Narrow Results

This paper explores the drivers of innovation in family firms. Using contingency theory as our theoretical lens, we investigate how contingency factors (“where”, “how”, and “what”) relate to the development of innovation strategies, and how family firm idiosyncrasies affect the development of these innovation strategies. Using four multi-generational family firm case studies, the data collection consisted of 21 interviews and 1,496 items of archival data. We identify five specific elements of family firm innovation strategies (vision and culture alignment, generational approaches, change strategy, future orientation, and shared decision-making). We show how innovation strategy in family firms is contingent on three factors: “Where”: willingness to innovate; “How”: structures and processes needed to innovate; and “What”: capabilities and resources needed to innovate, and that these are influenced by idiosyncratic characteristics of family firms (familiness, founder influence, and succession).

This paper analyzes how simultaneous involvement by multiple functions in the development of service products affects performance. Early simultaneous involvement entails input from the outset by all relevant functions, especially those representing downstream competencies. Given that cross-functional involvement is time consuming and costly, one may hypothesize that its best for high performance only to the extent needed, such as at early stages of development or under the condition of novelty.

The impact of simultaneous involvement on performance is measured as time compression and cost reduction. The contributions of ten functions are examined at three stages of a development cycle: (1) product concept; (2) product release; and (3) after sale. How product innovation strategy moderates the impact of simultaneous influence on performance, measured as time compression and cost reduction, is examined for three product innovation strategies: new, major modifications, and minor modifications.

Results from analyzing 62 service enterprises in New York show that simultaneous involvement by multiple functions has the strongest main effects on performance at the earliest stage of the product concept. But, it also has weaker effects after initial sale. If the product innovation strategy is one of novelty, simultaneous involvement by multiple functions has interactions with performance throughout the development cycle. Some functions appear to be a kind of core team that is involved throughout. Others play more stage specific roles.

If the product innovation strategy involves a lesser magnitude of innovation, levels of simultaneous involvement are either lower and/or do not have positive interactions with performance. These results are generally consistent with contingency theory that suggests the level of coordination and integration is affected by the novelty and uncertainty of the task environment.

These results parallel those observed studies of goods industries. However, the level of augmentation of service products after initial sale, especially those involving interpersonal exchanges and transactions, appears higher than for more tangible goods.

In this paper, we develop and test a firm-level contingency model of inbound open innovation in an attempt to contribute to explaining the substantial disparities in open innovation payoff that exist between firms. Integrating elements from the resource- and knowledge-based views and the absorptive capacity literature, we propose that specific innovation management activities can play an important moderating role as they are likely to enhance firms' capacity to identify, assimilate and utilise external knowledge inputs. Drawing on longitudinal data from 1,170 German manufacturing and service firms, econometric analyses reveal that returns from open innovation are greatest when firms maintain their internal research capacity, employ a dedicated incentive system for innovation and advocate strong cross-functional collaboration. Decision-makers are thus well advised not to take positive returns from open innovation for granted. Rather, they need to achieve excellence in key innovation management activities, if their firm is to fully harness the value of openness.