PurposeDuring the past year, the authors have built a framework for a suite of metrics that senior managers can customize to track and promote innovation success in their companies.Design/methodology/approachSenior executives can use the suite of metrics to assess their company's innovativeness over time and hence combat the insidious strategy decay that often afflicts a company's business.FindingsThe framework combines three views on innovation – resource, capability, and leadership – providing the perspective to develop a suite of metrics for assessing and developing a company's capacity for innovation.Research limitations/implicationsThe optimal selection of metrics and the optimal value or “sweet spot” of any particular metric will vary from company to company.Practical implicationsAs more firms develop strategic innovation metrics and a database that validates their relevance, top managers will learn to assess and guide a company's innovation capability more effectively.Originality/valueThis is the first strategic guideline for building a customizable system of innovation metrics.

No abstract

This is an introduction to the JPIM special issue on the link between resource constraints and innovation. Before introducing the papers, we briefly review two perspectives on the role of resources in innovation management. The first, mainstream argument views adequate or even slack (rather than constrained) resources as an enabler of innovation. The second argument, currently frequented in the bottom‐of‐the‐pyramid literature but originating much earlier, suggests that resource constraints provide a potentially highly valuable opportunity for innovation.

No abstract

IntroductionStrategies for services marketing typically attempt to differentiate a service for competitive advantage. The properties that a customer perceives the service to have, become a key to such a differential advantage (Zeithaml, 1981). Even a low cost strategy can be seen as one of differentiation: a service is merely differentiated on price. A service can be differentiated by selection of the properties included in the service offer and by development of the perceived superiority of these properties relative to competitors. The existing competitive situation and the firm's competences naturally direct the options for such a strategy. It is important, however, that there is consistency between the service concept and its differentiation strategy in the customer's mind.We introduce a strategic typology of services -three strategic types of services -corresponding to their respective differentiation strategies. We discuss each type, called generic, specialized and customized service, and link them to international marketing strategy, especially to a mode of international operations. The strategic types of services are presented mainly as tools for strategic thinking. In reality, they rarely occur in the pure form but as combinations (Porter, 1980). Such a typology is, nevertheless, valuable when service firms develop their service concepts and plan the marketing of the service internationally (Lovelock, 1991). Differentiation and Strategic Types of ServicesConceptually, differentiation can be divided into two parts (Abell, 1980). The first is differentiation across competitors. The aim is relative superiority or uniqueness in some service dimension(s) (Day and Wensley, 1988). Secondly, a service may be differentiated across markets (customers), which implies segmentation and association of the service properties to the needs of each target segment (Kotler, 1987). Due to the varying usage of the term "differentiation" in the literature (Dickson and Ginter, 1987), there is some confusion whether a product, market, or strategy is differentiated [1]. There are varying views whether product differentiation is an alternative to market segmentation (Smith, 1956;Lewitt, 1980) or whether it is complementary (Cravens, 1982). In the latter view held here, product/service differentiation provides means of competing in the target segments. By differentiation we mean the process of creating or increasing the

No abstract

DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

Prior research suggests interorganizational collaboration faces temporal challenges but also opportunities yet is scarce on the role of time enabling – more often deterring - collaboration for collective benefit. Our contribution is highlighting how a large industry-academic research network developed temporally complex collaboration through varying temporal rules and relationships. The three network-developed collaborative repertoires, with their particular temporal rules and relationships, complemented the externally imposed calendar repertoire: (1) sprint repertoire, following a familiar agile method for joint research, (2) narrative time repertoire, enabling sharing research results across various events at the program level, and (3) “right” time repertoire that turned research results into action in emerging business ecosystems. With these collaborative repertoires, both the temporal diversities of home organizations and the asynchronies of the network activities were resolved for collective benefit. We contribute to the intersection of the literatures on interorganizational networks and temporality as befitting collaboration.