Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/263425858
CITATIONS READS
218 7,184
3 authors, including:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Cees van Beers on 10 February 2016.
This review examines 43 recent papers about factors behind success and failure of
innovative projects. Nine out of the 43 papers report a larger number of possible causes
for success or failure and provide some rank ordering. Analyzing these rankings we find
that the nine studies have a significant degree of similarity among the ten highest-ranking
success factors; however, there is little similarity among lower ranking factors. The various
studies remain either inconsistent or inconclusive with respect to factors such as strength
of competition, R&D intensity, the degree to which a project is “innovative” or
“technologically advanced” and top management support. Agreement exists, however,
about the positive impact on innovative success of factors such as firm culture, experience
with innovation, the multidisciplinary character of the R&D team and explicit recognition
of the collective character of the innovation process or the advantages of the matrix
organization.
Introduction
Why does not everybody innovate? It is widely recognized that innovation is key
to the economic performance of firms. Innovative firms grow more quickly and
make higher profits (see for example the econometric studies by Geroski et al.,
1993; or Kleinknecht et al., 1997). If nonetheless many firms do not dare to
innovate, this has to do with several types of risks and uncertainties that lead to
high failure rates. For example, Asplund and Sandin (1999) and Cozijnsen et al.
(2000) argue that only one out of every five projects ever initiated is viable.
Against this background, there is an obvious need to assess more systematically
factors behind success (and more often) failure of innovation. Not surprisingly,
a considerable literature has emerged during the past 20 years. However, at first
view, it seems as if this literature is far from providing a conclusive picture of the
most important factors that determine success and failure. Given the pressing need
for systematic knowledge, this paper investigates whether, in spite of a seemingly
large diversity, some common insights can be distilled from recent contributions.
During our literature review, we found different views regarding the relevance
of factors behind innovative success. While some studies claim a certain group
of factors being crucial, other studies ignore the very same factors and claim
very different factors to be decisive. Moreover, studies can differ in terms of
causal links. This dispersion of outcomes may have several reasons. One may be
the heterogeneity regarding samples as well as methods. Samples differ as some
studies investigate one specific industry, whereas others cover several industries.
Methods differ, as some studies are qualitative while others adopt a quantitative
approach. Also, different ways of assessing (degrees of) success are applied. Such
heterogeneity adds to divergent views. Moreover, there tends to be little effort
among the various contributors to assess (causes of) differences between their
studies, or as Crawford (1987: 22) puts it: “None tried to compare, except to
themselves”. A more general problem is that success or failure of projects is likely
to have an impact on personal careers. People responsible for a successful project
may tend to give the credits primarily to themselves, while in the case of failed
projects one may try to shift responsibilities to others (or to circumstances
below one’s own control). In other words, personal motives may favor a biased
presentation, which may be misleading to researchers that take in-depth interviews.
A somehow diverse and flawed picture may be the result.
The first major investigation of factors affecting viability of innovation projects
has been the SAPPHO-study (Scientific Activity Predictor from Patterns with
Heuristic Origins), conducted in the early 1970s in the United Kingdom. The study
compared 29 successful with 29 unsuccessful innovations in chemicals and
scientific instruments and found 27 characteristics of the innovation process that
discriminated between success and failure. These relate to the innovator’s feeling
for customer needs, to marketing capabilities, to the efficiency of the development
process, the extent to which the firm is able to absorb external information
adequately and general managerial capabilities (Freeman et al., 1972).
The SAPPHO-study was followed by Coopers (1980) study Project NewProd.
Based on 200 Canadian innovations, it was found that viability is determined by
three factors. Of primary importance is the degree to which the product is unique
and superior compared to existing alternatives. The innovator’s knowledge of the
market and feeling of future market developments is the second most important
factor. Along with the product’s synergy with the firm’s overall technological-
and manufacturing resources, these factors determine half of a product’s viability
(Cooper, 1980). Another major study is Maidique and Zirger’s (1984) Stanford
Innovation Project. They argue that success is the outcome of a wide range of
firm and project related factors; a single magical factor does not seem to exist
(Maidique & Zirger, 1984).
In addition to these explorative studies, there is a larger literature investigating
a wide variety of factors that are likely to affect a new product’s viability —
technologically as well as commercially. Our review of these studies leads us to a
classification of these factors under four major headings:
Factors of Consensus
Following the categories of Fig. 1, this section discusses acknowledged success
factors. Although it is sometimes hard to distinguish between factors of commercial
and of technological viability, it is useful to maintain this distinction. First, we
discuss factors that affect the projects technological viability, distinguishing factors
related to the firm (Sec. 2.1.1) from project related factors (Sec. 2.1.2). Second,
we discuss factors that affect a project’s commercial viability, covering both
product related and market related factors (Sec. 2.2).
Technological viability
• Firm culture;
• Experience with innovation;
• Characteristics of the R&D team; and
• The firm’s strategy towards innovation.
Firm culture
firm’s technological capabilities in the long term (e.g. Ekvall & Ryhammar, 1998;
Lester, 1998).1 Cultural resistance to innovation may arise from entrenched
routines and interpretative barriers. Routines, whether deliberately organized or
spontaneously evolved, structure activities, processes and information. This tempts
employees to focus solely on their own tasks and responsibilities. As a result,
barriers arise when looking for solutions that surpass individual responsibilities.
This is in conflict with the inherent collective nature of innovation projects that
demands all participants to work towards a common objective (Dougherty, 1992).
Likewise, the extent to which various departments of the firm co-operate is
believed to affect technological viability. However, two out of three innovative
firms mention that interdepartmental cooperation is hampered, mainly due to a
lack of mutual trust (Rochford & Rudelius, 1997). For example, interdepartmental
competition for budgets and competencies may result in disharmony, and this tends
to be negatively related to technological viability (Souder, 1988). As a remedy,
all departments should be involved as the project starts. Along with well-defined
arrangements concerning all departments’ tasks and responsibilities, this leads to
cultural susceptibility to innovation (Calantone et al., 1993). In addition, a mission
statement that explicitly emphasizes the value of product development and
internal entrepreneurship can affect the firm’s culture (Johne & Snelson, 1988).
Finally, adequate interdepartmental communication may serve the same purpose
(Calantone et al., 1993). In this case, “adequate” should be read as flexible since
communication along formally institutionalized lines is likely to be an impediment
to success (Hopkins, 1981).
1Openness of a firms culture to R&D-results is directly associated with commercial viability as well.
Mansfield and Wagner (1975) argue that a culture susceptible to R&D-results boosts the rate of
successfully commercialised innovation projects by 15%.
2Experience is associated with commercial capabilities as well. This adds to s firm’s ability to
understand customer needs thus enhancing marketing skills (Maidique & Zirger, 1985).
Two project related factors affect successful completion and hence contribute
to the technological viability of an innovation project. These are the project’s
complementarity with the firm’s resources and the management style.
Complementarity
Stuart and Abetti (1987) find a causal link between technological viability and the
project’s compatibility with the firm’s resources in broad terms (i.e. management
and market research skills, sales, distribution, R&D and production facilities).
Notably the need for a connection between technological development and
marketing activities is often emphasized. Cooper (1983) and Link (1987) claim that
synergy that originates from marketing strengths is even more important than
synergy coming from production strengths. Customers need to assess the innovation
to fit into the product group they are already familiar with; there must be synergy
at the product level (Hopkins 1981).
Following Cooper (1983), building on in-house strengths, skills and resources
are key factors of success. Synergy emanates from phenomena like learning-by-
doing and economies of scale and scope (Zirger 1997). Madique and Zirger (1984)
report empirical evidence that the product’s market and technological prospects
hinge on the product’s complementarity with the firm’s strengths.
Commercial viability
With respect to the product’s commercial viability, two product related factors
(i.e. price and quality) and two market related factors (i.e. market concentration
and market introduction) are acknowledged success factors.
Though recognized by only a few studies, the relevance of a product’s price relative
to competing products or substitutes remains undisputed. Moreover, the extent to
which the innovation reduces the customer’s total-costs-of-use (Cooper &
Kleinschmidt, 1987) as well as the price-to-quality ratio are agreed to be important
(Madique & Zirger, 1984). It is often argued that successful innovations meet
customer needs on a number of features simultaneously. These may concern the
product’s quality, the product’s relative price, the product’s total-costs-of-use,
convenience of use, after-sales services, and backward compatibility (Maidique &
Zirger, 1984). Conversely, less successful innovations excel predominantly in a
reduction of total-costs-of-use only (Roy & Riedel, 1997).
One market related factor associated with the product’s commercial viability is
the extent to which the product’s potential purchasers are concentrated in a single
market, which eases communication. However, the relationship does not need to
be linear. Roure and Keeley (1990) report evidence of a U-shaped association
between concentration of buyers and viability: high as well as low degrees of buyer
concentration add to the product’s viability.
A second market related factor is the timing of the new product’s market
introduction. Timing should of course be ahead of competing products, and early
market introduction is considered to yield huge competitive advantages (Hopkins,
1981; Maidique & Zirger, 1984). Johne and Snelson (1988) estimate that a delay
of six to twelve months will reduce financial returns by half. Therefore, it is
recommended to create short-cuts in the innovation process that speed up market
introduction (Wind & Mahajan, 1988).
Although the status of timely market introduction remains undisputed, some
qualifications have been made. First, the benefits of early introduction differ by
type of innovation; while incremental innovations do reap the benefits of
accelerated introduction, original new innovations do not. The latter gain from
relatively extensive development periods in which the development process is
pursued attentively (e.g. Yoon & Lilien, 1985). Second, early market introduction
may be in conflict with the aim of high product quality (e.g. Hultink, 1998). In
spite of such arguments, many innovators still seem to respond to the need for
speed. For example, Page (1993) reports that over 40% of the innovators in his
sample did undertake deliberate efforts in order to abbreviate the time-to-market.
Technological viability
Organizational structure
in conflict with the trial-and-error character of innovation processes (e.g. Johne &
Snelson, 1988; Calantone et al., 1993). Innovators themselves tend to refute the
functional structure as well; Larson and Gobeli (1988) report that only 20% of
the functionally organized innovating firms report that they are satisfied with this
structure.
As an alternative, an organic (i.e. a more flexible and adaptive) structure is
unanimously preferred.3 Organically organized firms obtain higher success rates
than functionally organized firms do. Moreover, firms that explicitly strive for
discovering and capitalizing on new market opportunities appear to be more often
organically organized. Path analysis shows that organically organized firms develop
superior technical and marketing capabilities; the latter two being recognized
as important success factors autonomously (Calantone et al., 1993). In addition
to these empirical observations, two theoretical arguments in favor of the
organic structure dominate the literature. The first one is a sociological argument.
Other than formal structures, which lead to selection and social confirmation,
organic structures provoke individual diversity and expression. Therefore, organic
structures encourage product champions to arise. Considering the importance of
the product champion’s attendance, the firm’s degree of “organicity” can be
addressed as a success factor (Howell & Higgins, 1990). The second (theoretical)
argument in favor of organic structures stems from the nature of the innovation
process. Equilibrium should be found between the level of formalization (for the
sake of efficiency) and the advantages of a loose, open, creative and adaptive
organic structure. Empirical studies show that successful innovative firms are
loosely structured during the initiation phase of the development process and
evolve to more formal structures as the product becomes better defined (Johne &
Snelson, 1988; Rothwell, 1992; Bart, 1993).
Arguments opposing organic structures have also been made. First, some empirical
studies report a negative impact of “organicity” on a firm’s innovative capabilities.
For example, Rubenstein et al. (1976) argue that one ought to control the process
tightly, especially during the early phases of the innovation process; the argument
that freedom acts as an incentive for innovation is false (see also Stuart &
Abetti, 1987). Indeed, many successful innovators prefer tight control during the
entire innovation process (Larson & Gobeli, 1988). Even more differences remain
regarding two different constitutions of the organic structure: the venture team
structure and the matrix structure (Johne & Snelson, 1988; Larson & Gobeli, 1988;
Rothwell, 1992; Page, 1993; Kleinschmidt & Cooper, 1995; Lester, 1998). In both
3Fora concise comparison between “functional” (or “mechanistic”) structures and the “organic” form
see the classical contribution by Burns and Stalker (1961: 119–122).
R&D-intensity
Obviously, a firm that invests more in R&D will increase its total innovative output.
This is confirmed by empirical studies showing that substantial financial resources
are a prerequisite for success (Page, 1993). Conversely, a lack of financial resources
is addressed as a predominant factor of failure (Rubenstein et al., 1976). However,
regarding R&D intensity (i.e. R&D expenditures as a percentage of sales), this
proposition is subject to debate. R&D intensive firms generally obtain higher
commercial success rates (Gemunden et al., 1992); nonetheless, this relationship
may be less than clear-cut. For example, Acs and Audretsch (1991) argue that
the causality between R&D input and innovative output may be characterized
by diminishing returns to scale. As far as large and complex organizations are
concerned, this may be due to managerial diseconomies of scale. Moreover,
Brouwer et al. (1999) found that the relationship between R&D intensity and
innovative output is influenced by such factors as regional knowledge spillovers,
demand-pull effects or differences in technological opportunity. Such factors can
explain that R&D input and innovative output are far less correlated than one
would intuitively expect.4
Cooper reports independent empirical evidence on this. He found that low
spenders (i.e. firms spending only 1% of total sales on R&D) generate a quarter
of total sales by innovative products. Conversely, big spenders (firms spending
at least 4% of total sales on R&D) generate only 40% of total sales by innovative
products (Cooper, 1983). In a single case, even claims of R&D intensity being
negatively related to a product’s viability have been made (Stuart & Abetti, 1987).
Under this heading, only one factor lacks consensus regarding its relevance: top
management support.
There is agreement that top management support will empower a project and
serves as a driving force for major initiatives and efforts. Rothwell (1992)
emphasizes that top management support may be instrumental to overcome internal
resistance to innovation. Page (1993) concludes from his sample that one quarter
of all innovators qualify top management support as a prerequisite for success.
Another argument relates to the concept of the product life cycle, claiming that
one can judge about the viability of an innovation earliest five years after launch.
Hence innovation projects demand long-term commitment (Brenner, 1994). This
requires a risk tolerant top management that not only prevents viable projects to
be aborted in advance, but also enables the firm to take advantage of learning-
by-failing (Rothwell, 1992). Finally, Gobeli and Brown (1987) observe that radical
innovations tend to achieve higher success rates than incremental innovations do.
They ascribe this to radical innovations receiving relatively more devotion by top
management.
4Seefor similar results several chapters in Kleinknecht (1996) and in Kleinknecht and Mohnen
(2002).
Commercial viability
In the literature there is no consensus about two product and two market related
factors. The product related factors are the degree to which the product is really
innovative and technologically advanced. The market related factors relate to the
firm’s marketing capabilities and its competitive strength.
Degree of innovation
The literature remains inconclusive regarding the impact on viability of the degree
to which the product is technologically advanced. Several studies claim that this
variable has a positive impact (Cooper, 1979; Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1987;
Schmidt, 1995); others find no impact (Maidique & Zirger, 1984). Rackham (1988)
even reports a negative impact, arguing that an innovator’s emphasis on a
high degree of technical novelty may lead to a neglect of customer needs and
therefore diminishes prospects of commercial viability. Examples are observed
during sales conversations when salesmen are tempted to focus on product features
at the expense of customer needs. This may disclose the essence of numerous
failed superior innovations; the feature-based approach tends to dominate the
customer-based approach (Rackham, 1988).
Competition in markets
All arguments about the intensity of competition as a success factor are based
on empirical observations and remain largely inconclusive. For example, Yoon and
Lilien (1985) argue that intensity of competition is negatively correlated with
success rates of innovations: The less competitive is the market, the more viable is
the product. Link (1987) addresses fierce competition as a main factor of failure.
Roure and Keeley (1990) read this as an argument to pursue radical instead of
incremental innovations, since radical innovations face less fierce competition.
Stuart and Abetti (1987) suggest that firms should penetrate less attractive
niche markets. Niche markets are by nature small, growing and hence less
competitive. Roure and Keeley (1990) also argue that market niches with low
degrees of competition offer a fertile environment for innovative products.
However, Kleinschmidt and Cooper (1987; 1995) argue that competitiveness and
rates of growth are neutralizing each other since the advantages of market growth
are offset by increases in competition due to new entry.
In general, these contradictory arguments resemble the long-standing discussion
in industrial economics about the impact of market structure on innovation
(Kamien & Schwartz, 1982). Notably the survey by Scherer (1992) suggests that,
if there is any impact of market structure on innovation, this impact can never
be overwhelmingly strong.
Marketing
In the literature reviewed above, nine out of forty-three studies meet these
two criteria. The ranking of success factors by these nine studies is given in
Appendix B. The appendix gives the ranking by importance, from 1 (= most
important) to 21 (= least important). A zero value indicates that the factor was
not considered (or found insignificant) in a study.
In order to obtain an impression of the (dis)-similarities among the nine
studies, we test the null-hypothesis: “the ranking of factors is consistent”
using a non-parametric analysis of variance test (Kruskal-Wallis test). This test
assesses (dis)-similarities in the ranking of factors in the nine studies. In a first
step, we included all success factors exhibited in Appendix B and found a
significant dissimilarity.5 In other words, the ranking by importance of all
success factors differs significantly between these nine studies. This brings us close
to the conclusion by Montoya-Weiss and Calantone who found “a wide variation
in results that are surprisingly non-convergent” (1994: 397). However, a closer look
at the data shows that this result depends strongly on the lower ranking factors.
Inclusion of the factors ranking from 1 to 10 only (i.e. excluding all lower
ranking factors) results in a highly insignificant test statistic.6 In this case, the
null-hypothesis of similarity in factor rankings cannot be rejected. This implies that
consensus exists among the nine studies with regard to their ten most important
success factors.
In order to get more insight into factors that influence the ranking correlations,
we divided the factors into groups, using the categories of our above Fig. 1. First
we divided the factors into two groups:
It turned out that there was significant ranking dissimilarity within both these
two groups, independently of whether we took all 21 ranks or only the ten
highest ranks. We then subdivided the factors of success and failure into all four
basic categories detailed in our above Fig. 1: (1) firm related; (2) project related;
(3) product related; and (4) market related factors. It turned out that firm and
product related factors showed a significantly consistent ranking among the nine
studies, while the rank correlation between the project and market related factors
was only weakly significant (at 90% level of significance).
5The Kruskal-Wallis statistic is 58.8. This value exceeds the critical value (15.5) at n-1 (8) degrees
of freedom, implying that the null-hypothesis has to be rejected.
6The Kruskal-Wallis statistic is 5, which is well below the critical value of 15.5 at n-1 (8) degrees
Conclusions
We have compared systematically the ranking of factors among those nine (out
of forty-three) studies that were most comprehensive in considering a substantial
number of potential success factors and provided information about their relative
importance. It turned out that the top-ten highest-ranking factors revealed a
significant degree of similarity among the nine studies. However, if ranks 11–21
are taken into account, the rank correlation becomes insignificant. From this we
conclude that splitting of the ranking list allows for an important clarification.
A first glance at the literature suggested that outcomes of the various studies
are fairly inconclusive. But this first impression is mainly due to the inconsistent
ranking of those factors that authors consider relatively low ranking. The good
message is that we find a fairly strong consensus about the most important (or
highest ranking) factors. Moreover, there is consistency among the studies on firm
and product related factors and a bit less so on project and market related factors.
Our qualitative review shows that there is agreement that the following factors
will enhance innovative success:
Acknowledgement
We thank participants of the TBM seminar series within the Faculty’s Management
of Innovation Program for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Name Freeman et al. (1972) Mansfield & Wagner (1975) Rubinstein et al. (1976) Cooper (1980)
(SAPPHO) (Project NewProd)
Sample 58 projects in scientific 20 firms in chemistry and 103 project in 6 firms 195 projects (Canada)
instruments and chemicals electronics (U.S.) (U.S.)
(U.K.)
Subject Identification of factors Impact of some organizational Identification of factors of Identification of factors of
discriminating between aspects on successful technological- and success and failure
success and failure innovation economic success
Main Discriminating factors: • Early evaluation of • Success is determined Three factors determine
results • Understanding user commercial viability by about 50 factors half the viability:
needs significantly improves simultaneously • Unique product features
• R&D-efficiency viability • There is no single and superiority
• External scientific • Quantitative project magical success factor • Market knowledge and
communication selection is effective providence
• Marketing capabilities • Susceptibility for R&D • Technological and
• Managerial capabilities results is decisive production synergy
Name Hopkins (1981) Cooper (1983) Johne (1984) Maidique & Zirger (1984)
(Stanford Innovation
Project)
Sample 101 firms (U.S.) 103 Canadian firms 16 innovating U.K. firms in 158 innovations in U.S.
(NewProd-sample) instrument industry electronics
Subject Identification of factors Importance of technological Experience as a guideline for Identification of factors of
of success and failure skills on viability the organizational aspects of success and failure
innovative activities
Main Important factors: • Success rate is significantly • Firms with little or no Success factors:
results • Timing of market higher than is generally experience with innovation • Market knowledge
introduction assumed (56%) benefit by separating • Customer interaction
• Market research • The relevance of success initiation related tasks from • Early market entry
• Technological skills factors applies for all firms implementation related • Planning of the process
• Difficulties regardless of their unique tasks
concerning the characteristics • A certain loosening of
organizational • Success is independent of control and co-ordination is
structure, financial R&D-inputs called for
responsibilities and • Technological strengths are
planning less important than
marketing capabilities
Name Cooper (1985) Maidique & Zirger (1985) Yoon & Lilien (1985) Link (1987)
Sample 195 innovation projects 158 innovations in U.S. 112 innovations in 135 Austrian marketing
in 102 U.S. firms electronics 53 French firms managers
Subject Design of a model for Identification of factors of Comparison of incremental Identification of factors of
project selection success and failure and radical innovations success and failure
Main Project selection serves • All decisive factors are • Both types of innovation Success factors:
results as an instrument to internal to the firm and differ in objective, • Marketing and technological
improve viability. Eight are manageable marketing and timing of synergy
properties determine • Innovators learn from market introduction • Quality
viability. These can be failed projects • Customer needs
employed to predict the • Price strategy
projects viability • Distribution
Impact of success factors does
not depend on the firm’s
innovative capabilities but on
the degree to which a firm
depends on innovations
Name Cooper & Kleinschmidt (1987) Crawford (1987) Gobeli & Brown (1987) Stuart & Abetti (1987)
Sample 200 innovations in 125 No sample 13 U.S. high-tech firms 24 new firms (U.S.)
U.S. firms
Subject Measuring success and Evaluation of studies of Comparison of different Evaluation of perceived
identification of success factors success and failure innovation strategies success factors
Main Success eventuates in: Success/failure-studies remain • 4 types of strategies Negative causality between
results • Financial returns inconclusive. Further research are distinguishable success and
• Windows of opportunities is needed on: • Portfolio strategy is • Size/growth of market
• Market dominance • Innovation strategies most appropriate for • R&D-intensity
The status of success factors • Critical phases of the innovation • Flexibility and
depends on the measure of innovation process adaptability of the
success employed • Impact of early market firm’s organizational
introduction structure
• Diffusion of innovations
Name Souder (1988) Wind & Mahajan (1988) Larson & Gobeli (1988) John & Snelson (1988)
Sample 289 innovation projects (U.S.) No clearly defined sample 540 innovation projects No sample
(U.S.)
Subject Effects of hampered R&D/ Evaluation of development Organizational setting Identification of factors
Marketing-interface on project processes of innovation projects of success and failure
outcomes
Main Degree of disharmony between • Viability remains short falling Matrix structure is most The most common
results marketing and R&D • Guidelines for successful appropriate for factors of success and
department is correlated to innovation innovative activities as failure can be classified
viability • Viability may be improved by far as cost, planning and according to McKinsey’s
organizational adjustments, technological 7s-model
higher degrees of opportunities are
innovativeness and concerned
encouraging risk-taking
attitudes
Method Empirical
Name Howell & Higgins (1990) Roure & Keeley (1990) Kleinschmidt & Cooper (1991) Gemunden et al. (1992)
Sample 50 firms (U.S.) 36 start-ups in U.S. 195 innovations from 125 U.S. 848 U.S. manufacturing
electronics industrial firms companies
Subject Impact of product Importance of adequate Causality between degree of Mobilization of external
champion on viability reaction to time pressure innovation and success resources and knowledge as
and uncertainty a success factor
Main • Product champions 11 measurable qualities Relationship between success Three kinds of technology
results add to susceptibility of the firm determine and degree of innovation is oriented external
for innovation responsiveness to time U-shaped relationships are important:
• Formally organized pressure and uncertainty. • Customers
structures discourage These qualities determine • Research institutes
product champions to the new ventures • Other firms
arise performance
Name Dougherty (1992) Rothwell (1992) Bessant (1993) Griffin & Page (1993)
Main For efficient innovation in The development process The prime management task is Scientists measure success
results large firms it is necessary to is evolving from matching the technology strategy at the level of the firm.
deal explicitly with the technology-pushed pursued to the current and Innovators measure at the
interpretative barriers to towards a system developing capabilities within level of the product
innovation integrated network model the firm
Name Hart (1993) Bart (1993) Calantone et al. (1993) Page (1993)
Sample 369 firms Undefined 142 U.S. firms listed in the 189 U.S. firms
Fortune 500
Main Instead of employing • Formal control procedures Organizational structure • Half the innovators do not
results direct measures of ought to be minimized, but determines marketing skills employ a strategy towards
success, one ought to a minimum level of control and hence viability innovation
employ indirect measures remains necessary • Success rates have not
• Optimal level of formal improved since 1980
control varies by project • There remain opportunities
for improvement
Name Schmidt (1995) Kleinschmidt & Cooper (1995) Rochford & Rudelius (1997) Zirger (1997)
Sample Two samples: 177 Canadian 103 innovation projects in 21 79 U.S. firms in medical 147 innovation projects in
manufacturing firms firms in chemicals (U.S., U.K., instruments U.S. electronics
obtained from Project Canada, Germany)
NewProd and 142 Fortune-
500 firms obtained from
Spirit data set
Subject Effect of proficiency of Relative importance of Relevance of completing Impact of experience with
innovative activities on level perceived success factors development phases innovation on viability
of success
Main • Technological factors are • Perceived impact of factors Attentively completing all Technological and market
results more important than differ from reality 13 phases of the experience adds to
marketing factors • Development trajectory development process adds viability
• Product superiority is the must be completed to viability.
most important success attentively
factor • Marketing skills are more
important than
technological skills
Name Roy & Riedel (1997) Lester (1998) Ekvall & Ryhammar (1998) Rackham (1998)
Subject Impact of degree of innovation Identification of success Impact of leadership on Identifying factors of
and design on viability factors organizational outcomes failure of viable
innovations
Main • Degree of innovation does Five decisive factors: By affecting the social Viable innovations may
results not determine viability • Top management climate, the style of fail due to the sales
• Successful innovations are commitment leadership affects department, which is
mostly designed with a • Culture susceptible to organizational performance product-oriented rather
multi-dimensional focus on innovation in terms of productivity than customer-oriented
quality, product features • Availability of concepts
and design and ideas
• Organizational structure:
venture teams
• Project management aimed
at reduction of uncertainty
Sample Swedish beer market 1989–1995 128 new product announcements published in
trade journals
Subject Survival rate of new products Are urban agglomerations better breeding places
for product innovation?
Kleinschmidt 1987
Benedetto 1993
Kleinschmidt &
Stuart & Abetti
Cooper 19954
Cooper 1980
Calantone &
Voss 1985
Link 1987
Cooper &
1985
1987
1989
Firm’s culture 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Experience
experience (in general) 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
experience/skills with technology 0 0 0 8 0 0 4 1 12
experience/skills with marketing 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 0
R&D-team
R&D-team (in general) 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
interdisciplinarity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
attendance product champion 0 3 1 0 0 8 0 0 6
Organization
organizational structure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
“organicity” 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
autonomy R&D-team 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
interdepartmental communication 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
intradepartmental communication 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
embeddedness R&D team in firm 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R&D-expenses
R&D intensity 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
availability financial resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Kleinschmidt 1987
Benedetto 1993
Kleinschmidt &
Stuart & Abetti
Cooper 19954
Cooper 1980
Calantone &
Voss 1985
Link 1987
Cooper &
1985
1987
1989
Innovation management
innovation management 10 0 1 2 9 0 0 0 9
(in general)
completing development phases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
planning/analysis 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 3
project definition 9 1 0 4 0 0 6 0 8
project selection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
explicit responsibilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
process evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
Complementarity
complementarity 5 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0
marketing synergy 5 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 14
technological synergy 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 15
distribution synergy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
production synergy 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 17
synergy core capabilities 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Quality 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 1
Price
price 0 1 0 11 5 0 0 0 0
price relative to quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
limited risk of purchase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
Innovativeness
innovativeness 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
unique/newness 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
Technological
technologically advanced 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
complexity
product advantages/product 3 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 4
superiority
meeting customer needs 4 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 5
ease of use 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0
lower total-cost-of-use 0 0 0 11 4 0 0 0 0
Kleinschmidt 1987
Benedetto 1993
Kleinschmidt &
Stuart & Abetti
Cooper 19954
Cooper 1980
Calantone &
Link 1987
Voss 1985
Cooper &
1985
1987
1989
Concentration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Market competition
market competitiveness 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
market size 7 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 0
market growth 7 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 21
Marketing
marketing (in general) 2 1 0 0 1 0 3 5 0
advertisement/promotion 8 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0
adequacy of sales force/ 0 1 0 10 6 0 0 0 16
distribution
forecasting turnover 2 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0
market research 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 11
customer involvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
market definition 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 8
References
Acs, J. & Audretsch, D. (1991) Innovation and Technological Change: An International
Comparison. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf
Asplund, M. & Sandin, R. (1999) The survival of new products. Review of Industrial
Organization, 15, 219–236
Audretsch, A., Houweling, P. & Thurik, R. (2000) Firm survival in the Netherlands.
Review of Industrial Organization, 16, 1–10
Bart, C.K. (1993) Controlling new product R&D projects. R&D Management, 23(3),
187–197
Bessant, J. (1993) The lessons of failure: learning to manage new manufacturing technology.
International Journal of Technology Management, 8(2), 197–215
Brenner, M.S. (1994) Tracking new products: A practitioners guide. Research Technology
Management, 37(6), 36–40
Brouwer, E., Budil-Nadvornikova, H. & Kleinknecht, A. (1999) Are urban agglomerations
a better breeding place for product innovation? An analysis of new product
announcements. Regional Studies, 33(6), 541–549
Burns, T. & Stalker, G.M. (1961) The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock
Calantone, R.J., Benedetto, C.A. & Divine, R. (1993) Organizational, technical and
marketing antecedents for successful new product development. R&D Management,
23(4), 337–349
Cooper, R.G. (1983) New products do succeed. Research management, 26, 20–25
Cooper, R.G. (1980) Project NewProd: Factors in new product success. European Journal
of Marketing, 14(5/6), 277–291
Cooper, R.G. (1985) Selecting winning new product projects; using the NewProd system.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2, 34–44
Cooper, R.G. & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987) Success factors in product innovation. Industrial
Marketing Management, 16, 215–223
Cottam, A., Ensor, J. & Band, C. (2001) A benchmark study of strategic commitment to
innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4, 88–94
Cozijnsen, A.J., Vrakking, W.J. & van IJzerloo, M. (2000) Success and failure of
50 innovation projects in Dutch companies. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 3, 150–159
Crawford, C.M. (1987) New product failure rates: A reprise. Research Management,
4(4), 20–24
Crawford, C.M. (1991) New Products Management. Boston, MA (Irwin)
Dougherty, D. (1992) Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms.
Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202
Ekvall, G. & Ryhammar, L. (1998) Leadership style, social climate and organizational
outcomes: A study of a Swedish University Colleges. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 7(3), 126–130
Freeman, C., Robertson, A.B., Achilladelis, B.G. & Jervis, P. (1972) Success and failure
in industrial innovation, Report on Project SAPPHO by the Science Policy Research
Unit. London: Center for the Study of Industrial Innovation, University of Sussex
Gemunden, H.G., Heydebreck, P. & Herden, R. (1982) Technological interweavement: A
means of achieving innovation success. R&D management, 22(4), 359–375
Gobeli, D.H. & Brown, D.J. (1987) Analyzing product innovations. Research Management,
30(4), 25–30
Geroski, P., Machin, S. & van Reenen, J. (1993) The profitability of innovating firms.
RAND Journal of Economics, 14, 198–211
Griffin, A. & Page, A.L. (1993) An interim report on measuring product development
success and failure. Product Innovation Management, 10, 291–308
Hart, S. (1993) Dimensions of success in New Product Development: An exploratory
investigation. Journal of Marketing Management, 9, 23–41
Henard, D.H. & Szymanski, D.M. (2001) Why some new products are more successful
than others. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 362–375
Hopkins, D.S. (1981) New-product winners and losers. Research management, 24(3),
12–17
Howell, J.M. & Higgins, C. (1990) Champions of technological innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35, 317–341
Hultink, E.J. (1998) Product Introductie. Deventer: Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie
Johne, A.F. & Snelson, P.A. (1988) Success factors in product innovation: A selective
review of the literature. Product Innovation Management, 5, 114–128
Johne, F.A. (1984) How experienced product innovators organize. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 4, 210–223
Kamien, M.I. & Schwartz, N.L. (1982) Market Structure and Innovation. Cambridge: CUP
Kleinknecht, A., Oostendorp, R. & Pradhan, M. (1997) Patterns and economic effects of
flexibility in labour relations in the Netherlands. An exploration of the OSA demand
and supply panels (in Dutch). The Hague: Scientific Council for Government Policy
(WRR, V99), Sdu Publishers (ISBN: 90 399 1383 8)
Kleinknecht, A. (ed.) (1996) Determinants of innovation. The Message from New Indicators.
London: Macmillan & New York: St. Martins Press
Kleinknecht, A. & Mohnen, P. (eds.) (2002) Innovation and Firm Performance. London:
Palgrave
Kleinschmidt, E.J. & Cooper, R.G. (1995) The relative importance of new product success
determinants: Perception versus reality. R&D Management, 25(3), 281–297
Kleinschmidt, E.J. & Cooper, R.G. (1991) The impact of product innovativeness on
performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8, 240–251
Larson, E.W. & Gobeli, D.H. (1988) Organizing for product development projects. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 5, 180–190
Lester, D.H. (1998) Critical success factors for new product development. Research
Technology Management, 41(1), 36–43
Lilien, G.L. & Yoon, E. (1989) Determinants of new industrial product performance: A
strategic re-examination of the empirical literature. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 36(1), 3–10
Link, P. (1987) Keys to new product success and failure. Journal of Industrial Marketing
Management, 16, 109–118
Madique, M.A. & Zirger, B.J. (1984) A study of success and failure in product innovation:
The case of the U.S. electronics industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 31(4), 192–203
Madique, M.A. & Zirger, B.J. (1985) The new product learning cycle. Research policy,
14, 299–313
Mansfield, E. & Wagner, S. (1975) Organizational and strategic forces associated with
probabilities of success in industrial R&D, The Journal of Business, 48, 179–198
Montoya-Weiss, M.M. & Calantone, R. (1994) Determinants of new product performance:
A review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11,
397–417
Page, A.L. (1993) Assessing new product development practices and performance:
Establishing crucial norms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10,
273–287
Pavitt, K. (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory.
Research Policy, 13, 343–373
Pinto, J.K. & Slevin, D.P. (1989) Critical success factors in R&D projects. Research
Technology Management, 32(1), 31–35
Rackham, N. (1988) From experience: Why bad things happen to good new products.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 201–207
Rochford, L. & Rudelius, W. (1997) New product development process; stages and
successes. Marketing Management, 26, 67–84
Rothwell, R. (1992) Successful industrial innovation: Critical success factors for the
1990s. R&D Management, 3, 221–239
Roure, J.B. & Keeley, R.H. (1990) Predictors of success in new technology based ventures.
Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 221–239
Roy, R. & Riedel, J. (1997) Design and innovation in successful product competition.
Technovation, 17(10), 537–548
Rubenstein, A.H., Chakrabarti, A.K., OKeefe, R.D., Souder, W.E. & Young, H.C. (1976)
Factors influencing innovation success at the project level. Research management,
19, 15–19
Scherer, F.M. (1992) Schumpeter and plausible capitalism. Journal of Economic Literature,
30, 1416–1434
Schmidt, J.B. (1995) New product myopia. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
10(1), 23–33
Schumpeter, J.A. (1943) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Allan & Unwin
Souder, W.E. (1988) Managing relations between R&D and marketing in npd-projects.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5, 6–19
Stuart, R. & Abetti, P.A. (1987) Start-up ventures: Towards the prediction of initial
success. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 215–230
Voss, C.A. (1985) Determinants of success in the development of applications software.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2, 122–129
Wind, Y. & Mahajan, V. (1988) New product development process. A perspective for
re-examination. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5, 304–310
Yoon, E. & Lilien, G.J. (1985) New industrial product performance. The effects of
market characteristics and strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3,
134–144
Zirger, B.J. (1997) The influence of development experience and product innovativeness
on product outcome. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9(3), 287–297