Project Management Characteristics and New Product Survival

We develop a conceptual model of new product development (NPD) based on seminal and review articles in order to answer the question, “What project management characteristics will foster the development of new products that are more likely to survive in the marketplace?” Our model adopts Ruekert and Walker's theoretical framework of situational dimensions, structural/process dimensions, and outcome dimensions as an underlying structure. We conceptualize their situational dimensions more narrowly as project management dimensions, allowing us to examine more specifically how project management practices affect the NPD process. In our model, project management dimensions include project manager style, project manager skills, and senior management support. Structural/process dimensions include cross‐functional integration and planning proficiency. Outcome dimensions include process proficiency and new product survival. Our empirical analysis finds support for 20 hypotheses, a reversal of one hypothesis, and nonsignificant results for one hypothesis. These results show that projects are best led by managers with strong technical, marketing, and management skills, using a participative style and enjoying early and continuous support from senior management. These project management dimensions promote cross‐functional integration and planning, which are important to process proficiency and new product survival. Our study suggests two broad conclusions. First, it confirms the links in the extant literature between situational (project management) dimensions, structural/process dimensions, and outcome dimensions in NPD. Second, firms can improve cross‐functional integration and planning through various project management practices. Generally, we find that firms interested in improving both proficiency in their development process and the survival rate of new products should take steps to promote cross‐functional integration and to improve their planning processes. While the linkage between cross‐functional integration and NPD outcomes is well established in the literature, the impact of the planning process on NPD outcomes is a research area ripe with opportunity. Our study highlights three aspects of planning that contribute to NPD outcomes. Plans should be detailed, team members should participate actively in the planning process, and teams should be given flexibility and autonomy to respond to unanticipated issues as they appear.     

The role of predevelopment activities in the relationship between market orientation and performance

To determine how critical predevelopment activities are for a market-oriented firm to achieve superior performance, our study uses data from 126 firms in The Netherlands to investigate the structural relationships among market orientation, the proficiency in predevelopment activities, new product performance, and organizational performance. The results provide evidence that market orientation is positively related to the proficiency in strategic planning, idea generation and idea screening. Strategic planning and idea generation are positively related to new product performance, which in itself is positively related to organizational performance. Market orientation has no direct relationship with new product performance and organizational performance. Another interesting finding is that the links between market orientation and new product performance, and between market orientation and organizational performance are not moderated by the characteristics of the market environment.     

A Causal Model of the Impact of Skills, Synergy, and Design Sensitivity on New Product Performance

Notwithstanding the best efforts of outstanding managers, project team members, researchers, and consultants, no product development plan can guarantee success. Every new products organization will experience its fair share of failures, but a firm can take steps to ensure that its failures do not outweigh its successes. By benchmarking the competition, a firm can gain insight into best practices–the factors that lead most directly to new product success. To help identify these best practices, X. Michael Song, William E. Souder, and Barbara Dyer develop and test a causal model of the relationships among the key variables leading to new product performance. The proposed model identifies five factors that lead to marketing and technical proficiency: process skills, project management skills, alignment of skills with needs, team skills, and design sensitivity. According to the model, marketing and technical proficiency directly determine product quality, and ultimately lead to new product success or failure. The causal model was tested using information on 65 completed projects–34 successes and 31 failures–from 17 large, multi-divisional Japanese firms. The study participants develop, manufacture, and market high-technology consumer and industrial products. These firms judged the success or failure of the projects in this study by using seven criteria: return on investment, profit, market share, sales, opportunities for technical leadership, market dominance, and customer satisfaction. These firms generally assigned the greatest importance to customer satisfaction, opportunity creation, and long-term growth. For the most part, the responses from these firms support the relationships presented in the causal model. According to the respondents, marketing proficiency and product quality have a strong, positive influence on their new product performance, as do process skills, project management skills, and alignment of skills and needs. The responses highlight the importance to these firms of responsiveness to customer wants and needs, as well as ensuring a close fit between project needs and the firm's skills in marketing, R&D, engineering, and manufacturing. Somewhat surprisingly, the responses do not support the model's suggested relationships between skills/needs alignment and technical proficiency or between technical proficiency and product quality.     

The Impact of Organizational Integration and Product Development Proficiency on Market Success

This research investigates three major hypotheses important to new product market success: the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater the market success; the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater new product development proficiency; and the greater new product development proficiency, the greater the market success. “Organizational integration” is defined as the degree of cooperation and communication between internal and external NPD “support” groups and NPD teams. “NPD process proficiency” is defined as how well new product development stages and the new product development process as a whole is performed. “New product market success” is represented by four measures: the degree to which profits and sales exceeded or fell short of what was expected, and the degree to which the new product was perceived to exceed or fall short of expectations related to entering existing and new markets. Information was obtained concerning the most and least successful new products of U.S. firms in the medical instruments, the electrical equipment, and the heavy construction equipment industries. The field survey approach was utilized in which surveys were mailed to recipients such as new product development managers who already had been designated by executives of the sample firms. Several important findings were uncovered during this research. Overall organizational integration was found to be significantly associated with new product market success. Internal integration, the coordination between new product development teams and functional departments, was found to be significantly related to product market success. A significant relationship between new product development proficiency during the NPD “post-launch stage” and the degree of integration between an NPD team and external NPD organizations, such as customers and suppliers, was detected. During the post-launch stage, new product development proficiency also was found to be significantly related to new product market success. These findings suggest several important implications for new product development managers and scholars.     

What Separates Japanese New Product Winners from Losers

Operating in the upper echelons of highly competitive, global markets, numerous Japanese firms enjoy well-deserved reputations for excellence in new product development. Despite this success, however, almost no research has been conducted to explore the keys to successful new product development in Japanese companies. For the most part, research in this area has focused on North American and European firms. X. Michael Song and Mark E. Parry address this gap with a study of 404 Japanese firms and 788 new product introductions. Their research explores the links between new product success and 10 factors: product advantage; marketing synergy; technological synergy; market potential; market competitiveness; market and technical understanding; senior management support; proficiency in the predevelopment planning process and in concept development and evaluation; proficiency in market research, market pretesting, and market launch; and technical proficiency. To avoid any cultural bias, development of the survey was preceded by in-depth case studies and focus group interviews with Japanese and American new product development teams. Although time-consuming and expensive, these preliminary steps were necessary for ensuring the validity of the survey contents and procedures. Notwithstanding the obvious cultural differences, the findings from this study suggest that Japanese new products professionals view the keys to success in much the same way as their North American counterparts. For the survey respondents, the most important success factor is product advantage. Other important success factors include predevelopment proficiency (that is, proficiency in the predevelopment planning process as well as in concept definition and evaluation) and marketing and technological synergy. Consistent with previous research on North American firms, market competitiveness was found to be the least important success factor. For managers who are trying to predict whether a project will result in a product advantage, several survey items may be useful as a checklist for assessing potential product advantage. In particular, these managers should consider whether the product offers potential for reducing consumer costs and expanding consumer capabilities, as well as the likelihood that the product offers improved quality, superior technical performance, and a superior benefit-to-cost ratio.     

Effects of Organizational and Decision-Maker Factors on New Product Risk Taking

Using samples of evening MBA students having considerable managerial experience, two experiments were conducted, through which we explore the effects of organizational and decision-maker factors on managers' new product investment decisions. Subjects were asked to choose among new product development projects having equal investments and expected values but differing degrees of risk. Riskier projects were chosen by managers whose organizationally imposed goals were based on aspirational versus survival reference points, whose prior project decisions had resulted in the accumulation of additional financial resources, for whom prior project outcomes were attributed to the manager's guidance of the project versus competitive factors, and by managers whose propensities to take risks were higher. These results have important implications for the design and staffing of new product decision processes, for the creation of organizational cultures that foster new product risk taking, and for other organizational practices.     

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.     

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.     

The Impact of Market Orientation, Product Advantage, and Launch Proficiency on New Product Performance and Organizational Performance

Some scholars have suggested recently that a market‐oriented culture leads to superior performance, at least in part, because of the new products that are developed and are brought to market. Others have reinforced this wisdom by revealing that a market‐oriented culture enhances organizational innovativeness and new product success, both of which in turn improve organizational performance. These scholars do not reveal, however, through which new product development (NPD) activities a market‐oriented culture is converted into superior performance. To determine how critical NPD activities are for a market‐oriented firm to achieve superior performance, our study uses data from 126 firms in The Netherlands to investigate the structural relationships among market orientation, new product advantage, the proficiency in new product launch activities, new product performance, and organizational performance. We focus on product advantage—because product benefits typically form the compelling reasons for customers to buy the new product—and on the launch proficiency—as the launch stage represents the most costly and risky part of the NPD process. Focusing on the launch stage also is relevant because it is only during the launch that it will become evident whether a market orientation has crystallized into a superior product in the eyes of the customer. The results provide evidence that a market orientation is related positively to product advantage and to the proficiency in market testing, launch budgeting, launch strategy, and launch tactics. Product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics are related positively to new product performance, which itself is related positively to organizational performance. Market orientation has no direct relationship to new product performance and to organizational performance. An important implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on organizational performance is channeled through the effects of a market orientation on product advantage and launch proficiency; subsequently through the effects of product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics on new product performance; and finally through the effect of new product performance on organizational performance. These channeling effects are much more subtle and complex than the direct relationship of market orientation on organizational performance previously assumed. Another implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on performance occurs through the launch activities rather than being pervasive to all organizational processes and activities. A reason for this finding may be that NPD is the one element of the marketing mix that predominantly is the responsibility of the firm, whereas promotion and distribution often are in control of organizations outside the firm (e.g., advertising agencies, major retailers) and whereas the channel or the market often dictates the price. Both implications provide ample opportunities for further research on market orientation and NPD.     

The Influence of Digital Design and IT on Modular Product Architecture

The architecture of a product is the design and specification of inherent subsystems, components, and interfaces between subsystems. Well‐defined interfaces allow the development of standardized subsystems that may be shared across product lines, e.g., technology platforms. Past research shows the benefits of modular product architecture in terms of improving cost of goods through common components and materials as well as improving development time cycles for derivative products. Product architecture does not occur by accident; it must be engineered and implemented. This study explores the impact of digital design and information technology (IT) on the development of modular product architectures. Through an empirical study of 122 firms and follow‐up interviews with several respondents, we study the impact of digital design tools and IT infrastructure on the development of modular product architecture and overall project outcomes. The results indicate that a firm's IT infrastructure has a strong, significant relationship with the development of modular product architecture. The findings also show a strong, positive relationship between the development of modular product architecture and project outcomes. However, in contrast to the common perception that digital design tools enhance R&D productivity and effectiveness, we do not find a significant relationship between digital design tool usage and modular product architecture or overall project outcomes. The findings suggest that digital design tools and their organizational implementation need improvement in up‐front new product development phases.     

Supportiveness of Organizational Climate, Market Orientation, and New Product Performance in Chinese Firms

Most knowledge development efforts in new product development have focused on Western economies and companies. However, due to its size, rapid growth rate, and market reforms, China has emerged as an important new context for new product development. Unfortunately, current understanding of the factors associated with new product success in China remains limited. We address this knowledge gap using mixed methods. First, we conducted 19 in‐depth interviews with managers involved in new product development in 11 different Chinese firms. The qualitative fieldwork indicated that firm behaviors and employee perceptions consistent with the phenomena of market orientation and the supportiveness of organizational climate both are viewed as important drivers of the new product performance of Chinese firms. Drawing on the marketing, management, and new product development literature this study develops a hypothetical model linking market orientation, supportiveness of organizational climate, and firms' new product performance. Direct relationships are hypothesized between both market orientation and supportiveness of organizational climate and firms' new product performance, as well as a relationship between supportiveness of organizational climate and market orientation. Data to test the hypothetical model were collected via an on‐site administered questionnaire from 110 manufacturing firms in China. The hypothesized relationships are tested using structural equation modeling. Results indicate a positive direct relationship of market orientation on firms' new product performance, with an indirect positive effect of supportiveness of organizational climate via its impact on market orientation. However, no support is found for a direct relationship between the supportiveness of a firm's organizational climate and its new product performance. These findings are consistent with resource‐based view theory propositions in the marketing literature indicating that market orientation is a valuable, nonsubstitutable, and inimitable resource and with similar propositions in the management literature concerning organizational culture. However, this study's findings also indicate that in contrast to a number of organizational culture theory propositions and empirical findings in some consumer service industries, the impact of organizational climate on firm performance in a new product context is indirect via the firm's generation, dissemination, and responsiveness to market intelligence. These results suggest that an effort to improve firms' new product performance by enhancing the flow and utilization of market intelligence is an appropriate allocation of resources. Further, this study's findings indicate that managers should direct at least some of their efforts to enhance a firm's market orientation at improving employee perceptions of the supportiveness of the firm's management and of their peers. This study indicates a need for further research concerning the role of different dimensions of organizational climate in firms' new product processes.     

If You Can Use Them: Flexibility Policies, Organizational Commitment, and Perceived Performance

This study links workplace flexibility policies—formal, informal, and perceived usable—to organizational commitment and self-reported productivity. Professional and technical employees of biotechnology firms were surveyed. Where employees could freely use policies, a positive association with outcomes is found. The article contributes a new measure to capture employees' organizational experience, relevant to work and family research.     

An Empirical Study of Platform and Derivative Product Development Projects

Many firms now realize the importance of planning product families and product platforms. However, little research addresses planning and execution of different types of projects within a product family platform series. This study investigates project characteristics, development challenges, typical outcomes, and success factors for product development projects at different locations in the product family spectrum. “Platform” projects result in products that initiate a new product family platform for a company. “Derivative” projects result in products consisting of extensions to an existing product family platform. Data on 108 new product development projects from a variety of assembled products industries were collected via a detailed survey and analyzed. Findings indicate that: (1) platform and derivative projects differ in project task characteristics (including the amount of new technology development undertaken and project complexity) and market newness; (2) platform and derivative projects generally do not differ in terms of project success (achievement of project objectives, level of company satisfaction, and perceived customer satisfaction) or smoothness of project execution; (3) both platform and derivative projects generally are executed in similar ways; (4) certain managerial approaches (including contingency planning, project-based evaluation of personnel, and overlap of design and manufacturing engineering) are associated with higher project execution success for both platform and derivative projects; and (5) use of interdependent technologies and novel project objectives are associated with project execution failure for platform projects. The results suggest that firms can continue to employ a single product development management process for both platform and derivative projects, as long as modest customization of the process is made for the given project type. Completely different management processes are not required. In all, the results presented in this article suggest specific managerial actions companies can take to significantly improve product development success. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.     

Exploring New Product Development Project Review Practices*

Most organizations use new product development (NPD) processes that consist of activities and review points. Activities basically solve problems and gather and produce information about the viability of successfully completing the project. Interspersed between the development activities are review points where project information is reviewed and a decision is made to either go on to the next stage of the process, stop it prior to completion, or hold it until more information is gathered and a better decision can be made. The review points are for controlling risk, prioritizing projects, and allocating resources, and the review team typically is cross‐disciplinary, comprising senior managers from marketing, finance, research and development (R&D), or manufacturing. Over the past four decades, research has greatly advanced knowledge with respect to NPD activities; however, much less is known about review practices. For this reason, the present paper reports findings of a study on NPD project review practices from 425 Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) members. The focus is on three decision points in the NPD process common across organizations (i.e., initial screen, prior to development and testing, and prior to commercialization). In this paper, the number of (1) review points used, (2) review criteria, (3) decision makers on review committees and the proficiency with which various evaluation criteria are used are compared across incremental and radical projects and across functional areas (i.e., marketing, technical, financial). Furthermore, the associations between these NPD review practices and new product performance are examined. Selected results show that more review points are used for radical NPD projects than incremental ones, and this is related to a relatively lower rate of survival for radical projects. The findings also show that the number of criteria used to evaluate NPD projects increases as NPD projects progress and that the number of review team members grows over the stages, too. Surprisingly, the results reveal that more criteria are used to evaluate incremental NPD projects than radical ones. As expected, managers appear to more proficiently use evaluation criteria when making project continuation/termination decisions for incremental projects; they use these criteria less proficiently during the development of radical projects, precisely when proficiency is most critical. At each review point, technical criteria were found to be the most frequently used type for incremental projects, and financial criteria were the most commonly used type for radical ones. Importantly, only review proficiency is significantly associated with performance; the number of review points, review team size, and number of review criteria are not associated with new product performance. Furthermore, only the coefficient for proficiently using marketing criteria was significantly related to new product program performance; the proficiency of using financial and technical information has no association with performance. Finally, across the three focal review points of the NPD process in this study, only the coefficient for proficiency at the first review point, (i.e., the initial screen) is significantly greater than zero. The results are discussed with respect to research and managerial practice, and future research directions are offered.     

Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration,exploitation, and R&D project performance

Although one tenet in the alliance literature is that firms learn from prior experience, we posit that any potential learning effects depend on the type of experience. In particular, we hypothesize that alliance exploitation experience has positive effects on R&D project performance, while alliance exploration experience has negative effects. We further posit that an internal exploration competence allows firms to leverage their external exploitation experience more fully. In contrast, when firms combine internal exploitation experience with external exploration experience, the negative effects on R&D project performance become more pronounced. To test this integrative model of organizational learning, we leverage a unique and detailed dataset of 412 R&D projects in biotechnology conducted by large pharmaceutical companies between 1980 and 2000. Using a competing risk event history model predicting successful product approval versus project termination, we find support for our theoretical model. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The moderating effects of market orientation and launch proficiency on the product advantage-performance relationship

The relationship between product advantage and new product performance has been identified in prior research and cannot be overlooked. However, the moderators between the two constructs have received little attention. This study examines how market orientation and launch proficiency exert contingent influences on the product advantage-performance relationship. Prior research indicates that new product performance is a multi-dimensional concept constituted by different types of performance, yet the way product advantage and its moderators influence certain types of product performance has not been investigated. This study examines the same issues under different dimensions of new product performance. A total of 112 Taiwanese biotechnology firms form the analytical sample. Two interesting findings are revealed. First, product advantage is significantly and positively related to market performance, but has no significant influence on financial performance. Second, market orientation and launch proficiency in tactics indeed moderate the relationship between product advantage and new product performance, either as a whole or in respect to different types of product performance. Obviously, these findings contribute detailed evidence to the theoretical nexus between product advantage and new product performance.     

Innovation and Product Development Strategies in the Italian Motorcycle Industry

The motorcycle industry in Italy offers fertile ground for anyone interested in developing a better understanding of the role innovation plays in enhancing a firm's competitive position. This industry includes both domestic and Japanese firms, with companies ranging from high-volume manufacturers to specialty or niche producers. Firms trying to gain a competitive edge in this crowded field must contend with not only advances in product and process technology, but also the whims of fashion. In a survey of top-level marketing and product development managers from eight leading firms in the Italian motorcycle industry, Moreno Muffatto and Roberto Panizzolo explore the innovation models these firms employ to enhance their competitive position. Their study has the following objectives: categorizing the various competitors in terms of their product and market strategies and their product development and innovation strategies; highlighting differences between the methods of Italian and Japanese firms competing in this market; analyzing the relationships between firms, as well as the roles suppliers play in the various innovation strategies; and identifying the various organizational models employed by the firms in this industry. Different product and market strategies are identified on the basis of three variables: total production volume, the number of different products offered, and the number of different engine capacities offered. Using these variables, the companies in the study are categorized as volume producers, specialists, or niche specialists. The firms are further differentiated on the basis of the relative emphasis each places on product technology and design, product innovation, product variety, and time-based competition. In the firms studied, partnerships play a key role in new product development. Nearly every firm participates in joint projects, most often involving development of either an entire vehicle or an engine. Other partnerships involve firms in countries that offer emerging markets for the motorcycle industry. Organizational structures and strategies employed by the volume producers in this study include: the large product leader, who oversees concept definition and product planning; the project leaders group, which coordinates all phases of development, including activities assigned to external groups; the project managers matrix, a matrix organizational structure with a strong product orientation; and the business unit program manager, who oversees all projects within an independent business unit.     

Software innovativeness: outcomes on project performance, knowledge enhancement, and external linkages

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between product innovativeness and groups of outcomes flowing from the computer software product development process and the associated knowledge acquisition process. Data from interviews of managers in 94 software projects are analysed, and three groups of outcomes are measured: project performance, knowledge enhancement, and the strengthening of linkages to external actors/sources. The high innovative products show higher project performance for all measures of project performance compared with low innovative products. Similar results were found for all measures of personnel knowledge enhancement outcomes. Changes in the importance of linkages to nine different external sources of knowledge used by the firms during the knowledge acquisition process, also show some positive outcomes with respect to rising innovativeness levels. Strengthening of external linkages is found for 66% of the investigated linkages between one or two innovativeness levels. Of these, the linkages to hardware manufacturers, co-operation partners, and universities and other research institutions show strengthening when high innovativeness products are compared with low-level products. As the project performance and knowledge enhancement outcomes are due, in part, to knowledge gained within linkages to external actors/sources, managers could consider whether giving special attention to managing these linkages would be a winning innovation strategy for their particular firm.     

What Makes a Family Firm Innovative? CEO Risk‐Taking Propensity and the Organizational Context of Family Firms

Investigating the new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms connects two important topics that have recently received considerable attention in innovation and family firm research. First, new product portfolio innovativeness has been identified as a critical determinant of firm performance. Second, research on family firms has focused on the questions of if and why family firms are more or less innovative than other organizational forms. Research investigating the innovativeness of family firms has often applied a risk‐oriented perspective by identifying socioemotional wealth (SEW) as the main reference that determines firm behavior. Thus, prior research has mainly focused on the organizational context to predict innovation‐related family firm behavior and neglected the impact of preferences and the behavior of the chief executive officer (CEO), which have both been shown to affect firm outcomes. Hence, this study aims to extend the previous research by introducing the CEO's disposition to organizational context variables to explain the new product portfolio innovativeness of small and medium‐sized family firms. Specifically, this study explores how the organizational context (i.e., ownership by top management team [TMT] family members and generation in charge of the family firm) of family firms interacts with CEO risk‐taking propensity to affect new product portfolio innovativeness. Using a sample of 114 German CEOs of small and medium‐sized family firms operating in manufacturing industries, the results show that CEO risk‐taking propensity has a positive effect on new product portfolio innovativeness. Moreover, the analyses show that the organizational context of family firms impacts the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness. Specifically, the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness is weaker if levels of ownership by TMT family members are high (high SEW). Additionally, the effect of CEO risk‐taking propensity on new product portfolio innovativeness is stronger in family firms at earlier generational stages (high SEW). This result suggests that if SEW is a strong reference, family firm‐specific characteristics can affect individual dispositions and, in turn, the behaviors of executives. Therefore, this study helps extend the knowledge on the determinants of new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms by considering an individual CEO preference and the organizational context variables of family firms simultaneously.     

Innovation Management Practices Compared: The Example of Project‐Based Firms*

The importance of project‐based firms is increasing, as they fulfill the growing demands for complex integrated systems and knowledge‐intensive services. While project‐based firms are generally strong in innovating their clients' systems and processes, they seem to be less successful in innovating their own products or services. The reasons behind this are the focus of this paper. The characteristics of project‐based firms are investigated, how these affect management practices for innovation projects, and the influence of these practices on project performance. Using survey data of 203 Dutch firms in the construction, engineering, information technology, and related industries, differences in characteristics between project‐based and nonproject‐based firms are identified. Project‐based firms are distinguished from nonproject‐based firms on the basis of organizational configuration, the complexity of the operational process, and the project management capabilities of the firm. Project‐based firms also differ with regard to their level of collaboration and their innovation strategy, but not in the level of autonomy. A comparison of 135 innovation projects in 96 of the firms shows that project‐based firms do not manage their innovation projects different from other firms. However, the effects of specific management practices on project performance are different, particularly the effects of planning, multidisciplinary teams and heavyweight project leaders. Differences in firm characteristics provide an explanation for the findings. The implication for the innovation management literature is that “best” practices for innovation management are firm dependent.