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.     

Regulating the timing of disclosure: Insights from the acceleration of 10-K filing deadlines

We study the effects of regulating the timing of disclosure on the quality of accounting information, using a 2003 US regulatory change that accelerates 10-K filing deadlines as a research setting. Employing a difference-in-differences design, we find that the likelihood of issuing financial statements that are later restated increases for firms that are required to file more quickly, relative to firms whose filing practices are not affected by the regulatory change. This effect is particularly pronounced during the audit busy season, when auditors also face significant time pressure. These results are consistent with a tradeoff between how quickly accounting reports are required to be filed and the reliability of the resulting reports.     

Making Sense of an Interconnected World: How Innovation Champions Drive Social Innovation in the Not-for-Profit Context

Social innovation is critical for supporting the economic and social fabric of communities globally. Yet little is known about the processes through which social innovation occurs and how context shapes them. To date, scholarship has focused primarily on social entrepreneurs and social enterprise creation, while the role of established not-for-profits (NFPs) as agents of social innovation has received surprisingly little attention given their importance to communities. It is expected that innovation will be increasingly important for NFPs as shifts in their funding models create greater complexity in maintaining sustainability and continuity in social service delivery. This research generates a deeper understanding of the processes of social innovation within NFPs by examining how multiple levels of context influence the behaviors of a key set of agents: innovation champions. Adopting an interactionist lens, the study explores how shifts in funding policy at the macro level, and the role of leaders (CEOs and Boards) and organizational institutional logics at the meso level, influence champion behavior at the micro level. To do this, we draw on sensemaking as an important cognitive and action-enabling mechanism. A qualitative, multicase study design with 46 interviews across six case organizations allows an in-depth exploration of this under-investigated area. The findings indicate that bricolage activity can facilitate championing that supports social innovation within NFPs and that organizational context guides the direction and content of champion behavior. The findings further uncover a broader range of behaviors and outcomes than have been previously attributed to champions, while highlighting the critical role that bricolage-enabled championing can play in driving social innovation that is both directly impactful and offers significant longer-term social impact. The important roles that sensebreaking, sensegiving, and sensemaking play in connecting champions’ interpretations of their contexts to their behaviors are also outlined.     

Stock Market Returns to Financial Innovations Before and During the Financial Crisis in the United States and Europe

Prior studies have focused on innovations in various contexts but largely excluded financial innovations, despite their notable importance. Not surprisingly, financial innovations account for a substantial portion of world economies and the huge market capitalization of banks. Therefore, the authors focus on studying the type, success, and causes of success of financial innovations. Using an event study and financial expert ratings, this study analyzes the types of and payoffs to 428 financial innovations by 39 major banks in North America and Western Europe between 2001 and 2010. The results indicate that security and credit instruments constitute the most common and insurance innovations the least common financial innovations, which vary substantially by economic cycles and location. The average cumulative abnormal stock market returns to a financial innovation are $146 million. They are twice as high in the United States as in Western Europe. Thus, the market considers financial innovations profitable, not harmful, despite their apparent responsibility for the financial crisis. Surprisingly, the cumulative abnormal stock market returns to financial innovations are higher in recessions than in expansions. The authors find that riskiness and radicalness of the innovation increases abnormal returns, while complexity decreases cumulative abnormal stock market returns. Two interaction effects stand out: Riskiness of financial innovations has higher cumulative abnormal stock market returns in the United States than in Western Europe. Radicalness has lower cumulative abnormal stock market returns in recessions than in expansions. The authors discuss important implications of the findings.     

Do We Have to Get Along to Innovate? The Influence of Multilevel Social Cohesion on New Product and New Service Development

In this study, based on the Comparative Performance Assessment Study survey conducted by the Product Development Management Association, the authors develop and test a model which considers the antecedents and performance outcomes of social cohesion, a seemingly critical organizational factor in new product development (NPD). Using a sample of over 450 innovation and product development professionals from North America, Europe, and Asia, social cohesion is conceptualized and tested across three levels—within team cohesion, between team cohesion, and between firm cohesion. The results of a structural equation model indicate several differences between the antecedents of the varying forms of social cohesion. A post hoc exploration of the difference between goods‐ versus service‐dominant firms provides a clearer picture of cohesion's influence on innovation outcomes. Specifically, within team and between team cohesion are positively associated with new services performance, while for traditional goods‐based NPD, within team, between team, and between firm cohesion all appear to be positively related to performance. The findings suggest that high social cohesion is not always optimal and that managers should focus on specific types or levels of social cohesion as opposed to thinking about social cohesion as a one‐dimensional construct. The findings also suggest that goods‐ and service‐centric firms can use different tactics or strategies to drive social cohesion and, ultimately, new product performance, and that innovation managers may need to allocate resources differently depending on the nature of the market offering being developed. The paper also presents several implications for theory and practice, as well as future research directions related to the various levels of social cohesion and their influence on new product and new service performance.