write a 8- to 12-page evaluation (excluding title page and References section) of your research on change management. In your evaluation, be sure to address the following: Analysis of the Field What is your analysis of the state of the field of change ma

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 6

ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION STRATEGIES: THE VALUE CO- CREATION STRATEGY (VCS) MODEL

Yen Hsu Department of Industrial Design

Tatung University, Taiwan, R.O.C. [email protected]

Abstract

Challenged with market competition, firms can effectively connect innovative research and development, marketing activities, and design resources by using a value co-creation method. After a pilot case study was completed and preliminary models were established, this study proceeded with 2 questionnaire surveys. The first questionnaire survey investi- gated the co-creation strategies of firms in marketing, innovation, and design. A total of 278 valid questionnaires were recovered. A second survey was conducted 1.5 years after new product launch to identify the NPD performance of the 278 sample firms. Eventu- ally, a total of 242 valid questionnaires were recovered. The main findings in this study are presented as follows: a) A value co-creation strategy (VCS) conceptual model was proposed in response to innovation, marketing, and design co-creation strategies and NPD performance. b) A partial least squares method was used to examine the VCS model. The results show favorable fitness between the VCS model and questionnaire sur- vey observation data, indicating that the VCS model has application value. c) The innova- tion, marketing, and design co-creation strategies of an enterprise affected NPD perform- ance. In addition, through comprehensive co-creation strategies, these strategies and ap- proaches affected NPD performance. The co-creation strategies in the VCS model were independent variables and mediating variables to NPD performance. Firms can reference the approaches proposed in this study to efficiently develop products and services on the basis of their organizational resources and market advantages and continually win market shares. Key Words: Value Co-Creation Strategy (VCS), Marketing Strategy, Innovation Strategy,

Design Strategy, New Product Development (NPD) Performance

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 7

Introduction

Since the concept of service science was proposed in 2004, IBM, the Big Blue in the personal computer industry, has been successfully transformed from designing computer hardware and equipment products to designing service- oriented products, which have attracted increasing attention worldwide. Firms have actively integrated tangible prod- ucts and intangible services to pursue innovative value in an attempt to be close to consumers and the market timely. Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010) investigated empirical business cases in the United States and deter- mined that during new product devel- opment (NPD), firms emphasized value more than products or services. Value derives from the outcomes cocreated by all customers and members collabora- tively participating in the value chain related to the enterprise. Thus, firms continue to communicate with consum- ers through value co-creation. In addi- tion, the enterprise can consistently win market shares by developing only prod- ucts and services jointly based on the collaboration among all departments in the enterprise, such as marketing, re- search and development (R&D), and de- sign departments and stakeholders, in- cluding suppliers and employees (Cama- rinha-Matos et al., 2009; Bhalla, 2010).

How can design be involved in the

value co-creation of firms? From the perspective of marketing, marketing and product design are closely matched (Souder & Song, 1997; Zhang et al., 2007; Luchs & Swan, 2011). During the process of launching new products, mar- keting and design departments must con-

tinually interact and exchange informa- tion with each other (Petiot & Grognet, 2006; Conway, 2007; Paul & Martin, 2007). Effectively connecting enterprise marketing activities and design is the impetus to product innovation (Gupta & Wilemon, 1990; Sherman et al., 2000).

From the perspective of R&D, in-

novation is the only and most effective survival capacity of an enterprise when posed with future challenges (Gary & Peter, 2001). Consistent innovation is the momentum to maintain enterprise advan- tages and ensure the growth of enterprise operations (Baxter, 1995; Dittrich & Duysters, 2007). In particular, during economic recession, rapidly introducing new products into the market helps firms overcome difficulties and reverses ad- verse situations (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2004; Booz, Allen, & Hamilton, 1982; Pugh, 1991; Christoph, 2007). From the perspective of stakeholders, marketing personnel and R&D designers of an en- terprise must pay close attention to the challenges posed by changing market environments, respond to the movements of competitors, and integrate appropriate product design on the basis of goals es- tablished by the marketing and R&D de- partments to complete new products successfully (Tsai, 2006; Ravi, 2007; Girard et al., 2007; Luchs & Swan, 2011).

Therefore, research on how to

jointly develop products and services as well as how to efficiently integrate busi- ness design processes and improve busi- ness performance has remained active (Andi & Minato, 2003; Hsu, 2006; 2011). Several studies have suggested that controlling enterprise product design

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 8

processes can improve NPD perform- ance (Song et al., 1997; Olson, 1994; Durward et al., 1998). Previous studies have shown that design can be regarded as a critical value co-creation resource for firms and a crucial mechanism for integrating product development func- tions. Moreover, design is a section that composes the entire enterprise value chain (Baxter, 1995; Olins, 1990; Fuji- moto, 1991; Ge & Wang, 2007; Aydin et al., 2007). When promoting product de- sign, firms often require cooperation among and implementation at all busi- ness strategy levels to fulfil the compre- hensive business strategy (Mozota, 2006; Renee, 2007). Thus, in this study, a value co-creation strategy (VCS) con- ceptual model was proposed to explain how firms achieve performance goals by considering innovation, marketing, and design strategies jointly. By applying the VCS, customers and firms can both ac- quire benefits and enhance customer sat- isfaction and enterprise brand value. In addition, Hsu (2012; 2013) have pro- posed relationship models regarding product design and marketing or innova- tive activities with respect to strategies and implementation. However, few em- pirical studies have examined the rela- tionship model, as well as related practi- cal approaches, between NPD perform- ance and VCS, marketing, innovation, and design.

NPD project managers of the in-

formation and communications technol- ogy (ICT) industry, in which new prod- ucts or services rapidly replace the old, were used as survey respondents in this study. The VCS conceptual model was proposed in response to innovation, marketing, design, co-creation strategies,

and NPD performance. In addition, the VCS model was validated, and data fit- ness was identified. Subsequently, the effect of the VCS model on NPD per- formance was analysed. Finally, the strategy types of the VCS model adopted by the sample firms were summarised, and NPD performance of the firms adopting diverse strategy types were compared.

Research Frameworks and Hypotheses

Relationship between enterprise inno-

vation strategy and marketing strategy

Hsu (2013) asserted that combining marketing and innovation can create dif- ferentiated innovation processes and outcomes. In other words, marketing strategies can guide product innovation toward a correct direction. During the new product launch process, R&D and marketing departments of an enterprise must exchange information consistently (Petiot & Grognet, 2006; Conway, 2007; Paul & Martin, 2007). Effectively con- necting enterprise marketing activities and design is the impetus of product in- novation (Gupta & Wilemon, 1990; Sherman et al., 2000). Thus, firms ap- propriately using innovation strategies and marketing strategies can provide new additional value to customers and enhance enterprise competitiveness (Hsu, 2014). On the basis of the discus- sion on innovation strategy and market- ing strategy, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H1. The innovation strategy of an en-

terprise significantly influences mar-

keting strategy.

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 9

Relationship between enterprise inno-

vation strategy and design strategy

Effective product innovation or ser- vice development is the cornerstone of enterprise survival and the motivation for maintaining competitive advantages (Driva et al., 2000; Pawar & Driva, 1999; Mozota, 2003; Veryzer & Mozota, 2005; Jamie & Costas, 2007). Firms must integrate goals established using innovation strategy with appropriate product design to complete NPD suc- cessfully (Sung & Gilmour, 2002; Mo- zota, 2006; Dell’Era & Verganti, 2007; Sari et al., 2007). When an enterprise undergoes product innovation, all strate- gic levels within the enterprise must co- operate to implement the overall enter- prise strategy (Silbiger, 2005; Marxt & Hacklin, 2005; Veryzer & Mozota, 2005; Renee et al., 2007). In addition, firms combine goals established using innova- tion strategy with actual product design tasks and integrate innovation resources of the enterprise to complete new prod- ucts through interorganisational commu- nications and negotiations (Sung & Gil- mour, 2002; Mozota, 2006; Claudio & Roberto, 2007; Sari et al., 2007). On the basis of this close relationship between innovation and design strategies of firms (Hsu, 2011a), this study postulated the following hypothesis:

H2. The innovation strategy of an en-

terprise significantly influences de-

sign strategy.

Relationship between enterprise mar-

keting strategy and design strategy

Marketing and product design are closely correlated (Roy & Bruce, 1984;

Souder & Moenaert, 1992; Souder & Song, 1997; Zhang et al., 2007; Luchs & Swan, 2011). During the product launch process, marketing and design depart- ments must continually interact and ex- change information (Petiot & Grognet, 2006; Conway, 2007; Paul & Martin, 2007). Effectively linking enterprise marketing activities and design drives product innovation (Gupta & Wilemon, 1990; Sherman et al., 2000). Several studies have claimed that design can be a critical integration resource of firms, representing a crucial mechanism that integrates product development func- tions. In addition, design is a series of segments in the entire enterprise value chain (Baxter, 1995; Olins, 1990; Fuji- moto, 1991; Bruce & Jevanker, 1998; Twigg, 1998; Ge & Wang, 2007; Aydin et al., 2007). Thus, firms combine goals established using marketing strategy with actual product design strategy and integrate enterprise resources to com- plete new products through interorgani- sational communications and negotia- tions (Souder & Song, 1997; Bloch, 2011; Luchs & Swan, 2011). Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H3. The marketing strategy of an en-

terprise significantly influences de-

sign strategy

Co-creation strategy and NPD per-

formance of firms

Numerous studies have suggested that by performing correct development processes, firms can improve NPD per- formance (Song et al., 1997; Olson, 1994; Durward et al., 1998). Research has indicated that design can be regarded as the value co-creation resource which

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 10

represent a crucial mechanism that inte- grates product development functions. In addition, design is a section that com- poses the entire enterprise value chain (Baxter, 1995; Olins, 1990; Fujimoto, 1991; Ge & Wang, 2007; Aydin et al., 2007). When firms innovate products, co-creation collaboration between all strategic levels within the enterprise is required to execute the overall strategy of the enterprise (Mozota, 2005; Renee, 2007). Hsu (2012; 2013) have claimed that the concept of VCS can integrate enterprise innovation, marketing, and design strategies to jointly achieve the performance goal of firms. Thus, by ap- plying VCS, firms can effectively de- velop innovative products, which profit both customers and firms and enhance customer satisfaction and enterprise brand value. Therefore, the following hypotheses were postulated:

H4. The marketing strategy of an en-

terprise significantly influences value

co-creation.

H5. The innovation strategy of an en-

terprise significantly influences value

co-creation.

H6. The design strategy of an enter-

prise significantly influences value

co-creation.

H9. Value co-creation of an enter-

prise significantly influences NPD

performance.

Enterprise marketing strategy and

NPD performance

Souder and Song (1997) asserted that marketing strategy is correlated with product development. Marketing strat- egy can guide and improve product qual- ity (Jeremy et al., 2005) and the imple- mentation process of product R&D (Luchs & Swan, 2011). Souder and Moenaert (1992) stated that successful technology application requires the inte- gration of R&D and marketing depart- ments. Gupta and Wilemon (1990) in- vestigated the interaction between R&D and marketing departments and deter- mined that product innovation of the high-technology industry relies on close cooperation between R&D and market- ing. Kinchen (2010) and Hsu (2011) have indicated that product design could specify marketing strategy and demon- strate product development outcomes physically. Therefore, Sherman et al. (2000) claimed that interdepartmental functional integration between product development and marketing is a crucial factor that influences product develop- ment cycles. Several scholars have indi- cated that integrating enterprise product development processes can improve NPD performance (Carlsson, 1991; Grif- fin & Hauser, 1996; Gupta et al., 1985; Ruekert & Walker, 1987; Pinto et al., 1993; Rusinko, 1997; Song et al., 1997; Olson, 1994; Durward et al., 1998; Lau et al., 2007). Thus, the following hy- pothesis was proposed:

H7. The marketing strategy of an en-

terprise significantly influences NPD

performance.

Enterprise design strategy and NPD

performance

Product design strategy and NPD

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 11

performance are correlated (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1987; Souder & Song, 1997; Ulrich & Person, 1998). The effort that firms invest in product design can be evaluated according to NPD perform- ance (Pawer & Driva, 1999; Driva et al., 2000). In addition, optimal NPD per- formance is a goal firms pursue (Baxter, 1995; Mumin, 2010; Ciriaco et al., 2010). Hsu (2009) indicated that firms exhibiting diverse design strategy types demonstrated different financial and nonfinancial performance. Thus, the fol- lowing hypothesis was proposed in this study:

H8. The design strategy of an enter-

prise significantly influences NPD

performance.

Enterprise innovation strategy and

NPD performance

Innovation strategy can rapidly in- troduce new products into the market, which helps firms overcome difficulties and reverses adverse situations (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2004; Booz, Allen, & Ham- ilton, 1982; Pugh, 1991; Christoph, 2007). Firms combine goals established using innovation strategy with actual product design tasks and integrate inno- vation resources of the enterprise to complete new products through inter- organisational communications and ne- gotiations (Sung & Gilmour, 2002; Mo- zota, 2006; Claudio & Roberto, 2007;

Sari et al., 2007). Several other studies have suggested that efficiently integrat- ing the enterprise innovation process and capacity can improve NPD performance (Carlsson, 1991; Griffin & Hauser, 1996; Gupta et al., 1985; Ruekert & Walker, 1987; Pinto et al., 1993; Rusinko, 1997; Song et al., 1997; Olson, 1994; Durward et al., 1998; Handfield et al., 1999; Andi & Minato, 2003; Hsu, 2006). However, Roger et al. (2006) indicated that inno- vation strategy indirectly affects NPD performance through mediating vari- ables. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H10. The innovation strategy of an

enterprise significantly influences

NPD performance

According to a review of relevant

literature, the conceptual research framework established in this study and the 10 hypotheses (H1 to H10) are pre- sented in Figure 1.

Research Methods

Sample and Data Collection

Pretest: At the questionnaire pretesting stage, the focus group interview method was used to determine the participants, research scope, and relationship among all of the variable dimensions. Seven professionals (four experienced product

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 12

Figure 1. CVS conceptual model proposed in this study

decision-making managers from the in- dustry and three expert scholars) were invited to discuss the preliminary cases and initial conceptual model. In addition, these professionals ascertained that the measurement variables extracted from the literature were suitable for the cur- rent study. Subsequently, pretest ques- tionnaires were distributed. The respon- dents responded to each item on the questionnaire on the basis of their level of agreement with the content described. A 5-point Likert scale was used to de- note the level of agreement (1 represents strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree, or 1 represents never and 5 represents always).

The member name list database of

the Taiwan Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers’ Association (TEEMA), in which a random sampling was con- ducted, was used as the sample popula- tion. The NPD project managers were used as survey respondents. A total of 150 questionnaires were distributed, and 38 questionnaires were recovered. Factor

analysis and reliability analysis were conducted to verify the construct validity and reliability of the questionnaire. The results showed that the meaning of all of the variables could be fully explained according to the extract factors, indicat- ing construct validity. Co-creation (CS), marketing (MS), innovation (IS), and design (DS) strategies exhibited a sig- nificantly positive correlation with NPD performance (NP; Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.867, p < .01). In addition, the Cronbach’s α of each item was higher than 0.85, indicating that the items had suitable reliability. Thus, a formal questionnaire survey was con- ducted on the basis of the validated questionnaire.

Formal questionnaire survey: From

the TEEMA database, 1,000 firms were randomly sampled for two surveys. After repeated follow-up tracks, valid ques- tionnaires from 283 firms were obtained in the first survey. After new product launch period of 1.5 year, a second sur- vey was conducted on the firms that re-

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 13

sponded to the first survey to collect data on NPD performance. The survey result revealed that 231 valid questionnaires were recovered from the firms, yielding a 23.1% effective recovery rate.

This study adopted the partial least

squares (PLS) method, which is an analysis technique used to explore or construct predictive models, particularly causal models between latent variables. PLS is superior to common linear struc- tural relations models. This study adopted the PLS method on the basis of the following considerations: (a) Can employ multiple dependent as well as multiple independent variables (IVs). (b) Can handle multicollinearity among in- dependent variables. (c) Robust despite data noise and missing data. (d) Strong prediction for independent latent vari- ables based on response variables. (e) Allows for reflective and formative la- tent variables. (f) Applied to a small sample. (g) free from distributional con- straints (Pirouz, 2006). The question- naire data were repeatedly sampled for 1,000 times by using the bootstrap re- sampling method to estimate and infer the parameters.

Data Analysis and Results

Data Accuracy Analysis

Table 1 lists the means, standard deviation (SD), average variance ex- tracted (AVE)2, and correlation matrices of the primary dimensions of each strat- egy (MS, IS, DS, CS, and NP). Table 2 presents the standardised loading (SL), composite reliability (CR), and AVE of

all of the factor dimensions. The CRs of all of the primary dimensions were .897, .866, .915, .893, and .987. The overall CR was .912, which is higher than the standard value of .70 (Hulland, 1999), indicating favourable internal consis- tency of the model. In addition, the AVEs of the primary dimensions were .857, .859, .891, .893, and .897. The overall AVE was .879, which is higher than the .5 standard value (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

A further observation of the con-

ceptual model (illustrated in Fig. 2) showed the direct and indirect relation- ships between each strategy. The SL of the model reached a level of statistical significance, and the standardised path coefficient reached statistical signifi- cance. Moreover, the individual SL was higher than the SL of other factors. Overall, the reliability and validity of the model was acceptable, and R2 values were used to determine the explanatory effect of the model.

Hypotheses Tests

Figure 2 shows that the innovation strategy directly affects marketing, de- sign, co-creation, and NPD performance. The direct effect value of innovation on marketing was .513 (β = .513, p < .01), with an indirect effect of .347, reaching a level of significance. The overall effect was .860, and the explanatory power at- tained 92.3%. Thus, H1 was supported. The direct effect value of innovation on design was .507 (β = .507, p <.05), with an indirect effect

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 14

Figure 2. VCS framework PLS model

Table 1. Basic statistics

Mean Sd MS IS DS CS NP

MS 4.449 .233 (.734)

IS 3.674 .472 .817 (.738)

DS 4.376 .210 .789 .822 (.794)

CS 3.914 .385 .771 .850 .871 (.798)

NP 4.135 .390 .816 .857 .815 .851 (.805) Notes: MS: Marketing strategy; IS: Innovation strategy; DC: Design strategy; CS: Co-creating strategy; NP: New Product Develop- ment Performance; ( ): AVE2

of .351, reaching a level of significance. The overall effect was .858, and the ex- planatory power reached 87.5%. Thus, H2 was supported. The direct effect value of innovation on co-creation was .687 (β = .687, p < .05), with an indirect effect of .328, achieving a level of sig- nificance. The overall effect was .891, and the explanatory power reached

89.1%. Thus, H5 was supported. The direct effect value of innovation on NPD performance was .601 (β = .601, p < .01), with an indirect effect of .330, which was significant. The overall effect was .931, and the explanatory power at- tained 93.1%. Thus, H10 was supported.

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 15

Table 2. Accuracy analysis statistics

Core Constructs Item CLMS CLIS CLDS CLCS CLNP Alpha SL CR AVE MS1 .913 .823 .876 .822 .850 MS2 .862 .816 .845 .813 .793 MS3 .968 .813 .861 .797 .884

MS

MS4 .972 .916 .827 .793 .867

.989 .929 .897 .857

IS1 .936 .837 .856 .882 .898 IS2 .931 .846 .804 .837 .835 IS IS3 .847 .858 .832 .846 .798

.860 .847 .866 .859

DS1 .827 .948 .906 .841 .931 DS2 .924 .916 .975 .907 .941 DS3 .788 .833 .963 .903 .918

DS

DS4 .796 .825 .968 .912 .944

.891 .953 .915 .891

CS1 .927 .951 .849 .852 .787 CS2 .965 .944 .924 .841 .823 CS3 .836 .819 .962 .984 .798

CS

CS4 .852 .833 .918 .976 .781

.885 .913 .893 .893

NP1 .849 .963 .924 .943 .861 NP2 .918 .948 .853 .941 .953 NP3 .943 .931 .927 .938 .951 NP4 .944 .929 .813 .967 .915 NP5 .925 .958 .785 .915 .923

NP

NP6 .941 .912 .953 .945 .963

.872 .920 .987 .897

Notes: CL: Cross loadings; SL: Standardized loading; CR: Composite reliability; AVE: Average variance extracted.

In addition, Figure 2 illustrates the

direct correlation effect of marketing on design, co-creation, and NPD perform- ance. The direct effect of marketing on design was .684 (β = .684, p < .05), reaching a level of significance, and the explanatory power achieved 87.8%. Thus, H3 was supported. The direct ef- fect of marketing on co-creation was .440 (β = .440, p < .05), with an indirect effect of .276, achieving a level of sig- nificance. The overall effect was .716, and the explanatory power attained 89.1%. Thus, H4 was supported. The direct effect of marketing on NPD per- formance was .556 (β = .556, p < .05), with an indirect effect of .178, which was significant. The overall effect was .734, and the explanatory power achieved 90.2%. Thus, H7 was sup- ported. In addition, the direct effect of design on co-creation was .403 (β =

.403, p < .01), achieving a level of sig- nificance. Thus, H6 was partially sup- ported. The direct effect of design on NPD performance was .651 (β = .651, p < .01), with an indirect effect of .163, reaching a level of significance. The overall effect was .814, and the explana- tory power achieved 90.2%. Thus, H8 was supported. The direct effect of co- creation on NPD performance was .404 (β = .404, p < .05), reaching a level of significance. Thus, H9 was partially supported. Overall, except for the par- tially supported H6 and H9, all of the hypotheses were supported.

Conclusion and Management Meanings

Previous studies have considered design or design strategies as an inte- grated resource of firms and a product integration mechanism that represents a

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 16

section composing the overall enterprise innovation value chain (Baxter, 1995; Olins, 1990; Fujimoto, 1991; Bruce & Jevanker, 1998; Wheelwright & Clark, 1992; Twigg, 1998). However, most of these studies were cases or individual conceptual interpretations that lacked theoretical integration. This current study validated the relationship of these issues, particularly among marketing, innovation, and design co-creation strategies. The NPD project managers of ICT industries that launch new products or services to rapidly replace the old were used as the survey respondents. On the basis of the innovation, marketing, design, and co-creation strategies and NPD performance, a VCS model was proposed. In addition, the VCS model and survey data fitness were validated.

Through statistical analysis, the

survey sample number of this study met construct validity. In other words, the convergent validity and discriminant va- lidity of each variable reached statistical requirements. According to the empirical analysis results of PLS, the theory model constructed in this study and the col- lected observation data exhibited favour- able fitness, supporting various hypothe- ses of this study.

Firms can combine the goal estab-

lished by using marketing or innovation strategy with actual product design tasks. By using the VCS, firms can increase the efficiency of overall resource integration and facilitate interorganisational collabo- ration to complete innovative products. The findings of this study can enhance the results of previous studies (Maidique & Zirger, 1984; Gupta et al., 1985; Souder, 1987; Li & Atuahene-Gima,

2001; Sung & Gilmour, 2002; Mozota, 2006; Claudio & Roberto, 2007; Sari et al., 2007). Moreover, the product design can commercialise marketing and inno- vation strategies and can be used as a specific item to analyse product innova- tion. These findings corresponded with the research findings of Hsu (2013; 2014).

A review of Ulrich and Eppinger

(2004) showed that the proportion of new product earnings to the total sales amount was approximately 30% to 40%. Using the US manufacturing industry as an example, 40% of the revenues de- rived from the contribution of new prod- ucts. Regarding profits, 32% resulted from the earnings of new products (Haas, 1989). According to the US Prod- uct Development and Management As- sociation, 32.4% of the enterprise turn- overs resulted from the new products launched within the previous 5 years. For high-technology industries, this pro- portion reached 42.3% (Griffin & Hauser, 1996). This study was the first empirical study to examine critical fac- tors, such as product innovation, market- ing, design, and value co-creation strate- gies, and NPD performance by adminis- tering two-stage surveys. Enterprises can reference the proposed method accord- ing to their organisational resources and market advantages to develop products and services efficiently and face the ever-changing market.

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 17

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) of the Republic of China, Tai- wan, for financially supporting this re-

search under Contract No. MOST 103- 2410-H-036-007, and Tatung University, under the grant B104-D01-001 is grate- fully acknowledged.

Reference

Andi, & Minato, T. (2003). Design documents quality in the Japanese construction industry: factors influ- encing and impacts on construction process. International Journal of Project Management, 21(7), 537- 546.

Aydin, S., Cetin, A., & Ozer, G. (2007). The relationship between marketing and product development process and their effects on firm perform- ance. Academy of Marketing Stud- ies Journal, 11(1), 53-68.

Baxter, M. (1995). Product design: a practical guide to systematic meth-

ods of new product development. London: Chapman & Hall.

Bhalla, G. (2010). Collaboration and co-creation: New platforms for

marketing and innovation: Springer.

Booz, A., & Hamilton. (1982). New products management for the

1980s: Booz, Allen & Hamilton.

Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Paraskakis, I., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2009). Lev- eraging Knowledge for Innovation

in Collaborative Networks: 10th

IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference

on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE

2009, Thessaloniki, Greece, Octo-

ber 7-9, 2009, Proceedings: Springer.

Carlsson, M. (1991). Aspects of the Integration of Technical Functions for Efficient Product Development. R & D Management, 21(1), 55-66.

Chhatpar, R. (2007). Innovate Faster by Melding Design and Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 30-32.

Christoph, G. (2007). Successful Prod- uct Development after Firm Acqui- sitions: The Role of Research and Development. The Journal of Prod- uct Innovation Management, 24(6), 614-628.

Conway, L. L. (2007). Forecasting sales for a B2B product category: case of auto component product. The Journal of Business & Indus-

trial Marketing, 22(4), 228-235.

Dell'Era, C., & Verganti, R. (2007). Strategies of Innovation and Imita- tion of Product Languages*. The Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 24(6), 580-599.

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 18

Dittrich, K., & Duysters, G. (2007). Networking as a Means to Strategy Change: The Case of Open Innova- tion in Mobile Telephony. The Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 24(6), 510-521.

Driva, H., Pawar, K. S., & Menon, U. (2000). Measuring product devel- opment performance in manufactur- ing organisations. International Journal of Production Economics,

63(2), 147-159.

Durward, K. S., II, Jeffrey, K. L., & Allen, C. W. (1998). Another look at how Toyota integrates product development. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 36-49.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Vari- ables and Measurement Error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research,

18(1), 39.

Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product integrity and the role of designer-as- integrator. Design Management Journal, 2(2), 29-34 (Spring).

Gary, H., & Peter, S. (2001). Innova- tion: The new route to wealth. Journal of Accountancy, 192(5), 65- 68.

Ge, C. P., & Wang, B. (2007). An activ- ity-based modelling approach for assessing the key stakeholder's cor- poration in the eco-conscious de- sign of electronic products. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(1), 55- 71.

Girard, P., Legardeur, J., & Merlo, C. (2007). Product innovation through management of collaborative design in concurrent engineering. The In- ternational Journal of Technology

Management & Sustainable Devel-

opment, 6(2), 151-164.

Gupta, A. K., & Wilemon, D. L. (1990). Accelerating the Develop- ment of Technology-Based New Products. California Management Review, 32(2), 24-44.

Hsu, Y. (2006). Comparative study of product design strategy and related design issues. Journal of Engineer- ing Design, 17(4), 357-370.

Hsu, Y. (2011). Relationships between product development strategies and product design issues. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(6), 407.

Hsu, Y. (2012). Linking Design, Mar- keting, and Innovation: Managing the Connection for Competitive Advantage. International Journal of Business Research and Manage-

ment, 3(6), 333-346.

Hsu, Y. (2013). Co-creation of innova- tion and marketing strategies on product design and NPD perform- ance. Archives Des Sciences Jour- nal, 66(5), 413-434.

Hsu, Y. (2014). Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers: A Co- Creation Framework with Product Design and Innovation. SYLWAN, 158(5), 237-258.

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 19

Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic manage- ment research: A review of four re- cent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204.

Jamie, A., & Costas, M. (2007). Strate- gic Innovation at the Base of the Pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(1), 83-88.

Luchs, M., & Swan, K. (2011). Per- spective: The Emergence of Product Design as a Field of Marketing In- quiry. The Journal of Product Inno- vation Management, 28(3), 327- 345.

Marxt, C., & Hacklin, F. (2005). De- sign, product development, innova- tion: all the same in the end? A short discussion on terminology. Journal of Engineering Design,

16(4), 413-421.

Mozota, B. B. (2003). Design man- agement: using design to build

brand value and corporate innova-

tion: Allworth Press.

Mozota, B. B. d. (2006). The Four Powers of Design: A Value Model in Design Management. Design Management Review, 17(2), 44-93.

Olson, E. M. (1994). Interdependence, Conflict, and Conflict Resolution: Design's Relationships with R & D, Marketing, and Manufacturing. De- sign Management Journal, 5(4), 60- 66.

Paul, E. R., & Martin, S. H. (2007). Products Liability Law and Its Im-

plications for Engineering Practice. Engineering Management Journal,

19(2), 23-30.

Pawar, K. S., & Driva, H. (1999). Per- formance measurement for product design and development in a manu- facturing environment. Interna- tional Journal of Production Eco-

nomics, 60-61(1), 61-68.

Petiot, J.-F., & Grognet, S. (2006). Product design: a vectors field- based approach for preference modelling. Journal of Engineering Design, 17(3), 217-233.

Pirouz, D. M. (2006). An overview of partial least squares. Available at SSRN 1631359.

Pugh, S. (1991). Total design: inte- grated methods for successful prod-

uct engineering: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2010). The Power of Co-Creation: Build It with Them to Boost

Growth, Productivity, and Profits: Free Press.

Renee, W., Casper, B., Thomas, M., & Ab, S. (2007). Increasing the bene- fits of product-level benchmarking for strategic eco-efficient decision making. Benchmarking, 14(6), 711- 727.

Rusinko, C. (1997). Design- manufacturing integration to im- prove new product development: The effects of some organization- and group-level practices. Project

The International Journal Of Organizational Innovation Vol 8 Num 2 October 2015 20

Management Journal, 28(2), 37-46.

Sari, S., Leena, T., Mikko, S., Tomi, S., & Ilkka, H. (2007). Executive views concerning decision support tools. European Journal of Opera- tional Research, 181(2), 929-938.

Sherman, J. D., William, E. S., & Svenn, A. J. (2000). Differential ef- fects of the primary forms of cross functional integration on product development cycle time. The Jour- nal of Product Innovation Man-

agement, 17(4), 257.

Silbiger, S. (2005). The ten-day MBA: a step-by-step guide to mastering

the skills taught in America's top

business schools: Collins.

Souder, W. E., & Song, X. M. (1997). Contingent product design and marketing strategies influencing new product success and failure in U.S. and Japanese electronics firms. The Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 14(1), 21-34.

Sung, T.-J., & Gilmour, P. (2002). An empirical examination of the rela- tionship between design, the NPI process and strategy implementa- tion. International Journal of Tech- nology Management, 24(5,6), 542- 556.

Tsai, Y.-C. (2006). Effect of Social Capital and Absorptive Capability on Innovation in Internet Market- ing. International Journal of Man- agement, 23(1), 157-166.

Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2004).

Product design and development: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Veryzer, R. W., & Mozota, B. B. d. (2005). The Impact of User- Oriented Design on New Product Development: An Examination of Fundamental Relationships. The Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 22(2), 128-143.

Zhang, Y., Jiao, J., & Ma, Y. (2007). Market segmentation for product family positioning based on fuzzy clustering. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(3), 227-241.

Copyright of International Journal of Organizational Innovation is the property of Frederick L. Dembowski and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.