Search Results

A university startup has a number of characteristics, many of which are common to any startup. Central to the startup is the business model, the mechanism by which the company will create, market, and sell products and services in exchange for money from the customer. In addition, university startups involve many discrete operations including technology development, product development, sales and marketing, and manufacturing. The university startup is set in the context of an ecosystem composed of the university, people, and money. The university provides the innovation, usually in the form of intellectual property by way of a license, around which the startup is formed. People provide the expertise, management, judgement, decision-making, advice, and connections essential for launching and growing a startup. Money is the fuel to build the startup. It comes in two basic forms: dilutive and non-dilutive. The former involving a sharing of the company ownership and the latter not.

Explores the links between a firm, region, or nation's production capabilities and productivity. Productivity is explained in terms of fundamental principles of production that underlie the organizational design of business enterprises and production systems. Industrial development, and enhanced competitiveness, is about making the transition to more advanced principles of production and associated levels of production capabilities. A ten‐scale production capabilities spectrum is presented to identify both where a firm or a region's firms fit in the world economy and the specific and critical challenges and opportunities to increased industrial productivity. The evolution of production principles and capabilities is illustrated with five examples of enterprises that established industrial leadership by the application of an enduring production principle: the American System of Manufacture and the principle of interchangeability; Ford and the principle of single‐product flow or mass production; Toyota and multi‐product flow or JIT; Canon and multi‐product flow applied to new product development; and Intel and systems integration.

This chapter discusses market opportunities, outlining how to identify market opportunities and to create new products and services to respond to customer needs. Part A reviews the main factor that triggers this search, namely, the need to grow. It explores various possibilities for growth. Two key growth-related issues bedevil marketing managers. One is that growth often leads to a blurring of focus. The second issue is the organization's capability to create new products or services. Part B discusses new product development (NPD), a proven way to drive markets and respond to the increasing expectations of customers. Part C provides a brief review of how consumers adopt new products and services. This discussion provides the first detailed look at one of the foundation concepts of marketing — market segmentation.

Emanating from the knowledge-based theory of the firm, this chapter elaborates on different processes for engineering knowledge integration in new product development (NPD). A theoretically derived analytical model, following the prerequisites given by deadlines and product architectures, outlines different processes for knowledge integration and longitudinal case studies at four manufacturing firms explore the dynamics of these processes. The case study results show that the emerging understanding of the task throughout the course of an NPD project may induce changes to managers' perceptions of knowledge integration processes and their applicability. Such changes may eventually overturn the way knowledge integration is managed within the project. These case study findings suggest that in NPD, contingency theory needs to allow for consistent adaptation of knowledge integration processes throughout NPD projects.

Companies that historically show product strategic focus perform considerably better over extended periods than those that implement multiple technologies and/or seek market diversity. This chapter closely examines the product strategy of high-technology companies and its connection to success using a separate group of studies to trace the full multiproduct sequences developed and marketed by a number or computer-related companies. It is divided into three sections. The first displays some of the author's own perspectives and convictions on the related field research studies. Next, the author describes a framework that evolved during the research for envisioning a company's product history in a manner that may reveal its de facto product strategy. The last section illustrates several of the statistical results from the field studies which support the importance of “strategic focus” in new product development to achieving success in the technological firm.

Solly Angel met with Ziggy Zee to discuss the new venture he proposed. He believed that there was still hope for the thin scale. Ziggy proposed that the two of them develop and design the scale together, getting it ready for manufacture in one year. They would have all the financial backing they needed. The deal started to take shape when they all met at the Chicago Housewares Exhibition. The Chicago meeting ended with an agreement to meet again in New York, by which time they would have prepared draft contracts for all to sign, as well as a development plan with a detailed budget. The plan charted the path to the completion of the development phase of the thin scale in one year from the day the contracts were signed and the first installment of funds was made available. Ken, an electronics engineer, sued Ziggy and Angel for non-payment of his out-of-control fees. They had to pay him out of their own pockets and, in due course, they did. And that was basically how the Home Products saga ended.

Numerous studies have explored the influence of firm size on the processes of technological innovation. Despite financial constraints and a limited knowledge base, small firms may possess a superior ability to innovate. In contrast, large firms often encounter systemic problems in transforming their extensive knowledge base to stimulate new innovations, despite the advantages of large research and development budgets, economies of scale and scope in production, and established links to customers. This chapter examines the nature of small firm advantages in building knowledge assets and organizational competence. Contrary to the assumption in economic reasoning that a large knowledge base is always an advantage, the limited knowledge base possessed by small entrepreneurial firms may be one of their key advantages. This advantage may be particularly significant when considered in the context of four other factors that are commonly observed in small firms: product development processes that more readily accommodate change and uncertainty; problem-solving heuristics that facilitate creative recombination of knowledge; close network ties between individuals that support transfers of non-codified knowledge; an internal organizational climate conducive to innovation.

This chapter focuses on the role of product development and marketing activities in shaping market relationships. The development of mass consumer products involves various qualification processes which are recurrent and concern different actors of the firm as well as outside partners. This coordination process implies temporary agreements between the actors about what is exchanged. In this ‘economy of judgements’, many definitions of product quality are produced throughout the product development and marketing processes. This suggests that there may be no need for a consensual agreement on a product's quality for exchange to take place. The chapter assumes an ethnographic perspective and details how these different activities produce a proliferation of qualifications of both products and consumers, which are essential to develop and market products.

This chapter explores the tendency of large established Japanese companies to innovate autarkicly, that is, to rely on their own in-house R&D laboratories for new prototype products and to try to maintain control over the upstream components of a vertically integrated value chain. It shows that the major Japanese pharmaceutical companies do innovate autarkicly while major US and European companies rely more on in-licensing from biotechnology companies and, to a lesser extent, universities. It also considers whether large Japanese companies in other industries also innovate autarkicly and looks at collaborations between large companies and universities.

Because of the way managers acknowledge the significance of knowledge and the entire knowledge-management movement to their organizations, these should play no small part in the formulation of the companies' business strategies. Strategic discussions have hitherto focused more on measurable objectives and results and narrowly defined ideas before even considering matters of knowledge creation. Although these strategies may aid in attaining short term growth, these will not allow companies to advance into new product areas or markets. Also, such strategies may not help the company in keeping up with the continuously expanding multinational transactions and product developments. Although knowledge may be attributed with a certain degree of uncertainty, creating new knowledge and finding new ways to effectively make use of this knowledge has undeniably made its mark as an essential element of business strategy.

For most technological firms, going public is a logical step in their continuing growth. The capital made available from public offerings helps fund accelerated product development programs, enables the broadening of their distribution channels, and generates financial strengthening through debt requirement. This chapter assesses the decision to “go public” by technological firms. It provides an in-depth analysis of this decision by entrepreneurs to seek public market funding, their search process for investment bankers/underwriters, the negotiations with the underwriters including the underwriters' decision criteria, and the outcomes of the public offerings, both in terms of stock performance and impacts upon the companies.

This chapter discusses the involvement of consumers in innovation. It presents two case studies which detail a number of interesting issues regarding ways that consumers become involved in new product development or longer-term research and development in the information and communication technology sector. In some cases, consumers have been actively involved during new product development. Much more common was later involvement, in the form of product testing and evaluation of interfaces. In other cases, consumers are ‘represented’ through perceptions of consumer behaviour built up by designers and product managers. Given that many product ideas stem from awareness of technological possibilities, consumer feedback is more often in the form of reaction to product proposals rather than generating them. Even in more incremental new product development projects, the information that is collected about consumers can become marginalised relative to other considerations. This chapter concludes that there is evidence of firms attempting to learn about consumers as input to their innovation processes, but that such efforts have so far been rather underdeveloped.

Product development projects typically comprise collaboration among participants who are strongly specialized or experienced in certain areas. Reaping the benefits of such a differentiated competence structure involves a process of collaborative knowledge integration and new knowledge creation. Yet, while the role of individual ingenuity and creativity has been extensively researched, interactive knowledge processes have received scant attention. This chapter focuses on the progression of such processes and suggests how they may be modelled within a framework grounded in evolutionary epistemology. The model pictures interactive knowledge creation processes in terms of preselection, variation, and selective retention, and we discuss how each of them may be associated with a core epistemological assumption. Furthermore, excerpts from product development projects in the telecom and pharmaceutical industries are used to illustrate the framework empirically.

Plastic rejects are plastics that cannot be recycled and are thus burned (causing harmful emissions) or landfilled. This chapter highlights the utilization of plastic rejects which are not recycled (a) because of their material structure, as in the case of thermosets, which do not melt once they are set and if they are burned they turn to ash; (b) because the rejects are made of mixed plastics with different properties and different characteristics; or (c) because they are contaminated and it is more expensive to clean and recycle them than to buy new raw materials, as in the case of black garbage bags. The discussions cover the recycling technology for plastic rejects; product development from plastic rejects; construction materials made from plastic rejects; and properties of materials made from plastic rejects.

In artistic perfumery, new perfumes are not based on last year’s top sellers, but on original, often unconventional ideas such as making a perfume that smells like melancholy. While this can sound promising to potential consumers, it poses a real challenge to the actors involved in the product development process: they need to organize their work in such a way that the immaterial, often deeply personal emotion can materialize into a concrete product. The chapter presents data from longitudinal, qualitative research on perfume making in artistic perfumery and outlines how the question of materializing the immaterial is approached by the creative director and two perfumers. Central to the chapter’s findings is a visual concept that serves as a material representation of the emotion. Throughout the process, it takes on different roles in response to the specific situational challenges (boundaries) and relationships in which it is embedded. Together, they define the relational movements that are necessary for the product’s becoming. The authors discuss insights and implications for understanding how materiality comes to matter in organization studies.

Many studies have reported astonishing statistics about the rate of introduction of new food products globally, with new products appearing probably at least every hour somewhere around the world, if not more frequently. If you could go into a food store anywhere in the world and somehow take a snapshot of the range of products on the shelf, then revisit it five years later and do a comparison of what you find, there would be a huge surprise in terms of the turnover. Many products will have disappeared, and many new ones will have appeared. For those that remain across this time span, there is a very high likelihood that they have changed in less visible ways, in terms of modifications to their formulation, package, or the process by which they are made. Even fresh foods like fruit, vegetables, meat, and fish are likely to have benefited from scientific advances in their production, quality, or transportation in an optimal state of quality and safety. Why is there such a high rate of change? There are two main drivers, one external to those who produce the food and that relates to the highly fluid and some­times unpredictable expectations and demand of consumers, and one more specific to the food producer that relates to new opportunities in technology, formulation, or scientific understanding. For any new product to be successful on the market requires two successful changes in behavior of consumers. The first is that, instead or as well as what they normally purchase, they need to buy to try a new product, and drop it into their basket or cart as a result of a planned or spontaneous decision to do so. To achieve this is primarily the responsibility of experts in marketing, who can divine what consumers want, develop a strategy accordingly, and then deploy the appropriate tools to bring the product to the attention of those who are most likely to buy the product, such as through promotions, advertisements, and probably, in today’s world, social media campaigns.

This chapter discusses the evolution of hospitality marketing over the past fifty years by reviewing key marketing developments by decade, particularly as seen through the pages of the Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. In the 1960s, developments in technology and marketing drove rapid changes in the hospitality industry. The founding and development of several national hotel chains brought on new standards and dramatically increased competition. From a marketing perspective, promotion was the prevailing theme. In the 1970s, product development and market research were the predominant themes. The trends in the 1980s were revenue management and brand development. The 1990s focused on customer satisfaction and loyalty. In the 2000s, the predominant theme was web marketing, followed by data-driven marketing in the 2010s. The chapter closes by exploring the possibilities that the next decade offers.

This chapter presents evidence that free innovation is a very substantial phenomenon with respect to the development of products consumed within the household sector. Today, tens of millions of consumers annually spend tens of billions of dollars creating and modifying products to better serve their own needs. In fact, aggregate household sector product development expenditures rival the scale of business sector expenditures by producers developing products for consumers. The chapter then shows how more than 90 percent of the developers of product innovations in the household sector meet both of the criteria for free innovation specified in the previous chapter. Finally, the chapter explores the nature of transaction-free self-rewards central to the viability of free innovation, and discusses why it can make economic sense for free innovators to reveal their innovations for free.