Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Product Innovation Management (product + innovation_management)
Selected AbstractsThe value increment of mass-customized products: an empirical assessmentJOURNAL OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR, Issue 4 2006Martin Schreier The primary argument in favour of mass customization is the delivery of superior customer value. Using willingness-to-pay (WTP) measurements, Franke and Piller (2004), Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 401,415 have recently shown that customers designing their own watches with design toolkits are willing to pay premiums of more than 100% (,WTP). In the course of three studies, we found that this type of value increment is not a singular occurrence but might rather be a general phenomenon, as we again found average ,WTPs of more than 100% among customers designing their own cell phone covers, T-shirts and scarves. Building on this, we discuss the sources of benefits that are likely to explain this tremendous value increment. We argue that compared to conventional standard products, a mass-customized product might render the following utilitarian and hedonic benefits: (1) First, the output might be beneficial as self-designed products offer a much closer fit between individual needs and product characteristics. In addition to this mere functional benefit, extra value might also stem from (2) the perceived uniqueness of the self-designed product. As the customer takes on the role of an active co-designer, there may also be two general ,do-it-yourself effects': (3) First, the process of designing per se is likely to allow the customer to meet hedonic or experiential needs (process benefit). (4) Customers may also be likely to value the output of self-design more highly if they take pride in having created something on their own (instead of traditionally buying something created by somebody else). This is referred to as the ,pride of authorship' effect. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] In Search of the Classics: A Study of the Impact of JPIM Papers from 1984 to 2003,THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2010Wim Biemans The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) was launched in 1984 and over its first two decades of existence evolved into the leading journal in the field of innovation and the management of technology. During these 20 years JPIM contributed to the field by publishing 488 academic papers. This paper is a follow-up study to an earlier study that looked at how JPIM evolved in terms of knowledge stock and knowledge flows during the first two decades (published in JPIM, March 2007). That paper looked at what was published during the first 20 years, which sources were cited, and which journals cited JPIM papers. This study takes a closer look at the impact of JPIM on the field of innovation and the management of technology by identifying the most classic papers published in JPIM during its first two decades of existence. This study used multiple research methods to identify 64 candidate potential classics from the 488 papers published in the first 20 years of JPIM's existence, to analyze how they differ from the other 424 papers published in the journal, and to investigate authors' motivations for writing these papers. Finally, using survey responses from the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) membership and other academics in innovation and new product development, the research then determines which 5 of the 64 candidate papers are considered to be the "most classic" papers published and the factors driving that determination. The findings show that classic papers are those presenting a "pioneering idea" in the field that creates buzz in both the academic and practitioner worlds. High numbers of citations are indeed the outcome of these endeavors, but being a classic requires more than having high numbers of citations. Authors of the true classics generally have worked hard to disseminate their research, usually to both academics and practitioners, perhaps also contributing to the network buzz created by their findings. While one of the five most classic papers represented the first investigation into a particular stream of research, the other four were culminations of a significant body of research, providing a distinct summary of known information on a topic at the time they were published and a clear road forward for future research on the topic. These bodies of knowledge have yet to be superseded by other culminating papers. [source] Growth and Development of a Body of Knowledge: 16 Years of New Product Development Research, 1989,2004,THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 3 2008Albert L. Page In this study, a content analysis was performed on 815 articles focused on new product development (NPD) published in 10 selected leading marketing, management, NPD, and research and development (R&D) journals from 1989 to 2004. Journals selected were a combination of leading journals in the discipline and publications that included NPD articles. NPD articles were classified by a series of key attributes including methodology employed, domains of knowledge utilized, and broad topics explored. The resulting data were then studied to discern trends over time or common characteristics within domains, methodologies, or journals. The study of NPD has grown since the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) was launched in 1984. This study shows strong growth in the number of articles on NPD in each category of journal selected. The research in the articles has changed: The early focus on a few selected success factors or a staged development process has evolved and broadened over the 16-year period. More variables and more sophisticated models are being studied in NPD articles. The study found a continuing evolution in research topics and increased sophistication in quantitative techniques over the 16-year period. Overall this review of the NPD literature uncovers encouraging signs of a maturing discipline. However, there are concerns about continuing issues in methodology, insufficient study of service innovation, and continued focus on process characteristics instead of other antecedents of NPD success. The service sector seems to be understudied, even as the reality of a service economy is generally acknowledged. The call in a recent meta-analysis to focus more on market and product characteristics and less on process characteristics has not yet been heeded, even by marketing researchers. [source] Twenty Years of the Journal of Product Innovation Management: History, Participants, and Knowledge Stock and FlowsTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 3 2007Wim Biemans The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) serves as a marketplace for science-based, innovative ideas that are produced and consumed by scholars and businesspeople. Now that JPIM has existed for 20 years, two intriguing questions emerge: (1) How has the journal evolved over time in terms of knowledge stock, that is, what are the characteristics of the growing stock of knowledge published by JPIM over the years; and (2) how has the journal evolved in knowledge flow, that is, how is JPIM influenced by other scientific publications and what is its impact on other journals? In terms of knowledge stock, over 35% of the articles published over the 20 years investigate processes and metrics for performance management. The next most frequently published area was strategy, planning, and decision making (20%), followed by customer and market research (17%). The dominant research method used was a cross-sectional large-sample survey, and the focus most usually is at the project level of the firm. The large majority of JPIM authors (60%) have a marketing background, with the remaining 40% representing numerous functional domains. Academics at all levels publish in JPIM, and though most authors hail from North America, the Dutch are a significant second group. JPIM was analyzed from a knowledge-flow perspective by looking at the scientific sources used by JPIM authors to develop their ideas and articles. To this end a bibliometric analysis was performed by analyzing all references in articles published in JPIM. During 1984,2003 JPIM published 488 articles, containing 10,314 references to journals and 6,533 references to other sources. Some 20% of these references (2,020) were self-references to JPIM articles. The remaining 8,294 journal references were to articles in 287 journals in the fields of management (25%), marketing (24%), and management of technology (14%). However, it should be pointed out that many domains were dominated by a limited number of journals. The second component of knowledge flow concerns the extent to which the ideas developed in JPIM are consumed by other authors. Again, bibliometric analysis was used to analyze data from the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) about citations to JPIM in other journals. For the period 1984,2005, the SSCI registered 7,773 citations to JPIM in 2,067 articles published in 278 journals (including the 2,020 self-citations in JPIM). The functional areas most frequently citing JPIM are management of technology (25%), marketing (15%), management (14%), and operations management and management science (9%). Again, several domains were found to be dominated by a limited number of journals. At the level of individual journals the analysis shows a growing impact of JPIM on management of technology journals. The knowledge-flow analysis demonstrates how JPIM functions as a bridge between the knowledge from various domains and the body of knowledge on management of technology. It suggests a growing specialization of the field of technology innovation management, with JPIM being firmly entrenched as the acknowledged leading journal. [source] | ||||||||||