The impact of institutional variables in new high‐tech product development processes: The moderating roles of perceived risk and project duration

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is first, to identify the institutional variables that influence the technology acquisition intent (TAI) in new high‐tech product development (NPD) process; second, to identify and confirm the consequence of TAI in the Stage‐Gate system of NPD process; and third, to validate the moderating role of Perceived Risk and Project Duration on the “TAI to new product commercialization (NPC) relationship” in the NPD process.

Design/methodology/approach

The research design for this generic study involved two phases: exploratory and descriptive. The theoretical framework emanated from the exploratory phase and is validated by conducting a global survey on 215 high‐tech product marketing firms.

Findings

The institutional variables – Dominant Design and Network Externalities – directly influence a firm's TAI that in turn leads to NPC. While the study confirms that the longer project duration negatively moderates to TAI to NPC relationship, no support was found for the influence of increased risk perception on the same.

Practical implications

The study explains the rationale for marketer's efforts toward dominant design and network externalities. Also, the NPD teams should be cautious about project duration, as uncertainty associated with longer project duration reduces the TAI, and thereby inhibits the successful NPC.

Originality/value

By empirically investigating the influence of institutional variables on a firm's TAI, the study significantly contributes to extant theories on NPD. Also, the study results have significant implications for high‐tech product marketing theory and practice in the context of emerging market economies.

Citation

Shekhar Mishra, S. and Saji, K.B. (2013), "The impact of institutional variables in new high‐tech product development processes: The moderating roles of perceived risk and project duration", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 160-178. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501311312053