Refine
Year of publication
- 2003 (6) (show_all)
Document Type
- Working Paper (4)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Aussagekraft (1)
- Competitive advantage (1)
- Customer orientation (1)
- Familienbetrieb (1)
- High technology (1)
- IP-Management (1)
- Information bias (1)
- Innovation competition (1)
- Innovation process (1)
- Innovationsbereitschaft (1)
Empirical organizational research has serious methodological limitations if it is based on the perceptions of single informants. Single informant studies are likely to suffer from a systematic measurement error, a so-called method error or informant bias which negatively impacts the validity of their empirical findings. Previous empirical innovation research is based on single informants. This causes substantial doubts regarding the validity of findings in past empirical innovation research based on perceptual, self-reported measures and their managerial implications. This study undertakes a comprehensive theoretical and empirical investigation into the causes and the effects of a single informant bias in empirical innovation research. Based on multiple informant data on various aspects of innovation management in a company, multitrait-multimethod analyses are applied in order to quantify the extent of the informant bias. The results show that the informant bias is substantial and that construct validity cannot be achieved based on the assessments of a single informant only. Only multiple informant data allows the selection of an appropriate informant depending on the organizational trait to be measured based on formal statistical criteria. The higher the level of interfunctional integration and the higher the intensity of vertical communication inside the organization, the lower is the informant bias. This information can be used by researchers to assess whether an informant bias is likely to occur prior to conducting empirical surveys. The findings of this study substantiate the presumed doubts about the validity of past single informant studies in innovation research and demand the use of multiple informants in future empirical studies.
This article analyses the scope and impact of patent management in high technology companies. The exploratory empirical study is based on a conceptual framework, which relates patent management to firm performance by taking various contingent factors into account. The empirical analyses give a detailed descriptive overview about patent management in high technology firms. Further, differences in patent management between young and established high technology companies and special characteristics of biotechnology firms are examined. Finally, preliminary insights regarding the impact of patent management on firm performance are gained. The empirical findings have implications for improving patent management in high technology firms.
Highly recognized case studies and the intuitive notion that a heroic champion is required to help innovations overcome the indifference or even resistance that they face in many organizations explain that there has been a positive bias among academics and managers toward the role of champions in innovation processes. A look into the previous empirical literature on champions reveals, however, that a rigorous empirical investigation into organizational factors causing the emergence of executive champions and their impact on innovation performance is lacking. In addition, previous empirical research on champions is plagued with methodological problems such as measurement issues and single informant bias. This study uses multiple informant data from 258 respondents from 43 firms to examine various hypotheses. The findings reveal that executive champions are likely to emerge in organizational cultures that are conducive to innovation and they are less likely to emerge in organizational cultures that are unfavorable for innovation. We further find a non-linear, inverted u-shaped relationship between the level of executive championing activity and innovation performance. We find, in contrast with the commonly held belief, that executive champions have a strong negative impact on innovation performance particularly in cultures that make it difficult to innovate. Among the tested moderators, only the implementation of incentives for executive champions based on innovation performance offsets the negative impact of these champions on innovation performance. The findings lead us to substantially rethink the commonly believed role champions play in innovation processes.
Web-based interaction between customers and producers offer new promising ways of bringing customers into the company right to where the value creation begins - in new product development (NPD). Despite the high potential of virtual customer integration (VCI), practical application is limited. The decision of initial utilization of VCI depends on the manager’s predisposition - favorable or unfavorable -towards VCI; usually, it is the responsibility of managers and executives belonging to the development, marketing or innovation departments to sanction such a decision. To get a deeper understanding of antecedents leading to the application of VCI, further information is needed. In this paper, the authors shed light on the various factors affecting managerial intention to apply virtual customer integration. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) provides a basis for developing a research model explaining the relation between managers’ cognition, attitude, social norms, perceived behavioral control and their intention to adopt VCI. The initial results of our empirical study, wherein we interviewed 94 managers within the consumer goods and services field, show that the TPB accounts for 66 percent of the variance in the managers’ intention to apply VCI. Furthermore, the study reveals that social norms and perceived behavioral control are the main factors which influence managerial decision to apply VCI. This contrasts with the widely-held theory that an individual's attitude is the most significant factor of influence.
Lehrstuhlbericht
(2003)