IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02312522.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic Innovation Decisions : What You Foresee Is Not What You Get

Author

Listed:
  • Rudy Moenaert

    (Business University Nyenrode - Nyenrode Business Universiteit)

  • Henry Robben

    (Business University Nyenrode - Nyenrode Business Universiteit)

  • Michael Antioco

    (Tilburg University [Tilburg] - Netspar)

  • Veroniek de Schamphelaere

    (Vlerick Leuven Ghent Management School - Vlerick Leuven Ghent Management School)

  • Eveline Roks

    (Tilburg University [Tilburg] - Netspar)

Abstract

This research attempts to (1) identify the factors that influence strategic decision making (i.e., a choice made among various strategic options), and (2) establish their relative importance in the context of new product development. Hence, this study's research question is formulated as follows: from a descriptive perspective what factors prevail in managers' strategic decision making on new product development, and from a normative perspective is this behavior optimal? An exploratory case research study generated a four-dimensional framework of strategic decision making. In 17 companies, the decision-making processes and subsequent implementation of 22 business innovation projects were studied. Managers' choices are determined by the assessment of (1) the business opportunity, (2) the feasibility, (3) the competitiveness, and (4) the leverage opportunities provided by the strategic option. The research question was then further addressed in a field site survey of 144 managers of ChemCorp, a global, multidivisional chemicals company. The ex ante conjoint study shows that feasibility and business opportunity prevail over competitiveness and leverage at the decision-making moment. Using PLS-Graph revealed that a manager's idiosyncrasies and the current and the future context of the division to which they belonged barely affected the relative weight of the decision-making criteria: only the division's customer power and the threat of new entrants significantly influence positively the support for business opportunity assessments. This raised an important question: if feasibility and business opportunity appear as being, overall, the two most important strategic decision-making criteria ex ante, are they key differentiators between success and failure ex post? An ex post critical incident study was conducted on 75 successful innovations and 69 failed innovations reported by the ChemCorp respondents. Using PLS-Graph, this study shows that the competitiveness of a strategic option is a very important predictor of new project success. While the findings await replication in other industries (e.g., industries of a less capital-intensive nature), they are intriguing: strategic innovation decision making may be off track when reality is accounted for.

Suggested Citation

  • Rudy Moenaert & Henry Robben & Michael Antioco & Veroniek de Schamphelaere & Eveline Roks, 2010. "Strategic Innovation Decisions : What You Foresee Is Not What You Get," Post-Print hal-02312522, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02312522
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00755.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heira Georgina Valdez-Bocanegra & Gonzalo Maldonado-Guzmán & Ricardo Valdez-González, 2020. "Effects of Innovation on Competitiveness and Performance: Empirical Evidence in the State of Guanajuato in Mexico," Advances in Management and Applied Economics, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 10(3), pages 1-4.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02312522. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.