بررسی عملکرد نوآوری محصول جدید در شرکتهای تولید کننده قطعات خودرو در ایران: یک مطالعه علّی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار- دانشکده مدیریت - دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشجوی دکتری دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران

3 دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران

4 دانشکده مدیریتدانشگاه تهران

چکیده

هدف این مطالعه بررسی عملکرد نوآوری محصول جدید در شرکتهای تولید کننده قطعات خودرو در ایران می باشد. این مطالعه از لحاظ هدف از نوع تحقیقات کاربردی بوده و از آنجایی که هدف پژوهش تعیین روابط علّی میان متغیرها می‌باشد، از نظر گردآوری داده‌ها توصیفی و از نوع همبستگی است. جامعه آماری این تحقیق شامل تمام شرکتهای فعال در صنعت تولید قطعات و مجموعه‌های خودرو در ایران می باشد. پرسشنامه ساختار یافته برای جمع آوری داده ها از مدیران عالی این شرکتها مورد استفاده قرار گرفت. از 359 پرسشنامه‌ای که از طریق ایمیل بین مدیران عامل تمامی این شرکتها توزیع گردید، تنها 226 پرسشنامه، بازگردانده شد، که 201 پرسشنامه قابل استفاده بود که این نشان دهنده نرخ بازگشت 9/55 درصد می‌باشد. فرضیه ها از طریق تحلیل همبستگی و تکنیک مدل سازی معادله ساختاری مورد آزمون قرار گرفت. تحلیل داده ها نشان می دهد که ماژولاریتی و نوآور بودن محصول اثر معنادار و مثبتی بر عملکرد نوآوری محصول دارند. نتایج همچنین نشان داد که یکپارچه‌سازی فناورانه تامین‌کننده به صورت مثبت و معناداری رابطه ماژولاریتی و عملکرد نوآوری محصول را تعدیل می کند .

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Examining the innovation performance of the new product in the manufacturers of automobile parts in Iran

نویسنده [English]

  • mohammad reza sadeghi moghadam 1
چکیده [English]

The purpose of this paper is to examine the innovation performance of the new product in the manufacturers of automobile components and parts in Iran. This study was conducted using descriptive – correlation methodology. The study population consisted of all active manufacturers of automobile components and parts in Islamic Republic of Iran. Structured questionnaire was used to collect data from the CEO of these companies. Out of 359 questionnaires in which were distributed through email, 226 questionnaires were returned (201 valid), which was equivalent to a 55.9 percent return rate. Hypotheses were tested through correlation analysis and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique. Data analyses show that product modularity and product innovativeness have a significant and positive effect on innovation performance of new product. Results also reveal that and supplier technological integration positively moderates the product modularity-new product performance relationship.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Product modularity
  • Product innovativeness
  • Innovation performance
  • Supplier technological integration
  • automotive industry
-         Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2008). Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: An empirical test. Technovation, 28(6), 315-326.

-         Alegre, J., Lapiedra, R., & Chiva, R. (2006). A measurement scale for product innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management9(4), 333-346.

-         Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2003). Managing in an age of modularity. Managing in the Modular Age: Architectures, Networks, and Organizations,149.

-         Cabigiosu, A., Zirpoli, F., &Camuffo, A. (2013). Modularity, interfaces definition and the integration of external sources of innovation in the automotive industry. Research Policy42(3), 662-675.

-         Calantone, R. J., Chan, K., & Cui, A. S. (2006). Decomposing product innovativeness and its effects on new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management23(5), 408-421.

-         Chang, S. J., & Ward, J. I. (1995). Enhanced antibody responses in infants given different sequences of heterogeneous Haemophilusinfluenzae type b conjugate vaccines. The Journal of pediatrics, 126(2), 206-211

-         Chiu, M. C., & Okudan, G. (2014). An investigation on the impact of product modularity level on supply chain performance metrics: an industrial case study. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 25(1), 129-145.

-         Danese, P., &Filippini, R. (2010). Modularity and the impact on new product development time performance: Investigating the moderating effects of supplier involvement and interfunctional integration. International Journal of Operations & Production Management30(11), 1191-1209.

-         Danneels, E. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2001), “Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18, pp. 357-73.

-         Droge, C., Calantone, R., &Harmancioglu, N. (2008). New product success: is it really controllable by managers in highly turbulent environments?. Journal of Product Innovation Management25(3), 272-286.

-         Droge, C., Jayaram, J. and Vickery, S.K. (2000), “The ability to minimize the timing of new product development and introduction: an examination of antecedent factors in the North American automobile supplier industry”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 24-40.

-         Droge, C., Jayaram, J., & Vickery, S. K. (2004). The effects of internal versus external integration practices on time-based performance and overall firm performance. Journal of operations management, 22(6), 557-573.

-         Duray, R., Ward, P. T., Milligan, G. W., & Berry, W. L. (2000). Approaches to mass customization: configurations and empirical validation. Journal of Operations Management, 18(6), 605-625.

-         Ethiraj, S. and Levinthal, D. (2004), “Modularity and innovation in complex systems”, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 159-74.

-         Filippini, R., Salmaso, L. and Tessarolo, P. (2004), “Product development time performance: investigating the effect on interactions between drivers”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 21, pp. 199-214.

-         Fliess, S., & Becker, U. (2006). Supplier integration—Controlling of co-development processes. Industrial Marketing Management35(1), 28-44.

-         Galvin, P., &Morkel, A. (2001). The effect of product modularity on industry structure: the case of the world bicycle industry. Industry and Innovation8(1), 31.

-         Garcia, R., &Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of product innovation management19(2), 110-132.

-         Gupta, A. K., & Souder, W. E. (1998). Key drivers of reduced cycle time.Research Technology Management41(4), 38.

-         Henard, D. H., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why some new products are more successful than others. Journal of marketing Research38(3), 362-375.

-         Hitt, M. A., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., Arregle, J. L., & Borza, A. (2000). Partner selection in emerging and developed market contexts: Resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Academy of Management journal, 43(3), 449-467.

-         Hua, S. Y., & Wemmerlöv, U. (2006). Product change intensity, product advantage, and market performance: an empirical investigation of the PC industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(4), 316-329.

-         Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sale: mass customization or mass confusion?. Journal of retailing74(4), 491-513.

-         Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial marketing management33(5), 429-438.

-         Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1997). Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organizational performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(3), 293-314.

-         Jacobs, M., Vickery, S. K., &Droge, C. (2007). The effects of product modularity on competitive performance: do integration strategies mediate the relationship?. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,27(10), 1046-1068.

-         Johnson, W. H., &Filippini, R. (2013). Integration capabilities as mediator of product development practices–performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management30(1), 95-111.

-         Kaplan, A. M., &Haenlein, M. (2006). Toward a parsimonious definition of traditional and electronic mass customization. Journal of product innovation management23(2), 168-182.

-         Kim, K., & Chhajed, D. (2000). Commonality in product design: Cost saving, valuation change and cannibalization. European Journal of Operational Research125(3), 602-621.

-         Koufteros, X. A., Cheng, T. E., & Lai, K. H. (2007). “Black-box” and “gray-box” supplier integration in product development: Antecedents, consequences and the moderating role of firm size. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 847-870.

-         Kyrgidou, L. P., &Spyropoulou, S. (2013). Drivers and performance outcomes of innovativeness: an empirical study. British Journal of Management24(3), 281-298.

-         Langerak, F., &Hultink, E. J. (2008). The effect of new product development acceleration approaches on development speed: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management25(3), 157-167.

-         Langerak, F., Hultink, E. J., & Robben, H. S. (2004). The role of predevelopment activities in the relationship between market orientation and performance. R&D Management, 34(3), 295-309.

-         Langlois, R. N. (2003). The vanishing hand: the changing dynamics of industrial capitalism. Industrial and corporate change12(2), 351-385.

-         Lau, A. K., Yam, R., & Tang, E. (2011). The impact of product modularity on new product performance: Mediation by product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management28(2), 270-284.

-         Lau, A.K.W., Yam, R.C.M. and Tang, E.P.Y. (2007), “Supply chain product co-development, product modularity and product performance: empirical evidence from Hong Kong manufacturers”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 7, pp. 1036-65.

-         Lau, A.K.W., Yam, R.C.M. and Tang, E.P.Y. (2010), “Supply chain integration and product modularity: an empirical study of product performance for selected Hong Kong manufacturing industries”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 20-56.

-         Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: conceptualization and empirical examination. The Journal of Marketing, 13-29.

-         Luca, L. M. D., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2007). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: examining the different routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 95-112.

-         MacDuffie, J. P. (2013). Modularity‐as‐Property, Modularization‐as‐Process, and ‘Modularity'‐as‐Frame: Lessons from Product Architecture Initiatives in the Global Automotive Industry. Global Strategy Journal, 3(1), 8-40.

-         McNally, R. C., Cavusgil, E., & Calantone, R. J. (2010). Product innovativeness dimensions and their relationships with product advantage, product financial performance, and project protocol. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(7), 991-1006.

-         Mikkola, J. H., & Gassmann, O. (2003). Managing modularity of product architectures: toward an integrated theory. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on50(2), 204-218.

-         Millson, M. R., &Wilemon, D. (2002). The impact of organizational integration and product development proficiency on market success. Industrial Marketing Management31(1), 1-23.

-         Miozzo, M., & Grimshaw, D. (2005). Modularity and innovation in knowledge-intensive business services: IT outsourcing in Germany and the UK. Research Policy, 34(9), 1419-1439.

-         Monczka, R., Handfield, R., Frayer, D., Ragatz, G., & Scannell, T. (2000). New product development: supplier integration strategies for success.

-         Montoya‐Weiss, M. M., & Calantone, R. (1994). Determinants of new product performance: a review and meta‐analysis. Journal of product innovation management, 11(5), 397-417.

-         Novak, S., &Eppinger, S. D. (2001). Sourcing by design: Product complexity and the supply chain. Management science47(1), 189-204.

-         Parker, D. B. (2010). Modularity and complexity: An examination of the effects of product structure on the intricacy of production systems. Michigan State University.

-         Pil, F.K. and Cohen, S.K. (2006), “Modularity: implications for imitation, innovation and sustained advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 995-1011.

-         Prencipe, A., Davies, A., &Hobday, M. (Eds.). (2003). The business of systems integration. Oxford University Press.

-         Ro, S., Park, C., Sanders, K. M., McCarrey, J. R., & Yan, W. (2007). Cloning and expression profiling of testis-expressed microRNAs. Developmental biology, 311(2), 592-602.

-         Robertson, D., & Ulrich, K. (1998). Planning for product platforms. Sloan management review39(4).

-         Rosenzweig, E. D., Roth, A. V., & Dean, J. W. (2003). The influence of an integration strategy on competitive capabilities and business performance: an exploratory study of consumer products manufacturers. Journal of operations management21(4), 437-456.

-         Sabel, C. F., &Zeitlin, J. (2004). Neither modularity nor relational contracting: inter-firm collaboration in the new economy. Enterprise and Society5(03), 388-403.

-         Sanchez, R., & Collins, R. P. (2001). Competing—and learning—in modular markets. Long Range Planning34(6), 645-667.

-         Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 63-76.

-         Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of management review,25(2), 312-334.

-         Sheremata, W. A. (2004). Competing through innovation in network markets: Strategies for challengers. Academy of Management Review29(3), 359-377.

-         Song, T., Pranovich, A., &Holmbom, B. (2011). Effects of pH control with phthalate buffers on hot-water extraction of hemicelluloses from spruce wood. Bioresource technology102(22), 10518-10523.

-         Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. (1999). Challenges of managing the development of breakthrough products in Japan. Journal of Operations Management, 17(6), 665-688.

-         Story, V. M., Boso, N., & Cadogan, J. W. (2015). The form of relationship between firm‐level product innovativeness and new product performance in developed and emerging markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1), 45-64.

-         Tajeddini, K., Trueman, M., & Larsen, G. (2006). Examining the effect of market orientation on innovativeness. Journal of marketing management, 22(5-6), 529-551.

-         Tellis, G. J., Yin, E., & Bell, S. (2009). Global consumer innovativeness: Cross-country differences and demographic commonalities. Journal of International Marketing, 17(2), 1-22.

-         Ülkü, S., & Schmidt, G. M. (2011). Matching product architecture and supply chain configuration. Production and Operations Management, 20(1), 16-31.

-         Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm.Research policy, 24(3), 419-440.

-         Valle, S., Fernandez, E., & Avella, L. (2003). New product development process: strategic and organisational success factors. International journal of manufacturing technology and management, 5(3), 197-209.

-         Vickery, S. K., Koufteros, X., Dröge, C., & Calantone, R. (2015). Product Modularity, Process Modularity, and New Product Introduction Performance: Does Complexity Matter?. Production and Operations Management.

-         Von Hippel, E. (1990), “Task partitioning: an innovation process variable”, Research Policy, Vol. 19, pp. 407-18.

-         Wagner, S. M., & Hoegl, M. (2006). Involving suppliers in product development: Insights from R&D directors and project managers. Industrial marketing management35(8), 936-943.

-         Wasti, S.N. and Liker, J.K. (1999), Collaborating with suppliers in product development: a US and Japan comparative study, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 46 No. 4, 444-61.

-         Worren, N., Moore, K., & Cardona, P. (2002). Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: a study of the home appliance industry. Strategic management journal, 23(12), 1123-1140.

-         Zirger, B. J., &Maidique, M. A. (1990). A model of new product development: an empirical test. Management science, 36(7), 867-883.