From technological inventions to new products: A systematic review and

research agenda of the main enabling factors

Lorenzo Arditoa*, Antonio Messeni Petruzzellia, Vito Albinoa

a
Department of Mechanics, Mathematics and Management, Politecnico di Bari, 182 Viale Japigia,
Bari, 70126, Italy;

* Corresponding author at: Politecnico di Bari, 182 Viale Japigia, Bari, 70126, Italy. Tel.:
+390805962725; E-mail: l.ardito@poliba.it

Accepted on European Management Review

From technological inventions to new products: A systematic review and
research agenda of the main enabling factors

Abstract: Firms’ ability to steady exploit their proprietary inventions via new products is an
important driver to innovate, and then to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. However, the
current state of the art on the main determinants affecting technology-based products’
commercialization is characterized by the lack of an integrative framework, and fails to analyze
these factors across different levels of analysis. Thereby, the present paper aims at providing such
an integrative and multilevel framework, bringing together findings on the various determinants
enabling the introduction of new products based on firms’ own technological inventions through a
systematic review of more than 100 articles published in leading international journals. More
specifically, we integrate and discuss the literature findings by distinguishing related factors across
the individual, firm, network, and industry level of analysis. In addition, a summary of the main
gaps and future research directions are presented, in the attempt to further stimulate the academic
debate on the topic.

Keywords: technology; invention; new product introduction; multilevel perspective

Introduction

In today’s globalized economy, firms are facing ever increasing market challenges. Past research

has argued that the commercialization of proprietary technological inventions is an important driver

to remain competitive and gain success in the market (Artz et al., 2010; Damanpour, 1991; Kumar

and Jain, 2003; Nevens, 1990). Indeed, inventions are often considered as technical solutions with

little economic importance if they are not translated into market applications (Kline and Rosenberg,

1986; Schumpeter, 1934). Therefore, a key issue for technology-based firms is related to define and

develop effective strategies for commercializing their own technologies (Gans and Stern, 2003).

With this regard, the literature suggests two different approaches. On the one hand, firms may sell

or license their technologies to external actors (Lichtenthaler and Ernst, 2007). On the other hand,

they can innovate by introducing new products on the market (Damanpour, 1991; Katila and Ahuja,

2002; Lukas and Ferrell, 2000), hence embedding their own inventions into marketable solutions.
Despite the ever increasing interest toward the open innovation paradigm (Chesbrough, 2006),

which suggests that firms rely on technology acquisition or external commercialization strategies to

leverage their innovative capabilities (Lichtenthaler and Ernst, 2007; Schroll and Mild, 2011), the

present research mainly focuses on the second approach. Notably, the introduction of technology-

based products on the market has been widely considered as the commercial value of firms’ in-

house R&D activities (Katila and Ahuja, 2002), as well as a critical determinant of firms’

performance and survival (Artz et al., 2010; Damanpour, 1991; Datta et al., Forthcoming).

Accordingly, leading companies are often those able to innovate by turning their own inventions

into new marketable products more frequently and faster than their competitors (Li et al., 2013;

Nevens, 1990; Stevens et al., 1999).

However, companies face several difficulties in extracting the value from their technologies and,

hence, in introducing new products based upon these technological solutions (Danneels, 2007;

Jolly, 1997; McCoy et al., 2010; Thomke and Kuemmerle, 2002). A recent study by McKinsey &

Co. (2010) corroborates these findings, revealing that many executives perceive technology-based

products’ commercialization as one of the most challenging innovative tasks, although few of them

believe their organizations are effective in introducing products based on their inventions. In turn,

academics have been long interested in analyzing and discussing the main factors fostering the

achievement of such innovative outcome (e.g., Brown and Karagozoglu, 1993; Katila and Ahuja,

2002; Katila and Chen, 2008; Li et al., 2013; Lukas and Ferrell, 2000). Particularly, due to the

interdisciplinary nature of this phenomenon, many studies have been carried out by both, but not

limited to, strategic management, marketing, organizational, and innovation scholars, thus offering

diverse theoretical perspectives (e.g., organizational learning, marketing strategy, resource based

view, and innovation management). Nevertheless, the literature has yet to develop a more

comprehensive framework integrating the various lenses in order to identify and analyze the

antecedents that are likely to be most relevant for the introduction of firms’ technological products,

as well as the related boundary conditions.

Furthermore, although several review articles have endeavoured to provide a more thorough

comprehension of the commercialization issues related to technology-based products, only scant

attention has been posed on the multiple factors favoring their market introduction, as well as on the

diverse levels of analysis they pertain. Accordingly, most of these studies delved into the

antecedents of new product performance or their success after introduction (Ernst, 2002; Johne and

Snelson, 1988; Lilien and Eunsang, 1989; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994). Others, instead,

dug into the use of specific strategic-level practices in the new product development process, as the

case of R&D-marketing integration (Griffin and Hauser, 1996), the involvement of the top

management (Felekoglu and Moultrie, 2014), and the organizational-level components that improve

firms’ radical product innovation capabilities as opposed to incremental ones (Slater et al., 2014;

see also Therrien et al., 2011). Only recently, Datta et al. (Forthcoming) recognized the need to

provide a more thorough comprehension to the whole process sustaining the introduction of new

technological products. Specifically, they provide us with an overview of the entrepreneurial

activities required to market them, from the discovery of technical solutions to the distribution and

marketing of related products. Nevertheless, they still fail to highlight a number of relevant factors

pertaining to the multiple and diverse levels, such as the characteristics of firms’ key individuals,

the main features of the industrial environment, differences between different types of partner in a

network, and more specific firm practices (e.g., search strategies, coordination mechanisms, and

administrative style).

Therefore, our research adds to these previous works by conducting a systematic review of the

literature that analyzes the various factors that intervene, at multiple levels, in the successful market

introduction of new products based on firms’ proprietary technologies. More specifically, first, we

aim at integrating literature findings by defining a comprehensive framework that can guide and

advance academics’ and executives’ understanding of this particular innovation phenomenon.

Second, we attempt to further stimulate the academic debate on the topic, by providing a summary

of the main literature gaps and suggesting future research directions.

To this aim, the multilevel perspective (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010;

Gupta et al., 2007) is adopted to systematize and present literature findings. Indeed, it is considered

the most accurate way to uncover the underlying factor structure associated with the effective

achievement of innovation objectives, despite, so far, past literature has largely ignored to adopt this

multilevel lens (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). In particular, the individual, firm, network and

industry levels of analysis are taken into account to group and discuss literature findings. According

to the purpose of this study, the present framework functions as a point of departure to further

improve our understanding on the main determinants affecting the introduction of new products

resulting from the exploitation of firms’ inventions. Furthermore, it can allow to effectively

consolidate extant research on this topic into a coherent whole and set the basis for future both

single and cross-level works (Anderson et al., 2004; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Hitt et al., 2007;

Gupta et al., 2007).

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we present the theoretical

framework upon which we organize the literature review and discuss the literature findings. Then,

the methodological aspects of the work are exposed. Afterwards, we provide an overview of key

evidences regarding the main determinants of invention commercialization via new products,

organized in areas of convergence. Finally, the last section discusses most relevant knowledge gaps

and suggests promising research opportunities.

The theoretical framework

Both inventions and innovation are vital to firms’ growth and survival (Artz et al., 2010; OECD,

2005). Nevertheless, their meaning and overall role for firms’ competitiveness significantly differ.

Inventions are in fact generally defined as new solutions and technical resources needed by firms to

solve problems (Ahuja and Lampert, 2001; Schumpeter, 1934). Differently, innovation regards the

implementation of firms’ technological inventions across different commercial applications in order

to achieve economic returns (Kline and Rosenberg, 1986; OECD, 2005; Schumpeter, 1934),
representing a major source of firms’ competitive advantage. Indeed, the introduction of innovative

products on the market allows companies to achieve benefits in terms of performance, profits, and

survival, as well as makes them more able to cope with the highly competitive environment (e.g.,

Artz et al., 2010; Damanpour, 1991; Datta et al., Forthcoming; Zahra and Nielsen, 2002).

According to this view, Stevens et al. (1999) and Zahra and Covin (1993) stated that the essence of

an effective firms’ invention commercialization strategy lies on their capability to frequently and

expeditiously innovate by introducing novel products into the market.

Past studies argued that new product introduction is determined by effective firms’ strategies, as

well as by their organizational culture, organizational structure, and internal knowledge (e.g.,

Grimpe and Sofka, 2009; Katila and Ahuja, 2002; Lukas and Ferrell, 2000). However, the actual

definition and implementation of firms’ strategies, and related innovative activities, originate in the

behaviors and actions of the members operating within companies, which are in turn function of

their past experiences, education, and personal skills (Barney, 1995; Drazin and Rao, 2002; Smith et

al., 2005). Hence, differences in the characteristics of the human capital contribute to explain

variations in the achievement of firms’ innovative performance (Barney, 1995; Rothaermel and

Hess, 2007). In particular, as the knowledge required to exploit firms’ technological resources is

widespread among individuals and departments, the relevance of team working is being

increasingly highlighted. Accordingly, features related to the teams’ composition (e.g.,

heterogeneity) and members’ relationships (e.g., number of direct contacts or strong ties with other

members) are considered of foremost importance (Anderson et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2005).

Furthermore, since the level of complexity characterizing technological products is drastically

increased (Pavitt, 1998) and competition has become more and more based upon the recombination

of various knowledge (e.g., Capaldo et al., Forthcoming; Fleming, 2002), companies cannot solely

rely on their internal assets to innovate. External networking has emerged as a key mechanism to

supplement firms’ internal innovation capabilities (Dyer and Singh, 1998; Gulati, 1998). Thus,

considerable attention has been posed to the type (e.g., strategic alliances or acquisitions), quantity,
and frequency of different external relationships, as well as to the types of partner involved in these

relationships (universities, suppliers, customers, etc.). In addition, besides the factors above

mentioned, the structure (size, cultural system, etc.) and dynamics (competitiveness, uncertainty,

regulations, etc.) of the industries where companies (and networks) operate should be also carefully

considered. These, in fact, affect firms’ innovativeness as they represent sources of inputs, risks,

and opportunities (e.g., Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Wu, 2012).

The foregoing discussion points out that introducing technology-based products on the market is the

result of a set of determinants operating at different levels of analysis. Therefore, in the present

work, we employ a multilevel perspective to report and discuss the literature findings concerning

factors enabling the introduction of products based on firms’ own technologies, distinguishing them

between those occurring at the individual, firm, network, and industry level (Figure 1). This

approach follows a number of studies that have revealed the multilevel nature of innovation,

emphasizing that an explicit consideration of multiple levels of analysis is critical to fully

understand the determinants and dynamics of firms’ innovative performance (e.g., Anderson et al.,

2004; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour, 1997; Gupta et al., 2007; Hitt

et al., 2007; Rothaermel and Hess, 2007).

<Insert Figure 1 about here>

Methodology

Past studies argued that an accurate review design improves the evaluation process of the

contributions provided by a given body of the literature (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). Specifically,

the Tranfield et al.’s (2003) approach for a systematic review of the literature has been applied in

many articles with the aim to conceptually consolidate results emerging from various studies related

to a selected topic (see also Carpenter et al., 2012; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Keupp et al., 2012;

Meier, 2011; Phelps et al., 2012; Zott et al., 2011). In particular, it is a clear and reproducible

procedure consisting of a number of stages that help authors in defining the goal of the research and
planning the way articles are retrieved and reported. As a result, it improves the effectiveness of the

review process and outcome (Tranfield et al., 2003). Therefore, in order to integrate the different

research streams analyzing the multiple factors fostering the introduction of innovative products

based on firms’ own inventions, this article follows the principles for systematic review (Tranfield

et al., 2003). Indeed, a number of steps have been pursued by the research team 1 so as to provide a

systemic, transparent, and replicable methodology.

1. An initial list of 13 keywords was selected by the research team. The keywords were divided

into two categories (see Table 1). Specifically, category A considers keywords related to the

concept of technological invention, as the “object” to be commercialized by technology-based

firms. Instead, category B includes words referring to potential market applications. Being

aware of the wide range of meanings and uses of our keywords, we intentionally cast the net

wide in order to be more confident to retrieve all possible relevant papers.

<Insert Table 1 about here>

2. The search labels from category A were combined with those from category B in the attempt to

collect all the articles that have linked inventions to market applications, especially in the form

of new products. This procedure yielded 6x7=42 concrete search strings. Nevertheless, two

strings were not used because they refer to different issues, as [‘innovation’ and ‘exploitation’],

which mainly pertains the exploration and exploitation literature, and [‘patent’ and ‘trademark’],

which is instead mainly related to the literature on the intellectual property rights. Accordingly,

40 search strings were adopted. Examples include: [‘technolog*’ and ‘commerciali*ation’],

[‘invention*’ and ‘product*’], [‘patent*’ and market*’], [‘discovery’ and ‘exploitation’], [‘R&D’

and ‘sell*’].

3. The review was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles, leaving out books, book chapters, and

conference proceedings, since journal articles are considered validated knowledge and stand for
1
The research team was composed by the authors and a research assistant tasked with helping on this project. It was
supervised by a Professor who had already undertaken and published review papers in the management discipline (see
also Gomes et al., Forthcoming).
 authoritative statements on the field (e.g., Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; James et al., 2013;

Keupp et al., 2012; Zott et al., 2011). The Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), year 2011, was

used to identify journals for inclusion, since it comprehends most of the peer-reviewed journals

in the social science (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). Specifically, the search was confined to top

quality journals in the domain of “Business” and “Management” having a 5-Year-Impact-Factor

greater than 1.5. This selection yielded a list of 95 journals. Although there are journals that are

not included in this work but are indexed in the SSCI, we believe this choice is justified by the

fact that the selected journals have been publishing manuscripts of the highest quality since long

time. This approach follows previous review articles, which have generally considered even less

the 30 journals in total (e.g., Barreto, 2010; Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012; West and Bogers, 2014).

Hence, it enables us to review the most representative and highly relevant literature (see also

Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012; Gomes et al., Forthcoming; Meier, 2011; West and Bogers, 2014;

Zott et al., 2011). The EBSCO host (Business Source Premier) was the main database for the

literature search in the selected journals. Journals not available on EBSCO were either searched

manually or via ScienceDirect and GoogleScholar. The search strings developed in stage (2)

were used to search for the title, abstract, and author-provided keywords. The search procedure

considered all available issues of the journals, without choosing a (necessarily arbitrarily

defined) cut-off value to exclude articles published prior to a certain point of time (Bakker,

2010). A total of 6,677 different articles were retrieved.

4. Then, the research team further selected the articles, by analyzing their specific content, as well

as adopting a set of formal inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 and Table 3,

respectively).

<Insert Table 2 about here>

<Insert Table 3 about here>

Specifically, a two stage approach has been followed in order to select the articles. First, the titles

and abstracts of the 6,677 were reviewed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. However,

many abstracts provide no clear understanding about the goal of the articles. For instance, some

manuscripts claim to be aimed at analyzing success factors affecting the innovation outcome of a

firm, hence making not possible to clearly perceive whether the term “innovation outcome” refers

to the introduction of new products, patents, etc. Thus, first, we divided the articles in “excluded

paper” (6014 articles) and “check full text” (663 articles). Then, a more detailed analysis of the

“check full text” articles was conducted looking for clarification in the text of the papers, hence

leading to a list of 102 manuscripts. Additional 11 articles were integrated during the review given

their specific relevance for the topic under investigation 2. Thus, the final sample consists of 113

manuscripts. It is worthy to mention that the huge drop in the number of articles that we faced is not

uncommon in literature reviews. Indeed, most of them often have a large number of articles in a

first round searching (Bakker, 2010), which decreases as scholars proceed with in-depth analysis of

their content against a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. For instance, from an initial sample of

about 3,500 articles, Phelps et al. (2012) and Keupp et al. (2012) used 167 and 365 papers,

respectively. Similarly, Becheikh et al. (2006) employed a set of 108 articles derived from 4,373

papers initially identified, as well as Crossan and Apaydin (2010) included 525 papers out of the

first 13,995 unique hits retrieved. In particular, in our case, the high number of papers excluded in

the search process is due to the general nature of our search terms. Indeed, they are commonly used

in different types of innovation study. These mainly include those examining external

commercialization strategies, the commercialization of academic research, the new product

development processes, the performance of products or firms after market entry, and the strategies

to profit from introduced products (Teece, 1986), which all are out of the scope of this review

(Table 3).

2
We are grateful to anonymous referees for suggesting additional articles.
The sample of the articles resulting from this methodology was published from 1990 to 2013

(Figure 2), but more than half of the studies were published after 2007. The present study, thus,

appears timely, as there was recently a spike in the number of scholarly works on technology based

products’ commercialization.

<Insert Figure 2 about here>

Furthermore, Figure 3 offers a detailed view of the journals where the sample articles were

published. It is worthy of note how this topic is widespread in the business and management

literature, covering 26 different journals. Specifically, Research Policy published the most articles

(25), followed by Technovation (18), Strategic Management Journal (9), and Industrial Marketing

Management (8).

<Insert Figure 3 about here>

In addition, in order to highlight the impact of the topic, Figure 4 depicts that the 55% of the sample

articles received more than 50 citations and only the 4.5% received fewer than 11 citations.

Table A in the Appendix shows a detailed overview of each article, including related theoretical

perspectives, number of citations, methods, data, and key findings in order to better isolate their

results, methodological approaches, and impact.

<Insert Figure 4 about here>

As many papers are quantitative in nature (79%) and have new product introduction as dependent

variable (DV), we dig into how it is measured. On the one hand, following Katila and Ahuja (2002)

and Zahra and Nielsen (2002), many studies employed the number of introduced products (46%)

(e.g., Baron and Tang, 2011; Mu and Di Benedetto, 2011; Stock and Zacharias, 2011; Wu, 2011),

which can be considered as more reliable than the use of a binary or multi-item score variable only
assessing whether a company has introduced a product in a certain time period. On the other hand,

several scholars (54%) still employed this second measure due to a lack of data or because they

rely on surveys that were already carried out for more general purposes (e.g., the CIS survey) (e.g.,

Amara et al., 2008; Chandy et al., 2006; Kaufmann and Tödtling, 2001; Lew and Sinkovics, 2013;

Zhang and Li, 2010). Regarding the difference between radical and incremental products (Therrien

et al., 2011), all the studies referred to survey-based approaches asking the extent to which the

introduced products are perceived as radical. The two most common surveys employed to propose

this question are the one developed by Chandy and Tellis (1998) (see also Atuahene-Gima, 2005;

Bao et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2012; Wuyts et al., 2004), and the one presented in the OSLO Manual

(OECD, 2005), which is commonly used by papers adopting the CIS survey (see Table A).

Literature findings

As explained in in the “Theoretical background” section, we group and discuss literature findings

according to four main levels of analysis, as the individual, firm, network, and industry one (see

Figure 1). Some studies, of course, have considered factors pertaining diverse levels

simultaneously. Should this be the case, we assign those articles to more than one level of analysis,

so the subsequent distribution actually produced a number of assignments higher than the total

number of articles retrieved. As summarized in Figure 5, the distribution of the articles across the

different levels is as follows: individual (19), firm (75), network (35), and industry (27). In

particular, of the 113 articles, 77 (68%) correspond to a singular level, 29 (26%) correspond to two

levels, seven (6%) include three levels, and none considers all the four levels (Figure 6). Table A

indicates how each paper is associated with the four main levels.

<Insert Figure 5 and Figure 6 about here>

According to the theoretical framework presented above, in the next sections we categorize the

identified factors in a number of sub-topics of the main levels in order to better systematize and

group the related findings. Figure 7 conceptualizes the key results emerging from each section.

<Insert Figure 7 about here>

Individual level

Education. A great part of the technological knowledge that is necessary to link inventions to

market applications is owned by people. Thus, firms hiring highly educated and technically

qualified employees more likely increase the effectiveness of their technology-based products’

commercialization strategy (Freel, 2005; Jensen et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2005). As an example,

Oticon A/S company employed many engineers and PhD students during its highest productive

period in terms of new products introduced on the market (Verona and Ravasi, 2003). However, if

firms extensively tend to occupy these people with managerial positions, rather than R&D

activities, their favorable contribution to the market exploitation of firms’ inventions decreases

(Deeds et al., 2000).

Human capital is not only the result of formal education, but includes also non-formal education

activities, such as specific on-the-job training courses. These contribute to build additional and

specific skills and competences that are needed to effectively and efficiently manage more complex

new product development projects, thus allowing companies that invest in such training activities to

increase their market productivity (Brown and Karagozoglu, 1993; Menon et al., 2002). In line with

the above arguments, it has been proven that a high level of both formal and non-formal education

especially favors the introduction of radical products (Amara et al., 2008; Freel, 2005; Souitaris,

2002), as it drastically sharpens the ability to internally leverage technological solutions.

Prior work experience. Prior work experiences improve members’ understanding of how to apply

their knowledge to innovate (e.g., Drazin and Rao, 2002), by exerting a positive and significant
effect on new product introduction. In fact, CEOs that have previously managed R&D departments

(Deeds et al., 2000), as well as a group leader (Howell, 2005) and firms’ employees (Harryson et

al., 2008; Verona and Ravasi, 2003) that have already been engaged in new product development

projects favor the commercial exploitation of firms’ inventions through new products. Differently,

companies that employ people with more general experiences in an industry or in other companies

appear to have inferior innovative possibilities (Schoonhoven et al., 1990; Smith et al., 2005;

Souitaris, 2002).

Ties. Communication and knowledge transfer between organizational members allow organizations

to build a holistic view of the new product development project, hence facilitating its successful

termination (Harryson et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2005). Particularly, the presence of ties between

employees impacts the number of technological products on the market by enhancing

communication opportunities, hence making central people as the most relevant actors. Therefore,

companies can gain advantages by encouraging the creation of these contacts and identifying those

actors, thus sustaining the achievement of better innovative performance. In the same vein, favoring

the establishment of strong ties between members, in terms of closeness and frequency, can be

considered as an important managerial issue, since it promotes trust, knowledge recombination, and

knowledge sharing, which consequently foster new product introduction (Akgün et al., 2012; Guler

and Nerkar, 2012; Menon et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2005). Nevertheless, in some phases of the new

product development process less strong ties can be more beneficial. For instance, during the

creation stage of the concept of the new Volvo C70 weak ties were needed to enhance creativity and

the exchange of novel and non-redundant knowledge among team’s members. While, strong ties

were more properly required to speed up the exploitation and commercialization phases (Harryson

et al., 2008).
Team composition. Companies that design heterogeneous product development teams, which

include people with different backgrounds (Bucher et al., 2003; Maine and Garnsey, 2006; Smith et

al., 2005; Verona and Ravasi, 2003) or that are employed in diverse organizational functions

(Menon et al., 2002), have been proven to be more successful in commercializing technologies via

new products. This is particularly true if they are able to reduce the knowledge and cultural barriers

that can hinder communication between diverse members, such as when heterogeneous teams

collaborate across geographical regions (Harryson et al., 2008). Otherwise, the risks to fail to

benefit from members’ diversity within the organization can drastically rise (Nakata et al., 2011). A

possible solution is geographical proximity between members, which is considered a as a mean to

facilitate knowledge exchange and hence improve the overall performance of new products

development’s projects (Guler and Nerkar, 2012; Harryson et al., 2008). In particular, the problems

above mentioned are detrimental to radical products’ commercialization, since it needs very

cohesive and focused teams, thus calling for the development of effective integration mechanisms

(Cabrales et al., 2008) and the exploitation of existing technological knowledge by TMTs, rather

than exploring new ones (Alexiev et al., 2010).

Firm level

Firm strategies. Companies drive the rate and direction of technological products launched on the

market according to two major types of strategic orientation, as market and technology one (Lukas

and Ferrell, 2000; Noble et al., 2002; Zhou et al., 2005).

Market orientation reflects a demand pull approach to innovation, which places the highest priority

on collecting and processing information about customers’ needs (customer orientation) and

competitors’ capabilities (competitor orientation) (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997; Lukas and Ferrell,

2000). Specifically, in this way, companies can better transform technological resources into

marketable products by finding different and more promising market applications for their

inventions (Atuahene-Gima, 2005; Augusto and Coelho, 2009; Danneels, 2007; Grimpe and Sofka,
2009; Hall and Bagchi-Sen, 2007; Hargadon and Sutton, 1997; Lo et al., 2012; Lukas et al., 2002;

Souitaris, 2002; Tang and Murphy, 2012). More specifically, if a company plans to introduce a new

incremental product, a competitor-oriented strategy is more suitable than a customer-oriented one.

Contrarily, customer orientation results to be more positively linked to the introduction of radical

products (Lukas and Ferrell, 2000; Mu and Di Benedetto, 2011; Stock and Zacharias, 2011). These

findings support past studies that assume competitor orientation related to imitative approaches to

innovation, since these minimize risks and development costs, while customers allow firms to

acquire market knowledge for introducing extremely new products (Lo et al., 2012; Noble et al.,

2002).

Instead, technology orientation reflects a technology-push approach to innovation, which in turn

entails the use and commercialization of the latest technological evolutions (Gatignon and Xuereb,

1997). Taking this strategic approach, firms’ opportunities to differentiate from competitors and

achieve a superior technology-based competitive advantage rises (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997;

Zhou et al., 2005), and, in turn, their ability to introduce new products, especially radical ones (Bao

et al., 2012; Bucher et al., 2003; Chudnovsky et al., 2006; Hall and Bagchi-Sen, 2007; Huergo,

2006; Koc and Ceylan, 2007; Koellinger, 2008; Mu and Di Benedetto, 2011).

In order to keep pace with the most recent technological advancements and further introduce novel

products, companies need to steady enrich their existing knowledge pool searching for new diverse

knowledge, which in turn contributes to increase the likelihood to better leverage existing resources

and capabilities (Sok and O'Cass, 2011), as well as to create breakthrough ideas (Alexiev et al.,

2010; Brown and Karagozoglu, 1993; Katila and Ahuja, 2002; Li et al., 2013). In line with this

reasoning, it has been suggested that when companies search for distinct new knowledge domains

belonging to outside their focal industries, they more likely market new radical developments (Datta

and Jessup, 2013; Li et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the extensive use of new knowledge raises the time

needed to turn inventions into products (Molina-Castillo et al., 2011), as well as an effortful search

(in terms of resources consuming) conducted toward unfamiliar technological domains by top
management teams (TMTs) may divert them from other important activities (e.g., development

planning and building organizational capabilities) (Li et al., 2013). This may be hence reflected in a

reduction of the products firms are able to commercialize. Search strategies directed toward the

improvement of existing knowledge, up to a certain point, can be also seen as a way to better apply

technologies to commercial ends, since companies already have expertise in managing and

exploiting this specific knowledge (Chandy et al., 2006; Chataway et al., 2004; Clausen et al., 2013;

Hargadon and Sutton, 1997; Katila and Ahuja, 2002). In addition, the leverage of old knowledge

contributes to the uniqueness of the possible combinations that firms can gain from the integration

of diverse knowledge components (Chataway et al., 2004; Katila and Ahuja, 2002).

Formal structure. Firm size has been long acknowledged to have an influence on the firms’ ability

to develop technological products. The debate on whether companies are more innovative if they

are large or small is still not resolved, since different levels of firm size result in both advantages

and disadvantages. Supporting the arguments that small companies lack important resources respect

to bigger ones, such as skilled personnel and fund, Chudnovsky et al. (2006) stated that large firms

perform better in terms of products launched on the market. In contrast, the opposite view

highlights the benefits of the flexible and dynamic nature of small firms, which allows them to be

more effective in introducing novel products (Guan et al., 2009; Soni et al., 1993), especially radical

solutions (Therrien et al., 2011). These studies, however, do not account for possible sectorial

contingencies. For instance, Kannebley et al. (2005) provided evidence that small companies

perform better in sectors such as the manufacturing of basic electronic equipment and food, rather

than in more knowledge intensive industries, such as the medical one. In addition, the relation

between size and age can further explain the contrasting results above highlighted. Particularly, size

seems to favor incumbent and disfavor non-incumbent firms in introducing radical products

(Chandy and Tellis, 2000).

The structure of a company is not solely related to its size. Indeed, an accurate design of the

organizational form has also been revealed as a key determinant to enhance new products launch

(Radas and Božić, 2009; Tidd, 1995). Specifically, a flat structure (e.g., matrix function), especially

when accompanied by the reduction of bureaucracy, improves flexibility and knowledge exchange,

which let companies translate their technological know-how into new products in a more efficient

way (Iansiti, 1995; Menon et al., 2002; Radas and Božić, 2009; Verona and Ravasi, 2003). In

addition, it helps firm to re-organize themselves in a fast manner, while maintaining certain formal

routines to retrieve and share past knowledge and solutions (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997). This in

turn supports the introduction of products when they integrate breakthrough technologies in

previously developed goods (Björkdahl, 2009). Notwithstanding, organizations cannot overlook the

fact that different products may require different orgazational forms to be effectively marketed, as

highlighted in the concept of structural ambidexterity (O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004). For example,

a functional structure may be preferable for the successful termination of incremental projects,

whereas a cross-functional structure enhances the effectiveness of radical ones (de Visser et al.,

2010).

Zahra (1996) advocated that the type of products on the market is affected by the ownership status.

Specifically, corporate ventures can be considered in a better position to frequently launch new

products, as they have access to more financial resources (see also Schoonhoven et al., 1990),

distribution channels, and manufacturing facilities. Nevertheless, product innovativeness is

generally low, because they are not totally free to invest resources in risky projects, differently from

individual ventures, which act more independently and are more inclined to commercialize cutting-

edge technologies. Elaborating on this further, Lo and Chung (2010) suggested that this second type

of companies, compared to the former, can gain particular advantages in a condition of product-

complementarity agglomeration. Indeed, due to their independent nature, they can more easily take

advantage of spillover effects deriving from firms selling similar products and that are

geographically proximate.
Organizational climate and administrative style. Organizational culture and administrative style are

commonly defined as a set of properties of the business environment influencing job performance

(Pareek, 2007). The superior capability of Oticon A/S in introducing technological products, as an

example, is related to its willingness to create an innovative climate, by letting workers feel

responsible for the product launch and work autonomously, as well as by encouraging scientific

research and innovative ideas (Verona and Ravasi, 2003). This, in fact, helps companies to manage

their human and technological resources in a more effective manner (Martín-de Castro et al., 2013).

As well, firms that recognize the relevance of sharing of knowledge and ideas among members

(Akgün et al., 2012; Brown and Karagozoglu, 1993; Carayannopoulos, 2005; Goodale et al., 2011;

Jensen et al., 2007; Maine, 2008; Yam et al., 2004) allow them to better “understand, and construct

meaning on the project- technology-, and market-related information” (Goodale et al., 2011:3), and

“apply their creative thoughts” (Martín-de Castro et al., 2013:354).

Furthermore, firms speed up decision making and the implementation of innovative processes when

they set a climate that forces risk taking and experimentation, such as when they decide to

cannibalize existing products to enter radical ones (Chandy and Tellis, 1998), which in turn

increases the number and rate at which new technology-based products are commercialized

(Cabrales et al., 2008; Gillett and Stekler, 1995; Lo and Chung, 2010; Menon et al., 2002; Smith et

al., 2005). Nevertheless, development’s teams can feel too much pressure if this condition of stress

is not well managed, thus making them unable to effectively perform their tasks. Accordingly, only

if a high level of management support is adopted by companies by, for instance, instilling hope and

courage among those employees (Akgün et al., 2009), or letting them share their emotions (Martín-

de Castro et al., 2013), team anxiety can be translated into a positive factor fostering the

commercialization of firms’ inventions via new products (Akgün et al., 2007).

Although promoting an innovative climate presents some advantages in introducing new products,

its integration with the definition of clear targets and basic control practices is also necessary to

organizations for introducing (faster) both radical and incremental products. In this way, in fact,
experimentation and efficiency are better balanced, and employees can follow a reference

framework that highlights the most important procedures and project objectives (Brown and

Karagozoglu, 1993; Goodale et al., 2011; Lukas et al., 2002; Lynn et al., 1999; Menon et al., 2002;

Yam et al., 2004). Due to the increasing level of uncertainty, a more extensive use of risk control

mechanisms is however advocated as the radicalness of the technologies to exploit becomes higher

(Maine, 2008), as well as when employees are allowed to experiment and share ideas between

dispersed departments or beyond firm boundaries (Goodale et al., 2011).

Integration and coordination mechanisms. The higher the number of different functions that

companies involve in the invention commercialization process the better their performance in terms

of marketed technology-based products (Schoonhoven et al., 1990; Yam et al., 2004), especially

when the functions are fully integrated and coordinated with each other (Jensen et al., 2007; Wood

and Brown, 1998). Indeed, knowledge exchanges among functions and the achievement of common

goals are enhanced (Nakata et al., 2011; Souder et al., 1998). In addition, the leverage of explorative

competences is also improved, thus particularly facilitating radical product introduction (Atuahene-

Gima, 2005). Notably, the coordination between firms’ divisions and the R&D departments

strongly impacts the capability to apply technological knowledge to commercial ends, especially

when the intensity of firms’ in-house R&D activities is high (Parthasarthy and Hammond, 2002;

Wakasugi, 1992; Wood and Brown, 1998). Furthermore, formal and informal coordination of

manufacturing staff and its involvement in new product projects enhance the importance of

manufacturing sources for technology commercialization (Zahra and Nielsen, 2002).

Nonentheless, an overemphasis on coordination activities posed by organizations can lead to

excessive compromising, homogenization of talents, and reduction of free initiatives

(Mukhopadhyay and Gupta, 1998). In turn, creativity and flexibility may be lessened, thus reducing

the number of radical products on the market (Augusto and Coelho, 2009; Lukas and Ferrell, 2000).
Rewarding system. Although the literature revealed the influence of incentive systems on the

achievement of organizationally desired behavior (Menon et al., 2002), scant attention has been

paid on their effects on the rate of products introduced on the market. Brown and Karagozoglu

(1993) first noticed that many high-tech firms widely use monetary rewards in order to foster new

product introduction, as further corroborated by Menon et al. (2002) and Souitaris (2002).

Specifically, short-term incentives to project managers, as expressed by variable annual

compensation, seem to be positively associated with good project performance (e.g., new product

lines). However, when companies face too uncertain projects their advantages decrease (Davila,

2003). Indeed, more money is not always the best solution to stimulating people (Goodale et al.,

2011). Thus, firms like the design and innovation consulting company IDEO may decide to base

engineers’ compensation on their informal reputation among the other members, in order to foster

both individual and collaborative efforts (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997). Accordingly, since the

invention commercialization process requires cooperation between people and functions, incentives

that stimulate cooperation at the team level can result more effective than incentives at the

individual one (Menon et al., 2002), thus highlighting the relevance of the combination between

incentives at the team and individual levels (Cabrales et al., 2008). This, in turn, can explain the

contradictory results that emerge on the role of monetary compensation for single employee (e.g.,

Davila, 2003; Goodale et al., 2011; Menon et al., 2002)

In-house R&D. In-house R&D activities are the most traditional and common approaches used by

organizations to create new technical knowledge and build up the required capabilities to apply that

knowledge (Evangelista et al., 1997), which are in turn conducive to turn inventions into marketable

products (Amara et al., 2008; Chudnovsky et al., 2006; Di Benedetto et al., 2008; Hall and Bagchi-

Sen, 2007; Huergo, 2006; Kumar and Jain, 2003; Roper et al., 2008; Santamaría et al., 2009;

Souitaris, 2002; Sun and Du, 2010; Yam et al., 2004; Yeoh and Roth, 1999). This remains

consistent even when companies operate in turbulent industries or follow different objectives, as in
the case of large-scale producers, specialized suppliers, and science-based firms (Vega-Jurado et al.,

2008). Some differences emerge between low-medium-tech (LMT) and high-tech (HT) companies.

Since LMT firms operate in less technological turbulent markets, a stronger orientation to market

knowledge during R&D activities provides them with a better chance to introduce novel products

(Grimpe and Sofka, 2009). According to this view, the capability of LMT firms to commercialize

their inventions moves beyond formal R&D activities, and include other relevant tasks, such as

design and manufacturing (Santamaría et al., 2009).

Despite the large number of studies examining the effect of R&D on new product introduction,

comparatively little attention has been paid to the novelty of the introduced products. Particularly,

Souitaris (2002) and Vega-Jurado et al. (2008) provided empirical evidences that firms’ R&D efforts

favor the introduction of incremental prodcuts, while the studies by Amara et al. (2008) and Di

Benedetto et al. (2008) revealed their positive effect on the commercialization of radical ones. More

probably, these juxtaposed results are due to the different and subjective survey measures to assess

the radicalnees of a product. Indeed, the first two studies assessed product innovativeness respesct

to the market where a product is launched, while the latter put more emphasis on the readicalness of

the technologis embedded in it.

Network level

Nowadays, inter-organizational collaborations and partnerships are core elements of firms’ strategy

(Dyer and Singh, 1998; Gulati, 1998), since companies more and more need to exchange and

acquire knowledge and resources to develop and commercialize new products (e.g., Harryson et al.,

2008; Santamaría et al., 2009; Van Oorschot et al., 2010). In particular, their role is seen as more

effective as firms have an exploratory attitude, rather than and exploitative one (Clausen et al.,

2013), experience different types of collaboration (e.g., R&D agreements, licensing agreements,

joint ventures, and acquisitions) (Nicholls-Nixon and Woo, 2003; Zahra and Nielsen, 2002), and

collaborate with networked partners (Baba and Walsh, 2010; Mu and Di Benedetto, 2011; Snow et
al., 2011), because the variety of knowledge resources they can access rises. Wuyts et al. (2004), in

addition, suggested that companies rely upon technologically diversified partners to increase the

breadth of available knowledge, or on a consolidated pool of partners, thus favoring knowledge

transfer. Of course, all these approaches require that organizations have a high strategic

commitment to partnerships so as to make more effective the knowledge exchange between the

parties (Lew and Sinkovics, 2013).

Acquisitions have also been found positively related to the introduction of technological products

(Santamaría et al., 2009), as they “enable the firm to access or develop knowledge that facilitates

commercialization of new technology” (Nicholls-Nixon and Woo, 2003:664). Nevertheless,

integrating the acquired firms without preserving part of its autonomy limits their capacity to carry

on innovative activities, especially if they are at an initial stage, hence hampering the acquirer’s

opportunity of introducing radical products in the short term after the acquisition (Puranam et al.,

2006).

Although external relationships have been considered strongly associated with the firms’ ability to

commercialize inventions via new products, some contingent effects can better explain their impact.

First, organizations cannot effectively control all their collaborations as their frequency grows, thus

revealing the need to balance the efforts directed toward internal and external innovative activities

to increase the number of products launched on the market (Deeds and Hill, 1996). Nevertheless,

mixed results emerged respect to the hypothesis of complementarity between in-house R&D and

external relationships (e.g., Cassiman and Veugelers, 2006). In fact, the work by Hoang and

Rothaermeml (2010) and Sun and Du (2010), which support that assumption, are juxtaposed to

those by Parthasarthy and Hammond (2002) and Vega-Jurado et al. (2008), which advocated a

substitutive effect between the two knowledge sourcing activities. Likely reasons for this difference

may lie on the presence of industry-related effects (Vega-Jurado et al., 2008) and the specific type

of in-house R&D activity and alliance (e.g., exploitative vs. explorative) (Hoang and Rothaermel,

2010). The operating environment of companies can also explain how inter-firm collaborations’
advantages may change, hence suggesting for the presence of cross-level effects. For instance,

fierce competition can promote the emergence of potential opportunistic behaviors between the

parties. Thus, the benefits of technological collaborations can be reduced (Wu, 2012). Nevertheless,

in the presence of high technological turbulence, such contingency can be less pronounced because

firms are stimulated to cooperate for staying up to date with the quick technological changes (Wu,

2012). Furthermore, the stage of the new product development project that a company is

approaching represents another important variable to consider when designing the collaboration

strategy. Accordingly, at the beginning of the new product development processes, companies can

perform better if they establish explorative alliances, characterized by weak ties with small

organizations, so as to promote creativity and knowledge recombination, which in turn call for

subsequent exploitative alliances in order to bring the products on the market (Harryson et al., 2008;

Rothaermel and Deeds, 2004). Finally, as firm size grows, companies can result more able to rely

on internal resources, and so to vertically integrate their projects (Rothaermel and Deeds, 2004),

hence reducing the advantages of partnering with other organizations.

Types of actor. Story et al. (2011) give reason to believe that diverse types of actor with different

roles affect the commercialization of firms’ technologies, being these sources of diverse sets of

information and resources. In line with this view, past studies analyzed the role played by non-

industrial partners (e.g., universities, research institutes), industrial partners, and customers (see also

Bucher et al., 2003).

Partnering with non-industrial partners substantially improves companies’ scientific and

technological knowledge and capabilities, which in turn allow them to internally exploit their

inventions. Accordingly, the frequency and speed at which firms introduce technology-based

products on the market is likely to be higher (Baba and Walsh, 2010; Deeds and Hill, 1996;

Kaufmann and Tödtling, 2001; Kumar and Jain, 2003; Quintana-García and Benavides-Velasco,
2004; Wu, 2011). This appears to be particuarly beneficial for old companies because it contributes

to reduce the risks to fall into a competency trap (Dowling and Helm 2006).

Similarly, organizations that establish partnerships with competitors and other companies

(Carayannopoulos, 2005; Deeds and Hill, 1996; Dowling and Helm, 2006; Maine and Garnsey,

2006; Wu, 2011), as well as with suppliers, consultants, and service intermediaries (Fitjar and

Rodríguez-Pose, 2013; Kaufmann and Tödtling, 2001; Parthasarthy and Hammond, 2002; Story et

al., 2011; Zhang and Li, 2010), commercialize their inventions in an effective manner. Indeed, the

upstream and downstream activities needed to turn these solutions into marketable products are

better supported. More specifically, long-term relations with suppliers, as well as constant social

interaction, trust, and geographical proximity, are key conditions to organizations for improving the

new product development process by fostering information exchange (Bonaccorsi and Lipparini,

1994; Kim et al., 2012).

Companies can also find customers as a valuable source of knowledge to find different and

promising market applications for their inventions (Fitjar and Rodríguez-Pose, 2013; Kim et al.,

2012; Roper et al., 2008; Souder et al., 1998; Story et al., 2011). Particularly, if companies have

contacts with customers in heterogeneous technological domains, such as IDEO, the introduction of

new technological solutions by spanning industrial realms is fostered (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997).

Similarly, a close link to key customers, particularly when they are the major sources of firms’

revenues, boosts the introduction of technological products (Yli-Renko et al., 2001; Yli-Renko and

Janakiraman, 2008). In fact, it reduces market uncertainty, and allows firms to get in touch with

other customers and better pinpoint their needs and expectations (Yli-Renko et al., 2001). In spite of

that, heavily depending upon key customers or an excessive increasing in the size of customer

portfolio may result to be detrimental to companies. Indeed, on the one hand, the higher the revenue

concentration, the more key customers acquire bargaining power, hence limiting firms’ autonomy to

exploit their technologies (Yli-Renko and Janakiraman, 2008). On the other hand, the bigger the
portfolio of customers the higher the risk of information overload, thus lowering firms’ possibility

to use the acquired knowledge (Yli-Renko and Janakiraman, 2008).

Despite the number of studies analyzing the role of the diverse types of partner involved in inter-

firm relationships, results concerning their impact on the novelty of the introduced products are

mixed. For instance, Radas and Božić (2009) showed that non-industrial partners are solely

responsible for the introduction of radical products, whereas industrial partners only influence the

introduction of incremental ones. Instead, Fitjar and Rodríguez-Pose (2013) and Kaufmann and

Tödtling (2001) found that the two types of actor can foster the introduction of both radical and

incremental products. Research on the role of customers provided similar contradictory insights (see

(Kaufmann and Tödtling, 2001; Roper et al., 2008). Possible explanations may depend on the fact

that different samples, in terms of geographic location, industry, and size, have been employed,

which may in turn modify the relationship between product innovativeness and type of partner, as

the result of a number of specific contingencies.

Industry level

Industry structure. Overall, large industry sizes, as well as the perceived industry growth, are seen

as opportunities to improve the rate of new technological products on the market. Indeed, they

provide companies with more chances to achieve higher returns, as represented by the wider

customer base to compensate firms’ new product development costs (Cooper and Kleinschmidt,

1990; Gillett and Stekler, 1995), especially favoring radical products’ launch (Iyer et al., 2006).

Similarly, the presence of foreign direct investors, particularly in emerging markets, can represent

an opportunity to new product introduction, because of the possibility of a proficient spillover effect

of technological knowledge. Notwithstanding, this new knowledge fails to be translated into

products if firms’ production and marketing capabilities are not improved (Sun and Du, 2010).

Differences among national environments reflect distinct results in terms of products on the market.

In fact, some evidences suggested that societal needs and public opinions play a fundamental role
for the introduction of new technology-based products (Achilladelis and Antonakis, 2001;

Carayannopoulos, 2005; Chataway et al., 2004; Di Benedetto et al., 2008). For instance, the market

acceptance of new technologies is a key determinant for their subsequent commercialization via

new products (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1990; Walsh, 2012).

Other two relevant features of industries need to be considered, namely competitiveness and

turbulence, which are more deeply analyzed in the following.

Industry competitiveness. Despite the skepticisms emerging in the seminal paper by Cooper and

Kleinschmidt (1990), further studies revealed that high competitive industries favor both new and

incumbent firms in turning inventions into marketable products (Achilladelis and Antonakis, 2001;

Gillett and Stekler, 1995; Radas and Božić, 2009; Schoonhoven et al., 1990). In fact, in such a

context, companies have to respond fast and concurrent to their competitors (Kim and Atuahene-

Gima, 2010; Soni et al., 1993), thus encouraging the exploitation of their technological portfolios.

Nonetheless, the short time required to introduce new products and the uncertain nature going along

with the development of radical products tend to mainly stimulate the launch of incremental

solutions (Molina-Castillo et al., 2011; Radas and Božić, 2009). Accordingly, even if companies

explore new technological domains, they tend to reduce highly innovative projects in order to enter

the market faster (Bao et al., 2012; Molina-Castillo et al., 2011). In addition, in a competitive

environment, knowledge spills easily over the society. Thus, even though companies are not

directly engaged in the search for new knowledge, they can exploit competitors’ search strategies to

introduce incremental products on the market after the commercialization of the pioneering

innovations by competitors (Katila and Chen, 2008).

Industry turbulence. Industry turbulence, as represented by high rate of changes of technological

solutions and customers’ composition and preferences, creates opportunities for frequent and radical

technological advances that give rise to the introduction of new products. Accordingly, due to the
need to steady generate unique technological competitive advantages (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997),

firms operating in high turbulent industries commercialize more technological products than those

operating in stable ones (Stock and Zacharias, 2011), especially radical solutions (Augusto and

Coelho, 2009; Bao et al., 2012; Iyer et al., 2006). More in detail, in a turbulent industry, a higher

quality of the commercialized products lets firms achieve a more pronunced competitive advantage

(Molina-Castillo et al., 2011). In turn, firms’ attitude toward the improvement of existing

knowledge to reach product quality goals gains more relevance for the introduction of technological

products. Similarly, firms’ ability to reconfigure their structure and administrative style has been

found to be more important when they have to cope with a high rate of technological change, by

improving resource allocation capabilities and management flexibility (Bao et al., 2012; Verdu et

al., 2012).

In case of technological turbulence being too much oriented toward new technological frontiers

may not favor the introduction of new products, since technical knowledge tend to depreciate fast

(Bao et al., 2012), hence increasing the risks to not achieve return on investments. Thus, to reduce

such a risk, firms often tend to commercialize their inventions when the industry is in a condition of

technological convergence (Pilkington, 2004), since the acceptance of more radical inventions

becomes less uncertain. This further highlights that in a state of industry turbulence market

conditions cannot be overlooked by companies (Mu and Di Benedetto, 2011), which let them better

seize new technological opportunities and serve customers (Li and Calantone, 1998).

Regulatory environment and government support. The regulatory environment consists of laws and

regulations set in order to support and guide innovative activities (Blind, 2012). It affects the

context in which firms operate and, hence, their decisions regarding technologies and products to be

launched into the market (Baba and Walsh, 2010; Roper et al., 2008). This has been revealed to be

true in many industries. For instance, even though companies approaching the newly formed agro-

biotechnology sector clearly recognized the potential value of their products based upon their own
new technologies, products’ launch was delaied until clear policies were established (Chataway et

al., 2004). Similarly, deregulation in the aircraft sector induced only the most risk tolerant and

flexible organizations at introducing new prodcuts (Gillett and Stekler, 1995). More in general,

setting strict rules of labor and product market can pose too many constraints on firms’ strategies

and operations, hence hampering invention commercialization (Barbosa and Faria, 2011).

Among the regulations set by governments that can be beneficial to the exploitation of firms’

technologies through new products, there are those aiming at providing technical support and

creating market niches, by focusing on the reduction of market uncertainty (Caerteling et al., 2008).

Similarly, the legal mechanisms set to define and regulate the extent of firms’ intellectual property

rights (IPRs) play a key role for the introduction of new technological products. Indeed, they affect

companies’ possibility to capture the benefits resulting from their inventive activities (Maine, 2008;

Maine and Garnsey, 2006; Teece, 1986; Vega-Jurado et al., 2008). Nevertheless, in countries

characterized by a strong patent protection regulation, major innovators are more willing to patent

around original inventions, thus limiting knowledge flows and waves of related innovative solutions

(Barbosa and Faria, 2011). This effect is however reduced when government occupies a dominant

position as a buyer (Caerteling et al., 2008). In fact, governments tend to avoid relying on few

suppliers with a significant bargaining power. Consequently, public procurement has been revealed

particularly beneficial to smaller firms operating in turbulent environment, since they are more able

to compete and are hence more willing to sustain the costs of innovation directed to the introduction

of new products (Aschhoff and Sofka, 2009).

Due to the high costs generated by the exploitation of firms’ technologies, financing has been

indicated as one of the most relevant obstacle to the introduction of new products (Radas and

Božić, 2009). Accordingly, companies that can take advantage of government funding, such as tax

credits and credit market regulation, perform better than the others (Barbosa and Faria, 2011;

Czarnitzki et al., 2011; Guan et al., 2009), especially for the commercialization of radical

technologies (Maine, 2008; Maine and Garnsey, 2006), due to the higher risk and uncertainty.
However, public support does not always effectively sustain the commercialization of firms’

technologies. For instance, it is more effective when directed to value creation activities, such as

specific R&D goals, training, and administrative learning, rather than to the purchase of new

plants/machineries (Radas and Božić, 2009; Roper et al., 2008), as well as if there actually exist

attractive markets for firms’ products (Caerteling et al., 2008).

Conclusion and future research directions

This paper reviewed the literature findings about the main determinants enabling the introduction of

innovative products based on firms’ own technologies and proposed a systematic framework upon

which discussing the various results. Specifically, we analyze the various factors across multiple

levels, as the individual, firm, network, and industry one. Thereby, building on this framework, we

highlight central issues and main contrasting results, as well as offer open topics for future research.

Table 4 presents a summary of our findings, thus showing key theoretical perspectives,

methodological approaches, main results, literature gaps, and selected representative references for

each of the considered levels.

Overall, most of the studies are quantitative in nature covering broad range of different industries

and national settings. Nevertheless, only few of them use a longitudinal design to study the

phenomenon under investigation (see Table A). Moreover, the majority of the articles mainly

considers one level of analysis (especially the firm one), as well as focuses on the direct effects of

the analyzed factors without considering their complementarity, substitutive, or cross-level

relationships, and neglecting the nested nature of the different levels (e.g., firms within industries or

teams within firms), thus yielding an incomplete understanding (Gupta et al., 2007; Hitt et al.,

2007). In addition, there is a lack of research analyzing the effects of technological characteristics

of inventions, which make them more (or less) suitable for being commercialized (e.g., Nerkar and

Shane, 2007).
 <Insert Table 4 about here>

Individual level

Despite the presence of highly educated and qualified employees in R&D departments and TMTs

facilitates the launch of new products on the market, an over reliance of them in leadership

positions may be counter-productive (Deeds et al., 2000). Accordingly, further study should deepen

the understanding about how to cope with the decline in innovative productivity due to

misallocation of human organizational members. Furthermore, some studies revealed no significant

relationship between TMTs’ and employees’ prior work experiences, and the introduction of

technology-based products. Future research may follow this line of inquiry by investigating how the

effects of members’ previous experiences are contingent upon the specific activities in which they

were involved.

The translation of technologies into marketable products is strictly dependent on the relationships

between individuals within the organization, as well as on the creation of heterogeneous teams (e.g.,

Bucher et al., 2003). Nevertheless, their management is not costless due, for instance, to cognitive

or cultural distance between members (Nakata et al., 2011). Therefore, following the direction

traced by Harryson et al. (2008), future studies should provide a more thorough comprehension of

which types of mechanism can effectively favor cooperative team working. In addition, except for

Alexiev et al. (2010), no other scholars assessed the extent to which team heterogeneity or informal

social interactions affect the acquisition of new knowledge for products introduction. Hence, further

study may analyze the moderating or mediating role (across different levels) of the characteristics of

human capital on the relationship between the acquisition of knowledge through in-house R&D or

collaborations, and the number of products introduced on the market. Finally, only the study by

Baron and Tang (2011) carried out an analysis at the level of single individuals, focusing upon the

role of entrepreneurs. Specifically, looking at the entrepreneurs’ affect (subjective feeling states),

the authors demonstrated that a stable and positive affect leads to more creativity, which in turn has

a positive influence on the introduction of radical products. Thus, in order to increase our
understanding on the impact exerted by the role and characteristics of the entrepreneurs, more

research on this issue should be conducted.

Firm level

Firms can search for different types of knowledge. Nevertheless, exploiting existing knowledge or

exploring novel one often competes for scarce resources (Li et al., 2013; March, 1991). Therefore,

how to balance the efforts toward these different search strategies is of foremost important. To this

aim, considering the cross-level effects exerted by other factors pertaining different levels of

analysis may be a promising starting point. For instance, the market and regulatory environment

affect the acceptance of radical products, thus giving information on whether or not investing

resources in explorative activities (Alexiev et al., 2010). Moreover, the nature of human capital

influences the knowledge that firms are able to acquire and exploit, and may hence influence the

type of knowledge that should be searched for (Li et al., 2013).

Existing evidence on the impact of firm size on invention commercialization is contradictory.

Future studies can go deeper into this issue by analyzing sector-related effects (Kannebley et al.

2005). In addition, which type of formal structure is more suitable in respect to the product novelty

received little empirical verification. As well, whether firms adapt their structure respect to the type

of products and its related potential benefits have been marginally explored (de Visser et al., 2010),

thus opening the door for further investigations. Furthermore, firms creating an innovative-oriented

climate and clear goals, as well as promoting the integration between their functions, have been

proven to enhance the probability to launch technological products on the market. Nevertheless, a

lack of evidence about the type of introduced products emerges. In addition, different administrative

styles impact on knowledge acquisition and exploitation capabilities during the new product

development process. Thereby, their role as moderating factors on the relationships between

knowledge sourcing activities (e.g., in-house R&D and collaborations) and new product

introduction should be taken into account (Augusto and Coelho, 2009). Research on rewarding
systems is relatively scant and not well integrated. In particular, scholars may shed new light on the

types of reward (e.g., monetary vs. non-monetary) that are more effective respect to the role of an

employee in the organization (manager, middle manager, worker, etc.), as well as to the level of

risks related to a new product development project. Furthermore, when (and if) rewards at the

team/department level are valid alternatives to those at the single individual level might be further

investigated.

Finally, several works empirically found in-house R&D as a key determinant for the introduction of

technology-based products (e.g., Santamaría et al., 2009; Souitaris, 2002). However, more efforts

are required to analyze the types of product arising from these R&D investments, since scarce and

contradictory results emerged.

Network level

Findings suggest that being part of different types of collaboration leads to the introduction of more

technology-based products on the market (e.g., Mu and Di Benedetto, 2011; Zahra and Nielsen,

2002). Nevertheless, it has been advocated that the value of each type of partnerships changes

according to the new product development stage (Rothaermel and Hess, 2007). Moreover, the

relationship between establishing alliances and the number of products introduced on the market is

contingent on industry characteristics, since these influence the willingness of firms to cooperate.

Therefore, it could be interesting to consolidate these results and better comprehend how to manage

the collaboration strategy along all the invention commercialization process. In addition, it emerges

the presence of a substitutive effect between in-house R&D and inter-firm collaborations (Vega-

Jurado et al., 2008). This result goes against some other studies in the (more general) innovation

literature (e.g., Cassiman and Veugelers, 2006). Thereby, more light should be shed on this issue, in

the attempt to clarify the relationship between these different types of knowledge sourcing

activities. The study by Wu (2011) is the only one taking into account political ties, showing their

inverted U-shaped relationship with new product introduction. Thus, a better comprehension of
costs and benefits of partnering with such institutions is needed to further provide theoretical and

managerial insights. Finally, the impact of the different types of partner on the level of product

innovativeness is not fully investigated, hence requiring further empirical analysis.

Industry level

In high competitive industries, introducing radical products is considered too risky because of the

severe price wars and spillover effects. However, as suggested by Augusto and Coelho (2009), a

customer orientation strategy may reduce these risks, thus calling for more research efforts to

properly analyze this effect. Furthermore, the literature took into account the uncertainty caused by

the business and technological changes occurring within industries. Nevertheless, little attention has

been paid on the direct relationship between industry turbulence and the introduction of technology-

based products. Furthermore, it is advocated that industry turbulence moderates the influence of

knowledge sourcing activities on invention commercialization. However, only few studies deeply

investigated these cross-level interaction effects (Bao et al., 2012; Wu, 2012). Thereby, more

research is required to better understand the links between industry dynamics and both in-house

R&D and collaboration strategies.

The role played by public policies and government support have received limited attention.

Specifically, results on the relevance of clear regulations change across the analyzed studies,

probably because the strength of those regulations changes among the considered sample, thus

influencing companies’ decision-making process regarding the technological products to be entered

into the market (Barbosa and Faria, 2011). Accordingly, a better understanding of the trade-off

between strong and less regulated environments could help policy makers to stimulate innovation

activities. Furthermore, the positive influence of government support turns out to be shared among

most of the studies, particularly for the commercialization of radical technologies (Guan et al.,

2009; Maine and Garnsey, 2006). Nonetheless, the way incentive schemes should be designed and

to which type of firms’ activities they should be directed is not clear from our findings, hence
requiring more in depth studies. Finally, the role of the IPR mechanisms is only mentioned in few

studies, hence representing a further interesting line of inquiry.

In conclusion, the present research contributes to shed new light on the complex and highly

fragmented topic of the introduction of products based on firms’ own technological inventions.

Specifically, we review the existing literature in the attempt to provide an overview of the main

factors influencing the introduction of technology-based products, by adopting a multilevel

perspective, and open the doors to further investigations. Therefore, it is our belief the article may

represent a relevant starting point for future studies, since it helps scholars to identify the analyzed

factors respect to different levels of analysis and more easily conduct future cross-level studies,

which are required to further advance our knowledge on innovation dynamics (Gupta et al., 2007;

Hitt et al., 2007).

Of course, our study has its recognized limitations. First, our review uses only, albeit the most

relevant, leading international journals. Thus, some potentially relevant literature might be missed.

However, we believe our rigorous procedure has reduced this probability, hence making the final

list of articles representative in its current shape. Second, this is a review of the innovation as an

object literature and not commercialization as process, which is, however a further interesting

argument to be reviewed in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the topic under

investigation.

Acknowledgements
A previous version of this paper has been presented at the 14 th EURAM Annual Conference, held on June 4-
7, in Valencia, Spain. The authors would like to thank all the participants in the discussion. We are also
grateful to Associate Editor Luca Gnan and anonymous reviewers of this journal for having offered
insightful developmental feedback and suggestions.

References
Achilladelis, B., and N. Antonakis, 2001, “The dynamics of technological innovation: the case of the
pharmaceutical industry”. Research Policy: 30: 535-588.
Ahuja, G., and C.M. Lampert, 2001, “Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of
how established firms create breakthrough inventions”. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 521-543.
Akgün, A.E., G.S. Lynn and J.C. Byrne, 2006, “Antecedents and consequences of unlearning in new
product development teams”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23: 73–88.
Akgün, A.E., J.C. Byrne, G.S. Lynn and H. Keskin, 2007, “Team stressors, management support, and
project and process outcomes in new product development projects”. Technovation, 27: 628-639.
 Akgün, A.E., H. Keskin, G. Lynn and D. Dogan, 2012, “Antecedents and consequences of team
sensemaking capability in product development projects”. R&D Management, 42: 473-493.
Alexiev, A.S., J.J.P. Jansen, F.a.J. Van Den Bosch and H.W. Volberda, 2010, “Top Management Team
Advice Seeking and Exploratory Innovation: The Moderating Role of TMT Heterogeneity”. Journal of
Management Studies, 47: 1343-1364.
Amara, N., R. Landry, N. Becheikh and M. Ouimet, 2008, “Learning and novelty of innovation in
established manufacturing SMEs”. Technovation, 28: 450-463.
Anderson, N., C.K.W. De Dreu and B.A. Nijstad, 2004, “The routinization of innovation research: a
constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 147-173.
Artz, K.W., P.M. Norman, D.E. Hatfield and L.B. Cardinal, 2010, “A Longitudinal Study of the Impact
of R&D, Patents, and Product Innovation on Firm Performance”. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 27: 725-740.
Aschhoff, B. and W. Sofka, 2009, “Innovation on demand—Can public procurement drive market
success of innovations?”. Research Policy, 38: 1235-1247.
Atuahene-Gima, K., 2005. “Resolving the Capability—Rigidity Paradox in New Product Innovation”.
Journal of Marketing, 69: 61-83.
Augusto, M. and F. Coelho, 2009, “Market orientation and new-to-the-world products: Exploring the
moderating effects of innovativeness, competitive strength, and environmental forces”. Industrial Marketing
Management, 38: 94-108.
Baba, Y. and J.P. Walsh, 2010, “Embeddedness, social epistemology and breakthrough innovation: The
case of the development of statins”. Research Policy, 39: 511-522.
Bakker, R.M., 2010, “Taking Stock of Temporary Organizational Forms: A Systematic Review and
Research Agenda”. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12: 466-486.
Bao, Y., X. Chen and K.Z. Zhou, 2012, “External learning, market dynamics, and radical innovation:
Evidence from China's high-tech firms”. Journal of Business Research, 65: 1226-1233.
Barbosa, N. and A.P. Faria, 2011, “Innovation across Europe: How important are institutional
differences?” Research Policy, 40: 1157-1169.
Barney, J.B., 1995, “Looking inside for competitive advantage”. Academy of Management Executive, 9:
49-61.
Baron, R.A. and J. Tang, 2011, “The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of
positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism”. Journal of Business Venturing, 26: 49-60.
Barreto, I., 2010, "Dynamic Capabilities: A Review of Past Research and an Agenda for the Future".
Journal of Management, 36: 256-280.
Becheikh, N., R. Landry, and N. Amara. 2006. "Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the
manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003". Technovation, 26: 644-664.
Björkdahl, J., 2009, “Technology cross-fertilization and the business model: The case of integrating ICTs
in mechanical engineering products”. Research Policy, 38: 1468-1477.
Blind, K., 2012, “The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD
countries”. Research Policy, 41: 391-400.
Bonaccorsi, A. and A. Lipparini, 1994, “Strategic partnerships in new product development: An Italian
case study”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11: 134-145.
Brown, W.B. and N. Karagozoglu, 1993, “Leading the way to faster new product development”.
Academy of Management Perspective, 7: 36-47.
Bucher, P., B. Birkenmeier, H. Brodbeck and J.P. Escher, 2003, “Management principles for evaluating
and introducing disruptive technologies: the case of nanotechnology in Switzerland”. R&D Management, 33:
149-163.
Cabrales, Á.L., C.C. Medina, A.C. Lavado, and R.V. Cabrera, 2008 "Managing functional diversity, risk
taking and incentives for teams to achieve radical innovations". R&D Management 38: 35-50.
Caerteling, J.S., J.I.M. Halman and A.G. Dorée, 2008, “Technology Commercialization in Road
Infrastructure: How Government Affects the Variation and Appropriability of Technology”. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 25: 143-161.
Capaldo, A., D. Lavie and A. Messeni Petruzzelli, Forthcoming, “Knowledge Maturity and the Scientific
Value of Innovations: The Roles of Knowledge Distance and Adoption”, Journal of Management.
Carayannopoulos, S., 2005, “Research In Motion: A Small Firm Commercializing a New Technology”.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29: 219-232.
 Carayannopoulos, S., 2005, "Research In Motion: A Small Firm Commercializing a New Technology".
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29: 219-232.
Carpenter, M.A., M. Li, and H. Jiang, 2012, "Social Network Research in Organizational Contexts: A
Systematic Review of Methodological Issues and Choices". Journal of Management, 38: 1328-1361.
Cassiman, B. and R. Veugelers, 2006, “In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal
R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition”. Management Science, 52: 68-82.
Chandy, R., B. Hopstaken, O. Narasimhan and J. Prabhu, 2006, “From Invention to Innovation:
Conversion Ability in Product Development”. Journal of Marketing Research, 43: 494-508.
Chandy, R. and G.J. Tellis, 1998, "Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of
Willingness to Cannibalize". Journal of Marketing Research, 35: 474-487.
Chandy, R.K. and G.J. Tellis, 2000, "The Incumbent’s Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product
Innovation". Journal of Marketing, 64: 1-17.
Chataway, J., J. Tait and D. Wield, 2004, “Understanding company R&D strategies in agro-
biotechnology: trajectories and blind spots”. Research Policy, 33: 1041-1057.
Chesbrough, H.W. 2006, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology: Harvard Business School Press.
Chudnovsky, D., A. López and G. Pupato, 2006, “Innovation and productivity in developing countries: A
study of Argentine manufacturing firms’ behavior 1992–2001”, Research Policy, 35: 266-288.
Clausen, T.H., T. Korneliussen, and E.L. Madsen, 2013, "Modes of innovation, resources and their
influence on product innovation: Empirical evidence from RD active firms in Norway". Technovation, 33:
225-233.
Cooper, R.G. and E.J. Kleinschmidt, 1990, “New product success factors: A comparison of ‘kills’ versus
successes and failures”. R&D Management, 20: 47-63.
Crossan, M.M. and M. Apaydin, 2010, “A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation:
A Systematic Review of the Literature”. Journal of Management Studies, 47: 1154-1191.
Czarnitzki, D., P. Hanel, and J.M. Rosa, 2011, “Evaluating the impact of R&D tax credits on innovation:
A microeconometric study on Canadian firms”. Research Policy, 40: 217-229.
Damanpour, F., 1991, “Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators”. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 555-590.
Danneels, E., 2007, “The process of technological competence leveraging”. Strategic Management
Journal, 28: 511-533.
Datta, A. and L.M. Jessup, 2013, "Looking beyond the focal industry and existing technologies for radical
innovations". Technovation, 33: 355-367.
Datta, A., D. Mukherjee, and L.M. Jessup, Forthcoming, "Understanding commercialization of
technological innovation: taking stock and moving forward". R&D Management.
Davila, A., 2003, “Short-term economic incentives in new product development”. Research Policy, 32:
1397-1420.
de Visser, M., P. De Weerd-Nederhof, D. Faems, M. Song, B. Van Looy and K. Visscher, 2010,
“Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated
structures on innovation performance”. Technovation, 30: 291-299.
Deeds, D.L. D. Decarolis and J. Coombs, 2000, “Dynamic capabilities and new product development in
high technology ventures: An empirical analysis of new biotechnology firms”. Journal of Business
Venturing, 15: 211-229.
Deeds, D.L. and C.W.L. Hill, 1996, “Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: An
empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms”. Journal of Business Venturing, 11: 41-55.
Di Benedetto, C.A., W.S. Desarbo and M. Song, 2008, “Strategic Capabilities and Radical Innovation:
An Empirical Study in Three Countries”. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55: 420-433.
Dowling, M. and R. Helm, 2006, “Product development success through cooperation: A study of
entrepreneurial firms”. Technovation, 26: 483-488.
Drazin, R. and H. Rao, 2002, “Harnessing managerial knowledge to implement product-line extensions:
How do mutual fund families allocate portfolio managers to old and new funds?”. Academy of Management
Journal, 45: 609-619.
Dyer, J.H. and H. Singh, 1998, “The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage”. Academy of Management Review, 23: 660-679.
Ernst, H., 2002, "Success Factors of New Product Development: A Review of the Empirical Literature".
International Journal of Management Reviews, 4: 1-40.
 Evangelista, R., G. Perani, F. Rapiti and D. Archibugi, 1997, “Nature and impact of innovation in
manufacturing: some evidence from the Italian innovation survey”. Research Policy, 26: 521–536.
Felekoglu, B. and J. Moultrie, 2014, "Top Management Involvement in New Product Development: A
Review and Synthesis". Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31: 159-175.
Fitjar, R.D. and A. Rodríguez-Pose, 2013, “Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway”.
Research Policy, 42: 128-138.
Fleming, L., 2002, “Finding the organizational sources of technological breakthroughs: the story of
Hewlett‐Packard's thermal ink‐jet”. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11: 1059-1084.
Freel, M.S., 2005, Patterns of innovation and skills in small firms”. Technovation, 25: 123-134.
Fulmer, C.A. and M.J. Gelfand, 2012, "At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple
Organizational Levels". Journal of Management, 38: 1167-1230.
Gans, J.S. and S. Stern, 2003, “The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization
strategies for technology entrepreneurs”. Research Policy, 32: 333-350.
Gatignon, H. and J.-M. Xuereb, 1997, “Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance”.
Journal of Marketing Research, 34: 77-90.
Gillett, D. and H.O. Stekler, 1995, “Introducing technologically advanced products: Strategies in the
commercial aircraft industry”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 48: 129-141.
Gomes, E., B.R. Barnes and T. Mahmood, Forthcoming, “A 22 year review of strategic alliance research
in the leading management journals”. International Business Review.
Goodale, J.C., D.F. Kuratko, J.S. Hornsby and J.G. Covin, 2011, “Operations management and corporate
entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of operations control on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial
activity in relation to innovation performance”. Journal of Operations Management, 29: 116-127.
Gopalakrishnan, S. and F. Damanpour, 1997, “A review of innovation research in economics, sociology
and technology management”. Omega, 25: 15-28.
Griffin, A. and J.R. Hauser, 1996, "Integrating R&D and Marketing: A Review and Analysis of the
Literature". Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13: 191-215.
Grimpe, C. and W. Sofka, 2009, “Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low- and high-technology
sectors in European countries”. Research Policy, 38: 495-506.
Guan, J.C., R.C.M., Yam, E.P.Y. Tang and A.K.W. Lau, 2009, “Innovation strategy and performance
during economic transition: Evidences in Beijing, China”. Research Policy, 38: 802-812.
Gulati, R., 1998, Alliances and networks”. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 293-317.
Guler, I. and A. Nerkar, 2012, “The impact of global and local cohesion on innovation in the
pharmaceutical industry”. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 535-549.
Gupta, A.K., P.E. Tesluk and M.S. Taylor, 2007, “Innovation At and Across Multiple Levels of
Analysis”. Organization Science, 18: 885-897.
Hall, L.A. and S. Bagchi-Sen, 2007, “An analysis of firm-level innovation strategies in the US
biotechnology industry”. Technovation, 27: 4-14.
Hargadon, A. and R.I. Sutton, 1997, “Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development
Firm”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716-749.
Harryson, S.J., R. Dudkowski and A. Stern, 2008, “Transformation Networks in Innovation Alliances –
The Development of Volvo C70”. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 745-773.
Hitt M.A., P.W. Beamish, S.E. Jackson and J.E. Mathieu, 2007, “Building theoretical and empirical
bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management”. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1385-
1399.
Hoang, H. and F.T. Rothaermel, 2010, “Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration,
exploitation, and R&D project performance”. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 734-758.
Howell, J.M., 2005, “The right stuff: Identifying and developing effective champions of innovation”.
Academy of Management Perspective, 19: 108-119.
Huergo, E., 2006, “The role of technological management as a source of innovation: Evidence from
Spanish manufacturing firms”. Research Policy, 35: 1377-1388.
Iansiti, M., 1995, “Shooting the Rapids: managing product development in turbulent environments”.
California Management Review, 38: 37-58.
Iyer, G.R., P.J. Laplaca and A. Sharma, 2006, “Innovation and new product introductions in emerging
markets: Strategic recommendations for the Indian market”. Industrial Marketing Management, 35: 373-382.
James, S.D., M.J., Leiblein, and S. Lu, 2013, "How Firms Capture Value From Their Innovations".
Journal of Management, 39: 1123-1155.
 Jensen, M.B., B. Johnson, E. Lorenz and B.Å. Lundvall, 2007, “Forms of knowledge and modes of
innovation”. Research Policy, 36: 680-693.
Johne, F.A. and P.A., Snelson, 1988, "Success factors in product innovation: A selective review of the
literature". Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5: 114-128.
Jolly, V.K., 1997, Commercializing New Technologies: Getting from Mind to Market: Harvard Business
School Press.
Kannebley, J.S., G.S. Porto and E.T. Pazello, 2005, “Characteristics of Brazilian innovative firms: An
empirical analysis based on PINTEC—industrial research on technological innovation”. Research Policy,
34: 872-893.
Katila, R. and G. Ahuja, 2002, “Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior
and new product introduction”. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1183-1194.
Katila, R. and E.L. Chen, 2008, “Effects of Search Timing on Innovation: The Value of Not Being in
Sync with Rivals”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 593-625.
Kaufmann, A. and F. Tödtling, 2001, “Science–industry interaction in the process of innovation: the
importance of boundary-crossing between systems”. Research Policy, 30: 791-804.
Keupp, M.M., M. Palmié and O. Gassmann, 2012, “The Strategic Management of Innovation: A
Systematic Review and Paths for Future Research”. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14: 367-
390.
Kim, D.-Y., V. Kumar U. and Kumar, 2012, “Relationship between quality management practices and
innovation”. Journal of Operations Management, 30: 295-315.
Kim, N. and K. Atuahene-Gima, 2010, “Using Exploratory and Exploitative Market Learning for New
Product Development”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27: 519-536.
Kline, S.J. and N. Rosenberg, 1986, An overview of innovation. In Landau, R. & Rosenberg, N. eds.),
The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. Washington D.C.: National
Academy Press.
Koc, T. and C. Ceylan, 2007, “Factors impacting the innovative capacity in large-scale companies”.
Technovation, 27: 105-114.
Koellinger, P., 2008, “The relationship between technology, innovation, and firm performance—
Empirical evidence from e-business in Europe”. Research Policy, 37: 1317-1328.
Kumar, V. and P.K. Jain, 2003, “Commercialization of new technologies in India: an empirical study of
perceptions of technology institutions”. Technovation, 23: 113.
Lew, Y.K. and R.R. Sinkovics, 2013, “Crossing Borders and Industry Sectors: Behavioral Governance in
Strategic Alliances and Product Innovation for Competitive Advantage. Long Range Planning, 46: 13-38.
Li, Q., K. Smith, P. Maggitti, P. Tesluk and R. Katila, 2013, “Top Management Attention to Innovation:
The Role of Search Selection and Intensity in New Product Introductions”. Academy of Management
Journal, 56: 893-916.
Li, T. and R.J. Calantone, 1998, “The Impact of Market Knowledge Competence on New Product
Advantage: Conceptualization and Empirical Examination”. Journal of Marketing, 62: 13-29.
Lichtenthaler, U. and H. Ernst, 2007, “External technology commercialization in large firms: results of a
quantitative benchmarking study”. R&D Management, 37: 383-397.
Lilien, G.L. and Y. Eunsang, 1989, "Determinants of new industrial product performance: a strategic re-
examination of the empirical literature". IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 36: 3-10.
Lo, C.-C., C.H., Wang, P.-Y. Chien, and C.-W. Hung,2012, "An empirical study of commercialization
performance on nanoproducts". Technovation, 32: 168-178.
Lo, H. and H.-J. Chung, 2010, "The Impact of Complementary Agglomeration and Multi-unit Systems on
New Product Introduction". British Journal of Management, 21: 905-920.
Lukas, B.A. and O.C. Ferrell, 2000, “The Effect of Market Orientation on Product Innovation”. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28: 239-247.
Lukas, B.A., A. Menon and S.J. Bell, 2002, “Organizing for new product development speed and the
implications for organizational stress”. Industrial Marketing Management, 31: 349-355.
Lynn, G.S., K.D. Abel, W.S. Valentine and R.C. Wright, 1999, “Key Factors in Increasing Speed to
Market and Improving New Product Success Rates”. Industrial Marketing Management, 28: 319-326.
Maine, E., 2008, “Radical innovation through internal corporate venturing: Degussa's commercialization
of nanomaterials”. R&D Management, 38: 359-371.
Maine, E. and E. Garnsey, 2006, Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials
ventures”. Research Policy, 35: 375-393.
 March, J., 1991, “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning”. Organization Science, 2, 71-
87. Meier, M., 2011, “Knowledge Management in Strategic Alliances: A Review of Empirical Evidence”.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 13: 1-23.
Martín-de Castro, G., M. Delgado-Verde, J.E. Navas-López, and J. Cruz-González, 2013, "The
moderating role of innovation culture in the relationship between knowledge assets and product innovation".
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80: 351-363.
McCoy, A.P., R. Badinelli, C. Theodore Koebel, and W. Thabet, 2010, "Concurrent commercialization
and new‐product adoption for construction products". European Journal of Innovation Management, 13:
222-243.
McKinsey & Co., 2010, Innovation and commercialization: McKinsey Global Survey.
Meier, M., 2011, "Knowledge Management in Strategic Alliances: A Review of Empirical Evidence".
International Journal of Management Reviews, 13: 1-23.
Menon, A., J. Chowdhury and B.A. Lukas, 2002, “Antecedents and outcomes of new product
development speed: An interdisciplinary conceptual framework”. Industrial Marketing Management, 31:
317-328.
Molina-Castillo, F.-J., D. Jimenez-Jimenez and J.-L. Munuera-Aleman, 2011, “Product competence
exploitation and exploration strategies: The impact on new product performance through quality and
innovativeness”. Industrial Marketing Management, 40: 1172-1182.
Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and R. Calantone, 1994, "Determinants of new product performance: A review
and meta-analysis". Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11: 397-417.
Mu, J. and C.A. Di Benedetto, 2011, “Strategic orientations and new product commercialization:
mediator, moderator, and interplay”. R&D Management, 41: 337-359.
Mukhopadhyay, S.K. and A.V. Gupta, 1998, “Interfaces for resolving marketing, manufacturing and
design conflicts: A conceptual framework”. European Journal of Marketing, 32: 101−124.
Nakata, C., Z. Zhu and E. Izberk-Bilgin, 2011, “Integrating marketing and information services functions:
a complementarity and competence perspective”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39: 700-
716.
Nerkar, A. and S. Shane, 2007, “Determinants of invention commercialization: an empirical examination
of academically sourced inventions”. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 1155-1166.
Nevens, M.T., 1990, Commercializing Technology: Harvard Business School Reprint.
Nicholls-Nixon, C.L. and C.Y. Woo, 2003, “Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a
regime of encompassing technological change”. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 651-666.
Noble, C.H., R.K. Sinha and A. Kumar, 2002, “Market Orientation and Alternative Strategic
Orientations: A Longitudinal Assessment of Performance Implications”. Journal of Marketing, 66: 25-39.
OECD, 2005, Oslo Manual: OECD Publishing.
O’Reilly, C.A. and M.L. Tushman, 2004, “The ambidextrous organization”. Harvard Business Review,
82: 74–82.
Pareek, U., 2007, Organisational Culture And Climate: ICFAI University Press.
Parthasarthy, R. and J. Hammond, 2002, “Product innovation input and outcome: moderating effects of
the innovation process”. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19: 75-91.
Pavitt, K., 1998, “Technologies, Products and Organization in the Innovating Firm: What Adam Smith
Tells Us and Joseph Schumpeter Doesn't”. Industrial & Corporate Change, 7: 433-452.
Phelps, C., R. Heidl, and A. Wadhwa, 2012, "Knowledge, Networks, and Knowledge Networks : A
Review and Research Agenda". Journal of Management, 38: 1115-1166.
Pilkington, A., 2004, “Technology portfolio alignment as an indicator of commercialisation: an
investigation of fuel cell patenting”. Technovation, 24: 761-771.
Puranam, P., H. Singh and M. Zollo, 2006, “Organizing for innovation: managing the coordination
autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions”. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 263-280.
Quintana-García, C. and C.A. Benavides-Velasco, 2004, “Cooperation, competition, and innovative
capability: a panel data of European dedicated biotechnology firms”. Technovation, 24: 927-938.
Radas, S. and L. Božić, 2009, “The antecedents of SME innovativeness in an emerging transition
economy”. Technovation, 29: 438-450.
Roper, S., Du, J. and J.H. Love, 2008, “Modelling the innovation value chain. Research Policy, 37, 961-
977.
Rothaermel, F.T. and D.L. Deeds, 2004, “Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a
system of new product development”. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 201-221.
 Rothaermel, F.T. and D.L. Deeds, 2004, "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a
system of new product development". Strategic Management Journal, 25: 201-221.
Rothaermel, F.T and A.M. Hess, 2007, “Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by
Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects”. Organization Science, 18: 898-921.
Santamaría, L., M.J. Nieto and A. Barge-Gil, 2009, “Beyond formal R&D: Taking advantage of other
sources of innovation in low- and medium-technology industries”. Research Policy, 38: 507-517.
Schoonhoven, C.B., K.M. Eisenhardt, and K. Lyman, 1990, "Speeding Products to Market: Waiting Time
to First Product Introduction in New Firms". Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 177-207.
Schroll, A. and A. Mild, 2011, "Open innovation modes and the role of internal R&D". European Journal
of Innovation Management, 14: 475-495.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1934, The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit,
Interest, and the Business Cycle: Transaction Books.
Slater, S.F., J.J. Mohr, and S. Sengupta, 2014, "Radical Product Innovation Capability: Literature
Review, Synthesis, and Illustrative Research Propositions". Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31:
552-566.
Smith, K.G., C.J. Collins and K.D. Clark, 2005, “Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and
the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms”. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 346-
357.
Snow, C.C., Ø.D. Fjeldstad, C. Lettl, and R.E. Miles, 2011, "Organizing Continuous Product
Development and Commercialization: The Collaborative Community of Firms Model". Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 28: 3-16.
Sok, P. and A. O'Cass, 2011, “Achieving superior innovation-based performance outcomes in SMEs
through innovation resource–capability complementarity”. Industrial Marketing Management, 40: 1285-
1293.
Soni, P.K., G.L. Lilien and D.T. Wilson, 1993, “Industrial innovation and firm performance: A
reconceptualization and exploratory structural equation analysis”. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 10: 365-380.
Souder, W.E., J.D. Sherman and R. Davies-Cooper, 1998, “Environmental uncertainty, organizational
integration, and new product development effectiveness: a test of contingency theory”. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 15: 520-533.
Souitaris, V., 2002, “Firm–specific competencies determining technological innovation: A survey in
Greece”. R&D Management, 32: 61-77.
Stevens, G., J. Burley and R. Divine, 1999, “Creativity Business Discipline = Higher Profits Faster from
New Product Development”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16: 455-468.
Stock, R. and N. Zacharias, 2011, “Patterns and performance outcomes of innovation orientation”.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39: 870-888.
Story, V., O'malley, L. and Hart, S. 2011, “Roles, role performance, and radical innovation
competences”. Industrial Marketing Management, 40: 952-966.
Sun, Y. and D. Du, 2010, “Determinants of industrial innovation in China: Evidence from its recent
economic census”. Technovation, 30: 540-550.
Tang, J. and P.J. Murphy, 2012, “Prior Knowledge and New Product and Service Introductions by
Entrepreneurial Firms: The Mediating Role of Technological Innovation”. Journal of Small Business
Management, 50: 41-62.
Teece, D.J., 1986, “Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration,
licensing and public policy”. Research Policy, 15: 285-305.
Therrien, P., D. Doloreux, and T. Chamberlin, 2011, "Innovation novelty and (commercial) performance
in the service sector: A Canadian firm-level analysis". Technovation, 31: 655-665.
Thomke, S. and W. Kuemmerle, 2002, “Asset accumulation, interdependence and technological change:
evidence from pharmaceutical drug discovery”. Strategic Management Journal 23: 619–635.
Tidd, J. 1995, “Development of novel products through intraorganizational and interorganizational
networks the case of home automation”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12: 307-322.
Tranfield, D., D. Denyer and P. Smart, 2003, “Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-
Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review”. British Journal of Management, 14:
207-222.
Van Oorschot, K., K., Sengupta, H. Akkermans and L. Van Wassenhove, 2010, “Get Fat Fast: Surviving
Stage-Gate® in NPD”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27: 828-839.
 Vega-Jurado, J., A., Gutiérrez-Gracia, I. Fernández-De-Lucio and L. Manjarrés-Henríquez, 2008, “The
effect of external and internal factors on firms’ product innovation”. Research Policy, 37: 616-632.
Verdu, A.J., I. Tamayo and A. Ruiz-Moreno, 2012, “The moderating effect of environmental uncertainty
on the relationship between real options and technological innovation in high-tech firms”. Technovation, 32:
579-590.
Verona, G. and D. Ravasi, 2003, “Unbundling dynamic capabilities: an exploratory study of continuous
product innovation”. Industrial & Corporate Change, 12: 577-606.
Wakasugi, R., 1992, “Why are Japanese firms so innovative in engineering technology? ”. Research
Policy, 21: 1-12.
Walsh, P.R., 2012, “Innovation Nirvana or Innovation Wasteland? Identifying commercialization
strategies for small and medium renewable energy enterprises”. Technovation, 32: 32-42.
West, J. And M. Bogers, 2014, "Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on
Open Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31: 814-831.
Wood, S.C. and G.S. Brown, 1998, “Commercializing nascent technology: The case of laser diodes at
Sony”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15: 167-183.
Wu, J., 2012, “Technological collaboration in product innovation: The role of market competition and
sectoral technological intensity”. Research Policy, 41: 489-496.
Wu, J., 2012, "Technological collaboration in product innovation: The role of market competition and
sectoral technological intensity". Research Policy, 41: 489-496.
Wuyts, S., S. Stremersch and S. Dutta, 2004, “Portfolios of Interfirm Agreements in Technology-
Intensive Markets: Consequences for Innovation and Profitability”. Journal of Marketing, 68: 88-100.
Yam, R.C.M., J.C. Guan, K.F. Pun and E.P.Y. Tang, 2004, “An audit of technological innovation
capabilities in chinese firms: some empirical findings in Beijing, China”. Research Policy, 33: 1123-1140.
Yeoh, P.-L. and K. Roth, 1999, “An empirical analysis of sustained advantage in the U.S. pharmaceutical
industry: impact of firm resources and capabilities”. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 637-653.
Yli-Renko, H., E. Autio and H.J. Sapienza, 2001, “Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge
exploitation in young technology-based firms”. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 587-613.
Yli-Renko, H. and R. Janakiraman, 2008, “How Customer Portfolio Affects New Product Development
in Technology-Based Entrepreneurial Firms”. Journal of Marketing, 72: 131-148.
Zahra, S.A. and J.G. Covin, 1993, “Business strategy, technology policy, and company performance”.
Strategic Management Journal, 14: 451–478.
Zahra, S.A., 1996, “Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored
and independent biotechnology ventures”. Journal of Business Venturing, 11: 289-321.
Zahra, S.A. and A.P. Nielsen, 2002, “Sources of capabilities, integration and technology
commercialization”. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 377-398.
Zhang, Y. and H. Li, 2010, “Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties
with service intermediaries”. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 88-109.
Zhou, K.Z., C.K. Yim and D.K. Tse, 2005, “The Effects of Strategic Orientations on Technology- and
Market-Based Breakthrough Innovations”. Journal of Marketing, 69: 42-60.
Zott, C., R. Amit, and L. Massa, 2011, "The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future
Research". Journal of Management, 37: 1019-1042.

Appendix

<Insert Table A about here>

Tables
Table 1 Search terms
Category A Category B

Technology Commercialization
Invention Market
Patent Product
Innovation Sell
Discovery Exploitation
R&D Entrepreneurship
Trademark

Table 2 Inclusion criteria

No. Criteria Reason for inclusion

1 Theoretical Papers These articles are included because they provide the basis for summarizing and
integrating empirical evidence.
2 Quantitative and qualitative empirical These articles are included because they provide extant empirical evidence, which
studies represents the main interest of this review.
3 Research Focus Research questions focalized on the analysis of the factors influencing the market
introduction of innovative products based on firms’ own technologies.

Table 3 Exclusion criteria

No. Criteria Reason for exclusion

1 Publication Type Exclude book, book chapter, conference proceedings, and dissertation.
2 Perspective Exclude articles with software, implementation of managing system, plant
management, and new model analysis validation.
3 Research Focus Research questions focalized on external invention commercialization (e.g.,
licensing), or commercialization of academic R&D outcomes.
Research questions focalized on the determinants of firm performance or product
success subsequent to the new product introduction (e.g., profitability and product
quality), or strategies to profit from the commercialized products.

Table 4 Summary of research findings

Individual level
Key perspectives Innovation management (4); New product development (3); Network theory (3); Technology management (2);
Dynamic capabilities (2); Organizational learning (2); Upper-echelon theory (2)
Research methods Quantitative (13); Case study (4); Theoretical approach (1); Explorative research (1)
Overall synopsis of The presence of highly educated employees is positively related the introduction of innovative products.
research Training of employees is positively related to the introduction of innovative products.
Favoring relationships between members within the organization is positively related to the introduction of innovative
products.
Team heterogeneity is positively related to the introduction of innovative products.
Research gaps Lack of research on how to effectively employ highly educated employees for the introduction of innovative products.
A common understanding about the effect of workers’ prior experience on the introduction of innovative products.
Lack of research on the approach to manage heterogeneous teams for the introduction of innovative products.
Lack of research on whether team heterogeneity moderates the relationship between the acquisition of knowledge
through internal R&D or collaborations, and the introduction of innovative products.
Lack of research on the effects of entrepreneurs’ characteristics on the introduction of innovative products.
Representative references Schoonhoven et al. (1990); Hargadon and Sutton (1997); Deeds et al. (2000); Smith et al. (2005); Jensen et al. (2007)
Firm level
Key perspectives Innovation management (16); New product development (12); Organizational learning (10); Marketing strategy (7);
Resource based view (7); Technology strategy (3); Exploration and Exploitation (3)
Research methods Quantitative (59); Case study (13); Theoretical approach (1); Explorative research (2)
Overall synopsis of Market and technology strategic orientations foster the introduction of innovative products.
research Being more competitor-oriented leads to incremental products, while being more customer oriented leads to radical
ones.
Search strategies across both old and new knowledge domains promote the introduction of innovative products.
A well-designed-flexible organizational structure promotes the introduction of innovative products.
Allowing knowledge sharing, risk taking, free initiatives, and work autonomy fosters the introduction of innovative
products.
Clear organization goals promote the introduction of innovative products.
Functional integration promotes the introduction of innovative products.
In-house R&D is a key determinant for the introduction of innovative products.
 Research gaps Lack of research on how firms should balance the use of new and old knowledge on introducing innovative products.
A common understanding about the effect of firm size on the introduction of innovative products.
Lack of testing of the effectiveness of structural ambidexterity on introducing innovative products.
Lack of research on the relationship between both organization structure and climate, and the types of product
introduced on the market.
Lack of research on the moderating role of organizational culture and administrative style on the relationships between
in-house R&D and collaborations, and the introduction of innovative products.
Lack of research on the effect of rewarding system on introducing innovative products.
Lack of testing of the relative effect of in-house R&D respect to other factors on the introduction of innovative
products.
Lack of research on the types of new introduced products emerging from in-house R&D.
Representative references Schoonhoven et al. (1990); Hargadon and Sutton (1997); Lukas and Ferrell (2000); Chandy and Tellis (2000); Katila
and Ahuja (2002); Zahra and Nielsen (2002); Atuahene-Gima (2005); Jensen et al. (2007)
Network level
Key perspectives Network theory (7); Innovation management (7); New product development (5); Resource based view (4);
Technology management (3)
Research methods Quantitative (24); Case study (10); Explorative research (1)
Overall synopsis of Collaborations promote the introduction of innovative products.
research Firms should establish different types of collaboration (R&D agreements, joint venture alliances, etc.) to
commercialize their own inventions.
Collaboration strategy changes in respect to the new product development stage.
Research gaps Lack of research on the effect of each type of collaboration on the introduction of innovative products.
Lack of research on the substitutive effect between in-house R&D and inter-firm collaborations on the introduction of
innovative products.
A common understanding about the effects of different types of actor on the novelty of the introduced products.
Representative references Schoonhoven et al. (1990); Bonaccorsi and Lipparini (1994); Deeds and Hill (1996); Kaufmann and Tödtling (2001);
Yli-Renko et al. (2001); Zahra and Nielsen (2002); Puranam et al. (2006); Rothaermel and Deeds (2006)
Industry level
Key perspectives Innovation management (8); Technology policy (4); Organizational learning (3); Techno-economic theory (2);
Innovation system (2); New product development (2); Technology management (2)
Research methods Quantitative (19); Case study (5); Theoretical approach (3)
Overall synopsis of Industry size is positively related to the introduction of innovative products.
research Public opinion and societal needs are positively related to the introduction of innovative products.
Industry competitiveness fosters the introduction of innovative products, especially the launch of incremental
solutions.
Industry turbulence fosters the introduction of innovative products, especially the launch of radical solutions.
A clear regulatory environment promotes the introduction of innovative products, especially when the project is risky.
Too strong regulated environment hampers the introduction of innovative products.
Government support promotes the introduction of innovative products.
Public policies and government support are more useful for the commercialization of radical technologies.
Research gaps Lack of research on the moderating role of competitiveness on the relationships between the types of knowledge
source (e.g., alliances and acquisitions) and the introduction of innovative products.
More research is needed to confirm the positive effect of industry turbulence on the introduction of innovative
products.
Lack of research on the moderating role of industry turbulence on the relationships between knowledge sourcing
activities and the introduction of innovative products.
Lack of research on the trade-off between strong and weak regulated environment on the introduction of innovative
products.
Lack of research on the types of incentive scheme to favor the introduction of innovative products.
Lack of research on the effect of public procurement on the introduction of innovative products.
Lack of research on the relationship between the strength of IPR mechanisms and the introduction of innovative
products.
Representative references Achilladelis and Antonakis (2001); Roper et al. (2008); Vega-Jurado et al. (2008); Radas and Božić (2009); Czarnitzki
et al. (2011)
 Appendix
Table A Summary of the 113 articles analyzed
Article Perspective Cita Level Methodol Sample Main Findings
tion ogy
s
Rec
eive
d
Schoonho Technology 586 Indivi Longitudi Interviews in  Generic prior work experiences do not enhance the
ven et al. management dual nal n=98 new introduction of new products in new firms.
(1990) Firm research ventures in the  The joint presence of the marketing and manufacturing
Indust design semiconductor functions fosters the introduction of innovative products.
ry (1978- industry  A high competitive environment fosters the introduction
1985) of a new product by new firms.
 The synthesis of new knowledge pieces can slow the
introduction of new products.
Cooper New product 113 Indust Duncan Interviews in  Firms operating in large markets with a high foreign
and development ry multiple n=125 firms growth rate and customer acceptance of their technologies
Kleinsch range increase the probability of commercializing of related new
midt tests products.
(1990)
Wakasu Technology 30 Firm Case Japanese firms  The interdependence between the R&D and other
gi management study in the electric divisions favors the commercialization of inventions
(1992) and electronic through new products.
industries
(N.A.)
Brown New product 75 Indivi Explorati Questionnaire  Training activities are necessary to speed up the new
and development dual ve and interviews product introduction process.
Karagozo Firm research in n=31 high-  Companies that introduce products enrich their knowledge
glu tech U.S. firms in known and new domains.
(1993)  Formal and informal communication among members and
top management are important to commercialize new
products.
 Setting formal goals and scheduling the activities favor
new product introduction.
 An extensive use of monetary rewards is recognized
among firms that introduce new products.
Soni et Innovation 59 Firm Structural Secondary data  Small firms introduce more products on the market than
al. (1993) management Indust equation in n=40 firms large companies.
ry modeling in the industrial  A high level of competitiveness, together with a low level
(SEM) chemical of market concentration, leads to more products on the
industry marker.
Bonaccor New product 317 Netw Case A leading  The early involvement of suppliers is a key enabling
si and development ork study innovative factor to commercialize new products.
Lipparini Italian  Suppliers should be geographically close to the focal firm
(1994) company to introduce new products.
 Repeated partnerships with the same suppliers, as well as
a constant social interaction and information exchange are
necessary conditions to commercialize innovative
products.
Tidd Network theory 148 Firm Case Firms in the  Open networks are more effective than closed networks
(1995) Netw study automation for introducing new products.
ork sector (N.A.)  Internal organizational structure is important to
commercialize new products.
Iansiti New product 339 Firm Case N=27 projects  Organizations that use a “flexible” approach, so avoiding
(1995) development study in different ICT a hierarchical, rigid and sequential one, are more effective
companies in leveraging their technological potential via new
products.
Gillett Technology 14 Firm Case Boeing and  Boeing introduced more aircrafts than McDonnell-
and strategy Indust study McDonnell- Douglas given its willingness to take risks.
Stekler ry Douglas  Industry growth promoted the introduction of new
(1995) companies products.
 The presence of a new strong competitor boosted the
introduction of new aircrafts.
 Deregulation in the aircraft industry made the more risk
tolerant and flexible organizations more willing to
introduce new prodcuts.
Deeds Network theory 639 Netw Tobit BioScan  The frequency of alliances is curvilinearly related
and Hill New product ork model database in (inverted U) to the number of new products.
(1996) development n=132 U.S.  The frequency of alliances with non-industrial partners
biotech firms and other pharmaceutical industries is positively related to
the number of products on the market.
Zahra Technology 364 Firm T-test Questionnaire  Individual ventures are the first to introduce radical
(1996) strategy in n=112 U.S. products on the market.
biotech new  There is no difference between individual and corporate
ventures ventures in terms of number of new products introduced
on the market.
Hargadon Network theory 1,89 Indivi Case IDEO company  IDEO needed to set learning processes on clients’ needs to
and Organizational 7 dual study commercialize its inventions.
Sutton memory Firm  IDEO used knowledge previously acquired to introduce
(1997) Netw products in business domain where this knowledge were
ork not known.
 Formal routines are used to retrieve and share the old
knowledge needed to introduce products.
 Contacts with customers in different technological
domains let IDEO commercialize its technologies in many
industries.
 Compensation is largely based on informal reputation
among the other members, thus fostering both individual
and collaborative efforts.
Chandy Organizational 986 Firm Path Questionnaire  Firms’ willingness to cannibalize existing products is
and Tellis behavior analysis in n=3 high- positively related to the introduction of radical products.
(1998) tech firms
Souder et New product 276 Firm Regressio Questionnaire  R&D-marketing integration positively influences the
al. (1998) development Netw n analysis in n=101 U.S. introduction of new products.
ork and UK  Customer integration in R&D activities is positively
projects related to the introduction of new products.
Wood New product 42 Firm Case Sony  Successful radical technology commercialization finds its
and development study roots in the coordination of R&D functions, as well as in
Brown the integration of process and production functions.
(1998)
Yeoh and Resource based 329 Firm EQS Multiple  In-house R&D efforts have a positive effect on new
Roth view model sources in n=20 product introduction.
(1999) pharmaceutical
firms
Lynn et New product 119 Firm Regressio Questionnaire  Setting formal goals and controlling firms’ activities favor
al. (1999) development n analysis in n=95 high- new product introduction.
tech firms
Deeds et Resource based 419 Indivi OLS Primary and  CEOs prior R&D experiences are positively related to
al. (2000) view dual regression secondary data new product introduction.
Dynamic in n=94 biotech  Too many TMT members with a PhD degree negatively
capabilities firms affect new product introduction.
 Scientists’ quality is positively related to new product
introduction.
Lukas Marketing 645 Firm Multiple Questionnaire  Customer orientation favors the introduction of radical
and strategy regression in n=194 products, while competitor orientation fosters the
Ferrell analysis business units introduction incremental ones.
(2000) (MRA)  Interfunctional coordination is more positively related to
the introduction of incremental products.
Chandy Marketing 812 Firm Regressio Secondary data  Large firms are less likely to introduce radical products.
and Tellis strategy n analysis in n=64  Large size favors incumbent and disfavor non-incumbent
(2000) consumer firms in introducing radical products.
durables and
office products
Yli- Social theory 1,84 Netw SEM Questionnaire  Social interactions with key customers and the access to
Renko et 0 ork in n=180 high- their networks are positively related to new products.
al. (2001) tech UK firms
Achillade Techno- 206 Indust Regressio 1,736 products  The introduction of radical products is dependent upon
lis and economic theory ry n and commercialized societal needs, national environment and competition
Antonaki historical between 1800 among firms.
s (2001) analysis and 1990 by
pharmaceutical
firms
Kaufman Social theory 409 Netw Logit REGIS-  Collaborations with universities particularly enable the
n and System of ork model research introduction of radical products.
Tödtling innovation Project in  Collaborations with suppliers and consultants are
(2001) n=318 positively related to the frequency of new radical products
innovative on the market.
European firms  Incremental innovators relied more on customers than
other type of partners.
Katila Organizational 1,58 Firm Panel Questionnaire  Search depth is curvilinearly (inverted U) related to the
and learning 7 Poisson and secondary number of new products introduced.
Ahuja regression data in n=124  Search scope is positively related to the number of new
(2002) industrial products introduced.
robotics  The interaction between search depth and search scope is
companies positively related to the number of new products
introduced.
Zahra Resource based 527 Firm Hierarchi Questionnaire  The use of joint ventures and alliances is positively related
and view Netw cal MRA in n=149 U.S. to technology commercialization via new products, both
Nielsen ork innovative in general and considering only radical products.
(2002) companies  Functional integration positively moderates the
relationship between manufacturing capabilities and
products on the market.
Souitaris Core capabilities 142 Indivi MRA Questionnaire  Having highly educated employees has a positive effect
(2002) New product dual in n=105 Greek on the introduction of radical products.
development Firm firms  Employees and managers having general prior
experiences in other companies or abroad do not promote
the introduction of new products.
 Market orientation is positively related to radical new
product introduction only.
 R&D intensity is positively related to incremental new
product introduction only.
Menon et New product 96 Indivi Theoretic N.A.  Employing groups of individuals from different areas
al. (2002) development dual al enhances new product introduction.
Firm approach  Employees that work closely to each other perform better
than individuals working in isolation.
 Trained employees foster the introduction of new
products.
 A multilayered structure and extensive use of bureaucracy
for managing communication flow hamper new product
introduction.
 Encouraging risk taking, free initiatives, new innovative
ideas, and risk tolerance fosters new product introduction.
 Basic control practices foster new product introduction.
 Monetary rewards are positively related to the
introduction of new products, but they are more effective
when adopted at the team level instead of at the single
individual level.
Lukas et Marketing 35 Firm Regressio Questionnaire  Formal and informal control systems promote new
al. (2002) strategy n analysis in n=130 U.S. product introduction.
New product manufacturing
development firms
Parthasa Innovation 134 Firm Hierarchi Questionnaire  Functional integration has a positive effect on new product
rthy and management Netw cal in n=47 U.S. introduction.
Hammo ork regression firms in the  Functional integration is more effective when firms’ R&D
nd analysis medical and intensity is high.
(2002) surgical  The interaction between high level of R&D intensity and
devices sector high level of cooperation with third parties (e.g., suppliers,
customers) has no effects on new product introduction.
Nicholls- Absorptive 221 Firm Nonpara Multiple  Firms that use different types of collaboration
Nixon capacity Netw metric secondary simultaneously introduce more products.
and Woo Technology ork analysis sources in n=26  Acquisitions are positively related to new product
(2003) management U.S. biotech introduction.
companies
Davila New product 25 Firm OLS Questionnaire  Project managers’ short-term economic incentives are
(2003) development regression in n=10 large positively related to new product introduction, but their
firms in n=56 effect decreases as the uncertainty of new product projects
projects grows.
Bucher et Technology 33 Indivi Case Interviews in  The introduction of disruptive technologies is more
al. (2003) management dual study n=20 Swiss successful when carried out in interdisciplinary-staffed
Firm nanotech projects.
Netw organizations  Technology orientation enables commercialization of
ork radical technologies.
 In order to commercialize radical technologies an intense
cooperation with a broad range of different parties is
needed, comprehending industrial actors, politics, and
society.
Kumar Technology 41 Firm Explorati Questionnaire  Firms should focus on R&D to turn inventions into new
and Jain strategy Netw ve in n=99 Indian products.
(2003) ork research firms  Industrial firms should cooperate with research
laboratories to commercialize new technologies.
Verona Dynamic 386 Indivi Case Oticon A/S  The introduction of new products was initially boosted by
and capabilities dual study company prior experienced employees, and required experienced
Ravasi Firm senior managers in the board of direction.
(2003)  Openness to creativity, risk taking, error tolerance, and
free communication were employed by Oticon A/S to
introduce technological products.
 The absence of a hierarchical structure favors new product
introduction.
Wuyts et Marketing 136 Netw Negative Multiple  R&D agreements involving firms with a different
al. (2004) strategy ork binomial sources in n=58 technological base are positively related to the
Network theory regression pharmaceutical introduction of both radical and incremental products.
firms  Repeated cooperation with the same partners in R&D
 agreements is positively related to the introduction of
radical products.
Rothaerm Exploration and 1,07 Netw SEM BioScan  Firms’ cooperation strategy changes respect to the stage of
el and exploitation 6 ork database in the product development process.
Deeds n=325 biotech  Firm size negatively moderates the relationship between
(2004) firms exploitative alliances and new products on the market.
Chataway Innovation 51 Firm Case In depth case  Synergies between old and new knowledge domains are
et al. management Indust study studies in n=3 relevant for introducing new products.
(2004) ry chemical and  Public opinion is considered as an important factor to be
seeds considered in the strategic choice to commercialize new
multinational technologies.
companies  The lack of clear regulations makes firms reluctant to
introduce products based on new technologies.
Yam et Innovation 260 Firm Regressio Questionnaire  Basic control mechanisms for project implementation,
al. (2004) management n analysis in n=375 such as clear targets and standards, foster new product
Chinese firms introduction.
 Promoting communication and ideas sharing fosters the
introduction of new products.
 R&D investments positively affect new product
introduction, especially for medium-large firms.
 Firms that make use of several functions introduce more
technological products.
Pilkingto Techno- 50 Indust Patent Patent owners  Technological convergence sets the basis for the
n (2004) economic theory ry and factor of 5,998 commercialization of new technologies through new
analysis patents in the products.
fuel cell
technological
area
Quintana- Transaction cost 215 Netw Panel data BioScan  Cooperation with direct competitors is positively related
García economy ork regression database in to new product introduction
and Resource based n=73 biotech  Cooperation with research institutions is positively related
Benavide view European firms to the introduction of new product.
s-Velasco Game theory
(2004)
Smith et Organizational 669 Indivi Regressio Primary and  Managers’ and employees’ education positively affects the
al. (2005) learning dual n analysis secondary data introduction of new products.
Upper-echelon Firm in n=72  Managers and employees prior work experiences have no
theory technology impacts on new product introduction.
firms  The number of social direct contacts between
organizational members and their strength are positively
related to the introduction of new products.
 Team heterogeneity is positively related to new product
introduction.
 Climate for risk taking and experimentation is positively
related to the introduction of new products, both directly
and indirectly through new knowledge creation.
Atuahene Resource based 631 Firm Moderate Questionnaire  Customer and competitor orientation are positively related
-Gima view d in n=227 to new product introduction by enhancing firms’
(2005) Marketing regression electronics exploitative and explorative competences.
strategy equations Chinese firms  Interfunctional coordination makes explorative
competences more effective for radical product
introduction.
Kanneble Innovation 47 Firm Classifica PINTEC 2000  Firm size is not the most relevant determinant of new
y et al. management tion trees in n=10,658 product introduction.
(2005) Brazilian firms  The effect of firm size on new product introduction
changes respect to the firm sector.
Carayann Innovation 8 Firm Case Research In  The small size of RIM created problems for technology
opoulos management Netw study Motion (RIM) commercialization through new products.
(2005) ork comapany  Enhancing free communication and ideas sharing
Indust promotes new product introduction.
ry  Partnerships with both new knowledge providers in the
same sector and other firms with complementary
knowledge favor new product introduction.
 RIM’s ability to market the Blackberry found its roots in
the understanding of specific market needs.
Howell Innovation 84 Indivi Case 47 product  An experienced project champion that has breadth of
(2005) management dual study innovation interests and a flexible role orientation, as well as is able
projects to create excitement and interact with the top management
and project’s members fosters the commercial exploitation
of inventions via new products.
Freel Innovation 210 Indivi Multinom Questionnaire  The presence of technicians, engineers and scientist is
(2005) management dual ial logit in n=1,345 positively related to new products on the market,
model British SMEs especially radical ones.
 Trained employees are positively related to new product
introduction.
Maine Technology 116 Netw Case Hyperion and  Heterogeneous teams favor radical product introduction.
and management ork study Cambridge  Hyperion and CDT needed to access complementary
Garnsey Indust Display assets by allying with industrial partners to commercialize
(2006) ry Technologies radical products.
(CDT)  Government granting programs affected the ability of
companies Hyperion and CDT to introduce radical new products.
Chudnov Innovation 144 Firm Multinom Argentina  In-house R&D and a technology-oriented strategy
sky et al. management ial logit Innovation enhance the probability of introducing new products on
(2006) model Survey in the market.
n=718 firms  Firm size is positively related to products on the market.
Dowling Cooperative 36 Netw Linear Questionnaire  Collaborations with both industrial and non-industrial
and Helm strategy ork regression in n=60 high- partners are positively related to the introduction of new
(2006) tech German products.
firms  Collaborations with industrial partners are more effective
when a firm is young.
 Collaborations with non-industrial partners are more
effective when a firm is old.
Iyer et Innovation 86 Indust Theoretic N.A.  As the size of the target market for a firm increases,
al. management ry al innovation activities focus more on radical product
(2006) approach introduction.
 Industry turbulence promotes the introduction of radical
products.
Chandy New product 84 Firm Logit Secondary data  Expertise in a given knowledge area allows firms to
et al. development model in n=8 convert inventions into products.
(2006) pharmaceutical  Idea generation is curvilinearly (inverted U) related to
firms firms’ ability to turn inventions into products.
 A focus on speed is curvilinearly (inverted U) related to
firms’ ability to turn inventions into products.
Puranam Agency theory 336 Netw Cox Compustat  Structural integration after acquisition limits the
et al. Mergers and ork regression database in possibility to introduce products for the acquiring
(2006) acquisition analysis n=47 large U.S. company, especially when the acquired firm’s R&D
firms activities are at an initial stage.
Huergo Technology 96 Firm Random ESEE survey in  R&D expenditures and technology orientation are
(2006) management effects n=320 firms positively related to the introduction of new products.
probit (1998-2002)
model
Danneels Resource based 147 Firm Longitudi CHEMAN  Customer and marketing competences were needed to
(2007) view nal case (disguised exploit the potential of the CHEMAN’S INTERT
study name) technology on the market.
company
Jensen et Knowledge 805 Indivi Latent Questionnaire  The presence of employees with a third-level degree in
al. (2007) management dual analysis in n=692 science or technology positively affects the introduction of
Innovation Firm and logit Danish firms new products.
management model  Work autonomy, free initiatives, and incentives to share
new ideas positively affect the introduction of new
products.
 Functional integration contributes to the introduction of
new products.
Hall and Innovation 60 Firm Spearman Questionnaire  In-house R&D is positively related to new product
Bagchi- management non- in n=126 introduction.
Sen parametri biotech firms  Market and technology orientation are recognized
(2007) c important factors for new product introduction, especially
correlatio for low level R&D intensive firms.
n
Akgün et New product 41 Firm Split Survey in n=96  Management support makes team anxiety a positive factor
al. (2007) development group projects in for introducing new products.
analysis n=33
companies
Koc and Technology 120 Firm Regressio Questionnaire  Monitoring, selecting and exploiting most relevant
Ceylan strategy n analysis in n=119 technologies are important predictors of new product
(2007) Turkey introduction.
manufacturing
firms
Yli- New product 65 Netw Zero- Questionnaire  The relationship between the number of customers
Renko development ork Inflated in n=180 young involved in the new product development process and the
and Network theory poisson technology- number of new products introduced is curvilinear
Janakira regression based firms in (inverted U).
man UK  If firms’ revenues are heavily dependent on few key
(2008) customers, the possibility to turn inventions into
marketable products is reduced.
 The closer the relationship between firms and their
customer, the more products they introduce.
Katila Organizational 109 Firm Negative Questionnaire  Firms can gain from competitors’ efforts in searching for
and Chen learning Indust binomial and secondary new knowledge for new product introduction, because of
(2008) ry GEE data in n=124 spillover effects.
 regression firms in the
(1984– industrial
1998) automation
industry
Harryson Network theory 85 Indivi Case Volvo  The presence of experienced people in the new product
et al. dual study development project facilitates the exploitation of
(2008) Netw inventions through new products.
ork  People with many contacts favor the exploitation of
inventions through new products.
 Co-located teams helped Volvo in favoring knowledge
exchange for the exploitation of its technologies through
new products.
 Volvo changed its collaboration strategy over time to
introduce the Volvo C70.
Vega- Absorptive 194 Firm Multinom Spanish Survey  R&D intensity is positively related to the introduction of
Jurado et capacity Netw ial logit of new radical and incremental products.
al. (2008) Resource based ork model Technological  The effect of R&D intensity does not vary respect to
view Indust Innovation sectorial effects and industry turbulence.
ry 2000 in  The effect exerted by non-industrial collaborations on
n=6,094 product innovation decreases when R&D intensity
manufacturing increases, thus suggesting a substitutive effect.
firms  The use of legal protection mechanisms promotes the
introduction of new products.
Koellinge Innovation 172 Firm Logit e-Business  A technology-oriented strategy enhances the probability to
r (2008) management model Market W@tch introduce new products.
survey in
n=7,302 firms
Roper et Organizational 249 Firm Longitudi Irish innovation  In-house R&D has a positive effect on new product
al. (2008) learning Indust anl probit Panel in introduction.
Knowledge ry model n=N.A.  Knowledge about customers has a positive effect on new
management manufacturing product introduction.
firms  Government support directed to value creation activities
are more effective than those directed to the purchase of
plants/machineries.
Caertelin Technology 32 Indust Case 3 Dutch road  Governments that regulate the market environment in
g et al. policy ry study technology order to provide technical support and create market
(2008) Techno- projects niches positively influence technology commercialization
economic theory via new products.
 The establishment of procurement policies is negatively
associated with new product introduction.
 The dominant position of the Government as a buyer
makes IPRs less effective in exploiting new technologies
through new products.
Maine Contingency 35 Firm Case Degussa AG  Risk control mechanisms were used to commercialize
(2008) theory study company Degussa AG’s nanomaterial technologies.
 Fostering communication and ideas sharing among
organizational members helped the commercialization of
Degussa AG’s nanomaterial technologies.
 Degussa AG used a government funding program to
exploit its radical technologies.
Amara et Innovation 102 Indivi Logit Questionnaire  Trained employees foster the introduction of new
al. (2008) management dual model in n=639 products.
Organizational Firm and manufacturing  In-house R&D is positively related to the introduction of
learning Linear SMEs new products, especially radical ones.
regression
Di Resource based 59 Firm Negative Questionnaire  In-house R&D has a positive effect on radical product
Benedett view binomial in n=376 U.S., introduction.
o et al. regression Chinese, and  Cultural differences between Japanese and U.S.
(2008) Japanese firms companies lead to different performance in the
exploitation of their inventions in the form of new
products.
Cabrales Organizational 60 Indivi Hierarchi DUNS 2001  Team diversity is negatively associated with radical
et al. behavior dual cal logit database, and product introduction.
(2008) Firm model questionnaire  Encouraging risk taking within a team is positively
in n=95 associated with radical product introduction.
Spanish  The combined use of long- and short-term incentives is
companies negatively associated with radical product introduction.
Aschhoff Technology 108 Indust Tobit CIS survey in  Public procurement is particularly effective for new
and policy ry model n=1,149 product introduction when small firms operate in a
Sofka German firms turbulent environment and in distributive and
(2009) technological services.
Björkdahl Value creation 67 Firm Case Alfa laval,  A flexible organization is needed to commercialize
(2009) and appropriation study Beta, and SKF products resulting from the cross- fertilization between
perspective companies new and old technologies.
Santamar Innovation 197 Firm Random Spanish  In-house R&D has a positive effect on the introduction of
ía et al. management Netw effects Business new products.
(2009) ork probit Strategies  Besides R&D, other relevant tasks are needed to low-
model Survey in medium-tech (LMT) companies to commercialize their
n=1,300 inventions, as design and manufacturing.
manufacturing  The use of consultants is positively related to the
firms introduction of new products by LMT firms.
 Non-equity alliances have a positive relationship to new
product introduction.
Grimpe Absorptive 153 Firm Tobit CIS survey in  LMT firms investing in R&D can achieve higher
and capacity model n= 4,500 firms innovation performance in terms of new products if they
Sofka Organizational have a market-oriented approach.
(2009) learning
Guan et Innovation 95 Firm Regressio Questionnaire  Firm size and firm age are negatively related to products
al. (2009) management indust n analysis in n=1,065 on the market.
ry Chinese firms  High-tech firms perform better than other firms due to the
help of the Chinese government through the high-tech
accreditation system.
Radas Innovation 139 Firm Bivariate CIS survey in  Developing a well-structured organizational form fosters
and management Netw analysis n=224 Croatian new product introduction, especially a flat one.
Božić ork Logit SMEs  Collaborations with universities and research centers are
(2009) Indust model positively related to the introduction of radical products.
ry  Firms that mainly operate in high competitive industries
are more effective in introducing new products,
particularly incremental ones.
 Subsidies from government or municipality are not related
to the introduction of new products if they are not directed
toward R&D activities.
Augusto New product 96 Firm Hierarchi Questionnaire  Customer and competitor orientation positively influence
and development Indust cal MRA in n=89 the introduction of radical products.
Coelho Marketing ry Portuguese  Interfunctional coordination has no effect on the
(2009) strategy introduction of radical products.
 Industry turbulence is positively related to the introduction
of radical products.
 Competitiveness has no significant effect on the
introduction of radical products.
 Competitiveness positively moderates the relation
between customer orientation and radical product
introduction.
Akgün et Emotional and 60 Firm SEM Questionnaire  Organizations’ ability to instill hope and courage among
al. (2009) capability based in n=163 firms members, as well as to let employees share their feelings,
view positively influences new product introduction.
Hoang Exploration and 144 Netw Event Multiple  New product introduction is enhanced when firms
and exploitation ork history secondary combine internal exploration with external exploitation,
Rothaerm analysis sources in whereas it is hampered when internal exploitation is
el (2010) (1980- n=412 biotech combined with external exploration.
2000) projects
Zhang Organizational 191 Netw OLS Questionnaire  Ties with service intermediaries, as technology service
and Li learning ork regression in n=202 high- firms, accounting and financial service firms, and law
(2010) tech Chinese firms are positively related to the introduction of new
firms products.
Alexiev Upper-echelon 61 Indivi OLS Questionnaire  TMT external and internal knowledge seeking is
et al. theory dual regression in n=705 Dutch positively related to commercialization of radical new
(2010) Exploration and Firm SMEs in products.
exploitation different  Seeking for knowledge within firms’ boundaries has as a
industries stronger effect on radical product introduction when TMT
is heterogeneous.
 Seeking for knowledge beyond firms’ boundaries has as a
weaker effect on radical product introduction when TMT
is heterogeneous.
Baba and Innovation 26 Netw Case Sankyo and  In order to commercialize radical and uncertain
Walsh system ork study Merck technologies Sankyo and Merck needed to create a
(2010) companies scientific network to fill knowledge and managerial gaps
for commercializing a radical technology alone.
Sun and Innovation 56 Firm Regressio 2006 China  In-house R&D is positively related to new products.
Du system Indust n Economic  In-house R&D enhances the impact of technology
(2010) ry analysis Census acquisition.
Yearbook  There exists a complementary effect between in-house
R&D and external relationships.
 The presence of foreign direct investors, while enhancing
the inventive activity of Chinese companies, does not
make them more able to translate the invented
technologies into viable products.
de Visser Contingency 62 Firm Tobit Survey in  A functional structure promotes the introduction of
et al. theory model n=155 U.S. incremental products, while a cross-functional structure
(2010) Information firms promotes the introduction of radical products.
 processing theory  Firms tend to do not differentiate the organizational
Resource structure respect to the type of their products.
dependence
theory
Snow et New product 39 Netw Case Blade.org  Firms in a collaborative community are more effective in
al. (2011) development ork study community introducing new technological products.
Lo and Organizational 1 Firm Random- Longitudinal  Product-complementary agglomeration is curvilineraly
Chung learning effects secondary data related (inverted U) to the possibility of new product
(2010) Agglomeration negative from 1997 to introduction.
theory binomial 2002 of all  The positive effect of product-complementary
regression Taiwanese agglomeration on new product introduction is stronger for
hospitals single-unit organizations than multi-unit organizations.
Goodale Corporate 47 Firm OLS Questionnaire  Top management support to entrepreneurial behaviors,
et al. entrepreneurship regression in n=177 including championing innovative ideas, has a positive
(2011) innovative effect on new product introduction.
firms  Flexible organizational boundaries are positively related
to new products introduction.
 Risk control mechanisms enhance the positive effects of
flexible organizational boundaries, work autonomy, and
support for innovative ideas on new product introduction.
 Monetary rewarding systems have no significant effect on
new product introduction.
Stock and Configuration 35 Firm Cluster Questionnaire  Firms that have a strong customer-oriented approach
Zacharias theory analysis in n=46 perform better in terms of frequency of new product
(2011) Boundary theory and companies introduction and new product innovativeness.
ANOVA  Firms characterized by high level of environmental
uncertainty perform better than those characterized by low
level of environmental uncertainty.
Nakata et Marketing 11 Firm PLS Questionnaire  Marketing and Information System (IS) function
al. (2011) strategy regression in n=N.A. integration is positively related to new product
Complementary business units introduction.
theory  Communication between team members is a necessary
condition to take advantage from Marketing-IS functional
integration.
Czarnitzk Technology 134 Indust Probit Canadian 1999  R&D tax credits are positively related to the introduction
i et al. policy ry model Survey of of new products, especially radical ones.
(2011) Innovation in
n=5,455
technology-
based firms
Barbosa Innovation 40 Indust WLS CIS4 survey in  Strict regulations of the labor and product market are
and Faria system ry arcsine n=N.A. firms negatively related to the introduction of new products.
(2011) regression  Credit market regulations are positively related to the
analysis introduction of new products.
 Strengthening the patent law and patent protection too
much is negatively associated to the introduction of new
products.
Baron Creativity and 110 Indivi Regressio Questionnaire  Entrepreneurs’ positive and stable affect enhances
and Tang innovation dual n analysis in n=99 creativity, which in turn fosters the introduction of new
(2011) management entrepreneurs radical products.
 Industry turbulence positively moderates the relationship
between entrepreneurs’ positive affect and new product
introduction.
Mu and Innovation 36 Firm SEM Questionnaire  Market orientation is positively related to new product
Di management Netw in n=348 introduction and new product innovativeness.
Benedett ork Chinese firms  Customer orientation is more related to product
o (2011) Indust innovativeness than competitor orientation.
ry  Technology orientation is positively related to new
product introduction and new product innovativeness.
 Market and technology orientation have a more positive
effect when combined with each other
 Making use of networked partners is positively related to
the introduction of new products and their radicalness.
 Industry turbulence positively moderates the relationships
between market, technology, and networking orientation,
and new product introduction.
Sok and Resource based 20 Firm Hierarchi Questionnaire  Improving firms’ knowledge base is conductive to build
O'Cass view cal MRA in n=171 the capabilities needed to actually use firms’ own
(2011) manufacturing resources, and so better apply technological knowledge to
SMEs introduce new products.
Story et Network theory 26 Netw Case N.A.  Diverse types of actor with different roles in a firm
al. ork study network promote new product introduction.
(2011)  Consultants play a key role for the commercialization of
radical products.
 Strong interactions with customers are important for
 commercializing radical products.
Molina- Dynamic 27 Firm Regressio Questionnaire  Exploration activities hamper the frequency of new
Castillo capabilities Indust n analysis in n=197 product introduction, but increase product innovativeness.
et al. Exploration and ry innovative  Industry competitiveness stimulates the introduction of
(2011) exploitation Spanish firms incremental products.
 Industry turbulence positively moderates the relationship
between knowledge exploitation and product quality,
which in turn favors new product introduction.
Therrien Innovation 21 Firm Tobit 2003 Canadian  Large firms are more effective in introducing more radical
et al. Management model Survey of products.
(2011) Innovation in n  Belonging to a large group is positively related to the fast
= 10,680 firms introduction of radical products.
Wu Innovation 36 Netw Zero- Questionnaire  Ties with suppliers, competitors, and research institutes
(2011) management ork inflated in n=766 are positively related to new product introduction.
Poisson Chinese  Political ties are negatively related to new product
model companies introduction.
Guler and Network theory 23 Indivi Negative Patent  Local cohesion between people in R&D is more effective
Nerkar dual binomial coautorship than global cohesion for turning inventions into products.
(2012) regression data for 30 of
(1981 – the largest
1990) pharmaceutical
companies
Kim et al. Quality 90 Firm SEM Questionnaire  Long-term relationships with suppliers and the control
(2012) management Netw in n=223 firms over them are positively related to radical and incremental
Innovation ork product introduction by improving the new product
management development process.
 Involving customers into the new product development
process and having a tight link with them are positively
related to the introduction of radical and incremental new
products.
Wu Network theory 41 Indust OLS Secondary data  A high level of industry competitiveness negatively
(2012) Innovation ry regression in n=994 moderates the positive relationship between technological
management Chinese firms collaborations and new product introduction.
 The negative moderating effect above mentioned weakens
as the industry turbulence grows.
Akgün et Sensemaking 1 Indivi PLS Questionnaire  Closeness and interpersonal trust between organizational
al. (2012) theory dual regression in n=92 members enhance the introduction of new products by
projects in improving communication capacity and information
different gathering.
industries  Promoting work autonomy, free initiatives, incentives to
develop new ideas, and ideas sharing favors new product
introduction by enhancing team sensemaking capabilities.
Walsh Technology 18 Indust Theoretic N.A.  The demand for renewable energy technologies is
(2012) entrepreneurship ry al considered an important factor for the subsequent
approach commercialization of those technologies.
10. Verdu et Real options 17 Indust Hierarchi Amadeus  The positive relationship between organizational
al. theory ry cal database in flexibility and new product introduction is enhanced in a
(2012) regression n=204 high- condition of industry turbulence.
analysis tech European
firms
Bao et al. Organizational 18 Firm Hierarchi Questionnaire  Technology orientation has a positive effect on the
(2012) learning Indust cal in n=183 high- introduction of radical products.
ry moderate tech Chinese  High competitive intensity is negatively related to the
regression firms introduction of radically new products.
 Competitive intensity positively moderates the relation
between technology orientation and the introduction of
radical products.
 Industry turbulence is positively related to the introduction
of radical products.
 Industry turbulence negatively moderates the relation
between technology orientation and the introduction of
radical products, while it positively moderates the relation
between administrative learning and radical product
introduction.
Tang and Technology 12 Firm Hierarchi Questionnaire  Knowledge about the market has a positive effect on the
Murphy Entrepreneurship cal and interviews introduction of new products.
(2012) New product regression in n=158
development analysis entrepreneurial
firms
(Blind, Technology 48 Indust Theoretic N.A.  Clear regulations promote the introduction of new
2012) policy ry al products.
approach
Lo et al. Marketing 12 Firm Important N.A.  Customer orientation is a relevant practice to foster new
(2012) strategy - product introduction.
performan
 ce
analysis
approach
11. Fitjar Innovation 36 Netw Logit Data in  Collaborating with suppliers and customers is positively
and system ork model n=5,887 related to the introduction of new products, both
Rodrígu Norwegian incremental and radical ones.
ez-Pose firms in  Collaborating with universities is positively related to the
(2013) different introduction of new products, especially radical ones.
industries
Li et al. Organizational 14 Firm Negative Questionnaire  Searching for novel knowledge going outside firms’
(2013) learning binomial and archival boundaries and using different sources have a positive
Behavioral regression analysis in relationship with new product introduction.
decision theory n=61 high-tech  TMTs’ persistent search is positively related to the
U.S. companies number of new products, while an effortful search has a
negative effect.
 TMTs’ effortful search is less effective if it is conducted
toward unfamiliar knowledge.
12. Lew and Transaction cost 24 Netw PLS Questionnaire  Technology alliances are positively related to firms’
Sinkovi economy ork regression in n=110 high- ability to introduce new products, while a strong control
cs Resource based tech firms in process over the partners has not a significant effect.
(2013) view the ICT
Relational view industry
Datta and Organizational 5 Firm SEM S&P 500 in  To maximize the chance of radical product introduction,
Jessup learning n=69 U.S. firms should obtain highly distinct technologies from
(2013) companies in minimum possible contacts outside their focal industry.
the IT sector
Clausen Evolutionary 7 Firm SEM Questionnaire  Closed exploration facilitates the introduction of new
et al. theory in n=1,199 products, by particularly increasing technological
(2013) Exploration and Norwegian resources, rather than creating market resources.
exploitation companies  Closed exploitation facilitates the introduction of new
products by increasing both technological and market
resources.
 Open exploration is more effective than open exploitation
in introducing technological products.
Martín-de Resource based 20 Firm MRA Questionnaire  Innovative culture positively influences the introduction
Castro et view in n=251 of new products.
al. (2013) Spanish high-  Innovative culture positively moderates the relationships
and medium- between both skilled human capital and the ownership of a
tech high level of technological knowledge, and the
manufacturing introduction of new products.
firms

Figures
 Figure 1 Conceptual model

Figure 2 Number of articles per year

Figure 3 Number of articles per journal

 Figure 4 Articles per number of citations received

Figure 5 Number of articles per level of analysis Figure 6 Share of articles per number of levels of
analysis covered
Figure 7 Summary of the literature findings