a b s t r a c tBased on a survey study of 155 U.S. firms, we conducted a firm-level assessment of the impact of different kinds of structures (i.e., functional versus cross-functional) in different kinds of new product development (NPD) processes (i.e., incremental versus radical) on different kinds of firm innovation performance (i.e., derivative versus breakthrough). We observe that most firms opt for similar structures for their incremental and radical NPD processes. At the same time, though, we find strong evidence that (1) firms that apply a cross-functional structure for the radical NPD process perform significantly better in terms of breakthrough innovation performance than firms that apply a functional structure for the radical NPD process and (2) firms that apply a functional structure for the incremental NPD process perform significantly better in terms of derivative innovation performance than firms that apply a cross-functional structure for the incremental NPD process. These latter findings point to the relevance of adopting structural ambidexterity, where firms make an explicit distinction between incremental and radical NPD processes and organize them in a different way.

Studies of new product development (NPD) have identified a variety of factors that influence cycle time, but most of these findings are based on case studies of individual firms. The few empirical studies that have attempted to examine the generalizability of these findings have tended to focus on one set of decisions (e.g., product strategy decisions) without considering the impact of organizational variables. To address this gap in the literature, this paper examines the impact on perceived cycle time of six variables that reflect a business unit's NPD strategy, NPD environment, product strategy, and NPD processes. The study also examines whether the impact of each of these antecedent variables is independent of the remaining variables. Contingency theory implies that cycle time performance will reflect the internal consistency of multiple contingencies and multiple structural characteristics. This implication is tested by evaluating the incremental explanatory power of two distance variables: one based on a theoretically defined ideal profile; and a second based on an empirically defined ideal profile. This analysis is important, because it permits a test of the proposition that understanding the pattern of contextual and structural variables adds additional insight to the understanding of cycle time performance. The analysis, based on data collected from 164 firms, indicates that the development of a formal NPD strategy, the creation of an appropriate climate for innovation, and the use of cross-functional teams all contributed to improved perceptions of satisfactory cycle times. It was also found that executives in business units with broad product lines were less likely to perceive their cycle times as satisfactory. Contrary to expectations, an increasing emphasis on products involving breakthrough core processes was found to increase perceptions of satisfactory cycle times. Moreover, the use of heavyweight project managers had no significant impact on cycle time perceptions. The study also found no evidence to indicate that deviations from either a theoretically or an empirically defined ideal profile lengthen perceived cycle time.

Lévi‐Strauss’ concept of bricolage has been used widely in a variety of management and organizational studies to highlight creative ‘situational tinkering’. Yet, we know little about ‘the bricoleur’ beyond the assumption of a functional agent responding to conditions of resource scarcity or environmental complexity. As such, studies offer limited possibilities in explaining the occurrence of bricolage in the absence of external demands, or much about who the bricoleur is. Drawing on 136 in‐depth interviews with management consultants, this study argues for a richer understanding of bricolage by exploring the identity of the bricoleur. In doing so, the paper achieves three outcomes. First, it uses the original symbolic and cultural insights of bricolage made by Lévi‐Strauss to detail how bricoleur identities are constructed; Second, it highlights how different organizational strategies enable and constrain the pursuit of bricoleur identities; Finally, it emphasizes the bricoleur's status as primarily an aspirational elite identity in the context of consultancy work, in contrast to its usual treatment as a ‘low status’ activity.

A majority of performing arts organizations active in classical music, theatre, and contemporary dance rely on funding from “third parties” in order to organize productions in a recurrent manner. We adopt an entrepreneurial perspective to inform the debate on the economic sustainability of performing arts organizations: Is it a “deficit” in entrepreneurial orientation that condemns these organizations to financial dependence? Relying on a comparative case study design (n = 12), we distill a process model of performing arts entrepreneurship (PAE), which we compare with insights on innovative entrepreneurship. Our findings reveal that it is neither a lack of entrepreneurial dynamics nor the presence of opposing logics that creates dependence on multiple revenue streams. The introduction of a second revenue stream follows from adhering to artistic distinctiveness. Implications for practice and theory are elaborated.

There is a growing interest in innovation ecosystems. Embedding innovation processes in ecosystems comes with several opportunities and managerial challenges. This paper's aim is to increase our understanding of the strategies that industrial firm managers use to deal with innovation ecosystems. How do they align partners and activities while securing and developing their role in the ecosystem? Drawing on 98 interviews with CEOs, CTOs and innovation managers in Germany and the Netherlands, we identify two layers in innovation ecosystems: an explorative layer, which is open and aimed at identifying opportunities for innovation, and an exploitative layer, which is semi‐closed and aimed at enacting these opportunities to create new value propositions for customers. We analyse how companies act upon these two layers productively, particularly in relation to alignment and strategic positioning; how they create synergies between the different layers; and how they cope with the existing tensions. Furthermore, we discuss differences in strategic choices regarding ecosystem strategies, and propose a maturity model for the development of innovation ecosystem strategies.