Innovation Culture, Collaboration With External Partners PDF

INNOVATION CULTURE AND NPD PERFORMANCE
253
Innovation Culture, Collaboration with External Partners and NPD Performance

caim_617 253..272
Malte Brettel and Nina J. Cleven

Researchers and managers have found that the use of external knowledge in the process of new product development (NPD) helps to sustain a rms competitiveness by strengthening its innovative performance. However, little is known about why some rms use external knowledge sources for NPD in an extensive manner while others hardly ever use them. In addition, there is disagreement about which external partners signicantly contribute to the innovative performance of a rm as valuable knowledge sources. Based on the resource-based view (RBV) of the rm and Kitchells innovation adoption model, this paper expects a rms innovation culture to have a signicant impact on its openness to external knowledge measured in terms of its collaborative behaviour with ve different external partners and for that behaviour to inuence the rms NPD performance. A sample of 254 technology-based rms across several industries is used to empirically test the research model with covariancebased structural equation modeling (SEM). The ndings deepen our understanding of the discrepancies between successful pioneering rms active in technology and knowledge sourcing and others being less successful.
Introduction
echnology-based rms operate in a competitive environment of companies and organizations that invest heavily in new technology and new product development (NPD), so each rm is surrounded by knowledge sources in the form of other rms. An increasing number of researchers from a range of research areas (e.g., strategic management, technology and innovation management, strategic networking, organization management) have found that exploiting such knowledge resources for NPD can strengthen the competitiveness of rms that operate in a dynamic environment (Hagedoorn & Duysters, 2002; Rothaermel & Hess, 2007; Almirall & Casadesus-Masanell, 2010). One of the most prominent examples in this eld of research is Chesbrough who shaped the so-called open innovation paradigm that assumes that rms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the rms look to advance their technology (Chesbrough, 2003, p. xxiv). Following this approach, collaboration with external partners can result in new ideas and knowledge for new product innovations
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
(Lambe & Spekman, 1997; Ahuja, 2000) and can give rms access to the complementary assets needed to turn an innovation into a commercial success (Teece, 1986; Hagedoorn, 1993). Inter-organizational collaboration also spreads the cost of research and development (R&D) and allows rms to take advantage of synergies (Hagedoorn & Duysters, 2002; Howells, James & Malik, 2003; Kratzer, Gemunden & Lettl, 2011). Although the advantages of collaborative activities in NPD are well known, there is little research on the antecedents of a rms openness to using external knowledge sources or the antecedents of a rms more closed approach to specic elds of R&D (Jones, Lanctot & Teegen, 2001; Calantone, Cavusgil & Zhao, 2002; Laursen & Salter, 2006; Lichtenthaler, 2011). As a result, little is known about why some rms intensively incorporate external knowledge by co-operating with external partners in their NPD processes, while others still follow the old closed-innovation approach. In this context, Knudsen (2007), for example, states that future research could contribute by examining what appropriate antecedents and mechanisms can make rms focus to a higher extent on complementary knowledge (p. 135).
Volume 20
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00617.x
Number 4
2011
254
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
There is disagreement in the literature about which external knowledge sources (customers, suppliers, competitors, universities, etc.) contribute signicantly to rms performance in innovation and so are reasonable partners (Belderbos, Carree & Lokshin, 2004). The aim of this research study is to add to what is known about the answers to these research questions. Building on the resourcebased view (RBV) of the rm (Barney, 1991) and drawing on Kitchells (1995) innovation adoption model, the present study develops and empirically tests a theoretical model that assumes that a rms innovation culture is an internal variable that either facilitates or impedes collaborative activities in the context of NPD. The article proceeds as follows: the next section lays out the theoretical premises with an introduction to the RBV and the construct of innovation culture, followed by a brief overview of the literature on collaboration with external partners. In the following section, the research model is described and hypotheses are generated. The fourth section presents the research design and the dataset. The fth describes the methodology of analysis and the results. The article closes with a detailed presentation and discussion of the empirical ndings.
Theoretical Background
Innovation Culture and the Resource-Based View
The resource-based view (RBV) of the rm serves as the overarching theory for our study. It was rst presented by Wernerfelt (1984), who suggested that rms that possess and strategically exploit resources and capabilities that are both valuable and rare will attain a competitive advantage by capitalizing on those assets. The RBV argues that those resources and capabilities that are also inimitable and non-substitutable are particularly important to the rms ability to improve its short-term and long-term performance (Barney, 1991). Current portrayals of the RBV, however, make clear that no direct resource performance link exists and that strategic resources have only potential value in helping the rm take strategic actions (Ketchen, Hult & Slater, 2007). If actions that capitalize on the resources are taken, a competitive advantage results that, in turn, enhances performance. According to Barney (1986) and several other researchers (Deshpand, Farley & Webster Jr, 1993; Schein, 1996; OCass & Ngo, 2007), a rms culture, dened as a complex set of
values, beliefs, assumptions, and symbols that dene the way in which a rm conducts its business (Barney, 1986, p. 657), can be a source of sustained competitive advantage, so it constitutes a strategic resource. Studies in the organizational literature, for example, suggest that having a strong corporate culture contributes to improved corporate performance as it plays a key role in determining the working climate, leadership style, strategy formulation, organization behaviour and processes of the rm (Saffold III, 1988; de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2004). Later, Hynes (2009) argues that corporate culture has a pervasive effect on an organization because the culture denes its employees, customers, competitors and suppliers and how the organization interacts with each one. The innovation adoption model established by Kitchell supposes that corporate culture functions as a transforming agent to ensure system survival (1995, p. 197); that is, when they are exposed to environmental dynamics (such as technology turbulence), successful, adaptive companies enact cultural norms that strengthen the rms capacity for outreach (to markets, innovation, information, etc.) and its ability to assimilate technologies. According to Kitchell, this may be achieved by fostering cultural norms that emphasize exibility to change, openness in communication, and a future orientation that focuses on staff development and strategic planning (1995, p. 197). In contrast, organizations that are less successful in fostering these cultural norms are less able to change themselves or evolve with their environments. Building on the RBV and Kitchells (1995) innovation adoption model, the current study focuses on a rms innovation culture as one facet of corporate culture and analyses its impact on the rms openness to external knowledge. Later, we analyse how this openness contributes to NPD performance. In the literature there are various denitions of a rms innovation culture. According to Koberg and Chusmir (1987) and Deshpand, Farley and Webster Jr (1993), the key aspects of innovativeness from a cultural perspective can be described as creativity, openness, and receptiveness to new ideas, risk taking and entrepreneurial mindset. Capon et al. (1992) and Gupta and Wilemon (1990) speak of a climate of openness and informal communication describing innovation culture, while Kuczmarski (1998) describes a mindset that motivates employees to endorse holistically a belief in creating newness. Since an innovation culture is an intangible resource that cannot be measured directly (Godfrey & Hill, 1995), we conceptualize it as a latent factor that is reected in the four dimen 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
255
sions: orientation toward new technologies, learning orientation, willingness to take risks, and future market orientation. Thereby, we draw on de Brentanis and Kleinschmidts (2004) denition of innovative culture which encompasses most of the dimensions of innovation culture mentioned in the literature. In general terms, then, we dene an innovation culture as the degree to which organizations are predisposed to learn continuously and to develop knowledge with the intention to detect and ll gaps between what the market desires and what the rm currently offers.
Collaboration with External Partners

Researchers observe that many rms have come to rely more extensively than ever on external linkages becoming part of networks in which resources, knowledge and information circulate (Teece, 1992); providing knowledge in areas where internal sources are inadequate (Leonard-Barton, 1992) and coping more effectively with the increasing speed, risks and costs of NPD (Vanhaverbeke, Duysters & Noorderhaven, 2002). The synergistic effects of complementary resources and knowledge can help rms accelerate NPD processes (Faems, Van Looy & Debackere, 2005; Knudsen, 2007; Laursen & Salter, 2006) and react to changing environments in more dynamic and exible ways. A review of the existing literature reveals a multitude of potential external sources for rms that want to use them. While the benets of competitor involvement are controversial
(McGill, 2007), customer involvement in NPD, which has been analysed intensively, is typically associated with positive interactions (Voss, 1985; Von Hippel, 1986; Tomes, Armstrong & Clark, 1996; Brockhoff, 2003; Salomo, Steinhoff & Trommsdorff, 2003). Studies have also found the involvement of suppliers (Dyer, 1996; Ragatz, Handeld & Scannell, 1997; Primo & Amundson, 2002; Van Echtelt et al., 2008) and universities or research institutes to be useful in developing successful new products (Hise, Futrell & Snyder, 1980; Santoro & Betts, 2002). Another source that has attracted the notice of researchers is consultants and independent research institutes (Bessant & Rush, 1995; Knudsen, 2007; Tether & Tajar, 2008). In a case study with a manufacturer of industrial products, Alam (2003) found that consulting engineering rms are a viable external source for NPD. In pursuit of a comprehensive picture, we considered all of these external partners customers, suppliers, competitors, universities and independent experts such as public research institutes and consultants as potential partners for NPD projects. Our study focuses on collaborations whose objective is to gain input for new products and technologies (for a review, see Powell, Koput & SmithDoerr, 1996). The following section describes the conceptual framework and derives the hypotheses.
Research Model and Hypotheses

The research model underlying the present study, shown in Figure 1, is based on Kitchells
Strategic Resource Innovation Culture
Strategic Action Collaboration with External Partners in the NPD Process

H1a -e
Competitive Advantage Performance Outcome
Orientation towards techn. innovation Learning orientation Willingness to take risks Future market orientation
Customers
H5
H2 a -e
Suppliers
H6
Competitors
H3 a -e
H7
NPD performance
Universities
H4 a -e
H8
Indep. experts
H9
Figure 1. Research Model and Research Hypotheses

Volume 20
Number 4
2011
256
(1995) innovation adoption model, which argues that a rms cultural norms strengthen its capacity for outreach and its ability to assimilate technologies; these abilities play a key role in the rms survival because they determine how the rm fosters or fails to foster the exible and outward-looking behaviour required to handle environmental exigencies. The model observes how an innovative culture (a strategic resource), as measured by its four latent variables, effectuates the rms collaboration with external partners (strategic action) to enhance NPD performance (competitive advantage). The model is used to analyse the rms innovation culture as an antecedent to the rms openness toward collaboration with external partners (Hurley & Hult, 1998). An orientation towards technological innovation reects one important dimension of the innovation culture of a rm (Hurley & Hult, 1998; Herrmann, Gassmann & Eisert, 2007). According to Berthon, Hulbert and Pitt (1999), rms that enact a technological innovation orientation devote their energy towards inventing and rening superior products (p. 37), whereby two components, openness to innovate and capacity to innovate, are called into action. Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001) see innovation orientation as human resource practices that foster support for innovative and risky behavior and that enable employees to keep up with changing technologies (p. 61). Thus, the rationale for an innovation orientation is that technology has the potential to create new markets and customers. Worren, Moore and Cardona (2002) further argue that an orientation towards innovation is an intentional and calculated plan or strategic intent that provides direction towards an organization-wide commitment to more and faster innovations. Our study adopts the denition of orientation towards technological innovation provided by Herrmann, Gassmann and Eisert (2007, p. 99): [A]n openness to new types of technologies, the ability to search for these technologies proactively, being able to recognize them early on, and reacting to them appropriately, as well as an attempt to use these technologies purposefully for innovation to develop technologically rst-class products that are superior to those of the competitors. Since rms are usually unable to develop every new technology on their own and are therefore dependent on external knowledge sources, we assume that a rms orientation towards technology innovation has a signicant impact on the rms collaborative activi-
ties for NPD with diverse external partners. Therefore, we formulate the following explorative hypotheses: Hypotheses 1ae. Orientation towards technological innovation is positively associated with collaborative activities with customers (H1a), suppliers (H1b), competitors (H1c), universities (H1d), and independent experts (H1e). Another factor proposed in the literature as an important dimension of a rms innovation culture is learning orientation (Baker & Sinkula, 1999; Calantone, Cavusgil & Zhao, 2002). Organizations in which management considers learning central to survival embed a learning orientation in their corporate cultures that encourages their employees to question their assumptions about the company, its environment, and their existing knowledge, and to nd new ways of learning (Argyris & Schn, 1978; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Herrmann, Gassmann & Eisert, 2007). In the context of product innovation, learning orientation is key to a successful product innovation process. Learning orientation indicates the degree to which rms are committed to challenging systematically the fundamental beliefs and practices that dene the innovation process itself (Day, 1994). A learning culture encourages rms to question the information they process as well as whether their particular approach to innovation is applicable to processing that information. More specically, rms with a strong learning orientation question whether the core beliefs about customers, competitors and suppliers that provided the basis for their past actions continue to be applicable. Since sources of knowledge for NPD do not reside exclusively inside the rm but are also often found in the interstices between the rm and universities, research laboratories, suppliers and customers (Powell, Koput & SmithDoerr, 1996; Kessler, Bierly & Gopalakrishnan, 2000; Faems, Van Looy & Debackere, 2005), these rms scan the external environment for new technological paradigms that may offer a better means by which to deliver core benets (Baker & Sinkula, 1999). Consequently, we expect that the rms learning orientation has a positive impact on collaborative activities with external partners, and we formulate the following explorative hypotheses: Hypothesis 2ae. Learning orientation is positively associated with collaborative activities with customers (H2a), suppliers (H2b), competitors (H2c), universities (H2d) and independent experts (H2e). The development of new or signicantly modied products is always related to risk,
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
257
such as the risk of failure caused by innovative product technologies or by new products not being adopted by the market as originally expected. If external partners are added to the NPD process, the potential for risks only increases, for example, in terms of the risk inherent in giving away sensitive knowledge (Grindley & Teece, 1997; Veugelers, 1998) or becoming too dependent on outside knowledge (Doz, 1996). However, without taking risks, rms cannot gain the experience from the successes and failures that are required in order to develop more competitive repertoires (Sitkin & Pablo, 1992) and the new products that will keep up with market trends. For that reason, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) argue that only if the top management demonstrates a willingness to take risks and accepts occasional failures as being natural are junior managers likely to introduce new proposals in response to changes in customer needs. Following Herrmann, Gassmann and Eisert (2007), a rms willingness to take risks is a characteristic of the enterprise culture and expresses the extent to which a company is prepared to accept the risks brought about by the high uncertainty of innovation, to view occasional setbacks as normal, and to invest sufcient resources in new products even though the chances for success are uncertain (p. 100). We adopt this denition in our study and propose that the rms willingness to take risks enhances the propensity to co-operate with external partners in the process of NPD. Hence, we formulate the following explorative hypotheses: Hypothesis 3ae. A rms willingness to take risks is positively associated with collaborative activities with external partners, meaning collaboration with customers (H3a), suppliers (H3b), competitors (H3c), universities (H3d) and independent experts (H3e). The marketing literature has traditionally emphasized that rms need to be marketoriented by placing the highest priority on the protable creation and maintenance of superior value for customers (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990; Deshpand, Farley & Webster Jr, 1993). However, some authors posit that a strong market orientation also leads to incremental and application-oriented innovations, rather than to truly breakthrough innovations (Bonner & Walker, 2004; Knudsen, 2007). For example, Gatignon and Xuereb (1997) found that a strong customer orientation leads to less radical innovation. To prevent this development, rms are urged to search for and strategically invest in new products and technologies that are geared to satisfying the needs of future customers. Chandy and Tellis call
this emphasis a future-market focus and dene it as the extent to which a rm emphasizes future customers and competitors relative to current customers and competitors (1998: 479). In order to identify these future needs and actions, rms must search in various directions, both inside the company and especially outside. Hence, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 4ae. Future market orientation is positively associated with collaborative activities with customers (H4a), suppliers (H4b), competitors (H4c), universities (H4d) and independent experts (H4e).
Collaboration with External Partners and its Impact on NPD Performance

Collaboration with customers is one of the most intensively discussed relationships in the context of NPD. Customer involvement in the process of NPD is often associated with positive NPD performance because customer input helps rms gain new ideas about products and solutions (Urban & Von Hippel, 1988), understand customers needs, and identify new market trends early (Li & Calantone, 1998). Customer input in the early stages of NPD can also allay problems related to poor design (Knudsen, 2007) and poorly conceived market introductions (Tether, 2002; Belderbos et al., 2004). Consequently, customer involvement may lead to better product innovations (Souder, Buisson & Garrett, 1997; Brockhoff, 2003) and increase the chance of NPD success. A number of researchers conrm these assumptions (Freel, 2003; Faems, Van Looy & Debackere, 2005), but others nd negative (Lf & Heshmati, 2002; Knudsen, 2007) or insignicant relationships between collaboration with customers and NPD performance (Monjon & Waelbroeck, 2003; Belderbos, Carree & Lokshin, 2004). For example, Bonner and Walker (2004) note that customer involvement can lead to negative and counterproductive effects if the focus lies only on the needs of a single type of customer group and product features do not satisfy the needs of a broad range of customers. Further, Knudsen observes that the average customer is unable to conceptualize ideas or improvements beyond the realm of their own experience (2007, p. 133), a perspective that does not serve the development of major product innovations that address a wide range of customers. In addition, Nieto and Santamaria (2007) remark that rms that concentrate too heavily on customers run the risk of losing access to important new technological developments and may fall behind. Nevertheless, we assume that the
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
258
positive aspects of customer involvement in the NPD process outweigh the negative ones and hypothesize that: Hypothesis 5. Collaboration with customers in the NPD process has a positive effect on NPD performance. Supplier involvement in the NPD process is a logical consequence of a focus on efciency. Because of their regular contact with the rms that buy from them, suppliers are familiar with the processes, demands and conceptions of those rms and tend to be easy to communicate with concerning NPD projects. Suppliers have specic knowledge and competencies, can be a source of innovative ideas and critical technologies (Hkansson & Eriksson, 1993), and are interested in strengthening their relationships with their clients. Van Echtelt et al. (2008) argue that companies that are constantly under pressure to deliver superior value to their customers and, thus, to enhance product development in terms of productivity, speed and product quality may choose to strengthen their co-operation with their suppliers concerning NPD processes in order to get relief (Primo & Amundson, 2002; Ragatz, Handeld & Petersen, 2002). Further, greater collaborative activity with suppliers enables rms to concentrate on their core competencies and to complement their R&D with that of the supplier (Tether, 2002; Belderbos, Carree & Lokshin, 2004). In addition to increasing the efciency and effectiveness of NPD efforts, supplier involvement helps rms identify technical problems and ensure that product innovations are portable in the production process (Knudsen, 2007). Risks related to collaboration with suppliers in NPD may include an increase in dependency and the danger that jointly developed and otherwise secret knowledge is disseminated to the rms competitors who may also be clients of the supplier. However, contracts can be negotiated to minimize this danger. Therefore, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 6. Collaboration with suppliers in the NPD process has a positive effect on NPD performance. While competitor involvement in NPD processes may seem counterintuitive, collaboration with competitors can help to consolidate supplementary knowledge and to generate synergistic effects that can accelerate capability development and reduce the time and costs needed for NPD for both rms (Belderbos, Carree & Lokshin, 2004; Tsai, 2009). This kind of collaboration also allows rms to benchmark their own technological capabilities and, as a result, to differentiate themselves from each
other more clearly (Linn, 1994). In this regard, Tether (2002) argues that it makes more sense for competitors to nd areas where strengths are complementary and to develop jointly a new range of products, rather than to replicate the other rms strengths. Further, collaboration can help competitors implement standards in the market, compete successfully against third-party competitors (Perks & Easton, 2000), and inuence the regulatory environment. Of course, there are risks related to collaborative activities among competitors, such as the unintended transfer of sensitive knowledge. Therefore, a rm must weigh carefully the benets and risks of collaboration with competitors, safeguard its own knowledge base from unintended appropriation and imitation, and ensure that areas of application of the jointly developed knowledge are clearly dened. Empirical studies on competitor involvement in NPD processes have resulted in conicting ndings. For example, while Lf and Heshmati (2002) found that collaborating with competitors is positively related to new product sales, others have found negative or insignicant relationships between this kind of collaboration and sales (Cassiman & Veugelers, 2002). Miotti and Sachwald discovered in their research study that collaboration with competitors is both rare and not signicant to NPD performance (Miotti & Sachwald, 2003). Because of the conicting ndings in the literature and the mainly positive arguments concerning collaboration among competitors, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 7. Collaboration with competitors in the NPD process has a positive but insignicant effect on NPD performance. Universities and their research institutes are a constant source of scientic knowledge creation and innovation. As research accelerates and grows increasingly expensive, industry tries to leverage academic knowledge specic to specialized technical support and equipment to complement internal R&D and gain access to emerging technologies (Tidd & Trewhella, 2002). According to Spencer (2003), rms that do not acquire technological knowledge from universities may fall behind and be less likely to make technological breakthroughs that lead to viable commercial products. Knowledge exchange with universities may be in the form of formal agreements based on stable relationships, like joint R&D projects, or they may be in the form of informal agreements that are more like sporadic interchanges (Cassiman & Veugelers, 2006; Segarra-Blasco & Arauzo-Carod, 2008). Universities are seen as low-risk sources of information that is especially useful for basic
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
259
and long-term strategic research, particularly in pre-competitive technologies. Moreover, Tether (2002) argues that co-operation with universities is likely to cost less than cooperation with other external partners, such as suppliers. However, while Tijssen (2002) and Narin, Hamilton and Olivastro (1997) nd that NPD increasingly depends on the results of basic university research, Laursen and Salter (2004) nd only a limited number of rms that draw directly from universities as a source of information or knowledge for their innovative activities. Therefore, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 8. Collaboration with universities in the NPD process has a positive effect on NPD performance. Independent experts, such as engineering consultancies, specialized start-up rms and public research institutes, are alternative knowledge sources that employ a large pool of distinguished technology specialists capable of generating new product ideas. These experts provide fundamental scientic and/or technological knowledge, applied knowledge and specialist skills (Tether, 2002). Referring to design consultants, Bruce and Morris (1998) argue that internal designers often become complacent and too familiar with the companys approaches and products and fail to provide innovative ideas, while external design consultants can provide fresh ideas. Bessant and Rush (1995) comment that consultants can provide a variety of inputs to the innovation process in roles that go beyond the traditional provision of expertise; they provide technical knowledge for tailored projects by acting as an additional workforce or by advising the rm on the product development process in general, and contribute to NPD by providing information about customer requirements, assisting in development and testing of prototypes, designing the new products, and assisting in diffusion of the new products (Alam, 2003; Knudsen, 2007). Even though the role of independent experts in NPD processes is still unclear and has been researched only to a limited degree, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 9. Collaboration with independent experts has a positive effect on NPD performance.
March to May 2009. We chose technologybased rms as our sample since they are considered more important in creating new wealth for society than are low-tech rms, and they better manifest the inuence of internal capabilities and strategic networking. The industries represented in the sample include the mechanical engineering and tool-making industry (29%); the electrical (14%), biotechnology and medical engineering (9%), automotive (7%), pharmaceutical and health care (5%) industries; and several other knowledgeintensive industries. The mailing list for the survey was obtained from company listings on the German Chamber for Industry and Commerce database. Since it is widely believed that top managers provide the best information about environmental and organizational characteristics, all surveys were directed to the chief executive ofcer (CEO) of the rm and to the manager of the R&D or marketing division. Each was given the alternative to participate via an online version of the survey or to take the pdf print-out version of the survey and send it back by post or fax. Yu and Cooper (1983) show that non-monetary incentives increase response rates, so we offered respondents the opportunity to receive a report on the ndings. One week after the rst mailing was dispatched, reminder mail was sent to those from whom no reply had been received, and a second and nal reminder was sent again one and a half weeks later. Altogether, 263 completed surveys were sent back, of which only nine responding rms had to be deleted because of missing information. This meant that 254 evaluable surveys remained. Most questionnaires (almost 60%) were completed by the CEO, followed by division and departmental managers of the marketing and distribution department and the R&D department. Some 23 per cent of the respondents answered by fax or post, and the rest participated in the online version of the survey. Most of the participating companies were established, internationally oriented companies with a focus on the business-to-business (B2B) customer segment. Further, 48 per cent were medium-sized rms (50500 employees), 34 per cent were small (150 employees), and 18 per cent were large (>500 employees).
Research Design
Sample and Data Collection
To validate the theoretical model empirically, we administered a survey to a sample of technology-based and knowledge-intensive German companies during the period from
Threats to Reliability and Countermeasures

We undertook additional steps to check the reliability and validity of our data. First, we used scale reordering, as suggested by Salancik and Pfeffer (1977), which reduces the sequencing effects of consistency by arranging the items on a self-reported questionnaire so that measures of the dependent variables follow,
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
260
rather than precede, those of the independent variables. We adopted this method by placing the NPD performance measure after all other latent variables and in front of the control variables. To analyse the data for non-response bias, online-ofine bias, and informant-bias, we applied the MannWhitney and Kolomogorov Smirnov tests, as recommended by Armstrong and Overton (1977). In the case of the non-response bias, we sorted the sample by response time and divided it into three groups (early, middle and late) to determine whether there are signicant differences between the average values of each indicator of the early and late respondents. t-Tests indicated no signicant differences (p > 0.05). To test the data for online-ofine bias, we compared the two groups of online and ofine replies. To identify the presence of informant bias, we compared the responses of CEOs with those of all other staff members and again detected no evidence of potential biases. The results indicated no evidence for any of the three potential biases. Since the data for this study were obtained from a single survey, common method variance was possible (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Lindell & Whitney, 2001), but Harmanss single-factor showed that (a) no single factor emerged from an exploratory factor analysis, and (b) no one general factor accounted for the majority of the covariance among the measures in the sample. Thus, there is sufcient reason to believe that there is no strong common method bias present in the data (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Venaik, Midgley & Devinney, 2005). A second test developed by Liang et al. (2007) was also used to seek out evidence of common method bias. Results demonstrated that the average substantively explained variance of the indicators is 0.811, while the average method-based variance is 0.003, making the ratio of substantive variance to method variance about 270:1. Further, most method factor loadings are not signicant so, given the small magnitude of method variance, there is no serious concern about a common method bias in this study (Williams, Edwards & Vandenberg, 2003; Liang et al., 2007).
Measures
To test the hypotheses suggested by the research model, measures of each construct were developed using multiple items and Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A comprehensive literature review helped to identify relevant concepts and previously operationalized scale items. Although some items were derived from existing validated scales, the items that
measure collaborative activities with external partners were developed specically for this study. After several iterations of item editing and renement, we conducted pre-test interviews with researchers and practitioners in order to identify any problems with question wording and questionnaire layout. These interviews yielded many useful suggestions that strengthened the content and validity of the research tools. We measured rms innovation culture using four latent variables: orientation towards technological innovation, learning orientation, willingness to take risks, and orientation towards future markets. Following Herrmann, Gassmann and Eisert (2007), we measured the rst variable, orientation towards technological innovation (a = 0.84), using six items that reect the willingness and proactivity of the rm in adopting and using new technologies in NPD. To capture the second variable, learning orientation (a = 0.86), we used four items from Hult, Ketchen and Arrfelt (2007) that detect the general view of the rm concerning the importance of learning and the willingness to learn continuously. The third variable, willingness to take risks (a = 0.89), was measured using ve items from Jaworski and Kohli that reect the rms approach to risk taking in NPD (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). Finally, orientation towards future markets and future customers (a = 0.78) was measured by ve items from Jaworski and Kohli (1993). Because of data limitations, Faems, Van Looy and Debackere (2005), Laursen and Salter (2006) and Tsai and Wang (2009) who, among others, investigated the open innovation phenomenon by analysing innovation survey data sets (CIS and TTIS) measured the involvement of external partners in the NPD process using single-item dummy variables. However, Laursen and Salter commented subsequently that future research should examine this issue by developing several negrained items for each of the knowledge sources (2006, p. 147). Tsai and Wang concluded that from a collaboration point of view, it would be more convincing to analyse the depth or closeness of partner collaboration (2009, p. 525). We followed these calls in our study and developed ve multi-item measures for ve external partners: customers, suppliers, competitors, universities and independent experts. These external partners are well represented in a variety of innovation surveys (e.g., CIS and TTIS) and are also discussed individually in several research studies. A broad literature review (Gruner & Homburg, 2000; Jones, Lanctot & Teegen, 2001; Swan & Allred, 2003; Atuahene-Gima, 2005; Fey, 2005; Koufteros, Vonderembse & Jayaram, 2005;
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
261
Laursen & Salter, 2006; Tsai & Wang, 2009) and several interviews with practitioners and researchers resulted in ve constructs, each with three to four items, that capture separately collaboration with customers (a = 0.85), suppliers (a = 0.90), competitors (a = 0.87), universities (a = 0.95) and independent experts (a = 0.93). All measures query how often and intensively the rm involves the external partner in its NPD process and how important the inter-exchange and integration is to the rm. The measurement scale for these items was a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 = fully disagree to 7 = fully agree. Following Grifn and Page (1993) and Zahra and Covin (1993), we operationalized product innovation performance (a = 0.91) by measuring the frequency of market launches of new products, the innovation publicity generated by the rm, the degree of novelty of new products and the percentage that new products represent in the product portfolio and in the sales volume. Respondents were asked to draw a comparison with major competitors. Unlike a number of researchers (Shan, Walker & Kogut, 1994; Ahuja, 2000; Stuart, 2000; Nicholls-Nixon & Woo, 2003), we decided against measuring innovative outcome via patent output since, in our view, patents do not measure a rms ability to bring new products (innovations) to market successfully but only to invent products and technologies (Manseld, 1986; Deeds & Hill, 1996). All the scales used are listed in the Appendix. We controlled for several variables that may inuence the overall research model: rm size, rm age, market, industry type and strategy. The size of the rm is measured by the number of full-time employees, which has been a proxy for size in previous studies related to innovation and rm performance (Caloghirou et al., 2004; Schoenmakers & Duysters, 2006). We controlled for rm size since previous studies have shown that the number of employees is highly correlated with the propensity of a rm to co-operate with external partners in R&D (Bayona, Garcia-Marco & Huerta, 2001; Fritsch & Lukas, 2001). Firm age was measured in years since foundation. We controlled for rm age since the age of a company may predict the experience it has in collaborating with external partners. The control variable market measures whether the largest market of the rm is local, regional, national or international (Kitchell, 1995; Laursen & Salter, 2006). The variable takes values from 1 to 4, with 1 corresponding to local and 4 corresponding to international. Further, we included 13 industry controls to account for differences in the propensity to innovate across industries. Finally, the survey briey described the cost leadership and
differentiation strategies and respondents were asked to verify the dominant strategy type of their rms (Govindarajan & Fisher, 1990). We controlled for the rms leading strategy type since it may prevent or benet rms co-operation with external partners (Miotti & Sachwald, 2003).
Measurement Reliability and Validity

Discriminant validity was tested by running a conrmatory factor analysis for each construct in the framework. To stabilize the indicator reliability, all items with factor loadings of less than 0.7 were dropped (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), although in two exceptional cases (willingness to take risks, future market orientation) the threshold of 0.6 was used to drop items (Hulland, 1999). To assess construct reliability, we calculated and analysed the composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct; Bagozzi and Yi (1988) recommend threshold values of 0.7 for CR and 0.5 for AVE. We also examined the Cronbachs alpha for each construct based on Nunnallys (1979) recommendation of a threshold alpha value of 0.7. The factor loadings, CR, AVE and Cronbachs alpha of each construct met the requirements. Table 1 summarizes the results. Finally, the FornellLarcker Criterion was tested by analysing the squared correlation between each pair of factors to determine whether they are below the average variance extracted (AVE), and results support discriminant validity. Several positive and statistically signicant correlations between collaboration indicators and internal capabilities suggest that internal capabilities can help the collaborative activities and vice versa. Also notable are positive and statistically signicant correlations among collaboration indicators. Table 2 provides the correlations, means and standard deviations of all variables.
Results
Goodness of Fit Measures
Our hypotheses were tested using causal modelling by means of the covariance-based structural equation method AMOS. The overall goodness of t indices indicate that the hypothesized models are good representations of the structures underlying the data (Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996). The t indices are as follows: relative chi-square (c2/ df) = 1.64, comparative t index (CFI) = 0.96, normalized t index (NFI) = 0.90, Tucker Lewis Coefcient (TLI) = 0.95, goodness-oft index (GFI) = 0.86, adjusted goodness of t (AGFI) = 0.82, root mean square error of
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
262
Table 1. Conrmatory Factor Analysis of Major Constructs Factor Number of items Range of parameter estimates Cronbachs alpha Composite reliability (CR) Average variance extracted (AVE)
Innovation culture Orientation towards tech. inn. Learning orientation Willingness to take risks Future market orientation Collaboration with . . . . . . Customers . . . Suppliers . . . Competitors . . . Universities . . . Independent experts NPD performance
6 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 5
0.730.86 0.720.92 0.660.93 0.640.81 0.740.83 0.750.94 0.870.89 0.930.97 0.870.94 0.750.95
0.84 0.86 0.89 0.78 0.85 0.89 0.87 0.96 0.95 0.91
0.91 0.91 0.93 0.87 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.98 0.96 0.94
0.76 0.78 0.76 0.69 0.76 0.83 0.89 0.93 0.87 0.84
Table 2. Pearson Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations (N = 254)a

1 Collaboration with . . . . . . Customers . . . Suppliers . . . Competitors . . . Universities . . . Independent experts Orientation tow. techn. innovation Learning orientation Willingness to take risks Future market orientation NPD performance Means S.D. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.87 0.34** -0.002 0.33** 0.26** 0.48** 0.42** 0.35** 0.15* 0.42** 5.18 1.32
0.91 0.11 0.24** 0.32** 0.26** 0.25** 0.26** 0.22** 0.30** 4.53 1.51
0.94 0.11 0.19** 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.12 0.00** 3.59 2.29
0.96 0.52** 0.31** 0.25** 0.25** 0.28** 0.28** 3.67 2.08
0.93 0.20** 0.14* 0.28** 0.26** 0.20** 3.32 1.71
0.87 0.56** 0.50** 0.25** 0.61** 5.06 1.31 0.88 0.40** 0.25** 0.49** 5.67 1.16
0.87 0.30** 0.50** 4.81 1.33
0.83 0.32** 3.69 1.29 0.92 4.24 1.45
a Square roots of AVE are listed on the matrix diagonal. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.08.
Hypothesis Testing
Although the model was calculated en bloc using covariance-based structural equation modelling, we display the results in two tables (Tables 3 and 4) and discuss them in terms of the two parts of the model (innovation culture
to collaboration and collaboration to performance). Table 3 shows the results of hypothesis testing of the rst part of the model, which relates innovation culture with the rms collaboration activities with external partners in the context of NPD: only nine of the 20 hypothesized relationships are supported. Hypotheses H1aH1e suggest that orientation towards technological innovation is positively related to collaboration with all observed external
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
263
Table 3. Results of Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, First Part of the Research Model Hypothesis Description of path Path coefcient and signicance Result
H1a H1b H1c H1d H1e H2a H2b H2c H2d H2e H3a H3b H3c H3d H3e H4a H4b H4c H4d H4e
Collaboration with . . . 0.431 **** OtTIa . . . Customers OtTI . . . Suppliers 0.133 n.s. OtTI . . . Competitors 0.110 n.s. OtTI . . . Universities 0.606 *** OtTI . . . Independent experts 0.317 ** Collaboration with . . . 0.207 ** LOb . . . Customers LO . . . Suppliers 0.102 n.s. LO . . . Competitors -0.115 n.s. LO . . . Universities -0.126 n.s. LO . . . Independent experts -0.259 * Collaboration with.. 0.115 * WttRc . . . Customers WttR . . . Suppliers 0.104 n.s. WttR . . . Competitors 0.016 n.s. WttR . . . Universities 0.016 n.s. WttR . . . Independent experts 0.201 * Collaboration with.. 0.044 n.s. FMOd . . . Customers FMO . . . Suppliers 0.238 **** FMO . . . Competitors 0.112 n.s. FMO . . . Universities 0.601 **** FMO . . . Independent experts 0.493 ****
Supported Not Supported Not Supported Supported Supported Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Supported Not Supported Supported Not Supported Supported Supported
* p < 0.10. ** p < 0.05. *** p < 0.01. **** p < 0.001 (one-tailed). a OtTI = Orientation towards technological innovation, b LO = Learning orientation, c WttR =Willingness to take risks, d FMO = Future market orientation.
Table 4. Results of Covariance-based Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, Second Part of the Research Model Hypothesis Despription of path Path coefcient and signicance Result
H5 H6 H7 H8 H9
Collaboration with . . . . . . Customers NPD performance . . . Suppliers NPD performance . . . Competitors NPD performance . . . Universities NPD performance . . . Indep. Experts NPD performance
0.455 0.148 0.006 0.068 -0.001
**** ** n.s. * n.s.
Supported Supported Supported Supported Not supported
* p < 0.10. ** p < 0.05. *** p < 0.01. **** p < 0.001 (one-tailed).
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
264
partners. With parameter estimates signicant at the 0.001, 0.01 and 0.05 levels, hypotheses H1a, H1d and H1e which posit that orientation towards technological innovation is positively related to collaboration with customers, universities and independent experts are supported, whereas hypotheses H1b and H1c which relate orientation towards technological innovation with collaboration activities with suppliers and competitors are not. Regarding hypotheses H2aH2e, which propose that learning orientation leads to collaborative activities with all ve external partners only one hypothesis, H2a, which relates learning orientation with customer collaboration, is supported. Regarding the rms willingness to take risks, two hypotheses, H3a and H3e which suggest that a rms willingness to take risks leads to collaborative activities with customers and independent experts are supported by parameter estimates signicant at the 0.1 level, but H3b H3d are not. Finally, a rms future market orientation turned out to be signicantly and positively (0.001) related to collaboration with suppliers, universities and independent experts, but not to collaboration with customers and independent experts. Table 4 displays the results of hypothesis testing of the second part of the model, which relates collaboration with external partners in the context of NPD with NPD performance. Four of the ve hypothesized relationships are supported. Hypotheses H5, H6 and H8 suggest that collaboration with customers, suppliers and universities is positively related to NPD performance; with parameter estimates signicant at the 0.001, 0.05, and 0.1 levels, these three hypotheses are supported and indicate that customer involvement inuences NPD performance most, followed by the involvement of suppliers and universities. By yielding a positive but insignicant path coefcient for the relationship between collaboration with competitors and NPD performance, the results further verify H7. However, H9, which relates collaboration with independent experts to NPD performance, is not supported; although parameter estimates are positive, they are not signicant.
Discussion and Implications

Based on the resource-based view (RBV) of the rm and Kitchells (1995) innovation adoption model, this study empirically investigates the effect of a rms innovation culture on its behaviour to collaborate with external partners in the process of NPD. We considered innovation culture an intangible strategic resource
and measured it using four variables: orientation towards technological innovation, learning orientation, willingness to take risks and future market orientation. We also analysed the impact on NPD performance of collaboration with ve different types of external partners. We empirically validated our research model using a sample of 254 technology-based rms and covariance-based SEM with AMOS. Our analyses conrmed several of the hypotheses presented, but not all. The following discussion addresses these results and outlines the academic and practical implications for researchers and managers. Our results indicate that a rms orientation towards technological innovation has a signicant and positive relationship to a rms collaborative activities with customers, universities and independent experts. This result suggests that these external partners are important sources of knowledge for rms that consider technological innovation a strategically important task and that want to keep up with new technological trends by inventing and rening superior products (Atuahene-Gima & Ko, 2001). Collaboration with customers may help rms determine which kinds of technologies are needed for future innovations, and collaboration with universities may allow rms to keep up to date with the latest technological developments. For their part, independent experts such as engineering ofces and independent research institutes may help rms to conceptualize and implement certain innovative product ideas. Although suppliers are discussed in the literature as important sources of knowledge for product design, quality improvement, improved cycle time and cost reduction (Ragatz, Handeld & Petersen, 2002; Song & Thieme, 2009), our analysis shows that a rms orientation towards technological innovation is not related to collaborative activities with suppliers. This result may be explained if rms contact suppliers to implement technological innovations and new ideas or to improve the current status of products and product development processes, but do not expect their suppliers to provide them with technological innovations. The results of this study also reveal that a rms learning orientation and willingness to take risks have a marginal positive association with collaboration with customers and independent experts (0.10.05). This result suggests that rms consider customers and independent experts the most important partners from whom to learn in the context of NPD, and that rms are willing to take on the risks associated with these collaborative activities. On the other hand, learning orientation and willingness to take risks are not related to the willingness to
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
265
collaborate with suppliers, universities or competitors. Future research is recommended to verify this nding. Finally, a rms orientation toward future markets has a signicant positive relationship to collaboration with suppliers, universities and independent experts. This result suggests that rms that intend to invest in the development of products and technologies for future customers expect important inputs from the interchange with these external partners. This nding is in line with several ndings in the literature (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2007; Tether & Tajar, 2008; Song & Thieme, 2009). While Song and Thieme (2009) nd that suppliers are an important source from which to gather market intelligence, Spencer (2001) emphasizes the relevance of published universitybased research for corporate R&D in the US, and Alam (2003) points to independent experts, such as engineering consultants, as a rich source of valuable new product ideas. However, a rms orientation toward future markets is not related to customer and competitor involvement in NPD, suggesting that rms do not expect stimuli for new or signicantly modied product ideas from collaboration with their buyers and competing companies. Future research is necessary to investigate this nding further. Our results reveal that rms that have a heterogeneous network of collaborative partners perform better in terms of sales turnover of new or improved products. However, not all of the ve external partners we observed signicantly contribute to NPD performance. Results show that collaboration with customers is positively and signicantly related to NPD performance, conrming that customers are an important source of knowledge for rms in the process of NPD. This nding is in line with ndings of several other researchers (Von Hippel, 1986; Souder, Buisson & Garrett, 1997; Gruner & Homburg, 2000). Customer involvement helps rms to understand customers needs and to align their products to those needs (Brockhoff, 2003), reducing product inadequacies and making NPD processes more efcient. In comparison with the involvement of other external partners, customer involvement turned out to have the strongest effect on NPD performance. As a result, customer involvement can lead to more application-oriented development projects with shorter time horizons, less risk and lower investments (Knudsen, 2007). Still, customers should not be the only external partner because the development of new products that satisfy specialized customer needs may represent the needs of only one particular and narrowly dened customer group (e.g., lead users) and ignore the needs of other
current and potential customers (Bonner & Walker, 2004). In addition, Thomke and Von Hippel (2002) remark that, even when customers know precisely what they want, they often cannot express that information to manufacturers clearly or completely. Consequently, NPD collaboration with customers needs to be carried out carefully. Collaboration with suppliers also has a signicantly positive impact on NPD performance. Although they are the second most important external partners, suppliers are highly engaged in the enhancement of their own products; however, because they hold a large amount of technological knowledge in their elds, collaborative activities with them help rms to update their products to the best available technology and to ensure that new product ideas are producible (Primo & Amundson, 2002). Moreover, long-term mutual relationships, which are often coupled with geographic proximity, favour supplier involvement (Wasti & Liker, 1997), so collaboration with suppliers provides a valuable source of knowledge and can help technologybased rms improve their NPD performance. Nevertheless, rms must always bear in mind the importance of protecting sensitive knowledge and avoid developing serious dependency when collaborating with suppliers (Doz, 1996). Universities, particularly science and academic research institutions, are an important factor in the development of major innovations (Rosenberg & Nelson, 1994), so it is not surprising that collaboration with universities also contributes signicantly to NPD performance. Cohen, Nelson and Walsh (2002) analyse the channels of knowledge transfer between public research organizations and innovative rms and nd that universities can play two particularly important roles: suggesting new ideas and helping to complete foundering projects. Integrating universities into NPD processes provides rms with access to the latest research, technological developments and advisory services in R&D. However, compared to collaboration with suppliers, more effort is likely to be required to ensure clear communication through bureaucratic structures, so universities are best suited to strategic, long-term R&D partnerships. While collaboration with customers, suppliers and universities (in that order) have positive effects on NPD, our results show that collaboration with competitors and independent experts does not contribute signicantly to NPD performance. The risks associated with collaboration among competitors may result in the use of such partnerships in only rare and exceptional cases (e.g., Miotti & Sach-
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
266
wald, 2003). Collaboration with independent experts, such as engineering consultants, is usually undertaken in order to solve highly specic and tangible problems (Bessant & Rush, 1995), so the involvement of experts does not necessarily contribute to rms general performance in innovation. However, since researchers have recently found that independent experts are a rich source of new product ideas of potential commercial value (Alam, 2003; Tether & Tajar, 2008), rms are advised to exploit this knowledge source in their NPD processes. Future research should make further inquiries in this context.
Limitations and Future Research Opportunities

Like every empirical study, this research has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the construct of innovation culture and its relationship to rms innovation adoption behaviour needs to be investigated further. The current research took the rst step in analysing the correlation between culture and openness, but there is still much more in-depth research needed to understand this correlation fully. Therefore, the model developed for this study should be tested in different settings (e.g., in additional industries and countries) as well as with other measurements of innovation culture. Second, we did not differentiate the type or phase of product innovation, although it is reasonable to assume that different external partners contribute differently to NPD performance depending on the type and phase of the innovation (e.g., idea generation, design, construction, incremental vs. radical innovation, etc.). In order to elucidate the contribution of each knowledge source to the process of NPD, future research should break the innovation side of the model into type and phase to analyse this aspect of the relationship. Third, the literature based on dynamic capability theory and organizational learning perspectives suggests that the form of collaboration undertaken by a rm depends on the difculty of the learning environment and the complexity associated with knowledge development and transfer (Teece & Pisano, 1994; Nagarajan & Mitchell, 1998). Thus, different types of collaborative activities (e.g., formal vs. informal, equity-based vs. non-equity based, long term vs. short term) may be appropriate in different situations, but we did not investigate this aspect of the question. Fourth, we did not consider moderating effects in our research, although environmental inuences (e.g., technological, market and competitive dynamism)
may inuence the causality of the model. Fifth, although the sample includes a wide range of high-technology industries, the data are limited to one country and to technologybased industries. This limitation may put boundaries on the generalizability of the results, so future research that considers the relationships examined here in terms of a variety of international rms and industries in other kinds of settings is necessary before results can be generalized with any condence. Sixth, future research may extend the ve external knowledge sources investigated in this study to include other classes, such as trade fairs, technology transfer centres or incubators. Finally, additional work and the application of other methods may validate the linear relationship between collaborative activities and NPD performance (Pek et al., 2009). Despite these limitations, we believe that our research contributes to the present literature on collaboration and provides several practical and actionable suggestions for researchers and managers in the eld of new product development.
References
Ahuja, G. (2000) The Duality of Collaboration: Inducements and Opportunities in the Formation of Interrm Linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 31743. Alam, I. (2003) Commercial Innovations from Consulting Engineering Firms: An Empirical Exploration of a Novel Source of New Product Ideas. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, 300 13. Almirall, E. and Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010) Open versus Closed Innovation: A Model of Discovery ad Divergence. Academy of Management Review, 35, 2747. Argyris, C. and Schn, D.A. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA. Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977) Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396402. Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005) Resolving the Capability Rigidity Paradox in New Product Innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69, 6183. Atuahene-Gima, K. and Ko, A. (2001) An Empirical Investigation of the Effect of Market Orientation and Entrepreneurship Orientation Alignment on Product Innovation. Organization Science, 12, 5474. Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988) On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing, 16, 7494. Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (1999) Learning Orientation, Market Orientation, and Innovation: Integrating and Extending Models of Organizational Performance. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4, 295308.
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
267
Barney, J. (1986) Organizational Culture Can it be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11, 65665. Barney, J. (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99120. Baumgartner, H. and Homburg, C. (1996) Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing and Consumer Research: A Review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 13961. Bayona, C., Garcia-Marco, T. and Huerta, E. (2001) Firms Motivations for Cooperative R&D: An Empirical Analysis of Spanish Firms. Research Policy, 30, 1289307. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B. and Veugelers, R. (2004) Heterogeneity in R&D Cooperation Strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22, 123763. Belderbos, R., Carree, M. and Lokshin, B. (2004) Cooperative R&D and Firm Performance. Research Policy, 33, 147792. Bercovitz, J.E.L. and Feldman, M.P. (2007) Fishing Upstream: Firm Innovation Strategy and University Research Alliances. Research Policy, 36, 930 48. Berthon, P., Hulbert, J.M. and Pitt, L.F. (1999) To Serve or Create? Strategic Orientations toward Customers and Innovation. California Management Review, 42, 3758. Bessant, J. and Rush, H. (1995) Building Bridges for Innovation The Role of Consultants in Technology-Transfer. Research Policy, 24, 97114. Bonner, J.M. and Walker, O.C. (2004) Selecting Inuential Business-to-Business Customers in New Product Development: Relational Embeddedness and Knowledge Heterogeneity Considerations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 155 69. Brockhoff, K. (2003) Customers Perspectives of Involvement in New Product Development. International Journal of Technology Management, 26, 46481. Bruce, M. and Morris, B. (1998) In-House, Outsourced of a Mixed Approach to Design. In Bruce, M. and Jevnaker, B.H. (eds.), Management of Design Alliances, Sustaining Competitive Advantage. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 3969. Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Zhao, Y. (2002) Learning Orientation, Firm Innovation Capability, and Firm Performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 51524. Caloghirou, Y., Protogerou, A., Spanos, Y. and Papagiannakis, L. (2004) Industry- versus FirmSpecic Effects on Performance: Contrasting SMEs and Large-Sized Firms. European Management Journal, 22, 23143. Capon, N., Farley, J.U., Lehmann, D.R. and Hulbert, J.M. (1992) Proles of Product Innovators among Large US Manufacturers. Management Science, 38, 15769. Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R. (2002) R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, 92, 116984. Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R. (2006) In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal
R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition. Management Science, 52, 6882. Chandy, R.K. and Tellis, G.J. (1998) Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 47487. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) The Era of Open Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 3541. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. and Walsh, J.P. (2002) Links and Impacts: The Inuence of Public Research on Industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 123. Crampton, S.M. and Wagner, J.A. (1994) PerceptPercept Ination in Microorganizational Research An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 6776. Day, G.S. (1994) The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58, 3752. de Brentani, U. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2004) Corporate Culture and Commitment: Impact on Performance of International New Product Development Programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 30933. Deeds, D.L. and Hill, C.W.L. (1996) Strategic Alliances and the Rate of New Product Development: An Empirical Study of Entrepreneurial Biotechnology Firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 4155. Deshpand, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. (1993) Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms A Quadrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57, 2327. Doz, Y.L. (1996) The Evolution of Cooperation in Strategic Alliances: Initial Conditions or Learning Processes? Strategic Management Journal, 17, 5583. Dyer, J.H. (1996) Specialized Supplier Networks as a Source of Competitive Advantage: Evidence from the Auto Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 271291. Faems, D., Van Looy, B. and Debackere, K. (2005) Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 23850. Fey, C.F. (2005) External Sources of Knowledge, Governance Mode, and R&D Performance. Journal of Management, 31, 597621. Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985) Organizational Learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 80313. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950. Freel, M.S. (2003) Sectoral Patterns of Small Firm Innovation, Networking and Proximity. Research Policy, 32, 75170. Fritsch, M. and Lukas, R. (2001) Who Cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, 30, 297312. Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.M. (1997) Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 7790. Godfrey, P.C. and Hill, C.W.L. (1995) The Problem of Unobservables in Strategic Management Research. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 519 33. Govindarajan, V. and Fisher, J. (1990) Strategy, Control Systems, and Resource Sharing: Effects
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
268
on Business-Unit Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 25985. Grifn, A. and Page, A.L. (1993) An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success and Failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 291308. Grindley, P.C. and Teece, D.J. (1997) Managing Intellectual Capital: Licensing and CrossLicensing in Semiconductors and Electronics. California Management Review, 39, 840. Gruner, K.E. and Homburg, C. (2000) Does Customer Interaction Enhance New Product Success? Journal of Business Research, 49, 114. Gupta, A.K. and Wilemon, D.L. (1990) Accelerating the Development of Technology-Based New Products. California Management Review, 32, 24 53. Hagedoorn, J. (1993) Understanding the Rationale of Strategic Technology Partnering: Interorganizational Modes of Cooperation and Sectoral Differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 371385. Hagedoorn, J. and Duysters, G. (2002) External Sources of Innovative Capabilities: The Preferences for Strategic Alliances or Mergers and Acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 16788. Hkansson, H. and Eriksson, A.-K. (1993) Getting Innovations Out of Supplier Networks. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 1, 316. Herrmann, A., Gassmann, O. and Eisert, U. (2007) An Empirical Study of the Antecedents for Radical Product Innovations and Capabilities for Transformation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24, 92120. Hise, R.T., Futrell, C. and Snyder, D. (1980) University Research Centers as a New Product Development Resource. Research Management, 23, 2528. Howells, J., James, A. and Malik, K. (2003) The Sourcing of Technological Knowledge: Distributed Innovation Processes and Dynamic Change. R&D Management, 33, 395409. Hulland, J. (1999) Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Four Recent Studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195204. Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. and Arrfelt, M. (2007) Strategic Supply Chain Management: Improving Performance through a Culture of Competitiveness and Knowledge Development. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 103552. Hurley, R.F. and Hult, G.T.M. (1998) Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 4254. Hynes, N. (2009) Corporate Culture, Strategic Orientation, and Business Performance: New Approaches to Modeling Complex Relationships. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 64451. Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993) Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 5370. Jones, G.K., Lanctot, A. and Teegen, H.J. (2001) Determinants and Performance Impacts of External Technology Acquisition. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 25583.
Kessler, E.H., Bierly, P.E. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000) Internal vs. External Learning in New Product Development: Effects on Speed, Costs and Competitive Advantage. R&D Management, 30, 21323. Ketchen, D.J., Hult, G.T.M. and Slater, S.F. (2007) Toward Greater Understanding of Market Orientation and the Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 9614. Kitchell, S. (1995) Corporate Culture, Environmental Adaptation, and Innovation Adoption: A Qualitative/Quantitative Approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 195205. Knudsen, M.P. (2007) The Relative Importance of Interrm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 11738. Koberg, C.S. and Chusmir, L.H. (1987) Organizational Culture Relationships with Creativity and other Job-Related Variables. Journal of Business Research, 15, 397409. Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990) Market Orientation The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 118. Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M. and Jayaram, J. (2005) Internal and External Integration for Product Development: The Contingency Effect of Uncertainty, Equivocality, and Platform Strategy. Decision Sciences, 36, 97133. Kratzer, J., Gemunden, H.G. and Lettl, C. (2011) The Organizational Design of Large R&D Collaborations and Its Effect on Time and Budget Efciency: The Contrast between Blueprints and Reality. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58, 295306. Kuczmarski, T. (1998) The Ten Traits of an Innovation Mindset. Journal for Quality & Participation, 21, 4446. Lambe, C.J. and Spekman, R.E. (1997) Alliances, External Technology Acquisition, and Discontinuous Technological Change. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 10216. Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2004) Searching High and Low: What Types of Firms Use Universities as a Source of Innovation? Research Policy, 33, 120115. Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2006) Open for Innovation: The Role of Openness in Explaining Innovation Performance among UK Manufacturing Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 13150. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 11125. Li, T. and Calantone, R.J. (1998) The Impact of Market Knowledge Competence on New Product Advantage: Conceptualization and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 1329. Liang, H.G., Saraf, N., Hu, Q. and Xue, Y.J. (2007) Assimilation of Enterprise Systems: The Effect of Institutional Pressures and the Mediating Role of Top Management. MIS Quarterly, 31, 5987. Lichtenthaler, U. (2011) Open Innovation: Past Research, Current Debates, and Future Directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 7593.
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
269
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001) Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 11421. Linn, T.A. (1994) Learning from the Competition. Journal of Accountancy, 177, 4346. Lf, H. and Heshmati, A. (2002) Knowledge Capital and Performance Heterogeneity: A FirmLevel Innovation Study. International Journal of Production Economics, 76, 6185. McGill, J.P. (2007) Technological Knowledge and Governance in Alliances among Competitors. International Journal of Technology Management, 38, 6989. Manseld, E. (1986) Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study. Management Science, 32, 17381. Miotti, L. and Sachwald, F. (2003) Co-operative R&D: Why and with Whom? An Integrated Framework of Analysis. Research Policy, 32, 148199. Monjon, S. and Waelbroeck, P. (2003) Assessing Spillovers from Universities to Firms: Evidence from French Firm-Level Data. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 125570. Nagarajan, A. and Mitchell, W. (1998) Evolutionary Diffusion: Internal and External Methods Used to Acquire Encompassing, Complementary, and Incremental Technological Changes in the Lithotripsy Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 106377. Narin, F., Hamilton, K.S. and Olivastro, D. (1997) The Increasing Linkage between US Technology and Public Science. Research Policy, 26, 31730. Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990) The Effect of Market Orientation on Business Protability. Journal of Marketing, 54, 2035. Nicholls-Nixon, C.L. and Woo, C.Y. (2003) Technology Sourcing and Output of Established Firms in a Regime of Encompassing Technological Change. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 65166. Nieto, M.J. and Santamaria, L. (2007) The Importance of Diverse Collaborative Networks for the Novelty of Product Innovation. Technovation, 27, 36777. Nunnally, J.C. (1979) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York. OCass, A. and Ngo, L.V. (2007) Market Orientation versus Innovative Culture: Two Routes to Superior Brand Performance. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 86887. Pek, J., Sterba, S.K., Kok, B.E. and Bauer, D.J. (2009) Estimating and Visualizing Nonlinear Relations among Latent Variables: A Semiparametric Approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 40736. Perks, H. and Easton, G. (2000) Strategic Alliances: Partner as Customer. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 32738. Podsakoff, N. and Organ, D. (1986) Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 53144. Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. and SmithDoerr, L. (1996) Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 11645. Primo, M.A.M. and Amundson, S.D. (2002) An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Supplier
Relationships on New Product Development Outcomes. Journal of Operations Management, 20, 3352. Ragatz, G.L., Handeld, R.B. and Scannell, T.V. (1997) Success Factors for Integrating Suppliers into New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 190202. Ragatz, G.L., Handeld, R.B. and Petersen, K.J. (2002) Benets Associated with Supplier Integration into New Product Development under Conditions of Technology Uncertainty. Journal of Business Research, 55, 389400. Rosenberg, N. and Nelson, R.R. (1994) American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry. Research Policy, 23, 32348. Rothaermel, F.T. and Hess, A.M. (2007) Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects. Organization Science, 18, 898921. Saffold III, G.S. (1988) Culture Traits, Strength, and Organizational Performance: Moving beyond Strong Culture. Academy of Management Review, 13, 54658. Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1977) Examination of Need-Satisfaction Models of Job Attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 42756. Salomo, S., Steinhoff, F. and Trommsdorff, V. (2003) Customer Orientation in Innovation Projects and New Product Development Success The Moderating Effect of Product Innovativeness. International Journal of Technology Management, 26, 44263. Santoro, M.D. and Betts, S.C. (2002) Making Industry-University Partnerships Work. ResearchTechnology Management, 45, 4246. Schein, E.H. (1996) Culture: The Missing Concept in Organization Studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 22940. Schoenmakers, W. and Duysters, G. (2006) Learning in Strategic Technology Alliances. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18, 24564. Segarra-Blasco, A. and Arauzo-Carod, J.-M. (2008) Sources of Innovation and Industry-University Interaction: Evidence from Spanish Firms. Research Policy, 37, 128395. Shan, W.J., Walker, G. and Kogut, B. (1994) Interrm Cooperation and Startup Innovation in the Biotechnology Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 38794. Sitkin, S.B. and Pablo, A.L. (1992) Reconceptualizing the Determinants of Risk Behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17, 938. Song, M. and Thieme, J. (2009) The Role of Suppliers in Market Intelligence Gathering for Radical and Incremental Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 4357. Souder, W.E., Buisson, D. and Garrett, T. (1997) Success through Customer-Driven New Product Development: A Comparison of US and New Zealand Small Entrepreneurial High Technology Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 45972. Spencer, J.W. (2001) How Relevant is UniversityBased Scientic Research to Private HighTechnology Firms? A United StatesJapan Comparison. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 43240.
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
270
Spencer, J.W. (2003) Firms Knowledge-Sharing Strategies in the Global Innovation System: Empirical Evidence from the Flat Panel Display Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 217 33. Stuart, T.E. (2000) Interorganizational Alliances and the Performance of Firms: A Study of Growth and Innovation Rates in a High-Technology Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 791811. Swan, K.S. and Allred, B.B. (2003) A Product and Process Model of the Technology-Sourcing Decision. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, 48596. Teece, D.J. (1986) Proting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing, and Public Policy. In Essays in Technology Management and Policy: Selected Papers of David J. Teece. World Scientic, Hackensack, NJ. Teece, D.J. (1992) Competition, Cooperation, and Innovation Organizational Arrangements for Regimes of Rapid Technological Progress. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 18, 125. Teece, D.J. and Pisano, G. (1994) The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: An Introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 53756. Tether, B.S. (2002) Who Co-operates for Innovation, and Why: An Empirical Analysis. Research Policy, 31, 94767. Tether, B.S. and Tajar, A. (2008) Beyond Industry University Links: Sourcing Knowledge for Innovation from Consultants, Private Research Organisations and the Public Science-Base. Research Policy, 37, 107995. Thomke, S. and Von Hippel, E. (2002) Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value. Harvard Business Review, 80, 7481. Tidd, J. and Trewhella, M.J. (2002) Organizational and Technological Antecedents for Knowledge Acquisition and Learning. R&D Management, 27, 35975. Tijssen, R.J.W. (2002) Science Dependence of Technologies: Evidence from Inventions and their Inventors. Research Policy, 31, 50926. Tomes, A., Armstrong, P. and Clark, M. (1996) User Groups in Action: The Management of User Inputs in the NPD Process. Technovation, 16, 54151. Tsai, K.H. (2009) Collaborative Networks and Product Innovation Performance: Toward a Contingency Perspective. Research Policy, 38, 76578. Tsai, K.H. and Wang, J.C. (2009) External Technology Sourcing and Innovation Performance in LMT Sectors: An Analysis based on the Taiwanese Technological Innovation Survey. Research Policy, 38, 51826. Urban, G.L. and Von Hippel, E. (1988) Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products. Management Science, 34, 56982. Van Echtelt, F.E.A., Wynstra, F., Van Weele, A.J. and Duysters, G. (2008) Managing Supplier Involvement in New Product Development: A Multiple-Case Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 180201. Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G. and Noorderhaven, N. (2002) External Technology Sourcing through
Alliances or Acquisitions: An Analysis of the Application-Specic Integrated Circuits Industry. Organization Science, 13, 71433. Venaik, S., Midgley, D.F. and Devinney, T.M. (2005) Dual Paths to Performance: The Impact of Global Pressures on MNC Subsidiary Conduct and Performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 65575. Veugelers, R. (1998) Collaboration in R&D: An Assessment of Theoretical and Empirical Findings. Economist-Netherlands, 146, 41943. Von Hippel, E. (1986) Lead Users A Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science, 32, 791805. Voss, C.A. (1985) The Role of Users in the Development of Applications Software. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2, 11321. Wasti, S.N. and Liker, J.K. (1997) Risky Business or Competitive Power? Supplier Involvement in Japanese Product Design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 33755. Wernerfelt, B. (1984) A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171 80. Williams, L.J., Edwards, J.R. and Vandenberg, R.J. (2003) Recent Advances in Causal Modeling Methods for Organizational and Management Research. Journal of Management, 29, 90336. Worren, N., Moore, K. and Cardona, P. (2002) Modularity, Strategic Flexibility, and Firm Performance: A Study of the Home Appliance Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 112340. Yu, J. and Cooper, H. (1983) A Quantitative Review of Research Design Effects on Response Rates to Questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 3644. Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.G. (1993) Business Strategy, Technology Policy and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 45178.
Malte Brettel is Professor of Entrepreneurship at the RWTH Aachen University, Germany. He researches in Entrepreneurial Strategies and Innovation, and has published in journals such as Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Journal of Business Research, Management Decision, and International Journal of Strategic Management. Nina J. Cleven (cleven@win.rwthaachen.de) studied at the RWTH Aachen University, Germany, where she graduated with a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and Business Administration. Today she is a PhD student at the faculty of business and economics at the RWTH Aachen University. Her research interests are innovation management, technology and knowledge transfer and strategic networks in new product development.
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
271
Appendix
Table A1. Measurement Scales Innovation culture Orientation towards technological innovation (adapted from Herrmann, Gassmann & Eisert, 2007, a = 0.84) 1. We often use innovative technologies in the new product development. 2. Our products always reect state-of-the-art technology.* 3. We are very proactive in the development and deployment of new technologies. 4. Relative to our competitors, our development programs and new products are technologically more ambitious.* 5. We are very proactive in the construction of new technological solutions to serve the customers needs. 6. We always rank among the rst to use a new technology for new product development.* Learning orientation (adapted from Hult, Ketchen & Arrfelt, 2007, a = 0.86) 1. The willingness to learn is the key in the process of new product development. 2. The basic requirement for static improvement of our new product development processes is our willingness to learn. 3. In our view employee learning is an investment not an expense.* 4. General consensus in this company is that once we quit learning we endanger our future. Willingness to take risks (adapted from Jaworski & Kohli, 1993, a = 0.89) 1. To bring innovative products on the market we do not avoid taking risks in the development process. 2. We are convinced that it makes sense to take nancial risks to increase prots.* 3. We favour and support the development of innovative products, knowing well that some will fail. 4. We agree that it is necessary to take risks in the context of new product development. 5. We accept that new products occasionally fail. Future market orientation (adapted from Jaworski & Kohli, 1993, a = 0.78) 1. Compared to our major competitors we place more emphasis on customers of the future, as opposed to existing customers. 2. We search purposefully for new areas of applications for our (new) products.* 3. Our market research efforts are aimed at obtaining information about customers needs in the future, relative to their current needs. 4. It is easy for us to promptly detect shifts in our markets.* 5. The search for new markets has a higher priority for us than the expansion of our business activity in existing markets. (1 = fully disagree and 7 = fully agree) Collaboration with external partners in the NPD process Involvement of customers (new scale, a = 0.85) 1. We maintain regular communication with our customers with the aim to incorporate gained information directly into our product development process. 2. We involve customers directly in the innovation process. 3. We assemble effective relationships with our customers, to better implement solutions for their needs by using the most adequate technology. 4. We regularly carry out market research (e.g., surveys, analyses of target groups etc.) to gain more information about our (potential) customers.*
Volume 20
Number 4
2011
272
Table A1. continued Collaboration with external partners in the NPD process Involvement of suppliers (new scale, a = 0.89) 1. We maintain regular communication with our suppliers to get in-depth knowledge about ongoing technological developments. 2. We involve suppliers actively in product development process. 3. Our suppliers play an important role in our product development processes. 4. We induce R&D co-operations with our suppliers to congure our product development process more effectively.* Involvement of competitors (new scale, a = 0.87) 1. Within the development of new products or technologies we align with selected competitors to accelerate the development process and to share costs. 2. We carry out R&D co-operations with competitors to prot from synergies as long as no sensitive knowledge is concerned. 3. We exchange information with competitors and accomplish benchmarks with them, to be up-to-date concerning the latest technological developments and trends.* Involvement of universities (new scale, a = 0.96) 1. We maintain R&D co-operations with universities to jointly develop and improve new product technologies. 2. We maintain regular communication with universities to be always up-to-date with the latest technological inventions. 3. In case of tangible technological problems concerning product development processes, we regularly work closely with universities. 4. The regular exchange with universities is important for our rm.* Involvement of independent experts (new scale, a =0.95) 1. We work together with independent experts (e.g., public research institutes, engineering consultants, specialized start-up rms, etc.) in terms of contractual agreements, to solve technological problems within new product development processes. 2. We regularly get in touch with independent experts within the process of new product innovation. 3. In the context of new product development processes we work together with institutions (e.g., public research institutes, engineering consultants, specialized start-up rms, etc.) and people with special knowledge to benet from their ideas. 4. The regular exchange with independent experts is important for our rm. (1 = fully disagree, and 7 = fully agree) Performance Measurement New Product Development Performance (adapted from Grifn & Page, 1993; Zahra & Covin, 1993, a =0.91) 1. We bring new and innovative products more often to market than other rms.* 2. In our market we are known for our innovative products. 3. Our new products differ substantially from their precursors.* 4. The percentage of new and innovative products in the product portfolio is signicantly higher in comparison to our competitors. 5. The percentage of sales generated through new and innovative products is signicantly higher in comparison to our competitors. (1 = fully disagree and 7 = fully agree)
* eliminated items.
Volume 20
Number 4
2011

Innovation Culture, Collaboration With External Partners PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Innovation Culture, Collaboration With External Partners PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INNOVATION CULTURE AND NPD PERFORMANCE

Innovation Culture, Collaboration with External Partners and NPD Performance

Malte Brettel and Nina J. Cleven

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

INNOVATION CULTURE AND NPD PERFORMANCE

Collaboration with External Partners

Research Model and Hypotheses

Strategic Resource Innovation Culture

Strategic Action Collaboration with External Partners in the NPD Process

Competitive Advantage Performance Outcome

Figure 1. Research Model and Research Hypotheses

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

INNOVATION CULTURE AND NPD PERFORMANCE

Collaboration with External Partners and its Impact on NPD Performance

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

INNOVATION CULTURE AND NPD PERFORMANCE

Threats to Reliability and Countermeasures

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

INNOVATION CULTURE AND NPD PERFORMANCE

Measurement Reliability and Validity

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Table 2. Pearson Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations (N = 254)a

0.96 0.52** 0.31** 0.25** 0.25** 0.28** 0.28** 3.67 2.08

0.93 0.20** 0.14* 0.28** 0.26** 0.20** 3.32 1.71

0.87 0.30** 0.50** 4.81 1.33

0.83 0.32** 3.69 1.29 0.92 4.24 1.45

INNOVATION CULTURE AND NPD PERFORMANCE

0.455 0.148 0.006 0.068 -0.001

**** ** n.s. * n.s.

Supported Supported Supported Supported Not supported

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Discussion and Implications

INNOVATION CULTURE AND NPD PERFORMANCE

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Limitations and Future Research Opportunities

INNOVATION CULTURE AND NPD PERFORMANCE

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

INNOVATION CULTURE AND NPD PERFORMANCE

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INNOVATION CULTURE AND NPD PERFORMANCE

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

0.96 0.52 0.31 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.28 3.67 2.08

0.93 0.20** 0.14* 0.28 0.26 0.20** 3.32 1.71

0.87 0.30 0.50 4.81 1.33

** n.s. * n.s.