ISSN:0737-6782    

DOI:10.1111/jpim.12255

年代:2015

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0737-6782    

DOI:10.1111/jpim.12257

年代:2015

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0737-6782    

DOI:10.1111/jpim.12167

年代:2015

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

Reverse innovation commonly refers to an innovation initially launched in a developing country and later introduced to an advanced country. Adopting a linear innovation model with the four sequential phases of concept ideation, product development, primary target market introduction, and subsequent secondary market introduction, this study expands the espoused definition of reverse innovation beyond its market‐introduction focus with reversals in the flow of innovation in the ideation and product development phases. Recognizing that each phase can take place in different geographical locations, the paper then introduces a typology of global innovation with 16 different types of innovation flows between advanced and emerging countries, 10 of which are reverse innovation flows. The latter are further differentiated into weak and strong reverse innovation, depending on the number of innovation phases taking place in an emerging country. This analytical framework allows recasting of current research at the intersection between innovation and international business. Of the 10 reverse innovation flows, six are new and have not been covered in the literature to date. The study addresses questions of ethnocentrism and the continuity of the flow of innovation, and discusses possible extensions of the model with respect to the number of geographical categories and phases of innovation. Four research propositions highlight areas for future investigation, especially in the context of optimizing a firm's portfolio of global innovation competence and capability. The implications for management are concerned with internal and external resistance to reverse innovation. Most significantly, while greater recognition and power of innovation in formerly subordinate organizational units is inconvenient to some, the ability to leverage the potential of reverse innovation makes a firm more likely to succeed in global innovation overal

ISSN:0737-6782    

DOI:10.1111/jpim.12181

年代:2015

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

In emerging markets, technology ventures increasingly rely on new product development (NPD) teams to generate creative ideas and to mold these innovative ideas into streams of new products or services. However, little is known about how behavioral integration (a behavioral team process) and collective efficacy (a motivational team process) jointly facilitate or inhibit team innovation performance in emerging markets—especially inChina, the world's largest emerging‐market setting with collectivist and high power distance cultures. Drawing on social cognitive theory and behavioral integration research, this article elucidates the relationships between behavioral integration dimensions (i.e., collaborative behavior, information exchange, and joint decision‐making) and innovation performance and also examines how collective efficacy moderates these relationships inChina'sNPDteams.Results from a sample of 96NPDteams inChina's technology ventures reveal that information exchange is positively associated with innovation performance. Collaborative behavior positively but marginally influences innovation performance, whereas joint decision‐making does not relate to innovation performance. Moreover, collective efficacy demonstrates an important moderating role. Specifically, both collaborative behavior and joint decision‐making are more positively associated with innovation performance when collective efficacy is higher. In contrast, information exchange is less positively associated with innovation performance when collective efficacy is higher.This study makes important theoretical contributions to the literature on team innovation and behavioral integration in emerging markets by offering a better understanding of how behavioral and motivational team processes jointly shape innovation performance inChina'sNPDteams. This study also extends social cognitive theory by identifying collective efficacy as a boundary condition for the overall effectiveness of behavioral integration dimensions. In particular, this study highlights the condition under which behavioral integration dimensions facilitate or inhibitNPDteam innovation performanc

ISSN:0737-6782    

DOI:10.1111/jpim.12177

年代:2015

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

This study compares the new product performance outcomes of firm‐level product innovativeness across a developed and emerging market context. In so doing, a model is constructed in which the relationship between firm‐level product innovativeness and new product performance is anticipated to be curvilinear, and in which the nature of this relationship is argued to be dependent on organizational and environmental factors.The model is tested using primary data obtained from chief executive officers and finance managers in 319 firms operating in theUnitedKingdom, an advancedWestern market, and 221 firms fromGhana, an emergingSub‐SaharanAfrican market. The model is assessed using a structural equation model multigroup analysis approach withLISREL8.5.In theUnitedKingdom andGhana, the basic form of the relationship between firm‐level product innovativeness and business success is invertedU‐shaped, but the strength and/or form of this relationship changes under differing levels of market orientation, access to financial resources, and environmental dynamism. While commonalities are identified across the two countries (market orientation helps firms leverage their product innovativeness), differences are also observed across the samples. InGhana, access to financial resources enhances the relationship between product innovativeness and new product performance, unlike in theUnitedKingdom where no moderation is observed. Furthermore, whileU.K.firms leverage product innovativeness to their advantage in more dynamic environments,Ghanaian firms do not benefit in this way: here, high levels of innovation activity are less useful when markets are more dynamic.If the study's findings generalize, there are a number of implications for managers of both emerging and developed market businesses. First, managers in both developed and developing market firms should focus on determining and managing an optimal balance of novel and intensive product innovativeness within the context of their unique institutional environments. Second, for emerging market firms, a market orientation capability helps businesses leverage local market intelligence, enabling them to compete with multinational giants flocking to emerging markets, but typical developed market learning approaches may be insufficient for multinational firms when seeking to compete in emerging markets. Third, for emerging market firms, access to finances helps deliver product innovation success (although this is not the case for developed market firms, possibly due to strong financial institutions). Finally, unlike developed market firms, burdened by institutional voids at home, emerging market firms appear to be less capable of competing on an innovation front in more dynamic market conditions. Accordingly, policymakers in emerging markets should consider identifying ways to help businesses raise market orientation levels, and seek to create conditions that enhance access to financial capital (e.g., direct financing, matching grants, tax rebates, or rewarding firms that innovate creatively and intensely). Likewise, since environmental dynamism is likely to be a growing issue for emerging markets, efforts to help firms become more adept at keeping up with more agile developed market counterparts a

ISSN:0737-6782    

DOI:10.1111/jpim.12180

年代:2015

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

Emerging markets offer tremendous growth opportunities for firms. While established multinational firms typically focus on premium segments in emerging markets, they often fail to leverage additional growth opportunities in so‐called good enough or low‐income segments in emerging markets. Customers in these low‐income markets have substantially different requirements and are very price sensitive. Theoretical and case‐based research suggests that innovating for these low‐income segments in emerging markets differs significantly from innovating for premium or traditionalWestern markets.We argue that tapping successfully into low‐income segments in emerging markets requires the development of new products that meet the low price expectations while at the same time offering also value to customers in these segments. We refer to these new products as affordable value innovations.We analyze the antecedents of affordable value innovation for emerging markets. We draw on institutional theory to derive three potentially relevant antecedents of affordable value innovation for emerging markets. These are bricolage, local embeddedness, and standardization. We test our hypotheses using multiple informant data from 47 multinational corporations involving 103 innovation projects that target low‐income customers in emerging markets. Our empirical analysis shows that all three antecedents have significant effects on the level of affordable value innovation: while bricolage and local embeddedness are positively related to the level of affordable value innovation, standardization has a negative impact.We also examine the relationship between the level of affordable value innovation and performance. We find evidence for our basic assumption that a firm's capability to develop and launch affordable value innovations is key to success in emerging markets. It indicates that a firm's investments in affordable value innovations for emerging markets pay off financially.Finally, a cross‐regional comparison of our data shows that the key findings on antecedents of affordable value innovation and its impact on performance do not vary across various emerging markets. Overall, our findings offer important implications for research on and the practice of innovation for low‐income segments in

ISSN:0737-6782    

DOI:10.1111/jpim.12171

年代:2015

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

This paper examines one of the most important sources of competitiveness in dynamic industries—the capability of firms to introduce process innovations. While the management of product innovation has received considerable theoretical and empirical attention in the literature, our knowledge about how firms become process innovators—and why many firms fail to do so—remains underdeveloped. In order to provide novel insights into the configuration of firms' process innovation activities and their performance implications, this paper draws on the dynamic capabilities approach. More specifically, this study aims to shed light on the antecedents, contingencies, and performance consequences of interfirm differences in process innovation success, that is, firms' propensity and effectiveness of implementing new production, supply chain, or administrative processes. Particular emphasis is placed upon the analysis of potential complementarities or substitution effects between innovation activities such as internal and external research and development, prototyping, external knowledge acquisition, and employee training. Cross‐sectional data from a large‐scale survey ofGerman manufacturing and service firms serves as the basis for testing the hypotheses advanced in this paper. Findings suggest that by engaging in a broad range of different innovation activities, firms can indeed increase the likelihood of achieving process innovation success, which is in turn positively related to firm financial performance. Yet decreasing marginal returns to innovation activities have to be considered as process innovation propensity was found to increase with the number of activities pursued simultaneously only up to a point, after which negative marginal returns set in (invertedU‐shaped relationship). Furthermore, while environmental turbulence was found to have surprisingly little influence when it comes to translating process innovation success into firms' subsequent financial performance, industry membership as well as the nature of the innovation process (i.e., internal generation, external adoption, or cocreation of an innovation) emerged as key contingency factors. These findings have important theoretical as well as practical implications for managing new process in

ISSN:0737-6782    

DOI:10.1111/jpim.12225

年代:2015

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

The architecture of a product is the design and specification of inherent subsystems, components, and interfaces between subsystems. Well‐defined interfaces allow the development of standardized subsystems that may be shared across product lines, e.g., technology platforms. Past research shows the benefits of modular product architecture in terms of improving cost of goods through common components and materials as well as improving development time cycles for derivative products. Product architecture does not occur by accident; it must be engineered and implemented. This study explores the impact of digital design and information technology (IT) on the development of modular product architectures. Through an empirical study of 122 firms and follow‐up interviews with several respondents, we study the impact of digital design tools andITinfrastructure on the development of modular product architecture and overall project outcomes. The results indicate that a firm'sITinfrastructure has a strong, significant relationship with the development of modular product architecture. The findings also show a strong, positive relationship between the development of modular product architecture and project outcomes. However, in contrast to the common perception that digital design tools enhanceR&Dproductivity and effectiveness, we do not find a significant relationship between digital design tool usage and modular product architecture or overall project outcomes. The findings suggest that digital design tools and their organizational implementation need improvement in up‐front new product development p

ISSN:0737-6782    

DOI:10.1111/jpim.12240

年代:2015

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

Haggling over rights to potential inventions can be a major roadblock to successful university–industry (UI) collaborations. Yet such collaborations are critical for innovation in science‐based industries. This study examines the roles of universities' intellectual property (IP) policies and of shared governance for trust formation between academe and industry. The study also examines howUIchampions moderate this process and how trust between university and industry partners affectsUIcollaboration outcomes. The analysis of survey data of 105 recentUIcollaborations in theU.S.biotechnology industry indicates that the flexibility and transparency of universityIPpolicies and shared governance byUIpartners are both positively related to trust formation. The activities ofUIchampions amplify the positive effects of shared governance and at the same time reduce the importance of universityIPpolicies for trust formation betweenUIpartners. The amount of trust between partners is positively related to knowledge transfer and innovation performance. The findings suggest that despite widely reported industry concerns over the control ofIP,UIresearch partners can develop a trustful environment and thereby plant the seeds for a successful collaboration. In order to enhance trust, companies should not only consider universityIPpolicies, but also need to actively engage in shared governance with university partners.UIcollaboration champions can help shift the attention of company managers from formal rules set by universityIPpolicies toward shared project planning, coordination, and implementation with university partn

ISSN:0737-6782    

DOI:10.1111/jpim.12242

年代:2015

数据来源: WILEY