The impact of stakeholder heterogeneity on risk perceptions in technological innovation

Managing risk has been widely acknowledged as a crucial managerial task in the development of new technology. More recently, the acceptance of new technologies has increasingly been influenced by secondary stakeholders, some of which are difficult to identify, or whose concerns are not easily reconciled. This paper develops a conceptual framework based on the management of technology and research & development literature, stakeholder theory, risk and social judgment to describe how traditional approaches based on reducing uncertainties through estimating probabilities may not work for social uncertainties; different heuristics are needed to understand and resolve such heterogeneous stakeholder perspectives. We contribute to the discourse by describing how risk perceptions among stakeholders vary, and how this may change over time. The framework suggests that the perception of primary stakeholder towards a specific innovation is ‘Standard’ when information is well known, but becomes riskier when information is unclear. For secondary stakeholders, when there is a low degree of imperfect information, the stakeholder relationship is an ‘Irritant’ but becomes increasingly ‘Dangerous’ when information becomes ambiguous. We conclude with implications for management and future research.     

Where do manufacturing firms locate their headquarters?

Firms often separate headquarters' (HQ) functions physically from their production facilities and construct stand-alone HQs. By locating its HQ in a large, service oriented metro area away from its production facilities, a firm may be better able to outsource service functions in that local metro market and also to gather information about market conditions for their products. However if the firm locates the HQ away from its production activity, the coordination costs in managing plant activities are increased. In this paper, we empirically analyze the trade-off between these two considerations.     

Can You Hear Me Now? Communication in Virtual Product Development Teams*

Globalization and technological advances are driving organizations to extend the boundaries of new product development (NPD) teams from traditional colocated settings to dispersed or virtual settings. Virtual NPD teams have a wide array of information and communication technologies (ICTs) at their disposal. ICTs allow team members to communicate and collaborate as they cope with the opportunities and challenges of cross‐boundary work. The purpose of this paper is to explore ICT use by members of virtual NPD teams. This study presents an exploratory test and integration of two competing perspectives of media use in virtual teams: media capacity theories and social dynamic media theories. Specifically, this paper examines the role of task type, organizational context, and ICT type as critical contingency variables affecting ICT use. It also examines how different patterns of ICT use relate to individual perceptions of team performance. The findings from this study of 184 members of virtual NPD teams in three global firms suggest that communication via ICTs in virtual NPD teams is contingent on a range of factors.     

Report: EMCRA — The chemical division of EVAF

It is editorial policy to encourage officials, of the European Association for Industrial Marketing Research (EVAF), to write occasional articles on the activities of EVAF. In this article Mr. J. W. Vernon, Chairman (UK) of the European Chemical Marketing Research Association (ECMRA), has written a refreshingly frank “history”, and discussed the promising future plans, of the Chemical Division of EVAF.     

A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment

In this article we describe a holistic, ecological framework that takes into account the surface structures and pedagogical approaches in the studio and how these elements are connected to the construction of design knowledge: epistemology. In our development of this framework, we came to understand how disciplinary underpinnings and academic culture shape the ways that studio is enacted. Using practice theory, we illustrate our framework with two examples—one in Industrial Design and another in Human Computer Interaction—that demonstrate the ways in which the studio can act as a bridge between academic and professional communities. We came to see the studio as a unique practice community that connects academic and professional contexts. We argue that successful implementation of studio-based learning involves an awareness of disciplinary canons, ontological approaches to knowledge, and the academic constraints on studio-based approaches to learning.