Market Feedback and Team Commitment in Radical Product Innovation Process

Previous research has considered how exploratory market learning processes moderate market and technological uncertainty in radical product development. Scholars argue that new product development (NPD) teams may increase the chances of success of radically new projects by acquiring, assimilating and implementing new information from market feedback. However, research has not tackled how information is assimilated by the NPD team and to what extent the process of information implementation occurs. In this article, we begin to fill the need for such research by investigating the interaction between internal team values (beliefs and possibly ideology) and external market feedback / information in radical projects. Via the lens of a 2-year longitudinal participant-observation study, we suggest that information assimilation is not automatic, but rather influenced in interesting ways by internal team values. The findings imply that shared team values act as a selective assimilation mechanism determining whether a development team will act on user feedback. Furthermore, the type of information (e.g., functional vs. conceptual feedback) processed by the development team acts as a moderating factor on the relationship between the team values and information processing

Why Europe will never have accountability in research

Europeans can generate great fervor for the idea that research must be “accountable”. But there are at least three powerful, structural reasons that arriving at a shared notion of who is accountable, to whom, and for what, will be particularly difficult to achieve here

The influence of industry downturns on the propensity of product versus process innovation

This article sheds light on how industry fluctuations affect firms' propensity to innovate. We test two seemingly conflicting arguments that suggest how firms are more or less inclined to engage in innovation activities during industry fluctuations. By studying a panel of 622 Italian manufacturing firms during the period 1995-2003, we show how differentiating between product and process innovation may help reconcile the theory of opportunity cost of innovation with the cash-flow effect argument. We find that industry downturns are related to product and process innovation in different ways: firms tend to invest in product innovation rather than process innovation in downturns. The findings have implications for both theory (showing when the opportunity cost of innovation dominates) and research design (showing the importance of both the input and output measures in innovation studies and how they might influence the results

The Strategic Determinants of Tardy Entry: Is Timeliness Next to Godliness?

Previous research has considered extensively the causes and effects of market entry order and timing. It has neglected, however, the timeliness of such entry — the degree to which a firm delivered a new product on the date it had set for its release. In this article, we begin to fill the need for such research by evaluating some strategic explanations for why a firm might miss a scheduled entry date. We then test whether such “tardy entry” influences sales performance in the new market

Business Model Innovation

The chapter offers a broad review of the literature at the nexus between Business Models and innovation studies, and examines the notion of Business Model Innovation in three different situations: Business Model Design in newly formed organizations, Business Model Reconfiguration in incumbent firms, and Business Model Innovation in the broad context of sustainability. Tools and perspectives to make sense of Business Models and support managers and entrepreneurs in dealing with Business Model Innovation are reviewed and organized around a synthesizing meta-framework. The framework elucidates the nature of the complementarities across various perspectives. Finally, the use of business model-related ideas in practice is discussed, and critical managerial challenges as they relate to Business Model Innovation and managing business models are identified and examined

Chapter 6: Design and Design Frameworks: Investment in KBC and economic performance

This chapter addresses the nature and the economic impact of design by looking at design-related intellectual property and how businesses protect their knowledge based capital. The chapter reviews the nature and various definitions of design and how design-related IP, specifically registered designs, relates to other formal IP mechanisms such as patents, trademarks, and copyright. It looks at the primary areas of design activity in a subset of OECD countries and investigates the similarities and differences of the constituent design IP regimes as well as the various treaties governing international design IP regulation. The review continues with an examination of how design-related IP functions in comparison to and in conjunction with other formal and informal IP protection mechanisms and what factors motivate firms to choose and appropriate combinations of protection mechanisms. By examining historical patterns of design registrations in a variety of ways, this chapter identifies trends, at the national level, of how firms perceive the importance of design-related IP. Analysis of national origins of registrations in both the European Community and the United States provides an indicator of the activity of those countries’ businesses relative to their proximities to the markets. It explores the existence of possible alternative indicators for design activity and of industry-specific variations across the sample set. The chapter concludes with a review of input and output measures as stated in the limited set of studies that have endeavoured to establish or quantify the value and/or benefit of design and design-related IP. The studies, while clearly suggesting that design does have economic benefits, both at the firm and overall economic levels, largely use qualitative or subjective indicators because the data necessary for large-scale econometric analysis are generally not available. This chapter is intended to be exploratory rather than comprehensive or conclusive. It should be considered as an initial step towards the possibility of a broader and deeper analysis of design-related issues

Crowd Dynamics in Small Teams in Higher Education

This article aims to empirically study “crowd” dynamics in small teams and complement the work presented in Tucci et al. [2016], and Tucci and Viscusi [2017]. As in previous papers, we use as theoretical lens the framework and related typology of “crowd” dynamics discussed in Viscusi and Tucci [2015; 2018]. The framework considers the number of participants a sufficient, but not necessary condition for crowdsourcing, and distinguishes different types of crowd dynamics according to their growth tendency, degree of seriality and the intervening role of properties such as, e.g., density, equality, and goal orientation for distinguishing the distribution of agents within and between the different types of “crowds”, namely between communities, open crowds (multitudes [Virno 2004] e.g., Twitter users), closed crowds (controlled by intermediaries, such as, e.g., Innocentive that restrict growth and provide self-established boundaries), groups as crowd crystals, potentially leading to any of the others. Furthermore, as in previous papers, another goal of the study is to provide the setting for experiments in business domains to investigate how crowd characteristics may lower or increase “crowd capital,” here defined as the total number of crowd units having a demonstrated effectiveness in idea generation or task achievement [Tucci et al. 2016]. This definition adopts a more outcome-oriented perspective compared to other definitions emerging from this research stream [Lenart-Gansiniec 2016]; thus, our definition complements the conceptualization by Prpić & Shukla [2013, p.35035] and Prpić et al.[2015]. Finally, the article aims to contribute to the research on coordination in temporary groups [Valentine and Edmondson 2014] as well as on how dynamically assemble and managing paid experts from the crowd through flash teams [Retelny et al. 2014]

DISTINGUISHING “CROWDED” ORGANIZATIONS FROM GROUPS AND COMMUNITIES: IS THREE A CROWD?

In conventional wisdom on crowdsourcing, the number of people define the crowd and maximizing this number is often assumed to be the goal of any crowdsourcing exercise. However, we propose that there are structural characteristics of the crowd that might be more important than the sheer number of participants. These characteristics include (1) growth rate and its attractiveness to the members, (2) the equality among members, (3) the density within provisional boundaries, (4) the goal orientation of the crowd, and (5) the "seriality" of the interactions between members of the crowd. We then propose a typology that may allow managers to position their companies’ initiatives among four strategic types: crowd crystals, online communities, closed crowd, and open crowd driven innovation. We show that incumbent companies may prefer a closed and controlled access to the crowd, limiting the potential for gaining results and insights from fully open crowd-driven innovation initiatives. Consequently, we argue that the effects on industries and organizations by open crowds are still to be explored, possibly via the mechanisms of entrepreneurs exploiting open crowds as new entrants, but also for the configuration of industries such as, e.g., finance, pharmaceuticals, or even the public sector where the value created usually comes from interpretation issues and exploratory problem solving

Modeling Business Models: A cross-disciplinary Analysis of Business Model Modeling Languages and Directions for Future Research

Modeling languages for business models are a powerful and flexible means of representing and communicating knowledge related to business models. More than fifteen years after Osterwalder et al. (2005) clarified the ontology for the business model concept in this journal, we offer a systematic and cross-disciplinary assessment of the literature on business model modeling languages (BMMLs) that facilitate the visualization of this concept. In so doing, we synthesize and organize the knowledge dispersed across different disciplines in which BMMLs have originated and highlight the potential weaknesses in this literature to offer solid insights for future research. Our analysis reveals the existence of 17 BMMLs that have originated in traditional domains such as strategy and information systems, but also emerging domains such as sustainability. We contrast and compare these BMMLs along three dimensions: semantics, syntax, and pragmatics. We also analyze research that has made use of these BMMLs, differentiating between research that is conducted with a given BMML and research that is conducted about a given BMML. We conclude by offering a research agenda in which we illustrate the main challenges associated with the lack of well-accepted semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic foundations of BMMLs and outline opportunities for future research