Coopetition (collaboration between competing firms) is used in many contemporary industries to achieve various innovation-related benefits. However, there is still a lack of consensus in the existing literature as to whether it is beneficial in the case of radical innovations or whether it only supports incremental improvements due to the similarity of knowledge bases among competitors. We address this issue in an empirical study based on a cross-industrial survey in Finnish markets. The study focuses on three types of technological coopetition and on their effect on the technological, market and business-model radicalness of the firms' innovations. The results show that coopetition is negatively related to technological radicalness and positively related to business-model radicalness. The implications are that coopetition is likely to benefit incremental technological development over time and to promote the emergence of radical business-model innovations as competitors seek to differentiate their offerings.

In the present day markets, new product development and innovation are essential for value creation. Innovation, however, hardly provides benefits if rivals are able to copy it with little or no extra cost. Consequently, being able to build an appropriability regime that provides effective protection against imitation and enables getting returns on investments in innovation is necessary. The problem is that choosing the methods to protect different kinds of innovations is not straightforward. In this paper we study appropriating from radical and incremental innovations. It is widely known that many significant differences exist between the two innovation types, and the appropriability conditions are no exception. Empirical evidence on the topic is provided by analyzing survey data collected among 299 companies. As a result, the effects of environmental dynamism and research and development (R&D) intensity on radical and incremental innovation are illustrated, and knowledge is provided on the role of the appropriability regime in enhancing the potential to profit from radical and incremental innovations.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose – This study aims to examine the effect of firm-specific customer relationship orientation, technology orientation and the marketing–R & D cooperation on market performance. Although the importance of customer focus in R & D has been widely recognized in the literature, less attention has been paid to customer relationship orientation and the simultaneous effect of the three constructs on market performance. Design/methodology/approach – The hypotheses are tested on a multi-industry survey study of 209 R & D-intensive firms in Finland using hierarchical regression analyses, including both direct and interactional effects. Findings – The findings show that customer relationship orientation has a direct positive effect on market performance and that technology orientation also has a positive, yet non-significant effect. In addition, the effect of both of these strategic orientations is accentuated when collaboration between marketing and R & D departments is high, providing evidence on the significant moderating effects of these types of processes. Research limitations/implications – The implications of the research can be interpreted as being generalizable at least to some extent due to the multi-industry nature of the sample. However, the research is bound to a certain type of firm (R & D-intensive) and to a certain national context (Finland), which poses limitations to the study. Practical implications – The results suggest specific benefits for integrating specialist, complementary knowledge into a firm in terms of R & D and marketing knowledge. Practicing managers across departments should thus consider not only focusing on their specialist areas in markets (e.g. customers or technology) but also utilizing complementary insights within the firm to reap benefits in their fields. Originality/value – The study focuses on the less-researched concept of customer relationship orientation in parallel with the more established technology orientation. It also provides novel evidence on how the effectiveness of these orientations benefits from firm-internal knowledge transfer between the marketing and R & D departments.