Purpose This study aims to understand the formal and informal practices of top managers as they seek to control product innovation processes and how the style of control used differs during development stages and gates. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative in-depth case study was conducted at a multinational corporation (pseudonym: MEC). The authors examined 12 product innovation projects and carried out semi-structured interviews to understand the experiences, perceptions and challenges of the people involved in product development projects with a focus on the interactions between top managers and the project teams. Findings The authors found that MEC uses formal control mechanisms such as a stage-gate model and a project management and reporting system to keep track of the progress of innovation projects. In addition, top managers use informal controls through involvement in innovation activities and interaction with the team members during the stages and gates of the development process. To carry out their control practices top managers use four distinct styles of control as follows: participative, facilitative, empowering and authoritative. Practical implications Suggestions are provided for managers on how formal and informal management control tools can be used in innovation processes. The authors show how top managers can broaden their range of interventions by involving themselves in product innovation projects in different ways. Originality/value This paper shows how the combination of formal and informal controls can generate a more holistic view of management control in innovation. It also adds to previous conceptualizations of control use by suggesting four distinct styles, which top managers can use to involve themselves in product innovation processes.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to map different kinds of tensions in product innovation and investigate how top managers use communication to shape subordinates' attention and thereby respond to these tensions.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopted an embedded case study of four innovation centers within a Nordic multinational firm.FindingsThis study identifies three kinds of tensions that reside in product innovation, namely dilemma, paradox and trade-off. Further, this study reveals how joint attention (among top managers and subordinates) as a response to tensions can be achieved through different aggregates of top managers' communication efforts.Originality/valueIn opening the black box of tensions in product innovation and identifying multiple tensions, this study contributes to advancing the understanding of the attention-based view. Different from previous studies that simply consider communication as channels for information processing, the findings indicate that the contents and practices of communication can help top managers to shape subordinates' attention and thereby respond to tensions. This study also extends the research focus of attention from top managers to the whole organization, by revealing the importance of building a joint pattern of attention among top managers and subordinates.

Purpose – This study aims at developing a better understanding of the different mechanisms that affect technology collaboration portfolio management. How do firms manage their technology collaboration portfolio? Despite some thoughtful scholars have advanced the understanding of the phenomenon of technology collaboration portfolio, there is not much research that has been done in terms of understanding the endeavors of firms when they collectively use a range of actors for the best interests of the firms. Additionally, little attention has been paid to the trade-offs and managing mechanisms for the collaborations between different partners from a portfolio-level perspective, especially in emerging markets. Design/methodology/approach – A multiple-case study of two Chinese high-tech firms, an inductive approach. Findings – The authors identified three primary mechanisms that underlie successful knowledge creation and application in technology collaboration portfolio context: informally mobilizing boundary-spanning brokers for domestic academic collaborations, formally institutionalizing learning activities for industry collaborations and integrating formal and informal mechanisms for technology collaborations between focused firms and foreign organizations. Originality/value – The authors extend the line of organizational ambidexterity literature with a focus on strategic alliance, proposing that firms need to balance academic and industry collaborations from a portfolio level. Moreover, the authors intend to extend the literature of alliance portfolio by suggesting three different learning mechanisms of managing different technology collaborations for the purpose of balancing successful knowledge creation and application.

This paper explores the role of boundary objects in the translation and transformation process of a sustainability concept—Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs)—into a firm’s business practices. The qualitative case study describes the experience where a Japanese company successfully implemented SDGs and generated product innovations through its learning process. The findings of the study identify four types of effective boundary objects: (1) organizational repository boundary objects, including historical contextualization and best practices; (2) a standardized form of boundary objects based on certification process of environmental sustainable products; (3) an ideal type of boundary objects through digital forum based learning platform; (4) a “powerful” community of practices that come across hierarchy and functions. This paper extends the literature by showing the interconnectedness of boundary objects, the possible negative side of technology based boundary objects, and the significance of community of practices as a monitoring and coordination tool to ensure the effective operation and measurement of sustainability.