The Economic Contribution of High-Growth Firms: Do Policy Implications Depend on the Choice of Growth Indicator?

Prior studies have defined high-growth firms (HGFs) in terms of growth in firm employment or firm sales, and primarily analyzed their contribution to overall employment growth. In this paper we define HGFs using the commonly applied growth indicators (employment and sales), but also add definitions based on growth in value added and productivity. Our results indicate that HGFs in terms of employment are not the same firms as HGFs in terms of productivity, and that their economic contributions differ significantly. Economic policy promoting fast growth in employment may therefore come at the cost of reduced productivity growth. Although HGFs of different definitions may not be the same firms, young firms are more likely to be HGFs irrespective of definition. This suggests that economic policy should focus on the conditions for new firm formation and early growth of firms, rather than target a particular type of HGFs.     

Perspective: Changing Product Development Strategy—A Managerial Challenge

By changing its product development strategies to match more closely the wants and needs of the marketplace, a firm can transform product development into a formidable competitive weapon. Just as formidible, however, is the effort that this transformation requires. Established organizational structures and corporate politics present significant barriers to acheiving fundamental changes in product development strategy. Christer Karlsson and Pär Åhlstrom present a case study of one firm's efforts to build capabilities for creating new products quickly and efficiently. Rather than focus on the content of the firm's product development strategies, however, they emphasize the process this electromechanical manufacturing firm used for changing its product development strategy. Drawing on their experiences as clinical researchers in this effort, they describe key lessons learned during the change process, and they offer suggestions for managing the process of changing product development strategy. They highlight five key lessons learned during the strategy development process. First, rather than viewing product development as a line function, a firm should view product development as a key executive area with responsibility for the company's competitive position. Second, market issues are the responsibility, not only of marketing, but also of product development and production. Third, to avoid corporate myopia, management control systems must consider not only time and money, but also acheivement of goals. Fourth, strategic planning flows more smoothly if the participants start by mapping the firm's past and present position before attempting to define the desired position. Finally, formulation of a product development strategy is the responsibility of a multifunctional team of executives. Managers should keep a few rules in mind when devising a process for formulating a product development strategy. First, adopt a learning strategy throughout the change process. Formulation of a product development strategy involves many abstract concepts, and a successful strategy requires cross-functional consensus. Second, combine tangible, direct activities with long-term strategic aims. Third, avoid the pitfall of best practice. The form that the product development organization takes depends, to a great extent, on the type of development work. Finally, before discussing future strategies, the strategy formulation process should focus on analyzing the current situation.     

Innovation strategies and firm performance: Simple or complex strategies?

This paper analyzes the effect of various innovation strategies (ISs) of firms on their future performance, captured by labor productivity. Using five waves of the Community Innovation Survey in Sweden, we have traced the innovative behavior of firms over a decade, that is, from 2002 to 2012. We defined ISs to be either simple or complex (in various degrees). We call an IS a simple IS when firms engage in only one of the four types of Schumpeterian innovations, that is, product, process, marketing, or organizational, while a complex IS is when firms simultaneously engage in more than one type. The main findings indicate that those firms that choose and afford to have complex ISs are better off in terms of their future productivity in comparison with those firms that choose not to innovative (base group) and also in comparison with those firms that choose simple ISs. The results are mostly robust for those complex innovators that have a higher degree of complexity and also keep the balance between technological (product and process) and non-technological (organizational and marketing) innovations.     

Big-box retail entry in urban and rural areas: are there productivity spillovers to incumbent retailers?

This paper empirically measures the potential spillover effects of big-box retail entry on the productivity of incumbent retailers in the entry regions, and investigates whether the effects differ depending on the size of the new establishment relative to the size of the local market. The results indicate that big-box entry increases the productivity of incumbent stores in two of three rural entry regions where the IKEA is large relative to the local retail market, while no productivity spillover effects could be found in the case of the urban IKEA entry in Gothenburg.     

Opening Local Retail Food Stores: A Real-Options Approach

A real-options approach was used, incorporating uncertainty and irreversibility of investments, to study the number of stores entering the Swedish retail food market during the period 1994–2002. It was found that uncertainty affected the entry-decision. Entry was less frequent in highly concentrated local retail food-markets characterized by a high degree of uncertainty, whereas higher profit opportunities seem to have increased the probability of entry.     

Mehrwert durch Transparenz kommunizieren

Die zunehmende Discountausbreitung fordert Hersteller und Detailh?ndler heraus, den Mehrwert ihrer Produkte besser aufzuzeigen. Es braucht Argumente jenseits des Preises. Stellt die Kommunikation transparenzf?rdernde Informationen zur Lieferkette der Produkte in den Vordergrund, werden bislang kaum evidente, aber aus Konsumentensicht entscheidende, Unterschiede aufgezeigt, die Konsumenten helfen, beim Einkauf nicht nur einseitig auf den Preis zu achten.