Designing a new product model based on innovative events and company performance

Subject Areas : Jounal of Marketing Management

Ali Ebadi ¹ , حسن مهرمنش ² , سید ذبیح اله هاشمی ³

1 - Department of Industrial Management, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Department of Industrial Management, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 - Department of Industrial Management, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2024-06-22 Accepted : 2024-09-09 Published : 2024-10-02

Keywords: New product development, innovative events, company performance.,

Abstract :

Introduction and purpose: New product development is a process that includes the stages of ideation to the delivery of a new product to the market. This process often begins with identifying customer needs and market analysis. New ideas are gathered from various sources such as customer feedback, research and development (R & D), and competitor analysis. After the top ideas are selected, the design and development process begins, which includes the creation of prototypes, tests, and repeated modifications until the final product reaches an acceptable level of quality and performance. This phase typically involves close collaboration between engineering, marketing, and project management teams. The purpose of the research was to design a new product model based on innovative events and company performance.

Research methodology: The current research was applied in terms of its purpose and qualitative in terms of method with the approach of foundational data theory. In this research, the methodological approach was followed by using different methods of data collection, such as the method of library study and review of specialized sources and texts, as well as semi-structured interviews. Based on targeted sampling, 14 managers and experts of small and medium companies in Tehran were interviewed in 2023. The conducted interviews were coded in ATLAS.TI software. To confirm the results obtained based on three strains, the data were evaluated and qualitatively analyzed.

Findings: The findings of the research revealed 85 primary codes, 18 core categories in 6 selected categories. Causal conditions (research and development, specialization and knowledge of human resources, internal processes, financing and financial and non-financial performance of the company); background conditions (cooperation and communication, government support and social and cultural factors); Intervening conditions (laws and regulations, market and customers, competitors and technological developments); Strategies (development of communication, technological development and innovative performance) and consequences (financial growth of the company, brand development and customer attraction) were determined

References:

1. اسحاقیان، زهرا, جعفری، سید محمدباقر و یزدانی، حمیدرضا. (1401). چارچوب نوآوری مدل کسب‌وکار مبتنی بر کاربست فناوری‌های دیجیتالی. مدیریت نوآوری در سازمان‏های دفاعی، 5(2)، 1-26.
2. اصغرنیا، مرتضی، احمدی‏زاد، آرمان و فرهادی، روژین. (1401). چالش‌ها و الزامات اجرای راهبرد تحول دیجیتال در صنعت تلکام. بررسی‌های بازرگانی، 6(2), 98-117.
3. کریمی موسی، ثانوی فرد رسول، حمیدی‌‏زاده علی (1401). طراحی مدل تکنولوژی دیجیتال بر محیط و قابلیت‌‏های استراتژیک بازاریابی شرکت پخش فرآورده‏های نفتی همدان. مطالعات راهبردي در صنعت نفت و انرژي؛ ۱۴ (۵۳): ۵۴-۳۹
4. Akcigit, U, 2017. “Economic Growth: The Past, the Present, and the Future.” - Commemorative essay in “The Past, Present, and Future of Economics: A Celebration of the 125 Year Anniversary of the JPE and of Chicago Economics,” edited by John List and Harald Uhlig. Journal of Political Economy 125 (6), 1736–1747.
5. Arcuri, M.C., Russo, I. & Gandolfi, G. Productivity of innovation: the effect of innovativeness on start-up survival. J Technol Transf (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10069-7
6. Audretsch, B. D., & Belitski, M. (2023). The limits to open innovation and its impact on innovation performance. Technovation, 119, 102519.
7. Aulkemeier, F., Iacob, ME. & van Hillegersberg, J. Platform-based collaboration in digital ecosystems. Electron Markets 29, 597–608 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00341-2
8. Bao, Z., & Wang, C. (2022). A multi-agent knowledge integration process for enterprise management innovation from the perspective of neural network. Information Processing & Management, 59(2), 102873.
9. Bašić, M. How Does Open Business Model Transform Elements of Innovation Culture into Open Innovation Practices of High and Low Internationalisation Firms?. J Knowl Econ 14, 2878–2904 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00993-0
10. Bertello, A., De Bernardi, P. & Ricciardi, F. Open innovation: status quo and quo vadis - an analysis of a research field. Rev Manag Sci 18, 633–683 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00655-8
11. Borowski, P.F. Innovation strategy on the example of companies using bamboo. J Innov
Entrep 10, 3 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-00144-2
12. Butter, M., Gijsbers, G., Goetheer, A., & Karanikolova, K. (2020). Digital innovation hubs and their position in the European, national and regional innovation ecosystems. In D. Feldner (Ed.), Redesigning organizations. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27957-8_3
13. Cepeda-Carrion, I., Ortega-Gutierrez, J., Garrido-Moreno, A. et al. The Mediating Role of Knowledge Creation Processes in the Relationship Between Social Media and Open Innovation. J Knowl Econ 14, 1275–1297 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00949-4
14. Colombo, M.G., Hoisl, K., Reichstein, T. et al. Open innovation, value creation and value capture : an introduction. J. Ind. Bus. Econ. 50, 731–742 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-023-00285-x
15. Costabile, C., Iden, J. & Bygstad, B. Building digital platform ecosystems through standardization: an institutional work approach. Electron Markets 32, 1877–1889 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00552-0
16. Crass, D., 2020. Which firms use trademarks? Firm-level evidence from Germany on the role of distance, product quality and innovation. Industry and Innovation 27, 730–755.
17. Daiberl, C.F., Oks, S.J., Roth, A. et al. Design principles for establishing a multi-sided open innovation platform: lessons learned from an action research study in the medical technology industry. Electron Markets 29, 711–728 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0325-2
18. Dosi, G., Nelson, R., Winter, S., 2000. The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. OUP, Oxford.
19. Dymitrowski, A., Mielcarek, P. Innovation Business Model Based on New Technologies and Company Relationships. J Knowl Econ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01251-7
20. Flikkema, M., Castaldi, C., de Man, A.-P., Seip, M., 2019. Trademarks’ relatedness to product and service innovation: A branding strategy approach. Research Policy 48, 1340–1353.
21. Georgescu, A., Avasilcai, S., & Peter, M. K. (2021). Digital innovation hubs—The present future of collaborative research, business and marketing development opportunities. In Á. Rocha, J. L. Reis, M. K. Peter, R. Cayolla, S. Loureiro & Z. Bogdanović (Eds.), Marketing and smart technologies. Smart innovation, systems and technologies (Vol. 205). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4183-8_29
22. Gries, T., Naudé, W. Extreme Events, Entrepreneurial Start-Ups, and Innovation: Theoretical Conjectures. EconDisCliCha 5, 329–353 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41885-021-00089-0
23. Griliches, Z., 1979. Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics 10.
24. Griliches, Z., 1986. Productivity, R&D, and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. American Economic Review 76.
25. Grillitsch, M., Schubert, T., Srholec, M., 2019. Knowledge base combinations and firm growth. Research Policy 48, 234–247.
26. Hall, B.H., Helmers, C., Rogers, M., Sena, V., 2013. The Importance (or not) of Patents to UK Firms. In: National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 19089. Cambridge, MA. NBER.
27. Li, Z., Wang, N. & Ge, S. Exploitative or explorative innovation? An event study of cloud computing business value. Electron Commer Res 22, 1467–1490 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09473-0
28. Lucas, R., 1988. On the Mechanics of Economic Growth. Journal of Monetary Economics 22, 3–42. Nelson, R., Winter, S., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
29. Marion, T. J., & Fixson, S. K. (2021). The transformation of the innovation process: How digital tools are changing work, collaboration, and organizations in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 192-215.
30. Mendonca, S., Pereira, T.S., Godinho, M.M., 2004. Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change. Research Policy 33, 1385–1404.
31. Morris, D.M., 2018. Innovation and productivity among heterogeneous firms. Research Policy 47, 1918–1932.
32. Nightingale, P., Coad, A., 2013. Muppets and gazelles: political and methodological biases in entrepreneurship research. Industrial and Corporate Change 23, 113–143.
33. Piccioni, N. From physical to metaversal events: An exploratory study. Ital. J. Mark. 2023, 119–134 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-023-00068-1
34. Putri, S. R. R., & Fontana, A. (2022, July). Surviving digital transformation era through strategic entrepreneurship with collaborative innovation between bank and fintech. In Proceeding of the International Conference on Family Business and Entrepreneurship (Vol. 3, No. 1).
35. Spescha, A., Woerter, M., 2019. Innovation and firm growth over the business cycle. Industry and Innovation 26, 321–347.
36. Taques, F.H., Lopez, M.G., Basso, L.F., Areal, N., 2021. Indicators used to measure service ´ innovation and manufacturing innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 6, 11–26.
37. Wang, D., and S. Chen. 2022. Digital transformation and enterprise resilience: Evidence from China. Sustainability 14: 14218.