Portfolio management for new product development: results of an industry practices study

Portfolio management for product innovation – picking the right set of development projects – is critical to new product success. This article reports on the new product portfolio practices and performance of a large sample of firms in North America. Reasons why portfolio management is important are identified, followed by the relative popularity of the different portfolio techniques: financial methods are first, followed by business strategy methods, bubble diagrams and scoring models. Next, how the various portfolio methods fare in terms of six performance metrics is probed. Financial methods, although the most popular and rigorous, yield the worst results overall, while top performing firms rely more on non‐financial approaches – strategic and scoring methods. The details of how some of these more popular methods are employed by firms to rate and rank development projects are also provided. Finally, managerial implications, including suggestions for making portfolio management more effective in industry, are outlined.     

A Review of: ADVANCED TECHNIQUES FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING by Ernest C. Miller

The Net Present Value (NPV) rule of financial theory gives management a decisive criterion for choosing between abandonment versus continuation of capital projects. There is extensive evidence, however, that management chooses to delay the abandonment of unprofitable projects. This paper attempts to explain management's reluctance to abide by the NPV criterion. The concept of a Reputation Adjusted Net Present Value is introduced in an environment where management knows more about the true value of a project than do stakeholders. The model indicates that, in such an environment, the continuation of a negative NPV project may maximize firm value.     

The vicarious wisdom of crowds: toward a behavioral perspective on investor reactions to acquisition announcements

Although event‐study methodology is invaluable to strategic management research, we argue that the traditional financial economic rationale on which it is based has led scholars to assume away the behavioral mechanisms underlying investor reactions. Building on behavioral theory from management, psychology, and economics, we set out to develop a behavioral perspective on investor reactions to acquisition announcements—one that relaxes the assumption of investors making objective, rational‐deductive calculations. Given the information asymmetry they face, we theorize that investors (1) infer management's perception of an acquisition's synergistic potential from the premium it pays, and (2) draw on additional public information to assess the reliability of that perception. Using a multi‐industry sample of acquisitions by North American firms, we find considerable support for our behavioral framework. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Augmenting innovation project portfolio management performance: the mediating effect of management perception and satisfaction

Firms face the challenge of efficiently and effectively investing scarce resources in innovation projects in order to sustain or develop a firm's long‐term competitive advantage and sustainable growth. Innovation project portfolio management (IPPM) describes a firm's dynamic capability to assess the challenge of evaluating, selecting, and prioritizing innovation projects. The particular impacts of method usage, criteria usage, IPPM design, information availability, and internal interactions on management perception and satisfaction as well as on IPPM performance and innovativeness are hypothesized and tested. We found that methods and criteria play a negligible role in the IPPM context. IPPM design elements, like transparency and formality, are key drivers of high IPPM performance. Information availability is a key construct in driving IPPM performance, as well as management perception and satisfaction. Relevance of IPPM is supported by revealing IPPM performance's positive impact on firm performance, innovation project performance, and firm's innovativeness.     

Technological Innovativeness as a Moderator of New Product Design Integration and Top Management Support

Many war stories, as well as a number of empirical research studies, point to the value of design integration and top management support in new product development (NPD) efforts, where design integration is conceptualized as the coordination of product and process design activities performed by various organizational groups. However, some emerging evidence suggests that these aspects of program management are not equally valuable in all NPD contexts. Furthermore, the benefits of these approaches may not extend to all dimensions of NPD performance. This article addresses these issues as they relate to technological innovativeness. The author reports the results of a research study designed to (1) assess the direct contributions of design integration and top management support to several dimensions of NPD performance, and (2) identify potential moderating influences of technological innovativeness on these direct effects. A survey of 136 NPD projects drawn from firms representing most of the major U.S. manufacturing industries provides data for the study. The overall goals of the study were to amplify our understanding of management's role in NPD and to further the development of contingency theory explaining new product success. The results indicate that design integration is positively associated with higher design quality in NPD, but it is not significantly linked with better financial performance. In addition, design integration appears to be an important influence on achieving NPD time goals, but only in cases of high technological innovativeness. This result suggests that increased design integration produces its greatest impacts when development processes are full of uncertainty. Top management support is positively associated with better time‐based performance, design quality, and financial performance on the whole. However, a significant interaction effect suggests that high levels of top management support are ineffective in securing good financial performance in high technologically innovative environments. Other forces appear to be at work in these circumstances, making top management support less important. The article discusses the implications of these findings for management practice, a contingency‐oriented view of NPD processes, and future research.     

Responsive and Proactive Market Orientation and New‐Product Success*

What is the relationship between market orientation and new‐product success? This important question has not been examined adequately to date because the concept of market orientation has been measured too narrowly. The concept of market orientation implies both responsive market orientation, which addresses the expressed needs of customers, and proactive market orientation, which addresses the latent needs of customers—that is, opportunities for customer value of which the customer is unaware. In the numerous market orientation–performance studies to date, the measure of market orientation has consisted virtually entirely of behaviors related to satisfying customers' expressed needs rather than satisfying their latent needs as well. The present study extends the measurement of market orientation to match the full scope of the concept—to measure both responsive market orientation and proactive market orientation. Using data from a sample of technologically diverse businesses, the present study develops a measure of proactive market orientation, refines the extant measure of responsive market orientation, and analyzes the relationship of a business's responsive and proactive market orientation to its new‐product success. The study findings imply that for any business to create and to sustain new‐product success, a responsive market orientation is not sufficient and, thus, that a proactive market orientation plays a very important positive role in a business's new‐product success. These findings make intuitive sense. For if in developing its new products a business relies solely on what customers state as their new product needs, the business is very vulnerable economically. Such a business is vulnerable not only for relying on customers' best guesses for new products, many or most of which may have little long‐term economic value for either party, but also to competitors' parallel new product responses and the inevitable resulting price competition. A business that relies solely on customers' expressed needs to develop its new products creates no new insights into value‐adding opportunities for the customer and thereby creates little or no customer dependence and foundation for customer loyalty. The important role for proactive market orientation in new‐product success is intuitively obvious—and is supported empirically in this study.     

Structural and competitive determinants of a global integration strategy

Both structural determinants and competitive factors can work to define the relevant environment for strategy formulation within an industry. This study examines the effects of each of these two sets of factors on global integration strategies, and finds that their impacts vary considerably from one industry to another. The study also investigates the relationship between a business's global integration strategy and its performance, using an industry'specific perspective. In the aggregate, the businesses studied appear to be under-globalized. However, this relationship varied significantly by industry; four of the industries studied appeared to be under-globalized, while the remaining three industries were at or near an optimal level of globalization.     

The drivers of success in new-product development

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

The Effect of "Front-Loading" Problem-Solving on Product Development Performance

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the link between problem‐solving capabilities and product development performance. In this article, the authors apply a problem‐solving perspective to the management of product development and suggest how shifting the identification and solving of problems—a concept that they define as front‐loading—can reduce development time and cost and thus free up resources to be more innovative in the marketplace. The authors develop a framework of front‐loading problem‐solving and present related examples and case evidence from development practice. These examples include Boeing's and Chrysler's experience with the use of “digital mock‐ups” to identify interference problems that are very costly to solve if identified further downstream—sometimes as late as during or—after first full‐scale assembly. In the article, the authors propose that front‐loading can be achieved using a number of different approaches, two of which are discussed in detail: (1) project‐to‐project knowledge transfer—leverage previous projects by transferring problem and solution‐specific information to new projects; and (2) rapid problem‐solving—leverage advanced technologies and methods to increase the overall rate at which development problems are identified and solved. Methods for improving project‐to‐project knowledge transfer include the effective use of “postmortems,” which are records of post‐project learning and thus can be instrumental in carrying forward the knowledge from current and past projects. As the article suggests, rapid problem‐solving can be achieved by optimally combining new technologies (such as computer simulation) that allow for faster problem‐solving cycles with traditional technologies (such as late stage prototypes), which usually provide higher fidelity. A field study of front‐loading at Toyota Motor Corporation shows how a systematic effort to front‐load its development process has, in effect, shifted problem‐identification and problem‐solving to earlier stages of product development. They conclude the article with a discussion of other approaches to front‐load problem‐solving in product development and propose how a problem‐solving perspective can help managers to build capabilities for higher development performance.     

Whether and when do alliance terminations pay off?

Engaging in multiple strategic alliances, a firm forms an alliance portfolio. While a larger alliance portfolio signals investors a firm's ability to exploit new opportunities and improve financial performance, having multiple alliances may also undermine financial performance due to a firm's limited ability to effectively manage these alliances. Announcing an alliance termination, a firm signals an intention to increase the effectiveness of a larger alliance portfolio. This article examines the extent to which alliance termination announcements create value for firms with multiple alliances. Building on the resource-based view of the firm and organizational learning literature, the paper hypothesizes a U-shaped relationship between alliance portfolio size and a firm's cumulative abnormal stock return following an alliance termination announcement. This effect is moderated by the amount of a firm's alternative resources and partner-specific experience that affect its ability to effectively manage multiple alliances. The results show that alliance termination announcements create firm value when an alliance portfolio is large.     

Innovation Field Orientation and Its Effect on Innovativeness and Firm Performance

New product development (NPD) has become a prime source for gaining a competitive edge in the market. Although a large body of research has addressed the question of how to successfully manage individual innovation projects, the management of a firm's new product portfolio has received comparably less research attention. A phenomenon that has recently emerged on the research agenda is innovation field orientation. Such orientation is understood as the deliberate setup and management of multiple thematically related NPD projects. However, the facets and effects of innovation field orientation are still unexplored. In particular, this study is interested in (1) developing a concept of innovation field orientation, (2) investigating the extent to which innovation field orientation is an established part of the corporate strategic planning practice, and (3) assessing the direct and indirect performance effects of innovation field orientation. For the empirical analysis, data were collected through a mail survey and document analyses from 122 publicly listed firms. Tobin's q was used as an objective performance metric directly related to shareholder value. The results confirm that innovation field orientation is a phenomenon that prevails in practice. In addition, all defining aspects of this orientation have either direct or indirect effects on firm performance. Hence, those firms that deliberately specify and manage innovation fields have a more innovative product portfolio and are more successful than others. Specifically, the findings underline the performance relevance of formally framing innovation fields and assigning a critical mass of resources to them. In addition, empirical support is lent to the suggestion that innovation field orientation has strong indirect performance effects mediated by the innovativeness of the firm's new product portfolio. This implies that firms that deliberately specify focus areas, assign resources to, provide organizational framing for, and stimulate synergies between related NPD projects stand a better chance to achieve a more innovative new product portfolio. This again is highly appreciated by investors and results in a superior stock market evaluation of these firms.     

Alliance Concentration in Multinational Companies: Examining Alliance Portfolios,Firm Structure,and Firm Performance

Research summary: This article explores the distribution of alliances across firms' internal structure. Focusing on multinational companies, we examine the impact of alliance portfolio concentration—i.e., the extent to which alliances are concentrated within a limited number of geographic units—on focal firms' performance. Relying on Knowledge‐Based View (KBV) insights, we hypothesize that an increase in alliance portfolio concentration positively influences firm performance and that alliance portfolio size negatively moderates this relationship. Our empirical results enrich the emerging capability perspective on alliance portfolios, point to the relevance of conceptualizing focal firms in alliance portfolio research as polylithic entities instead of monolithic ones, and provide new insights into how firms create value by potentially recombining externally accessed knowledge. Managerial summary: In the setting of multinational companies, we examine whether alliance activities are concentrated in a limited number of subsidiaries or are highly dispersed across multiple subsidiaries. We find that, over time, firms exhibit different patterns in terms of alliance portfolio concentration. In addition, the results show that, for MNCs with a relatively small alliance portfolio, an increase in alliance portfolio concentration is positively related to their financial performance. However, when MNCs' alliance portfolios are relatively large, the relationship between alliance portfolio concentration and firm performance becomes negative. Jointly, these findings suggest that the distribution of alliances across firms' internal structure is an important factor in shaping potential knowledge recombination benefits from alliance portfolios. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Changing Patterns in Industrial R&D Management

A successful R&D manager is, in many ways, an agent of change. R&D managers must respond effectively to changes in domestic and global competition, product and process technologies, customer requirements, regulatory matters, and senior management's perception of the role R&D plays in a firm. The responses to these changes flow downstream from R&D to other parts of the organization, in the form of new materials, methods, processes, and products. To help us understand the changes facing R&D management, Ashok K. Gupta and David Wilemon present the results of a study that examines the ideas and experiences of 120 R&D directors from technology-based companies. The study explores the major changes that R&D management has undergone in recent years, the changes R&D managers expect to encounter during the next few years, and the causes of those changes. The respondents also identify the skills and knowledge they view as necessary for effective R&D management, and they assess their organizations' capabilities in those areas. According to the respondents, major changes that R&D has encountered include increased emphasis on such issues as cross-functional teamwork, R&D's contribution to both short- and long-term business results, R&D's capability to quickly bring to market new products that customers value, efficient use of R&D resources, and R&D alliances. Other changes noted by respondents include greater pressure to find new markets, increased attention on the effective management of technical personnel, and increased regulations and sensitivity to environmental issues. The knowledge domains that the respondents highlighted as having the greatest effect on R&D performance include such capabilities as understanding customer needs, monitoring market developments, commercializing new technologies, building cross-functional teams, managing multiple R&D projects, and accelerating new product development. According to the respondents, the largest gaps between required and current capabilities exist in several of the areas listed as being most important to effective R&D management, including monitoring market developments that can affect R&D activities and overall business performance, maintaining a spirit of inquiry while ensuring that R&D contributes to overall corporate performance, developing technology commercialization capabilities, fostering mutually profitable strategic alliances, and accelerating the development and commercialization of new products.     

Exploring Portfolio Decision‐Making Processes*

Portfolio management is the set of activities that allows a firm to select, develop, and commercialize a pipeline of new products aligned with the firm's strategy that will enable it to continue to grow profitably over the long term. To appropriately manage the firm's new product portfolio, decisions must be made about which projects to fund, to what levels, at what point in time. Previous research has investigated portfolio management decisions as individually discrete decisions. Significant streams of research have investigated both project selection and project termination decisions. This research project shows, however, that portfolio decision making may be better understood if it is considered as an integrated system of processes that considers these decisions simultaneously, along with other decisions such as those to continue a project with reduced funding. Using in‐depth data from four diverse case studies, we use a grounded theory approach to develop a general model of how firms make new product portfolio decisions. According to the findings from these cases, effective portfolio decision‐making processes produce a portfolio mindset, focus effort on the right projects, and allow agile decision making across the portfolio's set of projects. Effective portfolio decision making is the result of the interaction between three types of decision‐making processes that managers use in making decisions: evidence‐, power‐, and opinion‐based. Being able to use each of these types of processes to make decisions depends upon having the data inputs that they require. Three domain‐based decision input‐generating processes (i.e., cross‐functional collaboration, practices of critical thinking, and practices of market immersion) are associated with making evidence‐based portfolio decisions. In addition, organizational politics produces the inputs that are associated with power‐based portfolio decision making, while managerial intuition is associated with opinion‐based portfolio decision making. Firm cultural factors, including trust, collective ambition, and leadership style, are associated with how these evidence‐, power‐ and opinion‐based processes are combined into an overall portfolio decision making process, and whether the firm's processes are more rational and objectively made, or more politically and intuitively made. The article presents propositions for how the decision‐making processes interact in their associations with decision‐making effectiveness.     

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.     

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.     

Measuring Development Performance in the Electronics Industry

Within a year or so, the computer you purchased last month will probably be obsolete. For a manufacturer faced with such short product life-cycles, the performance of the new product development (NPD) function can determine whether the firm itself is relegated to the scrap heap. With such a close link between NPD performance and a firm's overall success, we need to do more than simply ensure that individual projects are well managed; we need to assess NPD's overall contribution to the company's business performance. Christoph Loch, Lothar Stein, and Christian Terwiesch develop a two-step model for measuring the performance of the NPD function. In this model, development output performance is the direct driver of business success. In other words, the output and the productivity of the NPD function directly affect a company's profitability and sales growth. Development output performance is driven by development process performance—that is, the operational management of development projects. Using data from the “Excellence in Electronics” project (a joint research effort of Stanford University, the University of Augsburg, and McKinsey & Co.), the two-step model is applied to a sample of 95 business units operating in three international electronics industries: consumer/small products, computers/communications, and industrial measurement/large systems. This analysis has two main objectives: identifying the key measures of development output performance and their contribution to business success; and identifying the important measures of development process performance and their contributions to development output performance. Development productivity, measured by development expense intensity, is the clearest predictor of business success. In other words, you can't buy a competitive advantage by pouring more money into R&D. Success comes from more efficient NPD, not simply outspending the competition. In the computer industry, design-to-cost has a positive effect on profitability growth, and design quality has a positive influence on sales growth. The factors underlying development process performance are much more dependent on the nature of competition in each industry. For example, because competition in the large systems industry still focuses primarily on technical competence, design-to-cost efforts in this industry lag behind those of the computer industry. Important measures of development process performance for all industry segments examined in the study include supplier involvement in the design, early prototyping, a team-based development organization, the use of team rewards, and value engineering.     

Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances

Interorganizational relationships are recognized as an increasingly important source of competitive advantage. Hence, goal‐oriented management of the alliance portfolio—all the alliances of the focal firm—plays a decisive role in company performance. Consequently, the configuration and development of the alliance portfolio become important strategic issues. In light of that, this article develops theoretical propositions that seek to clarify what determines the configuration and evolution of an alliance portfolio, and then presents the results of a longitudinal study to illustrate the developed theoretical framework. Building on contingency theory and a coevolutionary framework, we were able to identify three distinctive types of portfolio strategies at business level and to illustrate how they interact with the development of the business strategy and the business environment. Encompassing all this, the study illustrates and explains developmental paths and patterns in the evolution of an alliance portfolio. The developmental course typically evolves from adapting to shaping and to exploiting (stabilizing), according to the state of strategic uncertainty and the firm's resource endowment. A sudden increase in exogenous strategic uncertainty, however, can lead to a strategic shift back to an exploration or hybrid strategy. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Impact of Product Portfolio Strategy on Financial Performance: The Roles of Product Development and Market Entry Decisions

Innovation is one of the most important issues facing business today. The major difficulty in managing innovation is that managers must do so against a constantly shifting backdrop as technologies, competitors, and markets constantly evolve. Managers determine the product portfolio through key decisions about product development and market entry. Key strategic questions are what portfolio strategies provide the greatest reward. The purpose of this study is to understand the relative financial values of each component of a product portfolio. Specifically, the paper examines the short‐term and long‐term financial impacts of product development strategy and market entry strategy. These strategies reflect two critical tensions that must be balanced in product portfolio decision making and essentially determine a firm's product portfolio. In doing so, the paper also investigates how a firm's capabilities drive each component of a product portfolio. From the empirical analyses in the context of the biomedical device industry, the paper found important insights regarding product portfolio strategies. First, a large product portfolio helps a firm's financial performance. In particular, the pioneering new products have strongest impacts on short‐term performances, and nonpioneering mature products do not provide significant contribution. Second, the results indicate a persistent first‐mover advantage. The first‐to‐market new products yield not only an immediate effect, but also persistent long‐term effects, suggesting that it is important to be first in the market even though there may be short‐term losses. Third, the results suggest the need to balance between “mature” and “new” products. Also, firms need to balance “first‐to‐market” and “late‐entered” products. Because a new or pioneering product requires more resource, it may hurt other products in the portfolio. Thus, without support from mature or follower products, new products and pioneering products alone may not increase firm sales or profit. Fourth, from a long‐term perspective, the paper found that the financial market only rewards a firm's overall capability to deliver new products first in the marketplace. Thus, short‐term performance is mainly driven by product‐level innovativeness, whereas firm‐level innovativeness enhances forward‐looking long‐term performance. Fifth, the paper also found that pioneering new products are driven by integrating both primary and complementary technological capabilities. And nonpioneering new products are mainly driven by the capabilities in primary technology domain. These results provide important insight into the relative value and timing of return on investment in radical versus incremental innovation and alternative market entry strategies. By understanding the performance trade‐offs of these different factors in the short and long term, one can develop better guidelines for optimizing innovation strategies, and their dependence on both external and internal environmental conditions.     

Slack resources,firm performance,and the institutional context: Evidence from privately held European firms

Research summary : Integrating the behavioral and institutional perspectives, we propose that a country's formal institutions, particularly its legal frameworks, affect managers' deployment of slack resources. Specifically, we explore the moderating effects of creditor and employee rights on the performance effects of slack. Using longitudinal data from 162,633 European private firms in 26 countries, we find that financial slack enhances firm performance at diminishing rates, whereas human resource (HR) slack lowers performance at diminishing rates. However, financial slack has a more positive effect on firm performance in countries with weaker creditor rights, whereas HR slack has a more negative effect on performance in countries with stronger employee rights. The results provide a richer view of the relationship between slack and firm performance than currently assumed in the literature. Managerial summary : A key dilemma managers often encounter is whether, on the one hand, they should build in excess resources to buffer their firms from internal and external shocks and to pursue new opportunities or whether, on the other hand, they should develop “lean” firms. Our study suggests that excess cash resources—which are usually viewed as easy to redeploy—benefit firm performance, especially when firms operate in countries with weaker creditor rights. However, excess human resources—which are usually viewed as more difficult to redeploy—hamper firm performance, particularly when firms operate in countries with stronger labor protection laws. Thus, the management of slack resources critically depends on the characteristics of these resources (e.g., redeployability) and the institutional context in which managers operate. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.