Innovation Performance (innovation + performance)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


NPD Planning Activities and Innovation Performance: The Mediating Role of Process Management and the Moderating Effect of Product Innovativeness

THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2007
Sören Salomo
The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of planning and control on the performance of new product development (NPD) projects. It is hypothesized that (1) thorough business planning at the beginning of a project creates a basis for proficient project and risk planning; (2) the proficiency of project planning, risk planning, and process management activities each improves innovation performance directly; (3) the relationship of planning and success is mediated by process management; and (4) the strength of these relationships is moderated by uncertainty, as determined by the degree of innovativeness. To test the hypotheses, data from 132 NPD projects were collected and analyzed. A measurement model was used to establish valid and reliable constructs, a path model to test the main effects, and a multiple-moderated regression analysis for the moderator hypotheses. The results suggest that the proficiency of project planning and process management is important predictors of NPD performance. Specifically, project risk planning and goal stability throughout the development process are found to enhance performance significantly. Business planning proves to be an important antecedent of the more development-related planning activities such as project planning and risk planning. Additionally, the results lend support to the hypotheses regarding the mediating role of process management in the planning,performance relationship. Project planning and risk planning support the quality of process management and thus impact NPD performance indirectly. Only to a limited extent are the strengths of these relationships moderated by the degree of innovativeness of the NPD project. [source]


Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, Issue 3-4 2004
Luke Pittaway
Recent work on competitiveness has emphasized the importance of business networking for innovativeness. Until recently, insights into the dynamics of this relationship have been fragmented. This paper presents a systematic review of research linking the networking behaviour of firms with their innovative capacity. We find that the principal benefits of networking as identified in the literature include: risk sharing; obtaining access to new markets and technologies; speeding products to market; pooling complementary skills; safeguarding property rights when complete or contingent contracts are not possible; and acting as a key vehicle for obtaining access to external knowledge. The evidence also illustrates that those firms which do not co-operate and which do not formally or informally exchange knowledge limit their knowledge base long term and ultimately reduce their ability to enter into exchange relationships. At an institutional level, national systems of innovation play an important role in the diffusion of innovations in terms of the way in which they shape networking activity. The paper provides evidence suggesting that network relationships with suppliers, customers and intermediaries such as professional and trade associations are important factors affecting innovation performance and productivity. Where networks fail, it is due to inter-firm conflict, displacement, lack of scale, external disruption and lack of infrastructure. The review identifies several gaps in the literature that need to be filled. For instance, there is a need for further exploration of the relationship between networking and different forms of innovation, such as process and organisational innovation. Similarly, we need better understanding of network dynamics and network configurations, as well as the role of third parties such as professional and trade associations. Our study highlights the need for interdisciplinary research in these areas. [source]


A Capability-Based Framework for Open Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, Issue 8 2009
Ulrich Lichtenthaler
abstract We merge research into knowledge management, absorptive capacity, and dynamic capabilities to arrive at an integrative perspective, which considers knowledge exploration, retention, and exploitation inside and outside a firm's boundaries. By complementing the concept of absorptive capacity, we advance towards a capability-based framework for open innovation processes. We identify the following six ,knowledge capacities' as a firm's critical capabilities of managing internal and external knowledge in open innovation processes: inventive, absorptive, transformative, connective, innovative, and desorptive capacity. ,Knowledge management capacity' is a dynamic capability, which reconfigures and realigns the knowledge capacities. It refers to a firm's ability to successfully manage its knowledge base over time. The concept may be regarded as a framework for open innovation, as a complement to absorptive capacity, and as a move towards understanding dynamic capabilities for managing knowledge. On this basis, it contributes to explaining interfirm heterogeneity in knowledge and alliance strategies, organizational boundaries, and innovation performance. [source]


Creative imitation: exploring the case of cross-industry innovation

R & D MANAGEMENT, Issue 3 2010
Ellen Enkel
In cross-industry innovation, already existing solutions from other industries are creatively imitated and retranslated to meet the needs of the company's current market or products. Such solutions can be technologies, patents, specific knowledge, capabilities, business processes, general principles, or whole business models. Innovations systematically created in a cross-industry context are a new phenomenon for theory and practice in respect of an open innovation approach. While the cognitive distance between the acquired knowledge and the problem to be solved was regarded as a counterproductive factor in older research, recent theory regards it as positively related to innovation performance. Following the latest theory, we examine 25 cross-industry cases to ascertain cognitive distance's influence on innovation performance. Our study reveals that there is no direct correlation between a higher or a closer distance and a more explorative or exploitative outcome. [source]


Relationships between innovation stimulus, innovation capacity, and innovation performance

R & D MANAGEMENT, Issue 5 2006
Daniel I. Prajogo
This paper examines the integration of the human and technological aspects of innovation management by modelling the innovation stimulus , innovation capacity relationship in determining innovation performance. The research framework developed in this study was tested amongst 194 managers of Australian firms. The survey responses indicate that both the relationships between innovation stimulus and innovation capacity and between innovation capacity and innovation performance are significant and strong. However, innovation stimulus does not show any direct effect on innovation performance, suggesting that its effect is mediated through innovation capacity. The overall practical implication that can be drawn from the findings is that to achieve high innovation performance, organizations first need to develop the behavioural and cultural context and practices for innovation (i.e. stimulus), and only within such conducive environments is it possible for organizations to develop innovative capacity in research and development and technology so as to more effectively deliver innovation outcomes and performance. [source]


Innovation and collaboration in the geographic information systems (GIS) industry: evidence from Canada and the United States

R & D MANAGEMENT, Issue 3 2000
Valerie Hartung
This paper examines the role of collaborative technical activity in the innovation performance of Canadian and US companies in the geographic information systems (GIS) industry. This young but rapidly growing sector produces specialised hardware and software for cartographic applications (computer mapping). Evidence from a sample of 384 companies suggests that innovation is strongly dependent upon in-house R&D. The results also suggest that a firm's propensity to operate within a collaborative network varies directly with its R&-intensity. A description of the main benefits and costs of collaboration is presented. Although there is no statistical association between innovation and the incidence of external collaboration, the evidence suggests that R&D partnerships contribute to the innovation process in a number of important ways. The key contribution lies in the speed of product commercialisation. A related finding is that collaborators tend to generate radical innovations more frequently than less successful and/or non-collaborators. [source]


Market Orientation and R&D Effectiveness in High-Technology Firms: An Empirical Investigation in the Biotechnology Industry,

THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 3 2010
Luigi M. De Luca
There seems to be lack of consensus among informed scholars about the importance a of market orientation for high-technology firms. This paper gives a comprehensive review of existing empirical studies on the relationship between market orientation and innovation performance and pinpoints two limitations in this research stream that might be at the origin of such controversy. First, extant research often overlooked key innovation outcomes for high-technology firms, such as those related to research and development (R&D) performance. Second, organizational conditions that can ensure an optimal integration of market knowledge in the innovation process have been less analyzed in the case of these firms. Against this background, the present study contributes to the literature by providing a test of the effect of market orientation on R&D effectiveness and the moderating role of knowledge integration in this relationship, using a sample of Italian biotechnology firms. The study's objectives are addressed in two steps. The first one consists of an in-depth qualitative study based on semistructured interviews in five biotechnology firms. The second step consists of a follow-up survey of 50 biotechnology firms. Results from hierarchical multiple regression analysis show that the different dimensions of a market orientation have diverse effects on R&D effectiveness of high-technology firms: whereas interfunctional coordination has a positive main effect, the effect of customer orientation is moderated by knowledge integration, and competitor orientation has no effect on R&D effectiveness. Post hoc analyses also show two additional results involving a broader set of dependent variables. First, R&D effectiveness mediates the effects of customer orientation and interfunctional coordination on organizational performance. Second, market orientation does not appear to significantly affect R&D efficiency. The present study contributes to current literature in two main respects. First, it adds to previous work on market orientation and innovation by proposing a new dependent variable,R&D effectiveness,which offers a better perspective to understand the impact of market orientation on innovation performance in high-technology contexts. Second, while part of the current debate on the role of market orientation in high-tech markets seems to be polarized by positions that sustain its potential drawbacks or, on the contrary, its advantages, this study's findings on the moderating role of knowledge integration shed light on important contingency factors, such as organizational capabilities. The authors discuss the study's limitations and provide directions for future research. [source]


Financial Champions and Masters of Innovation: Analyzing the Effects of Balancing Strategic Orientations,

THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 6 2009
Angela Paladino
Theory predicts that market and resource orientations can each lead to innovation and financial success. Despite this, no research has examined whether the pursuit of both resource and market orientations is feasible and, if so, the impact of this combined effect on innovative and financial outcomes. This paper aims to address these gaps. Thus, it is the first to examine the interdependent relationship between market orientation (MO) and resource orientation (RO). Additionally, this study responds to calls for (1) cross-disciplinary research, particularly in the areas of marketing and strategic management, and (2) comparative studies of diverse strategic orientations on performance. In doing so, this paper investigates the difference in innovation performance and financial performance between firms adopting a high or low degree of market orientation or a high or low degree of resource orientation. This allows us to observe independent and interdependent effects of these orientations on the firm's performance. Data were collected from 250 senior executives in Australia. Confirmatory factor analysis and related techniques were applied to assess the robustness of the measures used. A two-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the relationships. Results show the emergence of four organizational types: unfocused imitators or followers; market-driven innovators; masters of innovation; and financial champions. From these, financial champions emerge as having the greatest impact on the financial performance of the firm, while masters of innovation are best for maximizing innovation outcomes. In fact, organizations with a high RO in the matrix (masters of innovation and financial champions) achieved a higher impact on innovation relative to the quadrants reflecting a lower MO. Results also demonstrate that pursuing a low degree of resource and market orientations leads to inferior financial performance. Therefore, a balance of resource and market orientations is important. A potential extension of this research is to assess these relationships on an industry-by-industry basis. This would contribute to our knowledge by allowing us to determine if and how these results differ between industries. Managerial and theoretical implications are also discussed. [source]


NPD Planning Activities and Innovation Performance: The Mediating Role of Process Management and the Moderating Effect of Product Innovativeness

THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2007
Sören Salomo
The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of planning and control on the performance of new product development (NPD) projects. It is hypothesized that (1) thorough business planning at the beginning of a project creates a basis for proficient project and risk planning; (2) the proficiency of project planning, risk planning, and process management activities each improves innovation performance directly; (3) the relationship of planning and success is mediated by process management; and (4) the strength of these relationships is moderated by uncertainty, as determined by the degree of innovativeness. To test the hypotheses, data from 132 NPD projects were collected and analyzed. A measurement model was used to establish valid and reliable constructs, a path model to test the main effects, and a multiple-moderated regression analysis for the moderator hypotheses. The results suggest that the proficiency of project planning and process management is important predictors of NPD performance. Specifically, project risk planning and goal stability throughout the development process are found to enhance performance significantly. Business planning proves to be an important antecedent of the more development-related planning activities such as project planning and risk planning. Additionally, the results lend support to the hypotheses regarding the mediating role of process management in the planning,performance relationship. Project planning and risk planning support the quality of process management and thus impact NPD performance indirectly. Only to a limited extent are the strengths of these relationships moderated by the degree of innovativeness of the NPD project. [source]


Making Innovation Happen in Organizations: Individual Creativity Mechanisms, Organizational Creativity Mechanisms or Both?

THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 6 2000
Sundar Bharadwaj
Marketing managers increasingly face a product innovation dilemma. Managers will have to sell more with fewer new products in an environment where new products are providing lower revenue yields. Therefore, understanding what drives successful innovation is of paramount importance. This paper examines the organizational innovation hypothesis that innovation is a function of individual efforts and organizational systems to facilitate creativity. Our model formulates creativity as a property of thought process that can be acquired and improved through instruction and practice. In this context, individual creativity mechanisms refer to activities undertaken by individual employees within an organization to enhance their capability for developing something, which is meaningful and novel within their work environment. Organizational creativity mechanisms refer to the extent to which the organization has instituted formal approaches and tools, and provided resources to encourage meaningfully novel behaviors within the organization. Using data collected from 634 organizations, we find support for this hypothesis. The results suggest that the presence of both individual and organizational creativity mechanisms led to the highest level of innovation performance. The results also suggest that high levels of organizational creativity mechanisms (even in the presence of low levels of individual creativity) led to significantly superior innovation performance than low levels of organizational and individual creativity mechanisms. The paper also presents managerial and academic implications. This study suggests that it is not enough for organizations to hire creative people and expect the innovation performance of the firm to be superior. Similarly, it is not enough for firms to emphasize management practices to enhance creativity and ignore individual mechanisms. Although it is true that doing either will improve innovation performance, doing both should lead to higher innovation levels. Our understanding of what and how creativity influences innovation performance can be greatly enhanced by additional research that integrates the intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of creativity. Research that examines the role of team creativity efforts in enhancing innovation performance is also vital to an overall improved understanding of creativity, learning, and innovation within organizations. [source]