Search results

This study aims to model collaborative product development (CPD) among a focal firm (FF) and a fairness-concerned external partner (EP). The model is used to explore the impact of fairness concerns on revenue distributing contract and innovation efforts. The study also examines the role of follow-up sales in product development decisions.

A sequential game-theoretic model is developed to analyze product development decisions between the two parties, where participants exert innovation efforts to promote the product value and a revenue-sharing contract is used to distribute the revenue.

Fairness concern of EP has significant impacts on decisions. FF has incentives to change the contract in that fairness concerns might decrease his profit. Conditions and results change when the contract is endogenously decided. First, FF tends to develop the product independently. Second, FF may share a smaller revenue fraction with EP, as FF relies more on his own efforts during CPD. Third, FF cannot benefit from fairness concerns, as his profit is not higher than that in the benchmark. Finally, the existence of follow-up sales does not change FF’s decision about whether to collaborate with EP.

This study incorporates fairness preference into CPD decisions. Besides, a new concept of fairness called “effort-related fairness” is proposed.

Innovations lie at the heart of both entrepreneurship and marketing. While research has long focused on the idea generation phase at the beginning of the innovation process, ideas need to subsequently be realized through efforts in idea development and implementation. This paper aims to study the antecedents and practices of idea advancement behavior.

Seven product developers of an international company were interviewed in-depth based on a critical incident technique.

Idea advancement behavior was found to be distributed in time and between people, pervasive in the development process. Antecedents for efforts were identified at personal, interpersonal and work organization levels. Although personal antecedents were most numerous, interpersonal and work organization antecedents distinguished successful and unsuccessful efforts. Key idea advancement behaviors were centered on the inclusion of others and communication channel choices.

The current study offers a complementary micro-level point-of-view to championship literature, illustrating the situated and dispersed nature of everyday advancement efforts as opposed to the dominant depictions of heroic relentless championing individuals. However, as the study was conducted in a single company, the findings still need to be validated in more varied settings.

The results highlight the need for supporting idea advancement behavior across organizational levels and function, instead of focusing on identifying individual champions. Time management, supporting switches in the driving force, and communicating value are necessary for sustaining advancement efforts.

Idea advancement practices have been largely ignored in previous innovation literature, with the exception of systematic processes and championing. This paper explores idea advancement as a commonplace proactive behavior, revealing several levels of key antecedents for successfully advancing ideas into innovations.

The purpose of the paper is to study the determinants of firms' innovation effort using the main approaches in strategic management. The authors specifically analyze the joint effects of industry structure and country characteristics on innovation effort while controlling for firm resources.

The hypotheses proposed are tested using a data set that includes firms registered in the EU Industrial R&D Investment (IRI) Scoreboard (European Commission, 2011). Specifically, the authors designed and applied a Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) method to perform an empirical analysis using a panel of 1,211 innovative firms in 55 industries and 26 countries between 2004 and 2012.

Country factors have significant effects on innovation effort. Results also indicate that the moderating and complementary effects of industry and country factors depend on the geographical area.

Although managers have generally tended to take into account only the firm perspective in innovation activities, this paper highlights that institutional factors are also relevant and play a key role in innovation effort. The authors provide suggestions for managers on how to ensure that their investment in innovation is efficient. They also suggest that the effect of some institutional factors may be modified by competitive pressure on firms' innovation effort.

The paper makes an incremental contribution to the literature on the determinants of innovation by providing a different approach to firm innovation determinants and taking into account the complementarities between institutional and industrial factors.

Scholars continue to debate whether planning, in fact, contributes to creativity and innovation. In this chapter, we argue that planning is critical to innovation and will contribute to the generation of viable new ideas. Effective planning, however, must be based on an incremental approach involving a viable portfolio of projects. The implications of this model for the management of innovation at the organizational, group, and individual levels are discussed. Potential new directions for research are considered, along with the model's implications for the management of creative ventures.

Promoting technological innovation is important to address the complexity of major engineering challenges. Technological innovations include short-term innovations at the project level and long-term innovations that can enhance competitive advantages. The purpose of this study is to develop an incentive mechanism for the public sector that considers short-term and long-term efforts from the private sector, aiming to promote technological innovation in major engineering projects.

This study constructs an incentive model considering the differences in short-term and long-term innovation efforts from the private sector. This model emphasizes the spillover effect of long-term efforts on current projects and the cost synergy effect between short-term and long-term efforts. It also explores the factors influencing the optimal incentive strategies for the public sector and innovation strategies for the private sector.

The results indicate that increasing the output coefficient of short-term and long-term efforts and reducing the cost coefficient not only enhance the innovation efforts of the private sector but also prompt the public sector to increase the incentive coefficient. The spillover effect of long-term innovation efforts and the synergy effect of the two efforts are positively related to the incentive coefficient for the public sector.

This research addresses the existing gap in understanding how the public sector should devise incentive mechanisms for technological innovation when contractors acting as the private sector are responsible for construction within a public-private partnership (PPP) model. In constructing the incentive mechanism model, this study incorporates the private sector's short-term efforts at the project level and their long-term efforts for sustained corporate development, thus adding considerable practical significance.

Most analyses of the relationship between the internal distribution of formal organizational power, generally manifested in ownership and governance rights, and innovation efforts apply a principal-agent framework. The key implication of this framework is that firms with distributed formal power are more likely to engage in labor-intensive innovation because external capital providers are unwilling to entrust their investments to a worker controlled firm. In this paper, we critique the principal-agent framework and propose an alternative institutionalist approach, where the type of innovation pursued by firms with distributed formal power is contingent on the norms advanced by the innovation and the alignment of external stakeholders with those norms. After presenting this alternative framework, we illustrate its application with positive and negative cases of capital and labor-intensive innovation at the MONDRAGON cooperatives, a network of worker cooperatives in the Basque region of Spain. We conclude with a set of propositions to guide future research.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether innovation effort is lower for firms exhibiting signs of higher chief executive officer (CEO) dominance and whether such CEOs can be incentivized to pursue risky ventures such as innovation projects in line with shareholder's interests that are geared toward the long-term growth of the firm.

The paper utilizes panel data of US publicly listed companies (2007–2016) to address the influence of CEO dominance on firm innovation effort and the moderating effects of incentives in this relationship through ordinary least squares (OLS) estimations. A two-stage least squares (2SLS) technique is also employed to address possible endogeneity. As a robustness check, further analysis is conducted utilizing an alternative proxy for CEO incentive as well as Tobit analysis (with panel-level random effects).

Results from both OLS and Tobit estimations offer two key findings. First, there is a significantly negative relationship between CEO pay slice and firm research and development (R&D) intensity. Second, the interaction effect of CEO incentives and CEO dominance is significant and positive.

When provided with the right incentives, such as those that reward long-term performance, dominant CEOs can be incentivized to go after risky ventures like innovation projects that are crucial to promoting the long-term growth of the firm.

This paper utilizes R&D instead of patent outputs as proxies for innovation where the former enables studying R&D efforts for more recent periods compared to prior studies that utilize patent data.

While previous studies find innovation to be an essential driver of export growth, the existing literature has neglected the role of different dimensions of technological innovation in export performance, especially in emerging countries. In particular, much less attention has been provided to investigate how enhancing innovation activities in more technical industries influence the relationship between technological innovation and export. Purpose of this paper is to present a unified framework to empirically investigate the integrated impact of the various technological innovation dimensions on export performance of industrial enterprises in China.

Using a panel dataset of enterprise-level data classified into China’s two-digit capital- and technology-intensive manufacturing industries for the 1998–2016 period and applying system-GMM regressions to control for the problem of endogeneity, the authors empirically investigate the integrated impact of a variety of the dimensions of technological innovation on export.

The authors find that: (1) Domestic R&D efforts and technology spillovers from foreign investment are critical determinants for capital- and technology-intensive exports. (2) External technology may not automatically contribute to export success whereas the interaction of external technology with domestic skill and expertise is a necessary condition for global competitiveness. (3) There exists complementarity between domestic and foreign innovation efforts when they jointly determine export. (4) Chinese government’s trade and innovation policies have significantly contributed to its export growth. Also, the authors examine that the extent of the effect of innovation on export depends upon the type of industry and it is found to be greater in capital- and technology-intensive industries.

This paper fills the research gap in existing literature by distinguishing between different dimensions of technological innovation and integrating them into a unified framework to empirically investigate their impact on export performance of industrial enterprises in emerging countries. The study provides important insights for policymakers.

The purpose of this paper is to attract readers' attention to the importance of the integration of corporate governance and innovation for companies to strive further in business. The paper also attempts to illustrate how an innovation champion can exist in companies with a good corporate governance structure and fully utilize the structure, at the same time being aware of the limitations of innovation activities. Along the way, corporate social responsibilities should also be taken into consideration.

The objectives of this paper are achieved first through an explanation of how corporate governance structure works and what purpose it serves. By understanding the mechanics of corporate governance, the integration of the structure with other fields of knowledge, in order to boost corporate performance, becomes possible. The paper also makes several references to companies around the world which have integrated successfully.

Innovation is a teamwork effort. Concentrated efforts are needed from every person in the organisation, from the board of directors and all the employees. The main actor in the picture is the board of directors. Also, other critical factors such as culture, conducive environment and rewards very much need to be present in the system.

Innovation, even though deemed risky, must be supported. The board of directors or leaders of corporations must change the way they think. Leaders of corporations must make an effort to understand innovation, and subsequently spread it far and wide among managers by creating corporate policies that support innovation. With a consumer‐centric organizational principle in mind, corporations can improve their innovation success rate. A successful innovation effort requires full participation from everyone in the corporation to ensure that the end results of research and development are for the interests of society at large.

Corporate governance is a structure that needs input from other fields of knowledge. Too much faith is put in corporate governance to bring about performance; unfortunately corporate governance is just a structure. There are a lot more factors that should be taken into consideration before achievement can be seen and success stories can be heard. This integration of knowledge is suggested to companies so that they can generate more revenue.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a patent-based framework for investigating the effect of previous and current open innovation (OI) adoption on firms’ knowledge management strategies and type of innovation output.

Patent data are employed for gauging innovation practices, exploitation vs exploration strategies, specialization vs diversification choices and type of innovation. The study is performed on a sample of 1,280 patents granted to 66 top R&D spending bio-pharmaceutical companies. The year of analysis is 2010.

The previous recourse to specific innovation practices influences the current practice selection. R&D collaboration, outsourcing and mergers and acquisitions are employed to pursue exploration. Past purchase of patents increases the likelihood to achieve architectural and radical innovation in current activities.

The work recommends the use of patent data to gauge many key elements for knowledge and innovation management. Results exhort scholars to investigate innovation practices at the knowledge domain level in order to detect specific behaviors.

The study provides a methodology for supporting decision-makers in assessing firms’ OI adoption, also performing the benchmark with competitors and R&D partners. Given the high computational effort required for applying the methodology, the authors are planning to give access to the software specifically developed for this study.

The work contributes to the current debate considering the effect of a combination of innovation practices on knowledge management strategies and type of innovation output, with a particular focus on OI activities. Moreover, the separation between the impact of previous and current innovation practices provides useful insights.