Search

The article reflects on the tenure of Jelena Spanjol and Charles Noble as co-Editors-in-Chief of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) from 2019 to 2024. It highlights the growth and changes experienced by JPIM during this period, including the introduction of innovative initiatives like the Catalyst format and reviewer development programs. The article also discusses the journal's increased impact factor and rankings, emphasizing its importance in the field of innovation management research. The outgoing editors express gratitude to the JPIM community and pass the baton to the incoming Editor-in-Chief team. [Extracted from the article]

In industrial product development with customers, it is well‐known that lead userness is associated with novel and commercially attractive products. We take a next step by analyzing if lead userness is related to product development that potentially affects industry‐level practices. Our main hypothesis is that lead userness results in the pursuit of Schumpeterian product opportunities: disequilibrating, radical, rare, and based on new knowledge and creative activities. In contrast, at low lead userness, more Kirznerian product opportunities are expected—which maintain industry standards. The hypothesis is supported by data from 139 high‐tech small firms. Next, we anticipate that factors related to the selection of lead users, and the effective processing of their inputs, moderate the connection between lead userness and Schumpeterian opportunity. As for selection, we find a stronger connection when firms collaborate with "new" customers. Conversely, when involved customers have been business partners already for a long time, the pursuit of Schumpeterian opportunities is mitigated. Also, tentative evidence is found that the connection between lead userness and Schumpeterian opportunity amplifies when involved customers are less dominant market players. Finally, when it comes to processing lead users' input, we report tentative evidence that firms' R&D intensity should be higher (indicating ability to process lead users' inputs and make continued development efforts). Our findings help to explain why lead users have been associated with industry dynamics, and provide guidance to identify "relevant" lead users when firms seek product opportunities that potentially disequilibrate their industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A review of research on innovation and new product development points to certain foundational issues of concern such as the use of (1) different definitions of constructs germane to the field (e.g., definitions of innovation, innovativeness, and specific types of innovations), (2) different construct labels to refer to specific innovation types, and (3) the same construct label to refer to different innovation types. Over the years, scholars have cautioned that a body of research in a field of study that is based on different definitions of constructs germane to the field would slow the advancement of knowledge. Against this backdrop, the purpose of this Catalyst paper is to initiate a conversation on the prospects for mitigating the definitional quagmire in research on innovation and new product development by developing an inclusive definition of innovation that can be used as a template for defining various types of innovations uniformly. Toward this end, the paper proposes an inclusive definition of innovation based on idea, outcome, and value creation as the defining or essential characteristics of all innovations. Definitions of 10 specific types of innovations defined in a consistent manner, employing the proposed inclusive definition of innovation as a template are also presented. All else being equal, consistency across research studies in the definitions of constructs employed can be conducive to the advancement of knowledge in a field of study in several ways such as streamlining the curation of the research‐based knowledge, facilitating the grounding of new research in prior research (i.e., curated knowledge), and eliminating differences across studies in the definitions of key constructs employed as a potential confound on the research findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although informal firms are rare in developed economies, they are prevalent in emerging economies and create significant competitive pressure for formal firms. Recent literature has focused on the effects of informal competition on product innovation, but the results have been inconsistent. This discordance motivated this study. Drawing on insights from competitive rivalry, this study investigates how informal competition affects formal firms' product innovativeness (i.e., whether to develop new‐to‐market products or not). Using a sample of firms operating in Eastern Europe and Central Asia from the World Bank Enterprise Survey, we find that if formal firms encounter intense competitive pressure from informal firms, they are less inclined to develop new‐to‐market products. Furthermore, credit constraints strengthen the adverse effect of competitive pressure from informal firms on the development of new‐to‐market product innovation, but state legitimacy weakens this effect. This investigation provides insight into the barriers to innovation in emerging economies and adds to the existing literature by highlighting the need to consider the varied effects of informal competition on different types of product innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study identifies the political behavior marketers use to ensure the market fit of a new product platform. Drawing on two political NPD literature streams and configuration theory, the authors explain how (i) soft and hard influence tactics, (ii) reason, (iii) marketers' experience (with product and portfolio decisions), and (iv) the type of product platform (smart vs. conventional), together determine marketers' political effectiveness in gaining support for design modifications from the development team. The framework and hypotheses are tested using data from a sample of 100 influence attempts by marketers. A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis reveals no single, optimal solution but three "influence recipes." First, we find a generic solution for both smart and conventional product platforms that combines marketer experience with reason and coalition building. Second, we note two additional solutions for smart product platforms: one consisting of marketer experience with coalition building and another one combining marketer experience with reason and assertiveness. Regression results reveal a positive relationship between marketers' influence behavior and platform performance in the marketplace, in support of a complementary and functional role of marketers' political behaviors in innovation management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Managers often exclude some stakeholders from innovation programs, believing they would be "dangerous" for the purpose and pace of new product/service development. The exclusion of "dangerous" stakeholders, however, has negative implications on innovation, as it prevents access to key knowledge and connections. Our study investigates how "dangerous" stakeholders can overturn their exclusion, and gain key decision‐making responsibilities. Theoretically, we import the "general theory of political representation" from Rehfeld (2006) to derive insight into agency of five actors: selection agents, strategic constellation and representatives (on the side of innovators), represented and "audience" (on the side of stakeholders). Empirically, we undertake a 4‐year longitudinal case study of a digital innovation program in an English public hospital. Our study highlighted that only an elite "audience" of clinical leads enacted a strategy of "coaptation work" to overturn their exclusion from the innovation program, and ascend to a role of selection agents. Through "coaptation work," the clinical leads used their privileged access to clinical resources to first create fractures within the community of innovators, and then embed clinical stakeholders in key decision‐making roles to heal them. Our results challenge established "hub‐and‐spoke" interpretations of innovation programs, and emphasize the importance of political representation work to understand how stakeholders exert their influence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why are some firms more resilient when systemic shocks like the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) or COVID‐19 pandemic set in? We approach this question by arguing that a firm's pre‐shock strategic emphasis on innovation can mitigate the consequences of such shocks by facilitating stability and flexibility, major components of organizational resilience, as the shock sets in. We test our arguments empirically by analyzing data from 2003 to 2011 on as many as 994 firms from the S&P 1500 to identify the causes of their resilience during the 2008 GFC. Our findings indicate that pre‐shock product introductions and, to some extent, top management's focus on innovation can facilitate stability and flexibility when a shock occurs, while R&D intensity and patents, other dimensions of a strategic emphasis on innovation, do so only when firm profitability before the shock is low. In this way, we direct innovation research's attention to the additional performance benefits of innovation activities when shocks occur and reveal which dimensions of a strategic emphasis on innovation buffer the negative consequences of a shock, thus providing insights into how innovation helps firms be resilient. Further, our theorizing and empirical findings unveil an intriguing paradox: While existing research tends to find positive associations between innovation and profitability in "regular" times, strong pre‐shock profitability impairs innovation's ability to unfold its effects fully at shock onset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, multinational enterprises (MNEs) have increasingly harnessed local knowledge through various customer involvement practices implemented by their foreign subsidiaries. Our study, using a multi‐informant survey of 230 MNE subsidiaries in China, explores how these subsidiaries manage customer involvement in new product development (NPD). We specifically focus on two practices: using customers as an information source (CIS) or as a co‐developer (CIC). We posit that the two types of customer involvement have distinct effects on a subsidiary's innovation capability, which in turn impacts two critical NPD outcomes: innovativeness and speed to market. Moreover, we suggest that the roles that customers play in CIS and CIC, as well as their contribution to the subsidiary's innovation capability, depend on whether the specific knowledge is derived from the parent headquarters or local partners. Our findings reveal that technological knowledge transfer from the parent headquarters enhances CIS's effect on innovation capability, yet diminishes that of CIC. In contrast, knowledge sharing from local partners exerts the opposite effects. By elucidating the underlying mechanisms and contingencies, our study fosters a deeper understanding of customer involvement in NPD and provides insightful guidance for MNEs seeking to leverage local knowledge for successful innovations in foreign markets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Just over two decades ago, in a Perspective article in the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM), Tomkovick and Miller, called for the professionalization of new product development (NPD). Professionalization of innovation management (as the broader function in which NPD is embedded) was posited to require a combination of scientific knowledge coupled with specific expertise. We revisit that call to (1) assess whether innovation management has established itself as a formal, professional function similar to human resources or marketing, and (2) critically discuss whether (and if so, how) the professionalization of innovation management impacts both academic research and professional practice in the field. We suggest four tests as hallmarks of a profession and apply them to the emerging field of innovation management. Based on our findings, we propose a set of actions for innovation management academics and practitioners. We also recommend directions for future research to promote discussion on this topic within the JPIM community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In July 2022, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (UTK) hosted the fifth Product Development Management Association (PDMA) Doctoral Consortium. As a critical vehicle to promote doctoral student research and scholarly networking, this consortium featured emerging research topics on new product development (NPD) and innovation by promising doctoral students and leading scholars, provided exposure to cutting‐edge practice in additive manufacturing, and facilitated opportunities for the NPD and innovation research community building. This article summarizes key insights and synthesizes important research topics emerging from the event. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks answers to the question: what are the key factors that enable the scaling of additive manufacturing (AM) from rapid prototyping to high‐volume production? Using a longitudinal case study, we collected primary and secondary data to trace the AM scaling journey of AeroCo, a highly innovative aerospace firm. Based on the case findings, we position AM as a whole system technology because it can print components for a wide range of subsystems in a complex final product. Scaling AM requires a significant realignment of existing, and often deeply entrenched, new technology, and product development processes. To achieve this alignment, AeroCo formed institutional alliances with the UK government and universities to establish university technology centers, which facilitated early stage ideation and "catapult" centers, which enabled high‐volume testing in factory‐like facilities. The case reveals how multiple functions needed to integrate, including research and development, product design, and future programs, to ensure that design changes cascaded from one subsystem to another, and that new technologies were linked to a future product to create a final product pull. These findings inform a managerial framework for additive manufacturing scaling that is generalizable to other digital technologies used in the design and production of complex final products, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, smart factories, and cyber physical production systems. Our framework contributes to innovation thought and practice by explaining how new product development processes and organizational structures change under the effect of digital technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Innovation experts posit that digital technologies—such as additive manufacturing (AM)—can address societal challenges and change the nature of work and collaboration. In recognition, this special issue encourages researchers to investigate how AM can be leveraged to reduce environmental externalities and devote greater attention to the production of 3D printed items. This article integrates academic research on new product development and the cradle‐to‐cradle philosophy with insights gleaned from long‐term case observations across a series of large‐scale AM projects to advance that 3D printing can unleash three pivotal adaptations to the traditional conception‐development‐launch ecosystem. Specifically, our direct participation in designing and building multiple 3D printed products reveals that: (1) spent products can possess valuable ingredient materials that can be repurposed, (2) the reduced structural strength of the reclaimed material can be a positive force insofar as spawning innovation in a new product category, and (3) manufacturing should appear as an independent stage in new product development. On this last point, our completed projects align with recent observations that newer AM technologies can make prototyping and manufacturing products easier, faster, and less expensive. Accordingly, we advance a cyclical sustainable innovation process, which consists of ideation, development, AM output (i.e., manufacturing), and material reclamation. This research is both theoretically meaningful and pragmatically useful. It addresses knowledge gaps regarding AM in the academic literature and spawns new research questions for innovation scholars. For managers, it provides a path to supplant the wasteful take‐make‐dispose production model with the more efficient and effective take‐make‐transmigrate approach that we deem an innovation loop. Specifically, our final built project—a 3D designed and printed chair that uses polymers from the spent chassis of a 3D printed car—serves as a proof of concept that AM can be a catalyst to a paradigmatic shift in how products are made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in digital manufacturing technologies have not only altered R&D processes for new product development (NPD), but they have also opened new possibilities for user innovators to engage in traditionally closed innovation processes. However, incorporating external sources of user innovation—through design challenges or crowdsourcing, for example—can introduce competing logics into exploratory innovation processes. Using the lens of complexity, we conduct an ethnographic study of the competing logics at work in the NPD processes of a corporate makerspace launched by a large firm in the consumer appliances industry. The makerspace was founded with a hybrid logic, intended to combine the community logic of makers with the corporate logic of the parent organization. We analyze the conflicts that arose between logics and how the hybrid logic evolved through four iterations of the NPD process. We identify how managing multiple logics led to structural and identity changes, and we explain how two mechanisms—structural bridging and stakeholder identity linking—enabled the makerspace to innovate with a hybrid logic and overcome the constraints of a dominant logic on the NPD process. The results offer insights into dynamic organizational responses to complexity, how new business initiatives can be structured to act as exploratory units for corporate parents, and how corporate makerspaces can help incorporate external sources of innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extending 30 years of NPD best practice studies, this paper presents the results of the most recent 2021 global best practice survey on product development management practices conducted by the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA). With responses from 651 companies in 37 countries, the results reveal once again that no single capability is necessary or sufficient to explain the best performance. The Best firms rely on the skillful combination of multiple new product development (NPD) practices to achieve greater overall innovation success. However, for the first time in this series of research, having an innovation strategy that encourages radical innovation, is oriented toward risk‐taking and long‐term, and strives for growth through new markets and new technologies is now a more important component of these practices than was previously found. Further results regarding the practices of the Best are discussed in the paper, and implications are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of transformer‐based language models in artificial intelligence (AI) has increased adoption in various industries and led to significant productivity advancements in business operations. This article explores how these models can be used to augment human innovation teams in the new product development process, allowing for larger problem and solution spaces to be explored and ultimately leading to higher innovation performance. The article proposes the use of the AI‐augmented double diamond framework to structure the exploration of how these models can assist in new product development (NPD) tasks, such as text summarization, sentiment analysis, and idea generation. It also discusses the limitations of the technology and the potential impact of AI on established practices in NPD. The article establishes a research agenda for exploring the use of language models in this area and the role of humans in hybrid innovation teams. (Note: Following the idea of this article, GPT‐3 alone generated this abstract. Only minor formatting edits were performed by humans.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We offer a new vantage to the literature on the role of infomediaries in incumbent firms' struggles to adopt discontinuous technologies: the perspective of news media. Specifically, we combine the discontinuous technology literature with studies on news media journalism to theorize that journalists cover an incumbent's new product introductions differently, depending on whether a given new product builds on a discontinuous technology or on the respective established, continuous technology. First, discontinuous‐technology‐based product introductions receive a greater volume of coverage than continuous‐technology‐based product introductions because journalists prefer covering issues that are novel, deviate from the conventional, and potentially strongly impact society. Second, the coverage of discontinuous‐technology‐based product introductions is more divergent in tenor than the coverage of continuous‐technology‐based product introductions, as journalists seek to present opposing and thus more engaging opinions. Our analyses of unique archival data from two samples of product introductions in the automotive and photography industries, respectively, support our hypotheses. We also find intriguing indications that news media coverage of new products introductions using hybrid technologies is significantly context‐dependent. Overall, our study points to so‐far undescribed, media‐related dilemmas for incumbent firms that aim to adopt discontinuous technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Product modularization in new product development has attracted considerable interest among scholars and practitioners from diverse fields of specialization. This has resulted in cross‐disciplinary diversity in the field, diverting attention from its overall intellectual structure and hindering the development of a common view and shared concepts. Extant research lacks an integrative review, transcending a focal discipline that could identify gaps and ambiguities while making recommendations to advance the field. Considering a period of 30 years (1990–2020), we generate a data set of 2988 citing publications to which we apply a co‐citation analysis. Thereby, we uncover the intellectual structure of the field and find three research perspectives that represent key knowledge bases: (1) product system, (2) production system, and (3) organizational system. Delimiting the data set into four periods, we can track developments over time, where we notice an increasing disintegration of the product system perspective, which is rooted in the discipline of engineering design. Within the two other perspectives, we document extensive dynamism in terms of publications, especially in the two most recent periods, indicating an active discussion and a potential receptivity to new trends. For these periods, we also identify an emerging cluster of fundamental publications and an increasing emphasis on the concept of system architecture. Leveraging the synthesis of these results, we forge links between neighboring disciplines and recommend avenues for further research, ideally to develop a more common view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past decade, a core assumption of research on business model innovation (BMI) has been its beneficial character. However, studies have shown that potentially disrupting BMI is not immune to failure. Still, studies that investigate the causes of BMI failures are lacking. This article shifts the focus to the dark side of BMI by using a demand‐side approach, which cross‐fertilizes on the new product development (NPD) research stream of passive innovation resistance. We argue that BMI, like any other type of innovation, imposes change on the customer, which endangers the status quo. As a result, passive innovation resistance evolves, potentially disrupting continuous adoption. Thus, the main goal of the current study is to investigate whether and how BMI evokes negative effects of passive innovation resistance on customers' adoption behavior (Study 1) and to determine which marketing instruments can be used as countermeasures (Study 2). Our findings confirm that passive innovation resistance is a strong inhibitor of continuous BMI adoption. However, the detrimental effects of passive innovation resistance on continuous BMI adoption can be attenuated by employing benefit comparisons or testimonials in business model (BM) announcements. From a theoretical perspective, this study enhances the current knowledge on how stable customer predispositions affect the adoption process of BMI. By so doing, our study confirms the applicability of passive innovation resistance beyond the NPD domain but also sheds light on differences in the cause‐effect mechanism between BMI and product innovation contexts. From a managerial perspective, this study equips managers with effective countermeasures to passive innovation resistance that should reduce the probability of BMI failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We explore the relevance of two different views on new product development (NPD) drivers, defined as "advantage of youth" and "business acumen." The two arguments, that establish a negative relationship between an individual's age and NPD and a positive impact of professional experience on NPD, are theoretically contextualized and empirically tested in the entrepreneurship domain. Considering a sample of more than 4000 Italian entrepreneurs of innovative start‐ups, a series of econometric analyses confirm that both effects apply and reveal interesting nuances as to the relevance of the age effect and the relative importance of different dimensions of entrepreneurs' business acumen on NPD. Further additional analyses highlight how both the "advantage of youth" and "business acumen" do not necessarily lead to successful entrepreneurial NPD, but at the same time, they both are found to importantly characterize top performers among entrepreneurs engaging in NPD. Overall, this in‐depth analysis on entrepreneurial NPD and its drivers underlies the importance of a micro‐founded and individual‐based approach in the study of new product dynamics, and in doing so, it contributes to enrich the upper echelons perspective and related frameworks on innovation outcomes through entrepreneurship. By theorizing and documenting those personal demographic and human capital traits which are mostly associated with entrepreneurial NPD, a series of interesting implications quite naturally descend for several stakeholders: (prospective) entrepreneurs, managers who aim at nurturing an intrapreneurship culture within their companies and policy makers interested in increasing dynamic efficiency in the economic system through the launch of new products and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine how political instability (PI) affects firms' product innovation and the strategies that firms can employ in response to PI. We argue that while higher levels of PI influence firms' innovation negatively, greater international exposure (through foreign ownership and exporting) can help firms partly overcome this external challenge and innovate. We test these predictions using a dataset of 3000 manufacturing firms across 15 countries from Sub‐Saharan Africa. The empirical results confirm a robust and negative effect of PI on firms' product innovation through several mechanisms. They also suggest that all firms in a country, regardless of ownership structure, are equally affected by PI. Finally, higher levels of exporting weaken the deleterious effects of PI on innovation for both domestic and foreign firms. Our study offers insights into the barriers of innovation in emerging economies and explicates why some firms are more innovative than others in politically unstable contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries, developing and commercializing products require great investments and intensive clinical trials. With regard to managing the risk and uncertainty of such product development, especially given the low success rates, product diversification and collaboration strategies can be instrumental for firms. Especially, the differences in product development complexity and market condition among industries require more case‐specific implications due to the absence of a universally applicable strategy, even in these two similar industries. To date, little is known or discussed regarding whether product diversification and collaboration strategies work differently by industry and to what extent their impact differs across industries. Accordingly, this study examines the impact of product diversification on firm performance and compares the diversification effects between the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries. Related product diversification (RPD), which involves diversifying existing product functions, and unrelated product diversification (UPD), which involves diversifying the selling market, are considered here, and their linear and curvilinear effects are examined for each industry. Furthermore, the mediating role of product diversification in the relationship between collaboration and performance is examined to explore diversification through collaboration and the effect of collaboration on firm performance. For empirical analysis, an integrated firm‐level dataset combining a full set of commercialized product information, collaboration, and statistics from Medtrack and Compustat are used. The results indicate that RPD enhances pharmaceutical firms' performance, while RPD and UPD contribute to biopharmaceutical firms' performance. In both cases, mediating effect of product diversification is found; however, collaboration is found to play different roles, thereby showing that collaboration enhances product diversification for pharmaceutical firms, while for biopharmaceutical firms it negatively affects product diversification, but positively affects performance. This study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence on how diversification should be treated differently across industries by considering product development complexity and market maturity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The challenge of developing high‐quality ideas as the basis of new goods and services is an important topic that coincides with companies' rapid development of these products. In response, firms increasingly rely on online ideation platforms for ideation contests to optimize their employees' creative power. This optimization requires a profound understanding of online ideation contests' underlying mechanisms, specifically the participants' innovative behavior that contributes to generating, elaborating, and championing ideas based on each ideator's effort distribution, namely their behavioral patterns. Our analysis of the ideators' behavioral patterns and their relationship to idea success consists of two steps. First, we combine contest theory with innovative behavior literature to derive eight types of innovative behavior in online contests—clustered into the three categories idea generation, elaboration, and championing—that represent the ideators' required efforts to compete in an ideation contest successfully. Second, we use a unique empirical sample, which combines platform and evaluation data of a corporate R&D ideation contest with participants' survey data, received a few days before the contest's closure, to analyze the relationship between the effort invested in these dimensions and idea success. The results show that more effort does not necessarily lead to better results. The effort invested in idea generation, such as more extensive submission ("spamming") and creative inspiration ("copying"), could be wasted and even has adverse effects on idea success. However, especially effort invested into idea championing provides strong possibilities to increase idea success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following article from Journal of Product Innovation Management, The Performance Implications of Dynamic Capabilities: The Case of Product Innovation by Ulrich Lichtenthaler, published online in EarlyView in June 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor‐in‐Chief, the Product Development and Management Association, and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The retraction has been agreed to due to inconsistencies between construct names assigned to sets of measure items across various articles using data from the same sample for different purposes. Reference DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00957.x [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite technological inventions being a key input to new product development, companies often struggle with commercializing new technologies via the product development route. Drawing on a sample of publicly traded U.S. manufacturing companies that spans the period 1992–2013, our study shows that CEOs play a catalytic role in the technology conversion process, but this role is highly nuanced and depends on the characteristics (generalist vs. specialist) of their human capital. Specifically, generalist CEOs tend to be better at facilitating the conversion process in companies with more diverse and/or higher quality inventions. In contrast, specialist CEOs play a catalytic role in technology conversion when companies have less diverse and/or lower quality inventions. Hence, our paper offers a solution to the technology conversion problem that consists in aligning CEO human capital characteristics with the characteristics of the company's inventions portfolio. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How can firms shape their capacity to engage in major innovation when change is all around? Drawing on dynamic capability theory, we argue that a firm needs to be able to sense, seize, and transform network relationships for new product development (NPD). Referred to here as a "dynamic network capability," this facilitates generative NPD learning, whereby the firm both (1) unlearns and (2) engages in exploratory new learning. In turn, we argue that generative NPD learning is strongly associated with a firm's capacity for major innovation. Our theorizing is supported by a study of 184 small‐ and medium‐sized, U.S. manufacturing firms. A moderated mediation analysis suggests that when external dynamism is high, generative NPD learning mediates the relationship between dynamic network capability and major innovation capacity. This indicates that the firm's ability to "relearn" is critical. This mediating effect is further strengthened when internal dynamism is also high. Our results provide empirical evidence that the higher‐order concept of a dynamic capability influences the reconfiguration of resources such as NPD knowledge. The findings also signal the combined influence of external (environmental) and internal (organizational) dynamism on this relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the plethora of new product introductions, managers often embrace modularity (i.e., decompose product or process design into components or sub‐tasks, respectively) as part of new product development (NPD). Although modularity increases overall firm performance, a holistic view is missing for the relationship between modularity and new product advantage (i.e., a new product's superiority relative to competing products). In addition, extant research has not examined modularity in juxtaposition with allocated resources, so it is unclear how their interplay will unfold as means to foster new product advantage. Accordingly, by building on resource theories (resource‐based view and resource orchestration theory) and extant research on NPD, we bridge the modularity‐new product advantage gap in a survey study of managers involved in NPD projects. Overall, we view product modularity and process modularity as NPD capabilities and contrast their roles in NPD. Our findings show that product modularity, rather than process modularity, directly fosters new product advantage. More interestingly, resources form different contingency factors for the two types of modularity to influence new product advantage. Resources allocated to marketing stages constrain product modularity's positive impact, but they create a synergy with process modularity to increase new product advantage. On the contrary, the synergy between resources allocated to technical stages and product modularity generates more benefit for new product advantage, but resources allocated to marketing stages do not have a contingency effect on process modularity. These findings help firms understand how to leverage modularity to develop superior new products. At the same time, they offer insights into allocating and bundling different resources across NPD stages as the range of product modularity and process modularity vary in NPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cooper's (2021) "Accelerating Innovation: Some Lessons from the Pandemic" offers a clear reminder of not only the benefits but also the reality of acceleration in new product development. Indeed, when called upon to respond to dramatic shifts in the environment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many firms across various industry sectors quickly pivoted to generate new products or services. Importantly, firms should recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic will shift the types of products and services needed within the marketplace as well as the innovation process itself. Yet, the COVID-19 pandemic has also occurred during a time when consumers have started to widely adopt smart products and cloud services into their daily lives, which will also have implications for post-COVID-19 products and services. [Extracted from the article]

Management and organizational scholars have paid increasing attention to the interconnections between digital transformation and innovation management in the last decade. However, a highly fragmented understanding of this topic is what we are left with so far. In this editorial, we suggest an approach to open up the black box of the interplay between digital transformation and innovation management by providing a framework that identifies three levels of analyisis (i.e., macro, meso, and micro) along which existing and future research on the topic can be organized. This model encourages scholars to conduct theoretical and empirical studies on how digital transformation affects ecosystems' structure and governance, how industries and firms compete and organize for innovation in a digitalized world, how the processes for developing new products and services change under the effect of digital technologies, and the implications of digital transformation on managing people and teams involved in the innovation process, among the other topics. We also provide a synthesis of the eight papers published in the Special Issue that this editorial introduces and develop an agenda for future research that will hopefully contribute to encourage and shape future scholarly efforts into this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past several decades, digitization has invaded all areas of human activity, including innovation. The result of digitization of existing tools for design and collaboration, and the introduction of entirely new digital tools, is a far more substantive change of innovation than previous generations of tools enabled. It affects not only the quality of the output and speed of its generation, but it affects the innovation work itself, changes work content, collaboration patterns, decision authority, organizational set‐ups, governance structures, firm boundaries, and ultimately entire ecosystems. In this paper, the digitization of New Product Development (NPD), a subset of innovation, is studied to pursue two research questions: (1) How has the digital tool landscape in NPD changed over the past 15 years, and (2) how have these changes affected how firms innovate? This research uses a longitudinal multi‐method, qualitative approach to deep dive into actual use cases of digital design tools such as computer‐aided design CAD and new tools such as collaborative information technology (CIT). The changes in these tools and observations into how these tools are transforming the very nature of how things are designed is the research focus of this study. These tools have become increasingly more sophisticated while being easier to use and are integrated earlier in the design process. As a result, digital tools have a far broader reaching impact than previous generation of tools. Not only do they affect output and process efficiency, but they also increase depth and breadth of the work of individual innovators, they lead to rearrangement of the entire innovation processes, enable new configurations of people, teams, and firms, and rewrite the rules on how knowledge management acts as a critical competitive capability. The progression of digitization is laying the groundwork for changes to what firms are and do and points to different ways of organizing, specializing, and training for NPD professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Search and recombination are important mechanisms in the creativity phase of innovation. Digital transformation and the resulting pervasive digitalization of the innovation function have often been associated with increasing possibilities for search and recombination. In this paper, by systematically integrating the search and recombination literature with the literature on digitalization, we demonstrate that digitalization may engender new idiosyncratic tensions in the organizational antecedents of search and recombination and, by implication, in their likely outcomes. We propose that, depending on the interactions among the idiosyncratic tensions identified herein, knowledge recombination might spur very different outcomes, including knowledge layering, knowledge integration, knowledge grafting, or even no recombination at all (which we label "search for the sake of search"). These outcomes may not always be the initially planned desired outcomes. Finally, we provide implications of our integrative framework pertaining to product development and to organizing for innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reward structures can have a significant impact on the performance of new product development (NPD) teams. However, there are several gaps in our understanding of how different types of extrinsic rewards influence the creative performance of NPD teams. Drawing on key theoretical objectives for advancing rewards‐creativity research in general, and NPD research in particular, this study incorporates a cognitive and behavioral view of rewards use. In so doing, we distinguish between three kinds of extrinsic rewards: financial, recognition, and social (based on their properties). We then draw upon self‐determination theory to hypothesize the differential effects of three types of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic task motivation, and subsequently the creative performance of NPD teams. The proposed framework is tested using two rounds of survey data from 238 members of 64 NPD teams in the high‐tech industry. Results of a multilevel structural equation modeling (MLSEM) analysis show that financial rewards have a negative relationship with intrinsic task motivation, while recognition and social rewards have a positive influence. Complexity of the product being developed not only helps to mitigate the negative effects of financial rewards on intrinsic task motivation, but it also reduces the positive effects of social rewards on intrinsic task motivation. Intrinsic task motivation is found to have a positive effect on NPD creative performance in terms of both the developed product's degree of innovation and its quality. Theoretical and managerial implications are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Team design thinking in new product development (NPD) refers to a set of design‐oriented principles that can be embedded in the everyday routines of NPD teams. We theorize that team design thinking enables NPD teams to develop more innovative products––products that are useful and novel––by reducing the routine and cognition‐based inertia that constrains the team's innovativeness. Through a study of 247 NPD projects, we investigate the relationships between team design thinking, product utility, and product novelty. Further, we also explore whether the team's unfamiliarity with product contexts influences these relationships. Findings show that team design thinking is positively associated with useful products in both familiar and unfamiliar contexts, but that team design thinking is associated with product novelty only in familiar contexts. Findings also suggest that team design thinking can be framed as a dynamic capability that addresses routine and cognition‐based inertia by expanding the organization's knowledge resource base, particularly in familiar contexts. A key implication of this research is that team design thinking will influence product utility in a variety of situations, but its influence on product novelty will be evident primarily in familiar contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To foster their innovation teams' adaptability, organizations are increasingly relying on agile teams. While research on the adoption of agile methods and practices has grown tremendously in the past decade, little is currently known about the human side of agile teams and how it contributes toward the emergence of adaptability. While the Agile Manifesto states that individuals and interactions are more important for agile product development than tools and processes, research on how these interactions unfold is still in its infancy. To shed light on the human side of adaptability, 44 semi‐structured, in‐depth interviews were conducted with team members and leaders from various teams at three organizations (i.e., two German and one multinational European firm). The inductive analysis identified empowerment as a focal human factor for adaptability emergence. A model of the continuous agile team innovation process is developed and uncovers the importance of dynamic empowerment states and their temporary equilibria for team adaptability. The underlying findings demonstrate that empowerment is not a static state, but rather emerges through the interactions between various actors. Specifically, the team and its leader engage in both empowerment‐enhancing and empowerment‐reducing activities. These activities are further influenced by the agile team's immediate context: Two‐fold customer influences, that is, supporting and hindering empowerment interactions, and the organizational environment, that is, undergoing an agile transformation and supportive top management behaviors, play an important role in affecting the empowerment dynamics that result in team adaptability. As such, this study contributes to the innovation and management literatures by revealing the dynamic role of the empowerment and adaptability constructs for agile innovation processes and the importance of various actors and the organizational environment for fostering adaptability. Practical insights are offered to management, teams, and team members on how to create conditions for empowerment dynamics and consequently adaptability to unfold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Product development teams often face the challenge of designing radically new products that cater at the same time to the revealed tastes and expectations of existing customers. In new product development projects, this tension guides critical choices about continuity or change concerning product attributes and team composition. Research suggests these choices interact, but it is not clear whether they are complements or substitutes and if the level of change in one should match or not the level of change in the other. In this article, we examine the interaction between product attribute change, team change, and a new team‐level factor, which we term stream concentration, as it captures differences among team members in terms of familiarity with the knowledge domain of the new product being developed. We measure stream concentration as team members' prior NPD experience within a given set of products and assess its impacts on the management of change in new product development projects using longitudinal data from the music industry. We analyze 2621 new product development projects between 1962 and 2008 involving 34,265 distinct team members. Results show that stream concentration is a critical factor in new product development projects that, together with product attributes and team composition, affects new product performance. We discuss implications for research and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Standardization alliances evolve through collaborations among firms for developing and implementing industry technical standards. Cooperative standard setting can help allied firms to gain access to external knowledge and technologies, but it is unclear how the configuration of a standardization alliance can result in improving a firm's performance in new product development. This study examines how standardization alliance network‐based resource advantages vary across a firm's network position and the firm's ability to influence industry standard setting and new product outcomes. Empirical analyses, based on archival data from 170 Chinese automobile manufacturers from 1999 to 2013, indicate that firms that span structural holes in standardization alliance networks gain an advantage when focusing on early new product introductions but suffer a disadvantage when aiming at more innovative products. In contrast, taking a central position in standardization alliance networks is negatively related to a firm's speed in bringing new products to market but positively related to the firm's new product introduction rate. Further, standard‐setting influence significantly mediates the effect of network position on a firm's new product speed to market. Increasing centrality and structural holes can lead to the improvement of a firm's standard‐setting influence, and this, in turn, positively affects speed to market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since its founding in 1984, the I Journal of Product Innovation Management i ( I JPIM i ) has published leading edge research on a number of important topics in the innovation domain, such as improving the new product development process (e.g., Cooper, [12]; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, [14]; Herstatt and von Hippel, [33]) and identifying the drivers of innovation success (e.g., Faems, Van Looy, and Debackere, [22]; Kleinschmidt and Cooper, [43]; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, [59]). Beyond the value of additional case studies, innovation scholars can also broaden the scope of open innovation research by examining the social networks that underlie this form of innovation. Thus, theoretical perspectives that capture these broader concerns, such as social movement theory (Buechler, [6]), and the responsible innovation framework (Stilgoe et al., [79]) may help product innovation scholars expand their theoretical lens beyond the firm. In particular, the results of our multi-method investigation identified four key emerging themes: (1) I Role of new technologies on innovation, i (2) I Nature of socially responsible innovation i , (3) I Alternative means of organizing innovation activities i , and (4) I Need for a new theory of innovation for our new environment i . What role can non firm-centric theories (e.g., social movement theory, responsible innovation framework) play in enriching our conceptualization of product innovation management?. [Extracted from the article]

Much of the contemporary modularity literature subscribes to the idea that increased product modularity is associated with advantageous increase in organizational modularity. Known as the "mirroring hypothesis," this proposed relationship states that the structure of a product development organization and the architecture of the product being developed would "mirror" each other. This correspondence suggests that product modularity can be a substitute for overt organizational coordination mechanisms, thereby increasing the efficiency of product development. However, empirical research to date provides inconsistent support for the hypothesis and the extant literature has yet to converge on a systematic explanation for the inconsistent findings. Moreover, important conceptual inconsistencies still remain in the extant literature, which impede cumulative knowledge development. As the first step toward reconciliation, this conceptual paper puts forth a contingent model of mirroring between product and organization, based on the systematic examination of the requisite architectural knowledge that enables product and organizational modularity. The resulting contingent model clearly articulates the knowledge prerequisite of mirroring and its underpinning causal mechanism. Based on the contingent model, a set of propositions are derived to explain and predict when the mirroring relationship will hold and when it will not. This paper thus contributes to the literature by helping to resolve persistent conceptual inconsistencies and reconcile conflicting empirical findings. In addition, explicating the knowledge prerequisite for mirroring places boundary conditions on product modularity as an effective substitute for overt exercise of managerial coordination, which helps us gain a deeper understanding of modularity as a design strategy and how complex innovations can be organized, and provides a basis for more nuanced prescriptions for practitioners to assess the relationships between their product and organization design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The debate over whether and how thought worlds of different departments (especially marketing and research and development [R&D]) affect managers' decision‐making behavior in new product development (NPD) is ongoing. A key challenge of these decisions is to deal with deteriorating NPD projects, which are often subject to escalation of commitment (EoC), with many firms wasting billions of dollars by throwing good money after bad NPD projects. However, understanding departmental thought worlds and their role for EoC in NPD could help firms stop this profusion. Thus, this research provides answers to the question of how thought worlds affect managers' tendency toward EoC in NPD decision‐making—both in general and under certain project characteristics. To do so, we conducted four studies based on real‐life scenarios with 460 highly experienced NPD managers from marketing and R&D, thus ensuring high validity and reliability. Our research is the first to explore the impact of thought worlds on EoC, thereby detecting that the importance of managers' thought worlds for shaping EoC varies with the NPD project's characteristics. Thus, depending on the specific project situation, different types of managers may be more or less capable of making proper NPD decisions. Moreover, results show that belief updating serves as a respective key mediator. Doing so enriches the theory by showing that managers' thought worlds can substantially influence a major mechanism (i.e., belief updating) of coping with cognitive dissonance. Finally, post hoc tests reveal departmental differences in EoC behavior between marketing and R&D that vary with a project's characteristics. These results imply that firms need to carefully consider who is in charge of making decisions on NPD project continuance in different project situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is unclear whether the common belief that experience benefits new product development is driven by decision‐makers allocating more attention to success experience or more attention to failure experience. This article differentiates between the two aforementioned types of experience in order to explore their separate effects on new product development. We find that only late‐stage failure experience improves new product development, that success experience is more beneficial than late‐stage failure experience and that, while others' related failure experience increases the likelihood of failure, others' related success experience decreases it. We conducted our research in the context of drug development in the biotech industry and obtained our data from Pharma Projects. We employ logistic regression analysis to model the likelihood that a drug development project results in failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The large potential of lead users (LUs) in developing innovative and radically new product concepts is well established in the literature. However, in a widely acknowledged study, Hoffman et al. introduced the new concept of emergent‐nature consumers (ENCs) and showed the superiority of this group of individuals over LUs in developing new product concepts. Consequently, they postulated ENCs to be "the right consumers" to be integrated in new product development processes. In this article, we critically reflect and build on Hoffman et al.'s study and further investigate the promise of the ENC concept as compared to the LU concept. In a pilot study, we replicated the study by Hoffman and colleagues: We conducted a crowdsourcing competition and asked for concepts for new services; those concepts had been generated collectively by the participants and had been assessed by a consumer crowd. In the main study, the participants of a crowdsourcing competition submitted individually generated concepts for products, which were evaluated by industry experts. Across both studies, using different empirical methods in two different contexts, and in contrast to Hoffman et al.'s work, we find support for LUs outperforming ENCs (as well as average users) in generating the commercially most promising concepts. Thus, our insights reinforce the existing user innovation literature and the notion of LUs being the primary source of new product/service concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to deepen the understanding about when and how the mobilization of resources through strong and weak ties in a focal firm's network can affect new product success. It addresses two significant gaps in the literature. While prior research has advanced the understanding of how factors around tie strength, resource mobilization, and environmental characteristics relate to new product development, it has yet to offer a more holistic understanding of the interconnected structures and the interplay among these factors. Furthermore, limited insights exist about how firms could utilize resource mobilization approaches in different environmental contexts to enhance new product success. Building on resource dependence theory, this paper contributes to prior work by adopting configuration theoretical considerations and performing an empirical investigation to identify necessary and sufficient conditions for new product success. Based on data from a survey of 354 managers from manufacturing and services firms in the United Kingdom, the study conducts a configurational comparative study based on fuzzy‐set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to examine configurations of strong‐tie and weak‐tie resource mobilization approaches within particular environmental contexts for new product success. The findings reveal alternative, equifinal configurations for new product success, and add to the existing body of work by connecting the notions of network ties, resource mobilization, and context dependence, as well as by developing an integrative framework to explain the interplay of remote and proximate conditions for new product success. For management practice, this study offers guidance in describing and diagnosing business contexts that enhance new product success, and in identifying resource mobilization action repertoires to capitalize on these contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Firms are investing an increasing amount of time and resources to gather information about market and technology in new product development (NPD). Yet there is a lack of consistent understanding of whether such costly information generation activities can improve product outcomes. More importantly, it is unclear how the benefit of market information and technical information generation may differ and how they may jointly impact new product performance. This study examines the role of market and technical information generation in NPD in three ways: (1) It contrasts the effects of market and technical information generation on product outcomes; (2) it identifies conditions that moderate the effects of market and technical information generation and further investigates how the moderating effects differ for these two types of activities; and (3) it examines the joint effect of market and technical information generation to understand potential synergies between them. Using survey data at the NPD project level, we find that market information generation has an inverted U‐shaped effect on new product advantage, whereas the effect of technical information generation follows a U‐shape. Furthermore, these effects are moderated differently by two conditions: a firm's R&D intensity that influences NPD projects' need for different types of information, and the use of multidisciplinary teams that affects the degree to which information can be shared and utilized to improve product design. The findings provide important implications for organizational learning and shed light on how to manage information generation activities to achieve NPD success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

See virtual issue: NPD Cycle Time [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of how important firms' investments in digital communication formats are for the commercial success of new products remains unexplored in the product innovation management literature. Drawing on reactance theory, the authors examine the extent to which investments in social media communication and online advertising are related to the sales volume and profits of new products within six months of being launched. Using dyadic survey data, an analysis of new products launched by 122 consumer durable goods firms reveals that sales volume and profits of new products are associated with (1) social media communication in a positive but diminishing shape, and (2) online advertising in an inverted U‐shape. Further analyses show that those curvilinear relationships are steeper for social media communication and flatter for online advertising at respective (1) higher levels of customer product involvement and (2) lower levels of product superiority. The results imply that there is an optimal level of investment in social media communication and online advertising, with the optimum dependent on a new product's consumer involvement and superiority levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marketing often cooperates with external design in the new product development (NPD) process. While this relationship is crucial for NPD success and is a typical case of interorganizational collaboration between a business‐oriented function (marketing) and a creative partner (external design), a comprehensive understanding of this relationship remains lacking. As the NPD field evolves to open systems that have changed concepts like functional integration into interorganizational integration, this study contributes to NPD literature by developing an integrated conceptual framework leading to a model of drivers and pathways of NPD success in the marketing–external design relationship. Building on the literature on NPD, design management and relationship marketing, and on nine dyadic case studies from the luxury fragrance and cosmetics industry, a content analysis was conducted, enriched by a crisp‐set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). This research confirms several NPD success drivers suggested in the literature and reveals three new drivers: source of design expertise, designer brand commitment, and number of NPD stages involving designer. The first new driver (source of design expertise) impacts the relationship process, which then impacts NPD success, while the other two drivers (designer brand commitment, and number of NPD stages involving designer) directly influence NPD success. The paper also identifies the pathways of NPD success, showing that contact authority and designer brand commitment are necessary conditions for NPD success, especially when combined with a high number of NPD stages involving designer or a previous relationship. The results also indicate that pathways of NPD success may differ according to the source of design expertise. From a managerial perspective, this study provides recommendations to managers to select the right design partner and choose from a range of drivers and pathways to devise more effective ways to work with external designers, thereby leading to NPD success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although team boundary spanning is conducive to achieving new product (NP) competitive advantage, these actions may not always deliver the expected performance. The current study makes an initial attempt to examine factors that undermine team boundary spanning positive effects on NP competitive advantage by proposing and testing a negative moderating effect of team social cohesion on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage. Furthermore, the current study expects team social cohesion to have a stronger negative moderating effect on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage when external task interdependence and project newness are high than when they are low. Data for this study come from 140 NPD projects developed and commercialized by Spanish manufacturing firms in high‐ and medium‐high‐technology sectors. The study's results reveal a positive effect of team boundary spanning on NP competitive advantage. Furthermore, high levels of team social cohesion are shown to reduce the positive effect of team boundary spanning on NP competitive advantage. Finally, we found that project newness and external task interdependence accentuate the negative moderating effect of team social cohesion on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage. The current study makes several contributions to the literature. First, findings from this study give us new insights into the significance of team boundary spanning to the success of NPs by revealing that boundary‐spanning activities are beneficial to achieving NP competitive advantage. Second, the study departs from existing research in that it exposes a dark side of team social cohesion for NPD teams engaged in boundary spanning activities. Last, the study expands extant research by proposing and demonstrating that project newness and external task interdependence bring about situations in which external groups present a threat to the collective identity of socially cohesive groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In search of fresh ideas, firms increasingly engage with external contributors in open innovation collaborations. However, research has found that such collaborations frequently fail, and has pointed to conflicting demands of control and openness. On the one hand, firms want controlled and selective participation, clarity of purpose, and a choice of ideas based on their own current capacity and value appropriation strategies. On the other, their external contributors tend to want open and unfettered participation, the creative potential of the idea per se, and unrestricted knowledge sharing. This article proposes to shift the conceptual frame from looking at the tensions between control and openness as problems to looking at them as synergies. Drawing on the literature of open innovation and organizational paradox, this article contributes a novel perspective on open innovation that suggests how firms can leverage open innovation collaborations through paradox by combining practices based on differentiation and integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Companies increasingly rely on pricing teams to master the complexity of pricing a new product. However, little is known about how firms should design such pricing teams. In this study, pricing teams are defined as two or more professionals within a firm who are formally or informally involved in the decision‐making process with regard to the pricing strategy for a new product. Drawing on the information‐processing view of organizational design, this study presents a framework of how pricing teams develop effective pricing strategies for such new products. Specifically, the authors provide evidence that rationality and intuition are two key pricing team information‐processing modes that drive the effectiveness of a new product's pricing strategy. The authors examine how pricing team characteristics—stability, experience, size, autonomy, and functional diversity—enable pricing teams to apply rationality and intuition when developing a new product's pricing strategy. Using data gathered from managers involved in pricing team decisions, the authors demonstrate that pricing teams can be designed to enable the application of pricing team rationality and intuition in this realm, thereby driving effectiveness of the pricing strategy. Product innovativeness moderates these relationships. Specifically, while pricing team rationality has an unambiguously positive effect on pricing strategy effectiveness, pricing team intuition is functional for high levels of product innovativeness and dysfunctional for low levels of product innovativeness. Consequently, managers should not inhibit intuitive decision‐making processes under all circumstances but allow intuition to complement rational decision‐making in the development of pricing strategies for really new products. Choosing the right pricing team design can facilitate the effective use of rationality and intuition. Practitioner Points: Companies frequently employ pricing teams to master the complexity of developing pricing strategies for new products.In the case of incrementally new products, pricing team members should be experienced but membership should remain stable throughout the pricing strategy task to curb the use of intuition.In the case of really new products, pricing team members should also be experienced but membership should fluctuate throughout the pricing strategy task to facilitate the use of intuition.Managers should not inhibit intuitive decision‐making processes under all circumstances but allow intuition to complement rational decision‐making in the development of pricing strategies for really new products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What factors will influence how firms can leapfrog competitors when all firms are engaged in an innovation race through accelerated product development? Commercial barriers It is also not clear that what worked for the COVID-19 vaccine (unlimited funding at zero costs, with no need to return the funding) would be available to all companies for the accelerated development of innovations. Cooper (2021) has written an interesting article on the rewards, while drawing attention to the potential pitfalls of accelerating innovation. [Extracted from the article]

Since its inception in 1984, an emphasis on cross‐functionality and interdisciplinary research was encrypted into the DNA of the Journal of Product and Innovation Management (JPIM). This essay explores the extent to which the journal has served as a platform for exchange of ideas between different disciplines by examining knowledge outflow and inflow with other scientific journals and disciplines over a 20‐year period (1994‐2013). Based on an extensive bibliometric database, we gain insights about how JPIM has evolved. We show that the journal has become a gatekeeper, importing knowledge mostly from the marketing and management literatures, and exporting knowledge to the technology and innovations management and the operations management domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]