hh.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 21 of 21
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Florén, Henrik
    et al.
    Halmstad University, School of Business, Engineering and Science, Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Frishammar, Johan
    Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    From Preliminary Ideas to Corroborated Product Definitions: Managing the Front End of New Product Development2012In: California Management Review, ISSN 0008-1256, E-ISSN 2162-8564, Vol. 54, no 4, p. 20-43Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Front-end activities largely influence the outcomes of new product development processes, because it is here that firms create new ideas, give them direction, and set them in motion. We show that the front end can be understood as comprising three core activities: idea/concept development, idea/concept alignment, and idea/concept legitimization, which allow firms to create corroborated product definitions. The paper provides important implications for managers interested in front-end management, and devote specific attention to the differences between incremental and radical front end development and to the front end in the light of increasingly open innovation processes. 

  • 2. Florén, Henrik
    et al.
    Frishammar, Johan
    Research Note: What is the ‘fuzzy front end’, why is it important, and how can it be managed?2013In: Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change / [ed] Joe Tidd & John Bessant, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2013, 5, p. 418-420Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 3.
    Frishammar, Johan
    Halmstad University, School of Business, Engineering and Science, Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Characteristics in information processing approaches2002In: International Journal of Information Management, ISSN 0268-4012, E-ISSN 1873-4707, Vol. 22, no 2, p. 143-156Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper describes and compares different information processing approaches (terms). The purpose is to identify similarities and differences in the terms, relate them to and compare them with each other, but also to identify their underlying concepts and the course of events they represent. The terms or approaches addressed are Environmental scanning, Business, Competitive, Competitor, Market and Political intelligence, Marketing research and Information management. It was concluded that all approaches have a strong future orientation and strong ties to decision-making, and advocate that information is ennobled in one way or the other. The main differences lie in their focus, and in their scope. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

  • 4.
    Frishammar, Johan
    Halmstad University, School of Business, Engineering and Science, Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Information use in strategic decision making2003In: Management Decision, ISSN 0025-1747, E-ISSN 1758-6070, Vol. 41, no 4, p. 318-326Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper addresses the issue of information use in strategic decision making. The study employs a case study as a research strategy together with personal interviews and documentation as means of data collection. The starting-point is four specific strategic decisions recently made by medium-sized companies in Sweden. The study provides the reader with an insight into management information behaviour when taking strategic decisions, by addressing questions such as: Why is information used? What kind of information does management use? How do they obtain it? And finally, where do they obtain it? In addition, a short review of the literature pertaining to the above stated questions is provided.

  • 5.
    Frishammar, Johan
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Managing Information in New Product Development: A Literature Review2005In: International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), ISSN 0219-8770, Vol. 2, no 3, p. 259-275Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The new product development (NPD) process is frequently described as a sequence of information processing activities, but "information in NPD" occupies a broader conceptual space than the reduction of uncertainty. This article reviews the area of "information in NPD" by examining the literature on environmental scanning, market orientation, gatekeepers, cross-functional integration, and information use. It is argued that we can understand the process of managing information in terms of three steps: Acquiring, sharing and using. A tentative framework for this area is proposed, and managerial implications resulting from this literature review and tentative frame are outlined and presented.

  • 6.
    Frishammar, Johan
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Towards a theory of managing information in new product development2005Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This thesis deals with various information aspects of new product development (NPD). In total, the thesis consists of 6 research articles appended in full, and an introductory text that integrates and theorizes with and from these papers.

    The first paper is a review article examining the literature on and role of information in NPD. The main argument put forward here is that information processing can be understood in terms of three steps: acquiring, sharing, and using information. The second paper is a largescale survey that examines the relationship between market and entrepreneurial orien-tation and performance in NPD. A market orientation is to a large extent about acquiring, disseminating and using market information, while an entrepreneurial orientation partly is about ignoring such information, and instead trying to be innovative, proactive, and take risks. The results show that a market orientation and innovativeness are positively related to NPD performance, and that neither product nor environmental characteristics moderate these relationships. The third paper is also a survey, and investigates the extent to which management of external information is associated with innovation performance. The main findings are that scanning the technological sector of the environment was positively associated with innovation performance, while scanning customers, suppliers, and competitors proved to be negatively correlated with innovation performance. Crossfunctional integration in the form of collaboration as well as using information from the industry environment also proved to be positively related to innovation performance.

    The last three papers have a centre of gravity in “management of information & environ-ment”, and not so much in new product development per se. Paper four describes and com-pares different information processing approaches (e.g. environmental scanning, marketing research) in order to identify their similarities and differences, but also their underlying con-cepts and the course of events they represent. The main conclusion is that differences exist primarily in terms of focus and scope. Paper five is a review and tentative integration of different perspectives in organization – environment research: the adaptive, the resource-dependence, the cognitive and the population-ecology perspective. The review identifies differences and similarities among these perspectives, suggests tentative conclusions on why the adaptive perspective is so frequently utilized at the expense of the other three, and suggests constructivism as a feasible avenue for combining and integrating these perspectives. Finally, the sixth and final paper deals with information use in the context of strategic decisionmaking. With a case study approach, the questions of why information is used, what kind of information is used, where it is obtained, and how it is obtained were addressed, and the results from this paper are mainly descriptive.

    The purpose of the introductory text is two-fold. In addition to providing integration of the appended papers, the main purpose is theory construction (i.e. elicitation of constructs and propositions). In the introduction, all six appended papers together with a new literature search and a new pilot case study are used to generate propositions about management of information, information sources, and the need for cross-functional integration in three different phases of the NPD process. In addition, suggestions regarding theoretical connections are made. The introduction text concludes with reflections, managerial implications, limitations, and future research.

  • 7.
    Frishammar, Johan
    et al.
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Andersson, Svante
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL), Centre for Technology, Innovation and Marketing Management (CTIM2).
    Role of Strategic Orientations for International Performance in Smaller Firms2006In: McGill Conference on international Entrepreneurship, 2006Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 8.
    Frishammar, Johan
    et al.
    Division of Entrepreneurship and Industrial Management, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Andersson, Svante
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    The overestimated role of strategic orientations for international performance in smaller firms2009In: Journal of International Entrepreneurship, ISSN 1570-7385, E-ISSN 1573-7349, Vol. 7, no 1, p. 57-77Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This article examines how market orientation (MO) and entrepreneurial orientation (EO) relate to international performance in small firms. Empirically, the article draws on survey data from 188 Swedish SMEs. Results show that strategic orientations have a very limited influence on international performance in these firms. Proactiveness and, to some extent, a market orientation proved positively associated with international performance, while innovativeness and risk taking show no such relationship. Our findings highlight the problems associated with using “traditional” MO and EO constructs in an SME setting and point to the need of developing more appropriate constructs tailored to this context. We also note that the MO construct was developed from a “causal view” of marketing, while successful small international firms rely more on effectuation logic. The article also contributes to the debate between the two dominant perspectives that address firms’ early internationalization processes: the process theory of internationalization and the international new venture perspective, where our results are in favor of the latter.

  • 9.
    Frishammar, Johan
    et al.
    Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Florén, Henrik
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Research Note: What is the “fuzzy front end”, why is it important, and how can it be managed?2009In: Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change / [ed] Joe Tidd, John Bessant & Keith Pavitt, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2009, 4, p. 341-343Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 10.
    Frishammar, Johan
    et al.
    Center for Management of Innovation and Technology in Process Industry (Promote), Luleå University of Technology, Sweden.
    Florén, Henrik
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Where New Product Development Begins: Success Factors, Contingencies and Balancing Acts in the Fuzzy Front End2008In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Management of Technology, IAMOT 2008, 2008, p. 47-Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In light of the increasing attention to predevelopment activities in new product development, this paper reviews the literature on the “fuzzy front end” (FFE). By means of an extensive literature study, we identify, describe and analyze 17 important success factors for organizing and managing the FFE. Our findings first highlight which success factors firms need to excel in when managing and organizing the FFE. Second, the findings show that focusing these factors is not sufficient as such, as interdependencies among factors call for a broader approach. Therefore, relationships among factors and not just the factors per se need to be taken into account. Third, the paper identifies key contingencies requiring adjustment of the FFE process at the firm level. Furthermore, the paper draws attention to several “balancing acts” which impose on firms a trade-off among important variables, where maximizing one dimension may imply the minimizing on another. The paper ends with additional post-hoc analysis of the literature, followed by implications for the scholarly literature as well as management practice.

  • 11.
    Frishammar, Johan
    et al.
    Center for Management of Innovation and Technology in Process Industry, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden.
    Florén, Henrik
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Joakim, Wincent
    Division of Entrepreneurship, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden.
    Patterns of Uncertainty and Equivocality during Predevelopment: Findings from Process‐Based Firms2009In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Management of Technology, 2009, p. 14-Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Previous literature suggests that innovation managers should prioritize uncertainty reduction in early phases of innovation projects. When uncertainty is high, the general prediction is negative consequences in the form of time‐delays, waste of resources, unclear team vision and, ultimately, concept failure. There are strong reasons to believe, however, that simultaneous management of equivocality is equally important, but this concept has largely been neglected in previous research. By means of a case‐study relying upon exploratory interviews addressing unique observations of 58 innovation projects, we notice that the perhaps most significant challenge for being successful or not is not the initial levels of uncertainty. Rather, it is managerial attempts to actively fight for reducing uncertainty but also addressing the equivocality dimension in the pre‐development stages of the innovation process. We observe reduced patterns of uncertainty and equivocality in successful product innovation and process innovation projects in pre‐development stages. This was not the case for unsuccessful projects. Similarly, we find significantly lower levels of equivocality for successful projects, which is a contribution to prior research suggesting that uncertainty is the major concern during predevelopment. Moreover, our results show that perceived patterns of uncertainty and equivocality differ between product innovation and process innovation projects in different sub‐phases of pre‐development. Key results are summarized as propositions which not only provide guidance for future research, but also provide direct managerial implications on how to address uncertainty and equivocality in different sub‐phases of predevelopment.

  • 12.
    Frishammar, Johan
    et al.
    Luleå University of Technology.
    Florén, Henrik
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Wincent, Joakim
    Luleå University of Technology.
    Beyond Managing Uncertainty: Insights from Studying Equivocality in the Fuzzy Front-End of Product and Process Innovation Projects2011In: IEEE transactions on engineering management, ISSN 0018-9391, E-ISSN 1558-0040, Vol. 58, no 3, p. 551-563Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Previous research has shown uncertainty reduction to be critical in the fuzzy front end of the innovation process, but little attention has been given to the equally important concept of equivocality, although it is a defining characteristic of many front-end projects. To address this research gap, this paper report the resultsfrom a longitudinal, multiple case study of four large companiesoriented to both product and process innovation. First, our results show that both uncertainty and equivocality is more effectively reduced in successful front-end projects than in unsuccessful ones. Second, the negative consequences of equivocality appear more critical to front-end performance than the consequences following uncertainty. Third, our results show that uncertainty and equivocality are reduced sequentially in successful projects and simultaneously in unsuccessful projects. Finally, uncertainty and equivocality takes longer time to reduce in process innovation projects than in product innovation projects, which is a consequence of the systemic nature of process innovation. Altogether, these findings provide strong implications for managing front-end projects more proficiently.

  • 13.
    Frishammar, Johan
    et al.
    Luleå University of Technology.
    Hörte, Sven Åke
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    The role of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation for new product development performance in manufacturing firms2007In: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, ISSN 0953-7325, E-ISSN 1465-3990, Vol. 19, no 6, p. 765-788Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The overall purpose of this article is to examine the relationships between two strategic orientations and performance in new product development. The first orientation considered is market orientation; the second one considered is entrepreneurial orientation, which reflects a firm's propensity to innovate, to be proactive, as well as its willingness to take risks. Drawing upon a sample of 224 mid-sized manufacturing firms, multiple regressions with and without interaction terms were used for testing seven hypotheses. The results show that a market orientation and innovativeness were positively related to performance in new product development, while proactiveness and risk taking show no such relationship. The results also show that neither product characteristics nor environmental characteristics moderate these relationships. In terms of implications, our results suggest that contradictory and to some extent paradoxical capabilities are needed to increase performance in new product development, and that the different components of an entrepreneurial orientation do not impact new product development performance equally.

  • 14.
    Frishammar, Johan
    et al.
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Hörte, Sven-Åke
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL).
    Managing External Information in Manufacturing Firms: The Impact on Innovation Performance2005In: The Journal of product innovation management, ISSN 0737-6782, E-ISSN 1540-5885, Vol. 22, no 3, p. 251-266Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Drawing upon a sample of 206 medium-sized manufacturing firms, this article investigates the extent to which management of external information is associated with innovation performance. The overall purpose of the article is to examine whether or not those organizations that are better at managing external information are also those that are the better innovators. The research strategy used was a survey, and data were collected by means of mail questionnaires (with a 62.4% response rate). A multiple regression analysis was used for hypothesis testing. The results show that scanning the technological sector of the environment was positively associated with innovation performance, while scanning customers, suppliers, and competitors proved to be negatively correlated with innovation performance. Cross-functional integration in the form of collaboration also proved significantly correlated with innovation performance, while interaction showed no such relationship. Further, decision-making based on information from the industry environment correlated significantly with innovation performance. Research and managerial implications of these findings are presented and are discussed.

  • 15.
    Frishammar, Johan
    et al.
    Entrepreneurship and Innovation Group, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden.
    Lichtenthaler, Ulrich
    University of Mannheim, Department of Management and Organization, Mannheim, Germany .
    Rundquist, Jonas
    Halmstad University, School of Business, Engineering and Science, Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL), Centre for Technology, Innovation and Marketing Management (CTIM2).
    Identifying technology commercialization opportunities: the importance of integrating product development knowledge2012In: The Journal of product innovation management, ISSN 0737-6782, E-ISSN 1540-5885, Vol. 29, no 4, p. 573-589Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    New product development (NPD) is a knowledge-intensive activity, perhaps even more so in recent years given the shift toward more open innovation processes, which involve active inward and outward technology transfer. While the extant literature has established that knowledge is critical for NPD performance, knowledge generated through NPD can have an additional impact on external technology exploitationas when firms go beyond pure internal application of knowledge to commercialize their technologies, for example, by means of technology outlicensing. Grounded in the knowledge-based view of the firm, this paper examines how the integration of domain-specific knowledge, procedural knowledge, and general knowledge generated through NPD affects a firm's proficiency in identifying technology commercialization opportunities. Additionally, analysis of how technology opportunity identification relates to technology commercialization performance is provided. Empirically, the paper draws on survey data from 193 Swedish medium-sized manufacturing firms in four industries active with NPD, and regression analyses and structural equation modeling were used to test the hypotheses. The results highlight the importance of integrating domain-specific and general NPD knowledge to proficiently identify technology licensing opportunities. The empirical findings also provide strong support for a subsequent link between technology opportunity identification and technology commercialization performance. Altogether, these results point to strong and previously unexplored complementarities between inward and outward technology exploitation, that is, between NPD and technology licensing. As such, the results provide important theoretical implications for research into the fields of knowledge integration, technology exploitation, opportunity identification, and technology markets. Moreover, the results have significant managerial implications concerning how knowledge generated through NPD can help firms to achieve both strategic and monetary benefits when trying to profit from technology. In particular, to set up proficient technology commercialization processes, it appears beneficial for firms to integrate knowledge that is gained through the ordinary activities of developing and commercializing products. Specifically, the integration of domain-specific knowledge and general knowledge helps firms to match their technologies with new applications and markets, which is often the critical barrier to successful technology commercialization activities. Managers are thus encouraged to integrate domain-specific knowledge and general knowledge from NPD to reap additional benefits in profiting from investments in innovation and technology.

  • 16.
    Gama, Fábio
    et al.
    Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden & Department of Business Administration, Santa Catarina State University, Florianópolis, Brazil.
    Frishammar, Johan
    Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Parida, Vinit
    Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden & Department of Management, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland.
    Idea generation and open innovation in SMEs: When does market‐based collaboration pay off most?2019In: Creativity and Innovation Management, ISSN 0963-1690, E-ISSN 1467-8691, Vol. 28, no 1, p. 113-123Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) largely depend on proficient idea generation activities to improve their front‐end innovation performance, yet the liabilities of newness and smallness often hamper SMEs' ability to benefit from systematic idea generation. To compensate for these liabilities, many SMEs adopt an open innovation approach by collaborating with market‐based partners such as customers and suppliers. This study investigates the relationship between SMEs' systematic idea generation and front‐end performance and investigates the moderating role of market‐based partnership for SMEs. Drawing on a survey of 146 Swedish manufacturing SMEs, this study provides two key contributions. First, the systematic idea generation and front‐end performance relationship in SMEs is non‐linear. Accordingly, higher levels of front-end performance are achieved when idea generation activities are highly systematic. Second, the returns from higher levels of systematic idea generation are positively moderated by market‐based partnerships. Thus, external cooperation with customers and suppliers pays off most toward front‐end performance when SMEs have highly systematic idea generation processes. These results indicate a contingency perspective on the role of external partnerships. They also have implications for research into the front‐end of innovation and open innovation in the context of SMEs. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

  • 17.
    Gama, Fábio
    et al.
    Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Frishammar, Johan
    Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Parida, Vinit
    Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Idea Generation in SMEs: when does market-based partnership pay off most?2016Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) strongly depend on idea generation to improve the front-end of innovation performance, yet internal resource and capability limitations may hamper successful idea generation in SMEs. Therefore, many SMEs may choose to collaborate with market-based partners such as customers and suppliers to compensate for lack of internal resources. We ask when and under which circumstances does such collaboration provides’ highest benefit towards front-end innovation performance? By drawing on a survey of 142 Swedish manufacturing SMEs, this paper provides two key findings. First, systematic idea generation and front-end performance relationships is non-linear, such that disproportionally higher levels of performance are achieved when idea generation is highly systematic. Second, the pay-off from high level of idea generation is largely influenced by presence of market-based partners. Thus, our findings show that external collaboration in idea generation does not pay off unless SMEs have internal systematic processes for idea generation in place before external input is sought. This implies a contingency perspective on external collaboration and provides implications for research into the front-end of innovation and open innovation, in addition to novel managerial implications about how to better involve partners in idea generation and selection.

  • 18.
    Gama, Fábio
    et al.
    Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Sjödin, David
    Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Frishammar, Johan
    Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Managing interorganizational technology development: Project management practices for market‐ and science‐based partnerships2017In: Creativity and Innovation Management, ISSN 0963-1690, E-ISSN 1467-8691, Vol. 26, no 2, p. 115-127Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Firms are increasingly relying on collaborating with external partners to drive technology development. Many firms struggle with managing the inherently uncertain and ambiguous technology development process, especially with external actors involved, because they may not have or share the same project management practices concerning coordination and control activities. To address this gap, this study examines appropriate project management practices for market-based and science‐based partnerships in three large technology‐intensive firms. Our results suggest that interorganizational technology development is problematic because firms lack sufficient partner understanding and struggle with aligning their project management practices with those of their partners. To address these problems, we identify project management practices of coordination and control to fit the contingencies of each type of partner collaboration. Our results provide implications for theory and managerial practices related to managing interorganizational technology development. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

  • 19.
    Gama, Fábio
    et al.
    Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Sjödin, David
    Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Frishammar, Johan
    Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    Managing Open Technology Development: Adapting Stage-Gate Processes to Partner Types2015Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Firms are increasingly reliant on collaborating with external partners to drive their technology development efforts in light of increasing pace of development and global competition. However, many firms struggle with managing the inherently uncertain and ambiguous process of technology development with external actors because these may not share the same technological understandings, processes and goals. Accordingly, we argue that further research is required to better understand the management of joint projects with different types of partners within technology development. To fill this gap this study examines the adaptation of traditional stage-gate processes for technology development projects with science-based and market-based partners in three large technologies oriented firms. Our results shows that open technology development projects are often problematic because firms lack partner understanding and have difficulty aligning their development processes with external partners. To address these problems we found that our firms adapted their processes by implementing externally oriented stages, gates and roles to suit the contingencies of collaboration with science-based and market-based partners respectively. Our results provide implications for theory and management practice concerning the management of open innovation and stage-gate processes.

  • 20.
    Hörte, Sven-Åke
    et al.
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL), Centre for Technology, Innovation and Marketing Management (CTIM2).
    Barth, Henrik
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL), Centre for Technology, Innovation and Marketing Management (CTIM2).
    Chibba, Aron
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL), Centre for Technology, Innovation and Marketing Management (CTIM2).
    Florén, Henrik
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL), Centre for Technology, Innovation and Marketing Management (CTIM2).
    Frishammar, Johan
    Department of Business Administration and Management, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden.
    Halila, Fawzi
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL), Centre for Technology, Innovation and Marketing Management (CTIM2).
    Rundquist, Jonas
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL), Centre for Technology, Innovation and Marketing Management (CTIM2).
    Tell, Joakim
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL), Centre for Technology, Innovation and Marketing Management (CTIM2).
    Product Development in SMEs: A literature review2008In: International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning (IJTIP), ISSN 1740-2832, E-ISSN 1740-2840, E-ISSN 1740-2840, Vol. 4, no 3, p. 299-325Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Product Development (PD) in Small and medium-sized Firms (SMEs) is a long-neglected research area, and little cumulative work has been conducted previously. The purpose of this paper is to provide a first overview of the area of PD in SMEs. In doing so, we draw upon a sample of 149 peer-reviewed research papers selected from an initial sample of 5694 papers. The review provides tentative answers to issues such as the analytical and methodological approaches of the papers, which topics or areas of research have been focused on by previous scholars, and what kinds of topics that are well covered.

  • 21.
    Rundquist, Jonas
    et al.
    Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering (SET), Centre for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning Research (CIEL), Centre for Technology, Innovation and Marketing Management (CTIM2).
    Tell, Fredrik
    Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping, Sweden.
    Frishammar, Johan
    Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
    The Effects of Knowledge Integration on New Product Development Performance2011In: School of Business, NFF 2011 August 20-24, Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2011, p. 132-132Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The knowledge needed for development of new products is becoming increasingly complex and distributed. There is a need for firms to develop their capabilities for knowledge integration. Although prior knowledge-based literature has pointed to the importance of knowledge integration for competitive advantage, our understanding of how the integration of different types of knowledge affects new product development (NPD) performance is still limited. We quantitatively examine the effect of the integration of different types of knowledge on performance in NPD. Knowledge integration refers to the process of combining specialized but complementary knowledge. In this article we seek to study the effects of knowledge integration on NPD performance. Previous studies point to the positive effects of knowledge integration on NPD performance, but they do not distinguish between different types of knowledge in examining these effects. This article therefore seeks to contribute to this emerging literature by explicitly studying the integration of different types of knowledge and the effects that such integration have on NPD performance. We draw upon a classification of knowledge suggested by Ullman (1997) in discussing what types of knowledge that is particularly pertinent in engineering practices. That is, what knowledge engineers draw upon in conducting design and development work. We address the types of domain-specific knowledge, procedural knowledge, and general knowledge integration. Three hypotheses suggesting that the capabilities for integration of each type of knowledge respectively affect NPD performance positively are tested. A fourth hypothesis suggests that there are complementarity effects between integration of the three types of knowledge upon NPD performance. Data was collected during 2009 from a sampling frame of 355 medium-sized Swedish manufacturing firms in four industries. We received 193 valid answers, i.e. a 54% response rate) Hypotheses were tested with standard OLS regression together with EFA and CFA analysis. The results provide support for the first three hypotheses, while the fourth one was rejected. This implies that capabilities to integrate domain-specific, procedural and general knowledge are all independently affecting NPD performance positively, but no combined effect above and beyond the individual variables. This indicates that one knowledge type can be integrated without an absolute need to integrate two types or all three types.

1 - 21 of 21
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf