No abstract

This paper identifies four groups among 113 Fortune 500 manufacturers that approach innovation quite differently. The groups are based on 27 measured elements of corporate environment, corporate strategy, and formal and informal organization. Both product innovation and financial performance differ significantly over the groups, and a group of 42 firms that invest heavily in innovation perform best financially. A smaller group of firms that are not innovative but which follow a strategy of acquisition perform nearly as well financially. Firms focusing research resources on process innovation perform poorly, although process research complements product research among the effective innovators. Particularly important for explaining both product innovation and financial performance of these firms are salient combinations of classic elements of good environment, good strategy and good organization---strong positions in growing markets, investment in research and development, open and creative organizational structures and supportive organizational climates.innovation, Fortune 500, financial performance, environment, strategy, organization

This paper explores the contrast between marketing and innovation orientations and develops a model that provides an inclusive paradigm. The resulting archetypes and their inter-relationships are discussed. A measurement scale, ICON, is developed to assess the extent to which a firm or a business corresponds to the resulting archetypes. An empirical test of reliability and validity resulted in four clearly defined factors that correspond to the archetypes in the model. A refined version of the scale is then used to examine the relationship between the strategic archetypes and firm performance.

A recently published meta-analysis of the impact of strategic planning on financial performance omitted a major study of corporate planning practice in Fortune 500 manufacturing firms. This article briefly reviews that study in light of the results of the meta-analysis. Additional analysis examines performance and firm survival over a longer time period than in the original work. The overall conclusion is that a small but positive relationship between strategic planning and performance exists, and persists.

No abstract