Journal of Product Innovation Management最新文献

{"title":"Sustainable Product Innovations: Perceived Company Motivations and Consumer Outcomes","authors":"Angeliki Kalogeraki, Sabine Kuester, Ludwig Bstieler","doi":"10.1111/jpim.70046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.70046","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Academic Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The prominence of environmental issues among consumers has led to the rapid development and launch of sustainable product innovations (SPIs). Developing SPIs can yield favorable financial outcomes for companies, but introducing these innovations requires major investments, while returns are highly uncertain. At the same time, positive consumer perceptions of SPIs are imperative for their success. Prior research suggests that SPIs with a higher degree of innovativeness experience faster innovation adoption. However, empirical research on the impact of radical versus incremental SPIs on consumer perceptions and the underlying mechanisms explaining these perceptions is scant. Drawing on attribution theory and conducting four consumer experiments and one meta-analysis, we examine whether and how consumers make internal and external attributions about companies' motivations behind introducing SPIs. The findings reveal that radical (vs. incremental) SPIs result in favorable consumer outcomes because consumers attribute intrinsic motivations to companies introducing such innovations, a relationship moderated by companies' sustainability reputation. In contrast, attributions of companies' extrinsic motivations do not play a significant role in this regard. This study contributes to the literature on the impact of SPI on consumer perceptions and outcomes. Furthermore, it provides managerial guidance to companies intending to introduce SPIs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>As environmental concerns grow, companies are under increasing pressure to develop sustainable products. Yet, not all sustainable product innovations (SPIs) are created equal and how consumers respond depends heavily on the type of innovation a company introduces. This research shows that radical SPIs (those that use entirely new technologies to create a sustainable product or to embed sustainability as a core product attribute) outperform incremental ones (those that modify existing products to improve eco-efficiency, replace harmful materials, or enhance recyclability) across a range of outcomes that matter to business: purchase intentions, willingness to pay, perceived company authenticity, and overall attitudes toward the company. The key reason is that consumers interpret radical SPIs as driven by genuine environmental commitment, whereas incremental changes are seen as business-as-usual responses to competitive or regulatory pressure. For managers, this means that investing in truly transformative sustainable innovations pays off not just environmentally, but commercially. Equally important is a company's sustainability reputation: firms with an established track record of environmental responsibility amplify thes","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":"43 5","pages":"827-844"},"PeriodicalIF":12.0,"publicationDate":"2026-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpim.70046","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148699893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Breakthrough Innovation Under Fire: Hedge Fund Activism and Firms' Mitigation Strategies","authors":"David Bendig,&nbsp;Colin Schulz,&nbsp;Christian Ketterer,&nbsp;Sebastian Kortmann","doi":"10.1111/jpim.70037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.70037","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Literature suggests that hedge fund activism is the most potent form of shareholder activism, often pressuring firms to prioritize shareholder value at the expense of innovation. Using a panel dataset of 302 listed U.S. firms with 2007 firm-year observations from 2008 to 2020, we explore this dynamic in the context of technology- and market-based breakthrough innovation, along with potential mitigation strategies. To better understand the interplay between stakeholder pressure and multiple stakeholder relationships, we link resource orchestration theory with team production theory. We argue that the negative influence of hedge fund activism on breakthrough innovation can be mitigated by greater career variety among top managers and greater relative tangibility of a firm's resource base. Our empirical findings broadly support these claims and suggest that adopting a more stakeholder-oriented perspective enhances understanding of how firms allocate resources to breakthrough innovation amid activist pressure.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This article examines how pressure from activist hedge funds relates to companies' ability to develop breakthrough innovations in the form of new products and services. We study large U.S. firms and track both hedge fund campaigns and subsequent innovation outcomes over time. Our results show that when activist hedge funds step in, firms tend to introduce less technologically advanced products in the following years. This suggests that strong short-term profit pressure can quietly shift portfolios away from high-risk, high-reward breakthrough innovation. However, the findings also show that top management teams whose members have worked across multiple functions (e.g., R&amp;D, marketing, operations, finance) are better equipped to mitigate the impact of activist hedge funds on innovation. In addition, firms with a higher share of tangible assets, such as plants and equipment, are less exposed to such impacts. Managers and policymakers may learn that hedge fund activism does not automatically kill breakthrough innovation, but rather increases the importance of broad managerial experience and robust, tangible resource bases to keep such innovation alive under investor scrutiny.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":"43 5","pages":"769-792"},"PeriodicalIF":12.0,"publicationDate":"2026-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpim.70037","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148699882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"After the Hype: Resilience Seeking in Emerging Technology Ecosystems","authors":"Fiona Schweitzer,&nbsp;Stacey L. Howard-Malek,&nbsp;Maximilian Palmié","doi":"10.1111/jpim.70047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.70047","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Academic Summary&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Hype often helps emerging technology ecosystems gain early support for their innovative value propositions, but the initial excitement around the technology typically vanishes at some point. This decrease in excitement and support may lead some ecosystems to fail while others are resilient and recover. With little research investigating the post-hype phase, our understanding of how firms in an emerging technology ecosystem try to recover from the loss of excitement and support remains limited. To overcome this limitation, our study explores the resilience-seeking process in the ecosystem of xReality (XR) technologies, encompassing augmented, virtual, and mixed reality. Employing an embedded single-case approach, we examine post-hype activities of three archetypes of firm actors (core technology providers, complementors, and implementers) through 44 interviews, industry event participation, and archival analysis. Our study reveals three sets of post-hype activities with which the firms responded to the challenges they faced after the hype bubble had burst: forging new links, restoring confidence, and adjusting tech. It also finds that the three firm archetypes vary in their engagement in these activities. We incorporate the findings into a framework of post-hype ecosystem resilience seeking and derive future research directions.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Managerial Summary&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Firms from multiple industries develop and apply new technology (like virtual reality or artificial intelligence) to their business models, creating an “ecosystem” of firms that help form a new consumer market. The initial hype generated by new technology helps ecosystems but typically decreases at some point, causing some ecosystems to fail while others recover. Research to date provides little understanding of how firms within these ecosystems try to recover from the loss of excitement and support. To this end, our study explores the ecosystem of xReality (XR) technologies, including augmented, virtual, and mixed reality. We interview 44 key decision makers across three types of firms: core technology providers, developers of complementary goods and services, and implementers that apply new technology to a specific use case. Although these types of firms vary in their approach, our findings indicate three key activities that support ecosystem resilience in the post-hype period. First, firms reinvigorate stakeholder interest and support by developing unique combinations of new technology and other emerging technologies. Second, firms restore stakeholder trust by focusing on the most transformative uses for new technology. Finally, firms redefine and refresh an ecosystem through advancements and improvements to new technolo","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":"43 5","pages":"793-826"},"PeriodicalIF":12.0,"publicationDate":"2026-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpim.70047","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148699962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Adaptability in Innovation Management: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Felix Hoch,&nbsp;Tobias Röth,&nbsp;Alexander Kock,&nbsp;Julia Backmann,&nbsp;Alex Newman","doi":"10.1111/jpim.70041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.70041","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Academic Summary&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;As firms navigate dynamic technological, market, and institutional environments, adaptability—and related notions such as flexibility and agility—have become central to innovation management. Yet, the literature is conceptually fragmented: multiple labels are applied with overlapping but inconsistent content, and few studies assess whether differing conceptualizations yield distinct predictions for innovation outcomes. Drawing on a dynamic capability lens, we synthesize prior research and define adaptability as an organizational capability grounded in the flexibility of abilities, resources, and processes that can, but need not, be paired with reactivity, proactivity, and/or speed to address shifting internal and external conditions. A multi-level meta-analysis of 549 effect sizes from 268 independent samples reveals an overall positive relationship between adaptability and innovation. Moreover, the meta-analytical approach supports the configural structure of adaptability: the adaptability-innovation relationship is most pronounced when all attributes of adaptability (flexibility, reactivity, proactivity, and speed) are present. Furthermore, the relationship is stronger for non-incremental than for incremental innovation, for larger firms, and in unstable institutional environments. By synthesizing the fragmented literature on adaptability, we provide a coherent, testable conceptualization of adaptability and explain why its impact on innovation appears generally positive yet heterogeneous across studies.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Managerial Summary&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Adaptability is an important organizational capability connected to innovation. However, what exactly adaptability is, remains unclear, especially since related terms, such as flexibility or agility, are sometimes used interchangeably. We quantitatively aggregate evidence from a large body of prior research and find a clear pattern: flexibility, that is the capability to change, is the foundation. However, innovation is highest when flexibility is paired with three additional capabilities: (1) sense-and-respond to external change (reactivity), (2) anticipate and shape emerging opportunities (proactivity), and (3) move quickly (speed). Organizations that combine all these elements consistently innovate more. This advantage is largest for non-incremental innovation (e.g., new business models, new-to-the-firm offerings, major technology shifts), in large firms (where inertia is common), and in institutionally unstable environments (where rules and conditions change abruptly). Managers should not treat adaptability, flexibility, or agility as a slogan: Instead, they should build flexibility first, and then improve routines for early sensing, proacti","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":"43 5","pages":"746-768"},"PeriodicalIF":12.0,"publicationDate":"2026-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpim.70041","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148699974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Flops and Missed Opportunities: The Differential Effect of Distinct Failure Types on Persistence With Underperforming Innovation Projects","authors":"Julian Nickel,&nbsp;Björn Hofmann,&nbsp;Monika C. Schuhmacher,&nbsp;Kumar R. Sarangee","doi":"10.1111/jpim.70043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.70043","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Academic Abstract&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Without recognizing how past failures bias subsequent choices, managers risk decisions that waste resources or prematurely abandon promising opportunities. This study draws on risk-type preference-shift theory and extends it with individual and organizational boundary conditions to examine how distinct failure experiences shape managers' willingness to persist with underperforming innovation projects. We conceptualize failure as a dichotomy, distinguishing commission errors (flops) from omission errors (missed opportunities). Our findings from two studies indicate that a recent commission error reduces the likelihood of persisting, while an omission error increases it. At the individual level, action-oriented decision-makers show a larger reduction in persistence after experiencing a commission error. Furthermore, rational thinkers do not differ in susceptibility to past failures; instead, they weigh specific attributes of the ongoing project more heavily when deciding whether to persist. At the organizational level, we observe that this effect depends on an organization's strategic orientation, that is, an exploratory orientation weakens (strengthens) the negative (positive) impact of commission (omission) errors. In contrast, an exploitative orientation amplifies the negative effects of commission errors. Together, these findings advance risk-type preference-shift theory and provide managers with clear guidance on when prior failures will lead them to persist with or abandon innovation projects.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Managerial Abstract&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Decisions about whether to continue funding an underperforming innovation project are influenced by the most recent failure. After a flop, persistence decreases; after a missed opportunity, persistence increases. Action-oriented decision-makers emphasize the decline following a flop. State-oriented decision-makers are largely unaffected by a prior flop. Rational thinkers do not differ in their reactions to past failures but place greater emphasis on current project attributes, particularly proximity to completion and innovativeness. An exploration orientation reduces reactions to flops and boosts persistence after missed opportunities. An exploitation orientation increases the tendency to exit after flops. We recommend that companies and their managers keep a failure log that distinguishes between flops and missed opportunities; conduct structured postlaunch and postmortem reviews to classify failure types; seek neutral second opinions when previous failures might bias judgments; use reframing prompts to avoid anchoring on past outcomes; assemble review panels that include action- and state-oriented managers and involve rational thinkers for projects t","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":"43 5","pages":"719-745"},"PeriodicalIF":12.0,"publicationDate":"2026-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpim.70043","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148699931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Are We Conflating Innovation Resistance With Innovation (Non-)Adoption? A Reflection and Potential Resolution","authors":"Juliëtte van Acker,&nbsp;Bas Hillebrand,&nbsp;Simone M. Ritter,&nbsp;Mark A. Wiering,&nbsp;Rob W. Holland","doi":"10.1111/jpim.70036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.70036","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Academic Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In the realm of innovation studies, examining innovation responses—encompassing both adoption and resistance—has been a central focus for more than six decades. However, most innovation studies only focus on the behavioral dimension of these responses and simply equate resistance with non-adoption. We suggest that seeing resistance as the absence of adoption results in a flawed understanding of innovation responses, neglecting important negative aspects. Using insights from two psychological theories, we provide a theoretically advanced and more comprehensive conceptualization of innovation adoption and innovation resistance. More specifically, we suggest that resistance and adoption involve emotions and cognitions alongside behaviors and explain why adoption and resistance are distinct phenomena. Based on our new conceptualization, we present a typology of innovation responses that provides a more nuanced insight into how actors, such as citizens or consumers, respond to innovation. Finally, we explain the consequences of this perspective for innovation theory development, future research, and innovation practitioners.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Innovation resistance is a persistent challenge, frequently hampering successful innovation introduction and causing significant financial and operational difficulties for companies. Understanding resistance is therefore critical for innovation managers. This article clarifies what resistance is, helps managers identify it, and distinguish it from other innovation responses. First, we argue that managers need to not only focus on behavioral resistance to innovation, but also consider the cognitive and emotional dimensions of resistance. Failing to do so may create blind spots, because the emotional and cognitive dimensions of resistance can signal underlying problems that actors have with the innovations and that later on may have behavioral consequences. Second, and importantly, we argue that managers need to distinguish resistance from the absence of adoption, as preventing resistance requires a distinct approach from stimulating adoption (or preventing non-adoption). We provide a practical 2 × 2 typology that helps practitioners to recognize the four distinct innovation response types: pure adoption, pure resistance, indifference, and ambivalence. Finally, we offer actionable strategies for addressing each response type, enabling managers to manage innovation processes more effectively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":"43 4","pages":"575-591"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0,"publicationDate":"2026-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpim.70036","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148221950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Smart Timing for Smart Products? Complementor Multihoming in Nascent Platform Markets","authors":"Senem Aydin Ozden,&nbsp;Fernando F. Suarez,&nbsp;Dirk Libaers,&nbsp;Yakov Bart","doi":"10.1111/jpim.70005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.70005","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In multi-platform markets, complementors often choose to offer their products or services across several platforms—a strategy known as complementor multihoming. This approach has gained significant attention from both industry practitioners and management scholars. Building on existing research regarding the factors that influence complementors' decision to multihome and the associated performance implications, this study examines the <i>timing strategies</i> involved in complementors' multihoming decisions. Specifically, we investigate the drivers of the timing of complementors' sequential multihoming, focusing on the factors that affect the timing of their first and subsequent multihoming. The empirical context of our research is the ecosystem of platforms and complementors in the nascent smart home market. Our results show that early entrants transition more quickly from single-homing to multihoming (i.e., joining a second platform) than late entrants, suggesting that they adopt a hedging strategy in response to the high uncertainty present in the early stages of the ecosystem. We also find that the drivers of the timing of multihoming may differ for the first and subsequent multihoming. For the first multihoming, the market traction of non-adopted platforms is associated with how quickly complementors multihome. However, this relationship dissipates in subsequent multihoming decisions. Nevertheless, certain factors influence the timing of all multihoming: when joining a second or third platform, complementors are faster to adopt platforms that are technologically similar to those they have already joined. We discuss the managerial implications of these findings for platforms and complementors navigating multi-platform ecosystems.</p>","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":"43 4","pages":"690-714"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0,"publicationDate":"2026-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpim.70005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148221791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reframing Through New Minds: How External Experts Unlock Problem Reframing Through Reasoning Logics","authors":"Paola Bellis,&nbsp;Claudio Dell'Era,&nbsp;Roberto Verganti","doi":"10.1111/jpim.70038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.70038","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study examines how external experts assist organizations in reframing problems by applying different reasoning logics in the early stages of the innovation process. Recent research emphasizes the need to interpret the ambiguity of the innovation environment to reframe problems. External experts can contribute by offering unconventional perspectives that help shift how problems are understood. While studies have explored the role of external experts in problem solving (e.g., ideation and evaluation), few have investigated their involvement in problem reframing. To this end, we conducted an ethnographic study of four strategic innovation projects in which firms collaborated with external experts of varying expertise. We analyze how experts assist innovation teams in moving from hypothetical to renewed frames using five distinct reasoning logics. Early on, experts use (1) reverse deduction and (2) reverse induction to identify common patterns. Upon encountering new perspectives, they rely on (3) explanatory abduction to explore alternative interpretations. This opens a dialogic space for imagination and insights generation through (4) speculative innovative abduction, and (5) moral innovative abduction. We contribute to research on problem reframing in innovation by showing how external experts support reframing not only by introducing new knowledge, but also by reshaping existing knowledge to foster renewed understanding.</p>","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":"43 4","pages":"616-640"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0,"publicationDate":"2026-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpim.70038","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148221877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Liberate or Subjugate Them? The Effect of Supplier Dependence on Buyer Innovation","authors":"Chanchai Tangpong,&nbsp;Thomas Clauss,&nbsp;Kuo-Ting Hung,&nbsp;Michael D. Michalisin,&nbsp;Arlyn J. Melcher","doi":"10.1111/jpim.70040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.70040","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study extends the current understanding of buyer–supplier relationships (BSRs) and innovation by investigating the supplier dependence—buyer innovation relationship. Drawing from resource dependence and exploration-exploitation perspectives, we hypothesize that supplier dependence negatively affects buyer innovation performance, and that this effect is moderated by market dynamism and relationalism in BSRs. Empirically, we combine two distinctive analytical steps and data sources. First, we conduct an archival case study of five US computer firms in the 1990s when the computer industry was marked by extensive BSR and innovation activities. The case results support our main-effect hypothesis. Second, we test our hypotheses using survey data of buyers from Germany and the US. Buyer innovation performance is operationalized by innovation productivity for the main analysis and by innovation revenue impact in the robustness check. The results converge in supporting the negative main effect of supplier dependence on buyer innovation performance, but diverge regarding the moderating effect. Specifically, market dynamism is a significant moderator concerning buyer innovation productivity, while relationalism in BSRs is a significant moderator concerning buyer innovation revenue impact. Overall, our study sheds light on the adverse roles of supplier dependence in buyer innovation and offers implications for future research and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":"43 4","pages":"665-689"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0,"publicationDate":"2026-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpim.70040","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148221934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Co-Design at the Boundary: Understanding the Dynamics of Open Innovation Between Companies and Communities","authors":"Eric Reynolds Brubaker,&nbsp;Francesca Bellesia,&nbsp;Elisa Mattarelli,&nbsp;Pamela J. Hinds","doi":"10.1111/jpim.70020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.70020","url":null,"abstract":"<p>For over two decades, firms have built platforms and engaged open innovation communities to improve and customize their products through widened participation in the design process. While the benefits of involving those outside a firm as co-designers have been well described, how co-design processes unfold over time at the boundary between those in an organization and an open online community remains poorly understood. Using the theoretical lens of boundary work and a five-year ethnographic study with a firm that pioneered co-design in the automotive industry, we develop a theoretical model that shows how and why co-design between the firm and its open online community evolved over time. We describe three different types of co-design (intimate, instrumental, and limited co-design) and show how these are intertwined with existing types of boundary work (collaborative, configurational, and competitive boundary work). Importantly, we unravel the dynamic shifts between different types of co-design and associated boundary work, showing the driving forces that precede shifts. Our research extends the boundary work literature by proposing forces that prompt organizations to shift between types of boundary work, illustrating how these forces are tied to characteristics of the environment and open community and are integral to the work of the organization. More broadly, this study contributes new insight into the temporal evolution of design collaboration between organizations and online communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":"43 4","pages":"641-664"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0,"publicationDate":"2026-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpim.70020","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148221837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}