سازگاری محصولات شرکت در توسعه محصول جدید در شرکت های فن آوری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|2783||2012||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7300 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 23, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 130–141
We present an exploratory investigation of how managers conceptualize and perceive ‘product–firm compatibility’ variables in successful and unsuccessful new product development (NPD) projects, and explore the role that they play in differentiating between successful and unsuccessful NPD outcomes. The findings show that managers perceive two distinctive types of product–firm compatibility factors, technology and marketing. Furthermore an ‘advertising–finance’ factor in the unsuccessful NPD projects emerged. Consequently differences exist in metric equivalence across successful and unsuccessful NPD projects, and thus the comparison of the successful and unsuccessful NPD projects should be done with caution. All product–firm compatibility variables and factors are positively related to NPD success. The managers, however, put lower relative importance to marketing in comparison to technology variables and factors.
Research regarding the outcomes of NPD has covered both environmental and controllable factors (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1995, Henard and Szymanski, 2001, Song and Parry, 1997a and Song and Parry, 1997b). Environmental factors concern the milieu in which new products are developed and controllable factors are connected to new product activities that can be controlled by the company (Cooper, 1979a, Cooper, 1979b, Song and Parry, 1994 and Song and Parry, 1997b). This study concentrates on a particular aspect of the controllable factors, which is the product–firm compatibility, and relates to the question how well the resources of the organization match the requirements of the NPD initiative. In the new product literature, product–firm compatibility has been discovered to be closely related to the new product outcome (Cooper, 1979b, Mishra et al., 1996, Parry and Song, 1994 and Yap and Souder, 1994). Among the many factors that account for market success and failure, product–firm compatibility is one of the most important (Cooper, 1979a and Mishra et al., 1996). Although product–firm compatibility variables have been studied in differentiating successful and unsuccessful NPD projects (e.g. Cooper, 1979b, Kim, 1993 and Mishra et al., 1996), they have mainly concentrated on the NPD process in industrial and manufacturing companies. There is a lack of research regarding the product–firm compatibility in the NPD process in technology intensive companies. Related research was done by Song and Noh (2006), in which, however, the emphasis was on the quality and need for proper resources and not on the product–firm compatibility as such. Another notable exception is the research done by Yap and Souder (1994), who concentrated on factors influencing new product success and failure in small entrepreneurial high-technology electronics companies in the Huntsville area in Alabama, United States. Overall the focus of the studies on the NPD process and the factors that contribute to NPD success and failure have largely focused on the United States, U.K. and Asia. In spite of the high importance of technology and R&D in Finland, little is known about the NPD process there. Our study seeks to fill this shortage. In this study we try to provide answers to three vital research questions in a country with a continuous emphasis on innovation. The first research question relates to how managers in Finnish technology companies conceptualize product–firm compatibility during the NPD process, and the second research question is how product–firm compatibility variables differentiate successful and unsuccessful NPD projects in Finnish technology companies. By studying the dimensionality of product–firm compatibility and confirming metric equivalence between successful and unsuccessful NPD ventures it is possible to carry out a more thorough and valid investigation of the items affecting the success and failure of NPD projects, which is the second research question of this study. The third research question relates to the relationships and relative importance of the variables contributing to the success of the NPD projects. These research questions are essential to consider taking into account the significance being allocated on R&D in the development of new technology in the European Union, and Finland in particular. Technology, and the research and development (R&D) investments on new product development (NPD) have a significant impact on the economic development of the OECD countries (OECD, 2004). Table 1 describes the relative weight and development of the R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP in various countries (Research.fi, 2010). An interesting discovery from Table 1 is the increasing role of R&D in China. The increasing role of China as an important production and manufacturing location in the world is a known fact, but as can be seen from Table 1 its investments in R&D have been expanding a great deal (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2007). This fact (Europa, 2005), the global growth in R&D expenditure (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2007) and the current economic challenges put a growing pressure on countries like Finland, which have traditionally placed a lot of emphasis on R&D as a way to vitalize its economy and to introduce new products into the world markets. On the basis of the discussion above it is critical that the R&D process activities are executed competently and as much as possible are understood in relation to the variables and factors present in the NPD process. This research paper is organized as follows. First, we consider relevant literature related to the role of product–firm compatibility variables in the NPD process. Specifically we review the literature related to product–firm compatibility studies, which have empirically examined the relationship between product–firm compatibility and NPD success. Second, we bring forward an empirical study that was done in a technology industry in Finland. Third, we compare the results of this study to the previous studies done. Finally, we present the results and discuss implications for researchers and practitioners.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This exploratory research presents revealing information into the product–firm compatibility in the NPD process in technology companies in Finland, and the role these product–firm compatibility variables have in differentiating success and failure in NPD projects. The findings verify the significance of product–firm compatibility variables for the new product success, and furthermore confirm that the successful firms pursue a strategy, according to which the companies exploit the existing marketing and technology resources and competencies, and thus substantially enhance the probability for success. Of the product–firm compatibility variables ‘management’ appeared to be most significant followed by the variables ‘manufacturing resources’, ‘technology and technology personnel’ and ‘sales force’. Our research expands the findings in previous research in many ways. First, we replicate the work of Cooper (1979a), and Mishra et al. (1996) with a sample of high technology companies in Finland. The research discovered the existence of two product–firm compatibility factors — ‘technology compatibility’ and ‘marketing compatibility’ in the successful NPD projects. In addition an ‘advertising–finance compatibility’ factor was discovered to exist in the unsuccessful NPD projects. Addressing limitations of previous research, the factor structure was tested for both successful and unsuccessful NPD projects. By conducting research across NPD outcomes, we were able to identify not a full, but partial equivalence in the factor formation between successful and unsuccessful NPD projects. In addition the relative importance of the product–firm compatibility variables as regards to the NPD outcome was also investigated. The results here indicate that the Finnish technology companies place more emphasis on suitability of the management, manufacturing, technology and sales force skills to the new product. In this research we decided to concentrate on one aspect of the NPD not under the control of the company. In forthcoming research the product–firm compatibility factors to emerge from this research could be examined with a model building approach using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Hurley et al., 1997). In addition other environmental factors are also worthwhile of further study including the descriptors of the new product venture, and nature of the new product idea variables. It is possible that the other environmental factors also differentiate successful and unsuccessful NPD projects in technology companies. Future research should also deliberate comparative studies of product–firm compatibility variables in other technology intensive countries in order to broaden the validity of the results of this research. Another appealing option for future research would be an examination of the relationships the product–firm compatibility at various phases of the NPD process. The future research should also consider taking a longitudinal approach with an aim to assess the effects of time as causative force. Finally the stage of country economic development (Rostow, 1960) could also affect on how managers respond to questions about product–firm compatibility in the NPD process.