CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

SOLOMON BOATENG PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT: PAST, PRESENT, AND THE FUTURE

SCHOOL OF APPLIED SCIENCES

MSc THESIS

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF APPLIED SCIENCES MSc THESIS ACADEMIC YEAR 2007/2008

SOLOMON BOATENG PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT: PAST, PRESENT, AND THE FUTURE

SUPERVISOR:

DR. PALIE SMART

SEPTEMBER 2008

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Cranfield University 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright holder.

ABSTRACT
A lot of work has been done in the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) since its inception in 1984 by putting together contributions and scientific insights developed from a diverse range of scientific schools. However, no work has been done to take a closer look at the work of the top academic leaders which has contributed to the success of JPIM and useful to academia. Therefore, this thesis is aimed at bridging this gap in literature. To achieve this, a database was generated to collate and analyse the work of the academic leaders; their individual contributions were determined; whether or not their contributions meet the objectives of JPIM was also determined and key recommendations were finally made for future research agenda. Questionnaires and interviews were found to be the dominant information elicitation techniques used by the academic leaders. The equipment, electronics, chemical and the service industries formed the top four most researched into industries by the academic leaders. Most of the knowledge that came from the academic leaders were found to be in the area of process execution and metrics (38.66%) followed by the strategy, planning and decision making (25.21%), then, people, teams, and culture (20.17%). Management, new product development, and marketing formed the top three most researched disciplinary issues. It was found that the academic leaders favoured incremental as opposed to radical forms of innovation when it comes to success. However, the academic leaders were found to have had collaborations with other authors with the dominant form of collaboration being the duet (two-authored articles). Finally, the academic leaders effectively passed their test to prove the applicability of their contribution to real world practice and the credibility of their work was further cemented. The recommendations for future research agenda were directed towards cultural, leadership, product development, launch strategies, cross-functional cooperation, communication, team-building and relationship, organisational learning and performance measurement issues. The use of positional authors was the greatest limitation to this thesis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the almighty God for how far He has brought me in life. I would also want to say a big thank you to my family (Jemimah, Paulina, Roderic, and Jenelle) for their wonderful support and being there for me all the time. To all the staff and students of the Manufacturing department of Cranfield University especially my supervisor, Dr. Palie Smart, I say thank you once again for making this programme a memorable experience.

ii

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM .................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF THESIS AIM, OBJECTIVES AND PROGRAMME ......................................................... 2 THESIS STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................... 3 INNOVATION AND INVENTION .................................................................................................... 6 Sources of innovation ......................................................................................................... 7 Inhibitors of innovation ...................................................................................................... 8 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT (JPIM) ....................................................... 9 Aims and scope of JPIM ..................................................................................................... 9 Authors .............................................................................................................................. 10 TYPES OF INNOVATION ............................................................................................................ 11 Process innovation ............................................................................................................ 12 Product innovation (Smart products) ............................................................................... 18 Position innovation ........................................................................................................... 20 Paradigm innovation......................................................................................................... 21 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 24 RESEARCH PROBLEM ............................................................................................................... 25 AIM AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 26 PROGRAMME ........................................................................................................................... 26 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 26 METHOD USED ......................................................................................................................... 27 EXECUTION OF DATA COLLECTION AND DATABASE.................................................................. 27 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 28 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 31 METHOD USED ......................................................................................................................... 32 EXECUTION OF AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS.............................................................................. 32 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 33 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 46

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 5

RESEARCH AIM AND PROGRAMME..................................................................................... 25

DATA COLLECTION AND DATABASE GENERATION....................................................... 27

DETERMINING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC LEADERS ...................... 32

6 DETERMINING WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC LEADERS MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF JPIM AND THE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA ........................................................................................................................... 47 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 METHOD USED ........................................................................................................................ 47 EXECUTION.............................................................................................................................. 48 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 48 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 54 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA ............................................................ 57 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 61 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 62 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................ 63 RECOMMENDED FUTURE WORK ............................................................................................... 64

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 62

iii

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................... 65 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 84 APPENDIX 1: THE MOST-CITED JPIM ARTICLES (SOURCE: BIEMANS ET AL, 2007) ....... 84 APPENDIX 2: RANKINGS OF THE WORLDS TOP INNOVATION MANAGEMENT SCHOLARS ..84 APPENDIX 3: SEE ATTACHED CD FOR DATABASE.........84

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Emergent theory of partner selection for creating product advantage through collaboration (source: Emden et al, 2006) ...........................................14 Figure 2-2: Empirically derived framework (source: Langerak et al, 2004) ..18

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-3.1: Showing the rankings of author collaborations..28 Table 4-3.2: Showing the years of collaboration for all the 119 articles29 Table 5-3.1 Showing the knowledge areas the academic leaders wrote about ..33 Table 5-3.2: Showing the major contributions of the academic leaders.34 Table 5-3.3: Showing the various author rankings..40 Table 5-3.4: Showing the rankings of the positional authors..41 Table 5-3.5: Showing the rankings of lead and sole academic authorship.42 Table 5-3.6: Showing the commitment of the academic leaders to JPIM...43 Table 5-3.7: Showing the rankings of the research disciplinary issues...43 Table 6-3.1: Showing the ranking of the research methods used48 Table 6-3.2: Showing the ranking of the type of innovation the authors wrote about49 Table 6-3.3: Showing the author representation of countries......49 Table 6-3.4: Showing the representation of the research industries and countries.50 Table 6-3.5: Showing the results and proof of author multi-disciplinarity, internationalism, and practicality52 Table 6-3.6: Showing the ranking of the popular journals where the academic leaders publish.53

vi

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
JPIM PDMA NPD R&D SBUs 4Ps CMC IA USA/US UK QFD PIMS RDM AHP CEO NPI NPW PLC ROI ROS NTVs ITL MO EIASM Journal of Product Innovation Management Product Development and Management Association New Product Development Research and Development Small/Strategic Business Units Process, Product, Position, and Paradigm innovation Computer-Mediated Communication Information Acceleration United States of America United Kingdom Quality Function Deployment Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy Risk Diagnosing Methodology Analytic Hierarchy Process Chief Executive Officer New Product Introduction New Product Withdrawal Product Life Cycle Return on Investment Return on Sale New Technology Ventures Inward Technology Licensing Market Orientation European Institute for the Advancement of the Studies of Management

vii

INTRODUCTION

The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) was launched in 1984 by the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA). From its very beginning, the journal distinguished itself from the existing management of technology and innovation journals. This was achieved through its interdisciplinary nature, putting together contributions and scientific insights developed from a diverse range of scientific schools. The three principles of multidisciplinary, internationalism, and practicality were the driving principles supporting the organisation of the PDMA in 1976. Therefore, when PDMA decided to sponsor a reputable journal, it was natural that these driving principles were transferred into the journals aims and scope statement. Indeed, the entire aims and scope section has stood intact across four editors and over two decades of publication. JPIM has now become a reputable, multi-discipline, and international publication that serves both academic and practitioner communities with highly readable, high-quality, innovative and science-based ideas.

1.1

Overview of the research problem

A lot of good work has been done in the Journal of Product Innovation Management (which will be referred to as JPIM for the rest of the thesis) covering a wide range of disciplines, countries, industries and many more since its inception in 1984. Biemans et al (2007) analysed the evolution of JPIM from a knowledge-flow perspective by looking at the scientific sources used by the authors of JPIM to build up their ideas and articles. The extent to which these ideas built up in JPIM are put to use by other authors was also looked at as a second component of knowledge-flow by Biemans et al (2007) and again ranked the top sixteen JPIM authors. On the other hand, the study by Thieme (2007) ranked the worlds top scholars in innovation management on the basis of the research articles published across fourteen top academic journals in technology and innovation management, marketing, and management between 1990 and 2004. Guided by the social capital theory, Thieme (2007) analysed the embedded characteristics of innovation management scholars to find out the extent to which social capital explains scholarly

productivity. This thesis is therefore an extension to the above work of Biemans et al (2007) and that of Thieme (2007). The success that JPIM has enjoyed over the years did not come by chance but, was earned through the hard-work of some people including the academic leaders. The academic leaders have contributed most to JPIM in terms of the number of published articles and therefore their work must be of interest to academia. 1.2 Summary of thesis aim, objectives and programme

Although a lot of work has been done in JPIM, none has taken a closer look at the academic leaders whose work has contributed significantly to the success of JPIM. Therefore this thesis aims to review the work of the academic leaders in JPIM over a period of twenty-four years in order to bridge the existing gap in literature. To do this, the following objectives were set from the aim of the thesis and accomplished (see Chapter 3): 1. to generate a database to collate and analyse the contributions of the academic leaders 2. to determine the contributions of the academic leaders 3. to determine whether their contributions meet the objectives of JPIM 4. to make key recommendations for future research agenda As with any other project, there was the need for a project plan which was developed in this case as the programme with three stages. The above objectives fed into the programme for the thesis as below: Stage 1: Data was collected and a database generated Stage 2: The contributions of the academic leaders were determined Stage 3: Whether or not their contributions meet the objectives of JPIM was determined and key recommendations were made for future research agenda. Each stage of the programme was then developed into a whole chapter by describing the method used and the execution of each stage; the results obtained, and an analysis and

discussion of the results under each chapter. Each chapter ended with a chapter summary. 1.3 Thesis structure

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW An extensive range of books and 119 JPIM articles authored by the academic leaders were reviewed to develop a better understanding of what the professionals in the field of innovation management have said about the research topic. It was structured to generally describe what innovation management is and some popular definitions were given. A clear distinction was made between innovation and invention as the two terms are often wrongly used interchangeably. It then talked about the sources and inhibitors of innovation. JPIM was then given a closer look. The works of some of the academic leaders were discussed under the four types of innovation (product, process, position, and paradigm) identified by Tidd et al (2005) to show that indeed, their work covers all aspects of innovation. CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AIM AND PROGRAMME This chapter developed the research problem, the aim and objectives, and finally sets out the programme for the thesis. It was structured in such a way that the aim was derived from the research problem. From the aim, the objectives were also derived which in turn fed into the programme for the thesis. Each stage of the programme was then developed into chapters. This chapter therefore justifies the relevance of the thesis and also sets a series of stages which when followed will lead to a successful achievement of the thesis aims and objectives. CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND DATABASE GENERATION This chapter explains the method used and the execution of the data collection and database generation. It ranked some author collaborations and the reasons behind them. It again analysed the employment and educational background of the academic authors. The dominant form of collaboration was identified as the duet and sole authorship was found to be decreasing with time. The database formed the backbone of the thesis as

most of the results table of the thesis were obtained by tallying the results under their respective columns of the database. CHAPTER 5: DETERMINING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC LEADERS Because most of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) articles were co-authored, it was impossible to tell what the contribution of an individual was. In this chapter the contributions of the academic leaders were determined by awarding articles to positional authors. It ranked their contributions using the adjusted, unadjusted, position, and h-index among other forms of ranking. It again determined their commitment to JPIM and the disciplinary issues they write about.

CHAPTER 6: DETERMINING WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC LEADERS MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF JPIM AND THE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA The chapter determined whether the contributions of the academic leaders meet the objectives of JPIM by testing them against the three key principles of multi-disciplinary, internationalism, and practicality, a test which all of them passed. It again determined other journals where the academic leaders also publish and their impact factors. Recommendations for future research agenda were also made. 7 CONCLUSIONS The key findings of the thesis were summarised. The limitations to this thesis as well as the recommendations for future research agenda were also made.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Trott (2005) indicated that Karl Marx was the first to suggest in the mid nineteenth century that innovations could be associated with waves of economic growth. The likes of Schumpeter, Kondratieff, Abernathy and Utterback and others have since then contributed to the course of innovation. Today, the idea of innovation is widely accepted. It has become part of our culture so much that it is close to becoming an overused word or idea. For example, Coyne (1996) as cited in Trott (2005) said, 275 books published in the US in 1994 and 1995 had the word innovation in their title. Also Christopher Freeman (1982) as cited in Trott (2005) said not to innovate is to die. Even though the term is now rooted in our language, to what extent do we fully understand the concept? And is our understanding shared? What a scientist may perceive as innovation may be very different from that of an accountant in the same firm. Innovation has long been argued to be the engine of growth (Trott, 2005). It is also worth noting that it can provide economic growth. Economies are more likely to experience growth as a result of the development of new products such as new computer software than to reduction in prices of existing products (Trott, 2005). The modern theory of economic growth (neo-Schumpterian) also argues that sustained economic growth stems from competition among companies. Companies try to increase their profits by dedicating resources to creating new products and developing new ways of making existing products (Trott, 2005). Success in the future, as in the past, will certainly lie in the ability to acquire and use knowledge and apply this to the development of new products. But bringing how to do this to light remains one of the most pressing management problems today. Cristensen (2003), as cited in Trott (2005) went on to distinguish between disruptive innovations (radical) and sustaining innovations (incremental). Sustaining innovations appeal to existing customers, since they provide improvements to already established products. Afuah (2003) calls this competence enhancing as it builds on existing knowledge. But disruptive innovations tend to provide improvements greater

than those demanded and tend to create new markets, which gradually takes over the existing market. Afuah (2003) describes radical innovations as competence destroying as they are very different from existing knowledge and eventually renders it obsolete. 2.1 Innovation and invention

Many people confuse the two terms. It is true that innovation is similar to invention but the two terms are not the same and therefore cannot be interchanged (Trott, 2005). Innovation in itself is a very broad concept that can be understood in various ways. Myers and marquis (1969) defined innovation as: not a single action but a total process of interrelated sub processes. It is not just the conception of a new idea, nor the invention of a new device, nor the development of a new market. The process is all these things acting in an integrated fashion. Furthermore, Rogers and Shoemaker (1972) clarified the use of the term new in the context of innovation as follows: It matters little, as far as human behaviour is concerned, whether or not an idea is objectively new as measured by the lapse of time since its first use or discoveryIf the idea seems new and different to the individual, it is an innovation [emphasis added] Also, most writers distinguish innovation from invention by suggesting that innovation is concerned with the commercial and practical application of ideas or inventions. Invention, then, is the conception of the idea, whereas innovation is the subsequent conversion of the invention into the economy (US Dept of Commerce, 1967). The relationship between the two terms can be expressed mathematically as:

Innovation = theoretical conception + technical invention + commercial exploitation (Trott, 2005, p. 15). The starting point of innovation is the conception of new ideas. A new idea by itself, even though interesting, is neither an invention nor innovation, it is just a concept or thought or a collection of thoughts. The process of converting intellectual thoughts into

a substantial new piece (usually a product or process) is an invention. This is where science and technology usually play a significant role. At this stage, inventions need to be combined with hard work by many different people to convert them into products that will enhance the performance of a company. These later activities represent exploitation (Trott, 2005). However, it is the complete process that represents innovation. This introduces the view that innovation is a process with a number of distinctive features that have to be managed. Trott (2003) therefore defined innovation as the management of all the activities involved in the process of idea generation, technology development, manufacturing and marketing of a new (or improved) product or manufacturing process or equipment. Simply put, creativity on its own is only a beginning (Henry and Walker, 1991, p. 3). Human beings are creative by nature. Having ideas is relatively easy having good ideas is slightly more difficult but the real challenge lies in carrying ideas through into some practical result (Henry and Walker, 1991, p. 3). This tangible outcome can be in the form of services, products, new structure or strategy or shift in corporate culture (Henry and Walker, 1991, p. 3).

2.1.1 Sources of innovation

Some innovations, of course, spring from a flash of genius (Henry and Walker, 1991, p. 9). But most innovations, especially the successful ones, result from a conscious, purposeful search for innovative opportunities which are found only in few situations. Four such areas of opportunity exist within a company or industry namely; unexpected occurrences incongruities process needs industry and market changes

Three additional sources of opportunity exist outside a company in its social and intellectual environment namely;

demographic changes changes in perception new knowledge (Henry and Walker, 1991).

2.1.2 Inhibitors of innovation There are basically three levels of factors as indicated by Henry and Walker, (1991) that make it difficult to innovate. These include: The national level: there seem to be a severe cultural difficulty. The widely accepted view of Britain is that, it is good at ideas but bad at implementing them (Henry and Walker, 1991). This is shown both economically and managerially in such things as lack of government support, lack of venture capital, lack of supportive organisational structures, lack of incentives, the not-invented-here syndrome and many more (Henry and Walker, 1991). Organisational level: the innovation process itself is often not very well understood within organisations. Ideas are not generated in any systematic way and are often not well managed through the phases of implementation. This can lead to neglect of creative individuals, lack of direction and ignorance of the market place and customer needs, impassionate about science-based break-through and an inability to see research, design and development as a single organisational task. Management level: there is some anxiety about the ability of managers to manage the processes of innovation. The term manage innovation means the ability to trigger, generate, control and steer new ideas through the muddle. This is not merely the task of one brilliant manager but a task for teams which include a balanced combination of original thinkers and those that provide direction and stability. The unfortunate thing about innovation is that, most acts of creativity are destined to failure. Ideas themselves are delicate, the processes to which they are subject are uncertain and often unfriendly, the organisational filters are severely applied, and the world at large might show a quite astonishing coldness to the brilliant idea. So for

every hundred ideas, only one may emerge as worth pursuing and maybe only one in a thousand is going to achieve any kind of widespread success (Henry and Walker, 1991).

2.2

Journal of product innovation management (JPIM)

The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) was launched in 1984 by the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA). From its very beginning, the journal distinguished itself from the existing management of technology and innovation journals. This was achieved through its interdisciplinary nature, putting together contributions and scientific insights developed from a diverse range of scientific schools including marketing, management science, design, organisational behaviour, technology management and strategy and business policy. Over twenty years since its inception, JPIM has evolved into the leading journal in its field as witnessed by its strong structural influence within the marketing literature (Baumgartner and Pieters, 2003) and its leading position among other technology and innovation management journals (Linton and Thongpapanl, 2004). Again, JPIM serves as a marketplace for innovation and science-based ideas that are created and digested by scholars and business people alike. 2.2.1 Aims and scope of JPIM

The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) is dedicated to the advancement of management practice in all of the functions involved in the total process of product innovation. Its purpose is to bring to managers and students of product innovation the theoretical structures and the practical techniques that will enable them to operate at the cutting edge of effective management practice (Biemans et al, 2007). This quote begins the aims and scope explanation that can be found on the inside front cover of JPIM for every issue published from volume 1, issue 1, to volume 25, issue 3. Indeed, the entire aims and scope section has stood intact across four editors and over 20 years of publication. This indicates that the aims developed at

the journals very beginning appealed well enough to the scientific community to successfully come through the first two decades of the journals life (Biemans et al, 2007). The journals statement of purpose claims to take a multifunctional, multidisciplinary, and international approach to the issues of product development. The three principles of multidisciplinary, internationalism, and practicality were the driving principles supporting the organisation of the PDMA in 1976. Therefore, when PDMA decided to sponsor a reputable journal, it was natural that these driving principles were transferred into the journals aims and scope statement (Biemans et al, 2007). The journals name and copyrighted content are owned by the PDMA.

2.2.2 Authors Another way of looking at JPIMs evolution is to take a closer look at its authors (see Excel sheet for their profile and pictures). Although the journal began with most of its articles coming from North American, including Canadian sources, North American authorship has decreased steadily from approximately 86% to 70%. In contrast, European authorship has been rising steadily and now forms more than 20% of the journals lead authors (Biemans et al, 2007). European lead authors are from Netherlands followed by Belgium and then, Italy. Also of interest is the background of JPIMs authors. The number of academic authors with marketing background has increased significantly over time to about 60% even though these marketing authors do not limit themselves to marketing issues. This increase can be linked to the increasing number of issues and thus articles as well as increasing collaborations. This group is followed by academics with a background in Management (15 to 20%), Operations management (5 to 10%), Strategy (3 to 4%), and Engineering (2 to 3%) (Biemans et al, 2007). The JPIMs author diversity is also shown by their professional position. Academics at all levels publish in JPIM, showing an increase in number per volume over more than twenty years. However, these changes must be accredited to an overall increase in the number of issues, articles and authors per article. The increase of issues has provided a

10

marketplace prospect, whereas the growing importance and reputation of the journal has clearly contributed to the marketplace credibility of JPIM. More than twenty years on, JPIM has become a reputable, multi-discipline, international publication that serves both academic and practitioner communities with highly readable, high-quality, and useful articles. The growing professionalism of the journal is shown in its current position in the scientific marketplace. JPIM has consistently won publication awards for originality of articles and practical usability of research. Examples are: the Emerald Golden Page Awards in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 (Biemans et al, 2007). It has also been cited as the top journal in the technology innovation management field (Linton and Thongpapanl, 2004). And in 2003, JPIM was ranked 10th among academic business journals. These suggest that JPIM has justified the field of new product development and innovation management in academia, as shown by the growing numbers of articles on these topics in other functional journals and by the growing number of journals focusing on these topics and on the management of technology.

2.3

Types of innovation

Tidd et al, (2005) classified innovation into four types (4 Ps) namely; Product innovation: changes in things (products/services) which an organisation offers. Example, a new design of a mobile phone. Process innovation: changes in the ways in which things are created and delivered. Example, a change in the methods for the manufacture of the new phone Position innovation: changes in the context in which the products/services are introduced. Example, lucozade originally came out as a glucose-based drink for the sick but it is now presented as a performance-enhancing energy drink. Paradigm innovation: changes in the underlying mental models which frame what the organisation does. Example, a shift to low cost airlines Tidd et al, (2005).

11

Sometimes, it is very difficult to distinguish between process and product innovations and also one thing can be considered as both process and product types of innovation. For example, a new holiday package. Although there are other classifications of innovation, the above classification will be used in this thesis. The following are some extracts from JPIM under the different types of innovation to show that indeed, JPIM covers all aspects of innovation. About 95 percent of the authors referenced below are among the top sixteen JPIM authors. They play the role of either the lead or co-author and therefore showing off some of their contributions in the field of innovation and fulfilling some of the aims of this thesis. For example, the reference Emden et al, (2006), and Sherman et al, (2005) had R.J. Calantone and W.E. Souder respectively as co-authors. Likewise, the reference Langerak et al, (2004) also had Hultink, E.J. and Robben, H.S.J. as co-authors.

2.3.1 Process innovation

The open innovation paradigm of Chesbrough (2003) as cited by Emden et al, (2006) said, product success can be achieved by using the right mix of internal and external resources. Firms can initiate research, but they can also benefit from other firms resources as well as from other firms usage of their own resources. In this way, firms are able to make use of the intelligence of people outside of the firm. The challenge is building cross-organisational processes and innovative ways of managing these processes. Emden et al, 2006 adopted the definition of collaboration from Jassawalla and Sashittal, 1998 as a type of cross-organisational linkage, which in addition to high levels of integration is characterised by high levels of transparency, mindfulness, and synergies in participants interactions. Some of the benefits that collaboration may bring include; providing access to new skills and technologies the means for creating or exploiting new markets cross-disciplinary integration essential for creating new products

12

the creation of opportunities for the utilisation of technologies that have not yet found application.

sharing research and development (R&D) costs and risks increasing the speed to market

Collaboration however, may have the following downsides; differences in organisational cultures, mindsets, expectations, and behaviour can make building relational capital and managing alliances extremely costly (Hanson and Lackman, 1998) knowledge exchanged in a collaborative new product development (NPD) arrangement may be proprietary, and in a situation of high competitive overlap there is the risk of knowledge overlap (Yan et al, 2000 as cited in Emden et al, 2006). Product innovation is progressively becoming more challenging, driving managers to employ a different model to stay competitive and this is where the co-development alliances developed by Emden et al, 2006 become very handy. Emden et al, (2006, p. 331) adopted the following definition of co-development alliances from Link and Bauer, (1989) as nonequity-based collaborative relationships enjoined by two or more firms to create value by integrating and transforming disparate pools of know-how related to new product or service development. These add more weight to the fact that innovation demands greater coordination, corporation, and integration among cross-functional areas and most importantly among firms. There is the logic of alliance which demands free flow of information, whereas the logic of NPD is about holding on to information in order to create competitive advantage. However, choosing the right partner may reduce the clash between the logic of alliances and the logic of NPD and may also reduce risks whiles maximising benefits (Emden et al, 2006). In short, maximising the potential for creating synergistic value through co-development alliances is based on three aspects namely: Technological alignment - selecting a partner with maximum potential for creating technological synergy

13

Strategic alignment selecting a partner with maximum potential to collaborate

Relational alignment selecting the partner with a maximum potential to sustain relationship (Emden et al, 2006, p. 340).

Figure 2.1 Emergent Theory of Partner Selection for Creating Product Advantage through Collaboration (Source: Emden et al, 2006)

New product development (NPD) projects typically need some level of integration between research and development (R&D) and marketing in setting new product objectives, determining product features or capabilities, identifying market opportunities, and resolving product cost-design-performance trade-offs (Griffin and Hauser, 1996; Sherman et al, 2005). However, personnel from R&D and marketing tend to have different educational and professional backgrounds. As a result, R&D personnel tend to favour more advanced or more radical innovations, tend to have a longer performance time orientation, and tend to be more scientifically and less market oriented. On the other hand, marketing personnel tend to favour incremental product innovations, tend to have shorter performance time orientation, and tend to be more market oriented (Souder, 1987; Sherman et al, 2005). Research on cross-functional

14

integration between R&D and marketing has shown that high levels of integration positively affect such outcomes as: Prototype development proficiency R&D commercialisation effectiveness Product launch proficiency Post-launch product management performance Market forecast accuracy Product development cycle time Overall project success and failure rates (Sherman et al, 2005, p. 399).

Research evidence has also suggested that the effect of new product performance is stronger with integration measures of inter-functional collaboration than simply measures of information flow between functions (Kahn and McDonough, 1997). Adams et al, (1998) as cited by Sherman et al, (2005) said, the integration of knowledge (or information) from past product development projects is also needed in order to achieve higher levels of performance in NPD. Organisational memory is stored knowledge and effective utilisation of that stored knowledge is a function of three key dimensions of knowledge management that are fundamental to organisational learning as follows: recording or acquiring information retrieving or disseminating information reviewing or utilising information

The contingency theory says that the greater the level of uncertainty associated with the technology and the market environment, the greater the amount of information that must be processed among decision-makers in both marketing and R&D functions during product development (Sherman et al, 2005). If the technology and the market are well understood, then such things as advanced planning, scheduling, staffing, and resource allocations will be less uncertain and vice versa. Task uncertainty was defined by Tushman (1979) as the difference between the amount of information required to

15

complete a project and the amount of information possessed by the project team at the time of the initiation of the project. The process of reducing uncertainty as the project passes through the development cycle requires the continuous acquisition of information from customers, suppliers, competitors, professional publications, meetings and professional contacts. Internally, such information can be generated by the relevant members of both past and present product development projects in all functional areas. Lynn et al, (2000) found that variables such as the degree to which information from past related product development projects is effectively recorded, retrieved and reviewed are predictors of performance. However, effective recording of information from past development projects as demonstrated by Sherman et al (2005) did not explain variation in NPD performance as claimed by Lynn et al (2000). Sherman et al, (2005) has demonstrated that the combined effects of these variables can result in interactions in the form of amplification effects. Recording involves more than technological specifications and engineering change orders; it also includes information on customer reactions to early product concepts, prototypes and launched products.

Market Orientation and Organisational Performance Langerak et al, (2004) cited Deshpande et al (1993); Kohli and Jaworski (1990) ; and Narver and Slater (1990, 1998) as saying that, market orientation is a business culture that places the utmost priority on creating profit and maintaining superior value for customers and at the same time taking the interest of stakeholders into consideration. Market orientation also provides norms for behaviours concerning how the organisation generates, disseminates, and responds to market information. Thus, market-oriented culture produces a sustainable competitive advantage and as a result, a superior organisational performance. Again, Gatignon and Xuereb (1997) as cited by Langerak et al, (2004) suggested that a market-oriented culture leads to superior performance, at least in part, because of the new products that are developed and brought to the market. They maintain that having a market-oriented culture may lead to general benefits of the firms marketing activities and new product development (NPD) but then, the ability to develop and to market new products, which present the features needed to be successful, may be vital. Han et al, (1998) have strengthen this knowledge by reviewing that a

16

market-oriented culture enhances organisational innovativeness and new product success, both of which in turn improve organisational performance. Langerak et al, (2004) added another dimension to the above study by revealing the activities of NPD through which a market oriented culture is transformed into superior performance. This was achieved by investigating the structural linkages among marketorientation, product advantage, new product launch proficiency, new product performance, and organisational performance. The focus was on new product advantage because these product benefits normally persuade customers to buy the new product, and on the launch proficiency because the launch stage represents the most costly and risky part of the NPD process (Kotler, 2003). Focusing on the launch is also appropriate because it is only during the launch that it will become clear whether a market orientation has developed into a superior product in the eyes of the customer. The research of Langerak et al, (2004) came up with the following results: The stronger the market orientation of the firm, the higher the product advantage (product advantage refers to the added benefits that customers get from the use of the product relative to similar products in the market) The stronger the market orientation of the firm, the greater the proficiency in (a) market testing, (b) launch budgeting, (c) launch strategy, (d) launch tactics. The higher the product advantage, the better the new product performance. The greater the proficiency in launch tactics, the better the new product performance. But market testing, launch budgeting, and launch strategy are not significantly related to new product performance The market orientation of a firm, has no significant direct relationship with new product performance (a market-oriented firm is more likely: to achieve high levels of customer satisfaction; to be loyal existing customers; to attract new customers; and as a result attain the desired level of growth, market share which all lead to improved organisational performance) The market orientation of a firm, has no significant direct relationship with organisational performance

17

The better the new product performance, the better the organisational performance Langerak et al, (2004). New product performance refers to how well or otherwise the new product falls short, meets, or exceeds the expectations of customers.

The contribution of this study is summarised in Figure 2.2 below.

Figure 2.2 Empirically derived framework (Source: Langerak et al, 2004)

It shows that a market-orientated culture is transformed into superior organisational performance only through high product advantage, greater proficiency in launch tactics, and better new product performance.

2.3.2 Product innovation (Smart products) The importance of knowing and satisfying the needs of customers is the important role played by marketing and these activities feed into the new product development process. But recent studies by Hamal and Prahalad (1994) and Christensen (2003) as cited by Trott (2005) suggest that listening to your customers may actually suppress technological innovation and be unfavourable to long term business success. Ironically, to be successful in industries characterised by technological change, firms may be required to pursue innovations that are not demanded by their current customers.

18

Consumer products can be supplied with information and communication technology to make them smarter. Examples of such smart products are devices like mobile phones and palmtops that show an amazing increase in the number of new features and functions. Another example is the TIVO device co-developed by Sony and Philips. This is a device that is normally attached to a television set to build a user profile based on the ratings of television shows and the actual viewing behaviour of the user. This profile is then used by TIVO to either record shows that the user may like or to give advice on shows that the user may want to watch. Again, the solar and robotic lawnmower by the Swedish firm Husqvarna provides another example. The length of the grass is measured by the mower and it then decides whether it needs to be cut. When it does, the machine starts mowing without any human interference (Rijsdijk and Hultink, 2003). Smart products differentiate themselves from traditional ones by their ability to process information and demonstrate at least one of the following characteristics identified by Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003): Ability to communicate with other products. Example, photographs taken with a digital camera can be transferred to a personal computer. The two products can be connected and as a result can communicate with one another. Flexibility to adapt their actions to different situations. Certain thermostats for example turn the heater on and off based on the outside temperature in order to maintain the right temperature inside. The front passenger seat developed by Mercedes is another example. It automatically recognises when a child safety seat is used, and reduces the air bag power accordingly. Ability to collect information and become autonomous decision-maker. This information can be collected through connections with other products or by using sensors. Examples of this are the autonomous lawnmower mentioned above and the robotic vacuum cleaner by Electrolux Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003).

19

2.3.3 Position innovation

According to Easingwood and Mahajan, (1989), a position refers to the place a product or service occupies in a given market. Especially, it describes the position or image of the firms product in the customers mind. In other words, a position can be described as a summary of the distinctive competence that a company seeks to convey to the marketplace to establish its competitive advantage. The wall street journal (1984) as cited by Easingwood and Mahajan, (1989) said, drivers think of Volkswagen as reliable; Porsches as having spirited performance; BMWs as distinctive looking; and Nissan as fun to drive. The planning of positions are done by managers and implemented through marketing programmes and are finally perceived by the user. If a position is perceived as indistinguishable from others, it provides no reason to buy. Likewise, a weaker than the competition position provides a reason not to buy. It must be noted that a position is judged to be effective only when it is more effective than the position of competitors. Therefore, the product itself and the communication messages as well as the name, pricing, packaging and many more features of the product must be designed and developed to make an impact on the customers perception in order to achieve the desired position. Easingwood and Mahajan, (1989) found the following eight positions as those normally taken up by firms in the service sector: 1. Offer a tangible representation 2. Offer and augmented service 3. Superior selection, training and monitoring of contact personnel 4. Package the service 5. Industrialise the service production process 6. Use multi-site locations 7. Customise the service 8. Offer a complete product line Easingwood and Mahajan, (1989) Easingwood and Mahajan, (1989) came up with the following recommendations to help the financial services develop a competitive positioning strategy: 1. Emphasise positions that are not already overcrowded.

20

2. Choose positions that can be convincingly substantiated. 3. Develop positioning strategies over the medium to long term 4. Combine mutually supporting positions to differentiate positioning strategies from that of competitors and help keep the implementation fresh over time.

2.3.4 Paradigm innovation

Although smart products form a thrilling group of new products that appear handy to potential users, one may query the extent to which consumers will welcome this smartness. Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) cited Rogers, (1995) and Ostlund, (1974) as saying; the rate of adoption of innovation is influenced positively by the innovation characteristics of relative advantage, compatibility, observability and trialability and is influenced negatively by perceived risk and complexity. Focusing on autonomous products, they provide advantages by taking over tasks from the user, which gives the user the opportunity to do other activities. Rogers (1995) as cited by Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) gave the following definitions: Relative advantage refers to the degree to which an innovation is perceived as superior to the idea it supercedes in terms of economic profitability, social prestige, convenience, or other benefits. Perceived complexity refers to the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and to use. Perceived risk refers to performance risk which is the risk associated with inadequate and/or unsatisfactory performance of the product. The research by Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) demonstrates the following relationships: There is no clear relationship between product autonomy and relative advantage. This means that, some consumers appreciate autonomy, while others do not.

21

The impact of product autonomy on perceived risk and complexity is clear. Consumers judge products that are more autonomous as more likely to fail and as more complex

Relative advantage is related positively and perceived risk is related negatively to overall consumer appreciation

People with a higher desire for control perceive less risk, irrespective of the level of autonomy of the product Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003).

This may be explained by the fact that people with a higher desire for control also have a higher perceived control (Trimpop et al, 1997). They perceive less risk because they believe they can control the product. This suggests that, early adopters of autonomous products show special characteristics. Although, many ideas for autonomous products may seem attractive, their advantages are not directly obvious to all customers. For example, the development of a rear-view mirror that automatically dims when it gets dark by Volkswagen seemed like a very useful enhancement of the rear-view mirror. However, Volkswagen drivers who like to drive (too) fast complained that they can only see the headlights of vehicles behind and therefore are not able to recognise police cars. This example shows that companies should extensively test their ideas about making their products more autonomous before taking them into full development (Rijsdijk and Hultink, 2003). Urban (1996) as cited by Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) named information acceleration (IA) as one of the suitable techniques for testing product ideas for autonomous products. The basic idea behind IA is to place the consumers in a multimedia virtual environment and to provide them with information on a new product. Multiple virtual prototypes of a product can be developed with different levels of autonomy. These prototypes can be assessed by consumers and in so doing can provide companies with information on the appropriateness of the different degrees of autonomy. As discussed earlier, the research by Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) demonstrated that products that are more autonomous are expected to breakdown or malfunction more,

22

and consumers expect that it may be more difficult to learn how to use these products. However, these findings should not put off product designers as there are several methods highlighted by Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) to manage them including; The design of new products: Consumer research can give insights into the specific doubts and questions people have about a product. Based on such results, designers can shape the product in such a way that consumers doubts are reduced. The reduction may be achieved by providing them with enough indicators that provide feedback to the user on the task that the product is performing at a particular time. Again, the users should always have the option to interrupt actions of a product at any time. Store image: By mainly selling product in stores with a good image, consumers uncertainty can be reduced. Providing money-back guarantees: This can reduce the risk that buyers perceive Giving the customers the chance to experience the use of the product: This may reduce doubts and thereby increase the probability of adoption. Analogical learning: This means the use of consumers existing knowledge structures in facilitating consumer understanding on how the new product works and what its benefits are. Increased understanding will lead to a decrease in perceived complexity and therefore to a higher rate of adoption Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003).

Autonomous products as icons for the company Autonomous products provide obvious results of the application of information and communication technology in consumer products. Therefore for branding and corporate public purposes, product autonomy may deliver bright and attention-drawing icons for the company as in the case of Dyson with its autonomous vacuum cleaner. Therefore, creating autonomy can have added benefits of improved branding image and public relations (Rijsdijk and Hultink, 2003).

23

2.4

Chapter summary

An extensive range of books and 119 JPIM articles authored by the academic leaders were reviewed to develop a better understanding of what the professionals in the field of innovation management have said about the research topic. The literature review was structured to generally describe what innovation management is and some popular definitions were given. A clear distinction was made between innovation and invention as the two terms are often wrongly used interchangeably. It then talked about the sources and inhibitors of innovation. The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) was then given a closer look. The four types of innovation namely; Process, Product, Position, and Paradigm (4Ps) were discussed. Figure 2-1: Title of figure (source: Smith, 2001)

24

RESEARCH AIM AND PROGRAMME

This chapter justifies the relevance of the thesis and sets the aims and objectives for it. It also sets a series of stages which when followed will lead to a successful achievement of the thesis aims and objectives. 3.1 Research problem

A lot of good work has been done in the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) covering a wide range of disciplines, countries, industries and many more since its inception in 1984 (Biemans et al, 2007). From its very beginning, the journal distinguished itself from the existing management of technology and innovation journals through its key principles of multidiscipline, international, and practical approach to the issues of product development. These three principles are rooted in the journals aims and objectives as well as the statement of purpose sections which have stood intact across 4 editors over two decades. Biemans et al, (2007) analysed the evolution of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) from a knowledge-flow perspective by looking at the scientific sources used by the authors of JPIM to build up their ideas and articles. The extent to which these ideas built up in JPIM are put to use by other authors was also looked at as a second component of knowledge-flow by Biemans et al (2007) and again ranked the top sixteen JPIM authors. On the other hand, the study by Thieme (2007) ranked the worlds top scholars in innovation management on the basis of the research articles published across fourteen top academic journals in technology and innovation management, management, and marketing between 1990 and 2004 (see Appendix 2 for ranking). Guided by the social capital theory, Thieme (2007) analysed the embedded characteristics of innovation management scholars to find out the extent to which social capital explains scholarly productivity. However, no research has been done so far to take a closer look at the top JPIM academic leaders and their work over the years which have made JPIM what it is today. As an extension to the above work, this thesis seeks to bridge the existing gap in literature.

25

3.2

Aim and objectives

The aim of the thesis is to review the work of sixteen academic leaders of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) over a period of twenty four years. The objectives of this thesis are: 1. to generate a database to collate and analyse the contributions of the academic leaders 2. to determine the contributions of the academic leaders 3. to determine whether the contributions of the academic leaders meet the objectives of JPIM 4. to make key recommendations to the wider academic community for future research agenda

3.3

Programme

In order to realise the objectives and fulfil the aim of this thesis, the following stages were followed: Stage 1: Data was collected and a database generated Stage 2: The contributions of the academic leaders were determined Stage 3: Whether or not the contributions of the academic leaders meet the objectives of JPIM was determined and key recommendations were made for future research agenda. 3.4 Chapter summary

This chapter develops the research problem, the aim and objectives, and finally sets out the programme for the thesis. It was structured in such a way that the aim was derived from the research problem. From the aim, the objectives were also derived which in turn fed into the programme for the thesis. Each stage of the programme was then developed into chapters.

26

DATA COLLECTION AND DATABASE GENERATION

In order to achieve the first objective, the steps below were followed. 4.1 Method used

The top 16 academic authors of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) were identified based on the rankings of Biemans et al (2007). An extensive range of books and 119 JPIM articles authored by the academic leaders were reviewed to develop a better understanding of what the professionals in the field of innovation management have said about the research problem. The literature review was structured to generally describe what innovation management is and some popular definitions were given. A clear distinction was made between innovation and invention as the two terms are often wrongly used interchangeably. It then talked about the sources and inhibitors of innovation. The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) was then given a closer look. The works of some of the academic leaders were discussed under the four types of innovation (4Ps) identified by Tidd et al (2005). There had been 119 JPIM articles among the sixteen authors between 1984 and 2008 and these articles were obtained from EBSCOHOST, Science Direct, Blackwell Synergy, and Google Scholar electronic resources. All the 119 articles were read and the following important data extracted from them onto an excel sheet for analyses: Name of Author(s); Author position; Subject specialisation; Degree-granting institution; Current employer; Journal title; Number of authors; Lead author (Yes/No); Sole author (Yes/No); Author internationalism; Discipline; Research method; Survey industry; survey country; sample size; Practicality; Contribution; Key learning points; Recommendations for future research; and Type of innovation. 4.2 Execution of data collection and database

The above information was then used as column headings to create a database in excel for the extracted information. This data was accordingly numbered and the result was a twenty one column (headings) by 120 rows (119 articles plus 1 heading row) of data. This when printed fits on two landscaped A3 sheets by 16 landscaped A3 sheets. The

27

database was developed in such a way that data could be sort under each of the column headings.

4.3

Results

See Appendix 3 for database

Table 4.3.1 Showing the Rankings of Author Collaborations

Rank Names of Authors 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 Robert G. Cooper and Elko J. Kleinschmidt Erik Jan Hultink and Robben, Henry S.J Michael Song, X and Mark E. Parry Roger J. Calantone and C. Anthony Di Benedetto William E. Souder and Rudy K. Moenaert Michael Song, X and William E. Souder Abbie Griffin and Albert L. Page

Number of Collaboration 8 7 7 5 3 3 2

28

Table 4.3.2 Showing the Years of Collaboration for all the 119 Articles

Sole Author 1984 1984 1985 1992

Two Authors 1984 1994 1986 1986 1987

Three Authors 1985 2006 1991 1992 1994 2006 2007 2007

Four Authors 1994 1997 2000 2000

Five Authors 1994

Six Authors 2002

1994

1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1997 1999 1999 2000

1987 1987 1988 1988 1988 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991 1992 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1994 1994 1994

1995 1995 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2002 2002 2003 2004 2007 1994 1990

1995 1995 1995 1995 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2001 2001 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2005 2005 2005 1997 1997.5

2003 2004 2007 2007 2008

Mode = Median =

1993 1993.5

2000 2003

1994 1994

2002 2002

29

4.4

Analysis and discussion

The developed database (see Appendix 1) served as the skeleton of the whole thesis from which all other things were inferred. As a result, all the three different stages of this thesis are entwined in one way or another. By a simple count under degree-granting institution column of the excel database it was found that Roger J. Calantone and Edward F. McDonough III attended the same degree-granting institute called the University of Massachusetts. Likewise, Elko J. Kleinschmidt and C. Anthony Di Benedetto attended the same degree-granting institute called McGill University. Apart from the above, the other academic leaders all attended different degree-granting institutions. A simple count under the current employer column of the excel database revealed that, Robert G. Cooper and Elko J. Kleinschmidt were both employed by McMaster University and that may explain why they have written the most number of articles (8) together. Similarly, Michael Song and Mark E. Parry were both employed by the University of Missouri-Kansas City and that may as well explain why they co-ranked second (7) on table 4.3.1. Interestingly, Vijay Mahajan was the only academic author employed by the degree-granting institute. By comparing table 4.3.1 with the table 5.3.4 (positional authors), it was surprisingly found that, all of Mark E. Parrys articles (7) were co-authored by Michael Song. Also, all but one of Henry S.J. Robbens articles were co-authored by Erik J. Hultink and this may also be explained by the fact that they both come from the Netherlands. The rest of the collaborations may be similarly explained by the fact that authors for the particular article represent the same country. An exception to this was the collaborations between William E. Souder and Rudy K. Moenaert which cannot be explained in this thesis. Using excel, the years of publication of all the 119 JPIM articles were put under the column headings: sole-author; one-author; two-author; three-author; four-author; fiveauthor; and six-author. The years of publication were arranged in ascending order using Excel and the mode and median year determined under each column. This was developed into Table 4.3.2.

30

Consistent with the findings of Biemans et al (2007), the number of academic leaders sole-authorship in JPIM was found to have reduced with time. This was because the researchers were secluded from each other and were sparsely distributed across the universities. This, as well as the difficulties of communicating through slow mailing system made working together difficult in the past. The increasing availability of the internet has nearly resolved the logistical problems related with working across distances, resulting in a growing collaboration between researchers. There is therefore a decrease in the number of sole-authored articles and an increase in the cross-institutional collaborations over time (Biemans et al, 2007). These observations strongly suggest that there is a globalisation of the academic community studying innovation management. As the nature of global research and development (R&D) efforts by firms increase so does common practice in innovation management become internationalised (Biemans et al, 2007). In fact, the last time an academic leader sole-authored a JPIM article was in the year 2000. It was found that, there has been a total of 18 sole-authored (mode = 1993, median = 1993); 57 duets (mode = 1994, median = 1990); 33 triplets (mode 1997, median = 1997); and 9 quadruplet-authored JPIM articles by the academic leaders. JPIM articles authored by five or six academic leaders are rare. It can therefore be seen that most of the JPIMs academic leaders articles have been duets, followed by triplets, sole-authored, and quadruplets-authored (see Table 4.3.2).

4.5

Chapter summary

This chapter explains the method used and the execution of the data collection and database generation. It ranked some author collaborations and the reasons behind them. It again analysed the employment and educational background of the academic authors. The dominant form of collaboration was identified as the duet and sole authorship was found to be decreasing with time.

31

DETERMINING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC LEADERS

Because most of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) articles were co-authored, it was very difficult or even impossible to tell what the contribution of an individual was. But an attempt was made as below.

5.1

Method used

The articles studied were awarded to the academic authors based on their position in authorship. This was based on the assumption that the lower an authors position in a co-authored article, the lower the contribution of that particular author relative to the other co-authors with higher author positions. For example, an article was awarded to an author if his/ her name appeared before the name(s) of the other JPIM academic leader(s). Also, an article was awarded to an academic leader even though he/ she was not the lead author. This was the case because all the authors who appeared before the academic leader were not one of the top 16 academic leaders being studied (See appendix 1 for more examples). The positional authors were highlighted in red among the other authors and a column created for them. The positional authors and their data were alphabetically arranged using excel for the ease of analysis.

5.2

Execution of authors contributions

Each authors contributions were sorted under the positional author column so that only the contributions made by a specific positional author were displayed at any point in time. The information extracted from the JPIM into the database under the contributions column was analysed and summarised in a table (Table 5.3.2) for each positional author and used as their major contributions as below:

32

5.3

Results

Table 5.3.1 Showing the knowledge Areas the Academic Leaders Wrote About

Knowledge Area * Process execution and metrics Strategy, planning and decision making People, teams and culture Customer and market research Technology and intellectual property Industry context and alliances Reflections on the field Total

Number of Occurrence 46 30 24 9 6 2 2 119

Percentage % 38.66 25.21 20.17 7.56 5.04 1.68 1.68

* Means the classification was obtained from Thieme 2007

33

Table 5.3.2 Showing the Major Contributions of the Academic Leaders

Name of Author
Technology and Intellectual Property People, Teams and Culture Process Execution and Metrics Strategy, Planning and Decision Making 1991

Major Contribution

Area of Knowledge

Year of First Publication

Year of Last Publication

2008

Michael Song, X

Robert G. Cooper

New Technology Ventures (NTVs) can have positive effects on employment and could rejuvenate industries with disruptive technologies There is a strong and positive relationship between: integrative behaviours and constructive conflicts; constructive conflict and the success of cross-functional relationships; constructive conflict and NPD business success Product selection criteria of market potential; relative product advantage; competitive intensity; and fit with the technical and production capabilities of the enterprise are significant correlates of success in China Irrespective of the significant cultural differences, Japanese new products professionals see the keys to success in much the same way as the North America professionals R&D, marketing and manufacturing professionals share the same perceptions regarding the drivers and the consequences of cross-functional cooperation Strategic planning; market analysis; technical development; and product commercialisation are the key determinants of new product success for both really new and incremental products Different NPD stages require different types of joint involvement and joint involvement between two departments is generally more beneficial Japanese R&D and marketing managers differ in terms of their time orientation and the professional orientation, as well as, in their preference for high-risk, high-return projects and also in their perceptions of the need for R&D-marketing integration Investing in computer mediated communication (CMC) technologies is favourable over the colocation of R&D staff when it comes to knowledge dissemination but the two channels complement each other An increase in the level of redundancy reduces the level of knowledge application Overlapping resources, skills, and business activities across different functions leads to too much similarity, and eventually weakens the incentives to disseminate knowledge. Product differentiation is the most important influence on success Product superiority, good value-for-money, price/performance, main benefit, meeting needs and unique attributes are strong discriminators between new product success and failure Strategies leading to high performance in one direction are quite different from the strategies leading to positive results by other measures Product superiority is the number one factor influencing commercial success and that project definition and early predevelopment activities are the most critical steps in new products development Process Execution and Metrics Strategy, Planning and Decision Making 1984

1999

34

Roger J. Calantone

Process Execution and Metrics Strategy, Planning and Decision Making

1988

2007

Erik Jan Hultink and Henry S.J. Robben

(NPD) process The strongest drivers of project timeliness are: the use of cross-functional, dedicated, accountable team, with a strong leader and top management support; a solid upfront or predevelopment homework; customer focus, market orientation and new product effort; technical proficiency; market attractiveness; product definition; and launch quality Firms must place more emphasis on market studies, initial screening activities, and preliminary market assessment in order to have successful new products Top performing firms balance technological prowess with a strong market orientation and elect particularly lucrative, high potential, large and growing non-competitive markets. Their new products have similar end-use as their existing products, fit into an existing product line, are in the same product class as the firms existing products Benchmark companies employ a much more formal, explicit method to managing their portfolio of projects; rely on clear, well-defined portfolio procedures; consistently apply their portfolio method to all projects; and management buys into the approach Ignorance; lack of skills; faulty or misapplied new product process; over-confidence; lack of discipline; big hurry; too many projects and not enough resources prevent companies from becoming successful While new to the firm products pose more risk than "close to home" ones, the resulting level of success is not sharply reduced Researchers normally concentrate on strategic and development process factors The drivers for innovation outsourcing should allow for better resource planning from innovation managers in traditional firms as well as better targeting of perspective clients from firms seeking contract innovation business Product innovativeness can be detrimental to new product success if customers are not sufficiently familiar with the nature of the new product and if innovativeness fails to improve product advantage By improving the performance of key NPD activities under hostile environmental conditions, a firm can greatly increase the likelihood of success for a new industrial product Managers are reluctant to terminate a failing NPD project despite the growing cost and this is especially the case with radical innovations than with incremental innovations A firm with less experience and expertise in marketing or technical production is not necessarily at a disadvantage in new product launch, as long as it compensates for these drawbacks with adequate marketing, launch and technical activities for the specific product Reputation building and buyer involvement drive a company to issue new product withdrawals (NPWs) and new product introductions (NPIs) The academic community is pursuing research issues that are relevant to practitioners and that the conclusions being reached are also valid There is no clear relationship between product autonomy and relative advantage Consumers judge products that are more autonomous as more likely to fail and as more complex Relative advantage is related positively and perceived risk is related negatively to overall consumer appreciation Strategy, Planning and Decision Making Process Execution and Metrics 1995 2004

35

Customer and Market Research

William E. Souder

Technology and Intellectual Property Process Execution and Metrics Customer and Market Research Strategy, Planning and Decision Making

1988

2005

Abbie Griffin

People with a higher desire for control perceive less risk, independently of the level of autonomy of the product Different companies use different criteria at different NPD evaluation gates A firm's time perspective influences the perceived importance of the core measurement of success Market acceptance is influenced by the product's innovativeness, breadth of assortment, timing of market entry, pricing, branding, competitor reactions, and the objective of increasing market penetration Product performance is influenced by the breadth of assortment, product's innovativeness, and also by using an existing market Successful firms focus on niche launch strategy coupled with targeting innovative products into markets with few competitors Successful firms use a skimming pricing strategy; exclusive distribution, and a broad product assortment Sales people who show commitment and effort at the same time will achieve higher levels of new product selling performance The effects of sales force adoption on selling performance is stronger where outcome base control is used and where the firm provides information on the background of the new product to sales people through internal marketing The kind of market signal or reaction a new product entrant will receive depends on the launch decisions adopted Market-orientated culture is converted into superior organisational performance only through high product advantage, greater proficiency in launch tactics, and better new product performance The effective recording of information from past projects and the efficient retrieval of that information coupled with effective cross-functional integration have beneficial implications An emphasis on performance superiority, technical superiority, or radically new products provide a recipe for failure under low market uncertainty for the small U.S firms Under low market uncertainty, these larger companies should consider emphasising compatibility and avoiding radical designs For higher perceived uncertainty levels of the larger companies, performance superiority, technical superiority, and radical designs must be emphasised Both R&D-marketing and direct R&D-customer integration were found to have positive effects on NPD effectiveness Proficiency in conducting development, marketing, and customer service activities are similar in both the US and Scandinavian management practices Some key NPD management principles may be generally important to success, whereas others may be culturally dependent Radical changes to the institutionalised roles of both marketing and R&D are needed in order to significantly increase NPD success rates Techtran II provides a systematic way of thinking about product development and technology transfer Champion support is associated with programme success, strategy and NPD process use but not firm level success Process Execution and Metrics 1992 2007

36

Strategy, Planning and Decision Making

David Wilemon People, Teams and Culture Customer and Market Research

1985

1996

Edward F. McDonough III

Champions have indirect effects on firm performance The most appropriate set of measures for assessing project-level and programme-level success depends on the project strategy and business strategy respectively The best practice firms succeed by using a number of NPD practices more effectively at the same time The best practice firms do not use financial rewards but instead use project-completion dinners The best practice firms use more multi-functional teams, are more likely to measure NPD processes and outcomes, and expect more from their NPD programmes compared to other firms Academics and managers tend to focus on rather different sets of product development success/failure measures Before a process can be improved, characteristics associated with the process must be measured so that the firm knows its starting point. R&D's perception of the quality of marketing information, the characteristics of marketing managers they interact with, and the practices and policies of their organisations influence the degree of R&DMarketing cooperation NPD leaders play four major roles namely: climate-setter, communicator, interfacer and planner Differences between the operations leader and the innovations leader can be found in the methods they use to achieve their roles and functions Monitoring market developments, commercialisation of new technologies, understanding customer needs, building cross-functional teams, acceleration of NPD, and managing multiple R&D projects have the greatest impact on R&D performance Information gathering on product performance; product customisation; ongoing product support; product education and training; proactive political involvement; real-time problem solving assistance; product demonstration and trial; and the clarification of the product's relative advantage form the bedrock of the relationship marketing activities R&D is not eager to get involved with marketing to the level marketing would want and also does not also want marketing on the other hand to be too involved in R&D Co-location is indirectly related to performance as it increases collaboration which in turn leads to improved performance The increased use of cross-functional teams in new product development (NPD) is related to higher project success An organisation's culture may have an important impact on the behaviour of its members even though they do not accept it A project leader with a bounded delegation leadership style is better suited to the task of leading a new product project Engineers should be given enough room to explore new and exciting technologies within specified boundaries The factors that are important in selecting leaders are different from those that are important in selecting team members Global teams generally face greater behavioural and project management challenges than either the virtual or co-located teams People, Teams and Culture 1986 2001

37

Kwaku AtuaheneGima Technology and Intellectual Property People, Teams and Culture Customer and Market Research Strategy, Planning and Decision Making 1992 2005

Rudy K. Moenaert

Strategy, Planning and Decision Making People, Teams and Culture

1990

2002

Vijay Mahajan

Responsive and proactive market-orientation have curvilinear effects on product development performance Services and manufacturing firms focus on similar factors for improving innovation performance but, the relative importance of those factors depends on the type of firm Market orientation appears to have greater influence on new incremental product performance than radically new products Marketing personnel who use persistent pressure, information exchange, and coalition formations are likely to be successful in affecting NPD decisions The factors that may influence a firm to adopt Inward Technology Licensing (ITL) as an alternative to internal R&D are firm characteristics; managerial factors; and availability of ITL opportunities A salesperson's commitment to a new product depends mainly on the salesperson's performance orientation, learning style, and problem-solving style competitors fail to respond to radical innovations and to new products that employ a niche strategy but are likely to react to the introduction of new products that are supported by extensive communication by the innovating firm competitors react primarily through price changes and the likelihood of reaction is higher in high growth markets than in low growth markets network transparency; knowledge codification; knowledge credibility, secrecy, communication cost determine the effectiveness and efficiency of communication in international product development the value of extra-functional information is determined by channel, message, source and receiver attributes project formalisation and the quality of inter-functional climate have a significant effect on project success New products contribute significantly to the total sales of Small Business Unit's (SBU's) SBU's take a short-term perspective when evaluating new product success but their product and market foci are mostly domestic Most SBU's do not follow all the new product development activities and the use of product models is not widespread among them The value assigned to a brand will differ based on who is evaluating the brand for acquisition Marketing hype is a necessary condition for the creation of a favourable and conducive atmosphere for the acceptance of a new product by all its relevant stakeholders The creation of marketing hype seems most appropriate for innovative products whose adoption involves a high perceived psychological, social, or economic risk Companies need to determine the optimal number of samples that must be available for trial by the innovators, early adopters, and other key consumers who influence the adoption rate of the new product For financial services to develop a competitive positioning strategy they must: Emphasise positions that are not already overcrowded; Choose positions that can be convincingly substantiated; Develop positioning strategies over the medium to long term; and combine mutually supporting positions to differentiate their positioning strategies from that of competitors and help keep the implementation fresh over time Strategy, Planning and Decision Making Customer and Market Research 1987 1995

38

Albert L. Page 1984 1993

Elko J. Kleinschmidt 1986

Process Execution and Metrics Strategy, Planning and Decision Making Strategy, Planning and Decision Making Process Execution and Metrics 2007

Mark E. Parry Process Execution and Metrics People, Teams and Culture

1991

1994

C. Anthony Di Benedetto

The state of NPD practice covering both structure and process as 1993, had improved, although there was room for further improvement The distinctions between principles and practice as at 1993, were as a result of the complex nature of the process and the importance it places on the need to manage it effectively. The relationship between product innovativeness and commercial success is U-shaped Moderately innovative, middle-of-the-road products are less likely to succeed when measured by a number of performance criteria Adoption risks, innovation attributes, and levels of change in established behaviour patterns are regarded as forms of product newness from the customer's perspective Environmental familiarity, project-firm fit, technological and marketing aspects are seen as dimensions of product innovativeness from the firm's perspective Japanese R&D managers' perceptions of achieved integration reflect perceptions of the quality of R&D-Marketing relations, the value placed on integration by senior management, the business background of R&D personnel and the risk orientation of senior management Managers can influence the incremental effects of added R&D spending on the firms' performance by manipulating certain firm-contingent variables Increased R&D spending can have either a positive or negative influence on gross margin under various circumstances Relative product advantage and the acquisition of marketing information were highly correlated with new product success in both China and Canada Superior skills in marketing research, sales force, distribution, promotion, R&D, and engineering, strongly relates to successful new product launch Cross-functional teams making key marketing and manufacturing decisions, and the early involvement of logistics in planning are strong strategic activities related to successful launch High quality of selling efforts; advertising and technical support; good launch management and good management of support programmes; excellent launch timing relative to customers and competitors; and information gathering activities of all kinds are tactical activities related to successful launch Strategy, Planning and Decision Making 1988 2004

39

Table 5.3.3 Showing the Various Author Rankings

Name of Author Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 Robben, Henry S.J Rudy K. Moenaert C. Anthony Di Benedetto Vijay Mahajan David Wilemon 2.99 2.66 2.66 2.5 2.32 3.33 8 8 8 9 10 11 Robert G. Cooper Michael Song, X William E. Souder Abbie Griffin Kwaku Atuahene-Gima Roger J. Calantone Albert L. Page Erik Jan Hultink Elko J. Kleinschmidt Edward F. McDonough III Mark E. Parry 10.03 8.14 6.9 6.5 6.33 5.39 5 4.41 4.36 4.33 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 7 Roger J. Calantone Robert G. Cooper William E. Souder Elko J. Kleinschmidt Abbie Griffin Kwaku Atuahene-Gima Vijay Mahajan Michael Song, X David Wilemon C. Anthony Di Benedetto Erik Jan Hultink Edward F. McDonough III Rudy K. Moenaert Robben, Henry S.J Albert L. Page Mark E. Parry Number of Articles (Adjusted) Rank Name of Author hindex 19 15 13 13 12 12 11 9 8 8 7 7 7 6 5 3

Name of Author Number of Articles (Unadjusted) 20 15 15 14 12 12 10 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6

Rank

1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7

Michael Song, X Robert G. Cooper William E. Souder Roger J. Calantone Abbie Griffin Erik Jan Hultink Elko J. Kleinschmidt Kwaku Atuahene-Gima Robben, Henry S.J Albert L. Page C. Anthony Di Benedetto

David Wilemon

Edward F. McDonough III

7 7

Mark E. Parry Rudy K. Moenaert Vijay Mahajan

40

Table 5.3.4 Showing the Rankings of the Positional Authors

Number of Positional Articles 15 14 14 11 11 8 7 7 7 6 6 5 3 3 2 0

Rank 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 Name of Positional Author Michael Song, X Robert G. Cooper Roger J. Calantone Erik Jan Hultink William E. Souder Abbie Griffin David Wilemon Edward F. McDonough III Kwaku Atuahene-Gima Rudy K. Moenaert Vijay Mahajan Albert L. Page Elko J. Kleinschmidt Mark E. Parry C. Anthony Di Benedetto Henry S.J. Robben

41

Table 5.3.5 Showing the Rankings of Lead and Sole Academic Authorship
Name of Author Rank Robert G. Cooper Michael Song, X William E. Souder Roger J. Calantone Erik Jan Hultink Kwaku Atuahene-Gima Abbie Griffin Edward F. McDonough III Rudy K. Moenaert Albert L. Page Elko J. Kleinschmidt C. Anthony Di Benedetto Mark E. Parry Vijay Mahajan Robben, Henry S.J David Wilemon Number of Lead Authorship 14 11 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 4 2 2 2 2 0 0 Name of Author Rank Robert G. Cooper Kwaku Atuahene-Gima Abbie Griffin Edward F. McDonough III William E. Souder Albert L. Page C. Anthony Di Benedetto Michael Song, X Roger J. Calantone Erik Jan Hultink Rudy K. Moenaert Elko J. Kleinschmidt Mark E. Parry Vijay Mahajan Robben, Henry S.J David Wilemon Number of Sole Authorship 6 5 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 8 8 8 9 9

1 2 3 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

42

Table 5.3.6 Showing the Commitment of the Academic Leaders to JPIM

Name of Author Number of JPIM Articles Michael Song, X Robert G. Cooper William E. Souder Roger J. Calantone Abbie Griffin Erik Jan Hultink Elko J. Kleinschmidt Kwaku Atuahene-Gima Robben, Henry S.J Albert L. Page C. Anthony Di Benedetto David Wilemon Edward F. McDonough III Mark E. Parry Rudy K. Moenaert Vijay Mahajan TOTAL= 20 15 15 14 12 12 10 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 162 Number of All Articles as at 2007* 31 26 18 21 11 13 17 11 9 10 9 12 10 10 11 219 Dedication to JPIM Percentage % 64.52 57.69 83.33 66.67 109.09 92.31 58.82 72.73 88.89 70 77.78 58.33 70 70 54.55

* means figures were obtained from Thieme (2007).

Table 5.3.7 Showing the Rankings of the Research Disciplinary Issues

Number of Occurrence 39 25 21 8 7 7 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9

Disciplinary Issues Management New Product Development Marketing Communication Human Resources Management Information Technology Accounting and Finance Architecture and Design History Mensuration Quality Control Knowledge Management Planning Aerospace Typology

Percentage % 31.2 20 16.8 6.4 5.6 5.6 3.2 2.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.8 0.8 0.8

43

5.4

Analysis and discussion

The contributions of the academic leaders were ranked using information from the database under four main categories: unadjusted, adjusted, h-index, position and combined into a single table (See table 5.3.3). The unadjusted ranking was adopted from Biemans et al (2007) and was done by counting the number of times a particular academic leader authored or co-authored a JPIM article. This implied that, an academic leaders contribution was counted as one so long as their name appeared as an author or co-author of that particular article. The adjusted ranking was adopted from Thieme, (2007) and was done by dividing each article by the total number of its authors and results represented each authors adjusted contribution towards that particular article. For example, if four people co-authored an article, one was divided by four and the result (0.25) represents the adjusted contribution of each of the four authors. The adjusted values were summed up for each academic leader (see Appendix 3) and ranked. The above rankings were done using Excel pivot table. The h-index is an index that quantifies both the actual scientific productivity and the apparent scientific impact of a scientist and was suggested by Jorge E. Hirsch. The index is based on the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other people's publications (Cardona, 2005). A scientist has index h if h of his or her Np papers have at least h citations each and the other (Np h) papers have h citations each. Two individuals with similar hs are comparable in terms of their overall scientific impact, even if their total number of papers or their total number of citations is very different as argued by (Cardona, 2005). This means that when comparing two individuals (of the same scientific age) with a similar number of total papers or of total citation count and very different h values, the one with the higher h is likely to be the more accomplished scientist. The greatest limitation of the h-index ranking is that the information obtained from the Scopus electronic resource only dates back to 1996 and therefore does not give a fair ranking to the JPIM authors as most of them started publishing long before this date.

44

The position ranking was done by simply counting the number of times a particular academic leader appeared as a position author out of the 119 JPIM journals reviewed (see Table 5.3.4). All these results were also developed as part of the database.

It was found that nine out of the sixteen academic authors representing 56.25% had never been a JPIM sole author. Robert G. Cooper tops the ranking with a staggering six sole-authored articles to his name followed closely by Kwaku Atuahene-Gima with five to his name (see Table 5.3.5 for details). Interestingly, Henry S.J. Robben and David Wilemon had never been JPIM lead authors. Robert G. Cooper again tops the ranking with fourteen lead authorships to his name followed by Michael Song with eleven to his name (See table 5.3.5 for details).The results again showed that Henry S.J. Robben had never been a JPIM positional author as well but his name appeared under that column just for the purposes of hyper-linking and ease of data handling. Comparing the different rankings in table 5.3.3, it can be seen that the authors keep changing positions depending on which type of ranking being looked at and this was consistent with the findings of Thieme (2007). For example, Michael Song came first on the unadjusted ranking but was ranked second and sixth on the adjusted and h-index tables respectively. Abbie Griffin, who is the only female among the academic leaders, occupied the fourth position in all the rankings. Furthermore, Henry S.J. Robben was sixth on the unadjusted but came thirteenth, ninth and last on the adjusted, h-index, and position author rankings respectively. The difference in author positions between adjusted and unadjusted ranking was due to the number of collaborations and also the number of co-authors per article. For example, Henry S.J. Robben dropped from the sixth spot on the unadjusted ranking to the thirteenth spot on the adjusted ranking because all his articles were co-authored. From Table 5.3.6, it can be seen that all the academic leaders spend at least more than half of their commitment and time on JPIM articles. The percentages of their commitment were obtained by comparing their unadjusted number of article to their total number of articles across different journals as identified by Thieme, (2007). On top

45

of the list was Abbie Griffin may be explained by the fact that she is the editor of JPIM. On the average, the academic leaders spend 73% of their time with JPIM. Albert L. Page was left out because he was not on the list of Thieme, (2007). Consistent with existing literature, it was found that the academic leaders wrote about a diverse range of disciplinary issues particularly management (31.2%), new product development (20.0%), and marketing (16.8) among others (See table 5.3.7 for details). This diverse range of disciplines further strengthens the multi-disciplinary, practicality and the credibility of JPIM in the marketplace. An analysis of the area of knowledge column was developed into table 5.3.1 which proved that most of the knowledge that came from the academic leaders were in the area of process execution and metrics (38.66%) followed by the strategy, planning and decision making (25.21%), then, people, teams, and culture (20.17%). The classification in table 5.3.1 was adopted from Thieme (2007) and the first two ranks of the results were consistent with his findings. Four articles were found to talk about radical innovation and eight were found to talk about incremental innovation. Another ten articles were found to talk about both forms of innovation. However, it was found that the academic leaders favour the incremental form of innovation as opposed to radical innovation when it comes to success. Furthermore, two articles were found to talk about innovation through collaboration and the formation of alliance but none of them mentioned the term open innovation. Finally, the contributions of Henry S.J. Robben and Erik J. Hultink were merged because Henry has never been a JPIM lead or positional author and all his articles were co-authored by Erik. 5.5 Chapter summary

This chapter determined the contributions of the academic leaders by awarding articles to positional authors. It ranks their contributions using the adjusted, unadjusted, position, and h-index among other forms of ranking. It again determined their commitment to JPIM and the disciplinary issues they write about.

46

DETERMINING WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC LEADERS MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF JPIM AND THE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA

After the data was collected, the database created and the contributions of the academic leaders determined, the final stage was to determine whether their contributions meet what JPIM stands for, and make key recommendations for future research agenda.

6.1

Method Used

Another excel sheet was created for the author profile which contained the following information: picture of author; name of author; profile; subject area; where they publish; number of citations; h-index; and country of affiliation (see appendix 3). The information was obtained from the Scopus electronic resources and the pictures from Google image and together formed an extension of the database. A positional author was hyperlinked to his/ her profile so that all the profile could be seen just by clicking on his/ her name. By a simple tally sheet, the research industries; the research method used; the type of innovation the authors wrote about; the popular journals where the academic leaders publish; the author collaborations and the diverse range of the surveyed industries were determined and ranked using information under their respective column headings in the database and their relative percentages calculated. Tables were made for all the above findings which also form part of the database. As discussed earlier, the key recommendations were extracted from all the 119 JPIM articles studied and put under the recommendations for future research headed column in the database. The most referred to recommendations were colour-coded and put into distinct groups (see Chapter 6.4 for details).

47

6.2

Execution

In order to answer the question as to whether or not the contributions of the academic leaders meet the objectives, a test was conducted based on the three key principles of multi-discipline, internationalism, and practicality (see the test of the three key principles). A table was created for the academic leaders under the column headings: multi-disciplinary, internationalism, and practicality (table 6.3.5). The academic leaders were given a star rating under each column with a maximum of four stars per column. Sub-headings of one to twelve were also created and their respective meanings developed into a key to the table. The stars were summed up for each author to determine the overall star rating out of a possible twelve stars.

6.3

Results

Table 6.3.1 Showing the ranking of the Research methods used

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Research Method Questionnaire Interview Literature Review Case Study Others Number of Times Used 83 50 11 5 19 Percentage % 49.4 29.76 6.55 2.98 11.38

48

Table 6.3.2 Showing the Ranking of the Type of Innovation the Authors Wrote About
Type of Innovation Number of Times Percentag e%

Rank

Process

70

66.67

2 3 4

Product Position Paradigm

28 4 3

26.67 3.81 2.86

Table 6.3.3 Showing the Author Representation of Countries

Number of Authors Percentage %

Rank

Country

Author(s)

USA

Michael Song, William E. Souder, Roger J. Calantone, Abbie Griffin, Albert L. Page, David Wilemon, Edward F. McDonough III, C. Anthony Di Benedetto, Vijay Mahajan, Mark Parry Erik Jan Hultink, Henry S.J. Robben, Rudy K. Moenaert Robert G. Cooper, Elko Kleinschmidt Kwaku Atuahene-Gima

10

62.5

3 2 1

18.75 12.5 6.25

2 3 4

Netherlands Canada China

49

Table 6.3.4 Showing the Representation of the Research Industries and Countries
Number of Occurrence 57 30 30 26 22 19 19 18 15 14 13 12 10 9 8 8 8 7 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 26 381 Percentag e% 14.96 7.87 7.87 6.82 5.77 4.99 4.99 4.72 3.94 3.67 3.41 3.15 2.62 2.36 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.84 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.79 6.82 TOTAL = 113 Number of Occurrence 46 12 11 8 8 6 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 Percentag e% 40.71 10.62 9.73 7.08 7.08 5.31 3.54 3.54 2.65 2.65 1.77 1.77 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88

Rank 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 13 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 18

Research Industry Equipment Electronics Chemical Services Computers Technology Instrumentation Machinery Metal, Wood, Textile, Plastics and Glass Communications Electrical Pharmaceutical Durable Goods Manufacturing Consumer Goods Semiconductors Automobile Food and Beverages Construction and Installation Materials and Components Industrial Products Engineering Transport Aerospace Information Processing Other TOTAL=

Rank 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 9

Research Country USA UK Netherlands Canada Japan China Germany Belgium Europe Australia New Zealand Scandinavia Italy Mexico Denmark South Korea

50

THE TEST OF THE KEY PRINCIPLES

Key to Multi-Disciplinary 1 = Author with multiple subject areas 2 = Author Published JPIM articles in different disciplines (at least 2) 3 = Author has Educational Background in Multiple Disciplines (at least 2) 4 = Author has Researched into Diverse Industries

Key to Internationalism 5 = Author Researched in different Countries (at least 2) 6 = Author has International Collaborations with other authors (at least one) 7 = Author has a credible profile 8 = Author publishes in other recognised journals

Key to Practicality 9 = Authors research was industry-based 10 = Authors results and proposed models have been validated 11 = Authors output is beneficial to the academic and practitioner communities 12 = Author has a reasonable industrial experience

51

Table 6.3.5 Showing the Results and Proof of Author Multi-Disciplinarity, Internationalism, and Practicality
Internationalism 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 56 4 4 4 4 4 4 64 11 11 11 11 10 10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 Star Rating 9 10 11 12 Star Rating 7 8 Practicality Star Rating 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 63 Total Star Rating 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11

Multi-Disciplinary 3 4

Name of Author

Robert G. Cooper Michael Song, X Kwaku Atuahene-Gima Roger J. Calantone Elko J. Kleinschmidt William E. Souder Erik Jan Hultink Vijay Mahajan Rudy K. Moenaert Albert L. Page Edward F. McDonough III Abbie Griffin Robben, Henry S.J Mark E. Parry C. Anthony Di Benedetto

David Wilemon Total

52

Table 6.3.6 Showing the ranking of the popular journals where the academic leaders publish
Number of Academic Leaders who Publish Here 16 10 10 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Impact factor as at 2007 1.585 0.962 0.911 1.931 0.597 0.476 0.95 1.739 1.851 1.18 2.829 0.672 0.878 0.356 5.017 0.508 1.004 1.875 0.889 2.211 0.387

Rank 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Name of Popular Journals Journal of Product Innovation Management IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management Industrial Marketing Management Management Science R&D Management Research Technology Management Journal of International Marketing Journal of Marketing Research IEEE Engineering Management Review Journal of Operations Management Journal of the academy of Marketing Science Strategic Management Journal Journal of technology transfer Marketing letters Journal of Business Research International Journal of Technology Management Production and Inventory Management Journal Academy of Management Journal International Marketing Review Technovation Journal of Business Venturing Technological forecasting and social change Research Policy Research Management Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research Engineering Management International Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Journal of Product and Brand Management Journal of Retailing Consumer Services Journal of Advertising Research European Management Journal Journal of High Technology Management Research Business Horizons

0.395

53

6.4

Analysis and discussion

Whether or not the contributions of the academic leaders meet the objectives of JPIM was determined using the three key principles of multi-disciplinary, internationalism, and practicality. The multi-disciplinary was determined based on the fact that the academic leader: had multiple subject areas; had published JPIM articles in at least two different disciplines; had educational background in at least two different disciplines; had researched into diverse industries. The results show that all the sixteen academic leaders satisfy at three out of the four criteria. This means they all at least had multiple subject areas; published JPIM articles in at least two different disciplines; and researched into diverse industries. All the academic leaders had educational background in two or more different disciplines except Henry S.J. Robben who had BSc, MSc, and PhD in psychology. The above results show that indeed all the JPIM academic leaders are multi-disciplined. Together, the academic leaders scored sixty-three stars out of a possible sixty-four (see Table 6.3.5) under multi-disciplinary. The internationalism was determined based on the following considerations that the academic leader: researched in at least two different countries; had at least one international collaboration with other authors; had a credible profile; and published in other recognised journals. The results show that all the academic leaders had a credible profile and also published in other recognised journals. However, thirteen out of the sixteen academic leaders researched in at least two different countries. Abbie Griffin, David Wilemon, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto researched in only one country. Likewise, eleven out of the sixteen academic leaders had at least one international collaboration with other authors. Although the other five academic leaders had some collaboration, they were not international. David Wilemon and C. Anthony Di Benedetto scored the lowest under internationalism with two stars each. This implies that most of the academic leaders are internationally oriented. Together, the academic leaders scored fifty-six stars out of a possible sixty-four here (see Table 6.3.5).

54

The practicality was determined based on the fact that the academic leader: had industry-based research; had results and proposed models that were validated; had output that was beneficial to the academic and practitioner communities; had a reasonable industrial experience. The results show that all the academic leaders satisfied all the above conditions and scored a staggering sixty-four stars out of a possible sixtyfour (see Table 6.3.5) under practicality. Again, on the individual level, nine academic leaders scored twelve stars, five of them scored eleven stars, and two of them scored ten stars out of a possible twelve stars under all categories (see Table 6.3.5). All the above show that the academic leaders effectively passed the test to prove the multi-disciplinary, internationalism, and practicality of their contribution in satisfying the objectives of JPIM, and therefore making the credibility of their work much more cemented than ever. Consistent with existing literature, ten out of the sixteen academic leaders were found to represent the USA and making up 62.50% of the total population of the academic leaders under study. This is followed by the Netherlands with 18.75%, Canada with 12.50%, and finally China with 6.25% (See table 6.3.3). Not surprisingly, the United States was surveyed the most (46 times) representing 40.71%. This dominance may be due to large percentage of the academic authors representing the United States and the close to home effect. The next most surveyed country was the United Kingdom (12 times) representing 10.62% followed by the Netherlands (11 times) representing 9.73% (See table 6.3.4 for details and ranking). Again the different geographical locations of the surveyed countries coupled with the cultural differences between them strengthen the internationalism, practicality, and credibility of JPIM in the marketplace. It was found from Table 6.3.1 that the majority of research methods used to acquire information from respondents were in the form of questionnaires (49.40%) followed by interviews (29.76%), literature review (6.55%), and case studies (2.98). It was found

55

that questionnaire and interview techniques were combined most of the time. Other techniques such as observations and laboratory experiments formed a relatively insignificant proportion. Process innovation was found to form a staggering 66.67% of all the 119 JPIM articles studied representing 70 articles. This was followed by product innovation with 26.67% representing 28 out of the 119 JPIM articles studied. Position and paradigm innovations formed 3.81% and 2.86% respectively (see table 6.3.2). This indicates that JPIM articles give clear and concise directions as to how to go about doing things the best way in order to be successful. This again strengthens the practicality of JPIM articles as the processes are made simple and easy to follow by both the academic and practitioner communities. This again implies that, JPIM articles provide guidelines for the best changes to products in order to gain an advantage over others, get better performance, and consequently lead to both product and organisational success. A diverse range of industries were surveyed by the academic leaders. Notable among them are the equipment which was surveyed about 57 times (14.96%), followed by the electronics (7.87%) and the chemicals industries (7.87%) which were surveyed about thirty times each, and the Service sector which was also surveyed about 26 times representing 6.82% (See table 6.3.4 for details and rankings). Looking at table 6.3.4, it can be concluded that the academic leaders mostly researched into the high-tech industries with formalised Research and Development (R&D) activities as opposed to a few service industries with no R&D activities. This diverse range of surveyed industries further strengthens the practicality status of JPIM. It was interesting to find extra information that the academic leaders also do publish in other recognised journals other than JPIM (see Table 6.3.6). Their impact factors were obtained using the Journal Citation Report (JCR) from the ISI Web of Knowledge. The average impact-factor of these journals was 1.327. The impact factor is an index of a journals quality and its based on the theory that citation frequency accurately measures a journal's importance to its end users. It is a standard created by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) to measure the way a journal receives citations to its articles

56

over time. It is calculated by dividing the number of current citations a journal receives to articles published in the two previous years by the number of articles published in those same years. So, for example, the 1995 impact factor is the citations in 1995 to articles published in 1993 and 1994 divided by the number of articles published in 1993 and 1994. The number that results can be thought of as the average number of citations the average article receives per annum in the two years after the publication year. The higher the impact factor of a journal, the higher is the scientific esteem of that particular journal. According to Garfield (2006), A journal's impact factor is based on 2 elements: the numerator, which is the number of citations in the current year to items published in the previous 2 years, and the denominator, which is the number of substantive articles and reviews published in the same 2 years. The impact factor could just as easily be based on the previous year's articles alone, which would give even greater weight to rapidly changing fields. An impact factor could also take into account longer periods of citations and sources, but then the measure would be less current (Garfield, 2006, p. 90). It can be seen from Table 6.3.6 that the academy of management journal had the highest impact factor of 5.017 which stood out from the rest. By taking that journal out, the average impact-factor of the rest of the journals was 1.152. Interestingly, ten out of the sixteen academic leaders also do publish in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management and Industrial Marketing Management. Again, six out of the sixteen academic leaders publish in Management Science and R&D Management (see Table 6.3.6 for detailed ranking). 6.5 Recommendations for future research agenda

Finally, the key recommendations for future research agenda were made for each of the 119 JPIM articles studied (see Appendix 1 for all of them). Generally, future research should aim to add to the set of principles particularly in areas deemed currently and in the future as deficient by product practitioners and the academic community (Calantone et al, 1995).

57

By a simple tally under the future research agenda column of the database, the most common recommendations by the academic leaders were as follows: Cultural Context: This was a call for future research to replicate some of the studies done so far in different countries, cultures, industries and many more so that comparisons could be made and lead to the generalisation of some of the findings. This was recommended by at least twenty-six articles including: Gupta et al, 1985; McDonough and Barczak, 1992; Hultink et al, 1999; Parry and Song, 1994; Dyer and Song, 1998; Keizer et al, 2002; Song and Parry, 1996,1997; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1986,1993,1994,1995; Cooper, 1984; Cooper et al, 1994,1999; Cooper and Brentani, 1991; Schmidt and Calantone, 1998; Calantone et al, 1995; Moenaert et al, 1994; Moenaert and Souder, 1990; Easingwood and Mahajan, 1989; Souder and Jenssen, 1999; Souder et al, 1997; Sherman et al, 2000; and Song et al 1997; This is necessary because differences in culture be it functional, organisational, industrial, or even national can result in significant difference in outcome even when all other parameters are kept constant. Such a directive will further strengthen the internationalism of JPIM. Leadership: All forms of leadership be it supervisory, championship, management and many more greatly influence such things as organisational behaviour, morale of the workforce, decision-making, direction and the drive which all boil down to organisational performance and profitability. Therefore, issues surrounding the choice of the right leader for the right job, leadership styles and roles, and many more must be handled with care as this can make or break the company. This was supported by the following articles which all give specific future research topics on leadership: Markham and Griffin, 1998; Barczac and Wilemon, 1989; Meyers and Wilemon, 1989; McDonough, 2000; McDonough and Barczak, 1991; Hultink and Atuahene-Gima, 2000; and Haggblom et al, 1995. Product Development: All issues relating to product development are at the heart of most companies and must be looked at in great details. Factors relating to the success and failure, cycle time, standard processes, types of products and their impact on

58

consumers, NPD acceleration, product newness, speed to market, product performance, technical proficiency, product adaptation, and best practice in product development are just a few of the issues surrounding product development which must be looked at. This was supported by Griffin and Page, 1993, 1996; Griffin, 1993; Millson et al, 1992; McDonough, 1993, 2000; McDonough and Barczak, 1991; Atuahene-Gima, 1995; Calantone et al, 1997, 2004, 2006; Garcia and Calantone, 2002; Souder and Song 1998; Danneels and Kleinschmidt, 2001; Rijsdijk and Hultink, 2003. Launch Strategies: The launch stage represents the most costly and risky part of the NPD process (Kotler, 2003) and must therefore be looked at in details. Focusing on the launch is also appropriate because it is only during the launch that it will become clear whether a market orientation has developed into a superior product in the eyes of the customer. Factors such as the launch timing, decisions, proficiency, market signals, success and failure, new product introduction and withdrawal, competitive reactions, entrants characteristics, and their effect on product performance are a few among issues relating to launch strategies. This was supported by Benedetto, 1999; Hultink and Robben, 1999; Hultink et al, 1997, 2000; Hultink and Langerak, 2002; Tholke et al, 2001; Debruyne et al, 2002; and Langerak et al, 2004. Cross-Functional Cooperation: Cooperation particularly at the R&D-Marketing interface is essential for organisational success. A lot has been said about R&DMarketing integration but there is still nothing like the golden bullet to resolve this issue. This cross-functional conflict is costing the industry a lot of money and other resources and therefore must be investigated into as a matter of urgency. This was at least supported by Gupta and Wilemon, 1988; Atuahene-Gima, 1995; Parry and Song, 1993; Song et al, 1997, 1998; Sherman et al, 2005; and Souder, 1988. Communication, Team-building and Relationship: Human issues are very sensitive and difficult to manage. Well-balanced and happy team members usually make a successful team and therefore care should be taken in the selection of team members as well as leaders. How top management, leaders, and team members relate to each other is

59

critical to organisational success. Factors like the seller-buyer relationship and their perception of this relationship, loyalty-building, inter-functional and intra-functional communication, inter-organisational communication; all help in promoting mutual understanding and encourage risk taking. The quality of information exchange among functional areas, marketing communications in the form of new product introductions and withdrawals are just a few of the issues to be looked at in great details. This was supported by Athaide et al, 1996; Meyers and Wilemon, 1989; Kahn and McDonough, 1997; Parry and Song, 1993; Dyer and Song, 1998; Schatzel, 2001; and Moenaert and Caeldries, 1996. Organisational Learning: Factors like how to help existing teams become effective learners; how learning transfer can be facilitated among teams; useful communication modes to stimulate and transfer learning; factors that accelerate or hinder individual and team learning; effects of leadership on organisational behaviour; learning from past experience as well as from others; effects of organisational learning on cross-functional integration are just a few of the issues that need to be addressed by future research. This was at least supported by; Meyers and Wilemon, 1989; McDonough, 2000; Song et al, 1997; 1998, 1997. Performance Measurement: Performance measurement of all kinds is needed if companies are to be able to draw a line between success and failure. This will require companies to be able to measure their current processes or status and use that as a yardstick to measure future performance. Performance can be measured in so many ways including: cycle time, sales and marketing, standard time, financial, down time, productivity, processes, delivery, and customer satisfaction. These measurements are needed by management in planning and decision-making processes. Therefore, future research should come up with more simple ways to measure performance. This was supported by McDonough et al, 2001; Holak et al, 1991; Calantone et al, 1997; and Sherman et al, 2005.

60

6.6

Chapter summary The chapter determined whether the contributions of the academic leaders met the objectives of JPIM by testing them against the three key principles of multidisciplinary, internationalism, and practicality, a test which all of them passed. It was found that the academic leaders mostly represented the USA and mainly researched into the high-tech industries with formalised Research and Development (R&D) activities as opposed to a few service industries with no R&D activities. It again determined other journals where the academic leaders also publish and their impact factors. Recommendations for future research agenda were also made.

61

CONCLUSION

The following are a recap of the main issues. 7.1 Summary of key findings

The aim of the thesis was to review the work of sixteen academic leaders of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) over a period of twenty four years (see Chapter 3.2 for details). Questionnaires and interviews were found to be the dominant information elicitation techniques used most by the academic leaders. The equipment, electronics, chemical and the service industries formed the top four most researched into industries by the academic leaders. Most of the knowledge that came from the academic leaders was found to be in the area of process execution and metrics (38.66%) followed by the strategy, planning and decision making (25.21%), then, people, teams, and culture (20.17%). Management, new product development, and marketing formed the top three most researched disciplinary issues. It was found that the academic leaders favoured incremental as opposed to radical forms of innovation when it comes to success. Process innovation formed 66.67% of the 119 articles studied followed by product innovation with 26.67%. Again, 62.5% of the academic leaders were found to represent the USA and therefore came as no surprise when the USA topped the ranking of the most researched country. It was found that the authors changed positions depending on which ranking is being looked at with the exception of Abbie Griffin who occupied the fourth spot in all the different rankings. Interestingly, it was found that 56.25% of the academic leaders had never been a JPIM sole-author and also Henry S.J. Robben had never been a JPIM positional author. However, all the academic leaders were found to have had collaborations with other authors with the dominant form of collaboration being the duet. The academic leaders were also found to publish in other recognised journals with respectable impact factors. It was found that all the academic leaders, at least had multiple subject areas; published JPIM articles in at least two different disciplines; researched into diverse industries; and had educational background in two or more different disciplines except Henry S.J. Robben who had BSc, MSc, and PhD in psychology. The above result was a proof that

62

indeed all the JPIM academic leaders are multi-disciplined, scoring sixty-three stars out of a possible sixty-four. It was found also that all the academic leaders had a credible profile and also published in other recognised journals. However, thirteen out of the sixteen academic leaders researched in at least two different countries. Likewise, eleven out of the sixteen academic leaders had at least one international collaboration with other authors. This implied that most of the academic leaders are internationally oriented scoring fifty-six stars out of a possible sixty-four. It was again found that all the academic leaders: had industry-based research; had results and proposed models that were validated; had output that was beneficial to the academic and practitioner communities; and had a reasonable industrial experience. These indicated that truly, their contributions are practical, scoring sixty-four stars out of a possible sixty-four. Finally, the academic leaders effectively passed the test to prove the multi-disciplinary, internationalism, and practicality of their contribution in satisfying the objectives of JPIM, and therefore making the credibility of their work much more cemented than ever.

7.2

Limitations

The greatest limitation of this thesis was the use of positional authors because the position of an author may or may not signify his/her contributions in that particular article. Sometimes, the author positions are alphabetically arranged. Although, h-index is a very good measure of author contribution, it did not give a true reflection of the contributions of the academic leaders as the figures used only date back to 1996 but most of the academic leaders started their publications before this date. Finally, the restriction of this thesis to the publications of the academic leaders in only JPIM does not give the full picture of their work.

63

7.3

Recommended future work

Future research should be directed towards the recommended future research agenda highlighted in Chapter 6.4. Future research should also focus on areas that are or will be deemed deficient by the practitioner community in terms of the availability of information and knowledge. Furthermore, future research should periodically replicate and possibly extend this study. Future research should seek to develop a more comprehensive model for identifying the individual contribution of co-authored articles.

64

REFERENCES
Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: Strategies, implementation, and Profits. Second edition. Oxford university press, Inc. New York. ISBN 0195142306 Athaide, G. A., Meyers, P.W. and Wilemon, D.L. (1996). Seller-Buyer Interactions During the Commercialisation of Technological Process Innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 13, no. 5, 406 421. Atuahene-Gima, K. (1992). Inward Technology Licensing as an Alternative to Internal R&D in New Product Development: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 9, no. 2, 156 167. Atuahene-Gima, K. (1993). Determinants of Inward Technology Licensing Intentions: An Empirical Analysis of Australian Engineering Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 10, no. 3, 230 240. Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995). An Exploratory Analysis of the Impact of Market Orientation on New Product Performance: A Contingency Approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.12, no. 4, 275 293. Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Differential Potency of Factors Affecting Innovation Performance in Manufacturing and Services Firms in Australia. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., Vol.13,no. 1, 35 52. Atuahene-Gima, K. (1997). Adoption of New Products by the Sales Force: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 14, no. 6, 498 514.

65

Atuahene-Gima, K. and Li, H. (2000). Marketings Influence Tactics in New Product Development: A Study of High Technology Firms in China. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 17, no. 6, 451 470. Atuahene-Gima, K., Slater, S.F and Olson, E.M. (2005). The contingency value of responsive and proactive market orientations for new product programme performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 22, no. 6, 464 482. Barczak, G. and Wilemon, D. (1989). Leadership Differences in New Product Development Teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 6, no. 4, 259 267. Benedetto, C.A.D. (1999). Identifying the Key Success Factors in New Product Launch. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 16, no. 6, 530 544. Benedetto, C.A.D. and Griffin, A. (2004). Six-Year Recap and New Editor Introduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 21, no.1, 1 3. Biemans, W., Griffin, A. and Moenaert, R. (2007). Twenty Years of the Journal of Product Innovation Management : History, Participants, and Knowledge Stock and Flows. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 24, no. 3, 193 213. Bij, H.V.D, Song, M.X. and Weggeman, M. (2003). An Empirical Investigation into the Antecedents of Knowledge Dissemination at the Strategic Business Unit Level. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 20, no. 2, 163 179. Calantone, R.J. and Benedetto, C.A.D. (1988). An Integrative Model of the New Product Development Process: An Empirical Validation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 5, no. 3, 201 215.

66

Calantone, R.J., Benedetto, C.A.D and Haggblom, T. (1995). Principles of New Product Management: Exploring the Beliefs of Product Practitioners. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 12, no. 3, 235 247. Calantone, R.J., Benedetto, C.A.D. and Schmidt, J.B. (1999). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in New Product Screening. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 16, no.1, 65 76. Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T., Schmidt, J.B. and Shin, G.C. (2004). Internationalisation and the Dynamics of Product Adaptation An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 21, no. 4, 185 198. Calantone, R.J., Chan K. and Cui A.S. (2006). Decomposing product innovativeness and its effects on new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 23, no. 5, 408 421. Calantone, R.J., Schmidt, J.B. and Benedetto, C.A.D. (1997). New Product Activities and Performance: Moderating Role of Environment Hostility. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 14, no. 3, 179 189. Calantone, R.J.and Stanko, M.A. (2007). Drivers of Outsourced Innovation: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 24, no. 3, 230 241. Calantone, R.J., Vickery, S.K. and Droge, C. (1995). Business Performance and Strategic New Product Development Activities: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 12, no. 3, 214 223.

67

Cardona, M. (2005). An Index to Quantify an Individuals Scientific Research Output. Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, Stuttgart, Germany. (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/46/16569). Accessed on 5th August 2008.

Churchill G.A. Jr. (1979). A paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 16 no. 1, 64 73.

Cooper, R.G. (1984). How New Product Strategies Impact on Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.1, no. 1, 5 18. Cooper, R.G. (1984). New Product Strategies: What distinguishes the top performers? Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 2, no. 3, 151 164. Cooper, R.G. (1985). Selecting Winning New Product Projects: Using the NewProd System. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. vol. 2, no. 1, 34 44. Cooper, R.G. (1992). The NewProd System: The Industry Experience. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 9, no. 2, 113 127. Cooper, R.G. (1994). Perspective: Third-Generation New Product Processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 11, no. 1, 3 14. Cooper, R.G. (1999). From Experience: The Invisible Success Factors in Product Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.16, no.2, 115 133.

68

Cooper, R.G. and de Brentani,U. (1991). New Industrial Financial Services : What Distinguishes the Winners. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 8, no. 2, 75 90.

Cooper, R.G., Easingwood, C.J., Edgett, S., Kleinschmidt, E.J. and Storey, C. (1994). What Distinguishes the Top Performing New Products in Financial Services. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 11, no. 4, 281 299. Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1986). An Investigation into the New Product Process: Steps, Deficiencies, and Impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 3, no. 2, 71 85. Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987). New Products: What Separates Winners from Losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 4, no. 3, 169 184. Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1993). Major New Products: What Distinguishes the Winners in the Chemical Industry? Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 10, no. 2, 90 111. Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Keinschmidt, E.J. (1999). New Product Portfolio Management: Practices and Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 16, no.4, 333 351. Cooper, R.G., and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1994). Determinants of Timeliness in Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 11, no. 5, 381 396.

69

Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995). Benchmarking the Firms Critical Success Factors in New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 12, no. 5, 374 391. Danneels, E. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2001). Product Innovativeness from the Firms Perspective: Its Dimensions and their Relation with Project Selection and Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 18, no. 6, 357 373. Debruyne, M., Moenaert, R.K., Griffin, A., Hart, S., Hultink, E.J. and Robben, H. (2002). The Impact of New Product Launch strategies on Competitive Reaction in Industrial Markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.19, no. 2, 159 170. Dyer, B. and Song, M.X. (1998). Innovation Strategy and Sanctioned Conflict: A New Edge in Innovation? Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 15, no. 6, 505 519. Easingwood, C.J. and Mahajan, V. (1989). Positioning of Financial Services for Competitive Advantage. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 6, no. 3, 207 219. Emden, Z., Calantone, R.J. and Droge, C. (2006). Collaborating for new product development: Selecting the partner with maximum potential to create value. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 23, no. 4, 330 341. Feldman, L.P and Page, A.L. (1984). Principles vs. Practice in New Product Planning. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 1, no. 1, 43 55.

70

Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002). A Critical Look at Technological Innovation Typology and Innovativeness Terminology: A Literature Review. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 19, no. 2, 110 132. Garfield, E., (2006). The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Vol. 295, no.1, 90 93. Griffin, A. (1992). Evaluating QFDs Use in US Firms as a Process for Developing Products. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 9, no. 3, 171 187. Griffin, A. (1993). Metrics for Measuring Product Development Cycle Time. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 10, no. 2, no. 3, 112-125. Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 14, no. 6, 429 458. Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1996). Integrating R&D and marketing : A review and analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 13, no. 3, 191 215. Griffin, A. and Page, A.L. (1993). An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success and Failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 10, no.4, 291-308. Griffin, A. and Page, A.L. (1996). PDMA Success Measurement Project: Recommended Measures for Product Development Success and Failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 13, no. 6, 478 496.

71

Gupta, A.K., Raj, S.P. and Wilemon D. (1985). The R&D-Marketing Interface in High-Technology Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 2, no. 1, 12 24. Gupta, A.K. and Wilemon, D. (1988). The Credibility Co-operation Connection at the R&D-Marketing Interface. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 5, no. 1, 20 31. Gupta, A.K. and Wilemon, D. (1996). Changing Patterns in Industrial R&D Management. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 13, no. 6, 497 511. Haggblom, T., Calantone, R.J. and Benedetto, C.A.D. (1995). Do New Product Development Managers in Large or High-Market-Share Firms Perceive Marketing-R&D Interface Principles Differently? Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 12, no. 4, 232 333.

Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Srivastava, R.K. (1998). Market orientation and organisational performance: Is innovation a missing link? Journal of marketing Vol. 62, no.4, 30 45. Hart, S., Hultink, E.J., Tzokas, N. and Commandeur, H.R. (2003). Industrial Companies' Evaluation Criteria in New Product Development Gates. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA. Vol. 20, no. 1, 22 36. Hanson, D. and Lackman, C. (1998). Managing through cultural differences. Competitiveness Review. Vol. 8, no.2, 46 54. Henry, J. and Walker, D. (1991). Managing Innovation. Sage publications Ltd. London in association with the Open university. ISBN 0803985061

72

Holak, S.L, Parry, M.E. and Song, M.X. (1991). The Relationship of R&D/Sales to Firm Performance: An Investigation of Marketing Contingencies. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 8, no. 4, 267 282. Hultink, E.J. and Atuahene-Gima, K. (2000). The Effect of Sales Force Adoption on New Product Selling Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 17, no. 6, 435 450. Hultink, E.J., Griffin, A., Hart, S. and Robben, H.S.J. (1997). Industrial New Product Launch Strategies and Product Development Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 14, no. 4, 243 257. Hultink, E.J., Hart S., Robben, H.S.J. and Griffin, A. (2000). Launch Decisions and New Product Success: An Empirical Comparison of Consumer and Industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 17, no. 1, 5 23. Hultink, E.J. and Langerak, F. (2002). Launch Decisions and Competitive Reactions: An Exploratory Market Signaling Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 19, no. 3, 199 212. Hultink, E.J. and Robben, H.S.J. (1995). Measuring New Product Success: The Difference that Time Perspective Makes. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 12, no. 5, 392 405. Hultink, E.J. and Robben, H.S.J. (1999). Launch Strategty and New Product Performance: An Empirical Examination in The Netherlands. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 16, no. 6, 545 556.

73

Hultink, E.J., Tholke, J.M. and Robben, H.S.J. (1999). Retailers Adoption Decision of New Consumer Durables. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 16, no. 5, 483 490. Jain, D., Mahajan, V. and Muller, E. (1995). An Approach for Determining Optimal Product Sampling for the Diffusion of a New Product. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 12, no. 2, 124 135. Kahn, K.B. and McDonough, E.F. (1997). An empirical study of the relationship among collocation, integration, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 14, no. 3, 161 178. Keizer, J.A., Halman, J.I.M. and Song, M. (2002). From Experience: Applying the Risk Diagnosing Methodology. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA. Vol. 19, no. 3, 213 232. Kleinschmidt, E.J., Brentani, U.D. and Salomo, S. (2007). Performance of Global New Product Development Programmes: A Resource-Based View. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 24, no. 5, 419 441. Kleinschmidt, E.J and Cooper, R.G. (1991). The Impact of Product Innovativeness on Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 8, no. 4, 240 251. Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing Management. 11th edition. Upper Sadle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0130497150 Langerak, F., Hultink, E.J. and Robben, H.S.J. (2004). The impact of market orientation, product advantage, and launch proficiency on new product performance and organisational performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 21, no. 2,79 94.

74

Linton, J. D. and Thongpapanl, N. (2004). Perspective: Ranking the Technology Innovation Management Journals. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Vol. 21, no. 2, 123 139 . Lynn, G.S., Reilly, R.R. and Akgun, A.E. (2000). Knowledge management in new product teams: Practices and outcomes. IEEE transactions on engineering management. Vol. 47, no. 2, 221 231. Mahajan, V., Rao, V.R. and Srivastava, R.K. (1994). An Approach to Assess the Importance of Brand Equity in Acquisition Decisions. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.11, no. 3, 221 235. Mahajan, V. and Wind, J. (1992). New Product Models: Practice, Shortcomings and Desired Improvements. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 9, no. 2, 128 139. Markham, S.K. and Griffin, A. (1998). The Breakfast of Champions: Association Between Champions and Product Development Environments, Practices and Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.15, no. 5, 436 454. McDonough, E.F. III. (1992). The Effects of Cognitive Problem-Solving Orientation and Technological Familiarity on Faster New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 10, no. 1, 241 250. McDonough, E.F. III. (1993). Faster New Product Development: Investigating the Effects of Technology and Characteristics of the Project Leader and Team. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 9, no. 3, 44 52.

75

McDonough, E.F. III. (2000). Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Success of Cross-Functional Teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 17, no. 3, 221 235. McDonough, E.F. III and Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding Up New Product Development: The Effects of Leadership Style and Source of Technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 8, no. 3, 203 211. McDonough, E.F. III, Kahn, K.B. and Barczak, G. (2001). An Investigation of the Use of Global, Virtual, and Colocated New Product Development Teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.18, no. 2, 110 120. McDonough, E.F. III and Leifer, R.P. (1986). Effective Control of New Product Projects: The Interaction of Organisation Culture and Project Leadership. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 3, no. 3, 149 157. Meyers, P.W. and Wilemon, D. (1989). Learning in New Technology Development Teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 6, no. 2, 79 88. Millson, M.R, Raj, S.P. and Wilemon, D. (1992). A Survey of Major Approaches for Accelerating New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 9, no. 1, 53 69. Moenaert, R.K. and Caeldries, F. (1996). Architectural Redesign, Interpersonal Communication, and Learning in R&D. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 13, no. 4, 296 310.

76

Moenaert, R.K., Caeldries, F., Lievens, A. and Wauters, E. (2000). Communication Flows in International Product Innovation Teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 17, no. 5, 360 377. Moenaert, R.K. and Souder, W.E. (1990). An Information Model Transfer for Integrating marketing and R&D Personnel in New Product Development Projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 7, no 2, 91 229. Moenaert, R.K. and Souder, W.E. (1990). An Analysis of the Use of Extra-functional Information by R&D and Marketing Personnel: Review and Model. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 7, no. 3, 213 107. Moenaert, R.K., Souder, W.E., De Meyer, A. and Deschoolmeester, D. (1994). R&DMarketing Integration Mechanisms, Communication Flows, and Innovation Success. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 11, no. 1, 31 45. Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and Calantone, R. (1994). Determinants of New Product Performance: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 11, no. 5, 397 417. Padmanabhan, V and, Souder, W.E. (1994). A Brownian Motion for Technology Transfer: Application to a Machine Maintenance Expert System. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 11, no. 2, 119 133. Page, A.L. (1993). Assessing New Product Development Practices and Performance: Establishing Crucial Norms. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 10, no. 4, 273 290.

77

Page, A.L. and Rosenbaum, H.F. (1987). Redesigning Product Lines with Conjoint Analysis: How Sunbeam Does It. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 4, no. 2, 120 137. Page, A.L. and Rosenbaum, H.F. (1989). Redesigning Product Lines with Conjoint Analysis: A Reply to Wittink. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 6, no. 4, 293 296. Page, A.L. and Rosenbaum, H.F. (1992). Developing an Effective Concept Testing Programme for Consumer Durables. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 9, no. 4, 267 277. Parry, M.E. and Song, M.X. (1993). Determinants of R&D-Marketing Integration in High-Tech Japanese Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 10, no. 1, 4 22. Parry, M.E. and Song, M.X. (1994). Identifying New Product Successes in China. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 11, no. 1, 15 30. Rijsdijk, S.A and Hultink, E.J. (2003). Honey, have you seen our hamster? Consumer evaluations of autonomous domestic products. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 20, no. 3, 204 216. Schatzel, K.E., Calantone, R.J. and Droge, C. (2001). Beyond the Firms Initial Declaration: Are Preannouncements of New Product Introductions and Withdrawals Alike? Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 18, no. 2, 82 95.

78

Schmidt, J.B. and Calantone, R.J. (1998). Are Really New Product Development Projects Harder to Shut Down? Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 15, no. 2, 111 123. Sherman, D.J., Berkowitz, D. and Souder, W.E. (2005). New product development performance and the interaction of cross-functional integration and knowledge management. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 22, no. 5, 399 411. Sherman, D.J., Souder, W.E. and Jenssen, A. (2000). Differential Effects of the Primary Forms of Cross Functional Integration on Product Development Cycle Time. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 17, no. 4, 257 267. Song, M.X., Berends, H., Bij, H.V.D. and Weggeman, M. (2007). The Effect of IT on Knowledge Dissemination. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA. Vol. 24, no. 1, 52 68. Song, M.X., Bij, H.V.D. and Weggeman, M. (2005). Determinants of the Level of Knowledge Application: A Knowledge-Based and Information-Processing Perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA. Vol. 22, no. 5, 430 444. Song, M.X. and Montoya-Weiss. (1998). Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 15, no. 2, 124 135. Song, M.X; Montoya-Weiss, M.M; Schmidt, J.B. (1997). Antecedents and Consequences of Cross-Functional Cooperation: A Comparison of R&D, Manufacturing, and Marketing Perspectives. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.14, no. 1, 35 47.

79

Song, M.X. and Parry, M.E. (1992). The R&D-Marketing Interface in Japanese HighTechnology Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 9, no. 2, 91 112. Song, M.X. and Parry, M.E. (1994). The Dimensions of Industrial New Product Success and Failure in State Enterprises in the Peoples Republic of China. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 11, no. 2, 105 118. Song, M.X. and Parry, M.E. (1996). What Separates Japanese New Product Winners from Losers. . Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 13, no. 5, 422 439. Song, M.X. and Parry, M.E. (1997). Teamwork Barriers in Japanese High-Technology Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 14, no. 5, 356 367. Song, M.X., Podoynitsyna, K., van der Bij, H. and Halman, J.I.M. (2008). Success Factors in New Ventures: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 25, no.1, 7 27. Song, M.X., Souder W.E. and Dyer, B. (1997). A Causal Model of the Impact of Skills, Synergy, and Design Sensitivity on New Product Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 14, no. 2, 88 101. Song, M.X., Thieme, R.J. and Xie, J. (1998). The Impact of Cross-Functional Joint Involvement Across Product Development Stages: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 15, no. 4, 289 303.

80

Souder, W.E. (1987). Managing new product innovations. Lexington, MA: Lexington books. Souder, W.E. (1988). Managing Relations Between R&D and Marketing in New Product Development Projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 5, no. 1, 6 19. Souder, W.E. and Bethay, D. (1993). The Risk Pyramid for New Product Development: An Application to Complex Aerospace Hardware. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 10, no. 3, 181 194. Souder, W.E., Buisson, D. and Garrett, T. (1997). Success Through Customer-Driven New Product Development: A Comparison of U.S and New Zealand Small Entrepreneurial High Technology Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 14, no. 6, 459 472. Souder, W.E., Sherman, J.D. and Davies-Cooper, R. (1998). Environmental Uncertainty, Organisational Integration, and New Product Development Effectiveness: A Test of Contingency Theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.15, no. 6, 520 533. Souder, W.E. and Jenssen, S.A. (1999). Management Practices Influencing New Product Success and Failure in the United States and Scandinavia: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.16, no. 2, 183 203. Souder, W.E. and Song, M.X. (1997). Contingent Product Design and Marketing Strategies Influencing New Product Success and Failure in U.S. and Japan Electronics Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.14, no. 1, 21 34.

81

Souder, W.E. and Song, M.X. (1998). Analysis of U.S. and Japanese Management Processes Associated with New Product Success and Failure in High and Low Familiarity Markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.15, no. 3, 208 223. Souder, W.E. and Thomas, R.J. (1994). Significant Issues for the Future of Product Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 11, no. 4, 344 353. Thieme, J. (2007). PERSPECTIVE: The Worlds Top Innovation Management Scholars and Their Social Capital. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 24, no. 3, 214 229 Tholke, J.M., Hultink, E.J. and Robben, H.S.J. (2001). Launching New Product Features: A Multiple Case Examination. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol.18, no. 1, 3 14. Tidd, J. (2003). Service Innovation: Organisational Responses to Technological Opportunities and Market Imperatives. Imperial College Press. ISBN: 1860943675 Tidd, J. (2005). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market, and Organisational Change. Third Edition. John Wiley. ISBN: 0470093269. Trimpop, R.M., Kerr, J.H.and Kirkcaldy, B. (1997). Comparing personality constructs of risk-taking behaviour, Personality and individual differences. Vol. 26, no. 2, 237 254. Trott, P. (2005). Innovation Management and New Product Development. Third Edition. Financial Times Prentice Hall. ISBN: 0273686437.

82

Tushman, M.L. (1979). Work characteristics and subunit communication structure: A contingency analysis. Administrative science quarterly. Vol. 24, no. 1, 82 97. Wind, J. and Mahajan, V. (1987). Marketing Hype: A New Perspective for New Product Research and Introduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 4, no. 1, 43 49. Wind, Y. and Mahajan, V. (1988). Perspective: New Product Development Process: A Perspective for Reexamination. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 5, no. 4, 304 310. Xie, J., Song, M. and Stringfellow, A. (2003). Antecedents and Consequences of Goal Incongruity on New Product Development in Five Countries: A Marketing View. Journal of Product Innovation Management. PDMA Vol. 20, no. 3, 233 250.

83

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: THE MOST-CITED JPIM ARTICLES (Source: Biemans et

al, 2007)

Number Author of Times Cited* 217 Robert G. Cooper and Elko J. Kleinschmidt 183 Robert G. Cooper and Elko J. Kleinschmidt 166 Mitzi Montoya-Weiss and Roger Calantone

Title

Volume, Issue 4, 3 3, 2 11, 5 14, 6 10, 4 5, 1 13, 3 9, 1 7, 2 9, 3 10, 2 8, 4 11, 5 11, 1 13, 6

New Products: What separates Winners from Losers An Investigation into the New Product Process: Steps, Deficiencies and Impact Determinants of New Product Performance: A Review and MetaAnalysis 119 Abbie Griffin PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices 108 Abbie Griffin and Albert L. An Interim Report on Measuring Product Page Development Success and Failure 101 Willam E. Souder Managing Relations Between R&D and Marketing in New Product Development Projects 97 Abbie Griffin and John R. Integrating R&D and Marketing: A Review Hauser and Analysis of the Literature 96 Murray R. Millson, S. P. Raj, A Survey of Major Approaches for and David Wilemon Accelerating New Product Development 88 Rudy Moenaert and William An Information Transfer Model for E. Souder Integrating Marketing and R&D Personnel in New Product Development Projects 86 C. Merle Crawford The Hidden Costs of Accelerated Product Development 79 Abbie Griffin Metrics for Measuring Product Development Cycle Time 79 Elko J. Kleinschmidt and The Impact of Product Innovativeness on Robert G. Cooper Performance 78 Robert G. Cooper and Elko Determinants of Timeliness in Product J. Kleinschmidt Development 73 Robert G.Cooper Third-Generation New Product Processes 70 Abbie Griffin and Albert L. PDMA Success Measurement Project: Page Recommended Measures for Product Development Success and Failure * Citation numbers from the SSCI as of December 31, 2005.

84

APPENDIX 2: RANKINGS OF THE WORLDS TOP INNOVATION MANAGEMENT SCHOLARS (Source: Thieme, 2007)
Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 7 10 10 10 13 13 13 16 16 16 19 19 19 19 19 Author Song, Michael Cooper, Robert G. Calantone, Roger J. Souder, William E. Kleinschmidt, Elko J. Hultink, Erik J. Bayus, Barry L. Edgett, Scott J. McDonough, Edward F., III Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku Griffin, Abbie Mahajan, Vijay Di Benedetto, C. Anthony Moenaert, Rudy K. Parry, Mark E. Muller, Eitan Robben, Henry S. J. Wilemon, David Barczak, Gloria Lechmann, Donald R. Loch, christoph H. OConnor, Gina Colarelli Von Hippel, Eric Number of Articles 31 26 21 18 17 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8

APPENDIX 3:
See attached CD

85