The purpose of this study was to test a model of the organizational innovation process that suggests that the strategy-structure causal sequence is differentiated by radical versus incremental innovation. That is, unique strategy and structure will be required for radical innovation, especially process adoption, while more traditional strategy and structure arrangements tend to support new product introduction and incremental process adoption. This differentiated theory is strongly supported by data from the food processing industry. Specifically, radical process and packaging adoption are significantly promoted by an aggressive technology policy and the concentration of technical specialists. Incremental process adoption and new product introduction tends to be promoted in large, complex, decentralized organizations that have market dominated growth strategies. Findings also suggest that more traditional structural arrangements might be used for radical change initiation if the general tendencies that occur in these dimensions as a result of increasing size can be delayed, briefly modified, or if the organization can be partitioned structurally for radical vs. incremental innovation. In particular, centralization of decision making appears to be necessary for radical process adoption along with the movement away from complexity toward more organizational generalists. This suggests that a greater support of top managers in the innovation process is necessary to initiate and sustain radical departures from the past for that organization.research and development: innovation, organizational studies

No abstract

Hypotheses were developed to capture the dynamic capabilities that result from interfirm partnerships during the joint new product development (NPD) process—the ability to build, integrate, and reconfigure existing resources to adapt to rapidly changing environments. These capabilities, in turn, were proposed to have a positive impact on NPD performance outcomes: (a) proportion of new product success and (b) superior new product commercialization. In contexts where the locus of innovation is rapidly changing, the impact of interfirm NPD dynamic capabilities was hypothesized to be diminished in high‐technology contexts, especially for buyers (original equipment manufacturers) and to a lesser extent for suppliers. Still, technology‐based interfirm NPD partnerships were predicted to ultimately outperform low‐technology ones in both NPD performance outcomes. Finally, information technology (IT) support for NPD was hypothesized to influence the interfirm NPD partnership's dynamic capabilities. Using survey data from 72 auto company managers and their suppliers, the proposed model in which IT support for NPD influences the success of interfirm NPD partnerships through the mediating role of interfirm NPD partnership dynamic capabilities in high‐ and low‐technology contexts was generally supported. The results shed light on the nature of technology‐based interfirm NPD partnerships and have implications for their success. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

This article describes how service and manufacturing firms are different when it comes to innovation, based on a survey of firms in both sectors. Overall, four of the five hypotheses developed for comparative study of new offerings were supported by the analyses of 38 new products and 29 new services. First and foremost, there appear to be real differences between how manufacturing and services approach the innovation process, primarily because of the way organizations formalize development of new offerings in these two sectors. Manufacturing is more likely to report the need for new strategies and structures when products are new to the industry or new to the firm. However, services are more likely to convert novelty into success. Services are significantly more likely to have a short beta testing process and to exploit general manager (internally sourced) ideas for new offerings as an alternative to formal innovation structures. However, manufacturing and services exhibit a similar tendency to exploit customer (externally sourced) ideas for new offerings.The potential contribution of this study is to point the direction for future work in the nascent research stream of service innovation, highlighting areas where there appear to be fundamental differences between the innovation process in services and other sectors of the economy. Key differences appear to be the alternative ways services formalize the innovative process, the unique way services test customer concepts, and the combined role of general managers and professionals in the development process. These differences have managerial implications. Working closely with customers, service managers should proceed with their own unique approach to the innovative process, especially with respect to prototyping and beta testing. Senior managers in service organizations should participate in the ideation process for successful new service offerings, as part of their strategy-making responsibilities.

No abstract