Journal of Product Innovation Management最新文献

Novel technology systems, such as “fiber optics” and “printed electronics,” increasingly emerge at the interface of hitherto unrelated technology areas. As such, new technology systems often arise through technology convergence, characterized by integrating technology components and knowledge from different technology systems, resulting in a novel system architecture. This phenomenon is of utmost societal relevancy but simultaneously poses tremendous challenges for firms' technology strategies. Firms must not only cope with unrelated knowledge rooted in hitherto different technologies but also have to decide deliberately how systemic (i.e., complete technology system) versus focused (i.e., single component of the technology system) their engagement in technology development in the converging technology system ought to be. In addition, firms need to decide strategically to what extent to develop specialized or design knowledge. Extant concepts of technology strategy fall short of capturing this complexity inherent in converging technology systems. Therefore, to address how technology strategies co-evolve along with the emergence of new technology systems, this study adds a systems perspective to technology strategy by developing the concept of technology system coverage. This novel dimension of technology strategy is formed by the scope (i.e., focused vs. systemic coverage of the technology system) and type of technological knowledge (i.e., specialized or design knowledge). We empirically apply this novel angle of technology strategy to the convergence field of printed electronics. Based on a longitudinal set of 828 patents over 30 years, 74 relevant corporate actors are identified. The underlying taxonomy enables us to reveal four technology strategies and develop five propositions. The results indicate that all firms build design knowledge over time, whereas not all firms build specialized knowledge, no matter what technology strategy is pursued. In sum, this work advances literature by understanding technology strategy in emerging complex technology systems, introducing a systems perspective.

With increasing interest in how digital technology impacts innovation, the constructs “digitization” and “digitalization” have become popular. However, different conceptualizations have emerged resulting in conceptual overlap and little definitional consensus. To understand how these two constructs have been used within innovation management, we systematically review both constructs and identify 26 different definitions used for both, underscoring the need for greater precision. Building from our systematic review, we synthesize and integrate these findings to derive clear and parsimonious definitions of digitization and digitalization and propose a conceptual framework that systematically links both constructs with existing innovation scholarship. We then discuss the implications of our framework on theories of the process of innovation and digital transformation. We recommend future research into digital design principles, digital product life cycle, knowledge accumulation, generativity, and the feedback dynamics within our framework. We also provide practitioner implications and limitations.

Supply chains are interconnected, globally distributed, and complex systems that significantly impact the environment and human civilization. Achieving environmental sustainability in supply chains is a grand challenge that requires collaboration and innovation among multiple stakeholders. In this study, we combine the natural-resource-based view and the stakeholder-resource-based view (SRBV) to examine how organizational strategic agility can foster collaborative environmental innovation and enhance environmental sustainability in supply chains. We use data from 758 managers from 185 firms in Turkey, an emerging economy context. We find that organizational strategic agility, enabled by organic organizational structures and regional innovation initiatives, leads to more collaborative environmental innovation with supply partners and higher environmental sustainability performance. Our study contributes to the literature on grand challenges, organizational strategic agility, and innovation management by showing how for-profit firms can leverage their strategic agility to address the grand challenge of environmental sustainability in supply chains. We also find two interventions to promote this form of environmental innovation: developing organizational strategic agility and organic structures within firms and involvement in regional innovation initiatives to stimulate collaborative innovation for environmental sustainability among supply partners.

While the body of research on grand challenges (GCs) has grown, our understanding of the role of corporate social innovation (CSI) in tackling exigent GCs, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, is limited. Based on in-depth analyses of four cases of CSI in the services sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper contributes to the GC literature by developing a 3Es framework of the CSI process (i.e., embeddedness, engagement, and enhancement) to illustrate the mechanisms through which exigent GCs can be effectively addressed by firms in the services sector. First, CSI embeddedness in intersectoral partnerships with international organizations based on deep-rooted trust and collective commitment is found to be a fundamental mechanism for efficiently addressing the COVID-19 crisis. Second, CSI engagement through the transformation of existing technology and/or the adaption of existing products/services is found to be an important mechanism for meeting pandemic-induced social needs. Specifically, it is found that leading-edge technologies such as digital platforms can be rapidly repurposed to enable loosely coupled systems that evolve as a new channel to bring together various stakeholders and thus address this urgent GC. Finally, CSI enhancement supported by managerial agility and participatory governance structure plays a crucial role in enabling CSI to function effectively in the context of exigent GCs.

Over the past decade, manufacturing has become increasingly digitized via an array of new technological developments. This digitization is transforming the way products are designed, created and consumed. However, relatively little is known about the impact of digital manufacturing upon innovation management. This special issue on Digital Manufacturing and Product Innovation begins to address this deficit via a collection of seven articles. Collectively, these articles cover a broad range of innovation-related topics, ranging from digital twins to corporate makerspaces. In this opening article, we provide a brief overview of digital manufacturing and its relation to innovation, a review of prior research in this domain, a summary of the articles in this special issue, and an agenda for future research.

Anckaert, Paul-Emmanuel, and Peeters, Hanne. 2023. “This is What You Came For? University–Industry Collaborations and Follow-On Inventions by the Firm.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 40(1): 58–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12650

In Volume 40, Number 1, there were unintended errors on pages 73 and 84. In Tables 4 and 5, the row “Applicant and technology contribution” should be “Applicant and technology controls.”

Finally, in Table A3, the words “No university technology and university science” and “No firm technology and firm science” should be “University science and no university technology” and “Firm science and no firm technology,” respectively.

The publisher apologizes for the error.

This study investigates how, why, and under which conditions incumbents and new entrants realign in innovation ecosystems to collectively tackle the grand challenge (GC) of climate change. The discussion on innovation and GCs is still lacking sufficient theoretical underpinnings and empirical insights to make sense of the role of for-profit firms and their collaborative innovation efforts to address the GCs of our times. We introduce innovation ecosystems as a theoretical lens for understanding the combinations of technological interfaces and strategic relations that firms can employ to craft value propositions with high potential for tackling GCs. Empirically, this study focuses on the GC of climate change that requires a transformation of the electricity sector. We investigate collaborative pilot projects between 10 international electric utilities and 57 clean-tech startups. In these pilots, incumbents and new entrants explore low-carbon value propositions through novel technological interfaces and strategic relations. Via qualitative comparative analysis, we identify three configurations of ecosystem realignment with high climate impact: an incumbent-led digital platform realignment, a device complementor and customer-enabling realignment, and a new orchestrator realignment. Based on a multiple case analysis, we uncover three innovation mechanisms that explain why these specific configurations unlock climate impact: they enhance resource efficiency, the flexibility and resilience of infrastructure, and the trading and leveraging of information and resources. On this basis, we contribute to the literature at the intersection of innovation management and GCs by developing theory that explicates (1) how the realignment of incumbents and startups in innovation ecosystems changes existing industry structures; (2) why specific configurations of such ecosystems are associated with high climate impact and are thus effective in addressing GCs; and (3) the boundary conditions under which collective innovation efforts in ecosystems can translate into climate impact.

Strategic emphasis is a critical decision reflecting a firm's relative proclivity toward value creation versus value appropriation. Despite the increasing role of the board in setting the strategic priorities of firms, there is a dearth of research examining board-level influences on strategic emphasis. Drawing on the cognitive perspective of corporate governance, we posit that exposure to external information via board interlocks provides competing incentives to pursue value creation and value appropriation strategies. We hypothesize that political ideological diversity among directors facilitates the utilization of external information for novel purposes, thus increasing firms' value creation focus. Combining data on directors' political ideologies with network analysis, we test these hypotheses in 584 large U.S. firms between 2000 and 2018. We find that political ideological diversity influences strategic emphasis both directly and in interaction with board interlock network centrality: politically ideological diverse boards exhibit a greater focus on value creation, and this effect is strengthened when the board is well connected to others. These results have implications for the director selection process, and for executives advocating for value creation strategies and the requisite R&D investments under differing conditions of board composition and information exposure.

For more than three decades, enthusiasts have predicted that direct manufacturing enabled by 3D printing would inevitably supplant traditional manufacturing methods. Alas, for nearly as long, these utopian predictions have failed to materialize. One reason is a flawed assumption that hybrid digital-physical systems such as 3D printing would advance as rapidly as purely digital innovations enabled by Moore's law. Instead, like other examples of cyber-physical systems (CPSs), technological progress in 3D printing faces inherent limitations that are emblematic of the differences between CPSs and purely digital innovations. As with any complex CPS, improved performance of a 3D printing system has been limited by that of its key components—the sort of limiting problem previously defined as a reverse salient. Unlike previously studied technologies, several reverse salients for 3D printing performance have neither resolved nor signs of resolving soon. Here we analyze these key reverse salients, and show how they have hampered the suitability of 3D printing for direct manufacturing and other predicted applications. We contrast predicted versus actual capabilities for 3D printing-enabled transformation in six key areas: product innovation, mass customization, home fabrication, distributed manufacturing, supply chain optimization and business model innovation. From this, we suggest opportunities for greater realism in future 3D printing research, as well as broader implications for our understanding of CPSs and reverse salients.