The Vital Role of Problem-Solving Competence in New Product Success†

Problem solving, a process of seeking, defining, evaluating, and implementing the solutions, is considered a converter that can translate organizational inputs into valuable product and service outputs. A key challenge for the product innovation community is to answer questions about how knowledge competence and problem-solving competence develop and sustain competitive advantage. The objective of this study is to theoretically examine and empirically test an existing assumption that problem-solving competence is an important variable connecting market knowledge competence with new product performance. New product projects from 396 firms in the high-technology zones in China were used to test the study's theoretical model. The results first indicate that problem-solving speed and creativity matter in new product innovation performance by playing mediator roles between market knowledge competence and positional advantage, which in turn sustains superior performance. This new insight suggest that mere generation of market knowledge and having a marketing–research and development (R&D) interface will not affect new product performance unless project members have the ability to use the information and to interact to identify and solve complex problems speedily and creatively. Second, these results suggest that different market knowledge competences (customers, competitors, and interactions between marketing and R&D) have distinct impacts on problem-solving speed and creativity (positive, negative, or none), which underscore the need to embrace a more fine-grained notion of market knowledge competence. The results also reveal that the relative importance of some of these relationships depends on the perceived level of turbulence in the environment. First, competitor knowledge competence decreases problem-solving speed when perceived environmental turbulence is low but enhances problem-solving speed when perceived turbulence is high. Second, competitor knowledge competence has a positive relationship with new product performance when the environmental turbulence is high but no relationship when the environmental turbulence is low. Third, the positive relationship between problem-solving speed and product advantage is stronger when the perceived environmental turbulence is high than when it is low, which implies that problem solving is more important for creating product advantage when environmental turbulence is high and change is fast and unpredictable. Fourth, the negative relationship between problem-solving speed and new product performance is stronger when the perceived environmental turbulence is high than when it is low, which means that problem-solving speed is more harmful for new product performance when change is fast and unpredictable. And fifth, the positive relationship between product quality and new product performance is stronger when perceived environmental turbulence is low than when it is high, which implies that product quality may more likely lead to new product performance when the environment is stable and changes are easy to predict, analyze, and comprehend.

[1]  Mark W. Johnston,et al.  Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations framework , 1990 .

[2]  B. Lukas,et al.  Antecedents and outcomes of new product development speed , 2004 .

[3]  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.

[4]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  The Influence of Coworker Feedback on Salespeople , 1994 .

[5]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[6]  T. Fujimoto,et al.  The Effect of “ Front-Loading ” Problem-Solving on Product Development Performance , 2000 .

[7]  Young-Won Ha,et al.  Determinants of Korean and Japanese New Product Performance: An Interrelational and Process View , 2003 .

[8]  S. Jayachandran,et al.  Marketing strategy: An assessment of the state of the field and outlook , 1999 .

[9]  Berend Wierenga,et al.  The Integration of Marketing Problem-Solving Modes and Marketing Management Support Systems , 1997 .

[10]  Michael Song,et al.  Manuscript #: RRR97-0379 THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED TECHNOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY ON JAPANESE NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1999 .

[11]  Gary P. Pisano,et al.  Learning-before-doing in the development of new process technology , 1996 .

[12]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. , 1990 .

[13]  O. Ferrell,et al.  The effect of market orientation on product innovation , 2000 .

[14]  Willow A. Sheremata Centrifugal and Centripetal Forces in Radical New Product Development Under Time Pressure , 2000 .

[15]  Joseph P. Cannon,et al.  An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer–Seller Relationships: , 1997 .

[16]  Rajesh Sethi New Product Quality and Product Development Teams , 2000 .

[17]  R. Calantone,et al.  The Impact of Market Knowledge Competence on New Product Advantage: Conceptualization and Empirical Examination , 1998 .

[18]  Susan Wei Market Orientation and Successful New Product Innovation: The Role of Competency Traps , 2006 .

[19]  Haiyang Li,et al.  Product Innovation Strategy and the Performance of New Technology Ventures in China , 2001 .

[20]  M. Browne,et al.  Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit , 1992 .

[21]  Jin K. Han,et al.  Market Orientation and Organizational Performance: Is Innovation a Missing Link? , 1998 .

[22]  Peter F. Drucker,et al.  Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practices and Principles , 1986 .

[23]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[24]  S. Wheelwright,et al.  The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution * , 2003 .

[25]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY? , 2000 .

[26]  D. Dougherty Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms , 1992 .

[27]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences , 1993 .

[28]  J. Barney,et al.  Competitive Organizational Behavior: Toward an Organizationally‐Based Theory of Competitive Advantage , 1994 .

[29]  K. Atuahene–Gima,et al.  The Effects of Centrifugal and Centripetal Forces on Product Development Speed and Quality: How Does Problem Solving Matter? , 2003 .

[30]  G. Hult,et al.  Does market orientation matter?: a test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance , 2001 .

[31]  P. Varadarajan,et al.  Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance: A multiple measures‐based study , 1990 .

[32]  Rebecca Slotegraaf Market knowledge management : Octorber 15-16, 1998, La Mansión del Rio, San Antonio, Texas , 1999 .

[33]  D. Garvin Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality , 1987 .

[34]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Product quality: Impact of interdepartmental interactions , 1997 .

[35]  K. Clark,et al.  The power of product integrity. , 1990, Harvard business review.

[36]  C. Moorman Organizational Market Information Processes: Cultural Antecedents and New Product Outcomes , 1995 .

[37]  L. Sattler,et al.  An International Investigation of Problem-Solving Performance in the Semiconductor Industry , 2006 .

[38]  R. Bagozzi Reflections on relationship marketing in consumer markets , 1995 .

[39]  George S. Day,et al.  Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority , 1988 .

[40]  Jin K. Han,et al.  Entry Barriers: A Dull-, One-, or Two-Edged Sword for Incumbents? Unraveling the Paradox from a Contingency Perspective , 2001 .

[41]  B. Lukas,et al.  New product quality: intended and unintended consequences of new product development speed , 2004 .

[42]  Rashi Glazer Marketing in an Information-Intensive Environment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an Asset , 1991 .

[43]  Rita Gunther McGrath Exploratory Learning, Innovative Capacity, and Managerial Oversight , 2001 .

[44]  D. Leonard-Barton CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[45]  J. Barney Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[46]  Ken Kusunoki,et al.  Incapability of Technological Capability: A Case Study on Product Innovation in the Japanese Facsimile Machine Industry , 1997 .

[47]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: PAST RESEARCH, PRESENT FINDINGS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS , 1995 .

[48]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  On the evaluation of structural equation models , 1988 .

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

[50]  John Hulland,et al.  Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies , 1999 .

[51]  Robert McMurrian,et al.  An Investigation into the Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in a Personal Selling Context , 1997 .

[52]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  Practical Issues in Structural Modeling , 1987 .

[53]  John C. Narver,et al.  The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability , 1990 .

[54]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Co-Evolution of Capabilities and Industry: The Evolution of Mutual Fund Processing , 1994 .

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

[56]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Making Fast Strategic Decisions In High-Velocity Environments , 1989 .

[57]  David Lei,et al.  Dynamic Core Competences through Meta-Learning and Strategic Context , 1996 .