Exploring New Product Portfolio Management decisions: The role of managers' dispositional traits

Cataloged from PDF version of article.Product strategy links to new product development (NPD) through new product portfolio management (NPPM). This dynamic decision process addresses the strategy implementation questions of identifying which new product ideas to pursue and their relative priorities. Despite the importance of NPPM in implementing product strategy, firms exhibit substantial performance-affecting differences. We investigate one potential source for such differences by examining the impact of managers' dispositional factors as a possible explanation. Using a case study research method, we examine differences in NPPM strategies and managers' revealed dispositional traits across three divisions of a single conglomerate firm operating in different business-to-business markets. Based on our analysis, we offer propositions relating managers' dispositions to NPPM strategy: analytic cognitive style is associated with balance, ambiguity tolerance is associated with strategic fit, and leadership style is associated with the relative weights applied to each dimension. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Theoretical lenses and domain definitions in innovation research

Purpose - This study aims to scrutinize the meaning and domain of "innovation" by providing an extensive theory-driven review of the new product literature in marketing, management and engineering. The overall objective is to classify the recent literature on innovation and to illustrate theoretically derived discourses in the study of innovation. Design/methodology/approach - The paper organizes this literature by providing typologies of discourses, which define innovation. Based on our review of 238 articles from a comprehensive set of journals publishing innovation research, we propose a theoretical divide in the innovation literature. Findings - Theoretical underpinnings, namely adoption/diffusion theory versus the resource-based/contingency theory view, form one dimension of the typology. Jointly considered with the other two dimensions - level of analysis and customer vs firm perspective - a framework is formed of the different discourses and conceptualisations in the innovation literature. Originality/value - Past researchers have always proposed a definition of innovation that was embedded in a typology of innovation types; in contrast, the paper allows the theoretical discourses to unveil meanings of innovation and associated constructs (and hence it starts with theory specification, not construct definition). It argues for starting with theory as the basic division and proposes a theory driven typology. Through its theoretical genesis, the paper wishes to create a shared understanding among academics and practitioners of what constitutes innovation and constructs within the related theoretical net. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited

New product success: Is it really controllable by managers in highly turbulent environments?

This research proposes and tests a model of direct and indirect effects linking four antecedents to new product success: (1) a proactive strategic orientation along with enabling (2) organic organizational structures should lead to more (3) innovativeness and (4) market intelligence. Innovativeness and market intelligence should in turn lead to greater new product success. The relationships among the four antecedents are not hypothesized to be moderated by environmental turbulence because their domain is intraorganizational. However, the relationships from intraorganizational constructs to new product success are hypothesized to be moderated by environmental turbulence because success depends in part on the environment in which the new product must compete. The model was tested using a sample composed of 202 small business units of manufacturers on the Fortune 500. The sample was heavily involved in new product development: Their average annual research and development budget was $360.4 million, and approximately 8.2% of sales came from products introduced in the last five years. A two-group structural equation model analysis supports the moderation model overall and reveals the pattern of direct, indirect, and total effects. The results show that innovativeness (but not market intelligence) directly predicts new product success when turbulence is high, whereas market intelligence (but not innovativeness) directly engenders new product success in low turbulence. Environmental turbulence also affects the total indirect impact of strategy proactiveness and organizational organicity on new product success. These indirect effects operate through innovativeness and market intelligence as complete mediators. © 2008 Product Development & Management Association

How elephants learn the new dance when headquarters changes the music: Three case studies on innovation strategy change

Does a product innovation strategy change at company headquarters resonate the same way at different strategic business units (SBUs)? What factors play a role in differing implementation of new innovation strategies? A collective case study was conducted at three SBUs of an international conglomerate to investigate why the SBUs implement the same corporate innovation charter in vastly different manners, both in strategic processes and in organizing for new product development (NPD). This study's contribution to the literature is twofold. First, it develops initial insights into how three SBUs implement diverse SBU-level innovation strategies in response to the same product innovation charter. Second, it extends the findings of previous studies on NPD strategy by presenting how three SBUs reshape their structure and resource allocation, changing various dimensions of their innovation strategy while also fitting the competitive structure in their individual, non-high-tech, traditional manufacturing industries as they respond to the corporate mandate. In this study, several factors were observed to influence a firm when formulating a new product innovation strategy. First, past performance and strategic typology constrain the innovation paths available. Poor past performance limits available resources whereas the strategic typology managers use limits their ability to recognize other opportunities. Next, capacity constraints provide a catalyst in moving toward process improvements. Third, management involvement in the day-to-day implementation of change is necessary to ensure that the new processes are implemented. Finally, corporate performance metrics are quite influential in how SBUs adapt to change. This study identifies that even with the immense power corporate has over these SBUs, some still dance to their own tune, ignorant of their deviation from the corporate mandate because the metric is not sufficient to detect these deviations. This study suggests the use of multiple types of metrics to minimize the likelihood of nearsighted responses to innovation charter changes. © 2008 Product Development & Management Association

Successful new product development by optimizing development process effectiveness in highly regulated sectors: the case of the Spanish medical devices sector

Rapid development and commercialization of new products is of vital importance for small and medium sized enterprises (SME) in regulated sectors. Due to strict regulations, competitive advantage can hardly be achieved through the effectiveness of product concepts only. If an SME in a highly regulated sector wants to excell in new product development (NPD) performance, the company should focus on the flexibility, speed, and productivity of its NPD function: i.e. the development process effectiveness. Our main research goals are first to explore if SMEs should focus on their their development process effectiveness rather than on their product concept effectiveness to achieve high NPD performance; and second, to explore whether a shared pattern in the organization of the NPD function can be recognized to affect NPD performance positively. The medical devices sector in Spain is used as an example of a\ud highly regulated sector. A structured survey among 11 SMEs, of which 2 were studied also as in in-depth case studies, led to the following results. First of all, indeed the companies in the dataset which focused on the effectiveness of their development process, stood out in NPD performance. Further, the higher performing companies did have a number of commonalities in the organisation of their NPD function: 1) The majority of the higher performing firms had an NPD strategy characterized by a predominantly incremental project portfolio.\ud 2) a) Successful firms with an incremental project portfolio combined this with a functional team structure b) Successful firms with a radical project portfolio combined this with a heavyweight or autonomous team structure.\ud 3) A negative reciprocal relationship exists between formalization of the NPD processes and the climate of the NPD function, in that a formalized NPD process and an innovative climate do not seem to reinforce each other. Innovative climate combined with an informal NPD process does however contribute positively to NPD performance. This effect was stronger in combination with a radical project portfolio. The highest NPD performance was measured for companies focusing mainly on incremental innovation. It is argued that in highly regulated sectors, companies with an incremental product portfolio would benefit from employing a functional structure. Those companies who choose for a more radical project portfolio in highly regulated sectors should be aware\ud that they are likely to excell only in the longer term by focusing on strategic flexibility. In their NPD organization, they might be well advised to combine informal innovation processes with an innovative climate

Effect of exploitation and exploration on the innovative as outcomes in entrepreneurial firms

[EN] The main aim of this study is to establish the effect of the Exploitation and Exploration; and the influence of these learning flows on the Innovative Outcome (IO). The Innovative Outcome refers to new products, services, processes (or improvements) that the organization has obtained as a result of an innovative process. For this purpose, a relationship model is defined, which is empirically contrasted, and can explains and predicts the cyclical dynamization of learning flows on innovative outcome in knowledge intensive firms. The quantitative test for this model use the data from entrepreneurial firms biotechnology sector. The statistical analysis applies a method based on variance using Partial Least Squares (PLS). Research results confirm the hypotheses, that is, they show a positive dynamic effect between the Exploration and the Innovative as outcomes. In the same vein, they results confirm the presence of the cyclic movement of innovative outcome with the Exploitation.In addition, this research is part of the Project ECO2015-71380-R funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and the State Research Agency. Co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).Vargas-Mendoza, NY.; Lloria, MB.; Salazar Afanador, A.; Vergara Domínguez, L. (2018). Effect of exploitation and exploration on the innovative as outcomes in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 14(4):1053-1069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0496-5S10531069144Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2008). Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: an empirical test. Technovation, 28, 315–326.Amara, N., Landry, R., Becheikh, N., & Ouimet, M. (2008). Learning and novelty of innovation in established manufacturing SMEs. Technovation, 28, 450–463.Aragón-Mendoza, J., Pardo del Val, M., & Roig, S. (2016). The influence of institutions development in venture creation decision: a cognitive view. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4941–4946.Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541–554.Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison Wesley.Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: two extensions international. Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 125–140.Belda, J., Vergara L., Salazar, A., & Safont G. (2018). Estimating the Laplacian matrix of Gaussian mixtures for signal processing on graphs, accepted for publication in Signal Processing.Boland, R. J. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372.Bontis, N., (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures models. Management Decision, 36, 63–76.Bontis, N. (1999). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows of knowledge: an empirical examination of intellectual capital, knowledge management, and business performance. 1999. Management of Innovation and New Technology Research Centre, McMaster University.Bontis, N., Keow, W., & Richardson, S. (2000). Intellectual capital and the nature of business in Malaysia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 85–100Bontis, N., Hullan, J., & Crossan, M. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 438–469.Brachos, D., Kostopulos, K., Sodersquist, K. E., & Prastacos, G. (2007). Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(5), 31–44.Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 515–524.Chang, T. J., Yeh, S. P., & Yeh, I. J. (2007). The effects of joint rewards system in new product development. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 276–297.Chin, W. (1998). The partial least square approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.) (pp. 294–336). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cho, N., Li, G., & Su, C. (2007). An empirical study on the effect of individual factors on knowledge sharing by knowledge type. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 3(2), 1–15.Cohen, W. M., & Levin, R. C. (1989). Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. Schmalansee & R. D. Willing (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization II. New York: Elsevier.Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive-capacity – a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.Cooper, R. G. (2000). New product performance: what distinguishes the star products. Austrian Journal of Management, 25, 17–45.Crossan, M., & Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1087–1105.Crossan, M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.Crossan, M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537.Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454.Damanpour, F., & Shanthi, G. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of products and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 21–65.Decarolis, D. M., & Deeds, D. L. (1999). The impact of stock and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 953–968.Demartini, C. (2015). Relationships between social and intellectual capital: empirical Evidence from IC statements. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(2), 99–111.Dupuy, F. (2004). Sharing knowledge: they why and how of organizational change. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. I. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2013). Deciphering antecedents of organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66(5), 575–584.Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2014). Configurational paths to organizational innovation: qualitative comparative analyses of antecedents and contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1285–1292.Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. International Journal of Management Science, 25, 15–28.Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design. New York: Oxford University.Hedlund, G., & Nonaka, I. (1993). Models of knowledge management in the west and Japan. In: P. Lorange, B. Chacravrarthy, J. Ross, and J. Van de ven (Eds.) Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use the partial least squares path modeling. In: R. Sinkovics and N. Pervez (Eds.) 277–319.Hsu, I. (2006). Enhancing employee tendencies to share knowledge-case studies on nine companies in Taiwan. International Journal of Information Management, 26(4), 326–338.Hsu, I. (2008). Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating factor for improving organizational performance though human capital: a preliminary test. Expert Systems with Application, 35, 316–1326.Huang, Q., Davison, R., & Gu, J. (2008). Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge sharing in China. Asia Pacific Journal Management, 25(3), 451–471.Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement – determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501.Iebra, I. L., Zegarra, P. S., & Zegarra, A. S. (2011). Learning for sharing: an empirical analysis of organizational learning and knowledge sharin. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 7, 509–518.Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359.Jenkin, T. (2013). Extending the 4I organizational learning model: information sources, foraging processes and tools. Administrative Sciences, 3, 96–109.Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 408–417.Kane, G. C., & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational learning: an investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science, 18(5), 796–812.Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, N. N., Muller, K. E. (1988). Applied regression analysis and other Multivariable’s methods, PWS KENT.Klomp, L., & Van Leeuwen, G. (2001). Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(3), 343–364.Lansisalmi, H., Kivimaki, M., Aalto, P., & Ruoranen, R. (2006). Innovation in healthcare: a systematic review of recent research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(1), 66–72.Laperrière, A., & Spence, M. (2015). Enacting international opportunities: the role of organizational learning in knowledge-intensive business services. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 212–241.Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.Lin, H. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.Lloria, M. B., & Moreno-Luzón, M. D. (2014). Organizational learning: proposal of an integrative scale and research instrument. Journal of Business Research, 67, 692–697.March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2, 71–87.Matikainen, M., Terho, H., Parvinen, P., & Juppo, A. (2016). The role and impact of firm’s strategic orientations on launch performance: significance of relationship orientation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(5), 625–639.Mone, M. A., McKinley, W., & Barker, V. L. (1998). Organizational decline and innovation: a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 23, 115–132.Moreno-Luzón, M. D., & Lloria, B. (2008). The role of non-structural and informal mechanisms of integration and integration as forces in knowledge creation. British Journal of Management, 19, 250–276.Moskaliuk, J., Bokhorst, F., & Cress, U. (2016). Learning from others' experiences: how patterns foster interpersonal transfer of knowledge-in-use. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 69–75.Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: a study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 12, 1147–1164.Pew, H., Plowman, D., & Hancock, P. (2008). The involving research on intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9, 585–608.Potter, R. E., & Balthazard, P. A. (2004). The role of individual memory and attention processes during electronic brainstorming. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 621–643.Ramadani, V., Hyrije, A. A., Léo-Paul, D., Gadaf, R., & Sadudin, I. (2017). The impact of knowledge spillovers and innovation on firm-performance: findings from the Balkans countries. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 13, 299–325.Ren, S., Shu, R., Bao, Y., & Chen, X. (2016). Linking network ties to entrepreneurial opportunity discovery and exploitation: the role of affective and cognitive trust. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 465–485.Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). Smart PLS 2.0 (M3) beta, Hamburg: http://www.smartpls.de .Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.Sanchez, R., & Heene, A. (1997). A competence perspective on strategic learning and knowledge management. En Sanchez, R. and Heene, A. (eds.) Strategic learning and knowledge management. John Wiley and Sons.Seidler-de Alwis, R., & Hartmann, E. (2008). The use of tacit knowledge within innovative companies: knowledge management in innovative enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 133–147.Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 7–28.Tansky, J., Ribeiro, D., & Roig, S. (2010). Linking entrepreneurship and human resources in globalization. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 217–223.Teece, D. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401.Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 49, 159–205.vande Vrande, V., de Jong, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29, 423–437.Vargas, N., & Lloria, M. B. (2014). Dynamizing intellectual capital through enablers and learning flows. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 114(1), 2–20.Vargas, N., & Lloria, M. B. (2017). Performance and intellectual capital: how enablers drive value creation in organisations. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2), 114–124.Vargas, N., Lloria, M. B., & Roig-Dobón, S. (2016). Main drivers of human capital, learning and performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 961–978.Vergara, L., Salazar, A., Belda, J., Safont, G., Moral, S., & Iglesias, S. (2017). Signal processing on graphs for improving automatic credit card fraud detection. Proceeding of 2017 I.E. 51st international Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST 2017), https://doi.org/10.1109/CCST.2017.8167820 , 23–26 Oct, 2017, Madrid, Spain.Wallin, M. W., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for open innovation: focus o the integration of knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145–154.Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach. European International Journal of Technology Management, 27, 674–688.Wold, H. (1980). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce. In J. Kmenta & J. B. Ramsey (Eds.), Evaluation of econometric models (pp. 47–74). Cambridge: Academic Press.Wold, H. (1985). Factors influencing the outcome of economic sanctions. In Sixto Ríos Honorary. Trabajos de Estadística and de Investigación Operativa, 36(3), 325–337

Linking Employee Stakeholders to Environmental Performance: The Role of Proactive Environmental Strategies and Shared Vision

Drawing on the natural-resource-based view (NRBV), we propose that employee stakeholder integration is linked to environmental performance through firms’ proactive environmental strategies, and that this link is contingent on shared vision. We tested our model with a cross-country and multi-industry sample. In support of our theory, results revealed that firms’ proactive environmental strategies translated employee stakeholder integration into environmental performance. This relationship was pronounced for high levels of shared vision. Our findings demonstrate that shared vision represents a key condition for advancing the corporate greening agenda through proactive environmental strategies. We discuss implications for the CSR and the environmental management literatures, with a particular focus on the NRBV and stakeholder integration debates