Search results

The purpose of this study is to conduct a meta-analytic review based on a theoretical framework developed for investigating new product development (NPD) teams in the first two decades of the research stream.

This study contributes to literature by investigating the presence of publication bias and synthesizing correlation effect sizes of 27 factors influencing three NPD team performance dimensions: overall, market-based (e.g. sales, profitability), process-based (e.g. budget adherence, schedule adherence) outcomes. Further, this study presents a path analytical model that uses the aggregate study effects to identify significant drivers of NPD team performance.

First, examination of extant literature shows no publication bias. Next, analyses show that three internal team dynamic variables have the most significant positive effect on overall NPD team performance: team member job satisfaction, cross-functional integration and superordinate identity. For market-based performance, three goal-related contextual factors exert the most positive influence, namely, goal stability, goal clarity and goal support, in respective order. Further, for process-based performance, cross-functional integration’s strong positive effect is followed by team and goal stability. Moreover, physical distance, interpersonal and task conflict have significant negative effects on NPD team performance. Finally, both market- and process-based NPD team performance are significantly influenced by NPD team’s cohesion, which acts a mediator between two contextual factors: physical distance and team tenure.

This meta-analysis contributes to literature by providing a comprehensive model of NPD team performance predictors, their definitions, along with their corresponding effects in predicting performance. While team cohesion is found to be a strong predictor of both market- and process-based performance, future research can examine if too much cohesion has a detrimental effect, especially on market-based performance.

The results assist managers in shifting their priorities to ensure optimal support of NPD teams. For example, team leadership competence externally has a larger effect on overall performance compared to team leadership for internal team dynamics. Hence, team leaders should make sure that they manage the team’s relationships with external parties (e.g. other functional units) with more caution.

This study provides a guiding framework for analyzing NPD team performance as well as identifies and then addresses many knowledge gaps on NPD team performance.

Research on market information use in product innovation suggests that firms utilize two key strategic decision-making processes: incremental and comprehensive. Drawing from organizational information processing theory, literature implies that these processes operate differently. However, this assumption remains untested. Moreover, the degree to which a comprehensive process affects the innovation strategy outcomes depends on market information time sensitivity (MITS) and analyzability. To-date, no study has tested these assertions, either. Finally, it is suggested that meaningful market strategy is a key driver of new product success and it is important to understand how decision-making processes influence it under differing time sensitivity and analyzability.

Based on survey data from 250 Chinese firms, authors use structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses.

The results generally support authors’ contentions. More specifically, marketing strategy outcomes are influenced by marketing strategy incrementality (MSI) and marketing strategy comprehensiveness (MSC) differently. Further, time sensitivity moderates the effect of both MSI and MSC on outcomes, except for the effect of MSI on decision quality. Finally, analyzability moderates the relationships between decision making processes and certain strategy outcomes such as between MSI and meaningfulness.

Drawing from information processing theory, authors argue that incremental and comprehensive marketing strategy decision making for new product operate differentially under the same conditions. Further, the effects of these decision processes on outcomes depend on time sensitivity and analyzability of market information. Finally, auhtors argue that meaningful market strategy is a driver of success. The authors find support for most of our hypotheses and provide directions for future research.

March’s 1991 work on exploitation and exploration has been studied in many different industries. The purpose of this paper is to analyze signals emanating from exploration and exploitation alliances within the pharmaceutical industry context. Specifically, the authors explore market reactions to announcements of alliance formations based not only on alliance type but also in terms of their marketing intensity and leverage.

The authors employ a two-stage event-study market model using a two-day event window (event days 0, +1), creating cumulative abnormal returns (CARs). In the second stage, the authors regress the CARs against an array of control and explanatory variables.

Findings suggest that even though firm announcements of exploration and exploitation formations initially generate favorable market reactions, the former has a greater impact on CAR relative to the latter. Furthermore, leverage and marketing intensity moderate the relationship between firms’ alliance formation announcements and CARs generated. In particular, firms’ alliance formation announcements generate relatively greater market reactions at lower (higher) levels of the firm’s leverage (market intensity).

Event studies are valuable for gauging initial impressions of management action, but they are not meant to address long-term value creation. While market reactions suggest the likelihood of an alliance’s success or failure, managers also assess the risk to a firm’s financial health should the alliance fail. As a result, announcements that signal the firm has discretionary capabilities to ameliorate the effect of a failed alliance are better received.

This study is the first to analyze the stock market’s perception and valuation of different types of risk, classified by exploration vs exploitation alliances. The study also contributes to the literature by analyzing how investors use the information about a firm’s financial leverage and marketing activities to fine-tune their valuation of different types of risk-taking activities.

The aim of this study is to reveal the contribution that Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing has to scientific research and its most influential thematic work in B-to-B since its beginning in 1986 until 2015, in commemoration of the 30th anniversary.

The paper begins with a qualitative introduction: the emergence of the magazine, its origins, editorial and positioning. Subsequently, it is based on bibliometric methodologies to develop quantitative analysis. The distribution of annual publications is analyzed, the most cited papers, the keywords that are mostly used, the influence on the publishing industry and authors, universities and the countries that have the most publications.

The predominant role of the USA at all levels is highlighted. It also highlights the presence (given its size and population) of the countries of Northern Europe. There is great interest in appreciating the evolution of the number of publications that are always increasing which demonstrates the growing and sustained interest in these types of articles, with certain times of retreat (often coincide with economic crisis).

The Scopus database gives one unit to each author, university or country involved in the paper, without distinguishing whether it was one or more authors in the study. Therefore, this may bring some deviations in the analysis. However, the study considers some figures with fractional counting to partially solve these limitations.

After observing the different perspectives of the journal’s production, it allows to give an objective view of the evolution that the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing has had in the past 30 years.

It is part of the trend that several journals (Journal of Marketing, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Business Research) made special sections to show progress and contribution of these journals to scientific research.

As a high school senior, there was no doubt I wanted to attend college, it was just a matter of where. I applied to only two universities – Oakland University (OU) and MSU. I was not too familiar with MSU, but it had a good reputation; I was much more familiar with Oakland. Although I had obtained an application for the University of Michigan (UM), I decided that the UM application was just too long to complete. And what the heck is a wolverine anyway? I lived in Michigan for most of my life, and I had never spotted this mythical rodent. As a tendency, I always found Michigan students and alumni to be either too arrogant or eccentric for my taste. Also, at that time of my life, I found the atmosphere in Ann Arbor not right in some way, so I applied to only two universities.¹

This study aims to examine publications of supply chain management (SCM) researchers from across the world and maps the leadership role of authors and institutions based on how prolific they are in publishing and on network measures of centrality while accounting for the quality of the outlets that they publish in. It aims to inform stakeholders on who the leading SCM scholars are, their primary areas of SCM research, their publication profiles and the nature of their networks. It also identifies and informs on the leading SCM research institutions of the world and where leadership in specific areas of SCM research is emerging from.

Based on SCM papers appearing in a set of seven leading journals over the 15-year period of 2001-2015, publication scores and social network analysis measures of total degree centrality and Bonacich power centrality are used to identify the highest ranked agents in SCM research overall, as well as in some specific areas of SCM research. Social network analysis is also used to examine the nature and scope of the networks of the ranked agents and where leadership in SCM research is emerging from.

Authors and institutions from the USA and UK are found to dominate much of the rankings in SCM research both by publication score and social network analysis measures of centrality. In examining the networks of the very top authors and institutions of the world, their networks are found to be more inward-looking (country-centric) than outward-looking (globally dispersed). Further, researchers in Europe and Asia alike are found to exhibit significant continental inclinations in their network formations with researchers in Europe displaying greater propensity to collaborate with their European-based counterparts and researchers in Asia with their Asian-based counterparts. Also, from among the journals, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal is found to exhibit a far more expansive global reach than any of the other journals.

The journal set used in this study, though representative of high-quality SCM research outlets, is not exhaustive of all potential outlets that publish SCM research. Further, the measure of quality that this study assigns to the various publications is based solely on a publication score that accounts for the quality of the journals, as rated by Association of Business Schools that the papers appear in and nothing else.

By informing the community of stakeholders of SCM research about the top-ranked SCM authors, institutions and countries of the world, the nature of their networks, as well as what the primary areas of SCM research of the leading authors in the world are, this research provides stakeholders, including managers, researchers and students, information that is helpful to them not only because of the insights it provides but also for the gauging of potential for embedding themselves in specific networks, engaging in collaborative research with the leading agents or pursuing educational opportunities with them.

This research is the first of its kind to identify and rank the top SCM authors and institutions from across the world using a representative set of seven leading SCM and primary OM journals based on publication scores and social network measures of centrality. The research is also the first of its kind to identify and rank the top authors and institutions within specific areas of SCM research and to identify future research opportunities relating to aspects of collaboration and networking in research endeavors.

For various reasons consumers find some innovations undesirable. These are identified as resistant innovations or those innovations that consumers are unable or unwilling to readily embrace, such as screw caps on fine wines, hybrid automobiles and nanotechnology-based products. What makes these types of innovations undesirable to consumers? How should marketers introduce into the marketplace these types of innovations? These questions are the foundation of my ongoing research. In reflecting on my research decisions for the past ten years, I came upon my application for PhD programs. In 1997, I wrote:“The past ten years I have been focused on product development for telecom firms, including five years as an entrepreneur. As I've worked, questions have frequently surfaced about the slow acceptance in the marketplace of some telecommunication offerings; Why has ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) not taken off? Why did 30,000 perfectly functioning Newton PDAs (Personal Digital Assistant) end up at the Los Angeles dump? Did AT&T misjudge the market timing for videophones? What role, if any, did marketing play in these product mis-launches?”…I have explored disruptive technologies with Christensen (1997), crossed the chasm with Moore (1991), searched for the sources of innovation with Von Hippel (1988), and evaluated Roger's diffusion theories (1995) looking for direction. These investigations have led to more questions.

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/02651339610131414. When citing the article, please cite: Steven R. Clinton, Roger J. Calantone, (1996), “Logistics strategy: does it travel well?”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 13 Iss: 5, pp. 98 - 112.

Contrary to my expectations, the old adage holds true – “absence makes the heart grow fonder” – even in the context of higher education. If someone would have asked me 15 years ago if I would miss my time at the copy machine in the Marketing Department or in the library or stressing about comprehensive exams or my dissertation, my answer would have been a resounding “NO!” Now that I realize what a luxury it was to be focused exclusively on learning and research without all of the other obligations of tenured faculty life, I remember my days at MSU fondly. I can almost say I even miss the winters! However, since joining North Carolina State University in 1995, the key word in that last sentence is “almost”.

I learned my first important lesson on research from the research design seminars offered by Drs Tamer Cavusgil and Roger Calantone. During my first semester in the Ph.D. program, I took a Ph.D. seminar class, international business research with Dr. Tamer Cavusgil. In that class, each student was asked to select a topic to research, present findings to the rest of the class, and write a term paper that could be turned into a potential publication. In the midst of my struggle to find this big bang topic that could lead to a potential publication, Dr. Tamer Cavusgil showed us a few surveys designed by previous Ph.D. students. He mentioned that we could use these surveys as guidelines to develop our own thoughts. These surveys turned out to be the concrete piece of information that I needed to be on track with my research. Prior to this, I had gained some interests in understanding how trust and relational norms govern inter-organizational relationships. One of the surveys Dr. Cavusgil passed to us happened to be about this research area. Under the guidance of Drs Cavusgil and Joseph Bonner, I developed my first research ideas on understanding the third way of governance, relational norms in international channels of distribution.