Product Innovation Management - Past, Present and the Future

8/4/2019 Product Innovation Management - Past, Present and the Future

1/94

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF APPLIED SCIENCES

MSc THESIS

SOLOMON BOATENG

PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT: PAST, PRESENT, AND THE

FUTURE


2/94

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF APPLIED SCIENCES

MSc THESIS

ACADEMIC YEAR 2007/2008

SOLOMON BOATENG

PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT: PAST, PRESENT, AND THE

FUTURE

SUPERVISOR: DR. PALIE SMART

SEPTEMBER 2008

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirementsfor the Degree of Master of Science

Cranfield University 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced without the written permission of the copyright holder.


3/94

i

ABSTRACT

A lot of work has been done in the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM)

since its inception in 1984 by putting together contributions and scientific insights

developed from a diverse range of scientific schools. However, no work has been done

to take a closer look at the work of the top academic leaders which has contributed to

the success of JPIM and useful to academia. Therefore, this thesis is aimed at bridging

this gap in literature. To achieve this, a database was generated to collate and analyse

the work of the academic leaders; their individual contributions were determined;

whether or not their contributions meet the objectives of JPIM was also determined and

key recommendations were finally made for future research agenda.

Questionnaires and interviews were found to be the dominant information elicitation

techniques used by the academic leaders. The equipment, electronics, chemical and the

service industries formed the top four most researched into industries by the academic

leaders. Most of the knowledge that came from the academic leaders were found to be in

the area of process execution and metrics (38.66%) followed by the strategy, planning

and decision making (25.21%), then, people, teams, and culture (20.17%). Management,

new product development, and marketing formed the top three most researched

disciplinary issues. It was found that the academic leaders favoured incremental as

opposed to radical forms of innovation when it comes to success. However, the

academic leaders were found to have had collaborations with other authors with the

dominant form of collaboration being the duet (two-authored articles). Finally, the

academic leaders effectively passed their test to prove the applicability of their

contribution to real world practice and the credibility of their work was further

cemented.

The recommendations for future research agenda were directed towards cultural,

leadership, product development, launch strategies, cross-functional cooperation,

communication, team-building and relationship, organisational learning and

performance measurement issues.

The use of positional authors was the greatest limitation to this thesis


4/94

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the almighty God for how far He has brought me in life. I would

also want to say a big thank you to my family (Jemimah, Paulina, Roderic, and Jenelle)

for their wonderful support and being there for me all the time. To all the staff and

students of the Manufacturing department of Cranfield University especially my

supervisor, Dr. Palie Smart, I say thank you once again for making this programme a

memorable experience.


5/94

iii

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................. ............................................................ .............. 1

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM .................................................................................... 11.2 SUMMARY OF THESIS AIM, OBJECTIVES AND PROGRAMME ......................................................... 21.3 THESIS STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................... 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... ...................................................... 5

2.1 INNOVATION AND INVENTION .................................................................................................... 62.1.1 Sources of innovation ......................................................................................................... 72.1.2 Inhibitors of innovation ...................................................................................................... 8

2.2 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT (JPIM) ................................................... .... 92.2.1 Aims and scope of JPIM..................................................................................................... 92.2.2 Authors .............................................................................................................................. 10

2.3 TYPES OF INNOVATION ............................................................................................................ 112.3.1 Process innovation ............................................................................................................ 122.3.2 Product innovation (Smart products) ............................................................................... 182.3.3 Position innovation ........................................................................................................... 202.3.4 Paradigm innovation......................................................................................................... 21

2.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 24

3 RESEARCH AIM AND PROGRAMME..................................................................................... 25

3.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM ............................................................................................................... 253.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 263.3 PROGRAMME ........................................................................................................................... 263.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 26

4 DATA COLLECTION AND DATABASE GENERATION ..................................................... .. 27

4.1 METHOD USED......................................................................................................................... 274.2 EXECUTION OF DATA COLLECTION AND DATABASE.................................................................. 274.3 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 284.4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 304.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 31

5 DETERMINING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC LEADERS ...................... 32

5.1 METHOD USED......................................................................................................................... 325.2 EXECUTION OF AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS.............................................................................. 325.3 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 335.4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 445.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 46

6 DETERMINING WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC LEADERSMEET THE OBJECTIVES OF JPIM AND THE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH AGENDA ................................................... ............................................................ ............ 47

6.1 METHOD USED ........................................................................................................................ 476.2 EXECUTION.............................................................................................................................. 486.3 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 486.4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 546.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA............................................................ 576.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 61

7 CONCLUSION ....................................................... ............................................................ ............ 62

7.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 62

7.2 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................ 637.3 RECOMMENDED FUTURE WORK............................................................................................... 64


6/94

iv

REFERENCES ....................................................... ............................................................ ...................... 65

APPENDICES ........................................................ ............................................................ ...................... 84

APPENDIX 1: THE MOST-CITED JPIM ARTICLES (SOURCE: BIEMANS ET AL, 2007) ....... 84

APPENDIX 2: RANKINGS OF THE WORLDS TOP INNOVATION MANAGEMENT SCHOLARS

..84

APPENDIX 3: SEE ATTACHED CD FOR DATABASE.........84


7/94

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Emergent theory of partner selection for creating product advantage through

collaboration (source: Emden et al, 2006) ...........................................14

Figure 2-2: Empirically derived framework (source: Langerak et al, 2004) ..18


8/94

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-3.1: Showing the rankings of author collaborations..28

Table 4-3.2: Showing the years of collaboration for all the 119 articles29

Table 5-3.1 Showing the knowledge areas the academic leaders wrote about ..33

Table 5-3.2: Showing the major contributions of the academic leaders.34

Table 5-3.3: Showing the various author rankings..40

Table 5-3.4: Showing the rankings of the positional authors..41

Table 5-3.5: Showing the rankings of lead and sole academic authorship.42

Table 5-3.6: Showing the commitment of the academic leaders to JPIM...43

Table 5-3.7: Showing the rankings of the research disciplinary issues...43

Table 6-3.1: Showing the ranking of the research methods used48

Table 6-3.2: Showing the ranking of the type of innovation the authors wrote about49

Table 6-3.3: Showing the author representation of countries......49

Table 6-3.4: Showing the representation of the research industries and countries.50

Table 6-3.5: Showing the results and proof of author multi-disciplinarity,

internationalism, and practicality52

Table 6-3.6: Showing the ranking of the popular journals where the academic leaders

publish.53


9/94

vii

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

JPIM Journal of Product Innovation Management

PDMA Product Development and Management Association

NPD New Product Development

R&D Research and Development

SBUs Small/Strategic Business Units

4Ps Process, Product, Position, and Paradigm innovation

CMC Computer-Mediated Communication

IA Information Acceleration

USA/US United States of America

UK United Kingdom

QFD Quality Function Deployment

PIMS Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy

RDM Risk Diagnosing Methodology

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process

CEO Chief Executive Officer

NPI New Product Introduction

NPW New Product Withdrawal

PLC Product Life Cycle

ROI Return on Investment

ROS Return on Sale

NTVs New Technology Ventures

ITL Inward Technology Licensing

MO Market Orientation

EIASM European Institute for the Advancement of the Studies of Management


10/94

1

1 INTRODUCTION

The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) was launched in 1984 by the

Product Development and Management Association (PDMA). From its very beginning,the journal distinguished itself from the existing management of technology and

innovation journals. This was achieved through its interdisciplinary nature, putting

together contributions and scientific insights developed from a diverse range of

scientific schools. The three principles ofmultidisciplinary, internationalism, and

practicality were the driving principles supporting the organisation of the PDMA in

1976. Therefore, when PDMA decided to sponsor a reputable journal, it was natural that

these driving principles were transferred into the journals aims and scope statement.Indeed, the entire aims and scope section has stood intact across four editors and over

two decades of publication. JPIM has now become a reputable, multi-discipline, and

international publication that serves both academic and practitioner communities with

highly readable, high-quality, innovative and science-based ideas.

1.1 Overview of the research problem

A lot of good work has been done in the Journal of Product Innovation Management

(which will be referred to as JPIM for the rest of the thesis) covering a wide range of

disciplines, countries, industries and many more since its inception in 1984. Biemans et

al (2007) analysed the evolution of JPIM from a knowledge-flow perspective by looking

at the scientific sources used by the authors of JPIM to build up their ideas and articles.

The extent to which these ideas built up in JPIM are put to use by other authors was also

looked at as a second component of knowledge-flow by Biemans et al (2007) and again

ranked the top sixteen JPIM authors. On the other hand, the study by Thieme (2007)

ranked the worlds top scholars in innovation management on the basis of the research

articles published across fourteen top academic journals in technology and innovation

management, marketing, and management between 1990 and 2004. Guided by the social

capital theory, Thieme (2007) analysed the embedded characteristics of innovation

management scholars to find out the extent to which social capital explains scholarly


11/94

2

productivity. This thesis is therefore an extension to the above work of Biemans et al

(2007) and that of Thieme (2007).

The success that JPIM has enjoyed over the years did not come by chance but, was

earned through the hard-work of some people including the academic leaders. The

academic leaders have contributed most to JPIM in terms of the number of published

articles and therefore their work must be of interest to academia.

1.2 Summary of thesis aim, objectives and programme

Although a lot of work has been done in JPIM, none has taken a closer look at the

academic leaders whose work has contributed significantly to the success of JPIM.

Therefore this thesis aims to review the work of the academic leaders in JPIM over a

period of twenty-four years in order to bridge the existing gap in literature. To do this,

the following objectives were set from the aim of the thesis and accomplished (see

Chapter 3):

1. to generate a database to collate and analyse the contributions of the academic

leaders

2. to determine the contributions of the academic leaders

3. to determine whether their contributions meet the objectives of JPIM

4. to make key recommendations for future research agenda

As with any other project, there was the need for a project plan which was developed in

this case as the programme with three stages. The above objectives fed into the

programme for the thesis as below:

Stage 1: Data was collected and a database generated

Stage 2: The contributions of the academic leaders were determined

Stage 3: Whether or not their contributions meet the objectives of JPIM was determined

and key recommendations were made for future research agenda.

Each stage of the programme was then developed into a whole chapter by describing the

method used and the execution of each stage; the results obtained, and an analysis and


12/94

3

discussion of the results under each chapter. Each chapter ended with a chapter

summary.

1.3 Thesis structure

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

An extensive range of books and 119 JPIM articles authored by the academic leaders

were reviewed to develop a better understanding of what the professionals in the field of

innovation management have said about the research topic. It was structured to generally

describe what innovation management is and some popular definitions were given. A

clear distinction was made between innovation and invention as the two terms are often

wrongly used interchangeably. It then talked about the sources and inhibitors of

innovation. JPIM was then given a closer look. The works of some of the academic

leaders were discussed under the four types of innovation (product, process, position,

and paradigm) identified by Tidd et al (2005) to show that indeed, their work covers all

aspects of innovation.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AIM AND PROGRAMME

This chapter developed the research problem, the aim and objectives, and finally sets out

the programme for the thesis. It was structured in such a way that the aim was derived

from the research problem. From the aim, the objectives were also derived which in turn

fed into the programme for the thesis. Each stage of the programme was then developed

into chapters. This chapter therefore justifies the relevance of the thesis and also sets a

series of stages which when followed will lead to a successful achievement of the thesis

aims and objectives.

CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND DATABASE GENERATION

This chapter explains the method used and the execution of the data collection and

database generation. It ranked some author collaborations and the reasons behind them.

It again analysed the employment and educational background of the academic authors.

The dominant form of collaboration was identified as the duet and sole authorship was

found to be decreasing with time. The database formed the backbone of the thesis as


13/94

4

most of the results table of the thesis were obtained by tallying the results under their

respective columns of the database.

CHAPTER 5: DETERMINING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC

LEADERS

Because most of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) articles were

co-authored, it was impossible to tell what the contribution of an individual was. In this

chapter the contributions of the academic leaders were determined by awarding articles

to positional authors. It ranked their contributions using the adjusted, unadjusted,

position, and h-index among other forms of ranking. It again determined their

commitment to JPIM and the disciplinary issues they write about.

CHAPTER 6: DETERMINING WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE

ACADEMIC LEADERS MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF JPIM AND THE KEY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA

The chapter determined whether the contributions of the academic leaders meet the

objectives of JPIM by testing them against the three key principles of multi-disciplinary,internationalism, and practicality, a test which all of them passed. It again determined

other journals where the academic leaders also publish and their impact factors.

Recommendations for future research agenda were also made.

7 CONCLUSIONS

The key findings of the thesis were summarised. The limitations to this thesis as well as

the recommendations for future research agenda were also made.


14/94

5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Trott (2005) indicated that Karl Marx was the first to suggest in the mid nineteenth

century that innovations could be associated with waves of economic growth. The likes

of Schumpeter, Kondratieff, Abernathy and Utterback and others have since then

contributed to the course of innovation. Today, the idea of innovation is widely

accepted. It has become part of our culture so much that it is close to becoming an

overused word or idea. For example, Coyne (1996) as cited in Trott (2005) said, 275

books published in the US in 1994 and 1995 had the word innovation in their title.

Also Christopher Freeman (1982) as cited in Trott (2005) said not to innovate is to

die. Even though the term is now rooted in our language, to what extent do we fully

understand the concept? And is our understanding shared? What a scientist may

perceive as innovation may be very different from that of an accountant in the same

firm.

Innovation has long been argued to be the engine of growth (Trott, 2005). It is also

worth noting that it can provide economic growth. Economies are more likely to

experience growth as a result of the development of new products such as new computer

software than to reduction in prices of existing products (Trott, 2005). The modern

theory of economic growth (neo-Schumpterian) also argues that sustained economic

growth stems from competition among companies. Companies try to increase their

profits by dedicating resources to creating new products and developing new ways of

making existing products (Trott, 2005). Success in the future, as in the past, will

certainly lie in the ability to acquire and use knowledge and apply this to the

development of new products. But bringing how to do this to light remains one of the

most pressing management problems today.

Cristensen (2003), as cited in Trott (2005) went on to distinguish between disruptive

innovations (radical) and sustaining innovations (incremental). Sustaining

innovations appeal to existing customers, since they provide improvements to already

established products. Afuah (2003) calls this competence enhancingas it builds on

existing knowledge. But disruptive innovations tend to provide improvements greater


15/94

6

than those demanded and tend to create new markets, which gradually takes over the

existing market. Afuah (2003) describes radical innovations as competence destroying

as they are very different from existing knowledge and eventually renders it obsolete.

2.1 Innovation and invention

Many people confuse the two terms. It is true that innovation is similar to invention but

the two terms are not the same and therefore cannot be interchanged (Trott, 2005).

Innovation in itself is a very broad concept that can be understood in various ways.

Myers and marquis (1969) defined innovation as: not a single action but a total

process of interrelated sub processes. It is not just the conception of a new idea, nor the

invention of a new device, nor the development of a new market. The process is all these

things acting in an integrated fashion.

Furthermore, Rogers and Shoemaker (1972) clarified the use of the term new in the

context of innovation as follows: It matters little, as far as human behaviour is

concerned, whether or not an idea is objectively new as measured by the lapse of

time since its first use or discoveryIf the idea seems new and different to the

individual, it is an innovation [emphasis added]

Also, most writers distinguish innovation from invention by suggesting that innovation

is concerned with the commercial and practical application of ideas or inventions.

Invention, then, is the conception of the idea, whereas innovation is the subsequent

conversion of the invention into the economy (US Dept of Commerce, 1967). The

relationship between the two terms can be expressed mathematically as:

Innovation = theoretical conception + technical invention + commercial exploitation

(Trott, 2005, p. 15).

The starting point of innovationis the conception of new ideas. A new idea by itself,

even though interesting, is neither an invention nor innovation, it is just a concept or

thought or a collection of thoughts. The process of converting intellectual thoughts into


16/94

7

a substantial new piece (usually a product or process) is an invention. This is where

science and technology usually play a significant role. At this stage, inventions need to

be combined with hard work by many different people to convert them into products

that will enhance the performance of a company. These later activities represent

exploitation (Trott, 2005). However, it is the complete process that represents

innovation. This introduces the view that innovation is a process with a number of

distinctive features that have to be managed.

Trott (2003) therefore defined innovation as the management of all the activities

involved in the process of idea generation, technology development, manufacturing and

marketing of a new (or improved) product or manufacturing process or equipment.

Simply put, creativity on its own is only a beginning (Henry and Walker, 1991, p. 3).

Human beings are creative by nature. Having ideas is relatively easy having good

ideas is slightly more difficult but the real challenge lies in carrying ideas through

into some practical result (Henry and Walker, 1991, p. 3). This tangible outcome can

be in the form of services, products, new structure or strategy or shift in corporate

culture (Henry and Walker, 1991, p. 3).

2.1.1 Sources of innovation

Some innovations, of course, spring from a flash of genius (Henry and Walker, 1991,

p. 9). But most innovations, especially the successful ones, result from a conscious,

purposeful search for innovative opportunities which are found only in few situations.

Four such areas of opportunity exist within a company or industry namely;

unexpected occurrences

incongruities

process needs

industry and market changes

Three additional sources of opportunity exist outside a company in its social and

intellectual environment namely;


17/94

8

demographic changes

changes in perception

new knowledge (Henry and Walker, 1991).

2.1.2 Inhibitors of innovation

There are basically three levels of factors as indicated by Henry and Walker, (1991) that

make it difficult to innovate. These include:

The national level: there seem to be a severe cultural difficulty. The widely accepted

view of Britain is that, it is good at ideas but bad at implementing them (Henry and

Walker, 1991). This is shown both economically and managerially in such things as lack

of government support, lack of venture capital, lack of supportive organisational

structures, lack of incentives, the not-invented-here syndrome and many more (Henry

and Walker, 1991).

Organisational level: the innovation process itself is often not very well understood

within organisations. Ideas are not generated in any systematic way and are often not

well managed through the phases of implementation. This can lead to neglect of creative

individuals, lack of direction and ignorance of the market place and customer needs,

impassionate about science-based break-through and an inability to see research, design

and development as a single organisational task.

Management level: there is some anxiety about the ability of managers to manage the

processes of innovation. The term manage innovation means the ability to trigger,

generate, control and steer new ideas through the muddle. This is not merely the task of

one brilliant manager but a task for teams which include a balanced combination of

original thinkers and those that provide direction and stability.

The unfortunate thing about innovation is that, most acts of creativity are destined to

failure. Ideas themselves are delicate, the processes to which they are subject are

uncertain and often unfriendly, the organisational filters are severely applied, and the

world at large might show a quite astonishing coldness to the brilliant idea. So for


18/94

9

every hundred ideas, only one may emerge as worth pursuing and maybe only one in a

thousand is going to achieve any kind of widespread success (Henry and Walker,

1991).

2.2 Journal of product innovation management (JPIM)

The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) was launched in 1984 by the

Product Development and Management Association (PDMA). From its very beginning,

the journal distinguished itself from the existing management of technology and

innovation journals. This was achieved through its interdisciplinary nature, putting

together contributions and scientific insights developed from a diverse range of

scientific schools including marketing, management science, design, organisational

behaviour, technology management and strategy and business policy. Over twenty years

since its inception, JPIM has evolved into the leading journal in its field as witnessed by

its strong structural influence within the marketing literature (Baumgartner and Pieters,

2003) and its leading position among other technology and innovation management

journals (Linton and Thongpapanl, 2004).

Again, JPIM serves as a marketplace for innovation and science-based ideas that are

created and digested by scholars and business people alike.

2.2.1 Aims and scope of JPIM

The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) is dedicated to the

advancement of management practice in all of the functions involved in the totalprocess of product innovation. Its purpose is to bring to managers and students of

product innovation the theoretical structures and the practical techniques that will

enable them to operate at the cutting edge of effective management practice (Biemans

et al, 2007). This quote begins the aims and scope explanation that can be found on

the inside front cover of JPIM for every issue published from volume 1, issue 1, to

volume 25, issue 3. Indeed, the entire aims and scope section has stood intact across

four editors and over 20 years of publication. This indicates that the aims developed at


19/94

10

the journals very beginning appealed well enough to the scientific community to

successfully come through the first two decades of the journals life (Biemans et al,

2007). The journals statement of purpose claims to take a multifunctional,

multidisciplinary, and internationalapproach to the issues of product development. The

three principles ofmultidisciplinary, internationalism, andpracticality were the driving

principles supporting the organisation of the PDMA in 1976. Therefore, when PDMA

decided to sponsor a reputable journal, it was natural that these driving principles were

transferred into the journals aims and scope statement (Biemans et al, 2007). The

journals name and copyrighted content are owned by the PDMA.

2.2.2 Authors

Another way of looking at JPIMs evolution is to take a closer look at its authors (see

Excel sheet for their profile and pictures). Although the journal began with most of its

articles coming from North American, including Canadian sources, North American

authorship has decreased steadily from approximately 86% to 70%. In contrast,

European authorship has been rising steadily and now forms more than 20% of the

journals lead authors (Biemans et al, 2007). European lead authors are from

Netherlands followed by Belgium and then, Italy.

Also of interest is the background of JPIMs authors. The number of academic authors

with marketing background has increased significantly over time to about 60% even

though these marketing authors do not limit themselves to marketing issues. This

increase can be linked to the increasing number of issues and thus articles as well as

increasing collaborations. This group is followed by academics with a background in

Management (15 to 20%), Operations management (5 to 10%), Strategy (3 to 4%), and

Engineering (2 to 3%) (Biemans et al, 2007).

The JPIMs author diversity is also shown by their professional position. Academics at

all levels publish in JPIM, showing an increase in number per volume over more than

twenty years. However, these changes must be accredited to an overall increase in the

number of issues, articles and authors per article. The increase of issues has provided a


20/94

11

marketplace prospect, whereas the growing importance and reputation of the journal has

clearly contributed to the marketplace credibility of JPIM.

More than twenty years on, JPIM has become a reputable, multi-discipline, international

publication that serves both academic and practitioner communities with highly

readable, high-quality, and useful articles. The growing professionalism of the journal is

shown in its current position in the scientific marketplace. JPIM has consistently won

publication awards for originality of articles and practical usability of research.

Examples are: the Emerald Golden Page Awards in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004

(Biemans et al, 2007). It has also been cited as the top journal in the technology

innovation management field (Linton and Thongpapanl, 2004). And in 2003, JPIM was

ranked 10th among academic business journals. These suggest that JPIM has justified the

field of new product development and innovation management in academia, as shown

by the growing numbers of articles on these topics in other functional journals and by

the growing number of journals focusing on these topics and on the management of

technology.

2.3 Types of innovation

Tidd et al, (2005) classified innovation into four types (4 Ps) namely;

Product innovation: changes in things (products/services) which an

organisation offers. Example, a new design of a mobile phone.

Process innovation: changes in the ways in which things are created and

delivered. Example, a change in the methods for the manufacture of the new

phone

Position innovation: changes in the context in which the products/services are

introduced. Example, lucozade originally came out as a glucose-based drink for

the sick but it is now presented as a performance-enhancing energy drink.

Paradigm innovation: changes in the underlying mental models which frame

what the organisation does. Example, a shift to low cost airlines Tidd et al,

(2005).


21/94

12

Sometimes, it is very difficult to distinguish between process and product innovations

and also one thing can be considered as both process and product types of innovation.

For example, a new holiday package.

Although there are other classifications of innovation, the above classification will be

used in this thesis. The following are some extracts from JPIM under the different types

of innovation to show that indeed, JPIM covers all aspects of innovation. About 95

percent of the authors referenced below are among the top sixteen JPIM authors. They

play the role of either the lead or co-author and therefore showing off some of their

contributions in the field of innovation and fulfilling some of the aims of this thesis. For

example, the reference Emden et al, (2006), and Sherman et al, (2005) had R.J.

Calantone and W.E. Souder respectively as co-authors. Likewise, the reference

Langerak et al, (2004) also had Hultink, E.J. and Robben, H.S.J. as co-authors.

2.3.1 Process innovation

The open innovation paradigm of Chesbrough (2003) as cited by Emden et al, (2006)

said, product success can be achieved by using the right mix of internal and external

resources. Firms can initiate research, but they can also benefit from other firms

resources as well as from other firms usage of their own resources. In this way, firms

are able to make use of the intelligence of people outside of the firm. The challenge is

building cross-organisational processes and innovative ways of managing these

processes. Emden et al, 2006 adopted the definition ofcollaboration from Jassawalla

and Sashittal, 1998 as a type of cross-organisational linkage, which in addition to high

levels of integration is characterised by high levels of transparency, mindfulness, and

synergies in participants interactions. Some of the benefits that collaboration may

bring include;

providing access to new skills and technologies

the means for creating or exploiting new markets

cross-disciplinary integration essential for creating new products


22/94

13

the creation of opportunities for the utilisation of technologies that have not yet

found application.

sharing research and development (R&D) costs and risks

increasing the speed to market

Collaboration however, may have the following downsides;

differences in organisational cultures, mindsets, expectations, and behaviour can

make building relational capital and managing alliances extremely costly

(Hanson and Lackman, 1998)

knowledge exchanged in a collaborative new product development (NPD)

arrangement may be proprietary, and in a situation of high competitive overlap

there is the risk of knowledge overlap (Yan et al, 2000 as cited in Emden et al,

2006).

Product innovation is progressively becoming more challenging, driving managers to

employ a different model to stay competitive and this is where the co-development

alliances developed by Emden et al, 2006 become very handy. Emden et al, (2006, p.

331) adopted the following definition of co-development alliances from Link and Bauer,

(1989) as nonequity-based collaborative relationships enjoined by two or more firms

to create value by integrating and transforming disparate pools of know-how related to

new product or service development. These add more weight to the fact that innovation

demands greater coordination, corporation, and integration among cross-functional areas

and most importantly among firms. There is the logic of alliance which demands free

flow of information, whereas the logic of NPD is about holding on to information in

order to create competitive advantage. However, choosing the right partner may reduce

the clash between the logic of alliances and the logic of NPD and may also reduce risks

whiles maximising benefits (Emden et al, 2006). In short, maximising the potential for

creating synergistic value through co-development alliances is based on three aspects

namely:

Technological alignment - selecting a partner with maximum potential for

creating technological synergy


23/94

14

Strategic alignment selecting a partner with maximum potential to

collaborate

Relational alignment selecting the partner with a maximum potential to

sustain relationship (Emden et al, 2006, p. 340).

Figure 2.1 Emergent Theory of Partner Selection for Creating Product Advantage

through Collaboration (Source: Emden et al, 2006)

New product development (NPD) projects typically need some level of integration

between research and development (R&D) and marketing in setting new product

objectives, determining product features or capabilities, identifying market

opportunities, and resolving product cost-design-performance trade-offs (Griffin and

Hauser, 1996; Sherman et al, 2005). However, personnel from R&D and marketing tend

to have different educational and professional backgrounds. As a result, R&D personnel

tend to favour more advanced or more radical innovations, tend to have a longer

performance time orientation, and tend to be more scientifically and less market

oriented. On the other hand, marketing personnel tend to favour incremental product

innovations, tend to have shorter performance time orientation, and tend to be more

market oriented (Souder, 1987; Sherman et al, 2005). Research on cross-functional


24/94

15

integration between R&D and marketing has shown that high levels of integration

positively affect such outcomes as:

Prototype development proficiency

R&D commercialisation effectiveness

Product launch proficiency

Post-launch product management performance

Market forecast accuracy

Product development cycle time

Overall project success and failure rates (Sherman et al, 2005, p. 399).

Research evidence has also suggested that the effect of new product performance is

stronger with integration measures of inter-functional collaboration than simply

measures of information flow between functions (Kahn and McDonough, 1997).

Adams et al, (1998) as cited by Sherman et al, (2005) said, the integration of knowledge

(or information) from past product development projects is also needed in order to

achieve higher levels of performance in NPD. Organisational memory is stored

knowledge and effective utilisation of that stored knowledge is a function of three key

dimensions of knowledge management that are fundamental to organisational learning

as follows:

recording or acquiring information

retrieving or disseminating information

reviewing or utilising information

The contingency theory says that the greater the level of uncertainty associated with the

technology and the market environment, the greater the amount of information that must

be processed among decision-makers in both marketing and R&D functions during

product development (Sherman et al, 2005). If the technology and the market are well

understood, then such things as advanced planning, scheduling, staffing, and resource

allocations will be less uncertain and vice versa. Task uncertainty was defined by

Tushman (1979) as the difference between the amount of information required to


25/94

16

complete a project and the amount of information possessed by the project team at the

time of the initiation of the project. The process of reducing uncertainty as the project

passes through the development cycle requires the continuous acquisition of information

from customers, suppliers, competitors, professional publications, meetings and

professional contacts. Internally, such information can be generated by the relevant

members of both past and present product development projects in all functional areas.

Lynn et al, (2000) found that variables such as the degree to which information from

past related product development projects is effectively recorded, retrieved and

reviewed are predictors of performance. However, effective recording of information

from past development projects as demonstrated by Sherman et al (2005) did not

explain variation in NPD performance as claimed by Lynn et al (2000). Sherman et al,

(2005) has demonstrated that the combined effects of these variables can result in

interactions in the form ofamplification effects. Recording involves more than

technological specifications and engineering change orders; it also includes information

on customer reactions to early product concepts, prototypes and launched products.

Market Orientation and Organisational Performance

Langerak et al, (2004) cited Deshpande et al (1993); Kohli and Jaworski (1990) ; and

Narver and Slater (1990, 1998) as saying that, market orientation is a business culture

that places the utmost priority on creating profit and maintaining superior value for

customers and at the same time taking the interest of stakeholders into consideration.

Market orientation also provides norms for behaviours concerning how the organisation

generates, disseminates, and responds to market information. Thus, market-oriented

culture produces a sustainable competitive advantage and as a result, a superior

organisational performance. Again, Gatignon and Xuereb (1997) as cited by Langerak et

al, (2004) suggested that a market-oriented culture leads to superior performance, at

least in part, because of the new products that are developed and brought to the market.

They maintain that having a market-oriented culture may lead to general benefits of the

firms marketing activities and new product development (NPD) but then, the ability to

develop and to market new products, which present the features needed to be successful,

may be vital. Han et al, (1998) have strengthen this knowledge by reviewing that a


26/94

17

market-oriented culture enhances organisational innovativeness and new product

success, both of which in turn improve organisational performance.

Langerak et al, (2004) added another dimension to the above study by revealing the

activities of NPD through which a market oriented culture is transformed into superior

performance. This was achieved by investigating the structural linkages among market-

orientation, product advantage, new product launch proficiency, new product

performance, and organisational performance. The focus was on new product advantage

because these product benefits normally persuade customers to buy the new product,

and on the launch proficiency because the launch stage represents the most costly and

risky part of the NPD process (Kotler, 2003). Focusing on the launch is also appropriate

because it is only during the launch that it will become clear whether a market

orientation has developed into a superior product in the eyes of the customer. The

research of Langerak et al, (2004) came up with the following results:

The stronger the market orientation of the firm, the higher the product

advantage (product advantage refers to the added benefits that customers get

from the use of the product relative to similar products in the market)

The stronger the market orientation of the firm, the greater the proficiency in (a)

market testing, (b) launch budgeting, (c) launch strategy, (d) launch tactics.

The higher the product advantage, the better the new product performance.

The greater the proficiency in launch tactics, the better the new product

performance. But market testing, launch budgeting, and launch strategy are not

significantly related to new product performance

The market orientation of a firm, has no significant direct relationship with new

product performance (a market-oriented firm is more likely: to achieve high

levels of customer satisfaction; to be loyal existing customers; to attract new

customers; and as a result attain the desired level of growth, market share which

all lead to improved organisational performance)

The market orientation of a firm, has no significant direct relationship with

organisational performance


27/94

18

The better the new product performance, the better the organisational

performance Langerak et al, (2004). New product performance refers to how

well or otherwise the new product falls short, meets, or exceeds the expectations

of customers.

The contribution of this study is summarised in Figure 2.2 below.

Figure 2.2 Empirically derived framework(Source: Langerak et al, 2004)

It shows that a market-orientated culture is transformed into superior organisational

performance only through high product advantage, greater proficiency in launch tactics,

and better new product performance.

2.3.2 Product innovation (Smart products)

The importance of knowing and satisfying the needs of customers is the important role

played by marketing and these activities feed into the new product development process.But recent studies by Hamal and Prahalad (1994) and Christensen (2003) as cited by

Trott (2005) suggest that listening to your customers may actually suppress

technological innovation and be unfavourable to long term business success. Ironically,

to be successful in industries characterised by technological change, firms may be

required to pursue innovations that are not demanded by their current customers.


28/94

19

Consumer products can be supplied with information and communication technology to

make them smarter. Examples of such smart products are devices like mobile phones

and palmtops that show an amazing increase in the number of new features and

functions. Another example is the TIVO device co-developed by Sony and Philips. This

is a device that is normally attached to a television set to build a user profile based on

the ratings of television shows and the actual viewing behaviour of the user. This profile

is then used by TIVO to either record shows that the user may like or to give advice on

shows that the user may want to watch. Again, the solar and robotic lawnmower by the

Swedish firm Husqvarna provides another example. The length of the grass is measured

by the mower and it then decides whether it needs to be cut. When it does, the machine

starts mowing without any human interference (Rijsdijk and Hultink, 2003).

Smart products differentiate themselves from traditional ones by their ability to process

information and demonstrate at least one of the following characteristics identified by

Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003):

Ability to communicate with other products. Example, photographs taken with

a digital camera can be transferred to a personal computer. The two products can

be connected and as a result can communicate with one another.

Flexibility to adapt their actions to different situations. Certain thermostats for

example turn the heater on and off based on the outside temperature in order to

maintain the right temperature inside. The front passenger seat developed by

Mercedes is another example. It automatically recognises when a child safety

seat is used, and reduces the air bag power accordingly.

Ability to collect information and become autonomous decision-maker. This

information can be collected through connections with other products or by

using sensors. Examples of this are the autonomous lawnmower mentioned

above and the robotic vacuum cleaner by Electrolux Rijsdijk and Hultink,

(2003).


29/94

20

2.3.3 Position innovation

According to Easingwood and Mahajan, (1989), a position refers to the place a product

or service occupies in a given market. Especially, it describes the position or image of

the firms product in the customers mind. In other words, a position can be described

as a summary of the distinctive competence that a company seeks to convey to the

marketplace to establish its competitive advantage. The wall street journal (1984) as

cited by Easingwood and Mahajan, (1989) said, drivers think of Volkswagen as

reliable; Porsches as having spirited performance; BMWs as distinctive looking; and

Nissan as fun to drive. The planning of positions are done by managers and

implemented through marketing programmes and are finally perceived by the user. If a

position is perceived as indistinguishable from others, it provides no reason to buy.

Likewise, a weaker than the competition position provides a reason not to buy. It must

be noted that a position is judged to be effective only when it is more effective than the

position of competitors. Therefore, the product itself and the communication messages

as well as the name, pricing, packaging and many more features of the product must be

designed and developed to make an impact on the customers perception in order to

achieve the desired position. Easingwood and Mahajan, (1989) found the following

eight positions as those normally taken up by firms in the service sector:

1. Offer a tangible representation

2. Offer and augmented service

3. Superior selection, training and monitoring of contact personnel

4. Package the service

5. Industrialise the service production process

6. Use multi-site locations

7. Customise the service

8. Offer a complete product line Easingwood and Mahajan, (1989)

Easingwood and Mahajan, (1989) came up with the following recommendations to help

the financial services develop a competitive positioning strategy:

1. Emphasise positions that are not already overcrowded.


30/94

21

2. Choose positions that can be convincingly substantiated.

3. Develop positioning strategies over the medium to long term

4. Combine mutually supporting positions to differentiate positioning strategies from

that of competitors and help keep the implementation fresh over time.

2.3.4 Paradigm innovation

Although smart products form a thrilling group of new products that appear handy to

potential users, one may query the extent to which consumers will welcome this

smartness. Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) cited Rogers, (1995) and Ostlund, (1974) as

saying; the rate of adoption of innovation is influenced positively by the innovation

characteristics of relative advantage, compatibility, observability and trialability and is

influenced negatively by perceived risk and complexity. Focusing on autonomous

products, they provide advantages by taking over tasks from the user, which gives the

user the opportunity to do other activities.

Rogers (1995) as cited by Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) gave the following definitions:

Relative advantage refers to the degree to which an innovation is perceived as superior

to the idea it supercedes in terms of economic profitability, social prestige, convenience,

or other benefits.

Perceived complexity refers to the degree to which an innovation is perceived as

relatively difficult to understand and to use.

Perceived riskrefers to performance risk which is the risk associated with inadequate

and/or unsatisfactory performance of the product.

The research by Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) demonstrates the following relationships:

There is no clear relationship between product autonomy and relative

advantage. This means that, some consumers appreciate autonomy, while others

do not.


31/94

22

The impact of product autonomy on perceived risk and complexity is clear.

Consumers judge products that are more autonomous as more likely to fail and

as more complex

Relative advantage is related positively and perceived risk is related negatively

to overall consumer appreciation

People with a higher desire for control perceive less risk, irrespective of the level

of autonomy of the product Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003).

This may be explained by the fact that people with a higher desire for control also

have a higher perceived control (Trimpop et al, 1997). They perceive less risk

because they believe they can control the product. This suggests that, early adopters

of autonomous products show special characteristics.

Although, many ideas for autonomous products may seem attractive, their advantages

are not directly obvious to all customers. For example, the development of a rear-view

mirror that automatically dims when it gets dark by Volkswagen seemed like a very

useful enhancement of the rear-view mirror. However, Volkswagen drivers who like to

drive (too) fast complained that they can only see the headlights of vehicles behind and

therefore are not able to recognise police cars. This example shows that companies

should extensively test their ideas about making their products more autonomous before

taking them into full development (Rijsdijk and Hultink, 2003).

Urban (1996) as cited by Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) named information acceleration

(IA) as one of the suitable techniques for testing product ideas for autonomous products.

The basic idea behind IA is to place the consumers in a multimedia virtual environment

and to provide them with information on a new product. Multiple virtual prototypes of a

product can be developed with different levels of autonomy. These prototypes can be

assessed by consumers and in so doing can provide companies with information on the

appropriateness of the different degrees of autonomy.

As discussed earlier, the research by Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) demonstrated that

products that are more autonomous are expected to breakdown or malfunction more,


32/94

23

and consumers expect that it may be more difficult to learn how to use these products.

However, these findings should not put off product designers as there are several

methods highlighted by Rijsdijk and Hultink, (2003) to manage them including;

The design of new products: Consumer research can give insights into the

specific doubts and questions people have about a product. Based on such

results, designers can shape the product in such a way that consumers doubts

are reduced. The reduction may be achieved by providing them with enough

indicators that provide feedback to the user on the task that the product is

performing at a particular time. Again, the users should always have the option

to interrupt actions of a product at any time.

Store image: By mainly selling product in stores with a good image, consumers

uncertainty can be reduced.

Providing money-back guarantees: This can reduce the risk that buyers perceive

Giving the customers the chance to experience the use of the product: This may

reduce doubts and thereby increase the probability of adoption.

Analogical learning: This means the use of consumers existing knowledge

structures in facilitating consumer understanding on how the new product works

and what its benefits are. Increased understanding will lead to a decrease in

perceived complexity and therefore to a higher rate of adoption Rijsdijk and

Hultink, (2003).

Autonomous products as icons for the company

Autonomous products provide obvious results of the application of information and

communication technology in consumer products. Therefore for branding and corporate

public purposes, product autonomy may deliver bright and attention-drawing icons for

the company as in the case of Dyson with its autonomous vacuum cleaner. Therefore,

creating autonomy can have added benefits of improved branding image and public

relations (Rijsdijk and Hultink, 2003).


33/94

24

2.4 Chapter summary

Figure 2-1: Title of figure (source: Smith, 2001)

An extensive range of books and 119 JPIM articles authored by the academic leaders

were reviewed to develop a better understanding of what the professionals in the field of

innovation management have said about the research topic. The literature review was

structured to generally describe what innovation management is and some popular

definitions were given. A clear distinction was made between innovation and invention

as the two terms are often wrongly used interchangeably. It then talked about the sources

and inhibitors of innovation. The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM)

was then given a closer look. The four types of innovation namely; Process, Product,

Position, and Paradigm (4Ps) were discussed.


34/94

25

3 RESEARCH AIM AND PROGRAMME

This chapter justifies the relevance of the thesis and sets the aims and objectives for it. It

also sets a series of stages which when followed will lead to a successful achievement of

the thesis aims and objectives.

3.1 Research problem

A lot of good work has been done in the Journal of Product Innovation Management

(JPIM) covering a wide range of disciplines, countries, industries and many more since

its inception in 1984 (Biemans et al, 2007). From its very beginning, the journal

distinguished itself from the existing management of technology and innovation journalsthrough its key principles ofmultidiscipline,international, and practicalapproach to the

issues of product development. These three principles are rooted in the journals aims

and objectives as well as the statement of purpose sections which have stood intact

across 4 editors over two decades. Biemans et al, (2007) analysed the evolution of the

Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) from a knowledge-flow perspective

by looking at the scientific sources used by the authors of JPIM to build up their ideas

and articles. The extent to which these ideas built up in JPIM are put to use by otherauthors was also looked at as a second component of knowledge-flow by Biemans et al

(2007) and again ranked the top sixteen JPIM authors. On the other hand, the study by

Thieme (2007) ranked the worlds top scholars in innovation management on the basis

of the research articles published across fourteen top academic journals in technology

and innovation management, management, and marketing between 1990 and 2004 (see

Appendix 2 for ranking). Guided by the social capital theory, Thieme (2007) analysed

the embedded characteristics of innovation management scholars to find out the extentto which social capital explains scholarly productivity.

However, no research has been done so far to take a closer look at the top JPIM

academic leaders and their work over the years which have made JPIM what it is today.

As an extension to the above work, this thesis seeks to bridge the existing gap in

literature.


35/94

26

3.2 Aim and objectives

The aim of the thesis is to review the work of sixteen academic leaders of the Journal of

Product Innovation Management (JPIM) over a period of twenty four years.

The objectives of this thesis are:

1. to generate a database to collate and analyse the contributions of the academic

leaders

2. to determine the contributions of the academic leaders

3. to determine whether the contributions of the academic leaders meet the

objectives of JPIM

4. to make key recommendations to the wider academic community for future

research agenda

3.3 Programme

In order to realise the objectives and fulfil the aim of this thesis, the following stages

were followed:

Stage 1: Data was collected and a database generated

Stage 2: The contributions of the academic leaders were determined

Stage 3: Whether or not the contributions of the academic leaders meet the objectives of

JPIM was determined and key recommendations were made for future research agenda.

3.4 Chapter summary

This chapter develops the research problem, the aim and objectives, and finally setsout the programme for the thesis. It was structured in such a way that the aim was

derived from the research problem. From the aim, the objectives were also derived

which in turn fed into the programme for the thesis. Each stage of the programme

was then developed into chapters.


36/94

27

4 DATA COLLECTION AND DATABASE GENERATION

In order to achieve the first objective, the steps below were followed.

4.1 Method used

The top 16 academic authors of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM)

were identified based on the rankings of Biemans et al (2007). An extensive range of

books and 119 JPIM articles authored by the academic leaders were reviewed to develop

a better understanding of what the professionals in the field of innovation management

have said about the research problem. The literature review was structured to generally

describe what innovation management is and some popular definitions were given. Aclear distinction was made between innovation and invention as the two terms are often

wrongly used interchangeably. It then talked about the sources and inhibitors of

innovation. The Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) was then given a

closer look. The works of some of the academic leaders were discussed under the four

types of innovation (4Ps) identified by Tidd et al (2005). There had been 119 JPIM

articles among the sixteen authors between 1984 and 2008 and these articles were

obtained from EBSCOHOST, Science Direct, Blackwell Synergy, and Google Scholarelectronic resources. All the 119 articles were read and the following important data

extracted from them onto an excel sheet for analyses: Name of Author(s); Author

position; Subject specialisation; Degree-granting institution; Current employer; Journal

title; Number of authors; Lead author (Yes/No); Sole author (Yes/No); Author

internationalism; Discipline; Research method; Survey industry; survey country; sample

size; Practicality; Contribution; Key learning points; Recommendations for future

research; and Type of innovation.

4.2 Execution of data collection and database

The above information was then used as column headings to create a database in excel

for the extracted information. This data was accordingly numbered and the result was a

twenty one column (headings) by 120 rows (119 articles plus 1 heading row) of data.

This when printed fits on two landscaped A3 sheets by 16 landscaped A3 sheets. The


37/94

28

database was developed in such a way that data could be sort under each of the column

headings.

4.3 Results

See Appendix 3 for database

Table 4.3.1 Showing the Rankings of Author Collaborations

Rank

Names of Authors

Number of

Collaboration

1Robert G. Cooper and Elko J. Kleinschmidt 8

2Erik Jan Hultink and Robben, Henry S.J 7

2Michael Song, X and Mark E. Parry 7

3 Roger J. Calantone and C. Anthony Di Benedetto 5

4William E. Souder and Rudy K. Moenaert 3

4Michael Song, X and William E. Souder 3

5Abbie Griffin and Albert L. Page 2


38/94

29

Table 4.3.2 Showing the Years of Collaboration for all the 119 Articles

Sole

Author Two Authors Three Authors

Four

Authors

Five

Authors

Six

Authors1984 1984 1994 1985 2006 1994 1994 2002

1984 1986 1991 2006 1997

1985 1986 1994 1992 2007 2000

1992 1987 1994 2007 2000

1992 1987 1995 1995 2003

1992 1987 1995 1995 2004

1993 1988 1996 1995 2007

1993 1988 1996 1995 2007

1993 1988 1996 1996 2008

1993 1989 1996 1997

1994 1989 1996 1997

1995 1989 1997 1997

1996 1989 1997 1997

1997 1990 1997 1997

1997 1990 1998 1998

1999 1991 1998 19981999 1991 1998 1999

2000 1991 1998 1999

1992 1998 2000

1992 1999 2001

1992 1999 2001

1992 2000 2001

1993 2000 2002

1993 2001 2003

1993 2002 2003

1993 2002 2004

1994 2003 20051994 2004 2005

1994 2007 2005

1994

Mode = 1993 1994 1997 2000 1994 2002

Median

= 1993.5 1990 1997.5 2003 1994 2002


39/94

30

4.4 Analysis and discussion

The developed database (see Appendix 1) served as the skeleton of the whole thesis

from which all other things were inferred. As a result, all the three different stages of

this thesis are entwined in one way or another. By a simple count under degree-granting

institution column of the excel database it was found that Roger J. Calantone and

Edward F. McDonough III attended the same degree-granting institute called the

University of Massachusetts. Likewise, Elko J. Kleinschmidt and C. Anthony Di

Benedetto attended the same degree-granting institute called McGill University. Apart

from the above, the other academic leaders all attended different degree-granting

institutions.

A simple count under the current employer column of the excel database revealed that,

Robert G. Cooper and Elko J. Kleinschmidt were both employed by McMaster

University and that may explain why they have written the most number of articles (8)

together. Similarly, Michael Song and Mark E. Parry were both employed by the

University of Missouri-Kansas City and that may as well explain why they co-ranked

second (7) on table 4.3.1. Interestingly, Vijay Mahajan was the only academic author

employed by the degree-granting institute. By comparing table 4.3.1 with the table 5.3.4

(positional authors), it was surprisingly found that, all of Mark E. Parrys articles (7)

were co-authored by Michael Song. Also, all but one of Henry S.J. Robbens articles

were co-authored by Erik J. Hultink and this may also be explained by the fact that they

both come from the Netherlands. The rest of the collaborations may be similarly

explained by the fact that authors for the particular article represent the same country.

An exception to this was the collaborations between William E. Souder and Rudy K.

Moenaert which cannot be explained in this thesis.

Using excel, the years of publication of all the 119 JPIM articles were put under the

column headings: sole-author; one-author; two-author; three-author; four-author; five-

author; and six-author. The years of publication were arranged in ascending order using

Excel and the mode and median year determined under each column. This was

developed into Table 4.3.2.


40/94

31

Consistent with the findings of Biemans et al (2007), the number of academic leaders

sole-authorship in JPIM was found to have reduced with time. This was because the

researchers were secluded from each other and were sparsely distributed across the

universities. This, as well as the difficulties of communicating through slow mailing

system made working together difficult in the past. The increasing availability of the

internet has nearly resolved the logistical problems related with working across

distances, resulting in a growing collaboration between researchers. There is therefore a

decrease in the number of sole-authored articles and an increase in the cross-institutional

collaborations over time (Biemans et al, 2007). These observations strongly suggest that

there is a globalisation of the academic community studying innovation management.

As the nature of global research and development (R&D) efforts by firms increase so

does common practice in innovation management become internationalised (Biemans et

al, 2007). In fact, the last time an academic leader sole-authored a JPIM article was in

the year 2000. It was found that, there has been a total of 18 sole-authored (mode =

1993, median = 1993); 57 duets (mode = 1994, median = 1990); 33 triplets (mode 1997,

median = 1997); and 9 quadruplet-authored JPIM articles by the academic leaders. JPIM

articles authored by five or six academic leaders are rare. It can therefore be seen that

most of the JPIMs academic leaders articles have been duets, followed by triplets,

sole-authored, and quadruplets-authored (see Table 4.3.2).

4.5 Chapter summary

This chapter explains the method used and the execution of the data collection anddatabase generation. It ranked some author collaborations and the reasons behind

them. It again analysed the employment and educational background of the academic

authors. The dominant form of collaboration was identified as the duet and sole

authorship was found to be decreasing with time.


41/94

32

5 DETERMINING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC

LEADERS

Because most of the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) articles were

co-authored, it was very difficult or even impossible to tell what the contribution of an

individual was. But an attempt was made as below.

5.1 Method used

The articles studied were awarded to the academic authors based on their position in

authorship. This was based on the assumption that the lower an authors position in a

co-authored article, the lower the contribution of that particular author relative to the

other co-authors with higher author positions. For example, an article was awarded to an

author if his/ her name appeared before the name(s) of the other JPIM academic

leader(s). Also, an article was awarded to an academic leader even though he/ she was

not the lead author. This was the case because all the authors who appeared before the

academic leader were not one of the top 16 academic leaders being studied (See

appendix 1 for more examples). The positional authors were highlighted in red among

the other authors and a column created for them. The positional authors and their data

were alphabetically arranged using excel for the ease of analysis.

5.2 Execution of authors contributions

Each authors contributions were sorted under the positional author column so that only

the contributions made by a specific positional author were displayed at any point in

time. The information extracted from the JPIM into the database under the contributions

column was analysed and summarised in a table (Table 5.3.2) for each positional author

and used as their major contributions as below:


42/94

33

5.3 Results

Table 5.3.1 Showing the knowledge Areas the Academic Leaders Wrote About

Knowledge Area *Number of

Occurrence

Percentage

%

Process execution and metrics 46 38.66

Strategy, planning and decision

making30 25.21

People, teams and culture 24 20.17

Customer and market research 9 7.56

Technology and intellectual

property6 5.04

Industry context and alliances 2 1.68

Reflections on the field 2 1.68

Total 119

* Means the classification was obtained from Thieme 2007


43/94


44/94


45/94


46/94


47/94


48/94


49/94

40

Tab

le5.3.3

ShowingtheVarious

AuthorRankings

Rank

NameofAuthor

Numberof

Articles

(Unadjusted)

Rank

Na

meofAuthor

Number

ofArticles

(Adjusted)

Rank

NameofAuthor

h-

index

1

MichaelSong,X

20

1

RobertG.Cooper

10.03

1

RogerJ.Calantone

19

2

RobertG.Cooper

15

2

MichaelSong,X

8.14

2

RobertG.Cooper

15

2

WilliamE.Souder

15

3

WilliamE.Souder

6.9

3

WilliamE.Souder

13

3

RogerJ.Calantone

14

4

AbbieGriffin

6.5

3

ElkoJ.Kleinschmidt

13

4

AbbieGriffin

12

5

Kw

akuAtuahene-Gima

6.33

4

AbbieGriffin

12

4

ErikJanHultink

12

6

RogerJ.Calantone

5.39

4

KwakuAtuahene-Gima

12

5

ElkoJ.Kleinschmidt

10

7

AlbertL.Page

5

5

VijayMahajan

11

6

KwakuAtuahene-Gima

8

8

ErikJanHultink

4.41

6

MichaelSong,X

9

6

Robben,HenryS.J

8

9

Elk

oJ.Kleinschmidt

4.36

7

DavidWilemon

8

7

AlbertL.Page

7

10

EdwardF.McDonoughIII

4.33

7

C.AnthonyDiBenedetto

8

7


7

11

Ma

rkE.Parry

3.33

8

ErikJanHultink

7

7

DavidWilemon

7

12

DavidWilemon

2.99

8

EdwardF.McDonough

III

7

7

EdwardF.McDonoughIII

7

13

VijayMahajan

2.66

8

RudyK.Moenaert

7

7

MarkE.Parry

7

13

Robben,HenryS.J

2.66

9

Robben,HenryS.J

6

7

RudyK.Moenaert

7

14

RudyK.Moenaert

2.5

10

AlbertL.Page

5

8

VijayMahajan

6

15


2.32

11

MarkE.Parry

3


50/94

41

Table 5.3.4 Showing the Rankings of the Positional Authors

Rank

Name of Positional Author

Number of Positional

Articles

1 Michael Song, X 15

2 Robert G. Cooper 14

2 Roger J. Calantone 14

3 Erik Jan Hultink 11

3 William E. Souder 11

4 Abbie Griffin 8

5 David Wilemon 7

5 Edward F. McDonough III 7

5 Kwaku Atuahene-Gima 7

6 Rudy K. Moenaert 6

6 Vijay Mahajan 67 Albert L. Page 5

8 Elko J. Kleinschmidt 3

8 Mark E. Parry 3

9 C. Anthony Di Benedetto 2

10 Henry S.J. Robben 0


51/94

42

Table 5.3.5 Showing the Rankings of Lead and Sole Academic Authorship

Rank

Name of AuthorNumber of

Lead

Authorship

Rank

Name of AuthorNumber of

Sole

Authorship

1Robert G. Cooper

14 1Robert G. Cooper

6

2Michael Song, X

11 2Kwaku Atuahene-Gima

5

3William E. Souder

8 3Abbie Griffin

3

3Roger J. Calantone

8 4Edward F. McDonough

III2

4Erik Jan Hultink

7 5William E. Souder

1

4Kwaku Atuahene-Gima

7 5Albert L. Page

1

5Abbie Griffin

6 5C. Anthony Di

Benedetto1

5Edward F. McDonough

III6 6

Michael Song, X0

6 Rudy K. Moenaert 5 6 Roger J. Calantone 0

7 Albert L. Page 4 6 Erik Jan Hultink 0

8 Elko J. Kleinschmidt 2 6 Rudy K. Moenaert 0

8C. Anthony Di

Benedetto2 6

Elko J. Kleinschmidt0

8 Mark E. Parry 2 6 Mark E. Parry 08 Vijay Mahajan 2 6 Vijay Mahajan 0

9 Robben, Henry S.J 0 6 Robben, Henry S.J 0

9 David Wilemon 0 6 David Wilemon 0


52/94

43

Table 5.3.6 Showing the Commitment of the Academic Leaders to JPIM

Name of Author

Number

of JPIMArticles

Number of

All Articlesas at 2007*

Dedication

to JPIM

Percentage

%

Michael Song, X 20 31 64.52

Robert G. Cooper 15 26 57.69

William E. Souder 15 18 83.33

Roger J. Calantone 14 21 66.67

Abbie Griffin 12 11 109.09

Erik Jan Hultink 12 13 92.31

Elko J. Kleinschmidt 10 17 58.82

Kwaku Atuahene-Gima 8 11 72.73

Robben, Henry S.J 8 9 88.89

Albert L. Page 7

C. Anthony Di Benedetto 7 10 70

David Wilemon 7 9 77.78

Edward F. McDonough

III7 12 58.33

Mark E. Parry 7 10 70

Rudy K. Moenaert 7 10 70

Vijay Mahajan 6 11 54.55

TOTAL= 162 219

* means figures were obtained from Thieme (2007).

Table 5.3.7 Showing the Rankings of the Research Disciplinary Issues

Rank Disciplinary Issues

Number of

Occurrence Percentage %

1 Management 39 31.2

2 New Product Development 25 20

3 Marketing 21 16.8

4 Communication 8 6.4

5 Human Resources Management 7 5.6

5 Information Technology 7 5.6

6 Accounting and Finance 4 3.2

7 Architecture and Design 3 2.4

8 History 2 1.6

8 Mensuration 2 1.6

8 Quality Control 2 1.6

8 Knowledge Management 2 1.6

9 Planning 1 0.8

9 Aerospace 1 0.8

9 Typology 1 0.8


53/94

44

5.4 Analysis and discussion

The contributions of the academic leaders were ranked using information from thedatabase under four main categories: unadjusted, adjusted, h-index, position and

combined into a single table (See table 5.3.3). The unadjusted ranking was adopted

from Biemans et al (2007) and was done by counting the number of times a particular

academic leader authored or co-authored a JPIM article. This implied that, an academic

leaders contribution was counted as one so long as their name appeared as an author or

co-author of that particular article. The adjusted ranking was adopted from Thieme,

(2007) and was done by dividing each article by the total number of its authors andresults represented each authors adjusted contribution towards that particular article.

For example, if four people co-authored an article, one was divided by four and the

result (0.25) represents the adjusted contribution of each of the four authors. The

adjusted values were summed up for each academic leader (see Appendix 3) and ranked.

The above rankings were done using Excel pivot table. The h-index is an index that

quantifies both the actual scientific productivity and the apparent scientific impact of a

scientist and was suggested by Jorge E. Hirsch. The index is based on the set of thescientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other

people's publications (Cardona, 2005). A scientist has index h ifh of his or herNp

papers have atleast h citations each and the other (Np h) papers have h citations each.

Two individuals with similarhs are comparablein terms of their overall scientific

impact, even if their totalnumber of papers or their total number of citations is very

different as argued by (Cardona, 2005). This means that when comparing two

individuals (of the same

scientific age) with a similar number of total papers or of

totalcitation count and very different h values, the one withthe higherh is likely to be the

more accomplished scientist.

The greatest limitation of the h-index ranking is that the information obtained from the

Scopus electronic resource only dates back to 1996 and therefore does not give a fair

ranking to the JPIM authors as most of them started publishing long before this date.


54/94

45

The position ranking was done by simply counting the number of times a particular

academic leader appeared as a position author out of the 119 JPIM journals reviewed

(see Table 5.3.4). All these results were also developed as part of the database.

It was found that nine out of the sixteen academic

Documents

Product Innovation Management - Past, Present and the Future