Collaborative product development and situated knowledge contexts

1

Collaborative product development and situated knowledge contexts in retail Activity Networks: The case of non-durable food products

by Poul Houman Andersen1 & Kristin Balslev Munksgaard2

Key words: Activity networks, New product development, innovation, relationship atmosphere, situated knowledge contexts

1 Professor, PhD. The Aarhus School of Business, Department of Management, [email protected] 2 PhD-Student, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Entrepreneurship and Relationship Management. [email protected]

2

Collaborative product development and situated knowledge contexts in retail Activity Networks: The case of non-durable food products Involvement of external sources for product development activities such as customers and suppliers has become an increasingly topical issue in the product development literature (Jeppesen & Molin, 2003). External inputs are needed in order to challenge conventional thinking and spur creative involvement. Moreover, it increases the organizations’ market orientation ability and responsiveness to changing market needs (Grunert et al. 2005). Still more companies see external inputs from lead users with avant garde demands as an important source for both acquiring and testing novel product ideas in a range of different industrial and consumer market contexts, such as in software development, development of toys, surf boards and medical adhesives (see Lüthje & Herstatt, 2004 for an overview). Such involvement activities may take weak, moderate or strong forms, contingent on the problem-solving location of the user and the producer and the resources involved by the firm (Jeppesen, 2005).

Non-durable food products differ to some extent (Cox, Mowatt & Prevzer, 2003; Blichfeldt, 2005). Comparing this line of industry to the success stories, suppliers’ ability to use innovation inputs from lead users are impaired by at least two aspects. First, the dominance of retailers means that successful product development not only must meet the needs of consumers but also accommodate with the business scope and operational routines of retail chains – often restricting product development (Munksgaard 2006). Secondly, lead consumers of food products are hard to find. There is a large chasm between expert users of food, such as chefs and sophisticated cooks and the mass market of consumers. This is in line with research on the lead user method, which suggests that there is considerable variation across industry contexts, with respect to the application value of customer-involvement in new product development. One explanation of this variance is that user benefits (economical, psychological or otherwise) from being involved in the manufacturers’ innovation activities vary (Lüthje & Cornelius, 2004). Sophisticated food users look elsewhere for involvement than with mass manufacturing suppliers: they develop their own recipes or collaborate with providers of specialty foods. Consumers of processed food products (i.e. ready made meals and salads) are at the same time those consumers who are less involved in development. As a consequence of this, suppliers of non-durable food products look elsewhere in their business network for innovative inputs to product development. Prior studies of external involvement in the food industry also show a considerable involvement of suppliers and retailers in product development activities (Disko, 1996). At the same time, however, many actors in- and outside the industry concur that the outcome in terms of genuinely new food products is meager (Knudsen, 2006). This presents to us an interesting and relevant paradox to explore. As discussed in relation to market orientation issues, positional differences among actors in the value network in terms of centrality and scope of business may impact on the management of these activities, on the collaborative atmosphere as well as on the type of information involved and how product development challenges are solved (Grunert et al., 2005). The purpose of this paper is to compare and discuss how positional differences in the value activity network impacts on collaborative product development activities, using case study insights from an ongoing study of the Danish food industry. We address how the combination of different knowledge contexts and relationship atmosphere affect collaboration on new product development between a supplier of non-durable food and other actors, constituting the surrounding segment of the food value chain.

Involvement of actors from diverging knowledge contexts in collaborative product development In the literature on product development, the use of external sources of input for innovation is often discussed as an information transfer problem (Von Hippel, 1994). As discussed in the literature on communities of practice, knowledge sticks to contexts and information reflects the context in which it has been developed (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Tyre & Von Hippel 1997). Customer experience is developed in a user context, is need or consumption-related and is

3

therefore often not transferable into the problem-solving producer context of innovators in its direct form (Jeppesen, 2005). The knowledge of innovators is technology-related which also strongly influences how product development issues are conceived and may be solved. Information must cross the divide between these two contexts in order to yield fruitful inputs to the product development process (Kristensen, 1992). On the other hand, translating need-related information into proper product responses is extremely valuable for product development processes.

In the Danish food industry product development activities often includes a range of different actors. However, at the same time the organization and management of product development and manufacturing activities are strongly influenced by positions and roles, suggesting that the network also has a strong chain character, where the division of work is rather static and given roles tend to be strongly dictated by the overall industry structure. As discussed by Porter (1980), positions in business systems largely describe roles and positions followed by specific strategic groupings. In the Danish food producing industry, positional strategies are largely fixed and do not change substantially over time (Strandskov, 1992). The primary reason for this is the dominant position of retail chains (Hansen 2005). From the perspective of a supplier of food products, this means that large scale retailers are more or less indispensable as a channel intermediary in order to reach consumers3. The demands from the dominant retailers strongly influence a wide range of exchange activities, including collaboration on new product development.

Given fixed positions in the value adding network of food producers it can be proposed that the type of information (technical or user-related) will differ with respect to the positioning of actors in the network. We posit, that these positions also reflects differences in knowledge contexts, in terms of which types of and how the definition of development issues are enacted by those involved, how they are prioritized and what types of knowledge in terms of professional expertise is involved. This has been addressed in other contexts as well. In studies of the emergence of collective mental models and how they impact on various activities, it has been claimed that market actors, though continuing interaction develops shared mental models or industry recipes, describing practices and issues of crucial importance to their specific group (Porac et al, 1995). This can be seen as an emergent institutional logic within a field of actors with professional commonalities (Spender & Roger, 1991). For instance, in a cross-national study of European food retailers, Skytte (2003) found intra-country similarities and cross-country divergences among retailers’ cognition with respect to their role and the practices followed by them. In relation to how diverging information contexts inform interaction and learning, Lave & Wenger (1991) discusses the contextualized nature of knowledge found in communities of practice. According to them, knowledge is relationally bounded and emerges through constant negotiations among stakeholders on the prioritization of issues. Similar point is found in Brown & Duguid’s (1991) study of copy machine repair personnel’s interaction with users. This suggests that institutional logics apply to specific areas of practice such as the locus of issues dealt with by suppliers and retailers in solving agreed upon challenges. Carlile (2002) makes a similar point in relation to his study of knowledge contexts and boundary objects in product development. In the food producing network, three knowledge contexts can be observed with respect to developing and introducing new non-durable food products to the market:

1. A technology-related knowledge context, comprised of actors primarily concerned with manufacturing issues, such as prototyping, ramp-up and mass production. Often, the persons involved in these activities have a professional background from engineering (i.e. chemistry and dairy engineers) or from technical schools.

3 Alternatives may be found with the growing use of the Internet as an e-business channel. In Denmark, specialized non-durable food producers such as www.Skagen-Fisk.com and www.Aarstiderne.com seek to combine virtual shops with their own door-to-door delivery system. Still however, the product volume flow through virtual channels is neglectable relative to physical retailing.

4

2. A distribution and branding related knowledge context, comprised of actors primarily concerned with issues pertaining to the organization and management of product flows from suppliers to retail outlets. These issues concerns procurement, competitive positioning and operational management of product categories, which also involves issues of product branding as an aspect of category management. Often, the persons involved in these activities have a professional background in management, some with an educational background in procurement or retailing.

3. A marketing and consumption related knowledge context, comprised of actors primarily concerned with issues pertaining to consumers’ buying behaviour and how broader societal issues affects their life world. Like the previous knowledge context, the marketing and consumption-related knowledge context also deals with branding issues, however from the point of seeing branding as a means for augmenting consumption value for consumers. Often, the persons involved here are marketing and market communication specialists, some with a professional training from business schools or creative arts.

As shown in figure 1, organizations often span multiple knowledge contexts, which may lead to priority contests among departments within an organization, as pointed out already in studies of integration between R&D and marketing within the company. For instance, in Denmark retailers are typically involved in both marketing and operational issues, and producers of non-durable food products are active both in operational and in technology activities. Within the firm, this leads to priority contests in new product development. Personnel from marketing & R&D activities have diverging educational backgrounds, which influences new product development processes (Sherman, Berkowitz & Souder, 2005; Shaw, Shaw & Enke, 2003). In consistency with our view, Souder (1988) saw R&D and marketing actors as deeply concerned with their own narrow specialities, with little interaction and communication across functional fields. Studies of cross functional integration between marketing and R&D do not take into account knowledge interaction among various groups of professionals on an inter-organizational level. The position of collaborators in the activity network differs with respect to how new product development issues are enacted and prioritized and what knowledge is involved in solving these problems. A crucial issue in shaping new product development activities is the interface between various types of knowledge involved (Kristensen, 1992). Therefore, the locus of product development activities may also differ based on actors’ positions. Finally, the sources of informants involved and the knowledge and interests they represent may also differ systematically across network positions.

A market-oriented supplier in the Danish food industry seeking external input to product development activities face four generic routes for innovative inputs (we exclude competitors independently, but include them as either a specific type of supplier or customer to the supplier). These routes are presented graphically in figure 1 with respect to their knowledge context and are further discussed below.

5

Distribution and branding relatedknowledge context

Consumption relatedknowledge context

Technology relatedknowledge context

Supplier’ssupplier

Supplier Retailer Enduser

Complementor

1

2

3

4









Complementor



Complementor

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

Figure 1: Collaboration for innovative inputs in development of food products from the focal supplier’s perspective First generic strategy, illustrated by arrow 1 in figure 1, describes the information flow dealt with in the “traditional” customer-active paradigm, associated with Von Hippel (1978; 1986). A large part of the studies dealing with CAP concerns various traits of interaction between producers and end-users. In the Danish non-durable food industry examples can be found of very large suppliers, such as Arla Foods involving consumers directly in product development. However, examples of customer involvement in consumer non-durables are few. As discussed previously a likely explanation is the importance of retailers’ needs combined with weak consumer incentives.

Second generic strategy in figure 1 concerns the interaction between supplier and retailer in product development. Although involvement of industrial users in product development has been discussed at length in the literature on user involvement in product development, the role of retailers in the marketing channel and how they might impact on product development issues has not been treated as rigorously. In the food industry, this type of strategy is frequently not only customer-active but also often customer-led (Cox et al, 2003). Suppliers and retailers may hold mutually exclusive interests. In fact, suppliers seeking to involve customers directly in product development may be discouraged by retailers, who find this to be unwelcome invasion on their territory. In the food industry for instance, both technological and market power aspects enters into to the equation. Large and globally expanding retailers have a dominant role over suppliers and at the same time have strong requirements towards suppliers in order to support their business operations, to which suppliers must adapt (Quarmby, 1998; McKinnon, 1989; Smart, 1995). As shown in a study on market orientation among Swedish retailers, these are often limited to private label suppliers, whereas a more arm’s length relationship exists between suppliers of branded goods and retailers when it comes to new product development (Elg, 2002). For instance, in the area of the development of private label product labels, suppliers and retailers collaborate on product development (Hansen 2005). For suppliers, however, this strategy is often seen as less attractive, as their latitude of choice in product development activities are severely restricted. Development of private label product series and brand extensions frequently concerns the introduction of products which are not new to the market but are rather low cost modification of existing products, in order to introduce a competitive alternative to premium brands. Product categories are flooded with “me-too” products, and this is likely to exhaust

6

consumer interest for particular categories and drive suppliers and their retailers into a negative spiral of price competition and purchasing power pressure (Mitton, 2006). For suppliers, private label product development may exhaust their own possibilities for creating branded market positions on consumer markets.

Third strategy concerns involving suppliers for the generation of product inputs. In many industries, the technological skills of suppliers are seen an indispensable input for product innovation (Andersen & Drejer, 2005). Supplier involvement in product development activities has been discussed in relation to a wide range of industries (Wynstra et al 2001). In non-durable food both suppliers of new ingredients and packaging material may be strategically important sources of innovative inputs for new product development. However, from a positional point of view in the value creating network, suppliers to the supplier are even further removed from end-user signals than the suppliers themselves, where as information relating to technological contexts may be given even stronger prominence. From a market orientation point of view, this may be problematic, because members of development activities tend to emphasize other key success factors than those relating to customer oriented product differentiation (Grunert et al. 2005) The fourth but less often discussed strategy concerns the involvement of complementors. A complementor can be defined as a company which are not directly linked to product development activities, but which outputs positively affect the value of the supplier’s product (and vice versa) (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1998). Complementors may be important suppliers of innovative inputs and knowledge about how to recombine existing resources (Ritter, Wilkinson & Johnston, 2004). They may hold knowledge about use situations, which are not encountered for by other actors in the channel, who may tend to share mental schemas and routines for value generation. Complementors may recognize possibilities overlooked by others. On the other hand, precisely because they are not directly connected to specific use situations, co-aligning their information inputs with that of actors directly connected to the value-generating flow may be extremely complicated, since they have limited knowledge about operational issues, such as restraints emanating from consumption, manufacturing or distribution contexts. Managing collaborative product development across knowledge contexts From a value generating perspective on business networks, positional differences among actors involved in product development activities may not only influence the knowledge available but may also have a strong impact on the organization and management of external involvement in product development, including coordination and division of tasks in new product development processes. As knowledge is context-bound, it is also “sticky” in the sense that it is difficult to extract, transfer and apply from one knowledge context to another (Von Hippel, 1994). The focus on stickiness in the new product development literature on the involvement of customers has particularly been criticized for not taking structural issues such as power/dependence in user-producer relationships into account (Wilson & Mummalanei, 1986; Foxall, 1988). For instance, power/dependence impacts on trust issues, which in its turn concerns human interaction and influence the attitudinal setting or atmosphere of business transactions in general (Williamson, 1975). One area which has been neglected in this literature is the role of interpersonal trust among specialists involved in new product development. In its turn, interpersonal trust again affects attitudes toward information sharing and willingness to interact on both organizational and interpersonal levels.

Personal interaction builds up the development of more or less implicit rules in interaction, which are formed, reinforced and modified through exchange and constituting further exchange at the same time (Giddens, 1975). It reflects the feelings, intentions, will and interests of actors and their interpretations of what has been done and what can be achieved in the future. In a business relationship context, the function of personal interaction for forming more or less benevolent interaction contexts for collaboration in R&D has been discussed in terms of relationship atmosphere (Hallén & Sandström, 1991). Relationship atmosphere can be defined as the emotional setting in which business is conducted, simultaneously constituting and being constituted by interpersonal interaction. Seen from one exchange

7

party’s view, the atmosphere can be defined by the perception that one exchange partner holds about another partner, and the perceptions the same partner believes that the other partner holds about oneself (Hallén & Widersheim-Paul, 1981). Note that these perceptions may or may not reflect the actual power and dependence among actors involved. In some cases, realized power dependence relationships may be quite asymmetrical, whereas relationship atmosphere may not reflect this issue. Often, however, power/dependence imbalance in product development relationships may lead to paternalism or bully/underdog situations (Hallén & Sandström, 1991).

In terms of information exchange relating to product development, the atmosphere of the relationship is also expected to impact on critical issues in the product development context such as problem definition, interorganizational information sharing, and the provision of problem-solving among the actors involved. Based on Hallén & Sandström (op cit) we discuss aspects of relationship atmosphere in terms of being balanced or unbalanced. Balanced relationship atmospheres are characterized by mutual empathy and interest cohesion as well as reflecting strong interpersonal trust and cooperation. Unbalanced relationship atmospheres are often characterized by one-sided or no empathy, power issues and reflecting lack of trust. Power balance is the exchange party’s perception of how dependence is distributed and which power bases they may have vis a vis other actors. In balanced product development relationships, partners contribute equally to the product development process, through either split decision-making (according to competences) or shared decision-making in terms of negotiating issues such as problem definition and provisions of solutions and inclusion of information. An intermediating aspect here concerns the commitment of actors to the relationship. In unbalanced relationships, one actor is perceived as more in control than the other, suggesting that this actor has legitimated authority in terms of defining product development issues, dividing work and evaluating information. Cooperativeness concerns the perceived compatibility of goals among actors involved. In product development contexts, this may concern whether the outcome of product development activities is regarded as leading to justly distributed and increased value for both actors or whether sharing may be less beneficial for one actor compared to the other (Kumar & Andersen, 2000). This may impact the extent to which actors are willing to share knowledge which each other. Empathy/closeness relates to actors’ ability to understand or even sympathize with the beliefs, values, aims and motives of their exchange partner. In a product development context, understanding these aspects may help actors to interpret information and negotiate problem framing issues of their collaborators, whereas sympathy, a positive emotional construct may help actors to overlook or even disregard own and search for common interests despite incompatibilities of resources, skills and present interests (Weick, 1979). Methodology Given the exploratory nature of this research and the corresponding need for insights into the nature and process of partner involvement in complex organizational settings, the empirical part of the paper is based on a qualitative case study methodology (Yin, 2003). A case study approach is recommended when the issues are complex and evolving, and where alternating between the empirical field and different theoretical frameworks can be useful for generating additional insights (Yin, 2003; Orton, 1997). We use the knowledge context and relationship atmosphere dimensions derived above as our vantage point for analyzing and making cross-comparisons of the cases. This means that we in alignment with the CAP-perspective focus on aspects of information contexts and how they influence on the information and knowledge interaction among involved actors, that is which information sources are involved, and where problem definition and problem-solving mandates are located as our explained (or dependent) variable (Jeppesen, 2005). We then focus on the explanatory power of positional and relationship atmosphere aspects in order to understand why these knowledge activities are located and organized as they are.

Each out of three case studies that provide the paper’s empirical basis evolves around the focal event of a seasonal developing meeting between a supplier and a collaborative partner, as outlined in figure 2.

8

Knowledge context

Knowledge context

Knowledge Interactionat development meeting

Marketablenew product ideas

Involved actor’s input to new product ideas

Supplier’s input to new product ideas

Knowledge context

Knowledge context

Knowledge Interactionat development meetingKnowledge Interaction

at development meeting


Involved actor’s input to new product ideas

Supplier’s input to new product ideas

Figure 2: Case event – knowledge input and knowledge interaction at development meetings and the resulting marketable new product ideas

Figure 2 illustrates how each actor deliver input in terms of new products ideas to the joint development meeting. The purpose of development meetings is to create marketable new product ideas which will be based on the knowledge interaction between the involved actors. In each case the collaborating partner has a different position in the value chain related to strategy two, three and four in figure 1.

Our data is based on an ongoing study of product development activities in the Danish food industry, carried out by one of the authors as part of her PhD-study. Data has been collected through interviews and participant observation. Since the seasonal development meeting and the connected projects are the unit of analysis the actual activities in the empirical field has determined when and where the data has been collected. Participant observation has been used to study the actions and behaviour related to knowledge input to product development in each case as well as the knowledge interaction between the collaborating partners (Lüders 2004), whereas semi-structured interviews have been conducted to obtain data on informants’ intentions and experiences related to their interaction. Triangulation of data have given the benefit of an in-depth understanding and a ground for analyzing multiple aspects and perspectives (Carson et al. 2001) – conscious as well as unconscious to the informants – of the information and knowledge sources; problem definition and prioritization as well as the knowledge interaction and the overall relationship atmosphere between the interacting parties. Table 1 provides an overview of the meeting participants and their individual backgrounds. This information is used for building an initial understanding of the knowledge context these individuals are embedded in.

9

Table 1: Case information – participants and data collection Fineschmecker – UP

Retailing Chicken Delight – Spice Inc

AllStar-PROmotion

Knowledge contexts involved

Strategy 2 in figure 1 Strategy 3 in figure 1 Strategy 4 in figure 1

Participant information • position • departmental

affiliation • personal

background

Supplier: Fineschmecker • Mr. Charles,

Development Manager, Development Department, food technologist

• Mrs. Fineschmecker, Product developer, Development Department, laboratory technician

Retailer: UP Retailing • Mrs. Jespersen,

Purchase Manager, Department of meat purchasing, Butcher

• Miss Kate, Purchase Assistant, Department of meat purchasing, MSc. in marketing

Supplier: Chicken Delight • Mrs. Thomson,


• Mr. Nilsson, Product developer, Development Department, butcher and food technologist

Supplier’s supplier: Spice Inc. • Mr. Johnson,


• Mrs. Jensen, Product developer, Development Department, laboratory technician

Supplier: AllStar • Mr. Mike,

Marketing Manager, Marketing Department, MA in communication

• Mr. Martin, Development Manager, Development Department, laboratory technician

• Miss Camilla, Product developer, Development Department, food process technologist

• Mr. Lund, Sales Manager, Sales Department, store manager and merconom in marketing

Complementor: PROmotion (ad agency) • Mr. Knutshorn,

CEO/owner • Mr. Thorn, Art

Director, graphic designer

• Miss Brigitte, assistant, graphic designer

Development meeting host

Fineschmecker Spice Inc. AllStar

Observations and interviews

Participant observations of one development meeting and one follow-up meeting 5 interviews

Participant observation of one development meeting 6 interviews

Participant observations of one development meeting 8 interviews

Three development meetings as well as one follow-up meeting have been observed,

hosted by one of the business actors in each case thus completed in the informants’ natural setting. Every observation has been silent, thus the observer has not taken on an active role but observations have been informed to all participants (Carson et al. 2001). In every case five up to eight semi-structured interviews have been conducted a least once with every individual directly participating in development meetings. Some informants have been interviewed both

10

before and after meetings. Both interviews and observations have been recorded and transcribed for analysis together with the observation protocol. The Fineschmecker-UP Retailing case Fineschmecker is a single supplier of flour, customized blends and bake-off produce for bread and pastry as well as customized concepts and recipes to every in-store bakery in the UP Retailing chain. UP Retailing is a big actor on the national retail market while Fineschmecker is a medium-sized supplier facing increasing international competition. The relationship between Fineschmecker and UP Retailing (UPR) exemplifies the generic strategy 2 in figure 1. The interaction of knowledge contexts in this case is portrayed in figure 2 and is further discussed in the text.

Producability-related knowledge context

Operational management-related knowledge context

Knowledge Interaction based on Rivalry

Dominated Relationship Atmosphere


UP Retailing’s input to new product ideas

Fineschmecker’s input to new product ideas

•Testing and maturingUPR’s ideas•RejectingFineschmecker’s ideas

Producability-related knowledge context

Operational management-related knowledge context

Knowledge Interaction based on Rivalry

Dominated Relationship Atmosphere


UP Retailing’s input to new product ideas

Fineschmecker’s input to new product ideas

•Testing and maturingUPR’s ideas•RejectingFineschmecker’s ideas

Figure 3: The Fineschmeker-UP retailing seasonal meeting for product development The development issue Besides developing customized produce based on specifications an essential part of Fineschmecker’s development strategy is to develop their own new ideas for blends and bake-off produce offered to customers. These internally generated new product ideas are to serve as an input to important customers’ development activities as well as build the basis for Fineschmecker’s general range of products, market and sold to all customers. Related to selected seasons Fineschmecker invites important customers – one at a time – to taste, evaluate and select among these new products ideas that each customer may wish to incorporate in their own product line. One of these important customers is UPR. To Fineschmecker it is important to involve their customers and get their opinion on new product ideas before deciding which of these will become part of the supplier’s product portfolio. The idea-evaluation-and-selection-meetings take place at Fineschmecker’s small development bakery. Since it is rather inexpensive to develop prototypes Fineschmecker each time prepare and bake new breads and pastries. Every prototype is tasted and the customer representatives are asked to evaluate it.

To the UPR responsible Purchasing Manager and her assistant the main purpose and objective of joint meetings is to develop the range of new products for their in-store bakeries with a primary focus on UPR special branded private label convenience bake-off which both respond to current and coming consumer trends, yield a reasonable revenue and last but not least contribute to improving the manufacturing and baking process in the UPR in-store bakeries. Information exchange, management and division of work at the development meeting A meeting between Fineschmecker and UPR preparing products for the coming national holidays is the focal event in the following. For the meeting Fineschmecker has prototyped and baked nine different new breads and pastries. Prior to the meeting the UPR Purchasing Manager has requested Fineschmecker to also prototype and present a total of ten of her own new product ideas as well as ideas from UPR in-store bakery employees. The latter is new product ideas developed at a workshop for UPR employees jointly arranged with Fineschmecker. Although the meeting is held at Fineschmeckers development bakery and

11

their objective is to obtain UPR’s evaluation of their internally generated ideas the relationship is however tuned in and adapted towards UP Retailing in the sense that the UPR Purchasing Manager informally takes the leading and chairing role during the meeting; she has a prepared list of issues to discuss and suggests that they taste and evaluate the prototypes based on her ideas. She sets up gates for the further development of chosen ideas into products e.g. when a new product may be approved if certain parameters (on taste, texture and the like) are improved. The role of the meeting is also essential to the UPR Purchasing Manager: “I view it (the meeting) as part of our own product development scenario”. At the meeting she evaluates and chooses the new product ideas that she prefers together with her assistant as well as takes notes and informs Fineschmecker when she wants to launch a chosen new product. Taste and appearance of products are important criteria discussed, and consumer behavior issues are also touched upon. However the baking process at UPR in-store also forms an evaluation criterion. If new products are too time-consuming to prepare for the employees in the UPR in-store bakeries, these are simply disregarded, regardless promising sales statistics. Thus UPR also put great emphasis on passing on information concerning changing and developing production and baking processes in UPRs in-store bakeries of which have influence on the development of new bake-off products, blends and additional services provided by Fineschmecker.

At the end of the meeting she summarizes what Fineschmecker need to develop further and makes sure that they agree on a time frame. The decisions made during meetings directly reflects the Purchasing Manager’s broad scope of decision competence in her own organization where she is responsible for developing new products, putting together the product assortments, market this assortment as wells as developing the baking and production processes in the UPR in-store bakeries.

On several aspects information is primarily flowing from UP Retailing to Fineschmecker. This applies to information on trends, taste and preferences of different consumer groupings as well as providing information that direct Fineschmecker’s attention to potential sub-suppliers of new ingredients and pass on contact information. The information flowing back to UPR from Fineschmecker is closely related to the new developed products detailing e.g. how different ingredients will respond to each other or whether an ingredient advantageously might be replaced with a cheaper or better one.

The relationship atmosphere Fineschmecker’s status as single supplier is unique in the sense that this is not UPR’s general supplier policy. The development element in the relationship has secured this status, as UPR recognizes that to motivate a supplier to perform as a development partner there have to be substantial sales volume to support it. UPR’s empathy in the supplier situation also counterbalance the additional resource it would require to develop in collaboration with several suppliers, as expressed by the UPR Purchasing Assistant: “then I would have to use time to discuss with several suppliers and what costs I might save on this would be absorbed by the cost of my wage”. However to UPR the price is an essential and an undisputable issue – it just have to be right; it is important to them that Fineschmecker maintain their understanding of this. Related to the price issue the Development Manager at Fineschmecker states that “they (UPR) are 100% loyal to us” and based on their long-termed relationship he is confident that UP Retailing would not place their business elsewhere for obtaining a lower price without bargaining with Fineschmecker first.

The relationship is considered valuable to Fineschmecker; not only does UPR account as the single biggest retail customer in sales volume and turnover, but is also considered a knowledgeable, professional and trend setting partner. Fineschmecker commit many resources to this special relationship and make almost any necessary adaptation – e.g. flexible deliveries and investing in new production facilities. But the relationship is also characterized by an imbalance in power and very straightforward almost harsh tone in the sense that UPR often dictates and correct Fineschmecker on e.g. how they handle the coordination of other suppliers and how their present prototypes on development meetings. UPR representatives have a direct tone and are continually educating the supplier representatives with respect to

12

marketing and branding policies as well as their supplier relations. Moreover, when representatives from Fineschmencker seek to raise the issue on how to reserve more shelf space to their own brands in the retailer shops, they are immediately met with counter claims from the retailer – demanding more marketing subsidies and sharing of costs for promotion.

The importance of the relationship to Fineschmecker is also reflected in their willingness to adapt and use resources to a greater extend than in relation to other important customers. On the other hand UPR acknowledge the flexibility and adaptations made by Fineschmecker, however earlier in the relationship on a time when Fineschmecker did not live up to the role as a development partner UP Retailing build up a relationship with another supplier. Today both parties acknowledge how other suppliers are potentially apple to provide what Fineschmecker is providing today, but to build the same relationship with another supplier would demand many resources by UP Retailing. Meeting outcome – marketable new product ideas UP Retailing appear to be less receptive to Fineschmecker’s new product ideas since out of nine presented only one got accepted to be included in the retail chain’s product line. Instead UPR is more oriented against their own ideas and these are to a greater extent developed into actual new products and concepts used in their in-store bakeries. At the meeting six of UPR’s ideas got accepted and it was decided that the remaining four was to be altered and matured to be evaluated at a new meeting. During the meeting the sell of already launched new products was discussed based on monitoring reports from both parties. But this is not the main criterion for a new product’s success. The main criterion is the ease of production and baking at UPR’s in-store bakeries.

The Chicken Delight-Spice Inc. case Chicken Delight produces and market a broad range of different chicken products distributed through national and international retail chains. The chicken manufacturer produces their own Chicken Delight premium brand which focuses on exclusive but ready-to-make chicken meals as well as a broader range of private label grill products for retail customers. Spice Inc. is a medium-sized national supplier and manufacturer of marinades and spice mixtures for a various range of meat products. The relationship between Chicken Delight (CD) and Spice Inc. exemplifies the generic strategy 3 in figure 1. The knowledge contexts involved is portrayed in figure 2 and the collaborative process is further discussed below.

Technology-related knowledge context

Technology-relatedknowledge context

Overlapping Knowledge Interaction

Mutual Relationship Atmosphere


Spice Inc.’s input to new product ideas

Chicken Delight’s input to new product ideas

•Joint testing•Individual listing ofmarketable ideas•Individual sorting ofideas


Technology-relatedknowledge context

Overlapping Knowledge Interaction



Spice Inc.’s input to new product ideas

Chicken Delight’s input to new product ideas

•Joint testing•Individual listing ofmarketable ideas•Individual sorting ofideas

Figure 4: The Chicken Delight-Spice Inc. seasonal meeting on product development issues The development issue Each year during October and November the development department at Chicken Delight prepares for next year’s grill season by inviting selected suppliers of marinades and spices to develop and present ideas for new products to supplement their own idea generation. Spice Inc. is one of these suppliers. From time to time professional chefs are also invited to contribute. The purpose and objectives of inviting suppliers is not only to obtain new ideas but also to make use of supplier competencies and advice for ramping up to mass production since there are different requirements for prototyping products in a development kitchen and

13

mass-production. When the CD development department based on own and different suppliers’ ideas has put together a relatively broad range of potential new products these are presented to the CD sales department who then has the final decision on which products will become part of the product portfolio offered to retail customers.

The development department at Spice Inc. considers development collaboration with CD advantageous in two respects: First of all, Spice Inc. uses the relationship to obtain a professional customer’s evaluation of their own new product ideas and thus providing the basis for developing and improving their own range of new products for the coming grill season. Second by prototyping on the new ideas of CD Spice Inc. get access to information on current and coming consumer trends.

Even though Spice Inc. acknowledges that they are in constant competition with other suppliers they feel very comfortable in the relationship and do not perceive the cooperativeness to be damaged by the competition. On the contrary the Development Manager with self-confidence claims: “I don’t mind them (CD) using other suppliers, because it gives them a ground for comparing and then they can see what we can do, that our competitors cannot. It also keeps us on out toes”. Information exchange, management and division of work at the development meeting All though the development departments at CD and Spice Inc. meet and communicate regularly, one meeting is dedicated to joint discussions and evaluation of new potential products for the coming grill season. This meeting is presented here. Even though it is Chicken Delight that has sent the initial invitation to present new product it is Spice Inc. that takes the initiative for the parties to meet. At the meeting Spice Inc. takes the leading and chairing role and guides CD through both the ideas generated by CD as well as complimentary ideas developed by Spice Inc. In advance Spice Inc. has been prototyping on CD’s fourteen ideas and decided to present teen of those. Some ideas have thus been rejected as either unsuitable for industrial production or beyond Spice Inc.’s competencies. Moreover Spice Inc. presents thirteen of their own ideas.

During the meeting prototypes of each new product idea is cooked and served to the participants from both companies. The partners taste and engage in a joint discussion on evaluating the products where both parties makes note on e.g. the appearance, taste, potential and predictable production difficulties. Spice Inc. puts effort in inquiring exactly how CD experiences the appearance and taste of the different prototypes to judge whether any changes on any of these criterion are required. Necessary changes related to CD’s production is naturally based on the knowledge of the development people from CD but certainly complemented by the Spice Inc. Development Manager’s knowledge on formulating and developing recipes of spice mixtures and marinades that can easily be incorporated into the mass production process at Chicken Delight.

The exchange of information between CD and Spice Inc. by large stands on the knowledge and competence at Spice Inc. to develop ideas into manufacturable new products - to formulate and develop recipes of spice mixtures and marinades that can easily be incorporated into the production process at Chicken Delight. Spice Inc. also contributes with their specialized knowledge on how to combine different spices and tastes as they have deep insights into the spices’ ability to support or suppress specific taste nuances. Moreover the collaboration partners exchange information on consumer trends and especially developments in retail-customers demands. Chicken Delight’s contribution is their knowledge about marketing as well as production of Chicken grill products.

Even though the collaboration is centred and focussed on developing customized new products to the Chicken Delight product line, Spice Inc. contributes to the problem definition and through their knowledge and insights with primarily technological information but also market-related information to the development of new products. The relationship atmosphere Spice Inc. is considered a preferred development supplier and partner by CD. This does not only apply to seasonal developments but also when CD is approached by a customer to

14

develop a new product, and then seeks the advice from Spice Inc., which indicates a long-termed time frame for the collaboration on development issues. CD praises Spice Inc. for their empathy and considers them to be a flexible supplier that based on their competences and insights in CD’s production process adapt and adjust their spice mixtures and marinade to the need of CD.

During the relationship CD has grown to become one of the most important industrial customers to Spice Inc. and personal relations has developed between the employees at the development departments of each company. Both parties characterises the relationships as open and trustful e.g. a development assistant from Spice Inc. expresses: “we almost see each other as colleagues, when we phone or e-mail it is pretty much like they (the development employees from Chicken Delight) is just at an office down the hall”. This mutual atmosphere seems to be influencing the joint discussion at the meeting and the participants express how the dialogue is honest, outspoken and fair. Meeting outcome – marketable new product ideas During the joint meeting neither Chicken Delight nor Spice Inc. takes any explicit decisions on which new products could be marketable. Some products are however instantly rejected. Instead CD’s development department has an internal discussion after which they announce to Spice Inc. that they consider six of their own ideas and five of Spice Inc.’s ideas to be potentially marketable. Spice Inc. is then requested to prepare samples of these prototypes for an ensuring presentation to the marketing and sales department at CD who holds the final decision-making authority of the final product line for the coming grill season.

At Spice Inc. the joint testing at the meeting also entails a following internal discussion of which of the presented ideas that could be included on a list of marketable ideas. This sorting of their own ideas results in a decision that nine out of the thirteen presented are marketable. The criteria used in this sorting is to a great extent based on the comments and critique obtained at the meeting with Chicken Delight but the list also reflects an internal wish of ending up with a theme based product line. The Allstar-PROmotion case Allstar is a medium sized food manufacturer and part of a larger international company, producing cold cuts. The company is second on the Danish market and is selling its branded non-durable food products through retailers. Allstar is using a small ad agency PROmotion for all advertising material related to marketing and branding their products as well as for generating ideas for new products. The relationship between PROmotion and Allstar exemplifies the generic strategy 4 in figure 1. The knowledge contexts involved in this case and the outcome is portrayed in figure 3, and further discussed below.


Marketing and brading-relatedknowledge context

Complementaty Knowledge Interaction



PROmotion’s input to new product ideas

AllStar’s input to new product ideas

•Joint combination ofnew ideas


Marketing and brading-relatedknowledge context

Complementaty Knowledge Interaction



PROmotion’s input to new product ideas

AllStar’s input to new product ideas

•Joint combination ofnew ideas

Figure 5: Allstar vs. PROmotion new product development meeting The development issue Due to increasing competition from the biggest actor on the market for cold cuts; declining brand-loyalty from consumers; and especially retailers’ private labels Allstar’s new strategy is

15

to enhance their focus on developing new products with a higher novelty and with a shorter time to market. Due to their situation they have invited their ad agency PROmotion to contribute and participate in working more structured and determined on developing new products under the Allstar brand. The developmental effort and strategy is first and foremost directed at generating new ideas for new products and concepts under the Allstar brand. Secondly it is a strategic objective to develop a range of line extensions that supplements the existing product line. With this strategy Allstar is trying to focus on how to align with competition; become more oriented at customers and consumers demands and strengthen their brand positioning.

Even though Allstar is not the biggest nor the most important customer at the agency measured in monetary terms, PROmotion consider their involvement a way of developing their internal competencies of understanding customers and contribute to their product development. This way of getting involved in earlier phases of Allstar’s product development process increases PROmotion’s knowledge and understanding of new products, thus giving an advantage of being able to produce advertising material including packaging and labels much faster and in parallel with the product development at Allstar. Information exchange, management and division of work at the development meeting At Allstar introduction of new product concepts are related to the summer season, which is why PROmotion is invited to join in a development meeting for generating ideas for this purpose as well as to discuss potential ideas for developing line extension supplementing the existing Allstar product portfolio. The starting-point for the joint effort at the meeting is a range of ideas presented by each participant from both companies. With a total of twenty-seven, fare the most new ideas are presented by Allstar while PROmotion present eight ideas for new concepts and line extensions.

During the meeting PROmotion takes on a leading and process chairing function, ensuring that the meeting agenda and objective that is set by Allstar is followed-up and fulfilled. After the presentation of ideas for potential new products each idea is discussed and evaluated. For this purpose the development employees from Allstar draw on their knowledge and experience on issues related to e.g. product keeping qualities and allergenic matters as well as production processes and machineries. When they however get occupied and locked on limitations and potential problems related to this PROmotion tries to keep a hold on the creative process e.g. by brainstorming on how to find alternative solutions and ways to cope with and manage these issues. The responsible developer at Allstar finds this particular fruitful and expressed that “their (PROmotion) different way of thinking (...) and the things they see. That is very inspiring - having someone to look differently at things”.

The participating Sales Manager is used as a representative for retail customers and his experience and sensing of the costumers is utilized in the evaluation of ideas. Since the CEO at Allstar who is not participating at the meeting has the final go/no-go on every new product launched by the company, the Marketing Manager is used as a spokesman or assessor of what might be the CEOs opinion on a given idea. Taken together the knowledge and criteria used by Allstar for discussing and evaluating presented ideas are primarily related to internal technological or organizational issues.

In general PROmotion thinks that their customers must be kept alert in order to have sufficient market edge. Their familiarity to Allstar’s new product strategy gives them the ground for participating actively not only in generating ideas but also in evaluating and selecting which new ideas are to be developed into marketable products. In this sense PROmotion contributes and plays a vital role in both defining and searching for a developmental solution. In evaluation PROmotion is contributing with knowledge on consumer trends in general and specifically related to food as well as their knowledge of retail in-store promotion and advertising in general. When discussing the marketability of new product ideas, the arguments used by PROmotion often revolve on the potential advertising theme and universe that could support the launch of the new product. Still PROmotion regrets the limited budget the Allstar CEO is willing to spend on obtaining additional knowledge of consumer preferences through tests and analysis.

16

Relationship atmosphere The Allstar – PROmotion relationship have been developing from a traditional buying of advertising material to a closer, dialogue based collaboration focusing on product development. The personal relations are playing a central role especially between the Marketing Director at Allstar and the owner of PROmotion, who are very close. They often discuss the potential strategic development of the Allstar brand and important strategic matters to Allstar in general. The Sales Manager at Allstar also consults PROmotion when ever he is in need of an advice on key selling points. The commitment made by PROmotion are particular evident by the fact that they are not getting paid for participating in the idea generation meetings and at the same time the sum Allstar uses for advertising material have not increases significantly during the years of their engagement. Still the Marketing Manager at Allstar from time to time question himself whether the power balance in the relationship is tipping and states: “I think that maybe sometimes we are a little naïve (sharing so much with PROmotion) (…) but I have not experienced any backfire, but I can imagine how some people might consider us, well a little naïve”.

However the relationship atmosphere is faltering. First of all, this is because the Allstar CEO, who does not participate in the idea generation meetings with PROmotion, exercises the right to veto and give the final ‘go’ or ‘no-go’ on every new product idea. From time to time he also requests his own new product ideas to be put in the developmental frontline at the expense of ideas generated in collaboration with PROmotion. Additionally the international headquarter of the concern that owns the majority of Allstar is to an increasing extent demanding marketing and developmental resources allocated to prepare the Danish market for new products developed centrally. Recently the rejection rate on ideas generated in collaboration with PROmotion has lead to an increasing feeling of discouragement among both the Allstar employees and PROmotion participants. PROmotion perceive the interference as the CEO’s lack of confidence in own employees and at the same time they question the effectiveness of the internal communication at Allstar. As expressed by the owner of PROmotion:”We have had situations where I think – I simply don’t get it, why was it (the idea) a ‘no-go’(…) I am convinced if only we had been there it would have been a ’go’ (...) it is so much easier to spurn the arguments of an employee”. At the same time PROmotion is quite frustrated because of a long decision-making process at Allstar. The Allstar employees at marketing, sales and development value the input and collaboration with PROmotion, but is beginning to feel rather unmotivated when the CEO turns down new ideas. The internal tension at Allstar is essentially bringing some employees to question the entitlement and the future time frame for using more resources on the collaboration with PROmotion. Meeting outcome – marketable ideas At the meeting no final decision was taking on how many of the discussed ideas could be considered marketable. Instead the responsible Marketing Manager asked every participant to rate every idea based on their individual interpretation of the discussion on the meeting. Based on a weighted score of these rating four ideas which was all presented by Allstar was nominated marketable ideas. Case analysis When comparing collaborative product involvement activities across the cases studied, a range of interesting observations can be made. These are presented in a short form in table 2, and are further discussed in the text below.

17

Table 2: Case comparison – information exchange and relationship atmosphere Fineschmecker – UP

Retailing Chicken Delight – Spice Inc

Allstar-PROmotion

Actors involved

Supplier: Fineschmecker Retailer: UP Retailing

Supplier: Chicken Delight Supplier’s supplier: Spice Inc.

Supplier: Allstar Complementor: PROmotion (ad agency)

Collaboration Strategy

Strategy 2 in figure 1 Strategy 3 in figure 1 Strategy 4 in figure 1

Knowledge context

Issues related to UPR’s own finishing production processes as well as consumption-related information

Primarily technological-related knowledge and to a lesser extent knowledge related to distribution and consumption

Distribution and Brand related information and to a lesser extent consumption-related information

Problem definition location

Development issues and objectives are defined and set solely by UP Retailing

Development problems and objectives are defined by Chicken Delight but discussed with Spice Inc. who contributes to further focusing

Joint problem definition: Allstars’ development objectives and strategies are openly discussed and set with PROmotion, who has also become involved in general strategic consideration

Sources of knowledge used

Knowledge sources are predominantly provided by UPR (internal as well as inspired by magazines, fairs as well as experience of purchasing employees). Problems are primarily defined and prioritized in terms of distribution and production contexts and secondly in terms of consumption contexts

Common knowledge used as basis for idea evaluation. Spice Inc. primarily contributes with technological-related knowledge (competence based). Complementary knowledge exchange on distribution and consumption-related issues

The parties hold complementary knowledge on distribution and consumption-related issues (experience, joint inspiration trips, fairs and formal industry networks) PROmotion provides knowledge on brand-related issues (competence based)

Relationship Atmosphere

The development activities are carried out by the development department at Fineschmecker and the UPR Purchasing Manager, respectively. Power imbalanced relationship since it is UPR that single-handedly defines developmental issues and divides the activities to be accomplished. Interpersonal issues reflects this: Even though Fineschmecker calls the meetings, the agenda is set by the purchasing manager from UP Retailing

The development departments at both parties are responsible for development activities. Equal power balance based on joint decision making – although Chicken Delight holds the final say. Mutual orientation and characterized by friendly personnel relations.

Collaborative development activities are carried out by sales, marketing and development personnel from Allstar and employees from the ad agency. Balance in power, mutual commitment and cooperative conformity on objectives. Time balance and closeness is loosing strength due to internal managerial priorities.

18

Fineschmecker – UP Retailing

Chicken Delight – Spice Inc

Allstar-PROmotion

Marketable ideas

Fineschmecker’s ideas are rejected while UPR’s ideas are all accepted

Shared knowledge context provides basis for joint testing but individual listing and sorting of new ideas

Joint combination of new ideas

Consistent with research on marketing-R&D interfaces in new product development,

the case studies presented confirms the claim that the involvement of partners from different knowledge contexts in new product development influences how interaction unfolds in product development meetings in terms of issues discussed and problem framing. By drawing on the issues debated and prioritized, the study provides an insight to how diverging collaborative practices unfold. The notion of relationship atmosphere adds to understanding these issues. Together, they portray the difficulties in striking a balance in new product development which spurs innovation in the form of combining new ideas to marketable outputs. Rather, from the cases studied here, it seems that rather than provide room for creative imagination and the construction of novel ideas through combining different knowledge sets, external knowledge inputs from collaboration partners are primarily used testing and further corroboration of existing ideas.

Starting with the knowledge context and how this affects the problem definition location across the cases, the three cases portray quite different processes. In the case of the seasonal meeting between UPR and Fineschmecker, in principle all knowledge contexts possible are presented. However, although this breadth in sources of knowledge involved might suggest a broad range of issues to be involved, the use of knowledge bases is restricted. The reasons for this restriction are to be found in the unbalanced relationship, as the meeting clearly is dominated by the issues and interests of UPR and there is no joint outcome of this meeting. Compared to the Chicken Delight-Spice Inc. case, the knowledge context involved is narrow, and the relationship atmosphere is balanced. Interesting in this case is that participants in this development meeting was efficient and engaged in an openly and mutually supportive dialogue, where professional jargon immediately dominated the meeting. In terms of new product development however, the results of the meeting was rather limited, as the problems encountered and the issues discussed predominantly was on taste and producability issues. Pre-existing conceptions of product relevance and marketability was not among the issues discussed in this forum. Finally, the Allstar Promotion case involved both consumption-related and technology-related knowledge, in a balanced atmosphere setting characterized by strong personal trust. In terms of generating new product ideas, this case showed the most productive process of knowledge combination, which actually led to the development of new product ideas.

Combining the insights from our case studies with the knowledge context and relationship atmosphere dimensions, we suggest that both multiple knowledge contexts and balanced relationship atmospheres are necessary prerequisites for developing new marketable ideas in product development. This does not mean that other combinations of relationship atmospheres and knowledge contexts do not add value in the new product development process. Nor do we claim that novel product ideas by default are more superior in terms of wealth creation for the actors involved. However, from the experiences generated during our study of collaborative new product development meeting in the non-durable food industry, we will propose, that unbalanced relationships leads to a dominance of one actors ideas and perspectives, practically excluding alternative problem framings of other actors. Thus, the knowledge inputs from actors being dominated, would be restricted to revising and suggesting upon the ideas already there. Likewise, we assume that the presence of different knowledge contexts is necessary for developing novel product ideas.

Limitations apply to these findings as well. As pointed out already, organization of knowledge contexts differ from industry to industry. Whereas activities and positions of actors in some industries are relatively stable and predictable, such as in the food sector, in

19

other industries, actors may generally be involved in a strong variety of activities and the dominance of particular actors in the activity network may be less outspoken or vary considerably. We expect this to influence the involvement of knowledge contexts. Secondly, the roles and activities of actors such as suppliers, retailers and complementors co-vary with institutional contexts. As pointed out by Skytte (2003), German retailers take a much more background role in product development activities as compared to Danish retailers. Similarly, differences in enactment of roles and activities among other actors can be expected to vary across socio-cultural contexts. Discussion of findings and implications for management Two important conclusions can be drawn from the present study. First, positions in the chain of value added reflects knowledge contexts and combinations of different knowledge contexts seems to have an impact on problem definition, division of work and what type of information is involved in the process of developing new products in the non-durable food sector. In the cases investigated here, this issue has an influencing role in the product development process.

From a managerial perspective, this suggests that product suppliers should take into consideration and perhaps adjust for the type of knowledge context they choose to involve in their product development activities. Even though collaboration with like-minded actors sharing the same knowledge context as themselves may be running more smoothly than when involving other actor and involving other actors with very different conceptualisations of problems faced and critical information involved may provide more radical insights and also create novel ideas fruitful for disrupting existing framing of product development and lead to truly novel product ideas. The case involving suppliers and complementors, suggested that the introduction of very novel insights – although difficult to legitimize throughout the organization of the supplier, may also be the ones producing novel ideas. In a similar fashion bridging the knowledge context of suppliers and retailers may have potential for positive impacts from combining knowledge fields as well. On the other hand, there is the risk that collaborating with dominating partners, may create a relationship atmosphere, which do not support an open exchange of new ideas. As proposed in the theoretical part of the paper relationship atmosphere provide an important intermediating factor in terms of information provided, problems defined and division of work. Clearly, imbalanced relationships or relationships, where actors have little or no shared interests in collaboration but may collaborate simply as a device to reach individual aims for firms leads to more cautious interpersonal information sharing, which may render the process of new product development collaboration more efficient (in terms of serving short term aims) but less effective (in terms of providing novel solutions). Particularly in the case of Spice Inc. & UP Retailing, this issue seems to gain omnipresence. References Andersen, P. H., & Drejer, I. (2005): Distributed innovation in integrated production systems - the case of offshore wind farms. DRUID Working Paper. Belderock, A. (2006): Manage Complexity before it ruins business, Food Engineering and Ingredients, Nov., p. 8-10 Blichfeldt, B. S. (2005): On the development of brand line extensions, Brand Management, 12, 3, 177-190 Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1998): Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991): Organizational learning and communities of practice. Organization Science, 2(1). Carlile, Paul R. (2002), A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development, Organization Science, 13 (4), 442-55. Carson, Davis, Audrey Gilmor, Chad Perry, and Kjell Grönhaug (2001): Qualitative Marketing Research (chapter 9): SAGE Publications. Cox, H., Mowatt, S. & Prevezer, M. (2003): New Product Development and Product Supply within a Network Setting: The Chilled Ready-Meal industry in the UK, Industry and Innovation, 10, 2, 197-217

20

Dahan, E. & Hauser, J. R. (2001): Product development – Managing a Dispersed Process, in Weitz, B. & Wensley, R. (eds.) Handbook of Marketing, London, Sage Publications Elg, Ulf (2001): Market orientation in retailing: An approach based on inter- and intrafirm Activities, Working Paper 2001-06, Lund University Department of Business Administration Hippel, E. von 1994. "Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation. Management Science, 40(4): 429. ---- (1986): Lead-user: a source of novel product concepts, Management Science, 32 (7), 791-805. ---- (1988): The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. ---- (1978): A customer-active paradigm for industrial product idea generation, Research Policy, 32 (7), 240-66. Foxall, G. R. (1988): The Theory and Practice of User-Initiated Innovation. Journal of Marketing Management, 4(2): 230. Giddens, A. (1975): New Rules in Sociological Method, Anchor Press Grunert, K. G., Jeppesen, L. F., Jespersen, K. R., Sonne, A. M., Hansen, K. Trondsen, T. & Young, J. A. (2005): Market orientation of Value Chains: A conceptual framework based on four case studies from the Food Industry, European Journal of Marketing, 39, 5/6, 428-455 Hallén, L., & Sandström, M. (1991): Relationship atmosphere in International Business. In S. J. Paliwoda (Ed.), New Perspectives on International Marketing. London: Routledge. Hallén, Lars & Sandström, Madelene (1991): Relationship atmosphere in International Business, in Paliwoda (ed.): New Perspective in International Marketing, London: Routledge Hansen, Henning Otte (2005): Vækst i fødevareindustrien. København: Handelshøjskolens Forlag. Jeppesen, Lars Bo & Molin, Jan (2003): Consumers as Co-developers: Learning and Innovation Outside the Firm, Technology Analysis and Strategic management, 15, 3, 363-383 Jeppesen, Lars Bo (2005): User toolkits for Innovation: Consumers support each other, Journal of product Innovation Management, 22, 347-362 Joseph, F. P., Howard, T., Fiona, W., Douglas, P., & Alaina, K. 1995. Rivalry and the Industry Model of Scottish Knitwear Producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2): 203. Knudsen, J. W. (2006): Mangel på innovation bremser fdevaregazeller (Lack of innovation stops Food “gazelles”), Børsen, October 26, p. 2-3 Kristensen, A. R., & Strandskov, J. (1994): Den danske slagterisektors konkurrenceevne i Europæisk belysning - en kundeundersøgelse (The Danish Meat processing sectors competitiveness in a European perspective - a customer investigation). Aarhus: The Aarhus School of Business. Kristensen, Preben Sander (1992): Flying Prototypes: Production Departments' Direct Interaction with External Customers, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 12, 7, Kumar, R., & Andersen, P. H. (2000): Inter firm diversity and the management of meaning in international strategic alliances. International Business Review, 9(2): 237. Lave, J., Wenger, E. (1991): Situated learning, Cambridge University Press, New York Lilien, Gary L., Pamela D. Morrison, Kathleen Searls, Mary Sonnark, and Eric Von Hippel (2002), "Performance assessment of the lead-user idea generation process for new product development," Management Science, 48 (8), 1042-59. Lüders, Christian (2004): Field observation and ethnography, in A companion to qualitative research, Uwe Flick and Ernst von Kardorff and Ines Steinke, Eds. London: SAGE Publications. Lütje, C. & Herstatt, C. (2004): The lead user method: an outline of empirical findings and issues for future research, R&D Management 34,5, 553-567 McKinnon, A. (1989): Physical Distribution Systems, London: Routledge Mitton, A. (2006): The rise of "me too" products, Food Manufacture, May, p. 8 Morrison, Pamela, D., John H. Roberts, and Eric Von Hippel (2000), "Determinants of user innovation and innovation sharing in a local market," Management Science, 46 (12), 1513.

21

Munksgaard, Kristin B. (2006): Produktudvikling: en mosaik af udfordringer (Product development: mosaic of challenges), in Plus Proces Vol. 20. Orton, J. D. (1997): From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gap between process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4): 419. Quarmby, D. (1998): The importance of quality in retailing, Focus, September 7 Ritter, Thomas, Wilkinson, Ian & Johnston, W. J. (2004): Managing in complex business networks, Industrial Marketing Management, 33, 175-183 Shaw, V., Shaw Christopher, T., & Enke, M. (2003): Conflict between engineers and marketers: The experience of German engineers. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(6): 489. Sherman, J. D., Berkowitz, D., & Souder William, E. (2005): New Product Development Performance and the Interaction of Cross-Functional Integration and Knowledge Management. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(5): 399. Skytte, H. (2003): Komplementaritet mellem slagteri- og forarbejdningsvirksomheders salgsorganisation og detailkæders indkøbsorganisation: Set ud fra den konstruktivistiske tilgang (complementarity between meat processers sales organization and retailer chains' purchasing organization: viewd from a constructivistic approach. Aarhus: The Aarhus School of Business. Smart, R. (1995): Quick response supply chain management from the bottom-up!, Logistics Focus, 3, 5, 26-28 Souter, W. E. (1988): Managing relations between R&D and marketing in New Product Development Projects, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5, 6-19 Spender, J. C., & Roger, P. (1991): Industry Recipes: The Nature and Sources of Managerial Judgement. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 42(1): 97. Thompke, Stefan and Eric von Hippel (2002): Customers as Innovators: a new way to create value, Harvard Business Review, 80 (4), 74-81. Tyre, M. C., Von Hippel E (1997): The situated nature of Adaptive Learning in Organizations, Organization Science, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1997), pp. 71-83 Weick, K. E. (1979): The Social Psychology of Organizing, Williamson, O. E. (1975): Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York, Free Press Wilson, D. T., & Mummalaneni, V. (1986): Bonding and Commitment in Buyer-Seller Relationships: A Preliminary Conceptualisation. Industrial marketing and purchasing, 1(3): 44-58. Wynstra, F., van Weele, A., & Weggemann, M. (2001): Managing supplier involvement in product development: Three critical issues. European Management Journal, 19(2): 157. Yin Robert K. (2003): Case study Research: design and Methods 2nd edition, Sage Publications

Documents

Collaborative product development and situated knowledge contexts