In this article, we develop a conceptual model of stakeholder integration in new product development (NPD) that (i) explains the drivers of the process and (ii) proposes a framework of capabilities that firms need for successful stakeholder integration. The focus lies on external stakeholders that directly influence the adoption of new products. We conduct a systematic literature review and content analyze a sample of 96 peer-reviewed journal articles. The study is restricted to the medical device industry to enable the use of specific search terms and the consistent categorization of information. We dedicate a section to showing how the framework applies to other settings. The drivers of stakeholder integration are classified into push factors (i.e., expected benefits for the focal firm) and pull factors (i.e., expected benefits for the stakeholders). This study provides an initial model of how stakeholder integration works based on its drivers. In addition, three related stakeholder integration capabilities emerge: stakeholder identification capability, stakeholder interaction capability and stakeholder input integration capability. The paper proposes a description of these capabilities for stakeholder integration in NPD and, thus, contributes to stakeholder theory and research on the management of NPD. The results open new paths for empirical testing and offer practical guidance on how to successfully integrate stakeholders in NPD processes.

Innovations in health care are costly and risky, but they also provide the opportunity for hospitals to increase quality of care, to distinguish themselves from competitors and to attract patients. While numerous hospitals strive to increase their innovativeness by adopting a costly innovation leader strategy, the question of whether this actually influences the patient's choice remains unanswered. To understand the role of innovativeness from the patient perspective, this study conceptualizes the construct of innovativeness reputation of hospitals and determines its relevance in patients' hospital choice decisions. In the pretest, we identified six dimensions of innovativeness reputation such as progressive work procedures and value added services. We then used three different quantitative multi-criteria decision-making methods to evaluate the relative importance of innovativeness reputation in patient choice. We collected data from 355 former German patients who had undergone elective non-emergency surgery. Overall, innovativeness reputation accounts for 11.6%-16.8% of the patient decision. Innovativeness reputation has a moderate influence on hospital choice and should be taken into account by managers. Since technical innovations are costly, hospitals should use other means to enhance their innovative image. Strategies such as emphasizing value added services can enable hospitals to increase their innovativeness reputation efficiently.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract