Integrating the R&D and Patent Functions: Implications for New Product Performance

This paper examines the impact of cross‐functional integration between the research and development (R&D) and the patent functions on new product development (NPD) performance. The attitudinal (collaboration) and the behavioral (contributions of the patent function to NPD) dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions are distinguished. It is also investigated if the level of innovativeness moderates the relationship between the attitudinal and the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. The four hypotheses are tested based on a multi‐informant sample of 101 NPD projects which are nested within 72 technology‐based firms or strategic business units from multiple industries in Germany. The results show that the attitudinal and the behavioral dimensions of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions have a significant and positive impact on NPD performance. This lends empirical support for the notion expressed in the literature that certain managerial capabilities are important for understanding the effect of patenting on appropriability outcomes such as value creation and performance. The level of cross‐functional integration between the patent and the R&D functions appears to be one of these critical patent management capabilities that affect the returns from investments into patents. There is support for the hypothesis that the context matters for the effect of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions on NPD performance. In line with the initial hypothesis, the level of innovativeness positively moderates the impact of the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department on NPD performance. In contrast to the initial hypothesis, the findings reveal no moderating effect of the level of innovativeness on the link between the attitudinal dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. This implies that joint objectives and an open and trustful working relationship between the R&D and the patent functions are not sufficient for achieving higher NPD performance if firms aim to develop very innovative products. In the case of highly innovative products, the actual behavior, that is, the specific contributions of the patent department to the NPD project, matters. Overall, these findings have important implications for improving performance by means of effectively integrating the patent and the R&D functions during NPD.     

What Keeps Managers Away from a Losing Course of Action? Go/Stop Decisions in New Product Development

The purpose of this experimental study is to test whether specific approaches can reduce escalation of commitment—namely, decision‐makers' tendency to persist with an innovation project despite negative feedback that the initial investment has not reached its goals. This study focuses on the decision process for 137 research and development managers who must decide whether to abandon previously chosen courses of action or to continue in the face of probable and increasing losses in a stage‐gate system. The results show that visual decision aids and consultant advice reduce managers' decisions to continue funding a losing course of action. The results also show that using both approaches simultaneously has the strongest effect. Finally, the study reveals that the escalation of commitment issue can be reduced more effectively before an innovation project is commercialized while using both approaches.     

Exporting against Risk? Theory and Evidence from Public Export Insurance Schemes in OECD Countries

This paper endeavours to find out in how far public export insurance schemes foster international trade. Thereto, a gravity equation is derived, which accounts for the risk of financial losses in case firms contract defaulting foreign buyers. Empirical results suggest that OECD countries issuing trade credits with generous state-guarantees did not, during the 1999 to 2005 period, witness more exports towards politically and commercially more unstable low-income countries. Rather, publicly indemnified trade finance has promoted exports, to a modest degree, towards high and middle-income countries, where financial intermediaries and markets provide viable alternatives to hedge against payment risks.     

WHY SOCIAL PREFERENCES MATTER – THE IMPACT OF NON-SELFISH MOTIVES ON COMPETITION, COOPERATION AND INCENTIVES

A substantial number of people exhibit social preferences, which means they are not solely motivated by material self-interest but also care positively or negatively for the material payoffs of relevant reference agents. We show empirically that economists fail to understand fundamental economic questions when they disregard social preferences, in particular, that without taking social preferences into account, it is not possible to understand adequately (i) effects of competition on market outcomes, (ii) laws governing cooperation and collective action, (iii) effects and the determinants of material incentives, (iv) which contracts and property rights arrangements are optimal, and (v) important forces shaping social norms and market failures.     

Die nächste Ausgabe von Controlling &; Management erscheint am 12.06.07

Vorschau / 3/07

Die n?chste Ausgabe von Controlling & Management erscheint am 12.06.07     

Unrealistische Einnahmeplanung durch Geber und Nehmer: das Beispiel Bremen

A long-term analysis of incorrect revenue forecasts for the state of Bremen shows the importance of these forecasts for the failure of budgetary rehabilitation programmes. The findings contradict those analysts who blame misleading incentives in the federal distribution system of common taxes and advocate expenditure cutting. Looking forward, this development may reoccur, not only in Bremen but in other states as well, which would jeopardise the constitutional limit on deficits. This paper discusses the fiscal policy conclusions to draw from this unrealistic planning, addressing both the problems of states in a budgetary crisis and the system of tax distribution in Germany, which has to be reorganized in 2020