From Technological Inventions to New Products: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda of the Main Enabling Factors

• Author: Vito Albino,Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli,Lorenzo Ardito
• Published date: 01 September 2015
• Date: 01 September 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12047

From Technological Inventions to New

Products: A Systematic Review and Research

Agenda of the Main Enabling Factors

Lorenzo Ardito,Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli,Vito Albino

Department of Mechanics, Mathematics and Management, Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy

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’ commercializationis 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 (Nevens, 1990;

Damanpour, 1991; Kumar and Jain, 2003; Artz et al.,

2010). Indeed, inventions are often considered as tech-

nical solutions with little economic importance if they

are not translated into market applications (Schumpeter,

1934; Kline and Rosenberg, 1986). 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 technol-

ogies 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 embed-

ding their own inventions into marketable solutions.

Despite the ever increasing interest toward the open

innovation paradigm (Chesbrough, 2006), which sug-

gests that firms rely on technology acquisition or exter-

nal 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 introduc-

tion 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’ perfor-

mance and survival (Artz et al., 2010; Damanpour,

1991; Datta et al., 2015). Accordingly, leading compa-

nies are often those able to innovate by turning their own

inventions into new marketable products more fre-

quently and faster than their competitors (Nevens, 1990;

Stevens et al., 1999; Li et al., 2013).

However, companies face several difficulties in

extracting the value from their technologies and, hence,

in introducing new products based upon these techno-

logical 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 intro-

ducing products based on their inventions. In turn, aca-

demics have been long interested in analyzing and

Correspondence: Lorenzo Ardito, Politecnico di Bari, 182 VialeJapigia,

Bari, 70126, Italy. Tel.:+390805962725; E-mail: l.ardito@poliba.it

European Management Review, Vol. 12, 113–147 (2015)

DOI: 10.1111/emre.12047

© 2015 European Academy of Management

discussing the main factors fostering the achievement of

such innovative outcome (e.g., Brown and Karagozoglu,

1993; Lukas and Ferrell, 2000; Katila and Ahuja, 2002;

Katila and Chen, 2008; Li et al., 2013). 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 manage-

ment). 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

endeavored 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 ante-

cedents of new product performance or their success

after introduction (Johne and Snelson, 1988; Lilien and

Eunsang, 1989; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994;

Ernst, 2002). 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. (2015) recog-

nized the need to provide a more thorough comprehen-

sion 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 environ-

ment, 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 find-

ings by defining a comprehensive framework that can

guide and advance academics’ and executives’ under-

standing 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 multilevelperspective (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 having largely ignored

adopting 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 frameworkfunctions as

a point of departure to further improve our understand-

ing on the main determinants affecting the introduction

of new products resulting from the exploitation of firms’

inventions. Furthermore, it can allow to effectively con-

solidate extant research on this topic into a coherent

whole and set the basis for future single and cross-level

works (Anderson et al., 2004; Gupta et al., 2007; Hitt

et al., 2007; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010).

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 deter-

minants of invention commercialization via new prod-

ucts, 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 (OECD, 2005; Artz et al.,

2010). Nevertheless, their meaning and overall role for

firms’ competitiveness significantly differ. Inventions

are in fact generally defined as new solutions and tech-

nical resources needed by firms to solve problems

(Schumpeter, 1934; Ahuja and Lampert, 2001). In con-

trast, innovation regards the implementation of firms’

technological inventions across different commercial

applications in order to achieve economic returns

(Schumpeter, 1934; Kline and Rosenberg, 1986;

OECD, 2005), 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., Damanpour,

114 L. Ardito et al.

© 2015 European Academy of Management

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

et al., 2015). According to this view, Zahra and Covin

(1993) and Stevens et al. (1999) 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., Lukas and Ferrell, 2000;

Katila and Ahuja, 2002; Grimpe and Sofka, 2009).

However, the actual definition and implementation of

firms’ strategies, and related innovative activities, origi-

nate in the behaviors and actions of the members oper-

ating within companies, which are in turn a 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 depart-

ments, the relevance of team working is being increas-

ingly 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 characteriz-

ing technological products is drastically increased

(Pavitt, 1998) and competition has become more and

more based upon the recombination of various knowl-

edge (e.g., Fleming, 2002; Capaldo et al., Forthcoming),

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 fre-

quency of different external relationships, as well as to

the types of partner involved in these relationships (uni-

versities, suppliers, customers, etc.). In addition, besides

the factors above mentioned, the structure (size, cultural

system, etc.) and dynamics (competitiveness, uncer-

tainty, regulations, etc.) of the industries where compa-

nies (and networks) operate should be also carefully

considered. These, in fact, affect firms’ innovativeness

as they represent sources of inputs, risks, and opportu-

nities (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, distinguish-

ing 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 mul-

tilevel 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., Gopalakrishnan and

Damanpour, 1997; Anderson et al., 2004; Gupta et al.,

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

Crossan and Apaydin, 2010).

Methodology

Past studies argued that an accurate review design

improves the evaluationprocess of the contributions pro-

vided 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 con-

ceptually consolidate results emerging from various

studies related to a selected topic (see also Crossan and

Apaydin, 2010; (Meier, 2011; Zott et al., 2011;

Carpenter et al., 2012; Keupp et al., 2012; Phelps et al.,

Figure 1 Conceptual model

From Technological Inventions to New Products 115

© 2015 European Academy of Management