The Role of Marketing Resources in Radical Innovation Activity: Antecedents and Payoffs

While radical product innovations represent significant engines of firm growth, questions remain over whether marketing helps or hurts (1) a firm's radical product innovation activity and (2) its rewards from radical product innovation activity. By attaching an attention‐based view of the firm to a market‐based assets view of marketing, this paper examines the role of three marketing resources—market knowledge, reputation, and relational resources—on radical innovation activity. Our conceptual framework posits differentiated effects among marketing resources as antecedents of radical innovation activity and as moderators of its impact on firms' financial performance. Using a survey of a broad set of high‐tech business‐to‐business (B2B) firms to test hypotheses, it is found that firms with strong relational resources enjoy a higher propensity for, and stronger financial rewards from, radical innovation activity. Reputational resources come with a trade‐off as they hurt the incidence of radical innovation but enhance its financial rewards. However, market knowledge resources appear to hurt both radical innovation activity and its financial rewards. Our results point to the multifaceted role of marketing in radical innovation activity, which is unlikely to come with a single benefit or liability as prior work often posits. Rather, our research heightens the alertness of managers to assess their firms' marketing strength as a bundle of stocks of several marketing resources. Managers must understand the distinct benefits and drawbacks of each resource in developing and launching radical innovations. Our research underscores the differentiated value of marketing in radical innovation activity in B2B high‐tech contrary to the entrenched idea of a limited or even stifling role of marketing in this context.     

The strategic dilemmas of innovative enterprises: proposals for high‐technology sectors

High levels of research and development (R&D) expenditure, pressure for innovation and the creation of new knowledge are features that distinguish high‐technology (high‐tech) enterprises from other, less technologically advanced, firms. Confronted with multiple contemporary approaches to strategy and turbulence in their environment, these enterprises make strategic choices continuously and dynamically. This paper proposes a model and matrix for the classification of high‐tech enterprises’ development strategies (with regard to their specific features), which are then verified. Qualitative research was conducted in 61 medium and large high‐tech companies based in Poland that operate either in Poland or in the global marketplace. The results show that high‐tech firms have the fundamental goal of developing R&D activity as a resource (and its redundancy) rather than product/market goals. The studied firms strive above all for leadership in innovation, creating new technologies based on their own R&D resources, while also using outside sources and mostly applying the personalisation approach in knowledge management. However, they choose different paths for product and market development, depending on the opportunities presented by the environment, and the firm's ability to identify and take advantage of these.     

User Involvement throughout the Innovation Process in High‐Tech Industries

The feedback and input of users have been an important part of product innovation in recent years. User input has been studied from different approaches and is applied through different methods in particular phases of the innovation process. However, these methods are not integrated into the whole innovation process and are used only in particular phases or on an ad hoc basis. New developments in technology, social media, and new ways of working closer with customers have opened up new possibilities for firms to gain user input throughout the whole innovation process. However, the impact that these new developments in technology offer for user input innovation in high‐tech firms is unclear. Therefore, we study how high‐tech firms collect and apply user feedback throughout the whole innovation process. The paper is based on a comparative case study of eight cases in the high‐tech industry, in which qualitative data collection was applied. The key contribution of the paper is a conceptual framework on user data‐driven innovation throughout the innovation cycle. This framework gives insight into user involvement types and approaches to collect and apply user feedback throughout the innovation process.     

Market Vision and the Front End of NPD for Radical Innovation: The Impact of Moderating Effects

“Market vision” is a mental model that helps focus the organization on a new market application for an advanced technology during the fuzzy front end of the new product development process. Previous research demonstrates that firms involved in the development of radically new, high‐tech products need to develop a market visioning competence (MVC) in order to develop an effective market vision (MV), and these capabilities, in turn, have been found to have a positive effect on key aspects of the early performance (EP) of these firms—specifically, the ability to attract capital and early success with customers. Based on a major empirical study of the nanotechnology sector, the research described in this paper takes an important step forward by focusing on factors in both the external and internal environment of the firm, and their moderating impact on the paths that link MVC, MV, and EP. External structural factors relevant to the firm's competitive environment as well as internal factors, including firm resources, size, incumbency, and technology, are shown to have significant moderating effects both on the way in which MV unfolds and on its capacity for affecting positive returns for the firm when undertaking radical innovation. Five of seven hypotheses were supported by the research. Both level of incumbency (the extent to which the firm has taken part in previous generations of a given technology) and resource availability are shown to positively impact the link between MVC and MV. Also, appropriability (i.e., protection for innovations) and reputation of the firm were found to positively impact the path to EP. Finally, a low level of industry concentration—that is, a large number of small firms—were found to have a positive effect on the path to EP. In sum, the findings support the structure of the model and the majority of the hypothesized moderating relationships, suggesting important implications for management.     

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.     

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.     

Value creation by knowledge‐based ecosystems: evidence from a field study

A growing number of research and development‐driven companies are located in knowledge‐based ecosystems. Value creation by these ecosystems draws on the dynamics of single firms (interacting and partnering) as well as the ecosystem at large. Drawing on a field study of a Dutch high‐tech campus, two key sources of value creation are identified: (1) facilitation of the innovation process for individual companies and (2) creation of an innovation community. Furthermore, the coevolution of the ecosystem's business model with firm‐level business models explains why technology‐based firms join, stay in, or leave the ecosystem at a certain point in time. A remarkable finding is that ecosystem managers have to deliberately facilitate exit routes for companies that no longer fit the ecosystem in order to enhance and reinforce its business model. As such, this study suggests a dynamic capability perspective on knowledge‐based ecosystems that need to develop a business model at the ecosystem level to create sufficient innovative capacity and entrepreneurial fitness.     

Commercializing Technological Innovation: Learning from Failures in High‐Tech Markets*

Commercialization is known to be a critical stage of the technological innovation process, mainly because of the high risks and costs that it entails. Despite this, many scholars consider it to be often the least well managed phase of the entire innovation process, and there is ample empirical evidence corroborating this belief. In high‐tech markets, the difficulties encountered by firms in commercializing technological innovation are exacerbated by the volatility, interconnectedness, and proliferation of new technologies that characterize such markets. This is clearly evinced by the abundance of new high‐tech products that fail on the market chiefly due to poor commercialization. Yet there is no clear understanding, in management theory and practice, of how commercialization decisions influence the market failure of new high‐tech products. Drawing on research in innovation management, diffusion of innovation, and marketing, this article shows how commercialization decisions can influence consumer acceptance of a new high‐tech product in two major ways: (i) by affecting the extent to which the players in the innovation's adoption network support the new product; (ii) by affecting the post‐purchase attitude early adopters develop toward the innovation, and hence the type of word‐of‐mouth (positive or negative) they disseminate among later adopters. Lack of support from the adoption network is found to be an especially critical cause of failure for systemic innovations, while a negative post‐purchase attitude of early adopters is a more significant determinant of market failure for radical innovations. There follows a historical analysis of eight innovations launched on consumer high‐tech markets (Apple Newton, IBM PC‐Junior, Tom Tom GO, Sony Walkman, 3DO Interactive Multiplayer, Sony MiniDisc, Palm Pilot, and Nintendo NES), which illustrates how commercialization decisions (i.e., timing, targeting and positioning, inter‐firm relationships, product configuration, distribution, advertising, and pricing) can determine lack of support from the innovation's adoption network and a negative post‐purchase attitude of early adopters. The results of this work provide useful insights for improving the commercialization decisions of product and marketing managers operating in high‐technology markets, helping them avoid errors that are precursors of market failure. It is also hoped the article will inform further research aimed at identifying, theoretically and empirically, other possible causes of poor customer acceptance in high‐tech markets.     

Science,business, and innovation: understanding networks in technology‐based incubators

This study investigates the formation of networks in a major Canadian technology‐based incubator. Technology‐based incubators have spread around the world as a tool to accelerate the growth and survival of high‐tech companies. One of the central features of incubators is the provision of networking opportunities for tenants to establish collaborative relationships with other organizations. Using a qualitative methodology, this study seeks to better conceptualize the interplay between the networking strategies of high‐tech firms and the environment of incubators. This study reveals that far from an undifferentiated phenomenon, different kinds of networks are created in a high‐tech incubator environment. Factors that enable and constrain such networks are identified. This study points to the variegated nature of networks, suggesting that greater attention is needed to the conceptualization of inter‐organizational interactions in technology‐based incubators.     

Technology Vision for Radical Innovation and Its Impact on Early Success

For firms involved with the very early stages of emergent radical innovation, technical goals are often held in the mind(s) of only one or a few individuals. The way these individuals mentally imagine or visualize such goals, or “technology visions,” provides an important looking glass for understanding a firm's progression along the path of involvement from a technical discontinuity toward project‐level and organizational‐level involvement with a given technology. Utilizing a large sample of firms engaged in radical innovation in North America and the United Kingdom, this empirical study examines the impact of five dimensions of technology vision on early success: benefits goals, efficiency goals, magnetism, specificity, and infrastructure clarity. Technology vision is found to have a significant positive impact on technical competitive advantage, early success with customers, and ability to attract capital, as measures of early success.     

Market Orientation and R&D Effectiveness in High‐Technology Firms: An Empirical Investigation in the Biotechnology Industry*

There seems to be lack of consensus among informed scholars about the importance a of market orientation for high‐technology firms. This paper gives a comprehensive review of existing empirical studies on the relationship between market orientation and innovation performance and pinpoints two limitations in this research stream that might be at the origin of such controversy. First, extant research often overlooked key innovation outcomes for high‐technology firms, such as those related to research and development (R&D) performance. Second, organizational conditions that can ensure an optimal integration of market knowledge in the innovation process have been less analyzed in the case of these firms. Against this background, the present study contributes to the literature by providing a test of the effect of market orientation on R&D effectiveness and the moderating role of knowledge integration in this relationship, using a sample of Italian biotechnology firms. The study's objectives are addressed in two steps. The first one consists of an in‐depth qualitative study based on semistructured interviews in five biotechnology firms. The second step consists of a follow‐up survey of 50 biotechnology firms. Results from hierarchical multiple regression analysis show that the different dimensions of a market orientation have diverse effects on R&D effectiveness of high‐technology firms: whereas interfunctional coordination has a positive main effect, the effect of customer orientation is moderated by knowledge integration, and competitor orientation has no effect on R&D effectiveness. Post hoc analyses also show two additional results involving a broader set of dependent variables. First, R&D effectiveness mediates the effects of customer orientation and interfunctional coordination on organizational performance. Second, market orientation does not appear to significantly affect R&D efficiency. The present study contributes to current literature in two main respects. First, it adds to previous work on market orientation and innovation by proposing a new dependent variable—R&D effectiveness—which offers a better perspective to understand the impact of market orientation on innovation performance in high‐technology contexts. Second, while part of the current debate on the role of market orientation in high‐tech markets seems to be polarized by positions that sustain its potential drawbacks or, on the contrary, its advantages, this study's findings on the moderating role of knowledge integration shed light on important contingency factors, such as organizational capabilities. The authors discuss the study's limitations and provide directions for future research.     

Market Vision and Market Visioning Competence: Impact on Early Performance for Radically New,High‐Tech Products*

Having the “right” market vision (MV) in new product scenarios involving high degrees of uncertainty has been shown to help firms achieve a significant competitive advantage, which can ultimately lead to superior financial results. Despite today's increased rate of radical innovation, and hence the importance of effective vision, relatively little research has been undertaken to improve our understanding of this phenomenon. The exploratory and empirical investigation undertaken herewith responds to this research gap by focusing on MV and its precursor, market visioning competence (MVC), for radically new, high‐tech products. MV is a clear and specific mental model/image that organizational members have of a desired and important product‐market for a new advanced technology, and MVC is a set of individual and organizational capabilities that enable the linking of advanced technologies to a future market opportunity. Based on samples of high‐tech firms involved in early technology developments, the measurement study indicates that five factors comprise MV (i.e., clarity, magnetism, specificity, form, and scope) and that four factors underlie MVC (i.e., networking, idea driving, proactive market orientation, and market learning tools). Structural equation modeling is used to demonstrate that MVC significantly and positively impacts MV and that each of these constructs significantly and positively influences certain aspects of early performance (EP) in new product development. This is the first empirical study to develop a comprehensive set of scales to measure these constructs and then to combine them in a model by which to examine their interrelationships.     

The impact of earnings pressure on exploratory innovation

While earnings expectation has been shown to determine a firm’s investment decisions, the knowledge about how such expectation influences a firm’s investment horizon for innovation is still blurred. This study therefore addresses this research issue by examining the relationship between earnings pressure and exploratory innovation while investigating the moderating effects of cross‐rival effect and resource availability. By examining high‐tech industrial firms in S&P 1500 from 2000 to 2012, the results indicate that stock analysts, as information intermediaries between innovation firms and the capital market, impose pressure through earnings forecasts on firms’ exploratory innovation. Our findings also reveal that the earnings pressure‐exploratory innovation relationship can be mitigated when its competitors encounter a higher level of earnings pressure. However, a firm’s financial slack shows less significant association to moderate the earnings pressure‐exploratory innovation relationship. Possible explanations for the results in regard to their theoretical and practical implications are discussed in this study.     

Marketing Ignorance and the Validity of Narver and Slater's MKTOR Scale in High‐Tech Russian Firms

A firm's market orientation is an important factor influencing its ability to successfully develop and introduce new products. To measure market orientation, Narver and Slater's MKTOR scale has been accepted in the literature as a valid and reliable scale. In fact, it can be considered state of the art. This study, though, challenges the validity of that scale in high‐tech industries and transition economies. As part of a larger study, the scale was used to measure the market orientation of 10 Russian high‐tech small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises, next to other measures of market orientation. These were the respondent's perceptions of their market orientation; the firm's philosophy on selling goods/services or solving customer problems; and in‐depth interview questions on goals, strategies, network ties, targeted market segments, and competitive advantage. It was found that the firms obtained high scores on the MKTOR scale but that these scores were accompanied by ideas and behaviors reflecting a low or even lacking market orientation. On a scale from 1 to 7, the firms average 6.2 on customer orientation, but at the same time, they are not aware that they do not have customer‐focused strategies and do not fully understand the chain in which they operate. Further, the average on competitor orientation is 5.4. Some firms have competitor‐oriented characteristics, but others are ignorant of their competition and believe in their technological superiority as a source of competitive advantage. Analyzing these anomalies, it is concluded that the scale requires a minimum level of marketing knowledge of respondents. Without such knowledge, the MKTOR scale is susceptible to the respondent's unconscious incapability, thereby producing invalid results. In the 10 Russian cases, the respondents did not have much experience or education in marketing, which explains why they were incapable of adequately answering the items of the MKTOR scale. The results of this study help to explain the ambivalent findings in the literature about the effect of market orientation on innovation and new product development in high‐tech sectors and transition economies. The paper concludes with suggestions on how market orientation could be better measured in such contexts. It is suggested to replace the Likert‐scale by a semantic differential scale, where statements reflecting product, production, and sales orientations are confronted with statements reflecting a market orientation. Given the importance of experience and education in marketing as positive antecedents, measures of these factors should be included in the scale as well. With these adaptations, measures of market orientation will be more factual, will require less knowledge of marketing terminology, will reduce bias caused by respondents' perceptions, and will prevent ambiguity in terminology.     

Strategic Value Assessment and Explorative Learning Opportunities with Customers

This study recognizes that collaboration with customers for new product development may bring important financial benefits to firms, but at the same time may seriously hamper explorative learning. Many firms are approached by customers with requests to develop new products for them. While such requests may strengthen customer relationships and result in short‐term financial gains, it may force a firm in technologically undesirable directions. As a result, many firms struggle with the dilemma of, on the one hand, responding to customer requests, and on the other hand, safeguarding the long‐term competitive position of the firm. Firms with strong customer ties are particularly prone to this dilemma. Drawing on opportunity recognition literature, capability monitoring literature as well as goal setting theory, the authors have developed a framework arguing that Strategic Value Assessment (SVA) can help resolve this. SVA is defined as an a priori business evaluation of the value of a particular innovation collaboration, based on anticipated long‐term strategic benefits. It helps innovative firms to focus on collaboration with customers with lead user status and to develop intense relationships, allowing for more effective knowledge transfer and learning. The framework is tested using data collected from a sample of 136 business‐to‐business firms in the Netherlands. The sampling frame was a panel of small and medium‐sized high‐tech enterprises. The study finds positive direct and indirect effects of SVA on explorative learning. In addition, the findings show that the intense collaboration/learning relationship is positively moderated by customer lead user status, and negatively moderated by customer dependence. The findings suggest that SVA is a useful heuristic for managers to utilize opportunities for innovation involving collaboration with customers.     

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.     

The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences

This study examines how product innovation contributes to the renewal of the firm through its dynamic and reciprocal relation with the firm's competences. Field research in five high‐tech firms of varying age, size, and level of diversification is combined with analysis of existing theory to develop the findings of the study. Based on the notion that new products are created by linking competences relating to technologies and customers, a typology is derived that classifies new product projects based on whether a new product can draw on existing competences, or whether it requires competences the firm does not yet have. Following organizational learning theory, these options are conceptualized as exploitation and exploration. These organizational learning concepts are used to gain a dynamic and path‐dependent view of product innovation and firm development, and to reveal the unique nature and challenges of different types of product innovation. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Using R&D portfolio management to deal with dynamic risk

We develop a theoretical framework for understanding why firms adopt specific approaches for the management of innovation project portfolios. Our theory focuses on a key contingency factor for innovation, namely the dynamics of competitive environments. We use four dimensions to characterize the patterns of environmental dynamics: velocity, turbulence, growth and instability. The paper then proposes the concept of dynamic risk as a determinant of portfolio management processes. Dynamic risk results from second‐order learning by a firm confronted with a specific dynamic pattern in its environment. This learning concerns the likely nature of threats and the required updating of cognitive frameworks in such environments. Attempts to deal with dynamic risk enable various actors inside the firm to understand what kind of dynamic capabilities are needed in their innovation portfolio management processes. As a result of this diffuse learning, firms tend to favor certain common characteristics in their concrete portfolio management activities. To advance the theorizing of these characteristics, the paper also proposes four dimensions of portfolio management: structure, commitment, emergence and integration. Based on arguments inspired by the dynamic capability and related literatures, we advance a series of hypotheses, that relate environmental dynamics dimensions and portfolio management dimensions. These hypotheses are tested based on a survey of 795 firms in a variety of sectors and on four continents, using original scales and structural equation modeling methods. The results show, among other findings, that high‐velocity environments favor structured as well as integrated portfolio management approaches, while high‐growth environments favor approaches that are structured but commit significant resources to each project as well. Turbulent environments favor approaches that are emergent, but also, contrary to our expectations, have high resource commitment levels. Finally, firms in unstable environments have a marginal preference for emergent approaches. Results could help advance the dynamic contingency theoretical perspective on dynamic capabilities, as well as improve the practice of innovation portfolio management.     

Design,Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Metamodel and a Research Agenda*

Recent studies on design management have helped us to better comprehend how companies can apply design to get closer to users and to better understand their needs; this is an approach usually referred to as user‐centered design. Yet analysis of design‐intensive manufacturers such as Alessi, Artemide, and other leading Italian firms shows that their innovation process hardly starts from a close observation of user needs and requirements. Rather, they follow a different strategy called design‐driven innovation in this paper. This strategy aims at radically change the emotional and symbolic content of products (i.e., their meanings and languages) through a deep understanding of broader changes in society, culture, and technology. Rather than being pulled by user requirements, design‐driven innovation is pushed by a firm's vision about possible new product meanings and languages that could diffuse in society. Design‐driven innovation, which plays such a crucial role in the innovation strategy of design intensive firms, has still remained largely unexplored. This paper aims at providing a possible direction to fill this empty spot in innovation management literature. In particular, first it proposes a metamodel for investigating design‐driven innovation in which a manufacturer's ability to understand, anticipate, and influence emergence of new product meanings is built by relying on external interpreters (e.g., designers, firms in other industries, suppliers, schools, artists, the media) that share its same problem: to understand the evolution of sociocultural models and to propose new visions and meanings. Managing design‐driven innovation therefore implies managing the interaction with these interpreters to access, share, and internalize knowledge on product languages and to influence shifts in sociocultural models. Second, the paper proposes a possible direction to scientifically investigate the management of this networked and collective research process. In particular, it shows that the process of creating breakthrough innovations of meanings partially mirrors the process of creating breakthrough technological innovations. Studies of design‐driven innovation may therefore benefit significantly from the existing body of theories in the field of technology management. The analysis of the analogies between these two types of radical innovations (i.e., meanings and technologies) allows a research agenda to be set for exploration of design‐driven innovation, a relevant as well as underinvestigated phenomenon.     

Complements or Substitutes? Internal Technological Strength,Competitor Alliance Participation,and Innovation Development

While a firm can choose to develop an innovation internally or externally, the internal knowledge development and external knowledge acquisition tend to interact with each other in the innovation process. The present study examines whether internal technological strength and external competitor alliance participation serve as complements or substitutes in innovation development. Built on the knowledge‐based view, this study offers a contingency perspective on the nature of knowledge integration between internal technological strength and external alliance relationships, and how they jointly influence radical and incremental innovation differently. Adopting a random effect negative binomial model specification, a panel data set of 64 pharmaceutical firms over a 15‐year period were used to test the hypothesized effects. The findings indicate that internal technological knowledge strength has an inverted U‐shaped relationship with radical and incremental innovation. More importantly, the findings also demonstrate that the combined effect of internal and external sources of innovation can have differential effects on radical and incremental innovation development. Specifically, competitor alliance participation strengthens the effect of internal technological strength on incremental product innovation while it weakens the above effect on radical product innovation. This suggests that internal and external sources of innovation may complement each other for incremental innovation while they may represent trade‐offs for radical innovation development. The above findings provide empirical evidence for the complexity of pursuing organizational ambidexterity in innovation generation and highlight the importance of balancing the internal and external knowledge sources in pursuing innovation.