5.4.2.2 Concepts
The concepts of interest in this study are:
■
type of product innovation;
■
success;
■
organizational configuration. In this study we consider six types of innovation to components of a
larger product e.g. Henderson and Clark, 1990; Teece, 1996: 1. incremental innovation for core components;
2. incremental innovation for peripheral components; 3. modular innovation;
4. architectural innovation for core components; 5. architectural innovation for peripheral components;
6. radical innovation.
These types of innovation are defined by the extent of component change incremental or radical, the extent of change to the interface
between the component and the rest of the product incremental or radical, and the distinction between core and peripheral components
for innovations that involve incremental component change. Table 5.3 shows how we define the six types of innovation.
The extent of component change reflects the level of uncertainty regarding the component’s underlying technologies. Radical compon-
ent change pertains to a component based on entirely new technolo- gies. This causes a high level of uncertainty since it is very likely that
many technical problems need to be solved. In contrast, incremental
Table 5.3
Six types of innovation that change a product’s components and interfaces
Component change Incremental, core Incremental,
Radical peripheral
Incremental Incremental Incremental
Modular innovation for
innovation for innovation
core components peripheral
Product components
interface Radical
Architectural Architectural
Radical change
innovation for innovation for
innovation core components
peripheral components
component change reinforces the existing technologies underlying a component and is therefore surrounded by a low level of uncertainty.
The extent of interface change reflects the level of interdependence between the component and other components of the product.
Radical interface change pertains to the creation of entirely new link- ages between components. This causes a high level of interdepend-
ence since it is very likely that this affects all interrelated components. In contrast, incremental interface change reinforces a component’s
existing interfaces, and is hence characterized by a low level of inter- dependence. The distinction between peripheral and core components as
made by Gatignon et al. 2002 shows that core components are strategically important to the company andor tightly coupled with
other components. In contrast, peripheral components are loosely coupled andor their strategic importance is limited.
Success is defined relative to the project’s aims and expectations. It is defined as a result that is as initially expected, or better.
In our theory, the organizational configuration for product innovation projects is built from four building blocks or organizational dimen-
sions Jaspers and Van den Ende, 2006: 1. coordination integration: the extent that the firm coordinates
the innovation project; 2. ownership integration: the extent that the firm controls the
innovation project; 3. task integration: the extent that the firm performs the tasks in
the innovation project; and 4. knowledge integration: the extent that the firm acquires
in-depth knowledge about the innovation. These organizational building blocks can be combined into a wide range
of organizational configurations. At one extreme, complete integration is characterized by a high value on each organizational dimension. This
resembles an organizational form in which the firm performs and con- trols the innovation project on its own, extensively coordinates the innov-
ation process, and absorbs all new knowledge that is being generated in the innovation project. At the other extreme, no integration is character-
ized by a low value on each dimension and means that the innovation project is performed and owned by one or more firms external to the
focal firm. In addition, there is no coordination between the firm and the external firms that perform the innovation project. Neither does
the firm acquire knowledge about this project. Because, in principle, the four dimensions are to a large extent independent of each other, many
more configurations exist besides these two extreme configurations.
5.4.2.3 Proposition
Based on a review of the innovation management literature, we theor- etically constructed a typology of six organizational configurations,
each of which corresponded to one type of innovation for more details see Jaspers and Van den Ende, 2005. Table 5.4 presents the
typology.
Table 5.4
Typology of ideal organizational configurations for product innovation success
Incremental core Incremental peripheral
Radical component component change
component change change
Incremental Coordination:
L Coordination: L
Coordination: L
interface Task:
H Task: L
Task: L
change Ownership:
H Ownership:
L Ownership: L
Knowledge: H
Knowledge: L
Knowledge: H
Radical Coordination:
H Coordination:
H Coordination: H
interface Task:
H Task:
L Task: M
change Ownership:
H Ownership:
L Ownership: H
Knowledge: H
Knowledge: H
Knowledge: H
L ⫽ low, M ⫽ medium, H ⫽ high
In our theory each ideal typical configuration of coordination inte- gration, ownership integration, task integration, and knowledge inte-
gration is assumed to be a necessary condition for the success of each respective type of innovation. In other words, we assume that suc-
cessful projects need to have, at the very least, the predicted organ- izational configuration. Deviation from this ideal type is unlikely to
result in a high performing innovation project. Reflecting a neces- sary condition, the proposition that we want to test in this study is the
following.
Proposition: A product innovation project can only be successful if the project has its ideal typical organizational configuration.
5.4.2.4 Domain
We claim that our theory applies to all product innovation projects. It follows that the domain covered by the theory is the universe of all
instances of product innovation projects, without any restriction in terms of geography, economic sector, time, etc.
5.4.2.5 Conceptual model
The theory specifies, for each of the six types of product innovation projects, the relation between the organizational configuration inde-
pendent concept and success dependent concept.
In the theory, it is assumed that the success of each type of product innovation depends on the organizational configuration, as formu-
lated in the proposition.
5.4.3 Research objective
The objective of this research is to contribute to the development of theory about the relation between the organizational configuration of
product innovation projects and the success of these projects by testing the following new proposition.
Proposition: A product innovation project can only be successful if the project has its ideal typical organizational configuration.
5.4.4 Research strategy
The proposition specifies a necessary condition for success. Therefore the case study strategy is the preferred strategy. The proposition pre-
dicts that success will only occur when the condition stated in the proposition is present. This means that this proposition can be
tested by assessing whether the assumed necessary condition has indeed been present in successful projects. The proposition will
be rejected if success also occurs in the absence of this condition. A single such instance would be sufficient for such a rejection, in
principle.
Organizational configuration
Success
5.4.5 Candidate cases
The object of study to which our theory applies is product innovation projects. Hence, in order to test our typology we need to identify
instances of product innovation projects. Because it is sufficient for our purposes to find a single innovation project of a specific type that was
successful in the absence of the conditions specified by our typology, any such instance would suffice. It could be a project from any com-
pany and in any sector.
5.4.6 Case selection
For reasons of convenience, we conducted a first test of our theory in one industry mobile telecommunications in one country the
Netherlands. In 2002 and 2003 we studied 30 innovation projects of mobile telecommunications applications. We identified these cases
through news articles and websites and also by contacting key industry participants, such as all Dutch mobile network operators. Examples of
new products or services in this industry are mobile games, location- based services, mobile office solutions, and mobile commerce applica-
tions. These projects were selected in such a way that variation in the type of innovation was obtained. In particular we wanted to make sure
that a number of radical innovation projects was included, because these are relatively rare.
For testing our necessary condition proposition we needed to select cases on the basis of the dependent concept success of the product
innovation project. Before we could know which projects eventually would be included as cases, we had to determine which projects were
successful. Successful projects were then categorized according to innovation type, and it was hoped that in each category there would be
at least one successful project.
5.4.7 Hypothesis
For all selected innovation projects we specified the hypothesis as follows.
Hypothesis: In all selected successful projects the ideal typical organizational configuration is present.
Kategori