Growth and Development of a Body of Knowledge: 16 Years of New Product Development Research, 1989–2004*

In this study, a content analysis was performed on 815 articles focused on new product development (NPD) published in 10 selected leading marketing, management, NPD, and research and development (R&D) journals from 1989 to 2004. Journals selected were a combination of leading journals in the discipline and publications that included NPD articles. NPD articles were classified by a series of key attributes including methodology employed, domains of knowledge utilized, and broad topics explored. The resulting data were then studied to discern trends over time or common characteristics within domains, methodologies, or journals. The study of NPD has grown since the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) was launched in 1984. This study shows strong growth in the number of articles on NPD in each category of journal selected. The research in the articles has changed: The early focus on a few selected success factors or a staged development process has evolved and broadened over the 16‐year period. More variables and more sophisticated models are being studied in NPD articles. The study found a continuing evolution in research topics and increased sophistication in quantitative techniques over the 16‐year period. Overall this review of the NPD literature uncovers encouraging signs of a maturing discipline. However, there are concerns about continuing issues in methodology, insufficient study of service innovation, and continued focus on process characteristics instead of other antecedents of NPD success. The service sector seems to be understudied, even as the reality of a service economy is generally acknowledged. The call in a recent meta‐analysis to focus more on market and product characteristics and less on process characteristics has not yet been heeded, even by marketing researchers.     

Are rigor and transparency enough? Review and future directions for case studies in technology and innovation Management

It is crucial to assess how technology and innovation management (TIM) scholars use case-based research. Our study provides a theoretical systematic review of qualitative case-based articles published in 31 TIM journals from 2013 to 2018. Our analysis of 311 articles uncovers patterns regarding rigor (including case justification and selection), transparency (including data collection and analytical methods), and paradigmatic consistency and pluralism. Our findings show some evidence of emerging pluralism in how TIM researchers perform qualitative case studies, but also highlight some worrying trends: paradigmatic inconsistencies, lack of transparency, and over-reliance on specific approaches, all of which affect the value of case study research. We provide methodological guidelines for improving the use of qualitative case research in TIM.     

A Bibliometric Review of Open Innovation: Setting a Research Agenda

Through an objective, systematic, and comprehensive review of the literature on open innovation (OI), this article identifies gaps in existing research, and provides recommendations on how hitherto unused or underused organizational, management, and marketing theories can be applied to advance the field. This study adopts a novel approach by combining two complementary bibliometric methods of co‐citation analysis and text mining of 321 journal articles on OI that enables a robust empirical analysis of the intellectual streams and key concepts underpinning OI. Results reveal that researchers do not sufficiently draw on theoretical perspectives external to the field to examine multiple facets of OI. Research also seems confined to innovation‐specific journals with its focus restricted to a select few OI issues, thereby exerting limited influence on the wider business community. This study reveals three distinct areas within OI research: (1) firm‐centric aspects of OI, (2) management of OI networks, and (3) role of users and communities in OI. Thus far, studies have predominantly investigated the firm‐centric aspects of OI, with a particular focus on the role of knowledge, technology, and R&D from the innovating firm's perspective, while the other two areas remain relatively under‐researched. Further gaps in the literature emerge that present avenues for future research, namely to: (1) develop a more comprehensive understanding of OI by including diverse perspectives (users, networks, and communities), (2) direct increased attention to OI strategy formulation and implementation, and (3) enhance focus on customer co‐creation and conceptualize “open service innovation.” Marketing (e.g., service‐dominant logic), organizational behavior (e.g., communities of practice), and management (e.g., dynamic capabilities) offer suitable theoretical lenses and/or concepts to address these gaps.     

Twenty Years of the Journal of Product Innovation Management: History, Participants, and Knowledge Stock and Flows

The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) serves as a marketplace for science‐based, innovative ideas that are produced and consumed by scholars and businesspeople. Now that JPIM has existed for 20 years, two intriguing questions emerge: (1) How has the journal evolved over time in terms of knowledge stock, that is, what are the characteristics of the growing stock of knowledge published by JPIM over the years; and (2) how has the journal evolved in knowledge flow, that is, how is JPIM influenced by other scientific publications and what is its impact on other journals? In terms of knowledge stock, over 35% of the articles published over the 20 years investigate processes and metrics for performance management. The next most frequently published area was strategy, planning, and decision making (20%), followed by customer and market research (17%). The dominant research method used was a cross‐sectional large‐sample survey, and the focus most usually is at the project level of the firm. The large majority of JPIM authors (60%) have a marketing background, with the remaining 40% representing numerous functional domains. Academics at all levels publish in JPIM, and though most authors hail from North America, the Dutch are a significant second group. JPIM was analyzed from a knowledge‐flow perspective by looking at the scientific sources used by JPIM authors to develop their ideas and articles. To this end a bibliometric analysis was performed by analyzing all references in articles published in JPIM. During 1984–2003 JPIM published 488 articles, containing 10,314 references to journals and 6,533 references to other sources. Some 20% of these references (2,020) were self‐references to JPIM articles. The remaining 8,294 journal references were to articles in 287 journals in the fields of management (25%), marketing (24%), and management of technology (14%). However, it should be pointed out that many domains were dominated by a limited number of journals. The second component of knowledge flow concerns the extent to which the ideas developed in JPIM are consumed by other authors. Again, bibliometric analysis was used to analyze data from the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) about citations to JPIM in other journals. For the period 1984–2005, the SSCI registered 7,773 citations to JPIM in 2,067 articles published in 278 journals (including the 2,020 self‐citations in JPIM). The functional areas most frequently citing JPIM are management of technology (25%), marketing (15%), management (14%), and operations management and management science (9%). Again, several domains were found to be dominated by a limited number of journals. At the level of individual journals the analysis shows a growing impact of JPIM on management of technology journals. The knowledge‐flow analysis demonstrates how JPIM functions as a bridge between the knowledge from various domains and the body of knowledge on management of technology. It suggests a growing specialization of the field of technology innovation management, with JPIM being firmly entrenched as the acknowledged leading journal.     

Success Factors for Service Innovation: A Meta‐Analysis

Service sectors form a considerable part of the world economy. Contrary to the logical assumption that service innovation research should represent a significant share of all innovation research, the vast majority of innovation studies focus on products as opposed to services. This research presents a meta‐analysis of the antecedents of service innovation performance conducted on 92 independent samples obtained from 114 articles published between 1989 and 2015. This research contributes to our understanding of service innovation in three major ways. First, this is the first meta‐analysis that specifically assesses the relative importance of antecedents of service innovation performance, while also pinpointing the differences in meta‐analytic findings between antecedents of service and product innovation performance. Although there are some universal success factors that transcend the boundaries between services and products, the presence of marked differences implies that it would be wrong to treat the development of new services and new products as the same. Second, the meta‐analysis demonstrates that the antecedents of service innovation performance are contingent on the sector context (i.e., explicit versus tacit services). Comparing results between products and services, and between tacit and explicit services, there appears to be a continuum where explicit services sit interstitial between tacit services on one side and products on the other. Third, the meta‐analysis compares and contrasts the antecedents of two dimensions of service innovation performance (i.e., commercial success and strategic competitive advantage). Previous meta‐analyses treated these two dependent variables collectively, which falls short of identifying issues that may affect management decisions when faced with different objectives. Additionally, this research investigates the effect of several other moderators (i.e., culture, unit of analysis, journal quality, and year of publication) on the relationships between the antecedents and service innovation performance. The results are discussed in relation to their implications for research and managerial practice.     

The development of strategic management: Journal quality and article impact

Quality ratings of strategic management journals by experts correlate closely with objective quality measures of current article impact and cumulative journal influence. In part, journal quality seems determined by editors' research stature. Over 12 years, scholarly influence of strategic management periodicals has grown nearly three-fold, as two new journals directed to conceptual development of management as a whole have risen to prominence. Expansion of strategic management research and growth of its influence may be in response to challenges posed by the continuing crisis of managerial and business performance.     

The Intellectual Structure of Product Innovation Research: A Bibliometric Study of the Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1984–2004

Product innovation research has matured substantially in the last two decades. A great deal of knowledge has been produced on various aspects of the discipline, so it is of interest to assess the state of the art the scientific community has reached in this discipline and the route it has taken. This perspective is investigated through a bibliometric study of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM), arguably the most important specialized journal on this topic. The work reviews all journal paper contributions in JPIM from 1984 to 2004 in determined time frames, assesses the citations contained in these papers, identifies how the citations are related to the various topics of production innovation research (topic‐related citation variety, topic‐related citation consistency, variation in topic‐related citation pattern), and offers a retrospective examination of the evolution of the field. The overall analysis of citations shows that most papers in JPIM cite at least one of the top 50 works identified by this study. This testifies to the strong impact of the most influential works on the intellectual structure of product innovation research. The observed citation pattern suggests that the top 50 papers gained influence in product innovation research either because they represent a relevant contribution on a fundamental topic that already has been authoritatively studied or because they investigate in a relevant manner a new topic. The paper suggests that JPIM might benefit in its aim to consolidate its position as one of the top academic business journals if published papers increasingly drew on the most influential works to inform their research design and explicitly stated the theoretical underpinnings they draw on in their research design. Overall, the analysis of the subperiods (1984–1988, 1989–1993, 1994–1998, and 1999–2004) provides evidence for the maturation of new product innovation research. Books covering a wide range of topics are replaced by journal papers addressing a specific topic; over time, specific topics emerge and become influential for the discipline's intellectual structure; papers published in JPIM augment their methodological rigor and increasingly address contingency factors. The paper also notes that obtaining relevance for JPIM authors constitutes a necessary condition for being considered by management researchers at large as an influential contribution to product innovation research.     

Replication in strategic management: scientific testing for validity,generalizability, and usefulness

A number of studies have shown that little replication and extension research is published in the business disciplines. This has deleterious consequences for the development of a cumulative body of knowledge in these same areas. It has been speculated, but never formally tested, that replication research is more likely to be published in lower tiers of the journal hierarchy. The present paper indicates very low levels of replication in management and strategic management journals, regardless of their prestige. Moreover, even those replications that are published tend not to be critical—odd in applied social sciences that are largely preparadigmatic and where extensibility, generalizability and utility of scientific constructs tend to be low. The goal of science is empirical generalization, or knowledge development. Systematically conducted replications with extensions facilitate this goal. It is clear, however, that many editors, reviewers, and researchers hold attitudes toward replication research that betray a lack of understanding about its role. Long-run strategies to dispel these misconceptions must involve changes in graduate training aimed at making the conduct of such vital work second nature. It is further suggested that journals in all tiers create a section specifically for the publication of replication research, and that top-tier journals take the lead in this regard. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Radical innovation: triggering initiation of opportunity recognition and evaluation

The gap between a firm's reservoir of technical knowledge and the formation of a project to explore the commercial potential of a breakthrough technical insight or discovery is the first major discontinuity in the radical innovation lifecycle. The first step toward bridging that gap occurs when the researcher with the technical insight recognizes that it might have commercial potential and decides to alert a research manager. In our longitudinal study of eight radical innovation projects in six large, multi‐national, R&D‐intensive firms, the initiation of a radical innovation project was neither frequent nor routine. In fact the participants in the study indicated that the initiation of a project – in their terminology, the 'fuzzy front end of innovation'– was the most challenging and uncertain part of the lifecycle. In this paper we explore the case data to illuminate the nature of the initiation gap. In addition we present an assessment framework that can help researchers decide whether or not to bring their technical idea to the attention of management. If the decision is positive, the assessment tool can help them prepare for the discussion with management and identify the strengths and weaknesses of the case to submitted for evaluation.     

Inconclusive Innovation “Returns”: A Meta‐Analysis of Research on Innovation in New Product Development*

This research on studies that have empirically examined the construct innovation provides a meta‐analysis of the marketing, management, and new product literatures. The study extends previous meta‐analytic works by drawing on 70 independent samples from 64 studies (published from 1970 to 2006) with a total sample size of 12,921. The overall objective is to propose a synthesized model that includes technological turbulence, market turbulence, customer orientation, competitor orientation, organizational structure, innovation, and new product performance. Six baseline hypotheses were developed and tested. The goal is not only to derive empirical generalizations from these literatures but also to investigate sources of inconsistencies in the findings. Four substantive and two methodological artifacts were tested to determine whether they moderate model relationships (i.e., whether the effect sizes differ for any of the six baseline hypotheses). The potential moderators were project versus program level of analysis, the nature of change required by the innovation, service versus product, country of the data's origin, continuous versus categorical measurement, and the number of scales used. From a theoretical perspective, the results corroborated the resource‐based view framework regarding the determinants and the performance outcome of innovation. New product performance (the performance outcome) is a direct consequence of innovation, and this effect is stronger when the data are collected from Western countries. This relationship holds regardless of whether the level of analysis is the new product program versus project or whether the innovation is a product or a service, a robust result relevant to researchers and managers alike. As for the determinants of innovation, the results were as follows. While market turbulence is overall not a direct antecedent to innovation, technological turbulence is overall positively related (especially when market discontinuities are considered or when the data are collected from Asian countries). Customer orientation encourages new product innovation overall, but especially at the program (as opposed to project) level in Western countries. The effect of competitor orientation is also positive. The results for either orientation construct or either turbulence construct held whether the level of analysis was project versus program or whether services versus products were examined. However, the relationship of mechanistic organizational structures to innovation, although positive in the overall sample, did vary by product (positive) versus service (negative).     

Perspective: Ranking of the World's Top Innovation Management Scholars and Universities

This paper extends Jeffrey Thieme's article “The World's Top Innovation Management Scholars and Their Social Capital,” published in 2007 in J P I M, in which he made a ranking of the world's top innovation managements scholars. This paper makes four contributions. First, this paper includes data on innovation management from articles published in two leading innovation management journals and eight top management and marketing journals during past 20 years (1991–2010). Second, this paper classifies 1229 articles into 29 categories, revealing hot topics and future research directions. Third, this paper ranks 1718 innovation management scholars over a period of 20 years from 1991 to 2010. Fourth, this is the first time that 625 universities have been ranked in terms of their current faculty research capabilities in the field of innovation management. The empirical data from the past 20 years show that the world's top 10 innovation management scholars are: Michael Song (University of Missouri‐Kansas City), Roger J. Calantone (Michigan State University), Erik Jan Hultink (Delft University of Technology), Mark E. Parry (University of Missouri‐Kansas City), Kwaku Atuahene‐Gima (China Europe International Business School), C. Anthony Di Benedetto (Temple University), Abbie Griffin (University of Utah), William E. Souder (Retired), Barry L. Bayus (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), and Christoph H. Loch (INSEAD). The world's top 10 innovation management universities are: University of Missouri‐Kansas City, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Michigan State University, INSEAD, Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania, Northeastern University, Texas A&M University, Stanford University, and Delft University of Technology.     

Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation

This paper reviews research on open innovation that considers how and why firms commercialize external sources of innovations. It examines both the “outside‐in” and “coupled” modes of open innovation. From an analysis of prior research on how firms leverage external sources of innovation, it suggests a four‐phase model in which a linear process—(1) obtaining, (2) integrating, and (3) commercializing external innovations—is combined with (4) interaction between the firm and its collaborators. This model is used to classify papers taken from the top 25 innovation journals, complemented by highly cited work beyond those journals. A review of 291 open innovation‐related publications from these sources shows that the majority of these articles indeed address elements of this inbound open innovation process model. Specifically, it finds that researchers have front‐loaded their examination of the leveraging process, with an emphasis on obtaining innovations from external sources. However, there is a relative dearth of research related to integrating and commercializing these innovations. Research on obtaining innovations includes searching, enabling, filtering, and acquiring—each category with its own specific set of mechanisms and conditions. Integrating innovations has been mostly studied from an absorptive capacity perspective, with less attention given to the impact of competencies and culture (including “not invented here”). Commercializing innovations puts the most emphasis on how external innovations create value rather than how firms capture value from those innovations. Finally, the interaction phase considers both feedback for the linear process and reciprocal innovation processes such as cocreation, network collaboration, and community innovation. This review and synthesis suggests several gaps in prior research. One is a tendency to ignore the importance of business models, despite their central role in distinguishing open innovation from earlier research on interorganizational collaboration in innovation. Another gap is a tendency in open innovation to use “innovation” in a way inconsistent with earlier definitions in innovation management. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research that include examining the end‐to‐end innovation commercialization process, and studying the moderators and limits of leveraging external sources of innovation.     

Understanding commercialization of technological innovation: taking stock and moving forward

The commercialization of technological innovation, which is key to entrepreneurial success, represents a combination of several entrepreneurial activities. Building on research in management, strategy, entrepreneurship, and economics, this research summarizes 194 articles from 62 journals, categorizing them into six broad entrepreneurial activity themes: sources of innovations, types of innovation, market entry competence and feasibility, protection, development, and deployment. This review and synthesis suggest a framework of commercialization and an agenda for future research along with recommendations and guidance for future research. The proposed agenda provides topics and research questions for research, as well as related recommendations regarding the study and practice of the commercialization of innovation.     

PERSPECTIVE: An Analysis of 22 Years of Research in JPIM*

Numerous articles have been published in the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) since its inception in 1984, representing the most advanced studies dedicated to the management practice in all of the functions involved in the total process of product innovation. It is timely to draw a research profile by investigating the research patterns and development in JPIM to reflect the evolution of the field. First of all, the present study performed a text analysis of 544 research articles published from 1984 to 2005 and then developed a list of research streams. Next, each article was analyzed by coding the following information: the author's background (i.e., academic or professional), the author's country of affiliation, the research topic, the structure of theoretical framework (i.e., analog, composite, or propositional), the type of research design, the quantitative analytical technique, the types of industries, and the countries investigated in the empirical studies. The results indicated that JPIM had made substantial progress in two points. The first is the expanded collaborations of authors, which are not only within the national boundary but also across countries and continents. With such a divergence of research traditions and cultural perspectives, this cooperation offers the potential to enrich the stock of new product development and innovation management theories as well as methodologies more than single‐country arrangement. The second is a high degree of science in respect of methodology. Although JPIM has become a major journal for business research, three opportunities of knowledge advancement were suggested. The first is to reduce the domination of American and European publication and to promote article submission from developing countries. The second concerns the need of relatively broad theoretical schema and diversified research methods. The last opportunity lies in the encouragement of research on certain promising topics.     

What passes as a rigorous case study?

This article investigates the methodological sophistication of case studies as a tool for generating and testing theory by analyzing case studies published during the period 1995–2000 in 10 influential management journals. We find that case studies emphasized external validity at the expense of the two more fundamental quality measures, internal and construct validity. Comparing case studies published in the three highest‐ranking journals with the other seven, we reveal strategies that may be useful for authors wishing to conduct methodologically rigorous case study research. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How to Overcome Pro‐Change Bias: Incorporating Passive and Active Innovation Resistance in Innovation Decision Models

Adoption literature is largely subject to a pro‐change bias; researchers mainly assume that consumers are open to change and thus interested in evaluating new products. However, consumers often reject innovations without considering their potential, such that the adoption process ends before it really has begun. The present study instead argues that innovation resistance, prior to product evaluation, is a regular consumer response that must be recognized and managed to facilitate new product adoption. The authors suggest differentiating passive from active innovation resistance. While passive innovation resistance results from a consumer's generic predisposition to resist innovations prior to new product evaluation, active innovation resistance is an attitudinal outcome that follows an unfavorable new product evaluation. This study also extends extant innovation decision models by describing how passive and active innovation resistance emerge and how they affect decision‐making in later stages of the process.     

PERSPECTIVE: Ranking Business Schools on the Management of Technology

Current centers of active research on the management of technology and innovation (MOT) are identified through the use of a publication‐based study. This article develops a methodology for ranking centers of MOT research and in doing so identifies 120 centers of MOT research in different parts of the world. Centers of research are identified in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. Detailed assessment is offered for the 21 U.S.‐based schools with three or more active MOT researchers present. The nature and quality of research activity is assessed with a series of 21 metrics. These metrics consider the number of active faculty, the number of publications researchers have in the base journals during the study period, total publication history, MOT publication history, number of equivalent articles, number of pages published, frequency of citations, and a series of metrics that are a combination of two or more of these factors. The assessment identifies four groups of schools that have MOT research capabilities. Schools with substantial research capability are divided into three tiers based on their rankings in different metrics. Each of the schools ranked in the first tier placed first on at least two of the 21 metrics considered in this study. A reasonable argument can be made that any one of the schools ranking in the first tier is the strongest school in terms of MOT research capabilities. These U.S.‐based schools in alphabetical order are Georgia Tech, MIT, Rensselaer, Rutgers, and Stanford. An important point to note is that there are clear differences in research focus between the different first‐tier schools; therefore, it is quite likely that different types of students, faculties, and practitioners will find each of the first‐tier schools most attractive based on personal fit with these differences in specialization. The schools in the second and third tier have substantial MOT research capability. The fourth tier identifies 18 additional U.S.‐based schools that have some capability due to a core of two researchers. This core could be the springboard to a national ranking or a transitory state due to departure of a faculty member. Future research should consider the stability of the results over time and should explore the links among research capabilities, program structure, student output, and placement.     

New Product Development Practices and Early‐Stage Firms: Two In‐Depth Case Studies

New product development practices (NPD) have been well studied for decades in large, established companies. Implementation of best practices such as predevelopment market planning and cross‐functional teams have been positively correlated with product and project success over a variety of measures. However, for small new ventures, field research into ground‐level adoption of NPD practices is lacking. Because of the risks associated with missteps in new product development and the potential for firm failure, understanding NPD within the new venture context is critical. Through in‐depth case research, this paper investigates two successful physical product‐based early‐stage firms' development processes versus large established firm norms. The research focuses on the start‐up adoption of commonly prescribed management processes to improve NPD, such as cross‐functional teams, use of market planning during innovation development, and the use of structured processes to guide the development team. This research has several theoretical implications. The first finding is that in comparing the innovation processes of these firms to large, established firms, the study found several key differences from the large firm paradigm. These differences in development approach from what is prescribed for large, established firms are driven by necessity from a scarcity of resources. These new firms simply did not have the resources (financial or human) to create multi‐ or cross‐functional teams or organizations in the traditional sense for their first product. Use of virtual resources was pervasive. Founders also played multiple roles concurrently in the organization, as opposed to relying on functional departments so common in large firms. The NPD process used by both firms was informal—much more skeletal than commonly recommended structured processes. The data indicated that these firms put less focus on managing the process and more emphasis on managing their goals (the main driver being getting the first product to market). In addition to little or no written procedures being used, development meetings did not run to specific paper‐based deliverables or defined steps. In terms of market and user insight, these activities were primarily performed inside the core team—using methods that again were distinctive in their approach. What drove a project to completion was relying on team experience or a “learn as you go approach.” Again, the driver for this type of truncated market research approach was a lack of resources and need to increase the project's speed‐to‐market. Both firms in our study were highly successful, from not only an NPD efficiency standpoint but also effectiveness. The second broad finding we draw from this work is that there are lessons to be learned from start‐ups for large, established firms seeking ever‐increasing efficiency. We have found that small empowered teams leading projects substantial in scope can be extremely effective when roles are expanded, decision power is ground‐level, and there is little emphasis on defined processes. This exploratory research highlights the unique aspects of NPD within small early‐stage firms, and highlights areas of further research and management implications for both small new ventures and large established firms seeking to increase NPD efficiency and effectiveness.