J PROD INNOV

1987:4: 149-162

MANAG

149

0000

Abstracts

Because of the eclectic and multidisciplinary nature of

product innovation, persons working in this j?eld are
faced with the impossible task c$ keeping up \+Yth its
many developments.
No one person can stndy the
research output jiom the many d@&ent technical
jields, let alone marketing, law, human resource management, psychology, industrial design, packaging,
and scores more.
This, of course, is the driving essence behind The
Journal of Product Innovation Management. Articles
are selected with an eye toward how they help bridge
the disciplitxs gap, and so are the abstracts. Too,
JPIMs abstracts arc more than topical c~ap.su1e.s.
They are condensations, written to convey the vo-y
substance cjf each article, the presumption being that
most readers will never see the original articles. The
citations arc arranged in N nonconventional format,
so that the subjects cjf the articles stand out.
We welcome comments about this servke, and we
would like to know if there are other publications we
should be covering.

Address correspondence

Prohct

Innovation

0 1987 Elsevier
52 Vanderbilt

to the Editorial

Muntrgemrnt.

Science Publishing Co., Inc.

Ave., New York, NY 10017

Office of The Jotrrntrl of

Publications Being Abstracted

Academy
ofManagement
J.
Academy
of Management
Review
Accounting
and Business Research
Business Horizons
Business Marketing
Business Quarterly
Business Week
Calij<~rnia Management
Review
Columbia J. of World Bus.
Columbia Law Review
Decision Sciences
Design
Design Studies
Discover
Engineering
Mngt. Inter.
European J. of Marketing
Food Drug and Cos. Law J.
Forbes
Fortune
Futurist
Harvard Business Review
High Technology
Idea
IEEE Transactions
on Mngt.
Industrial Design
Industrial Engineering
Industrial Manugement
Industrial Marketing Mngt.
Innovation
Intellectual
Property J.
International
Management
International
Marketing Review
Inter. J. of Res. in Marketing
0737-6782l8763.50

I50

J PROD INNOV MANAG

IYX7:4:14Y-I62

J. of Acad. of Mktg. Science

J. of Advertising Research
J. of Applied Psychology
J. of Business
J. of Business Law
J. of Business Research
J. of Business Strategy
J. of Business Venturing
J. of Consumer Marketing
J. of Consumer Research
J. of Creative Behavior
J. of Ind. and Bus. Marketing
J. of Management Studies
J. of Marketing
J. of Marketing Research
J. of Market Research Society
J. of Political Economy
J. of Public Policy & Mktg.
Long Range Planning
Management Science
Marketing Intel. and Planning
Marketing Science
McKinsey Quarterly
Planning Review
Quarterly Rev. of Marketing
R&D Management
Research Management
Research Policy
Sloan Management Rev.
Strategic Management J.
Technological Forecasting
Technology in Society
Technology Review
Technovution
Wall Street Journal
plus publications
in several non-English languages, and an occasional scanning of about a
score of less directly applicable publications.
Members of the abstracting staff are the following (the author of any abstract can be determined
by the initials given at the end of the abstract
citation, unless the abstract was written by JPIM
editors):
William J. Altier, Princeton Associates, Inc.
Andrew A. Brogowicz,
Western Michigan
University
Terry Elrod, Vanderbilt University
Ove Grandstrand,
Chalmers University
of
Technology
Robert R. Harmon, Portland State University

ABSTRACTS

Michael V. Laric, University of Baltimore

Robert A. Linn, Ethyl Corporation
Blair Little, University of Western Ontario
R. Rodman Ludlow, Eastern Michigan University
William L. Moore, University of Utah
Graham K. Morbey, University of Massachusetts
Samuel Rabino, Northeastern University
Richard K. Robinson, Marquette University
Robert R. Rothberg, Rutgers University
William E. Souder, University of Pittsburgh
George Tesar, University of Wisconsin, White
water
Hans J. Thamhain, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Alladi Venkatesh, University of California at
Irvine
Dhemendra T. Verma, Bentley College
David T. Wilson, Penn State University
Francis W. Wolek, Villanova University
Managing Corporate Entrepreneurship: New
Structures for Implementing Technological
Innovation, Robert A. Burgelman,
Technology
in Society (1985), pp. 91-103.
The author rejects the notion that our industrial
innovativeness problems will be resolved by creating new corporate cultures based on entrepreneurship. His position is contrary to the preachings of several gurus of the day, and requires new
theory to accomplish what the proposals claim
they can do.
Accepted as given is the need for increased
operating effectiveness
and efficiency in the
United States; the author cites a set of solutions
culled from recent business literature-Hayes
and Wheelwrights manufacturing
competitiveness, Lawrence and Dyers organization renewal,
Ouchis enlightened team work, and Peters and
Watermans eight points built heavily around the
individual and managements
philosophy.
But
these approaches would seem to be global-medicine for entire firms-whereas
there is ample evidence that many industries are comprised of
for operational
systems
that are needed
effectiveness. The auto industrys huge assembly
lines and the oil industrys refineries are examples, hardly playgrounds for casual Peters and
Waterman theories.

ABSTRACTS

So, the author postulates that there are two

separate processes going on simultaneously in a
firm. One is where behavior of operating level
participants is induced by the prevalent concept
of strategy of the corporation. The second is one
in which the autonomous
strategic behavior of
operating level participants forms the basis for
amending the firms concept of strategy. (Some
might call this top-down versus bottom-up.)
The key to managing the modern corporation
then is learning how to keep two competing operations going simultaneously. It is given that there
will be administrative
relatedness between the
two (common strategy and leadership points) and
operational relatedness also (use of common operational personnel and facilities). For each firm,
there must be a delicate mix of the two, but the
mix is not given by any textbook and actually
cannot even be directed by management because,
by definition, the second, entrepreneurial,
portion is autonomous.
Top management is the driver in the first mode,
but is a selector in the second. Their task is to
study various autonomous thrusts as they come
up, analyze their administrative and operational
linkages with the strategy-driven half of the process, and then recognize and select the ones that
will be incorporated into the stream. The author
feels that recognition is a prime test of top managements prerogative to continue.
From day to day, the secret is to separate just
as much of the entrepreneurial operational activities as necessary to make them effective, linking
them into the strategy-driven portion of the firm
by administrative
direction consistent with the
various projects, and linking them into those operational resources they need for performance.
Managing these dual streams calls for organizational formats that are consistent with the varying needs for simultaneous
separation and integration.
One example
of nine structures
discussed is the special business unit, where high
strategic importance and low operational relatedness call for strong administrative linkages but
weak operational ones. A contrasting form is
needed for line improvements
and near line extensions where the product innovation is directly
integrated into the mainstream of the corporation; the situation is one where there is high strategic importance and high operational relatedness.

J PROD INNOV
lYX7;4:14Y-lh?

MANAG

IS1

As if the range of nine structural options is not

problem enough, the author then points out that
managements must also (1) clarify the relationship with each individual entrepreneur, so that all
promises are understood; (2) establish measurement and reward systems for the on-going portion
of the operation and for each of the partially separated units; (3) make each of the entrepreneurial
parts of the system dynamic, changing its organizational design from time to time as the project
moves through its internal life cycle.
Any given organization not only can, but must,
be bureaucratically effective and entrepreneurial
at the same time.
Technological Innovation and
Interdependence,
A Challenge for the
Large, Complex Firm, Yves Doz, Reinhard
Angelmar,
and C. K. Prahalad,
Technology
in Society (1983, pp. 105-125.
This article is closely related to the preceding
one. The authors begin on the (widely documented) premise that large, complex firms develop. centralized and decentralized R&D operations that become bureaucratized. They show too
much technology push, too little market responsiveness, and slowness overall.
Consequently, seeing how innovative small entrepreneurial firms can be, the large firms have
taken to emulating them. Small became beautiful,
followed by skunkworks, new venture groups, internal corporate ventures, etc. Yet research has
shown that internal venturing has shortcomings.
Good venture managers are hard to find, ventures
lose out in the internal competition for resources,
the interests of venture managers likely conflict
with those of the corporate parent, and the separateness does not allow for exploitation of the
potential interdependencies
between core business technologies and the new ventures.
Another approach, assigning responsibilities
for new technologies to existing business units,
also tends to result in underutilization of potential
synergies. Many Japanese firms consider core
technologies as properties of the corporate parent, and use of them by operating units is transient. Hewlett-Packard
recently reorganized so
as to better exploit their interdependencies.
In sum, for core and system technologies,
both differentiation
from and interdependence