How family firms manage product innovation remains an overlooked topic in existing business research. This happens despite the fact that family businesses play a crucial role across all economies, and they often use technological innovation to nurture their competitive advantage. By drawing upon the resource‐based view of the firm as well as agency, stewardship, and behavioral theories and using empirical evidence gathered through a multiple case study, the paper studies how and why the anatomy of the product innovation process differs between family and nonfamily firms. The analysis shows that family businesses differ from nonfamily ones as regards product innovation strategies and organization of the innovation process.

Purpose -This study aims to investigate the relationship between the presence of the family variable within a business enterprise and the managerial factors affecting the success of new product development (NPD). This can be structured into three research questions: What is the relationship between the presence of the family variable within a business enterprise and the managerial factors affecting the success of NPD activities? How the managerial factors affecting the NPD process are faced in family firms? Which are the main differences (e.g. strengths and/or weaknesses) in dealing with the managerial factors affecting the NPD process between family and non-family firms? Design/methodology/approach -The study employs a grounded-theory and case-study approach to investigate the relationship between the presence of the family variable within a business enterprise and the managerial factors affecting the success of NPD. The starting point is an in-depth literature review on the managerial factors differentiating family from non-family firms, and the managerial factors affecting NPD success. Then, a multiple case-study on five Italian family firms and five Italian non-family enterprises is conducted. The case-studies lead to the development of an empirically grounded theoretical framework that outlines how the distinctive characteristics of family businesses are related to the managerial factors affecting NPD success. Findings -Family firms clearly emerge as more long-term oriented than non-family enterprises. The long-term orientation of family businesses vs non-family companies seems to play a pivotal role in originating NPD projects with long-term thrust. If a company is long-term oriented it is reasonable to expect that it will put its long-term vision in NPD programs, thus reaching a NPD long-term thrust.Research limitations/ implications -The study advances research on strategic innovation and NPD in family vs non-family firms. It develops new theory at the important intersection of family business and innovation/NPD research, filling a gap in the literature and providing justification and guidance for the design of more comprehensive studies. Future research could investigate and test the theoretical framework on a wider empirical base, using either qualitative or quantitative methods. Originality/ value -The paper addresses the failure of innovation management research to recognize, embrace, and deliberately incorporate family firms. It therefore fills a gap in the literature and extends prior research by introducing specific propositions that are supported by the case data and originally integrating them in the general research stream on NPD and family-firm characteristics. The originality of the study lies also in the fact that it appears to be the first comparative analysis on this specific topic involving both family and non-family enterprises.

The recent evolution of the economic and social context has led enterprises to consider and assess corporate environmental and social impacts integrated with the traditionally measured economic and operating performances.From this point of view, the international debate on the advantages given by the firms' adoption of socially responsible behaviour has been developed; the increasing consciousness of the social character in enterprises' activities has enlarged the interest in communication. For this reason, several different standards have been developed in order to transmit, to the stakeholders, data, information and approaches about environmental, social and sustainability topics related to the firm's activities. In this dynamic context, the features of SMEs require specific guidelines, which address the contents of an SMEoriented sustainability report.In this perspective the aim is to design guidelines able to meet with these SMEs' requirements; seven case studies, on Italian furniture small enterprises, complete the study.

Purpose -This paper aims at investigating the multifaceted nature of innovation networks by focusing on two research questions: Do cluster actors exchange only one type of innovation-related knowledge? Do cluster actors play different roles in innovation-related knowledge exchange? Design/methodology/approach -This paper builds on data collected at the firm level in an Italian aerospace cluster, that is a technology-intensive industry where innovation is at the base of local competitiveness. A questionnaire was used to collect both attribute data and relational data concerning collaboration and the flows of knowledge in innovation networks. The authors distinguished among three types of knowledge (technological, managerial and market knowledge) and five types of brokerage roles (coordinator, gatekeeper, liaison, representative and consultant). Data analysis relied on social network analysis techniques and software. Findings -Concerning the first research question, the findings show that different types of knowledge flow in different ways in innovation networks. The different types of knowledge are unevenly exchanged. The exchange of technological knowledge is open to everyone in the cluster. The exchange of market and managerial knowledge is selective. Concerning the second research question, the authors suggest that different types of cluster actors (large firms, small-and medium-sized enterprises, research centers and universities and institutions for collaboration) do play different roles in innovation networks, especially with reference to the three types of knowledge considered in this study. Research limitations/implications -The present paper has some limitations. First of all, the analysis focuses on just one cluster (one industry in one specific location), cross-and comparative analyses with other clusters may illuminate the findings better, eliminating industry and geographical biases. Second, the paper focuses only on innovation-related knowledge exchanges within the cluster and not across it. Practical implications -The results have practical implications both for policy makers and for managers. First, this research stresses how innovation often originates from a combination of different knowledge types acquired through the collaboration with heterogeneous cluster actors. Further, the analysis of brokerage roles in innovation-driven collaborations may help policy makers in designing programs for knowledge-transfer partnerships among the various actors of a cluster. Social implications -The paper suggests a clear need of developing professional figures capable of operating at the interface of different knowledge domains.Originality/value -The data illuminate several aspects of how innovation takes place in a cluster opening up intriguing aspects that have been overlooked by extant literature. The authors believe that this may trigger several lines of further research on the topic.

Several authors in recent years have discussed the observed trend towards the externalisation of (part of) a firm's R&D activities. As a consequence, several companies have been created that provide innovators with technical and scientific services such as R&D contracts, laboratory testing services, technology consulting, industrial design, engineering. The paper is based upon an empirical study which consists of (i) an extensive analysis, in which information has been collected (for about two hundred companies) on size, location and type of services offered; (ii) an intensive analysis, in which one case is studied in depth of a company providing product development services. Some conclusions have been drawn regarding the characteristics of the market of product development services and the management and organisation of companies operating in that market.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract