It Won't Fit! For Innovative Products, Sometimes That's for the Best*

The degree of overlap (i.e., fit) between product development organizations' resources and the product development projects pursued has powerful performance implications. Drawing on organizational learning theory and the resource-based view, this research conceptualizes and empirically tests the interrelationships between the levels of fit, innovativeness, speed to market, and financial new product performance. After reviewing the research literature relevant to resource fit and new product performance, the level of innovativeness is posited to be an important moderating and mediating factor, which is validated by analysis of data gathered from 279 product developing firms. Technological fit has a negative direct effect on both technological and market innovativeness, while the use of existing marketing resources (i.e., a high degree of marketing fit) positively impacts technological innovativeness. This suggests, consistent with findings from market orientation research, that a deep, long-held customer understanding can promote technological innovativeness. The moderating hypotheses proposed are also well supported: First, a high degree of marketing fit has a more positive impact on performance for market innovative products (e.g., products which address a new target market or use a nontraditional channel for the firm). Drawing on a deep customer understanding is more critical to performance for market innovative products. Conversely, the benefits of marketing fit are limited where market innovativeness is lacking. Interestingly, the counterpart moderating role of technological innovativeness on technological fit's performance effect is not significant; the level of technological innovativeness does not significantly impact the performance impact of technological fit. There are also significant moderating effects across dimensions. Our results show that the financial benefit of using existing marketing resources is lessened for technologically innovative products. Technological innovations necessitate drastic adaptation of marketing resources (i.e., channel and brand); firms drawing only on existing marketing resources for a technologically innovative new product will incur reduced profit. Similarly, the positive implications of using existing technological resources are limited for products which are highly market innovative. Generally, resource fit is seen to have an (oft-overlooked) dark side in product development, though several of our findings suggest that marketing resources are more flexible than are technological resources.

[1]  R. Henderson.  Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence From the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry , 2015 .

[2]  Roland Haitz,et al.  Another Semiconductor Revolution: This Time It’s Lighting! , 2015 .

[3]  Ahmet H. Kirca,et al.  Firm Innovativeness and Its Performance Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration , 2012 .

[4]  Rajesh Sethi,et al.  Developing New-to-the-Firm Products: The Role of Micropolitical Strategies , 2012 .

[5]  M. Swink,et al.  Product Portfolio Architectural Complexity and Operational Performance: Incorporating the Roles of Learning and Fixed Assets , 2011 .

[6]  Charles H. Noble,et al.  On elevating strategic design research , 2011 .

[7]  Michael A. Stanko,et al.  Controversy in Innovation Outsourcing Research: Review, Synthesis and Future Directions , 2010 .

[8]  Son K. Lam,et al.  Resistance to Brand Switching when a Radically New Brand is Introduced: A Social Identity Theory Perspective , 2010 .

[9]  Constantine Andriopoulos,et al.  Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[10]  C.-J. Chen,et al.  Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance: the mediating role of knowledge management capacity , 2009 .

[11]  C. Droge,et al.  Strategic fit to resources versus NPD execution proficiencies: what are their roles in determining success? , 2009 .

[12]  F. Piller,et al.  Cracking the Code of Mass Customization , 2009 .

[13]  Min Ding,et al.  Counting chickens before the eggs hatch: Associating new product development portfolios with shareholder expectations in the pharmaceutical sector , 2008 .

[14]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[15]  R. Calantone,et al.  New Product Success: Is It Really Controllable by Managers in Highly Turbulent Environments? , 2008 .

[16]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Reflections on Mediation , 2008 .

[17]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  The making of an expert. , 2007, Harvard business review.

[18]  Lisa C . Troy,et al.  Innovativeness and new product success: insights from the cumulative evidence , 2007 .

[19]  K. Atuahene–Gima,et al.  Market Knowledge Dimensions and Cross-Functional Collaboration: Examining the Different Routes to Product Innovation Performance , 2007 .

[20]  Roger J. Calantone,et al.  Is more information technology better for new product development , 2006 .

[21]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[22]  Steven Levy.  The Perfect Thing: How the iPod Shuffles Commerce, Culture, and Coolness , 2006 .

[23]  Roger J. Calantone,et al.  Decomposing Product Innovativeness and Its Effects on New Product Success , 2006 .

[24]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[25]  Chun Wei Choo,et al.  Innovation and knowledge creation: How are these concepts related? , 2006, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[26]  Pilar Carbonell,et al.  The impact of market characteristics and innovation speed on perceptions of positional advantage and new product performance , 2006 .

[27]  Ludwig Bstieler,et al.  The Moderating Effect of Environmental Uncertainty on New Product Development and Time Efficiency , 2005 .

[28]  Fred Langerak,et al.  The impact of new product development acceleration approaches on speed and profitability: lessons for pioneers and fast followers , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[29]  G. Hult,et al.  Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance , 2004 .

[30]  Steven C. Michael,et al.  Organizational Learning and New Product Introductions , 2004 .

[31]  Urs Gasser,et al.  iTunes: How Copyright, Contract, and Technology Shape the Business of Digital Media - A Case Study , 2004 .

[32]  J. Workman,et al.  Market Orientation, Creativity, and New Product Performance in High-Technology Firms , 2004 .

[33]  E. Hultink,et al.  The Impact of Market Orientation, Product Advantage, and Launch Proficiency on New Product Performance and Organizational Performance , 2004 .

[34]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[35]  Yikuan Lee,et al.  New product launch strategy for network effects products , 2003 .

[36]  Mark B. Houston,et al.  Barriers to Matching New Technologies and Market Opportunities in Established Firms , 2003 .

[37]  Erwin Danneels.  The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences , 2002 .

[38]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Process Management and Technological Innovation: A Longitudinal Study of the Photography and Paint Industries , 2002 .

[39]  H. Kraemer,et al.  Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. , 2002, Archives of general psychiatry.

[40]  A. Griffin.  PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT CYCLE TIME FOR BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS PRODUCTS , 2002 .

[41]  Rosanna Garcia,et al.  A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review , 2002 .

[42]  Venkatesh Shankar,et al.  Network Effects and Competition: An Empirical Analysis of the Home Video Game Industry , 2002 .

[43]  Erwin Danneels,et al.  Product innovativeness from the firm's perspective: Its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance , 2001 .

[44]  M. Schulz.  THE UNCERTAIN RELEVANCE OF NEWNESS: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE FLOWS , 2001 .

[45]  David M. Szymanski,et al.  Why Some New Products are More Successful than Others , 2001 .

[46]  Curba Morris Lampert,et al.  Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions , 2001 .

[47]  C. Moorman,et al.  The Acquisition and Utilization of Information in New Product Alliances: A Strength-of-Ties Perspective , 2001 .

[48]  M. Lindell,et al.  Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[49]  Athanasios Hadjimanolis,et al.  A Resource-based View of Innovativeness in Small Firms , 2000 .

[50]  Stanley F. Slater,et al.  Intelligence generation and superior customer value , 2000 .

[51]  S. Tamer Cavusgil,et al.  Measuring the dimensions of market knowledge competence in new product development , 1999 .

[52]  Mark E. Parry,et al.  Challenges of managing the development of breakthrough products in Japan , 1999 .

[53]  S. Dutta,et al.  Success in High-Technology Markets: is Marketing Capability Critical? , 1999 .

[54]  Gianmario Verona.  A Resource-Based View of Product Development , 1999 .

[55]  Wm. E. Souder,et al.  Analyses of U.S. and Japanese Management Processes Associated with New Product Success and Failure in High and Low Familiarity Markets , 1998 .

[56]  B. Bayus.  Speed‐to‐Market and New Product Performance Trade‐offs , 1997 .

[57]  R. Veugelers.  Internal R & D expenditures and external technology sourcing , 1997 .

[58]  M. Parry,et al.  A Cross-National Comparative Study of New Product Development Processes: Japan and the United States , 1997 .

[59]  M. Parry,et al.  The Determinants of Japanese New Product Successes , 1997 .

[60]  Jeffrey B. Schmidt,et al.  Antecedents and consequences of cross-functional cooperation: A comparison of R&D, manufacturing, and marketing perspectives , 1997 .

[61]  Ulrike de Brentani,et al.  Developing new business-to-business professional services: What factors impact performance? , 1996 .

[62]  Mark E. Parry,et al.  What separates Japanese new product winners from losers , 1996 .

[63]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  CUSTOMER POWER, STRATEGIC INVESTMENT, AND THE FAILURE OF LEADING FIRMS , 1996 .

[64]  Kwaku Atuahene-Gima,et al.  Differential potency of factors affecting innovation performance in manufacturing and services firms in Australia , 1996 .

[65]  Daniel C. Smith,et al.  Rethinking the effect of perceived fit on customers’ evaluations of new products , 1995 .

[66]  R. Cooper,et al.  Benchmarking the Firm's Critical Success Factors in New Product Development , 1995 .

[67]  K. Atuahene–Gima,et al.  An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new product performance a contingency approach , 1995 .

[68]  Kwaku Atuahene-Gima,et al.  An Exploratory Analysis of the Impact of Market Orientation on New Product Performance , 1995 .

[69]  R. Ping.  A Parsimonious Estimating Technique for Interaction and Quadratic Latent Variables , 1995 .

[70]  J. March.  The Future, Disposable Organizations and the Rigidities of Imagination , 1995 .

[71]  G. Barczak.  New product strategy, structure, process, and performance in the telecommunications industry , 1995 .

[72]  Eric M. Olson,et al.  Organizing for effective new product development: The moderating role of product innovativeness. , 1995 .

[73]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Competing for the Future , 1994 .

[74]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Measuring competence?: exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research , 1994 .

[75]  G. Day.  The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations , 1994 .

[76]  S. Zahra,et al.  Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance , 1993 .

[77]  J. Farley,et al.  Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis , 1993 .

[78]  F. Malerba.  Learning by Firms and Incremental Technical Change , 1992 .

[79]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development: Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125 (Summer 1992) , 1992 .

[80]  Joseph T. Mahoney,et al.  The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management , 1992 .

[81]  A. Quittner.  Re-examining research on stress and social support: The importance of contextual factors. , 1992 .

[82]  Regis McKenna,et al.  Relationship Marketing: Successful Strategies For The Age Of The Customer , 1991 .

[83]  Ravi S. Achrol,et al.  Evolution of the Marketing Organization: New Forms for Turbulent Environments , 1991 .

[84]  P. Ghemawat.  Market Incumbency and Technological Inertia , 1991 .

[85]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[86]  Birger Wernerfelt,et al.  The link between resources and type of diversification: Theory and evidence , 1991 .

[87]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The Core Competence of the Corporation , 1990 .

[88]  Roger Calantone,et al.  An Integrative Model of the New Product Development Process: An Empirical Validation , 1988 .

[89]  R. Cooper,et al.  New Products: What Separates Winners from Losers? , 1987 .

[90]  M. Hannan,et al.  Structural Inertia and Organizational Change , 1984 .

[91]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[92]  David F. Larcker,et al.  Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics: , 1981 .

[93]  Robert G. Cooper,et al.  The Dimensions of Industrial New Product Success and Failure , 1979 .

[94]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. , 1977 .

[95]  J. Schumpeter.  Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , 1943 .