Search

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00755.x Byline: Rudy K. Moenaert (1), Henry Robben (2), Michael Antioco (3), Veroniek De Schamphelaere (4), Eveline Roks (5) Abstract: This research attempts to (1) identify the factors that influence strategic decision making (i.e., a choice made among various strategic options), and (2) establish their relative importance in the context of new product development. Hence, this study's research question is formulated as follows: from a descriptive perspective what factors prevail in managers' strategic decision making on new product development, and from a normative perspective is this behavior optimal? An exploratory case research study generated a four-dimensional framework of strategic decision making. In 17 companies, the decision-making processes and subsequent implementation of 22 business innovation projects were studied. Managers' choices are determined by the assessment of (1) the business opportunity, (2) the feasibility, (3) the competitiveness, and (4) the leverage opportunities provided by the strategic option. The research question was then further addressed in a field site survey of 144 managers of ChemCorp, a global, multidivisional chemicals company. The ex ante conjoint study shows that feasibility and business opportunity prevail over competitiveness and leverage at the decision-making moment. Using PLS-Graph revealed that a manager's idiosyncrasies and the current and the future context of the division to which they belonged barely affected the relative weight of the decision-making criteria: only the division's customer power and the threat of new entrants significantly influence positively the support for business opportunity assessments. This raised an important question: if feasibility and business opportunity appear as being, overall, the two most important strategic decision-making criteria ex ante, are they key differentiators between success and failure ex post? An ex post critical incident study was conducted on 75 successful innovations and 69 failed innovations reported by the ChemCorp respondents. Using PLS-Graph, this study shows that the competitiveness of a strategic option is a very important predictor of new project success. While the findings await replication in other industries (e.g., industries of a less capital-intensive nature), they are intriguing: strategic innovation decision making may be off track when reality is accounted for. Author Affiliation: (1)Nyenrode Business Universiteit in The Netherlands (2)Nyenrode Business Universiteit in Breukelen, The Netherlands (3)TiasNimbas Business School, Tilburg University, The Netherlands (4)HRM Centre of the Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School in Ghent, Belgium (5)Tilburg University in The Netherlands Article note: Address correspondence to: Rudy K. Moenaert, TiasNimbas Business School, Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands. E-mail: r.k.moenaert@tiasnimbas.edu.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00730.x Byline: Wim Biemans (1), Abbie Griffin (2), Rudy Moenaert (3) Abstract: The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) was launched in 1984 and over its first two decades of existence evolved into the leading journal in the field of innovation and the management of technology. During these 20 years JPIM contributed to the field by publishing 488 academic papers. This paper is a follow-up study to an earlier study that looked at how JPIM evolved in terms of knowledge stock and knowledge flows during the first two decades (published in JPIM, March 2007). That paper looked at what was published during the first 20 years, which sources were cited, and which journals cited JPIM papers. This study takes a closer look at the impact of JPIM on the field of innovation and the management of technology by identifying the most classic papers published in JPIM during its first two decades of existence. This study used multiple research methods to identify 64 candidate potential classics from the 488 papers published in the first 20 years of JPIM's existence, to analyze how they differ from the other 424 papers published in the journal, and to investigate authors' motivations for writing these papers. Finally, using survey responses from the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) membership and other academics in innovation and new product development, the research then determines which 5 of the 64 candidate papers are considered to be the 'most classic' papers published and the factors driving that determination. The findings show that classic papers are those presenting a 'pioneering idea' in the field that creates buzz in both the academic and practitioner worlds. High numbers of citations are indeed the outcome of these endeavors, but being a classic requires more than having high numbers of citations. Authors of the true classics generally have worked hard to disseminate their research, usually to both academics and practitioners, perhaps also contributing to the network buzz created by their findings. While one of the five most classic papers represented the first investigation into a particular stream of research, the other four were culminations of a significant body of research, providing a distinct summary of known information on a topic at the time they were published and a clear road forward for future research on the topic. These bodies of knowledge have yet to be superseded by other culminating papers. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Groningen (2)University of Utah (3)University of Tilburg Article note: Address correspondence to: Wim Biemans, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands. Tel.:+31 50 363 38 34. E-mail: w.g.biemans@rug.nl.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00708.x Byline: Marion Debruyne (1), Ruud T. Frambach (2), Rudy Moenaert (3) Abstract: It is a well-accepted notion that to respond to competitive attacks firms need the necessary resources to do so. However, the presence of resources may not be a sufficient condition to enhance competitive responsiveness. Following a managerial decision-making approach, the present paper investigates how the availability of resources affects decision makers' assessment of a competitor's new product and their subsequent reaction to it. This study posits that competitive reaction follows from a decision maker's assessment of a competitive action. This assessment contains a motivation dimension and an ability dimension. The effect of three types of resources-financial, marketing, and technological-are examined. A quasi-experiment with the Markstrat business game as an empirical setting provided 339 questionnaires containing information on 29 different new product introductions. The motivation and ability dimensions are confirmed as important antecedents explaining reaction behavior. The results show that resources possess a dual, and opposing, role in influencing competitive reaction to new products. On the one hand, resources enhance decision makers' belief that they are able to react effectively to competitive attacks, but the presence of resources also makes them less motivated to react. The paper introduces two explanations for this: the liability-of-wealth hypothesis and the strong-competitor hypothesis. The addition of competitor orientation as a moderator allows us to discern between the two competing rationales for the existence of a negative effect of resources on the expected likelihood of success of a competitive new product introduction, supporting the liability-of-wealth hypothesis. The paper demonstrates the key role of competitor orientation and formulates implications from that. Author Affiliation: (1)Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School (2)VU University Amsterdam in The Netherlands (3)Tilburg University Article note: Address correspondence to: Marion Debruyne, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Reep 1, 9000 Gent, Belgium. Tel.: +32 92109227. Fax: +32 92109875. E-mail: Marion.Debruyne@vlerick.be.

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00320.x Byline: Michael Antioco (1), Rudy K. Moenaert (2), Adam Lindgreen (3) Abstract: The objective of this exploratory study is to add to our understanding of ongoing product design decision-making to reduce eventual decision-making bias. Six research questions are formulated with the aim to establish if and how functional membership and informal patterns of communication within an organization influence whether and why employees are willing to engage in product design modifications. We selected as a field site for our study an industrial company that had an internal research and product development operations and where the employees were located on the same site. A three-step approach within the manufacturing case company was designed: (1) In-depth interviews were carried out with managers and employees; (2) a survey questionnaire was sent out to all employees involved with a specific product that is subject to potential design modifications; and (3) a post hoc group feedback session was organized to further discuss our findings with the management. First, analysis of the nine in-depth interviews establishes a taxonomy of product design decisions involving four types of criteria; product-related, service-related, market-related, and feasibility-related criteria explain why employees would engage or not in product design modifications. Second, it is demonstrated that functional membership has a significant influence on the concern for these decision-making criteria as well as on the decision to proceed or not with product design modifications. In other words, functional membership influences whether and why employees are more or less willing to make product design modifications. In this manufacturing company, a global industrial player, the differences in concern appear especially for service- and market-related criteria and pertain particularly to the research and development (R&D) and service function. Overall, even though the perceived performance of the specific product under study did not differ significantly among the different departments, it is observed that R&D employees were significantly less in favor of proceeding with product design modifications than other employees were. Third, using UCINET VI software, we provide some explanations for this finding. It is shown that informal patterns of communication (i.e., employee degree centrality) operate a situational opportunity to make modifications to an existing product and a cognitive opportunity influencing the decision to modify product design following an inverted U-shaped function. Ultimately, we derive practical guidelines for an ideal product-team composition to reduce product design decision-making bias. Author Affiliation: (1)IESEG School of Management in Lille, France (2)Nyenrode University in the Netherlands (3)Hull University Business School Article note: Address correspondence to: Michael Antioco, Department of Marketing, IESEG School of Management (LEM, UMR CNRS 8179), 3 Rue de la Digue, 59000 Lille, France. Tel.:+33 (0) 320 545 892. Fax:+33 (0) 320 544 786. E-mail: m.antioco@ieseg.fr.

The authors offer a propositional model of product launch strategies based on an assessment of the existing literature.

A Belgian company architecturally redesigned its facility for its research and development with the expectation that this would increase interpersonal communication. Part of the expectation was an increase in both technological and market learning. Although there was no increase in the frequency of interpersonal communication, its quality improved and while technological information transfer did not increase either, market information sharing did. Results of the architectural redesigning implied improved functional linkages and increased focus on the customer.

Several Belgian companies were studied to determine the significance of interfunctional coupling between marketing and research and development (R&D)departments on the success of product innovations. Particularly, the effects of formalization, centralization, role flexibility and the interfunctional climates on cross-functional communication were investigated. Results showed that formalization and decentralization, good interfunctional relations and role flexibility increased communication between marketing and R&D departments. However, the success of product launches was highly dependent on formalization and the quality of the interfunctional climate.

The research question in the present article can be phrased in the following way: what are the elements which influence the perception of the utility of information received from another function? A field study research has been conducted in 40 Belgian companies. In each company, we have studied two on-going innovation projects (one planning project, one development project). Crossfunctional communication behaviours at the R&D/marketing interface have been measured by means of mailed structured questionnaires. Three-hundred and eighty-six questionnaires have been returned. The data analyses show that there are four underlying information dimensions, i.e. the perceived relevance, the perceived comprehensibility, the perceived novelty and the perceived credibility of information. We also discuss some contingency variables (function of the message receiver, stage in the innovation process) that might moderate the impact of these dimensions. It will be shown that the interaction between source and receiver has a significant impact on the perceived credibility, the perceived comprehensibility and the perceived novelty of the received information.