Aufgaben des Controllings im Rahmen des Risikomanagementprozesses

Ohne Zusammenfassung Dr. Pascal Nevries ist Gesch?ftsführer des Center for Controlling & Management (CCM). Daneben ist er Habilitand am Lehrstuhl von Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Weber sowie Mitglied des Instituts für Management & Controlling (IMC). Dipl.-Kfm. Erik Strau? ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Center for Controlling & Management (CCM). Daneben ist er Doktorand am Lehrstuhl von Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Weber sowie Mitglied des Instituts für Management & Controlling (IMC).     

THE BIAS OF THE MULTIPLIER MATRIX WHEN SUPPLY AND USE TABLES ARE STOCHASTIC

The literature on stochastic input–output (I–O) analysis has paid considerable attention to the bias in the Leontief inverse. This paper extends previous studies by assuming supply and use tables (SUTs rather than I–O tables or input coefficients matrices) to be stochastic. This is a natural starting point because SUTs have become the basic data sources for I–O applications. In a Monte Carlo simulation experiment, a given SUT is randomized in two different ways and the effects are determined for eight different multiplier matrices. The analysis is carried out for Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and Finland, using their SUTs for 2006. The findings indicate that, in general, biases are statistically significant but negligibly small. This corroborates earlier findings obtained for stochastic I–O tables.     

New Service Development: An Analysis of 27 Years of Research *

This study examines the state of the art in new service development (NSD) research published in the period between 1982, when the first NSD article appeared in an academic journal, and 2008. First, a multisource search was conducted, which resulted in the identification of 145 NSD‐related articles. Then, a content analysis was performed of these articles using multiple classifier variables with regard to general publication characteristics, focus of the research, and the research methodology that was employed. By examining the results, a number of developments in and patterns of scholarly research in NSD are revealed. More specifically, it appears that the greatest attention in the early writings was on a narrow set of NSD topics like critical success factors and the NSD process, which were predominantly investigated through large‐scale surveys with single respondents in the U.S., Canadian, and U.K. financial services industry. The analytical techniques that were used at that time were rather simple. In contrast, in recent NSD works there is an expansion of research topics (such as customer involvement and the organization of NSD) that are increasingly investigated in high‐tech service industries in Europe through qualitative research designs. Also, multiple respondent studies have started to appear in NSD investigations, while analytical techniques have also become more advanced. This pattern clearly uncovers signs of increasing maturation for the NSD discipline. In addition, some underresearched areas are identified, leading to suggestions for future research into this growing and important field.     

The Neuer Markt as an institution of creation and destruction

The market for publicly traded equity is the heart of a modern capitalist system. In particular, the market for newly listed firms is in turn a bellwether for the public equity market because the entry gives firms expanded access to capital, allowing them to emerge and grow. On the other hand, stock markets also serve as an institution to reallocate productive resources from non-surviving to surviving firms. We describe the Neuer Markt—a special segment of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange in Germany—as an institution to foster the creation of new firms and their destruction.

Launch Decisions and New Product Success: An Empirical Comparison of Consumer and Industrial Products

Many articles have investigated new product development success and failure. However, most of them have used the vantage point of characteristics of the product and development process in this research. In this article we extend this extensive stream of research, looking at factors affecting success; however, we look at the product in the context of the launch support program. We empirically answer the question of whether successful launch decisions differ for consumer and industrial products and identify how they differ. From data collected on over 1,000 product introductions, we first contrast consumer product launches with industrial product launches to identify key differences and similarities in launch decisions between market types. For consumer products, strategic launch decisions appear more defensive in nature, as they focus on defending current market positions. Industrial product strategic launch decisions seem more offensive, using technology and innovation to push the firm to operate outside their current realm of operations and move into new markets. The tactical marketing mix launch decisions (product, place, promotion and price) also differ markedly across the products launched for the two market types. Successful products were contrasted with failed products to identify those launch decisions that discriminate between both outcomes. Here the differences are more of degree rather than principle. Some launch decisions were associated with success for consumer and industrial products alike. Launch successes are more likely to be broader assortments of more innovative product improvements that are advertised with print advertising, independent of market. Other launch decisions uniquely related to success per product type, especially at the marketing mix level (pricing, distribution, and promotion in particular). The launch decisions most frequently made by firms are not well aligned with factors associated with higher success. Additionally, comparing the decisions associated with success to the recommendations for launches from the normative literature suggests that a number of conventional heuristics about how to launch products of each type will actually lead to failure rather than success.     

Problem shifts and market research: The role of networks in business relationships

This article discusses changes in approach to the study of business relationships, and sees the paradigm concept as constituting an inadequate basis for describing gradually evolving changes in the perception of business. The frequent references to paradigms appear to focus more on state aspects than on change aspects of theory building. The article attempts to trace some of the changes in the perception of markets preceding the emergence of network theories, and relates the presence of an interactional approach to business studies to the concept of problem shifts (Lakatos). The development of interactional approaches in marketing is seen as representing a shift away from theory building commonly found in economics and organizational theory. Changes in the approach to the study of business relationships are interpreted as theoretical or empirical problem shifts, and are thus related to the a priori and a posteriori relevance of the continual evolution of alternative business theories. The article explores some of the epistemological relevance of the network theories to the study of market relationships, and the potential impact on continual changes in approach to the study of markets.