Research suggests that a strong focus on quality improvement can adversely affect exploration and thus the development of innovative new products. The focus on quality improvement including total quality management (TQM) has been termed quality orientation. The literature suggests that one way to reduce the adverse effect of a quality orientation on innovativeness is to adopt ambidextrous or dual organizational forms. However, dual organizational forms are cumbersome and expensive to implement. This paper argues that a less demanding structural arrangement for developing innovative products in quality-oriented organizations involves the creation of cross-functional teams that are explicitly encouraged to take risk and granted autonomy. In this model, the two dimensions of innovativeness-namely, novelty and appropriateness-are treated separately because quality orientation and encouragement to take risk can have differential effects on these two dimensions. A survey of 141 new product development projects reveals that quality orientation does not adversely affect product novelty in cross-functional product development teams. However, encouragement given to cross-functional teams to take risk leads to more novel products. On the other hand, while a quality orientation improves product appropriateness, encouragement to take risk affects it adversely. Quality orientation is able to mitigate the adverse effect of encouragement to take risk on appropriateness. But encouragement to take risk does not influence the relationship between a quality orientation and novelty. Autonomy improves the positive effect of encouragement to take risk on new product novelty but does not influence the effect of a quality orientation on novelty. Both novelty and appropriateness enhance a new product's performance, and both these dimensions of innovativeness partially mediate the effect of quality orientation and fully mediate the effect of encouragement to take risk on new product performance.

This research addresses three questions: (1) To what extent do new-to-the-firm products (with market and technology newness) face resistance in winning approval for development during the review process? (2) To what degree does product development teams' use of micropolitical strategies help reduce resistance and get approval with minimum compromise in the product? (3) To what extent do some of these micropolitical strategies harm the new product's performance? The findings suggest that products with both market and technology newness encounter resistance in getting approval for development. If the product development team wants to reduce resistance to products with market newness, it needs to build a coalition of supporters that can help it during the review process. Similarly, if the team seeks to minimize resistance to products with technology newness, it should frame the product in terms of the firms' existing products, strategies, and competitive thrusts. However, such framing increases resistance to market newness. If products continue to be resisted, they must be compromised (i.e., modified as a concession) to win approval. If the team wants to reduce the degree of compromise, it should initially develop the product in hiding. Products that are compromised perform poorly in the marketplace.

In hopes of improving the effectiveness of their new product development (NPD) processes, many firms increasingly are eager to adopt integrated web-based NPD systems for NPD. However, few would argue that the mere use of web-based NPD systems substantially will improve the NPD process. But we know little about how and when these systems can be used for enhancing NPD.An organization desiring to employ the web in its NPD process can use it at varying levels of functionality and sophistication, ranging from a tool for automating manual tasks and exchanging data to a means of integrating various intra-and interorganizational NPD functions and processes. At higher levels of technology sophistication or integration, an organization's NPD processes will get more integrated internally, i.e., between different stages of the NPD process and with the processes of its suppliers, technology providers, etc. Such integration of both internal and external NPD processes is considered important for successful innovation. Thus, on the surface, higher levels of web-based systems integration may seem universally desirable. However, each increasing level of integration brings with it higher costs-not only the costs of expensive technology but also costs of implementing a complicated system, redesigning intra-and interorganizational processes, disrupting the status quo, and spending management time and energy during implementation. Therefore, it may not be wise for firms to jump blindly on the web-based NPD bandwagon. High levels of web-based NPD systems integration may be created when low levels of integration may not deliver the desired results. Further, if such systems are installed without appropriate conditions within and outside the firm, it may not be possible to exploit their full potential. As such, it is important to know how much web-based NPD systems integration is suitable for different conditions.In this article, we develop a conceptual framework that focuses on how web-based NPD systems integration can influence the outcome of NPD and how the relationship between systems integration and outcomes can be affected by various contextual factors. For this purpose, we draw on research in areas such as NPD, web-based information systems, and organization theory and on many discussions we had with professionals and software vendors who deal with NPD and web-based NPD systems. The contextual factors of interest in this framework are strategic orientation of the firm, product-related factors, business environment, organizational factors, information technology factors, and partner-characteristics. Managerial and research implications of the framework are discussed.

No abstract

Background: The Pharmaceutical industry has always been fostered with a culture of radical innovation. Nevertheless, the significance of radical innovation is yet unrealized by the Indian pharmaceutical firms.  Introduction: The Indian pharma companies often seek immediate profit avenues rather than investing in radical innovation. They lead by imitation than innovation. This has been majorly due to the lax intellectual property laws in the country. Objectives: This paper ruminates on the significance of a stringent intellectual property regime and its impact on profitability and innovation. Result: The findings of the study indicate that increased R&D intensity enhances innovation. Furthermore, this relationship is bolstered in the presence of a stringent intellectual property regime. The findings also indicate that enhanced innovation activity increases the profitability of the firms. Conclusion: Innovation activity is enhanced in presence of a stricter intellectual property regime, and this indeed has a positive impact on the firm profitability as well. Hence, as the results of the study indicate, the pharmaceutical firms in India should be encouraged to invest in research and development, especially considering the stricter patent laws. It will help firms bolster their profitability and have a sustained competitive advantage in the industry.