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.     

The Role of Suppliers in Market Intelligence Gathering for Radical and Incremental Innovation*

Drawing on transaction cost economics theory, this study addresses the following research questions: (1) Does supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities have a greater impact on innovation success in predesign or commercialization activities? and (2) Does supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities have a greater impact on success in radical or incremental product innovation? Hypotheses are tested using both subjective and objective measures of success from a study of 205 incremental and 110 radical new product development projects. Results from the estimation of a two‐group path model suggest that this theoretical framework is useful in providing guidance as to when product developers should emphasize the gathering of market intelligence through suppliers. Consistent with conventional wisdom, the findings suggest that supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities are positively related to success in incremental innovations across predesign and commercialization activities. However, supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities is found to have no significant impact on market share and is negatively associated with perceived product performance in radical innovations in predesign tasks. Also, while there was no significant difference in market share for supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities between radical and incremental innovation in commercialization activities, supplier involvement in these activities did have a greater impact on perceived product performance in radical innovation than it did in incremental innovation. Although current practice suggests that teams allocate fewer resources to the gathering of market intelligence through their suppliers during predesign activities in incremental innovation projects compared with radical innovation projects, the findings in this study suggest that they should do the opposite. Shifting resources allocated for engaging suppliers in market information gathering activities in predesign activities from radical innovation projects to incremental innovation projects could increase the return on these investments. Alternatively, these resources currently allocated to the gathering of market intelligence through suppliers in predesign activities of radical innovation projects could also provide greater benefits if allocated to commercialization activities of radical innovation projects, where they have the greatest positive impact.     

Speeding Up the Pace of New Product Development

This study empirically investigates a wide array of factors that have been argued to differentiate fast from slow innovation processes from the perspective of the research and development organization. We test the effects of strategic orientation (criteria- and scope-related variables) and organizational capability (staffing- and structuring-related variables) on the speed of 75 new product development projects from ten large firms in several industries. Backward-elimination regression analysis revealed that (a) clear time-goals, longer tenure among team members, and parallel development increased speed, whereas (b) design for manufacturability, frequent product testing, and computer-aided design systems decreased speed. However, when projects were sorted by magnitude of change, different factors were found to influence the speed of radical and incremental projects. Moreover, some factors that sped up radical innovation (e.g., concept clarity, champion presence, co-location) were found to slow down incremental innovation. Together, the radical and incremental models explain differences in speed better than the general model. This suggests a contingency approach to speeding up innovation. Implications for researchers and managers are discussed.     

Product Development as Core Competence: How Formal Product Development Practices Differ for Radical,More Innovative,and Incremental Product Innovations

Although universally recognized as an important consideration in building product development (PD) competency, the effect of a firm's ability to vary its PD practices to develop winning products has been given scant attention in large‐scale, multiorganizational, quantitative studies. This research explores differences in formal new PD practices among three project types—incremental, more innovative, and radical. Using a sample of 380 business units, this research investigates how development practices differ across these three classes of innovation with respect to the formal PD process, project organization, PD strategy, organizational culture, and senior management commitment. Our results diverge from several commonly held beliefs about formal PD processes and the management of radical versus incremental innovations. Our results indicate that radical projects are managed less flexibly than incremental projects. Instead of being an offshoot of less strategic planning, radical projects are just as strategically aligned as incremental projects. Instead of being informally introduced entrepreneurial adventures, radical projects are often the result of more formal ideation methods. While these results may be counterintuitive to suppositional models of how to radical innovation happens, it is the central theme of this research to show how radical innovation actually happens. Our findings also provide a foundation for reexamining the role of control in the management of innovation. As the level of innovativeness increased, so too did the amount of controls imposed—e.g., less flexibility in the development process, more professional, full‐time project leadership, centralized executive oversight for new products, and formal financial assessments of expected NP performance.     

Autonomous Teams and New Product Development

An autonomous team is an emerging tool for new product development (NPD). With its high degree of autonomy, independence, leadership, dedication, and collocation, the team has more freedom and stronger capabilities to be innovative and entrepreneurial. Several anecdotal cases suggest that autonomous teams are best when applied to highly uncertain, complex, and innovative projects. However, there is no empirical study to test such a notion. Moreover, autonomous teams are not a panacea, and implementing them can be costly and disruptive to their parent organization. When should this powerful, yet costly tool, be pulled out of the new product professional's toolbox? This paper attempts to answer this question. The objective of this study is to explore under which circumstances an autonomous team is the best choice for NPD. Based on contingency and information‐processing theories, autonomous teams are hypothesized to be more effective to address projects with: (1) high technology novelty and (2) radical innovation. To test these hypotheses, the relative effectiveness of four types of team structures: autonomous, functional, lightweight, and heavyweight are compared. The effectiveness measures include development cost, development speed, and overall product success. Vision clarity, resource availability, and team experience are the controlled variables. The empirical results based on the data from 555 NPD projects generally support the research hypotheses. Relative to other team structures, autonomous teams are more effective in addressing projects with high technology novelty or radical innovation. The results also suggest that heavyweight teams perform better than other teams in developing incremental innovation. These results provide some evidence to support contingency and information‐processing theories at the project level. Given the importance of the development of novel technology and radical innovation in establishing new businesses and other strategic initiatives, the findings of this study may not only have some important implications for NPD practices but may also shed some light on other important topics such as disruptive innovation, strategic innovation, new venture, corporate entrepreneurship, and ambidextrous organization.     

A Comprehensive Model of Uncertainty Associated with Radical Innovation

Large established firms typically focus on enhancing their ability to manage their core businesses, with an emphasis on cost reduction, quality improvements, and incremental innovation in existing products and processes. To sustain competitive advantage over the long term, mature firms must in parallel develop radical innovations (RI) as a basis for building and dominating fundamentally new markets. Management practices that are effective in established businesses are often ineffective and even destructive when applied to RI projects because of higher levels of uncertainty inherent in the latter. Understanding the characteristics of RI projects and the nature of the uncertainty that pervades them is critical to developing appropriate managerial practices. This paper reports the results of a longitudinal study of 12 RI projects in 10 large established U.S.‐based firms. A qualitative, prospective design was used to collect and analyze data. Project team leaders, members, and sponsors for each project were interviewed repeatedly over five years. The analysis centers on the dimensions and characteristics of uncertainty that project teams experienced. The analysis of the challenges they confronted is used to construct a multidimensional model of RI uncertainties. The model identifies four categories of uncertainty as key drivers of project management: technical, market, organizational, and resource uncertainty. Each of these four categories is elaborated in the context of radical innovation and further distinguished via two additional dimensions: criticality and latency. These are substantiated through case based data. Implications for management skills, processes, and appropriate tools associated with radical innovation projects are discussed.     

Organizing for Radical Innovation: An Exploratory Study of the Structural Aspects of RI Management Systems in Large Established Firms

To escape the intense competition of today's global economy, large established organizations seek growth options beyond conventional new product development that leads to incremental changes in current product lines. Radical innovation (RI) is one such pathway, which results in organically driven growth through the creation of whole new lines of business that bring new to the world performance features to the market and may result in the creation of entirely new markets. Yet success is elusive, as many have experienced and scholars have documented. This article reports results of a three-year, longitudinal study of 12 large established firms that have declared a strategic intent to evolve their RI capabilities. In contrast to other academic research that has analyzed specific projects to understand management practices appropriate for RI, the present research reported explores the evolution of management systems for enabling radical innovation to occur repeatedly in large firms and reports on one aspect of this management system: organizational structures for enabling and nurturing RI. To consider organizational structure as a venue for capability development is new in the management of innovation and dynamic capabilities literatures. Conventional wisdom holds that RIs should be incubated outside the company and assimilated once they have gained traction in the marketplace. Numerous experiments with organizational structures were observed that instead work to manage the interfaces between the RI management system and the mother organization. These structures are described here, and insights are drawn out regarding radical innovation competency requirements, transition challenges, senior leadership mandates, and business-unit ambidexterity. The centerpiece of this research is the explication of the Discovery–Incubation–Acceleration framework, which details three sets of necessary, though not sufficient competencies, for building an RI capability.     

Project visioning: Its components and impact on new product success

The concept of corporate vision has been receiving considerable attention in the strategy scholarship. A clear and lofty organizational vision can provide direction to a company and can positively impact its ability to succeed. Yet research on vision at the project level has been curiously lacking. The purpose of this research is to define project vision, discuss its components and explore its impact on successful new product development. After studying the vision on a series of 13 innovations at three companies (Apple, IBM and HP), we identified several components of an effective project vision that include vision clarity, vision agreement/support and vision stability and assessed their impact on new product success. To confirm the validity and generalizability of our observations, we then tested these insights on 509 new product teams from a wide variety of firms. We found that an effective vision varies depending on the innovation type - incremental, evolutionary and radical. Our results demonstrate that vision clarity is positively associated with success in evolutionary (market or technical), and radical innovations, but not for incremental projects. Vision stability is positively associated with success in incremental and evolutionary market innovations; and vision support is positively associated with success in incremental, and evolutionary technical innovations.     

Does Strategic Planning Enhance or Impede Innovation and Firm Performance?*

Does strategic planning enhance or impede innovation and firm performance? The current literature provides contradictory views. This study extends the resource‐advantage theory to examine the conditions in which strategic planning increases or decreases the number of new product development projects and firm performance. The authors test the theoretical model by collecting data from 227 firms. The empirical evidence suggests that more strategic planning and more new product development (NPD) projects lead to better firm performance. Firms with organizational redundancy benefit more from strategic planning than firms with less organizational redundancy. Increasing R&D intensity boosts both the number of NPD projects and firm performance. Strategic planning is more effective in larger firms with higher R&D intensity for increasing the number of NPD projects. The results reported in this study also consist of several findings that challenge the traditional views of strategic planning. The evidence suggests that strategic planning impedes, not enhances, the number of NPD projects. Larger firms benefit less, not more, from strategic planning for improving firm performance. Larger firms do not necessarily create more NPD projects. Increasing organizational redundancy has no effect on the number of NPD projects. These empirical results provide important strategic implications. First, managers should be aware that, in general, formal strategic planning decreases the number of NPD projects for innovation management. Improvised rather than planned activities are more conducive to creating NPD project ideas. Moreover, innovations tend to emerge from improvisational processes, during which the impromptu execution of NPD activities without planning spurs “thinking outside the box,” which enhances the process of creating NPD project ideas. Therefore, more flexible strategic plans that accommodate potential improvisation may be needed in NPD management since innovation‐related activities cannot be planned precisely due to the unexpected jolts and contingencies of the NPD process. Second, large firms with high levels of R&D intensity can overcome the negative effect of strategic planning on the number of NPD projects. Specifically, a firm's abundant resources, when allocated and deployed for NPD activities, signal the high priority and importance of the NPD activities and thus motivate employees to acquire, collect, and gather customer and technical knowledge, which leads to creating more NPD projects. Finally, managers must understand that managing strategic planning and generating NPD project ideas are beneficial to the ultimate outcome of firm performance despite the adverse relationship between strategic planning and the number of NPD projects.     

The Impact of Team Cognitive Styles on Performance of Radical and Incremental NPD Projects

Although prior studies increased our understanding of the performance implications of new product development (NPD) team members' functional backgrounds and demographic variables, they remained relatively silent on the impact of underlying psychological characteristics such as the team members' cognitive styles on project performance. The goal of this study is to explore the effects of NPD teams' cognitive styles on project performance in different kinds of NPD projects. Based on survey data from members of 95 NPD teams gathered in four Dutch manufacturing companies, hypotheses about the relationships between teams' cognitive styles and project performance of radical and incremental NPD projects are tested. Results of linear regression analyses show that the level of teams' analytical information processing positively affects project performance in both incremental and radical NPD projects, whereas the relationship between the level of teams' intuitive information processing and project performance depends on the radicalness of the project. These findings contribute to the academic discussion on team innovation, suggesting that, next to demographic and functional characteristics, cognitive styles in teams also significantly influence project performance.     

Strategic Orientation and Product Innovation: Exploring a Decompositional Approach

While a considerable body of research examines the strategic orientation–innovation relationship, findings in that literature have been mixed. This article calls attention to an underinvestigated problem: the composite, multidimensional conceptualization and measurement of most strategic orientations, which likely contribute to the mixed findings in the literature. To address this issue, the researchers explore a decompositional approach to the strategic orientation–product innovation relationship. The authors utilize the stimulus‐organism‐response framework to select, decompose, and recast a set of strategic orientation components previously identified to be essential to product innovation. To produce more nuanced insights, the authors also decompose product innovation outcomes into breakthrough versus incremental. Furthermore, the sample is decomposed by product type to assess the generalizability of the conceptual model across manufactured goods and services firms. The authors test the conceptual model with a sample of 222 executives of services and manufacturing firms in Germany and Switzerland using partial least squares. By decomposing the strategic orientation effects into direct, indirect, total, and specific components, the detailed empirical analysis yields several new insights. Overall, the results suggest that the relationship between strategic orientation and product innovation is more complex than previously identified in the literature. For example, the results demonstrate that technology orientation works to augment innovation differently in services versus manufacturing firms. More specifically, a focus on technology boosts only breakthrough innovation in manufacturing firms, and only indirectly by enhancing an organization's open‐mindedness. In contrast, services firms extract additional benefits from investing in technology directly (and for both incremental and breakthrough innovation), as well as indirectly by increasing open‐mindedness. The authors also identify complementary as well as suppressing effects on product innovation outcomes from different strategic orientation components. Based on the findings in this study, future research avenues are identified, and managers are advised to consider each component of alternative strategic orientations individually and evaluate the capabilities aligned with components to assess their interdependencies.     

The Interplay of Customer and Product Innovation Dynamics: An Exploratory Study

The challenges of successfully developing radical or really new products have received considerable attention from a variety of marketing, strategic, and organizational perspectives. Previous research has stressed the importance of a market‐driven customer orientation, the resolution of market and technological uncertainty, and organizational processes such as cross‐functional teams and organizational learning. However, several fundamental issues have not been addressed. From a customer's perspective, a more innovative product tends to have uncertain benefits and requires customers to learn new behaviors. Customer preferences can, therefore, change as product experience and learning increase. From a firm's perspective, it is unclear how to be customer‐oriented under such dynamic preferences, and product strategies using evolving technologies will tend to interact with how customers learn about an innovation. This research focuses on identifying unresolved issues about these customer and product innovation dynamics. A conceptual framework and series of propositions are presented that relate both changing technology and customer learning to a firm's strategic decisions in developing and launching really new products. The framework is based on in‐depth interviews with high‐tech product managers across several sectors, focusing on the business‐to‐business context. The propositions resulting from the framework highlight the need to consider relevant customer dynamics as integral to a firm's product innovation process. Successful innovation strategies and future research challenges are discussed, and applications to better understanding customer needs and theories of disruptive innovation are examined. Several key insights for innovation success hinge on a broad, downstream orientation to customer needs and product innovation dynamics. To be effective innovators, firms must know their customers' customers and competitors as well as or better than their immediate customers do. Market research must extend downstream for a comprehensive understanding of customer needs dynamics. In the context of disruptive innovation, new dimensions of customer needs may become more valuable based on perceived downstream customer trends. Firms may also innovate on secondary needs because mainstream customers do not always give firms the design freedom to radically innovate on primary features. Understanding customer commitments and how they develop under evolving needs can help firms focus resources on innovative efforts more likely to be accepted by customers.     

The Mediating Role of Strategic Orientations on the Relationship between Ambidexterity‐Oriented Decisions and Innovative Ambidexterity

Building on upper echelon theory and strategic process theory, this article analyzes the relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions embrace the capability of top management teams to manage contradictory strategic directions, namely adaptability and alignment, innovative ambidexterity captures the ability of firms to simultaneously develop discontinuous and incremental innovations. In addition to the direct relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity, it is argued that innovation orientation and cost orientation denote two cultural implementation mechanisms that mediate this effect. Using two top‐executive data sets collected in the United States (n = 83) and India (n = 78), the empirical analysis shows that innovation orientation and cost orientation partially mediate the direct influence of ambidexterity‐oriented decisions on innovative ambidexterity, thus further explaining how formulated decisions made by the top management team nurture ambidextrous innovation behavior. Hence, this article extends prior literature that emphasizes a positive influence of top managers on innovation through incorporating an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Second, this study contributes to ambidexterity literature through integrating strategic process theory. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions primarily relate to strategy formulation, innovation orientation and cost orientation are associated with strategy implementation. The results show that both strategic subprocesses are vital in enabling ambidextrous innovation behavior. Third, an operationalization for the ability of top management to balance adaptability‐ and alignment‐oriented decisions is provided based on prior literature.     

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

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

Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products

Does the development of really new products require a different approach from that of incremental new products? Current research and management practice seem to suggest that any successful new product development (NPD) process comprises a set of key activities, regardless of a product's innovativeness. It seems almost foolhardy to suggest that NPD could proceed without proficiency in all of the following tasks: strategic planning, idea development and screening, business and market opportunity analysis, technical development, product testing, and product commercialization. Suggesting that the difference may be in the details, X. Michael Song and Mitzi Montoya-Weiss present the results of a study that examines the development of 163 really new products and 169 incremental new products. The study's objective is to compare the NPD processes and performance outcomes of really new and incremental products. In other words, the study examines the interplay between a product's innovativeness, the NPD process, and the product's performance in the marketplace. For the firms in the study, four sets of NPD activities—strategic planning, market analysis, technical development, and product commercialization—are key determinants of new product success for both really new products and incremental products. However, strategic planning and business and market opportunity analysis activities play contrasting roles for the two types of products. Working to improve proficiency in business and market opportunity analysis may be counterproductive for really new products, but it can increase the profitability of incremental products. Conversely, improving the proficiency of strategic planning activities has a positive effect on the profitability of the really new products, but it has a negative effect for the incremental products. Overall, the really new products in the study surpass the incremental products in meeting profit objectives. Comparing current practice to best practice, the firms in the study have room for improvement. For both really new and incremental products, the firms in the study do not place sufficient emphasis on product commercialization activities. The participants also need to reassess the relative emphasis they place on strategic planning activities. The projects involving really new products do not place sufficient emphasis on strategic planning, while the incremental projects exhibit a relatively high level of proficiency in this area—exactly the opposite of the order that this study recommends.     

Connecting Interfirm and Intrafirm Collaboration in NPD Projects: Does Innovation Context Matter?

Interfirm collaboration is an important strategy for firms to generate new products and services. Whereas existing research emphasizes the importance of interfirm collaboration engagement to realize synergistic benefits in interfirm NPD projects, it remains surprisingly silent on the potential impact of intrafirm relational processes and how they can impact the interfirm setting. In this article, we therefore explore the impact of intrafirm collaboration engagement on the relationship between interfirm collaboration engagement and new product development (NPD) performance in interfirm NPD projects. Relying on insights from information processing theory, the authors hypothesize that intrafirm collaboration engagement increases firms' capacity to process complex information flows in the case of extensive interfirm collaboration engagement. Moreover, it is expect that the added value of extensive intrafirm collaboration engagement depends on the innovation objective (i.e., incremental versus radical new product development) of the interfirm NPD project. In particular, we hypothesize that the positive moderating impact of intrafirm collaboration engagement on the relationship between interfirm collaboration engagement and NPD performance is stronger for radical interfirm projects than incremental interfirm projects. Analyzing 195 interfirm NPD projects, a negative interaction effect between interfirm and intrafirm collaboration engagement is observed in radical interfirm NPD projects, whereas significant interactions between them remain absent in incremental interfirm NPD projects. Jointly, these findings provide first evidence that intrafirm relational processes can substantially impact partners' ability to realize relational rents in interfirm settings. Moreover, the negative interaction effect between interfirm and intrafirm collaboration engagement points to potential trade‐offs between inward‐looking and outward‐looking absorptive capacity.     

Customer and Supplier Involvement in Design: The Moderating Role of Incremental and Radical Innovation Capability

More and more firms are leveraging design as a resource to gain the upper hand in today's competitive business market. To this end, this study draws on the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm to examine the relationship between customer and supplier involvement in the design process and new product performance. The research also extends the RBV to a contingency lens by introducing product innovation capability (incremental and radical) as a moderator to draw the boundary conditions of the impact of customer/supplier involvement in design on new product performance. Using data collected from Canadian high‐tech companies, the findings provide strong support for the hypotheses in that customer involvement in design helps new product performance under high incremental innovation capability but harms new product performance under high radical innovation capability. In contrast, supplier involvement in design was beneficial to new product performance under both high incremental and radical innovation capability. The managerial implications for the role of design under different innovation capabilities are discussed.     

Making Up Is Hard to Do: Knowledge Acquisition Strategies and the Nature of New Product Innovation

Innovation creates significant challenges for firms in high‐technology industries. This article examines how the use of external knowledge acquired from mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and joint ventures (JVs) influence the nature of innovative competence in the global pharmaceutical industry. We create a unique database on never‐before approved products that measure the scientific merit of new, exploratory product innovations, ranging from radical to incremental. We then follow their market success by recording the number of new exploitative product innovations that stem from these product innovations and that are later approved and subsequently marketed. Using a large data set spanning a 15‐year period, we find that firms were able to “make up” for their lack of exploitation or exploration innovative capabilities through the use of M&As and JVs. These external knowledge acquisition strategies were found to overcome internal processes that otherwise could cause firms to overemphasize exploitation over exploration and vice versa. Our findings suggest that acquiring external knowledge via M&As is associated with diminished exploratory product innovation, while assimilating external knowledge sourced from JVs is associated with a reduction in new exploitative product innovation.     

Development and return on execution of product innovation capabilities: The role of organizational structure

This paper conceptualizes and tests an integrated model that combines the dual-core and ambidextrous models of product innovation. The integrated model distinguishes the development and return on execution of radical and incremental product innovation capabilities. The authors argue that organizational structure plays an important dual role as an (a) antecedent to the development of radical and incremental product innovation capabilities and (b) as a moderator in determining the new product performance returns from executing such capabilities. Using a sample of high-tech firms, the study finds that organizational structure is more consistent in predicting the execution of product innovation capabilities into new product performance than in predicting the development of such capabilities. For example, the effect of radical product innovation capability on new product performance is negative but nonsignificant under a formal structure, while the same effect is positive under an informal structure. Conversely, the effect of incremental product innovation capability on new product performance is positive under a formal structure, while the same effect is negative under an informal structure. The implications for managing different types of product innovation capabilities under formal versus informal structures and their effects on new product performance are discussed.