Commercialization Of New Products Research Articles

Cooperative marketing alliances for new products commercialization as an entrepreneurial strategy: An analytical-comparative study of football industry

Marketing of new products as an important part of the commercialization process, plays a critical role in the success of developer companies. Most new products fail, and in sequence cause the company not to reach the financial and marketing aims. The paper concentrates on cooperative marketing alliances as a successful approach to commercialization of new products, by studying the Iranian Football Premier League as a context for cooperative marketing alliances among football clubs and business enterprises. Popularity of football clubs has been mentioned as a business platform, for commercialization and marketing of new products, not just by sponsorship, but by involvement of the club in marketing and even some production processes. The paper concentrates on sponsorship status in Iran and measures the success of this practice in clubs that participated in the Iranian Premier League 2008 to 2009. For this purpose, the contract duration, validity and payment on promise have been measured. Results show that sponsorship is usually very short term and supports only a small bulk of club costs. The reliance on governmental aids and unprofessional managers offers, are the main reasons for this failure. Then the structure of marketing in some pioneering football clubs studied as a benchmark for success. In conclusion, researchers suggest the promotion to co-marketing as a strategic alliance between football clubs and sponsors, so that mutual benefit can help football clubs to cover a greater part of their costs and have better usage from their equities, and help the business enterprise to enjoy from popularity of football clubs to exploit the market potential. Study results show that cooperative marketing may offer an entrepreneurial approach to new product commercialization, and will promote the marketing abilities of football clubs.

ADCC potency assay: increased standardization with modified lymphocytes

For few years now, the use of monoclonal antibodies represents a significant progress in different therapeutic applications. In addition to commercialization of new products, important efforts in research and development have been made to launch new therapeutic antibodies. Many antibodies act through a mechanism of Antibody-dependant cell cytotoxicity (ADCC). National Health Agencies recommend or require the use of biological activity assays (potency) in order to characterize those pharmaceutical products. The ADCC assay combines the 3 following elements: • The antibody of interest that is specific to a given antigen; • The targeted cells that express the antigen of interest at their surface; • The effector that can trigger the lysis the targeted cell when the antibody is linked to the antigen. As the usually met ADCC assays use Natural Killer cells, isolated from healthy donors, as effectors they are hardly reproducible (Table ​(Table1).1). Thus, those assays can barely be validated when lots of pharmaceutical products are released. Furthermore, of the rare NK cell lines established in culture don’t express the CD16 receptor needed for the ADCC function. Table 1 Advantages and drawbacks of ADCC effectors for the validation of a standardized ADCC assay In this context, the use of standardized effectors should improve significantly the ADCC assays. Previous work has highlighted that human lymphocytes, modified to express the CD16 receptor, have acquired the ADCC functions [1]. Thanks to our specific know-how, clones of CD16+ lymphocytes have been produced on a large scale (109 cellules). The results obtained have pointed out that cells stored in liquid nitrogen and used as soon as they were thawed, were usable for ADCC assays on a reproducible basis (Figure ​(Figure1).1). Thanks to that approach, two models of ADCC measurement are characterized in the present presentation: CD20 and Her2neu. Figure 1 Characterization of ADCC function of CD16-transduced lymphocytes. Two models of antigen expressing cells were used to establish the inter-assay precision of the ADCC measurement in a standard chromium-release assay. Briefly, the cells were 51Cr-labelled, ... The produced effector cells constitute a relevant alternative to replace the use of NK cells when the standardization of ADCC potency assay is needed.

Strategic orientations and new product commercialization: mediator, moderator, and interplay

Why are some firms more successful at commercializing new products than others in emerging economies? It is possible that the strategic orientations, which firms adopt as a type of business strategy, lead at least partially to the superior performance of the new products they introduce to the market. Strategic orientations facilitate a match between firm strategy and resource endowment, on the one hand, and the adaptation to market conditions, on the other. In this paper, we empirically test whether four major types of strategic orientations (market orientation, technology orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and networking orientation) are simultaneously related to new product commercialization performance using data collected from China. We find that strategic orientations are positively related to three aspects of new product commercialization, namely new product advantage, new product newness, and number of new products introduced to the market. Interestingly, we find that pairs of strategic orientations support each other in exerting their impacts on new product commercialization performance. In addition, we find that organizational learning mediates the effects of strategic orientations on new product commercialization and that environmental dynamism moderates the effect of strategic orientations on new product commercialization. We obtain the valuable insight that a firm's successful commercialization of new products hinges upon the development of critical yet complementary sets of strategic orientations, especially in a dynamic business environment.

Business incubation as strategy

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to propose that an unprecedented revolutionary change in the structure of the US economy warrants attention to the internal structures, cultures and strategies. Consequently, it is argued that for businesses, especially large industrial establishments (LIEs), to survive and prosper in the new and emerging economic order, they must aggressively redesign their organizational environments as a business incubator to leverage new and emerging social and economic opportunities in the development and commercialization of new products, new processes, and new business models, among others. These strategic goals and objectives require firms to pursue leverage creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship as well as embrace and adopt business incubation as strategy.Design/methodology/approachThe paper attempts to make business incubation a strategy not only for new and emerging technology‐driven firms but also for large industrialized corporations. In addition, it argues that, in the new economy, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship should not be the exclusive routine or practice of only small firms but should also be a part of large corporations if they are to survive and prosper in the new economy.FindingsFuture research may develop testable hypotheses to validate claims and assertions. The last couple of decades have witnessed unprecedented revolutionary change in the structure of the US economy. Whether it is called the “entrepreneurial economy” or the “new economy”, entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity have become the hallmark of economic and business prosperity.Practical implicationsThese concepts should hopefully encourage managers to view their organizations as business incubators on the basis of certain enabling structures, cultures (values, beliefs, norms, etc.) and policies and strategies that may either unleash and leverage creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship or inhibit them. After thinking about their organizations in terms of a business incubator, managers, hopefully, will craft business incubation strategies – programs, activities, and events that will bring a community orientation and collective action to existing product improvements, new product developments and the commercialization agenda via creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship.Originality/valueBusiness incubators have traditionally been recognized as new organizational forms for promoting entrepreneurship and stimulating new business formation. Similarly, business incubation programs, activities, and events have routinely been perceived as being beneficial to entrepreneurs, start‐ups, and small business. It is possible that no one so far has conceptualized and endogenized the firm as a business incubator and business incubation as strategy.

The Impact of Research Alliances on Measures of Future Financial Market and Operating Performance Risk of Biotechnology Firms

In this paper, we investigate the impact of research alliances on measures of firm level financial market and operating performance risk in the biotechnology industry. We focus on biotechnology firms since research alliances have played an important role in the development and commercialization of new products, processes and technologies in that industry. Although managers suggest that a major reason to enter into alliances is to reduce operating risk, our paper is the first (to our knowledge) to examine directly this conjecture by investigating the link between alliance activity and risk from multiple perspectives. We find that for research focused firms, market and operating risk increase as their alliance activity increases. For firms which outsource research activities, however, market and operating risk decrease as alliance activity increases. The findings of our paper have the potential to help managers better understand both the benefits and costs of entering into alliance relationships and investors better evaluate the impact of alliance announcements on investment opportunities in biotechnology firms.

Industry Watch

Canadian Diagnostics Company Medmira Inks JV With China's Tianhe Pharmaceutical. Elder Pharma Teams Up with Ceejay to Manufacture Natural Dietary Fibre Supplement. Grandix Ties Up with Italian Chromogenix. Bio*One Capital's A-Bio Pharma Secures A Second Deal with GlaxoSmithKline. Innogene Kalbiotech Collaborates with Recombio SA. CordLife — Southeast Asia's First AABB Accredited Cord Blood Bank. Taiwan's Medigen Collaborates with NZ's Pacific Edge Biotech. Sagittarius Life Science Seeks Partner for Commercialization of New Products.

Сети и хозяйственная жизнь

This paper gives a critical review of the four main research lines in network analysis. Authors begin with the discussion of an informal aspect of the networks - the role of the social ties in job search, mobilization of collective action and information transferring. After that the authors turn to the analysis of the more developed and formal direction of the network analysis, devoted to the networks and power. The next step is the consideration of the de-evolution of the big vertically centralized integrated firm and its division in complicated relation networks. Finally the paper deals with production networks where the authors underline the importance of space decentralized joined production in the development of new production processes and commercialization of new products. The paper focuses on the studies that demonstrated the main role of the networks in economic life and those studies that complement to each other.

Conflict between engineers and marketers: the experience of German engineers

An effective interface between engineering and marketing is considered to be vital for the successful development and commercialization of new products. Studies in the US, Japan and the UK have, however, identified that conflict between engineers and marketers can act as a barrier to effective cooperation. This study aims to further our understanding in this important area by studying conflict between engineers and marketers, from the engineer's perspective, in German companies. This study has found that German engineers recognize the importance of trust, good understanding, common knowledge, integration and teamwork in building a good relationship with marketers. Although the levels of integration between the two functions and the quality of the relationship were found to be relatively low, so too was the level of perceived conflict. The main sources of conflict between German engineers and their marketing colleagues are differences in education and training and different goals and priorities. Both managers and educators of engineers and marketers need to understand how the differences in education and training influence the relationship, and to develop courses, which will help the two functions to become more sensitive to each other's needs.

Rapid prototyping of small size objects

The commercialization of new products integrating many functions in a small volume requires more and more often the rapid prototyping of small high‐resolution objects, having intricate details, small openings and smooth surfaces. To give an answer to this demand, the stereolithography process has started to evolve towards a better resolution: the “small spot” stereolithography technology allows to reach a sufficient resolution for the manufacturing of a large range of small and precise prototype parts. Microstereolithography, a technique with resolution about an order of magnitude better than conventional stereolithography, is studied by different academic research groups. The integral microstereolithography machine developed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne is described in this paper, and potential applications are presented. The resolutions of conventional, small spot and microstereolithography technologies are compared and the potential of the microstereolithography technique is shown for the manufacturing of small and complex objects.

Improving the New Product Development Process: A Fractal Paradigm for High‐Technology Products

Those professionals who are charged with improving the new product development (NPD) process may well feel as though they have been asked to bring order out of chaos. For every level in the organization, and for every step in the NPD process, they must contend with myriad, often interdependent choices—of products and processes; of tools and technologies; of proven best practices and hypothesized solutions. In turn, each choice may cascade into several additional decisions. With so many issues to address and so many variables to consider, practioners and researchers alike need a clear, but complete, framework for exploring, understanding, and improving the NPD process.To help bring some order to the study and the practice of NPD management, W. Austin Spivey, J. Michael Munson, and John H. Wolcott introduce a new metaphor, or paradigm, for product development: a fractal paradigm. Like some fractal images, their framework for understanding the essence of NPD rests on the concept of self‐similarity. In other words, the picture their framework provides for understanding and managing the NPD process consists of the same set of concerns, regardless of the level at which the process is viewed. They developed this fractal paradigm during an empirical study of technology transition in a highly successful federal laboratory organization.Whether the focus is on the organization, the division, the team, or the individual, the essence of the NPD process as viewed through their framework comes down to two sets of factors: management factors and resource factors. In turn, each of these factors cascades into several interrelated sets of concerns. For example, the management factors comprise concerns about leadership and the management system. The resource factors include concerns about information, infrastructure, time, and money.Regardless of the level of detail at which the framework is viewed, improving the NPD process requires attention to all of these factors, by all levels within the organization. For example, visionary leadership on the part of senior management will have little effect if middle management and line supervisors fail to provide the necessary leadership for their respective groups of subordinates. Notwithstanding the complexity of the NPD process, the fractal paradigm focuses attention on those few key factors that must be managed continually, throughout all levels of the organization, to ensure successful commercialization of new products.

Improving the new product development process: A fractal paradigm for high-technology products

Those professionals who are charged with improving the new product development (NPD) process may well feel as though they have been asked to bring order out of chaos. For every level in the organization, and for every step in the NPD process, they must contend with myriad, often interdependent choices—of products and processes; of tools and technologies; of proven best practices and hypothesized solutions. In turn, each choice may cascade into several additional decisions. With so many issues to address and so many variables to consider, practioners and researchers alike need a clear, but complete, framework for exploring, understanding, and improving the NPD process. To help bring some order to the study and the practice of NPD management, W. Austin Spivey, J. Michael Munson, and John H. Wolcott introduce a new metaphor, or paradigm, for product development: a fractal paradigm. Like some fractal images, their framework for understanding the essence of NPD rests on the concept of self-similarity. In other words, the picture their framework provides for understanding and managing the NPD process consists of the same set of concerns, regardless of the level at which the process is viewed. They developed this fractal paradigm during an empirical study of technology transition in a highly successful federal laboratory organization. Whether the focus is on the organization, the division, the team, or the individual, the essence of the NPD process as viewed through their framework comes down to two sets of factors: management factors and resource factors. In turn, each of these factors cascades into several interrelated sets of concerns. For example, the management factors comprise concerns about leadership and the management system. The resource factors include concerns about information, infrastructure, time, and money. Regardless of the level of detail at which the framework is viewed, improving the NPD process requires attention to all of these factors, by all levels within the organization. For example, visionary leadership on the part of senior management will have little effect if middle management and line supervisors fail to provide the necessary leadership for their respective groups of subordinates. Notwithstanding the complexity of the NPD process, the fractal paradigm focuses attention on those few key factors that must be managed continually, throughout all levels of the organization, to ensure successful commercialization of new products.

Changing patterns in industrial R&D management

A successful R&D manager is, in many ways, an agent of change. R&D managers must respond effectively to changes in domestic and global competition, product and process technologies, customer requirements, regulatory matters, and senior management's perception of the role R&D plays in a firm. The responses to these changes flow downstream from R&D to other parts of the organization, in the form of new materials, methods, processes, and products. To help us understand the changes facing R&D management, Ashok K. Gupta and David Wilemon present the results of a study that examines the ideas and experiences of 120 R&D directors from technology-based companies. The study explores the major changes that R&D management has undergone in recent years, the changes R&D managers expect to encounter during the next few years, and the causes of those changes. The respondents also identify the skills and knowledge they view as necessary for effective R&D management, and they assess their organizations' capabilities in those areas. According to the respondents, major changes that R&D has encountered include increased emphasis on such issues as cross-functional teamwork, R&D's contribution to both short- and long-term business results, R&D's capability to quickly bring to market new products that customers value, efficient use of R&D resources, and R&D alliances. Other changes noted by respondents include greater pressure to find new markets, increased attention on the effective management of technical personnel, and increased regulations and sensitivity to environmental issues. The knowledge domains that the respondents highlighted as having the greatest effect on R&D performance include such capabilities as understanding customer needs, monitoring market developments, commercializing new technologies, building cross-functional teams, managing multiple R&D projects, and accelerating new product development. According to the respondents, the largest gaps between required and current capabilities exist in several of the areas listed as being most important to effective R&D management, including monitoring market developments that can affect R&D activities and overall business performance, maintaining a spirit of inquiry while ensuring that R&D contributes to overall corporate performance, developing technology commercialization capabilities, fostering mutually profitable strategic alliances, and accelerating the development and commercialization of new products.

Changing Patterns in Industrial R&D Management

A successful R&D manager is, in many ways, an agent of change. R&D managers must respond effectively to changes in domestic and global competition, product and process technologies, customer requirements, regulatory matters, and senior management's perception of the role R&D plays in a firm. The responses to these changes flow downstream from R&D to other parts of the organization, in the form of new materials, methods, processes, and products.To help us understand the changes facing R&D management, Ashok K. Gupta and David Wilemon present the results of a study that examines the ideas and experiences of 120 R&D directors from technology‐based companies. The study explores the major changes that R&D management has undergone in recent years, the changes R&D managers expect to encounter during the next few years, and the causes of those changes. The respondents also identify the skills and knowledge they view as necessary for effective R&D management, and they assess their organizations' capabilities in those areas.According to the respondents, major changes that R&D has encountered include increased emphasis on such issues as cross‐functional teamwork, R&D's contribution to both short‐ and long‐term business results, R&D's capability to quickly bring to market new products that customers value, efficient use of R&D resources, and R&D alliances. Other changes noted by respondents include greater pressure to find new markets, increased attention on the effective management of technical personnel, and increased regulations and sensitivity to environmental issues.The knowledge domains that the respondents highlighted as having the greatest effect on R&D performance include such capabilities as understanding customer needs, monitoring market developments, commercializing new technologies, building cross‐functional teams, managing multiple R&D projects, and accelerating new product development. According to the respondents, the largest gaps between required and current capabilities exist in several of the areas listed as being most important to effective R&D management, including monitoring market developments that can affect R&D activities and overall business performance, maintaining a spirit of inquiry while ensuring that R&D contributes to overall corporate performance, developing technology commercialization capabilities, fostering mutually profitable strategic alliances, and accelerating the development and commercialization of new products.

Technology and the Wealth of Nations

1. Introduction Nathan Rosenberg, Ralph Landau, and David C. Mower Part I. Conceptual Overview: 2. Capital, technology and economic growth Michael J. Boskin and Lawrence J. Lau 3. What is 'commercial' and what is 'public' about technology and what should be? Richard R. Nelson 4. Successful commercialization in the chemical process industries Ralph Landau and Nathan Rosenberg 5. International differences in economic fluctuations Steven N. Durlauf Part II. The 'Non-R&D' Influences on Technology Commercialization: 6. Comparing the cost of capital in the United States and Japan B. Douglas Bernheim and J. B. Shoven 7. Strategies for capturing the financial benefits from technological innovation David J. Teece 8. liability and insurance problems in the commercialization of new products: a perspective from the United States and England Peter Huber Part III. International Contrasts in Technology Commercialization: 9. The Japanese pattern of innovation and its evolution Ken-Ichi Imai 10. The organisation of the innovative process Franco Malerba Part IV. The International Environment and the Commercialization Process: 11. Dollar devaluation, interest rate volatility and the duration of investment in the United States Ronald McKinnon and David Robinson 12. Japan's management of global innovation technology management crossing borders Kiyonori Sakakibara and D. Eleanor Westney 13. International collaborative ventures and the commercialization of new technologies David C. Mower Part V. Managing the Commercialization of Technology: 14. The technology-product relationship: early and stages Ralph Gomory 15. Profiting from innovation William G. Howard Jr, and Bruce R. Guile 16. Managing the growth of technical information Sergio Barabaschi Name index Subject index.

Strategic Marketing and New Product Development

Two trends confront managers in the 1990s. Technology will become increasingly important, and firms will tend to become more “market‐oriented”. This will pose considerable challenge to managers responsible for the development and commercialization of new products. Argues that traditional approaches will not work because time‐to‐market will have to be reduced, product technology content will have to be increased, and competitive intelligence will have increased impact on development efforts. Discusses traditional approaches to product development and commercialization and presents a model which integrates engineering concepts and market‐oriented perspectives.

U.S. biotech lead dependent on links with Japan

The U.S. is at risk of losing its leading position in biotechnology by the end of the decade unless technology exchanges between the U.S. and Japan become a two-way street. This is the view taken in a new report, U.S.-Japan Technology Linkages in Biotechnology: Challenges for the 1990s, from the National Research Council's Committee on Japan. Cochaired by Hubert J. P. Schoemaker, chairman and chief executive officer of Centocor, and G. Steven Burrill, national director for high-technology industry services at professional services firm Ernst & Young, the committee evaluated current relationships between Japanese and U.S. firms, universities, and research institutions to assess their long-term impact. The U.S. is considered to be the world leader in biotechnology in both basic and applied science, the latter having been demonstrated through the commercialization of new products. Biotechnology also is an area of tremendous anticipated growth. Product sales for the industry were $2 billion in 1990 and are ...

Using Industrial Trade Shows to improve New Product Development

Considers how research carried out during trade shows can help industrial firms to manage the new product development process. Discusses the NPD process and offers a scheme for classifying trade fairs, thus making the selection of appropriate events easier for the industrial marketer. Develops recommendations for the conducting of new product research at trade shows and concludes that while not a substitute for traditional NPD research methods due to cost limitations and the different types of attendees present at various events, good opportunities exist for industrial exhibitors to use NPD stages such as idea generation, screening and testing at trade shows rather than concentrating on the commercialization of new products.

Technology transfer through group research

Industry is seeking ways to take advantage of developing technology to improve productivity and compete more effectively in international markets. This article discusses group research as a cost-effective means of disseminating research results, providing participating companies with a basis for innovation and commercialization of new products and processes. It describes the characteristics of group research and the kinds of results that may be expected. The article also includes guidelines for selection, evaluation, and participation in group research projects.