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.     

Micro-processes of public good social innovation in the Australian social impact investment market

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are strategic alliances aiming to generate financial profit through social innovation in the delivery of public social services. SIBs are also a product on the social impact investment market. There is little evidence for SIBs' effectiveness, and their ongoing international popularity partly rests on a theoretical premise that market mechanisms can effectively generate and diffuse social innovation. However, the literature contains no empirical consideration of whether and how this premise applies to public good social innovations. Our empirical study fills this gap by finding that public good social innovations are stimulated by market mechanisms, and markets are in turn shaped by these innovations. Despite this, public good social innovations eventually break away from markets in a micro-process we term ‘schisming’. Through describing how and why schisming occurs, we make a unique contribution to existing knowledge of the micro-processes of concerned market shaping, and the extent to which economic markets and a concerned society are embedded within each other. Implications for practitioners seeking to bridge social innovation and economic markets include the need to be cognisant of how contextual, socially constructed concerns affect the potential and process of diffusing social innovations.     

Market Learning and Radical Innovation: A Cross Case Comparison of Eight Radical Innovation Projects

Does customer input play the same key role in every successful new-product development (NPD) project? For incremental NPD projects, market information keeps the project team focused on customer wants and needs. Well-documented methods exist for obtaining and using market information throughout the stages of an incremental NPD project. However, the role of market learning seems less apparent if the NPD project involves a really new product—that is, a radical innovation that creates a line of business that is new not only for the firm but also for the marketplace. In all likelihood, customers will not be able to describe their requirements for a product that opens up entirely new markets and applications. To provide insight into the role that market learning plays in NPD projects involving really new products, Gina Colarelli O'Connor describes findings from case studies of eight radical innovation projects. Participants in the study come from member companies of the Industrial Research Institute, a consortium of large company R&D managers. With a focus on exploring how market learning for radical innovations differs from that of incremental NPD projects, the case studies examine the following issues: the nature and the timing of market-related inquiry; market learning methods and processes; and the scope of responsibility for market learning, and confidence in the results. Observations from the case studies suggest that the market-related questions that are asked during a radical innovation project differ by stage of development, and they differ from the questions that project teams typically ask during an incremental NPD effort. For example, assessments of market potential, size, and growth were not at issue during the early stages of the projects in this study. Such issues came into play after the innovations were proven to work under controlled conditions and attention turned to finding applications for the technology. For several projects in the study, internal data and informal networks of people throughout relevant business units provide the means for learning about the hurdles the innovation faces and about markets that are unfamiliar to the development group. The projects in this study employ various techniques for reducing market uncertainty, including offering the product to the most familiar market and using a strategic ally who is familiar with the market to act as an intermediary between the project team and the marketplace.     

Innovation and new product introductions in emerging markets: Strategic recommendations for the Indian market

While radical innovations and growth strategies supporting such innovations may provide the firm with very high returns, there are also considerable risks in devising and implementing such innovations. Apart from the business risks of venturing into new territories and new markets, radical innovations also carry with them the burden of accounting for market and environmental factors that are often not under the control of the firm. The opportunities presented by the emergence of several Asian markets, such as India and China, are particularly appealing for Western countries willing to expand into these markets. However, market characteristics, institutional development, and customer behaviors bring into sharp focus the choice of a specific innovation and new product development strategy for such markets. This paper examines these various strategic issues in the context of India. The paper concludes with strategic recommendations for managers and some propositions for future academic research.     

Heading for new shores: Do service and hybrid innovations outperform product innovations in industrial companies?

This study investigates the financial outcomes of product, service, and hybrid innovations in industrial markets. To date, empirical research has focused on product innovations, yet industrial firms are increasingly competing with innovative services to maintain their competitive edge. This study assesses the financial impact of service and hybrid innovations compared with more traditional product innovations. We develop a unique data set that combines information on companies' innovation activities with objective financial data. From a sample of 348 German industrial firms, the analysis reveals that service innovations do not outperform product innovations in industrial markets. A focus on service innovations only pays off in highly price-conscious markets. In contrast, hybrid innovations, referring to the simultaneous market introduction of new products and services, have a positive effect on firm performance above and beyond pure product innovations. This effect is particularly pronounced in competitive markets and under conditions of high customer concentration. In sum, this study demonstrates that hybrid innovations outperform both, pure product and service innovations in industrial markets.     

How Banks Apply Marketing Expertise to Develop New Derivatives

For banks operating in the fiercely competitive derivatives market, the difference between the leaders and the also-rans often boils down to their respective approaches to product innovation. To achieve market leadership in this highly volatile field, a bank must develop and continually refine the processes and the expertise necessary for identifying new areas of business and attracting and retaining customers. Although the development of derivatives is a complex, expensive process, such development efforts provide the means for satisfying existing clients as well as attracting new customers. F. Axel Johne and M. Panos Pavlidis examine the managerial practices of banks that are acknowledged leaders in bringing new derivatives to market ahead of their competitors. In particular, they examine how those first-mover banks apply their marketing expertise and they review the advantages those banks enjoy as a result of their success in product innovation. The banks studied fall into one of two groups: highly active innovators and less active innovators. The study reveals several significant differences between the two groups with respect to managing marketing inputs for product innovation purposes. First, compared to less active banks, the highly active innovators take a more sophisticated, market-based approach to identifying innovation opportunities. Rather than looking for innovations that offer a close fit with existing products and competencies, they analyze the benefits sought by target clients and initiate innovation efforts based on those analyses. Highly active innovators recognize the important role that internal marketing plays in encouraging functional specialists to work together for the purpose of identifying follow-on development opportunities. Internal marketing also helps to ensure that all parties understand and can support the planned innovation. The highly active innovators in this study do not take a formulaic approach to the development of new derivatives; instead, they rely on marketing expertise to identify and capitalize on business opportunities. Rather than concentrate solely on improving the core technical features of a product, the highly active innovators also recognize the importance of product augmentation innovation (to ensure the appropriate support for various market segments), process innovation (so they can reduce prices, when necessary), and market innovation (to ensure that they pursue the optimal mix of markets).     

The Antecedents and Consequences of Affordable Value Innovations for Emerging Markets

Emerging markets offer tremendous growth opportunities for firms. While established multinational firms typically focus on premium segments in emerging markets, they often fail to leverage additional growth opportunities in so‐called good enough or low‐income segments in emerging markets. Customers in these low‐income markets have substantially different requirements and are very price sensitive. Theoretical and case‐based research suggests that innovating for these low‐income segments in emerging markets differs significantly from innovating for premium or traditional Western markets. We argue that tapping successfully into low‐income segments in emerging markets requires the development of new products that meet the low price expectations while at the same time offering also value to customers in these segments. We refer to these new products as affordable value innovations. We analyze the antecedents of affordable value innovation for emerging markets. We draw on institutional theory to derive three potentially relevant antecedents of affordable value innovation for emerging markets. These are bricolage, local embeddedness, and standardization. We test our hypotheses using multiple informant data from 47 multinational corporations involving 103 innovation projects that target low‐income customers in emerging markets. Our empirical analysis shows that all three antecedents have significant effects on the level of affordable value innovation: while bricolage and local embeddedness are positively related to the level of affordable value innovation, standardization has a negative impact. We also examine the relationship between the level of affordable value innovation and performance. We find evidence for our basic assumption that a firm's capability to develop and launch affordable value innovations is key to success in emerging markets. It indicates that a firm's investments in affordable value innovations for emerging markets pay off financially. Finally, a cross‐regional comparison of our data shows that the key findings on antecedents of affordable value innovation and its impact on performance do not vary across various emerging markets. Overall, our findings offer important implications for research on and the practice of innovation for low‐income segments in emerging markets.     

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.     

Restructuring existing value networks to diffuse sustainable innovations in food packaging

Sustainable innovations in food packaging are important in terms of preventing food waste and reducing environmental impact, but existing industry regimes and networks may hinder their diffusion into established markets. However, research on reorientation of existing industries, and value networks in that situation, has been limited. This study examines the changes to existing industry value networks that can facilitate the diffusion of sustainable innovation in food packaging. Empirically, the transformation and distribution of agro-food waste into a new bioplastic packaging through the existing food packaging value network is investigated. As a result, the changes to the existing value network and their connections, facilitating the diffusion of the sustainable innovation, are identified at three levels – firm, network, and macro. The findings show the importance of opportunity recognition, but also the role of new actors, resources, activities, and relationships in the restructuring of the existing value network and actions creating supportive regulative framework and increasing market demand for such renewal. This creates understanding of how the adoption of sustainable innovations, such as new packaging materials, which might seem simple, is complicated by the broad changes required from the existing value network.     

The Role of Future‐Market Focus in the Early Stages of NPD across Varying Levels of Innovativeness

The concept of future‐market focus (FMF) arose out of the debate about firm size and incumbency in the face of radical or disruptive innovations, and has been demonstrated to have a positive correlation with radical innovation (RI) success. This study examines the relationship between FMF and the processes used in the early stages of NPD for four types of innovation projects: incremental innovations, technological breakthroughs, market breakthroughs, and radical innovations. We found that the future‐market focus of a project team can influence the early stage processes used in a new product innovation project, and does so differentially across levels of innovativeness. In particular, the concept generation process, understanding of market needs, and screening decision criteria are different for low‐ versus high‐FMF projects and there are differences based on the level of innovation. In addition, we found that radical innovation projects rated low in FMF are markedly different than the radical innovation projects described in prior studies.     

The Influence of Regulation and Disruptive Potential on Incumbents' Submarket Entry Decision and Success in the Context of a Network Industry

This paper uses the theoretical perspectives of disruptive innovation, network externalities, and regulation to study the submarket strategies of incumbent firms that operate in a regulated network industry. In this setting, the impact of potentially disruptive innovations might be different because of the tighter regulation of incumbent firms. By analyzing the entry and success patterns of incumbent mobile network operators (MNOs) in the public hotspot markets in 17 Western European countries, we focus on how regulation and network effects as well as disruption factors influence the incumbent firms' strategies. In doing so, this paper departs from prior research that has primarily focused on unregulated industries and combines contradicting explanations from disruptive innovation theory, the motivation/ability framework, regulation theory, as well as network effects to provide a comprehensive analysis on how incumbents behave in a regulated network industry that is being confronted with a potentially disruptive innovation. In particular, while disruptive innovation theory predicts that the incumbents' vast experience in an industry could cause them to avoid entering new submarkets created by potentially disruptive innovations, the desire to avoid regulation could encourage such submarket entry. Furthermore, in regulated network industries, incumbent firms might have a stronger motivation to enter new submarkets as the importance of single customers and high market shares could be substantially different. These contrasting insights are used to develop an integrative research model and to derive hypotheses on incumbents' submarket entry decision and success. Drawing on cross‐sectional, multicountry data of 62 MNOs that operate in 17 Western European countries, this study uses logit and tobit regressions to test the impact of disruption factors, regulation, and network externalities on the entry decision and success of incumbent firms. The results reveal that the incumbent MNOs are caught in an area of conflict between the regulated industry context and their international technology strategy. The findings suggest that the incumbent MNOs' motivation and ability to escape regulation positively influenced their submarket entry and success in the public hotspot market. Thus, the potentially disruptive scenario was successfully turned into a potentially sustaining one as the incumbent MNOs could enhance their presence in the mobile broadband market. The testing on a multicountry basis as well as the positive influence of ethnocentric technology strategies for public hotspots, which are devised in the headquarters' location and are then brought out internationally, shed new light on an industry that has typically been characterized by country‐by‐country decisions. These findings may also reveal challenges for future research on disruptive innovations in multinational industries and expose future challenges for regulative authorities and managers. This paper thereby adds to the theory of disruptive innovation as it includes the influence of regulation on incumbents in network industries. Additionally, this study expands on previous findings on the disruptive potential of wireless local area network technology by employing a multi‐country analysis in 17 Western European countries.     

The Role of Hybrid Organizations in Scaling Social Innovations in Bottom‐of‐the‐Pyramid Markets: Insights from Microfinance in India

While social innovations that solve financial exclusion have gained increasing attention as a means of helping the poor in developing markets, little research has empirically investigated the types of organizations that drive these innovations to achieve scale. Hybrids, a type of organization that exist in between traditional organizational forms, are said to have rapidly gained prevalence, especially in bottom‐of‐the‐pyramid markets. Some scholars claim that hybrids are largely responsible for the spread of established social innovations, yet hybrids do not constitute a homogenous group; instead each hybrid form exists on a spectrum between pure for‐profit and not‐for‐profit organizational forms. It is important that empirical research investigates the role that various hybrid forms play in scaling established social innovations, especially under various bottom‐of‐the‐pyramid market conditions. To this end, using two market‐level outcome measures of scale achieved (prevalence and usage), the authors pursue two research objectives: to study (1) the extent to which, alternative hybrid forms (not‐for‐profit, quasi‐profit, and for‐profit hybrids) drive social innovation; and (2) the relative propensity of these hybrid forms to drive social innovation under varying bottom‐of‐the‐pyramid market conditions, specifically varying levels of development and social diversity. By theorizing how different organizational forms act given their degree of hybridity, the authors develop and test six hypotheses using data sets on microfinance organizations in India. Accordingly, they find that (1) compared with not‐for‐profit and for‐profit hybrids, quasi‐profit hybrids have a propensity to become more prevalent and achieve greater usage in bottom‐of‐the‐pyramid markets overall. Yet, within the spectrum of hybrid forms, (2) not‐for‐profit hybrids are more likely to become more prevalent and achieve greater usage in markets with lower development levels, whereas (3) for‐profit hybrids are more likely to become more prevalent and achieve greater usage in markets with lower social diversity when compared with other hybrid forms.     

Buyer Market Power and Innovative Activities

This empirical paper deals with the effects of supplier and buyer market concentration on the innovative behavior of suppliers within the German automobile industry. The data set contains firms from all size classes and covers measures of innovation input as well as innovation output. It can be shown that (a) firms' innovation and R & D-employment intensity will decline (increase) in buyer concentrations if supplier markets are low (high) concentrated; (b) buyers' pressure on input prices reduces suppliers' innovation expenditures and their incentive to develop new products; (c) a small number of competitors in suppliers markets and a large stock of customers stimulates innovative behavior; (d) small and medium sized suppliers invest more in their innovative activities but have less probability of realizing innovations than larger firms; and (e) higher technological capabilities lead to higher innovation input and output.     

Bottom of the Pyramid as a Source of Breakthrough Innovations

In this paper, I identify the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) markets as a new source of radical innovation. By focusing managerial attention on creating awareness, access, affordability, and availability (4As), managers can create an exciting environment for innovation. I suggest that external constraints can be utilized to build an innovation sandbox within which new products and business models can be created. Using a live example of such an innovation—the development of the biomass stove for the rural poor in India—I illustrate the process and the usefulness of the approach. Increasingly, global firms are recognizing the implications of innovations at the BOP for developed markets as well.     

Exploring How Peer Communities Enable Lead User Innovations to Become Standard Equipment in the Industry: Community Pull Effects

Literature on new product development indicates that on average around 40% of new products fail across different industries (e.g., Crawford, 1977 ; Crawford and Di Benedetto, 2008 ). Out of those that survive only few become widely accepted standard equipment in the industry (Utterback, 1996 ). Literature on entrepreneurship (e.g., Baron and Shane, 2008 ) and on innovation (e.g., Christensen, 1997 ) shows that such innovations often originate outside the boundaries of established firms. However, it is difficult to understand and analyze the exact source of such innovations and the entrepreneurial processes by which they are developed. It is therefore the aim of this study to shed light on how innovations become widely accepted by large segments of the market and specifically which demand‐side forces are at work. An approach suitable for pursuing this objective is to focus on those individuals who are on the leading edge with respect to an important market trend (lead users) and their respective peer communities. As little knowledge is available, an explorative case study design is applied, working with cases from two different industries, specifically the medical equipment and sporting equipment industry. A longitudinal research design is used, extracting data from multiple respondents and various other sources such as reports, publications, databases, or community web pages. The research framework takes a process perspective by following the entrepreneurial processes from invention to commercialization and diffusion. In this process, micro‐level variables at the individual and group level are analyzed as well as the barriers to be overcome by the individual innovator and the community. The findings show that communities play a central and active role in the entrepreneurial process. Community members provide valuable feedback on the overall potential of the lead users' ideas, participate by making concrete development contributions, acting as testers of the new products, and finally helping to diffuse the innovations inside and outside the community. We identify two pull effects on the part of the community: first, community members demand and facilitate the development of prototypes; and second, community members help to cross the chasm between first adopters and the early majority. This paper has various implications for entrepreneurship and innovation research. For entrepreneurship, this article points out peer communities as a specific kind of social network that plays a crucial role in entrepreneurial processes. For innovation research, this article emphasizes the interaction between lead users and their peer communities in the process of developing the next dominant product design.     

Barriers to Matching New Technologies and Market Opportunities in Established Firms

In industries that produce high‐technology products or are reliant on technology for administrative or manufacturing processes, it is essential appropriately to link technologies to markets in order to increase shareholder value and to build future cash flows. Research and development (R&D) allocations in such industries are greatly dependent on forecasts of the R&D project's estimated potential contribution to future cash flows, which is related to the project's ability to satisfy current or future customer needs. The resource allocation decisions are difficult, however, since both markets and technology are likely to be highly uncertain. Although the innovation literature ably has addressed specific relationships between certain factors and new product development outcomes, less attention has been given to obstacles faced in linking technology to markets. Grounded in a literature‐based discussion of technology and market opportunity, the authors develop a conceptual framework for identifying and understanding the barriers facing managers in the process of matching technologies to market opportunities. Technology and market barriers include technology‐market linkage, technology availability, technology and market capabilities of competitors, and business model feasibility. Strategy and structure barriers include competition for limited resources, technology capabilities, technology portfolio goals, current market strategies, and competition for control of market charters. Social and cultural barriers include interpretive and communication barriers between functional units and language and cultural barriers within the technology workforce. The article concludes with implications for researchers and managers. The conceptual framework presented here can encourage the development of a stream of research in the area of technology strategy and planning processes, allowing researchers to improve our understanding of the process of technology innovation. Managers can use the framework as a guide for addressing a wide range of issues related to the process of matching technologies to market opportunities. For example, rather than relying strictly on cash flow projections for estimating the value of a new technology, managers also should consider how the technology could create new market opportunities or could reshape existing ones.     

Does Market Orientation Facilitate Balanced Innovation Programs? An Organizational Learning Perspective

There appears to be widespread agreement that optimal new product development programs require a balance between customer-led and lead-the-customer innovation practices. The former is associated with adaptive learning inspired incremental innovation, whereas the latter is associated with generative-learning-inspired radical innovation. There is debate, however, as to whether a strong market orientation can facilitate this balance. Some believe that a strong market orientation causes firms to overemphasize customer-led incremental innovations. Others believe that a strong market orientation can facilitate this balance but assert that traditional measures of market orientation only capture the types of behaviors associated with customer-led incremental innovations. This latter concern has led some to abandon the single-construct operationalization of market orientation and to introduce two constructs—responsive and proactive market orientation—into the literature. The purpose of this research is to address these developments. The study makes use of a national sample of marketing executives and employs a cross-sectional survey design. Measures used are market orientation, radical and incremental innovation priority, generative and adaptive learning priority, and new product success. Confirmatory factor analyses and structural equations models are employed to develop measures and to test hypotheses. The study's results reaffirm the position that a strong market orientation helps facilitate a balance between incremental and radical innovation by shifting firms' innovation priority more toward radical innovation activities. It also suggests that the abandonment of traditional conceptualizations and measures of market orientation are premature.     

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.     

Perspective: The Innovation Dilemma: How to Innovate When the Market Is Mature

Most companies have ambitious growth goals. The trouble is there are only so many sources of market growth. Markets in many countries and industries are mature and increasingly commoditized; achieving growth in market share is expensive; and acquisitions often do not work. For most companies, product development means line extensions, improvements, and product modifications, and only serves to maintain market share. Markets aren't growing, so firms increasingly compete for a piece of a shrinking pie by introducing one insignificant new product after another. The launch of a truly differentiated new product in mature markets is rare these days. As a result, development portfolios have become decidedly less innovative since the mid‐1990s, and R&D productivity is down. The answer is bold innovation—breakthrough products, services and solutions that create growth engines for the future. This means larger‐scope and more systems‐oriented solutions and service packages. Examples such as Apple's iPod are often cited. (Note that Apple did not invent the MP3 player, nor was this opportunity in a blue ocean; in fact there were 43 competitors when Apple launched!) What Apple did succeed in was in identifying an attractive strategic arena (MP3s) where it could leverage its strengths to its advantage and then to develop a solution that solved users’ problems. The result—an easy‐to‐use, easy‐to‐download MP3 system, which also happened to be “cool.” Our benchmarking studies reveal that five vectors must be in place to undertake this type of innovation to yield bolder and more imaginative development projects. First, develop a bold innovation strategy that focuses your business on the right strategic arenas that promise to be engines of real growth. Most businesses focus their efforts in the wrong areas—on flat markets, mature technologies, and tired product categories. Break out of this box towards more promising strategic arenas with extreme opportunities. Next, foster a climate and culture that promotes bolder innovation. Leadership is vital to success. If senior management does not have the appetite for these big concepts, then all your efforts and systems will fail. Senior management plays a vital role here in promoting an innovative climate in your business. Next, create “big ideas” for integrated product‐service solutions. The best methods for generating breakthrough new product ideas are identified in this paper. Then drive these “big concepts” to market quickly via a systematic and disciplined idea‐to‐launch system designed for major innovation initiatives. Just because these projects are imaginative and bold is no reason to throw discipline out the window. In fact, quite the reverse is true. Finally build a solid business case and focus on the winners. Most innovation teams don't get the facts, and consequently build weak business cases; the result is that many worthwhile innovations don't get the support they need to be commercialized. It's essential to do the front‐end homework, and so build a compelling business case. Then make the right investment decisions—evaluating “big concepts” for development when little information is available. Note that financial models don't work well when it comes to evaluating major innovations, because the data are often wrong. But other methods can be used to make these tough go/kill decisions. Illustrations and examples are provided from many industries and companies to show how to implement these five vectors.     

Serial Innovators' processes: How they overcome barriers to creating radical innovations

Formal new product development processes typically are depicted in the literature as linear processes having some number of stages, each of which is completed by a cross-functional team. At the end of each stage a management committee makes a decision as to whether the project will proceed to the next stage, be stopped, or recycle through the previous stage to better complete some of the tasks or steps in the stage. Teams proceed stage by stage, until the product is launched into the market.However, this formal process typically is positioned as occurring after the “fuzzy front end” (FFE), the chaotic, messy up-front part of new product development before there is a solidified concept. Because incremental, evolutionary innovations go through an abbreviated FFE, or even have none at all, these formal processes work quite well for them. However, radical innovations typically have very messy, chaotic and fuzzy front ends, which are not helped by these formal processes. Formal product development processes may actually act as a barrier to radical innovation. Very little research to date has investigated processes that overcome the barriers to radical innovation and allow firms to successfully bring radical innovations to market.This research investigates the product development processes used by 19 Serial Innovators—individuals in large, mature firms who have been associated with one after another radical innovation success. We find that Serial Innovators' processes have four specific features that enable them to overcome organizational barriers and allow them to create and successfully commercialize radical innovations. Serial Innovators' processes:

• •are not at all linear in nature;
• •focus significant time and effort on the fuzzy front end;
• •explicitly manage the transition from the fuzzy front end tasks and outputs (a proposed solution to a problem) to the more formal and institutionalized development process; and
• •proactively work to create market acceptance.