense that ‘risk’ is not the cause of the innovation problems, but may be a solution.     

Success Factors in New Ventures: A Meta‐analysis*

Technology entrepreneurship is key to economic development. New technology ventures (NTVs) can have positive effects on employment and could rejuvenate industries with disruptive technologies. However, NTVs have a limited survival rate. In our most recent empirical study of 11,259 NTVs established between 1991 and 2000 in the United States, we found that after four years only 36 percent, or 4,062, of companies with more than five full‐time employees, had survived. After five years, the survival rate fell to 21.9 percent, leaving only 2,471 firms still in operation with more than five full‐time employees. Thus, it is important to examine how new technology ventures can better survive. In the academic literature, a number of studies focus on success factors for NTVs. Unfortunately, empirical results are often controversial and fragmented. To get a more integrated picture of what factors lead to the success or failure of new technology ventures, we conducted a meta‐analysis to examine the success factors in NTVs. We culled the academic literature to collect data from existing empirical studies. Using Pearson correlations as effect size statistics, we conducted a meta‐analysis to analyze the findings of 31 studies and identified the 24 most widely researched success factors for NTVs. After correcting for artifacts and sample size effects, we found that among the 24 possible success factors identified in the literature, 8 are homogeneous significant success factors for NTVs (i.e., they are homogeneous positive significant metafactors that are correlated to venture performance): (1) supply chain integration; (2) market scope; (3) firm age; (4) size of founding team; (5) financial resources; (6) founders' marketing experience; (7) founders' industry experience; and (8) existence of patent protection. Of the original 24 success factors, 5 were not significant: (1) founders' research and development (R&D) experience; (2) founders' experience with start‐ups; (3) environmental dynamism; (4) environmental heterogeneity; and (5) competition intensity. The remaining 11 success factors are heterogeneous. For those heterogeneous success factors, we conducted a moderator analysis. Of this set, three appeared to be success factors, and two were failure factors for subgroups within the NTVs' population. To facilitate the development of a body of knowledge in technology entrepreneurship, this study also identifies high‐quality measurement scales for future research. The article concludes with future research directions.     

Insights from Senior Executives about Innovation in International Markets

Innovation and the internationalization of business are two of the most important factors determining business success today. However, very few empirical studies have examined these factors together. This study uses a discovery-oriented approach to examine innovation in the international marketplace. The study's findings are based on interviews with 64 senior executives including many current and former CEOs and presidents of multinational companies. The interviews were conducted in five countries over a period of several months. These findings provide insights into the thoughts of senior executives on innovation in international markets. Several novel insights that have implications for management practice and future academic research were discovered. Among these findings, executives stressed the importance of managing and disseminating knowledge throughout their companies during all stages of new product development. They highlighted several limitations in achieving this objective as well. Another finding is that firms adhere to several mechanisms that limit competition. In Japan, a well-recognized business hierarchy helps to form the market share goals of firms introducing new products. Companies in some categories seem to have an understanding that they will not introduce new products unless they are suitably differentiated from existing products. Other companies have bought out competitors to reduce competition. A third finding is that companies make concerted efforts to use standardized brand names and positioning. They find these efforts most suited to image-based products and children's products. Finally, the country-based management structures of most companies make it very difficult to cross-subsidize new products across countries.     

The Incidence of Property Taxes on Single-Family Housing*

The incidence of local property taxes, specifically the degree of capitalizing of property tax differentials in market prices, remains an unresolved question. The studies by Oates (1969) and McMillan and Carlson (1977) , which come to contradictory conclusions typify the diversity of opinion on the question. Many of the previous studies suffer from research design problems including, the use of census data for market values and property tax levels on real property; failure to control for differences in public services quality among the cities samples; and use of assessed value as a proxy for market price. A theoretical model in developed to explain the capitalization effect of property tax differentials within an urban area. Because the model is exactly identified, a single reduced from equation relating market value to a set of physical characteristics of the property and the level of property taxes can be estimated using ordinary least-squares techniques. The function is estimated using data drawn from 107 residential property sales made during 1976. Estimated parameters for the other equations then are determined indirectly. Actual market price and property tax data for each parcel ware used. It is found that property tax differentials on otherwise comparable properties are associated with significant market value differentials. Because the assessed value ranges from 7 to 20 percent of market value, the property tax procedure in the area studied appears to have randomly generated large capital gains for some and capital losses for others. Because of the limited data base, the statistical results are only indicative; the model, howevfer, should have wide applicability in a variety of questions concerning the incidence of property taxes.     

Integrating Knowledge and Knowledge Processes: A Critical Incident Study of Product Development Projects

Various scholars have argued that knowledge processes in organizations are integrally linked in practice. The extant literature though treats them separately and thereby disregards the interactions and tensions between them. A result of this way of studying knowledge processes is that little is known about their relative importance and how they work together. This paper addresses this gap in the literature through a critical incident study of knowledge processes in product development projects of high‐tech small firms. The paper starts off with a conceptual framework comprised of four knowledge processes—knowledge creation, knowledge application, knowledge integration, and knowledge retention—and their interactions. From the framework, three hypotheses are derived concerning the importance of these types of knowledge processes and their interactions, which in turn guide the empirical research. The hypotheses were tested in a retrospective study of 58 critical incidents in product development projects of 16 high‐tech small firms in the Netherlands. Data were collected through semi‐structured interviews using the critical incident interviewing technique. Interviewees were asked to “relive” and describe particular successful and unsuccessful examples of product development projects in the past. The analysis of the interview data focused upon whether there are differences between successful and unsuccessful projects in the types of knowledge processes and interactions that are performed. After coding all data into the various types of knowledge processes and interactions of the framework, t‐tests were used to test for significance of differences. The findings indicate that the difference between success and failure in these projects lies primarily in the extent to which knowledge integration and integration between knowledge processes have taken place. These findings demonstrate that, of the four knowledge processes, knowledge integration had the most significant impact on product development project success. The study demonstrates furthermore that higher degrees of interactions between knowledge processes were also associated with project success. Despite the limitations of this study, these results provide empirical support for the claim that integration is a key factor in organizations in general and in innovation projects in particular. For academics, this suggests further research on knowledge integration, and integration between knowledge processes, is warranted. For practitioners, it means that integration is a key process to be considered when choosing and executing new product development projects.     

R&D-based strategies in the semiconductor and drug industries: rationale, organization and actions

The author's aim was to elicit the factors that determine the success or failure of corporate innovations in the European semi-conductor and pharmaceutical industries. To do this he divided firms into two groups, the members of one having a good innovation record ('prospectors') and of the other a poor one ('would-be innovators'). Members of both groups spent heavily on R&D. The author used as his data-base a combination of publicly available data, interviews and questionnaires administered to staff.
Among the success factors identified are the following: Concentrate innovation projects and related R&D into fairly restricted channels; minimise diversification; work to explicit but not too detailed top management guidelines for innovation activity; define clear and realistic goals; minimise red-tape and formality and be willing to revise plans frequently; ensure a close relationship between R&D, Marketing and Manufacturing, but allow R&D to maintain a long-range perspective; provide a stimulating, supportive and well-supervised working environment.     

A tentative model of the innovation process

The paper proposes a model of innovation claimed to be applicable both to the lone entrepreneur and the large institution. It treats innovation as a social process and views it in some respects as analogous to natural selection.
The model takes into account 12 elements: the innovator, the new concept, the innovating group, the new product, target user, competitors, capital supply, strategy, supplying organization, technology, relevant environment and chance. The author characterises each element and shows how they interact in the course of guiding a particular innovation to success or failure.
The operation of the model is illustrated by applying it to two cases — the rise and decline of the metal ski and the launch and success of a national US newspaper.
The paper concludes with a list of possible uses of the model, as a checklist for action, as a basis for incorporating other approaches to the innovation process and as a starting point for a quantitative representation of the innovation process.     

Refining the search for project success factors: a multivariate, typological approach

Although the causes for project success and failure have been the subject of many studies, no conclusive evidence or common agreement has been achieved so far. One criticism involves the universalistic approach used often in project management studies, according to which all projects are assumed to be similar. A second problem is the issue of subjectiveness, and sometimes weakly defined success measures; yet another concern is the limited number of managerial variables examined by previous research. In the present study we use a project-specific typological approach, a multidimensional criteria for assessing project success, and a multivariate statistical analysis method. According to our typology projects were classified according to their technological uncertainty at project initiation and their system scope which is their location on a hierarchical ladder of systems and subsystems. For each of the 127 projects in our study that were executed in Israel, we recorded 360 managerial variables and 13 success measures. The use of a very detailed data and multivariate methods such as canonical correlation and eigenvector analysis enables us to account for all the interactions between managerial and success variables and to address a handful of perspectives, often left unanalyzed by previous research. Assessing the variants of managerial variables and their impact on project success for various types of projects, serves also a step toward the establishment of a typological theory of projects. Although some success factors are common to all projects, our study identified project-specific lists of factors, indicating for example, that high-uncertainty projects must be managed differently than low-uncertainty projects, and high-scope projects differently than low-scope projects.