A summary of the articles of the marketing and innovation profession. This summary is written in English. The articles are briefly but vigorously explained in 1 to 2 pages.
Product strategy
- Tripsas (1997). Unraveling the Process of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets and
Incumbent Survival in the Typesetter Industry
- Hillebrand, Kemp & Nijssen (2011). Customer orientation and future market focus in NSD.
Adoption:
- Plouffe et al. (2001) Intermediating technologies and multi-group adoption: A comparison of
consumer and merchant adoption intentions toward a new electronic payment system
- Mani, Zied, Chouk (jaar) Consumer Resistance to Innovation in Services: Challenges and
Barriers in the Internet of Things Era
NPD
- John (1993). Marketing’s Limited Role in New Product Development in One Computer
Systems Firm
- Evanschitzky et al. (2012) Success Factors of Product Innovation: An Updated Meta-Analysis
The fuzzy frond-end
- Van Kleef et al. (2005) Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a
critical review of methods and techniques.
- Hauser (1993). How Puritan-Bennett Used the House of Quality
- Bitner et al. (2008) Service Blueprinting: A Practical Technique for Service Innovation
- Fuller et al. (2011) Why co-creation experience matters? Creative experience and its impact
on the quantity and quality of creative contributions
- Lilien et al. (2002) Performance Assessment of the Lead User Idea-Generation Process for
New Product Development.
- Gatzweiler et al. (2017) Dark Side or Bright Light: Destructive and Constructive Deviant
Content in Consumer Ideation Contests
Testing and forecasting
- Eliëns et al. (2018) Rational versus intuitive gatekeeping: escalation of commitment in the
front end of NPD
Product launch
- Guiltinan (1999). Launch Strategy, Launch Tactics & Demand Outcomes
- Golder and Tellis (1993) Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend?
- Sorescu, Rajesh and Jaideep (2003) Sources and Financial Consequences of Radical
Innovation: Insights from Pharmaceuticals.
NPD in ecosystems
- Berends et al. (2014) Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining
Entrepreneurial Effectuation and Managerial Causation
- Nenonen et al. (2019) Capabilities for market-shaping: triggering and facilitating increased
value creation
After the launch
- Kuester et al. (1999) Retaliatory Behaviour to New Product Entry
- Homburg et al. (2010) A customer perspective on product eliminations: how the removal of
products affects customers and business relati onships
,Article Tripsas (1997). Unraveling the Process of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets and
Incumbent Survival in the Typesetter Industry
Two perspectives on the process of creative destruction. (1) Following Schumpeter’s work: fluid
industries where new entrants innovate with technologically superior products and displace
incumbent firms, only to have the cycle repeated. (2) In contrast, other research has built in
Schumpeter’s later work, focusing on the advantages that established firms have over new entrants.
This paper sheds light on these two perspectives by showing three factors influencing performance
of incumbents and new entrants during radical technological change: (1) investments in developing
the new technology, (2) technical capabilities and (3) the ability to appropriate the benefits of
technological innovation through specialized complementary assets. The balance and interaction
among these three factors determine whether incumbents or new entrants are more successful in
the face of competence-destroying technological change.
Results. Incumbents: (1) lack of investment was not responsible for failure, (2) technical capabilities
of products developed were mediocre in comparison to new entrants, (3) organizational
architectures (fit with prior generation of technology) handicapped the company. (4) When
specialized complementary assets unavailable to new entrants retained their value despite a
technological shift, incumbents maintained their market position in the new generation of
technology. These assets appear to have buffered incumbents from the effects of competence
destruction, enabling them to sustain a high level of commercial performance despite their
technological disadvantage. Although incumbent products were technologically subordinate in all
three competence-destroying generations of technology, incumbents were displaced by new
entrants in one of the three generations.
Literature review. If incumbents do the following:
- No investments: new entrants dominate.
- Investments: technology of incumbents is inferior.
- No technological capabilities: new entrants dominate.
- Technological capabilities: technology of incumbents is inferior. When technology of
incumbents would be as good / better new entrants, it still depends on complementary
assets.
- No complementary assets: If assets are devaluate/new entrants get these assets: new
entrants dominate, even if their technology is inferior (incumbents have no buffer).
- Complementary assets: If assets aren’t devaluated/ new entrants can’t get these assets:
incumbents dominate even though they have inferior technological capabilities.
- Both have no complementary assets: unclear who dominates.
o It all depends on complementary assets.
Conclusion. This work highlights the importance of integrating multiple perspectives when analysing
competition. While a lack of investment is sometimes responsible for incumbent failure, other times
incumbents invest substantial amounts in new technology. Established firms were handicapped by
their prior experience in that their approach to new product development was shaped by that
experience. The initial products developed by established firms were consistently inferior to those of
new entrants. The need for both new technical skills and new architectural knowledge proved
difficult for incumbents to manage. Incumbents did not, however, necessarily suffer commercial
consequences as a result of their inferior technological positions. When incumbent firms possessed
specialized complementary assets that retained their value despite the technological shift, these
assets were found to buffer incumbents from the effects of competence destruction. Incumbents
,only suffered in the market when both competences were destroyed, and the value of specialized
complementary assets was diminished.
Article Hillebrand, Kemp & Nijssen (2011). Customer orientation and future market focus in NSD.
Key terms. Customer orientation benefits incremental innovation but negatively influences firms’
radical innovation. Customer orientation and future market focus are different but related
constructs. Customer orientation is the degree to which a firm believes it should try to understand
and satisfy current customers’ needs and wants. Strong customer orientation breeds inertia because
organizational decisions that run against the interest of the current customer group may be prone to
criticism and resistance from organizational members. As a result, innovations – especially
competence-destroying ones – may lack initial legitimacy because they use up resources otherwise
allocated to the current customers’ cause. Future market focus is defined as a firm’s predisposition
of openness to new market trends and business models. It refers to a more elaborate search mode
for new business opportunities beyond the scope of current products, technologies and customers.
Future market focus prevents a firm from becoming myopic and inert and stimulates it to move
forward. Inertia: a firm’s reluctance to change/ lack of willingness to cannibalize sales, routines and
prior investments, which has been shown to be an important determinant of firm innovativeness.
Model and hypotheses. Two mechanisms that influence firm innovativeness: (1) Service research
and development strength, which draws on the research-based view; (2) Willingness to cannibalize
sales, routines, and investments, which draws from path dependency theory to emphasize a social
mechanism rooted in organizational inertia. Biasing attention and decision making in favour of
current activities, this social context generally acts as an important inhibiting factor to innovation.
H1a: Customer orientation negatively influences willingness to cannibalize current sales.
H1b: Customer orientation negatively influences willingness to cannibalize existing routines.
Not accepted.
H1c: Customer orientation negatively influences willingness to cannibalize prior investments.
Firms with future market focus are proactive rather than reactive. They consider new services as a
necessity to capture newly developing markets but also to sustain their competitive positioning. They
will be less worried about substitution of current sales by new activities; they see it as a necessity.
Estimating future returns helps firms to forget previous investments and focus on the investments
that need to be made for future activities.
H2a. Future market focus positively influences willingness to cannibalize current sales.
H2b: Future market focus positively influences willingness to cannibalize existing routines
H2c. Future market focus positively influences willingness to cannibalize prior investments.
, Discussion. In contrast to the literature and our expectations, customer orientation does not have a
significant effect on willingness to cannibalize routines. A possible explanation is that firms with a
high customer orientation may be less reluctant to change their routines when a change in routines
does not affect the current customer’s way of working or interacting with the firm. Another
difference between the literature and our results is the lack of evidence for a positive effect of
willingness to cannibalize sales on firm innovativeness. This could be explained by the fact that
service development mainly deals with developing the pre-requisites for a service, rather than the
service itself.
Firms face a balancing act: on the one hand they need to focus on the future in order to develop and
introduce new products and services, but on the other hand their current customers press them to
meet their wishes and adapt existing services rather than developing radical new services.
Management implications. (1) Managers planning to develop radical innovations should focus not
only on serving current customers but also on building a future market focus. (2) It calls for the use of
qualitative market research techniques next to the regularly used large surveys. Co-creation with
customers may be another useful tactic to use. Limitations and future research. (1) The cross-
sectional design requires caution with regard to inferences about causality. (2) Although CEO
evaluations tend to be reliable and provide good estimates for strategic issues, data from single
respondents may affect results. (3) We used a simple model. Future research could further
investigate under what conditions inertial forces are more or less strong. (4) Due to the limited
sample size we could not fully explore the combinations of customer orientation and future market
focus present in the sample. (5) Extension of the research to other countries and specific service
industries would increase the generalizability of the findings. (6) Future research developing tools for
monitoring inertia will also be very useful.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller tessapeters2. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.05. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
