Technology and Operations Management 23-06-2014
Student: D.L. Martens First supervisor: Dr. E. Ursavas
1
Abstract
2
Table of contents
Abstract ... 1
1. Introduction ... 3
2. Literature review ... 5
2.1 Collaborative New Product Development ... 5
2.2 Uncertainties in NPD ... 7
2.3 Uncertainties in supplier collaboration ... 7
2.4 Competitive Intelligence ... 8 2.5 Theoretical gap ... 10 3. Conceptual Framework ... 12 4. Methodology ... 15 4.1 Research design ... 15 4.2 Unit of analysis ... 15 4.3 Data collection ... 16 4.4 Measurements ... 16 4.5 Data analysis ... 17 5. Results ... 18 5.1 Competitive intelligence ... 18 5.2 Collaborative NPD ... 19 5.3 Technological uncertainty... 20 5.4 Commercial uncertainty ... 20 5.5 Organizational uncertainty ... 21 5.6 Social uncertainty ... 22 6. Discussion ... 23
6.1 Discussion of the research questions ... 23
6.2 Theoretical and managerial implications ... 24
7. Conclusion ... 26
7.2 Limitations and suggestions for further research ... 26
8. References ... 27
9. Appendix ... 30
3
1. Introduction
In new product development, the role of the supplier has been given more attention. Although many researches discuss the positive effects of a buyer-supplier relationship, merely involving a supplier in a NPD project does not ensure improvement of the NPD process (Pulles, Veldman & Schiele, 2014). In these collaborations, uncertainties are still present like in the whole field of innovation (Melander & Tell, 2014; Hall, Matos, Silvestre & Martin, 2011). When the perceived level of environmental uncertainty is high, companies are more likely to collect information (Boyd & Fulk, 1996). In literature, the concept of Competitive intelligence is discussed extensively (Kahaner, 1996; Lawson & Samson, 2001; McGonagle & Vella, 2004), but how does this link to reducing uncertainties in collaborative new product development?
4 While its precise role is unknown, the similarities between the types of uncertainties and Competitive Intelligence reflect a complementary aspect. Research on this subject will provide more information on how the uncertainties are managed in a time where competition grows in the collaborative new product development. The literature about the use of Competitive Intelligence and the management of uncertainties in collaborative new product development can possibly be extended.
The purpose of this focus is to identity the possible use of Competitive Intelligence in new product development to manage the innovation uncertainties. The focus of this study will be on new product development project that include supplier collaborations. Within these projects, the use of Competitive Intelligence in relation to the innovation uncertainties will be researched. This can be formulated into the following main research questions:
- To what extent do companies make use of Competitive Intelligence to manage the innovation uncertainties in collaborative new product development?
This question will be answered with a research of multiple case studies. These case studies will be new product development projects, which include collaboration with a supplier. Their process and decision making will be studied.
By answering these questions, this study will contribute to the literature addressing the use of Competitive intelligence and how innovation uncertainties can be managed. This can help managers to decide on the use of Competitive Intelligence and how much it can do for their new product development projects. Reducing uncertainties and ensuring successful supplier collaboration can fasten the concept-to-customer development time, improve quality and reduce costs of new product development.
5
2. Literature review
In this section, the present literature addressing the subjects of this study will be discussed. First the literature about collaborative new product development will be discussed. Second, the literature about the different uncertainties present in the new product development with the uncertainties in the supplier collaboration in new product development (NPD) will be listed and elaborated. Then, the literature about competitive intelligence and the use of competitive intelligence will be discussed. Finally, a short conclusion will be given for the formulation of the research question.
2.1 Collaborative New Product Development
New products can be tangible goods and services and can be developed for the consumer market and the business-to-business market. The process of NPD is sometimes an orderly well managed process, but that is not always the case (Crawford & Benedetto, 2011). Crawford and Benedetto (2011) present the new products process which is a path the new product takes from the idea to the time of the launch. This new products process consists of five phases: opportunity identification & selection, concept generation, concept/project evaluation, development and launch. The stage-gate model of Cooper (1990) emphasized the quality check points (gates) between the different phases (stages). Evaluation of the progress can help to get a higher level of new product performance.
Managers are always searching for the best practices for the NPD process. Benchmarking can be used in NPD to identify gaps between organization practices and the competition, showing how the industry leaders do things. With the help of benchmarking organizations can identify what may have to change based on other companies’ experience (Kahn, Barczak & Moss, 2006).
Companies are more and more collaborating with suppliers (Melander & Tell, 2014). Suppliers have more knowledge about the parts and the components of the product. That is why companies use the perspective of the supplier within product innovation (Tsai, 2009). Suppliers are usually chosen based on product/process knowledge, production capability, trust and design expertise (Handfield, Ragatz, Petersen & Monczka, 1999).
6 through these vertical interactions and communication. Knowledge about new technologies, markets and process improvement can then be gained through suppliers, which can speed up the process and improve the innovativeness (Miotti & Sachwald, 2003; Nieto & Santamaria, 2007). For successful integration of suppliers, the company needs to understand the supplier’s capabilities and design expertise and it should conduct a risk assessment, weighing the risks of the collaboration against the probability of success of the project (Handfield et al., 1999).
Supplier involvement can start at any stage in the NPD process. In the first phase, potential technologies can already be assessed, but companies can also choose to collaborate in the last phase when the prototype of the product needs to be developed. Involving suppliers can help reduce cost, reduce concept-to-customer development time and improve quality. These can be provided in a larger extent when the supplier involvement starts in an early phase of development. The later the supplier is involved the more difficult and costly it becomes to make design changes (Handfield et al., 1999).
Studies have shown that collaborating with the supplier can have a positive influence on the product innovation performance (Faems, Van Looy & Debackere, 2005; Miotti & Sachwald, 2003; Nieto & Santamaria, 2007), but there is also evidence of supplier collaborations having no or even a negative influence on product innovation performance (Freel, 2003; Sanchez & Perez, 2003; Ledwith & Coughlan, 2005). Tsai (2009) found that these contradictory results could be explained by the absorptive capacity of the companies. Absorptive capacity refers to the company’s ability to use its own prior knowledge together with external knowledge to reach its goal. Which means that collaborating with a supplier can have a positive influence on the product innovation performance when the absorptive capacity of the company is high enough to establish and exploit this collaboration (Tsai, 2009).
7 2.2 Uncertainties in NPD
Innovation can be viewed as a knowledge quest and creation process in the company’s social networks requiring the reduction of uncertainty (Hall & Martin, 2005). Uncertainty is present when outcomes and how to come to those outcomes are not known (Melander & Tell, 2014). Hall, Matos, Silvestre & Martin (2011) discuss four types of innovation uncertainty: technological uncertainty, commercial uncertainty, organizational uncertainty and social uncertainty. These are defined by Hall et al. (2011) as follows:
• Technological Uncertainty: the concept must be feasible technologically, based upon corporate scientific and technological competencies.
• Commercial Uncertainty: it must be commercially viable, where it can compete successfully in the marketplace.
• Organizational Uncertainty: it should be congruent with the company's overall strategy and capabilities, complementary assets and its ability to protect intellectual property.
• Social Uncertainty: the societal impact on or from diverse secondary stakeholders must be recognized and accommodated.
2.3 Uncertainties in supplier collaboration
When the decision is made to include a supplier in the NPD project, the previous mentioned uncertainties can come forward. The company will have to consider these uncertainties to ensure a faster time to market or better quality, or to reduce costs or good product performance.
Technological uncertainty can be indicated as the inability to accurately predict or completely understand some aspect of the technological environment (Song & Montoya-Weiss, 2001). Technological uncertainty can imply uncertainty about the choice of the technology (of the supplier) in the NPD. Which technology will be the best choice considering all the available and future technologies?
8 (Hall et al., 2011). The unpredictability of the cost development in the collaboration with the supplier can cause problems along with the future threat of vertical integration of the supplier. Costs of the project/product can come out higher than expected and learning of the supplier can help it become a future competitor. Another problem can be the appropriation towards the supplier when only one source is available and no multiple sources. Then the company can lose profit, because it has to appropriate a significant part of the value towards the supplier (Melander & Tell, 2014).
Organizational uncertainty involves the possibility of failure when the benefits of the innovation cannot be appropriated even though the product is technologically and commercially viable. The intellectual property and complementary assets should be possessed to avoid this. Organizational uncertainty also involve problems with inter- and intra-organizational fit. The innovation needs to fit within the company’s strategy and fit to the company’s capabilities. When collaborating with suppliers, the structure, culture, capabilities and strategies can be inconsistent between the buyer and the supplier (Melander & Tell, 2014). The chance of failure of the product can then increase.
Social uncertainty is about the impact the NPD can have on secondary stakeholders. Secondary stakeholders are those that are indirectly involved with the company. These can for example be local communities, environmental, safety and social activists and groups opposed to globalization. Understanding social uncertainty is more complex, because there are more secondary stakeholders to be accommodated. Ambiguity of the secondary stakeholders can make it difficult to identify who are important. (Hall et al., 2011). Although social uncertainty in supplier collaboration has not been discussed, it can be assumed that collaborating with a supplier can increase the number of secondary stakeholders that need to be considered.
These uncertainties need to be understood in order to increase the possibility of success of the NPD. To be able to reduce uncertainties, knowledge is needed about the possible impacts of the uncertainties. Competitive intelligence can be a tool used to attain this knowledge.
2.4 Competitive Intelligence
9 is more precise. CI involves information that is filtered, distilled and analyzed. Managers can make decisions based on CI (Rouach & Santi, 2001). Pellisier & Nenzhelele (2013) proposed an universal definition of competitive intelligence to be: ‘A process or practice that produces and disseminates actionable intelligence by planning, ethically and legally collecting, processing and analysing information from and about the internal and external or competitive environment in order to help decision-makers in decision-making and to provide a competitive advantage to the enterprise.’. CI can be used in several fields. Business development, market penetration, patent registration and research activity are examples of possible fields. CI can provide early warnings of competitors’ new product introductions and marketing initiatives, can identify key competitors’ emerging strategies and can give notice of critical changes in the businesses of key clients (McGonagle and Vella, 2004).
The competitive environment does not only consist of direct competitors. Indirect competition should also be considered. Gomez, Orcos & Palomas (2013) argue that relationships of rivals with third-party companies are also part of the competitive environment. Relations with suppliers and companies from other markets can be examples of these third-party companies.
CI can be obtained through different sources. Companies can analyse patent data (Shih, Liu & Hsu, 2010). Visiting trade shows and the companies themselves are also possible sources (Roach & Santi, 2011). In the literature, CI is divided into four types: market intelligence, competitor’s intelligence, technological intelligence and strategic/social intelligence. Deschamps and Ranganath Nayak (1995) define these four types as follows:
Market Intelligence. This is needed to provide a road map of current and future trends in customers’ needs and preferences, new markets and creative segmentation opportunities, and major shifts in marketing and distribution.
Competitors’ Intelligence. This is needed to evaluate the evolution of competitive strategy over time through changes in competitors’ structure, new product substitutes and new industry entrants.
Technological Intelligence. This is needed to assess the cost/benefit of current and new technologies and to forecast future technological discontinuities.
10 All these four types are linked.
According to Kahaner (1996), the CI process consists of four steps: planning and direction, collection of data, analysis, and dissemination. First, the user’s needs are identified. Second, the raw data is collected. The raw data can consist of white information, grey information and black information. White information is publicly accessible and grey information is from the private domain and can be obtained through visiting trade shows and the companies themselves. Black information can only be obtained illegally, but should be avoided according to the definition given by Pellissier & Nenzhelele (2013). In the third step, the obtained information is analyzed and seemingly unconnected information is turned into intelligence. In the fourth step, this intelligence is used for possible courses of actions (Rouach & Santi, 2011). A possible fifth step is included by Fuld (1995), where the information is stored and delivered together with the implementation of security measures. April and Bessa (2006) state that a successful competitive intelligence process needs to take into account cultural issues, facilitated by technology and to ease knowledge sharing.
Five attitudes towards CI are discussed by Rouach and Santi (2001): the warrior attitude, the assault attitude, the active attitude, the reactive attitude and the sleepers. Having a warrior attitude means a very pro-active use of CI. Companies with an assault attitude are also proactive, but usually have ex-military intelligence experts. An active attitude means that the company is always searching for strategic information, but is not really structured. An reactive attitude means that CI is only used as response when competitors are overly hostile. Finally, the sleepers show no interest in CI and do not fear competition.
2.5 Theoretical gap
12
3. Conceptual Framework
In this section, a conceptual framework will be constructed with the help of the previous discussion of innovation uncertainties and Competitive Intelligence. This framework will be tested with an explorative case study research.
The objective of this research is to gain a more in-depth understanding on how companies use CI in collaborative NPD to manage the uncertainties in their NPD projects. Different uncertainties present in collaborative NPD projects and the different types of CI are discussed in the previous section. Findings can show how companies can gain or maintain competitive advantage through the use of CI in collaborative NPD and how to assure a successful NPD project. The main question of this research is:
- To what extent do companies make use of Competitive Intelligence to manage the innovation uncertainties in collaborative new product development?
Similarities between the innovation uncertainties and the different types of CI can be found. To overcome technological uncertainty, technological intelligence can be used to obtain information about current and new technologies in the market and even future technologies of competitors and suppliers. Competitor’s intelligence can be used to obtain knowledge about the technological activities of the competitors and its suppliers. To avoid commercial uncertainty, market intelligence and strategic and social intelligence can be used to obtain knowledge about the market and the trends to define whether the product is commercially viable. Competitor’s intelligence can be used to obtain knowledge about the NPD activities of the competitors to define if the new product can compete. Organizational uncertainty can possibly be avoided with the use of competitor’s intelligence to identify suppliers that can fit into the companies own structure. Social uncertainty can possibly be avoided with the use of strategic and social intelligence to obtain information about trends in social behavior to identify possible secondary stakeholders.
13 1. Is CI used in collaborative NPD projects?
First, it needs to be established that CI is used in their collaborative NPD projects? It can be the case that the term CI is not known and it is therefore considered as not present. CI can then be still present, but not acknowledged as CI, because it is not structured. The process of the decision-making and the analyses should be discussed.
2. How is CI used in collaborative NPD projects?
In the literature, several attitudes towards CI have been discussed (Rouach & Santi, 2001). This can indicate how CI is handled within NPD and how it is structured. Does the company use CI pro-active or re-active? Some companies have a separate CI unit within the company, while others do not structure it or even involves a second party.
3. Which innovation uncertainties are present in the collaborative NPD projects?
Here, it should be studied which uncertainties are present. Although, several uncertainties have been discussed, are they all present? How the uncertainties are viewed, should be studied. Which are important and which are the least important?
4. Can CI be linked to the innovation uncertainties in collaborative NPD projects?
After the use of CI and the presence of the innovation uncertainties have been recognized, a possible link should be discussed. Just a general discussion is needed here. Are they linked as general as discussed above or do they use other sources to manage the uncertainties and is CI not so important?
5. How is CI linked to innovation uncertainties in collaborative NPD projects?
14 CI can provide early warnings of competitors’ new product introductions and marketing initiatives, can identify key competitors’ emerging strategies and can give notice of critical changes in the businesses of key clients (McGonagle and Vella, 2004). Advantages of collaborating with a supplier in NPD projects are improved quality, reduced costs, reduced concept-to-consumer development time, improved innovativeness and product performance. Disadvantages can be a technology lock in, information leakage and a bad organizational fit, which can cause an inefficient project performance and longer development time (Melander & Tell, 2014). By answering the questions above the use of (or attitude towards) CI can be linked to the outcomes of collaborative NPD.
15
4. Methodology
In this section, the research design will be discussed. The data collection will be explained. After which the measurements will be discussed. Finally, the plan for the analysis of the data will be discussed.
4.1 Research design
For this study, a case study research has been chosen to study how CI is linked to collaborative NPD to manage the collaboration uncertainties. A strength of a case study is that relevant theory can be generated from the understanding gained through observing actual practice (Karlsson, 2010). It is able to deal with a variety of evidence like documents, artifacts, interviews and observations (Yin, 2009). In this study the link between CI and uncertainties in collaborative NPD will be explored in depth for which a case study is considered to be suitable. Multiple cases were examined to augment external validity and reduce observer bias (Karlsson, 2010).
4.2 Unit of analysis
16 4.3 Data collection
Information about the unit of analysis was collected through interviews. These interviews were semi-structured, which meant that some questions were followed, but the interviews remained open-ended (Yin, 2009). Each interview lasted about an hour. During the interview, notes were taken. A voice recorder was used to record the interviews, which can reduce observer bias (Karlsson, 2010). Approval was asked beforehand. The interviews were written no longer than a day later. This is to improve reliability of the results (Karlsson, 2010). Only one interviewer conducted the interview. The focus of the interviews was to study the information gathering and decision making in the NPD projects with respect to the supplier. The interviews were conducted in Dutch.
4.4 Measurements
17 4.5 Data analysis
18
5. Results
In this section, the results collected through interviews with development team leaders and NPD managers will be presented. The results will be presented following the structure of the interview, which can be found in the appendix. This structure includes the variables of the research question and the proposed different types of uncertainties of collaboration with a supplier. For each of this uncertainty, the extent of the use of CI will be discussed. Due to privacy issues, the companies are named A, B, C and D. A, B and C are SME’s, while D is a large company. They are all active in the sector of industry.
5.1 Competitive intelligence
First, the perceived use of CI in the NPD in the company was discussed. The definition of CI was not clear beforehand in all four cases, so the definition of CI was explained. The three SME’s all stated that they did not use as formal as the definition seemed it to be. Information was not collected in a structured way by these companies. However they do collect information when questions needed to be answered. Thus, it was more collected in a reactive manner than a proactive manner. The companies showed different attitudes towards CI, while one company showed almost no interest in CI and not fear for competitors, the other two companies showed a more reactive attitude, without the overly hostile threat of competitors that is mentioned in this attitude (Rouach & Santi, 2001).
The three SME’s all stated that social interaction and the network of the company are the main tools to analyse the environment for collaborative NPD. Company A have used a commercial bureau, but did not use it as a serious tool. Company B stated that they use to be more structured in information collection and doing analyses, but eventually got less structured due to gained experience and gut-feeling. Others named experience and gut-feeling as important tools in decision making.
19 should be identified and act upon. With the use of CI, the company is able to avoid waste of time and money by avoiding developments that are already present. The customer does not know what he/she wants and CI can help the company to analyses this and test if the developed product really meets the demand of the customer. The company also stated to see networking as a CI tool. Meeting suppliers and getting references gives information about the environment, what is being developed and who are seen as good partners. Conferences were also used to get information about upcoming developments from other companies. Company D acknowledged that the size of the company makes it able to have a group within the company that focuses on CI and writes reports for the company to use. It states that knowledge is power, otherwise there will be surprises that will make a company stay behind the competition. Storage of CI is avoided, because it gets outdated very easily.
5.2 Collaborative NPD
Each company had their own process for NPD. Although each SME stated to have a NPD process, they each showed a different use. Company A stated the NPD process to be latent. The project goes through phases, but nog much attention was paid to the structure. Company B acknowledged the process to be structured but flexible and not formally followed. The NPD process of company C is more structured and divided into five steps that each had to be taken. The most structured was company D. It uses the well-known Stage Gate Model.
20 with new ideas was perceived to enhance the innovativeness of the project. It works better when the supplier is located close by, because it is more flexible. Good communication was valued more than costs to a certain extent. Suppliers it had already has experience with are also valued. Company C stated that communication and good management enhances the efficiency of the NPD project, but innovativeness of the supplier did not play a role in the choice of supplier. Perceived uncertainties in the collaborative NPD process were mainly the quality of the product and the quality of the collaboration. Overestimation of the capabilities of the supplier can be an issue that can cause delay of a project, which company C had experienced. Efficiency of the project is lowered and development time will be longer. Company A states it values quality more than costs, because costs can be reduced a later stadium.
5.3 Technological uncertainty
The choice of a technology can cause uncertainty, because the company does not know if it is the technology of the chosen supplier is the best choice. All companies stated that they scanned and analysed the market for present technologies and upcoming technologies. Company A also takes into account the ability of the supplier. Are they really able to do what they say they can do? When the supplier is not able to do what it promised it could, it can lead to higher costs of the NPD project. Company B stated that by not owning a technology, it enhances its innovativeness. It is not stuck in thinking in, for example, steel. The ability to adopt new technology is important. This makes it important to be familiar with the technological environment. Also company C analyses the market of technology, but more directed towards new production methods. Although their market does not develop very quickly. Company D is very structured in its search for the supplier with the best technology. They approach different suppliers, which will present different options. These strengths and weaknesses of these options will then be analysed with the help of a PUGH matrix. This causes the company to be more sure about its choice.
5.4 Commercial uncertainty
21 important, when complex and innovative products were manufactured by the suppliers. Other clients and partners of the suppliers were scanned. When suppliers worked together with a direct competitor, company D would not be certain about collaborating with this supplier. Company A, B and C would even avoid collaborating with this supplier, because possible leakage could eliminate first mover advantage. Three of the companies (A, C and D) were afraid of vertical migration of the supplier, because the possibility was not present or it was ensured through contracts. Company B does feels this threat due to the economy causes the suppliers to increase their market. It therefore chooses not to collaborate with supplier that in the same market.
Viability of the product is ensured by analyse trends in the market. Sustainability is one of them, which is pushed by the changing regulation, which will be discussed later on. Company A relies more on gut-feeling and fieldwork. Its development manager usually knows what the market wants. Company B mainly uses the feedback from other parties. Supplier, clients, customers and partners are asked about their opinion. Company D uses a second party to collect data about macro trends, because this is very important in their slow developing market. All agree that customers do not know what they want and that the company itself has to find out with the use of information and analysis.
5.5 Organizational uncertainty
22 5.6 Social uncertainty
Social uncertainty involves the possible impact on secondary stakeholders. It is more complex to understand. Here the use of social/strategic intelligence is also discussed.
23
6. Discussion
In this section, the results will be discussed with the literature discussed earlier. Answers to the sub-questions and the main research question will be provided. The theoretical and managerial implication of this research will be discussed.
6.1 Discussion of the research questions
To answer the main research question, the sub-questions need to be answered. First, it had to be established if CI was used in the collaborative NPD projects of the companies. While company D showed a clear use of CI, it acknowledged that the size of the company makes possible. It has a separate group that focuses on collecting the right data and write reports on the analyses. The SME all stated that they did not use CI, at least not actively.
Second, how CI is used in the collaborative NPD projects should be discussed. In depth discussion of the NPD process and decision-making showed that CI was present, but not used in a structured way. Rouach & Santi (2001) discussed several attitudes towards CI. Company D can then be identified to have warrior attitude, because of its proactive use of CI. The SME’s show a less proactive and structured attitude, which can be identified as the active attitude. They are very active when it comes to collecting and analyzing information about the technological environment (technological intelligence). Present and future technologies are watched closely to ensure innovativeness and cost reduction.
24 because in social uncertainty is hard to identify who are important to consider (Melander & Tell, 2014).
Next, a possible link between the innovation uncertainties and the use of CI can be identified and how they are linked can be discussed. As it is stated earlier, the technological uncertainty shows a possible link with the use of technological intelligence. The companies clearly use technological intelligence to identify the suppliers with the best technologies. An advantage of this can be improved innovativeness of the collaborative NPD project.
Results show that the companies used CI more to reduce the NPD uncertainties than the collaborative uncertainties. Information from the collaborating suppliers and the environment are used to indicate the viability of the NPD project. Innovativeness of the NPD project is enhanced by using strategic/social intelligence on regulation and political issues in the market, which also can enhance the viability. Patent fieldwork, which can be identified as competitor’s intelligence, is used to reduce the organizational uncertainty, which discusses the ability of protecting IP (Hall et al., 2011).
Finally, the main research question can be answered. When analyzing the results of the interview, it can be assumed that companies use CI only in a small extent in the management of uncertainties in collaborative intelligence. The technological uncertainty is mainly management with the use of CI. Although the companies do use CI, it is used more to manage the general uncertainties in NPD discussed by Hall et al. (2011). The use of social interaction can be assumed to be more present in the management of the collaborative uncertainties discussed by Melander & Tell (2014). Mainly organizational uncertainty is management with the help of social interaction and networking. The commercial uncertainty can be assumed to be managed with the help of contracts and avoiding of suppliers that have collaborated with direct competitors.
6.2 Theoretical and managerial implications
26
7. Conclusion
The aim of this study was to research to what extent CI was used in the collaborative NPD with respect to the management of the collaboration uncertainties. A case study was conducted. Four NPD managers and team leaders in NPD were interviewed and the use of CI was discussed together with the collaboration uncertainties.
Results show that CI is not used as an important tool in the management of the collaboration uncertainties. Social interaction, networking and contracts were tools that were more used to reduce the uncertainties. This study encountered some limitations, but also shows gaps in the literature that provide suggestions for further research.
7.2 Limitations and suggestions for further research
First of all, this research was conducted with four Dutch companies present in the sector of industry. This means that the results are not generalizable to other countries and other sector, but even the generalizability within this sector is questionable. Only four cases were research, where three were SME’s and one was a large company. These types showed differences and similarities, but a larger case study should be conducted to be able to generalize the results. A survey study can be conducted to increase the generalizability even more and give a better overall view of the sector or even companies operating in collaborative NPD in general.
This case study was done with only one interviewer, who also did the interpretation of the results. This can cause observer bias, which means the results of this study should be used with care. This study showed differences between the use of CI by large companies and the use of CI by SME’s. A suggestion for further research could be a case study to explain these differences (and similarities).
27
8. References
April, K., & Bessa, J. (2006). A critique of the strategic competitive intelligence process within a global energy multinational. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 4(2), 86-99. Boyd, B.K., & Fulk, J. (1996). Executive scanning and perceived uncertainty: A
multidimensional model. J. Management, 22(1), 1-21.
Colakoglu, T. (2011). The Problematic Of Competitive Intelligence: How To Evaluate & Develop Competitive Intelligence?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1615-1623.
Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Business horizons, 33(3), 44-54.
Crawford, C. M., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2011). New products management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Deschamps, J. P. (1995). Product juggernauts: How companies mobilize to generate a stream of market winners. Harvard Business Press.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K., (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238–250.
Freel, M.S., (2003). Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research Policy 32 (4), 751–770.
Fuld, L.M., & Weylman, C. R. (1995) The New Competitor Intelligence. John Wiley, Chichester.
Gomez, J., Orcos, R., & Palomas, S. (2013). Competitive externalities: the effect of rivals's multimarket contacts on focal firm performance. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2013, No. 1, p. 12322). Academy of Management.
Hall, J. K., & Martin, M. J. (2005). Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value‐added chain: a framework for evaluating radical technology development. R&D Management, 35(3), 273-284.
28 Handfield, R. B., Ragatz, G. L., Petersen, K. J., & Monczka, R. M. (1999). Involving Suppliers
in New Product Development. California management review, 42(1).
Hoegl, M., & Wagner, S. M. (2005). Buyer-supplier collaboration in product development projects. Journal of Management, 31(4), 530-548.
Kahaner, L. (1996) Competitive Intelligence. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Kahn, K. B., Barczak, G., & Moss, R. (2006). Perspective: establishing an NPD best practices framework. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(2), 106-116.
Karlsson, C. (Ed.). (2010). Researching operations management. Routledge.
Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: a dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(03), 377-400. Ledwith, A., & Coughlan, P., (2005). Splendid isolation: does networking really increase new
product success? Creativity and Innovation Management 14 (4), 366–373.
Loch, C. (2000). Tailoring Product Development to Strategy: Case of European Technology Manufacturer. European Management Journal, 18(3), 246–58
McGonagle, J. J., & Vella, C. M. (2004). Competitive intelligence in action. Information Management Journal, 38(2), 64-68.
Melander, L., & Tell, F. (2014). Uncertainty in collaborative NPD: Effects on the selection of technology and supplier. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 31, 103-119.
Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F., (2003). Co-operative R&D: why, and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy 32 (8), 1481–1499.
Nieto, M.J., & Santamaría, L., (2007). The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation 27 (3), 367–377.
Pellissier, R. & Nenzhelele, T. E. (2013). Towards a universal definition of competitive intelligence. SA Journal of Information Management, 15(2), 7-pages.
Pulles, N. J., Veldman, J., & Schiele, H. (2014). Identifying innovative suppliers in business networks: An empirical study. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 409-418.
29 Sánchez, A.M., & Pérez, M.P., (2003). Cooperation and the ability to minimize the time and cost of new product development within the Spanish automotive supplier industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management 20 (1), 57–69.
Shih, M. J., Liu, D. R., & Hsu, M. L. (2010). Discovering competitive intelligence by mining changes in patent trends. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(4), 2882-2890.
Song, M., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). The effect of perceived technological uncertainty on Japanese new product development. Academy of Management journal, 44(1), 61-80. Tsai, K. H. (2009). Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a
contingency perspective. Research policy, 38(5), 765-778.
Van Echtelt, F. E., Wynstra, F., Van Weele, A. J., & Duysters, G. (2008). Managing Supplier Involvement in New Product Development: A Multiple‐Case Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(2), 180-201.
30
9. Appendix
9.1 Interview
Interview guidelines (semi-structured)
Interviewee: Team leader development, NPD manager
Topic: To what extent do companies make use of Competitive Intelligence to manage the innovation uncertainties in collaborative new product development?
Time: 45-60 minutes
Medium: Face-to-face with audio-recording
Focus: 1. Is CI used in collaborative NPD projects? 2. How is CI used in collaborative NPD projects?
3. Which innovation uncertainties are present in the collaborative NPD projects?
4. Can CI be linked to the innovation uncertainties in collaborative NPD projects?
5. How is CI linked to innovation uncertainties in collaborative NPD projects? Questions
1. Introduction
- Give a short introduction of myself
- Explain what is the aim of my research and this interview - Ask for consent for audio-recording
- Ensure privacy of the interviewee and ensure confidentiality of the information
Note: allow interviewee do give examples of past or present projects
2. Interviewee information
- Allow the interviewee to introduce himself, his position and the company
3. Competitive Intelligence
- Do you actively make use of Competitive Intelligence? (make sure they understand what it means, pay attention to this throughout interview)
- How do you make use of Competitive intelligence?
31
4. New product development
- How does your NPD process look like? (Stage-gate model? Unstructured?)
- Where do the ideas for NPD come from? (Clients, consumers, suppliers, company)
5. Collaborative NPD
- Why do you work together with suppliers in NPD? What are the advantages? Are there disadvantages? Which?
- Which uncertainties should you take into account when collaborating with suppliers? - How do you choose suppliers to work with? What are important features?
- When do you involve suppliers in NPD projects? Why?
6. Technological uncertainty
- Do you collect information on which technologies (of suppliers) are present in the market? And which technologies (of suppliers) will become more important and less important? - What do you do with that information?
- How important is this information for your NPD? - Why use this information? Why not?
7. Commercial uncertainty
- Which problems do you encounter when working together with suppliers? (discuss leakage of information, costs, supplier migration)
- How do you deal with these problems? (pay attention to possible use of CI) - How important is this?
- Why is this important? Why not?
8. Organizational uncertainty
- When wanting to work together with suppliers, do you collect information on how they are structured, what culture they have, which capabilities they have and strategies they use? - How do you collect that information? What do you do with that information?
- How important is that? Why? What are the advantages/disadvantages?
9. Social uncertainty (and use of strategic intelligence)
- Do you take into account what the impact of the NPD could be on the secondary stakeholders of your company and of the supplier? (examples like the neighborhood, environment)
- How do you collect that information? What do you do with that information? - How important is that? Why? Why not?
- Do you collect information on regulation, economic and political issues or social issues? How? With what purpose?
- How important is that? Why? Why not?
10. Conclusion
- Give summary, did I understand correctly?
