Innovation in large versus small Innovation in companies: insights ...

101 downloads 1041 Views 1018KB Size Report
process innovation I.Iowever, our analysis also shows that small companies level ... This article suggests that managers of small companies should compete in a ...
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldiisight.com/OO25-1747.htm

Innovation in large versus small companies: insights from the US wood products industry Ernesto R. Wagner

Innovation in large versus small companies

837

SAIL U C , Santiago, Chile, and

Eric N. Hansen Department of Wood Science and Engineering, College of Forestry, e e g o n State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA Abstract Purpose - Aims to explain the effect of firm size on company innovation inside one indusby context: the wood products industry. Design/methodologylapproach- The strategic issues under study (innovation, corporate strategy) are typically managed by the firm's top executives. Also important is the fact that the response rates of questionnaires targeting this group are generally very low. Consistently, the data for the project were obtained from 43 in-person interviews with top executives of wood products companies of different sizes in two countries, i.e. the USA and Chile. Findings - Finds that firm size does impact the innovation type pursued by companies, at least in the wood products industry. Indeed, large companies of this study clearly outrun smaller companies in h process innovation I.Iowever,our analysis also shows that small companies level the field ~ l t larger companies when considering all three innovation types (process, product, business systems). Practical implications -. The capital enjoyed by large companies allows them to excel in process innovation. This article suggests that managers of small companies should compete in a different arena from large companies and emphasize product and business systems innovation, as they can do very well in these areas even with limited resources. Originalitylvalue - There is very little research about innovation in the wood products industry. This article contributes to the knowledge in this area, also providing new insights about the validity of Schumpeter's assertions regarding the role of company size in innovation Keywords Innovation, Product innovation, Process management, Wood products, United States of America, Chile Paper type Research paper

Introduction Innovation, in its various forms, has long been recognized as c~iticalto a firm's competitive advantage (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995; Stock et d , 1996;Motwani et d , 1999; Cooper, 2000; Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 2001; Scarborough and Zimmerer, 2002). Schumpeter (1942) suggests that firms act and react in the business environment, and in this context of action and reaction competitive advantage is constantly created and destroyed in a continuous process of "creative destruction". Accordingly, constant innovation is necessary to maintain a competitive advantage. Constant innovation allows a company to better meet consumer needs (Cooper, 1996), stay ahead of the competition, capitalize on strategic market opportunities, and align organizational strengths with market opportunities (Thomas, 1995). The literature

Management Decision Vo1.43PP. NO. 837-850 6,2005

@EmmldGroupPublhgLimit*

00251747

DOI 10.1108/00251740510603592

MI 43,6

838

provides stroilg evidence of a tie between innovation and fLnn performance (Han et al., 1998; Calantone et al, 2002). Denton (1999) summarizes the issue succinctly, saying: "[Clontinual innovation is essential to life and competitive organizations".

Approaches to innovation Innovation is described as "an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new to an individual or another unit of adoption" (Rogers, 1995). Damanpour (1996) defines organizational innovation as "the adoption of an idea or behavior new to the adopting organization". The adoption of an innovation encompasses "generation, development, and implementation of new ideas or behaviors" (Damanpour, 1991).Another view sees innovation as new product-market-technology-organization combinations (Boer and During, 2001). Curnming (1998) explored definitions of innovation back to the late 1960s. He suggests that the definition has evolved over time to what is now "the first successful application of a product or process". Recent literature considers innovation to consist of two or more sub-components (Han et al., 1998;Johne, 1999; Darnanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 2001; Boer and During, 2001; Hovgaard and Hansen, 2003). Han et al (1998) suggest a dichotomous view: technical and administrative. Boer and During (2001) use three sub-components: product, process, and business (systems). North and Smallbone (2000) use four principles in defining innovation. Of particular relevance are the first two: (1) innovation is about making changes to maintain or improve competitiveness; and (2) those changes can occur across products and services, market development, marketing methods, production processes, and technology used in administration. In research specific to the forestry industry, Hovgaard and Hansen (2003) concluded that industry managers see innovation in three different forms: product, process, and business systems. The broad literature base on innovation suggests a range of activities that can be described as innovation, including new product development, product line improvements and extensions, improvements in production processes, and innovative marketing and management practices. We view innovation through the categories outlined by Hovgaard and Hansen (2003), that is to say: product (new product development or improvement); process (improved processing or manufacturing); and business systems (new and/or improved business and marketing practices). It is important to note that these categories parallel those found across industries (Boer and During, 2001). Our functional definition of innovation is the adoption and/or creation of something new in one or more of the above sub-components.

Innovation in one industry context The US wood products manufacturing industry has long been recognized as a mature industry where commodity products are emphasized (Cohen and Sinclair, 1989; Hansen et al., 2002; Juslin and Hansen, 2003). Given its commodity focus and the variability of its raw material (wood fiber from diverse forests), the industry has excelled at process

innovation. In fact, the wood products industry provides a textbook example of Porter's (1996) assertion that, generally speaking, managers of companies have been centered on operational effectiveness during the last two decades. In this industry, operational effectiveness effoits (process innovation) have targeted fiber recovery improvement. This goal has been pursued through computer-aided manufacturing, customized machinery, and improved quality control, among other methods. During the twentieth century, primary wood processing (lumber production) increased its wood utilization rate from 25-30 percent of the log to over 50 percent of the log (cubic recovery). Wood products industry managers clearly see process innovation as their area of innovation focus as compared to product or business systems (Anderson and Hansen, 2003). Process innovation in the industry has seen considerable attention in the literature (Lee et al., 1999; West and Sinclair, 1992; Cohen and Sinclair, 1989). Generally these studies have looked at the adoption of new or improved processing technologies. Work by Lee et a1 (1999) suggests that as the market and product mature over time, the innovation emphasis switches from developing new products to increasing production efficiency. This follows the theory developed by Utterback (1994),but does not fit with Porter's (1996) view that operational effectiveness is necessary but not sufficient for achieving competitive advantage. Even though the industry has improved its operational effectiveness, it has lost much of its competitive advantage over, for example, imported wood products. Engineered wood products, like laminated beams, are a relatively new category of wood products that provide an example of product innovation conducted by the wood products industry. Other products like dimension lumber have remained largely unchanged over the last decades, j u s w n g the lack of reputation of the industry for product or business systems innovation. Still, changes may be on the way. Indeed, unique ways of addressing environmental issues are a recent example of business systems innovation conducted by the industry, as recent studies have shown that forestry industry companies are beginning to integrate environmental issues into their marketing planning (Kama et al, 2002a, b). E-business and e-commerce are other examples of business systems innovation pursued by some in the industry (Vlosky et aL, 2002).

Large versus small h s Schumpeter (1942) hypothesized that large firms have an advantage over small companies as their financial might allows them to be the most capable innovators. In this regard, process innovation in the wood products industry typically involves high capital intensity through investment in new processing technologies, something large companies are better equipped to accomplish because of their ability to distribute the fixed costs of innovation over larger outputs (Acs and Audretsch, 1987; Cohen and Klepper, 1996). Although large companies have sufficient resources for investing in innovation, they suffer from a variety of issues that may make them less innovative. For example, larger firms tend to create a bureaucracy that is unfavorable to an atmosphere encouraging creativity (Kamien and Schwartz, 1975), and tend to be less flexible than smaller firms (Cohen and Klepper, 1996).

Innovation in large versus small companies 839

MI) 43,6

840

Extensive research has been conducted to test Schumpeter's hypothesis (e.g. McNulty, 1974; Lunn, 1982; Cohen et al., 1987; Amato et al, 1981), with mixed results (Acs and Audretsch, 1987; Audretsch and Acs, 1991; Cohen and Klepper, 1996). Kamien and Schwartz (1975) claim that there is little. support for the idea that innovation increases with firnl size, with the notable exception of the chemical industry. More recent research suggests that small and large firms are more innovative than those of intermediate size (Bertschek and Entorf, 1996). Others have concluded that large fhms have an advantage in markets characterized by imperfect competition, while small firms have an advantage in markets chardcterized by pure competition (Acs and Audretsch, 1987). Finally, large firms in low-tech industries have an advantage over small firms, but no difference exists in high-tech industries (Audretsch and Acs, 1991). Generally these studies have concentrated on technological innovation, or in our terminology, process innovation. Some works (Cohen and Klepper, 1996) investigate both product and process innovation. However, there is a gap in the literature with respect to business systems innovation. Damanpour (1987) did find a connection between firm size and administrative innovation, a concept related to business systems innovation. Still, the gap exists and it is something we addressed in our research.

Study scope and objectives As outlined above, innovation plays an important role in a firm's ability to adapt to marketplace changes. In these efforts, companies must make informed resource allocation decisions. An enhanced understanding of the types of innovation that can be pursued and the likely fit with the organization can be invaluable. Importantly, previous research has been criticized for not considering industry effects (Cohen et al, 1987). On the other hand, inconsistencies in &dings of studies that intended to test Schumpeter's hypothesis provide an opportunity for enhancing our understanding of how companies of different sizes focus their innovation efforts. Therefore, we investigated the role of innovation in large and small companies in one industrial context. Our findings show how companies of different sizes emphasize different types of innovation, indicating that firm size does impact innovation. In addition, we provide insight for managers as they seek to allocate scarce resources among innovation options. Also important, the current globalization of the marketplace makes it desirable to investigate innovation approaches by companies in other countries. In addition to the US wood products industry, we selected an important foreign competitor, Chile. The Chilean industry has recently become a major player in several segments of the US marketplace, notably in softwood moldings, where Chile is the main offshore supplier. It is therefore interesting and relevant to compare the innovation approaches of Chilean and US wood products companies. The Chilean component of the study was exploratory but provides interesting insights. Methods This paper reports findings of a larger project that sought to improve the customer orientation of companies by combining information about customer needs and company competitive advantages (competitive advantage or "the basis on which

customers will choose your product over the competitors"'; Winer, 1999, p. 52). In this article, we focus on understanding the effect of firm size on company innovation inside one industry context: the wood products industry. We hypothesized that the type and extent of the innovation pursued in most companies is largely decided by top executives, as they strive to develop and sustain competitive advantage for their companies. These individuals are the most knowledgeable about strategies and strategic decisions in their firms. Hence, we required the participation of top executives and managers.

Spec& remarks regarding data cokction One option for data collection would have been telephone interviews. They are inexpensive compared to other styles of i n t e ~ e w s ,but their effectiveness has decreased in recent years (Dillman, 2000). Another common approach would have been the use of a mail questionnaire. Still, we decided against this option as Capon et al. (1994) reported that mail questionnaires targeting top executives are commonly answered by other individuals. Instead, we opted to conduct one-on-oneinterviews, in order to assure that we would obtain information from the correct individual. Also, the highly confidential type of information sought by this study supported the use of in-person interviews, since developing a level of trust between the interviewee and the interviewer is easier person-to-person. The interview consisted of two main questions. The first question asked each respondent to identify key competitive advantages held by their company. Accordingly, each respondent was asked the following question: 'Which are the competitive advantages that your company holds that permit it to succeed in the marketplace? I refer specifically to those distinctive characteristics that your competition cannot copy easily". It is important to stress that this study avoided the self-typingapproach. This is one of the four different approaches to the measurement of strategy at the business-level presented by Snow and Hambrick (1980).This method has been used in many strategy studies (Rich, 1986; McKee et al., 1989;Niemila, 1993;Hansen et d,2002), and basically allows an organization's manager to characterize the organization's strategy. Managers are typically asked to classlfy their organization with respect to the competition. Guth and Macmillan (1986) and Hansen et al. (2002) identified an important problem related with the self-typing approach. They contended that managers tend to rate their own company at least in an average position with respect to the competition in each and every characteristic, limiting the value of this type of data. Our study avoids the self-typing approach as it does not require managers to compare the competitive situation of their company with respect to that of other firms. Instead, executives just provided the competitive advantages held by their companies, without rating them. We did not specifically ask the executives whether product, business or process innovation were pursued in their companies. Conversely, our procedure was to content-analyze the diverse competitive advantages named by our inte~ewees, utilizing the definitions of the three types of innovation provided above. When a certain innovation type was named as a competitive advantage, the analysis was obvious. However, the content analysis identified certain practices of some companies as

Innovation in large versus

841

MI) 43,6

842

innovations, even though they were not defined in that way during the interview. As an example, one of the companies makes intense use of quality function deployment, one of the tools of total quality management. Business systems innovation was not specifically named during the interview, but the content analysis of the answers identified business systems innovation as an innovation type pursued by that company. This method showed that a few companies pursued all types of innovation, whereas most firms focus on just one or even no innovation at all. The US interviews (35), which were performed after the Chilean ones (eight), included a specific question regarding process innovation. Executives were asked to categorize themselves in one of three categories of process innovation: (1) "first movers"; (2) "cost-benefit analyzers"; and (3) "second movers". These categories are detailed fully below. Importantly, the annual sales of each company allowed us to categorize the companies into three groups: large (n = ll),medium (n = 17) and small (n = 15). Large companies were defined as those with annual sales larger than $700 million. There were no companies with annual sales between $245 and $700 million, so there was a natural division between large and medium companies. The latter were defined as those with sales between $55 and $245 million. Finally, small companies had sales under $55 million.

US interuiews We conducted a total of 35 in-person interviews in six different states (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Arkansas, Georgia and South Carolina) during November of 2001 and January, February and March of 2002. We were successful in reaching top-level executives - 12 interviews were performed with the president or CEO of the companies, 13 with vice-presidentsor general managers, and ten with other managers. The annual sales of US companies ranged between $2 million and $25 billion, with three firms in the Fortune 500 industry ranking. The sample was selected to assure a balanced number of companies among small, medium and large companies. The total annual sales of the sample were approximately $26.2 billion, or 44 percent of the $60 billion US industry (US Department of Commerce, 2003). Importantly, the interviews not only covered a significant market share of the industry, but the number of interviews also ensured that all important opinions were gathered, as asserted in specialized literature (Cohen, 1995). Ch& interuiews The Chilean wood products industry has developed for the most part during the last three decades, concurrent with the establishment and growth of plantations. The industry is dominated by three large companies, followed by several small to medium-sized firms. Gaining access to executives in Chilean companies is exceedingly difficult because of cultural reasons. Secretaries constitute formidable gatekeepers who allow access only to well-known or well-referred people. We were successful in conducting interviews in just one of the big companies and seven of the smaller firms.

The interviews were conducted during August and September of 2001. The annual sales of Chilean companies ranged between $1.5 million and $1.2 billion. Five of the eight interviews conducted were with the CEO or president of the company.

Results We report our results in two main sections. First, we dedicate a whole section to environmental issues, as the companies' efforts to enhance their environmental image is indeed a type of business 'systems innovation. By addressing this issue, we are conkibuting to narrow the gap that exists in the literature regarding this innovation type. Second, we analyze how firm size affects the innovation triad: product, process, and business systems. We found, in fact, some support for Schumpeter's hypothesis, as explained below. We show some insights from the Chilean responses.

Environmental issues in the USA One recent trend among wood products companies is enhanced efforts to improve their environmental image. Companies are responding to a shift in public sentiment that is heavily influenced by environmental group activities. In addition, competing industries (steel, plastic, and cement) are using environmental appeals to emphasize the negative effects of using wood and to position their own products as environmentally friendly alternatives (Wagner and Hansen, 2002). Generally speaking, environmental leadership is not a primary strategic goal of wood products companies, as environmentally related competitive advantages represented only about 2 percent of the competitive advantages mentioned by our interviewees. Still, many wood products companies are in the process of obtaining, or have already obtained, third-party environmental certification of their forests and/or chain-of-custody certification of their operations, efforts designed to assure that a company accesses supplies from forests that are well-managed with an eye towards sustainability. Interviewees from large US companies emphasized a need for a superior environmental reputation, because they are facing higher public scrutiny as compared to smaller companies. This statement by executives of large companies is consistent with the findings of Fombrun and Shanley (1990).Indeed, the data suggest a difference, given that 56 perceent of the large companies show a high environmental commitment, compared with 40 percent among medium companies, and only 22 percent among small firms. However, statistical analysis indicated no significant difference (two-tail p-value from Fisher's exact probability test = 0.38, when collapsing small and medium-sized companies in one group). There is still another interesting finding regarding environmental issues. Our interviews suggest that companies in the Pacific Northwest are more accustomed to coping with environmental issues and environmental pressure groups than companies in the South of the US. This makes sense, as the remaining companies in the Pacific Northwest have survived the reduction of logging in federal lands that resulted from environmental pressure. Companies in the South were much less engaged in these issues, partially due to the small percentage of Southern forestland that is publicly owned.

Innovation in large versus small companies 843

Process versus product versus business systems innovation in US companies During our interviews, all three innovation types were identified as potential competitive advantages, where process innovation was the most common (by far), and the only type in the case of companies in the dimension lumber (commodity)business. In other words, those commodity-oriented companies did not identify competitive ways of differentiating themselves in products or business systems. As was explained in the Methods section, we did not specifically ask the executives whether process, product or business systems innovation were pursued in their companies. Instead, our procedure was to content analyze the diverse competitive advantages named by our interviewees, utilizing the definitions of the three types of innovation provided previously in the article. The results of the content analysis are shown in Table I. Statistical analysis shows that there is no difference between small and larger companies when considering all types of innovation, i.e. process, product and business systems innovation. For comparing small and larger (large and medium-sized) companies, we used a chi-squared test. The p-value of 0.68 provides no evidence regarding a difference between small and larger companies. (Also important is the fact that the existence of one cell smaller than 5 is not crucial in this case, because the table is larger than 2 x 2 and less than 20 percent of the cells are smaller than 5.) We examined process innovation in more detail. We specifically asked each of our US interviewees about the position of their companies regarding technological leadership (process innovation). As a first step, we simplified the adopter categories recommended by Rogers (1995).He suggested five classes: (1) innovators; (2) early adopters; (3) early majority; (4) late majority; and (5) laggards. We defined a new categorization, based on personal experience about the industry. In this respect, we defined three groups: (1) "First movers" were defined as companies that consistently add the latest technologies as part of their corporate philosophy. They acknowledge that technological developments may not improve efficiency or production, but are

Table I. Process, business and product innovation among small, medium-sized and large wood products companies

Innovation type

Small companies (n= 8)

Large and medium-sized companies (n = 19)

Process innovation Business innovation Product innovation Note: Data from 27 US companies: a company may pursue one, two or even all three innovation types

willing to assume the risk. This venturesome characteristic of our "first movers" makes them very similar to the "innovators" of Rogers (1995). (2) "Cost-benefit analyzers" are more risk averse, and prefer to be "first seconds". They are willing to invest in technology, but they only spend money on proven machinery. Again, this group matches closely the characteristics of the early majority of Rogers (1995),which does not want to be first, but does not want to be last in adopting an innovation. (3) "Second movers" do not have the latest technologies in their plants. The two main reasons for this is lack of money andlor the belief that their money is best invested in other uses. They are akin the laggards of Rogers (1995).

Innovation in large versus small companies 845

As can be seen from Table II, five of eight small companies are second movers, compared to only four of 19 large and medium-sized companies. Statistical analysis indicates that there is moderate evidence of a difference between small and larger companies, consistent with the assertions of Schumpeter. (Fisher's exact probability test: one-tail p-value of 0.05 confirms moderate evidence of a statistical difference between small and larger companies in their process innovation, while Cramer's V renders a value of 0.4 that verifies there is a substantive association between sue of the conlpany and their attitude towards process illnovation, i.e. fust or second mover.) In summary, we determined that large and medium-sized wood products companies clearly outrun small companies in technological leadership (process innovation). Still, small wood products companies seem to be able to offset the difference by focusing on product and business systems innovation, where they can excel even with limited resources.

Chilean results The small number of.Chilean interviews limits the use of statistical tools. Still, the views of Chilean executives unraveled some interesting characteristics of the Chilean forest products industry. First, Chilean executives did not mention process innovation as a competitive advantage. This mirrors a reality of the Chilean wood products industry that makes it different to that of the US. Chilean companies are typically exposed to higher capital and lower labor costs than US firms. Therefore, the optimal sawmill design in Chile is less mechanized than the optimal sawmill design in the US, and thus a lesser emphasis on process innovation in Chile is logical. Second, a corporate focus on export activities represents another clear difference between US and Chilean companies. Export orientation was a competitive advantage frequently identified by Chilean companies, whereas in the US it represented only about 1 percent of all the advantages mentioned by interviewees. This situation is entirely logical due to the different business environments that companies of both

Process innovation First moverslcost benefit analyzers Second movers

Note: Data from 27 US companies

Small companies (n = 8) 3 5

Large and medium-sized companies (n = 19)

Table 11. Process innovation among small, medium-sized and large US wood products companies

IvID 43,6

846

countries face. The small size of the Chilean market forces companies to look abroad, whereas the huge size of the US domestic market does not encourage an export orientation for US companies. Still, the corporate focus on export activities by Chilean companies represents a form of business innovation. Therefore, it has interesting managerial implications, as we elaborate below. Conclusions and managerial implications The main objective of this study was to investigate the role of innovation in large and small companies in one industrial context: the wood products industry. Our findings show how companies of different sizes emphasize different types of innovation to survive in the marketplace. Indeed, large wood products companies invest intensively in state-of-the-artfacilities to maintain an edge in process innovation. This outcome is consistent with the assertions of Schurnpeter, who over half a century ago hypothesized that large firms may be best positioned to maintain their competitive advantage by being the most capable innovators. This result is also consistent with Porter (1996), who complains about the frantic focus on operational effectiveness (process innovation) by companies. He states that companies view operational effectiveness as a source of competitive advantage, while it is just a requirement to compete and not a strategic option. A company can outperform other firrrs only if it can establish a sustainable difference, that is to say, only if it can establish a viable strategy. Our analysis shows that small companies level the field with larger companies by considering all three innovation types. This means that excellence in product and business systems innovation can be achieved with limited resources. In short, firm size does impact the innovation type pursued, at least in the wood products industry. This suggests that smaller companies must recognize the level of process innovation necessary to remain competitive and only invest to that level. Any remaining resources must be invested to enhance other areas of innovation. While this research was conducted in a specific industrial sector, our results are consistent with theory and may be generalizeable to other sectors as well. Many commodity-focused natural resource industries, where the traditional focus has been on process efficiency, likely follow a similar pattern. Where the pattern likely does not follow is in high-tech sectors where product innovation is the key to competitiveness. We would like to make some final remarks re-wding the less-studied innovation type: business systems. We found that many wood products companies are changing their coiporate strategy by addressing environmental issues through initiatives like third-party environmental certification. In this regard, companies are responding to a growing public scrutiny that requires sound environmental behavior. We think that the most interesting feature about this innovation is that it is basically a change in policy making. Another example of business system innovation is the corporate focus on exports by Chilean companies. We suggest that this export orientation allows Chilean companies to capture some of the benefits of multinational companies. The export orientation does not rely only on international sales offices or international promotion. The export orientation begins with the design of production facilities specifically tailored to satisfy foreign needs. Some Chilean companies have changed even their

silvicultural practices (i.e. how they grow their trees) in order to satisfy the needs of some niche markets that demand specific character-marks in the wood they purchase. We suggest that the export orientation of Chilean companies is a good example of a "natural" advantage enjoyed by companies of small countries. Indeed, companies from small nations are compelled to look across their borders from their inception. If they want to grow, their insufficient internal markets make it necessary to find buyers overseas, and that means competing with everybody from everywhere (Yip, 1995). -Thus,managers of companies from small countries must have a good understanding of foreign competitors and their own competencies and capabilities. Managers from companies located in large countries, like the USA, lack this feature of their peers from smaller countries, and should offset this problem quickly, because competitors from smaller, distant countries may prove to be formidable. Environmental certification and a corporate focus on exports are examples of two successful initiatives, which show that valuable business systems innovations do not need to be based on technology, as many articles centered on e-business suggest. Future research Given the importance of innovation to the competitiveness of large and small firms alike, researchers should develop our understanding of the relative impacts of different types of innovation. For example, how might the return on investment differ among product, process, and business systems innovation? In what type of competitive environment is each type of innovation best suited? How must management develop corporate culture to best facilitate creation of each innovation type? In the forest products industry, process innovation is easily matched by the competition, since relatively few equipment suppliers provide technology for all players in the industry. Does this suggest that business systems innovation and product innovation are more difficult for the competition to match? Does this differ by industry sector? These questions only scratch the surface of what practitioners need to know. Much better insight is needed in a wide range of areas. References Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (1987), ''Innovation, market structure, and hsize", The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 567-74. Amato, L., Ryan, J.M. and Wilder, R.P. (1981), 'Market structure and dynamic performance in US manufacturing", Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 1105-10. Anderson, R. and Hansen, E. (2003),An Assessmazt of Innovation in the North American Forest Industries, Summary Report for Respondents, Forest Business Solutions, Department of Wood Science and Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, p. 15. Audretsch, D.B. and Acs, Z.J. (1991), "Innovation and size at the firm level", S o u t h Economic Journal, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 739-44. Bertschek, I. and Entoif, H. (1996), "On nonparamebic estimation of the Schumpeterian link between innovation and firm size: evidence from Belgium, France, and Germany", Empirical Eco~zomics,Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 401-26. Boer, H. and During, W.E. (2001), "Innovation,what innovation?A comparison between product, process, and organizational innovation", InternationalJournalof TechnologyManagement, Vol. 22 Nos 1-3, pp. 83-107.

Innovation in large versus small companies

847

MD 43,6

848

Brown, S. and Eisenhardt, K. (1995), "F'roduct development: past research, present findings, and future directions", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 343-78. Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Zhao, Y. (2002), "Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance", Industiial Marketing Ma~zagement,Vol. 31, pp. 515-24. Capon, N., Farley, J.U. and Hulbert, J M (1994), "Strategic planning and financial performance: more evidence", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 85-111. Cohen, L. (1995), Quality Fu~zction Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, p. 348. Cohen, D. and Sinclair, S. (1989), "An inventory of innovative technology use in North American processing of wood structural panels and softwood lumber", Canadian Journal of Forest Resources, Vol. 19, pp. 1629-33. Cohen, W.M. and Klepper, S. (1996),"Firm s u e and the nature of innovation within industries: the case of process and product R&D", The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 232-43. Cohen, W.M., Levin, R.C. and Mowery, D.C. (1987), "Firm s u e and R&D intensity: a re-examination", Tlze Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 543-65. Cooper, R.G. (1996), "Overhauling the new product process", Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 465-82. Cooper, R.G. (2000), "Doing it right: winriing with new products", TVEYBusinessJoul-nal,, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 54-60. Curnming, B.S. (1998), 'lnnovation overview and future challenges", European Jou~-nalof 6znovation Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 21-9. Damanpour, F. (1987), "The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: impact of organizational factors", Journal of Malugement, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 675-88. Damanpour, F. (1991), "Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-90. Damanpour, F. (1996), "Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models", Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 693-716. Damanpour, F. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001), "The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovation in organizations", Joul-Pzal of Ma~lagementStudies, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 45-65. Denton, D.K. (1999), "Gaining competitiveness through innovation", European Joul-~zalof Innovation Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 82-5. Dillman, D.A. (2000), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY, p. 464. Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990), 'What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-58. Guth, W.D. and MacMillan, LC. (1986), "Strategy implementation versus middle management self-interest", Strategic Mamzgement Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 313-27. Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Srivastava, RX. (1998), "Market orientation and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link?", Joul-Pzal of Marketing, Vol. 62, October, pp. 30-45. Hansen, E., SeppBla, J. and Juslin, H. (2002), "Marketing strategies in the Western softwood sawmill industry", Forest Products Journal, Vol. 52 No. 10, pp. 19-25. Hovgaxd, A. and Hansen, E. (2003), "Innovativeness in the forest products industry", Forest Products Journal, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 26-33.

Johne, A. (1999), "Successful market innovation", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 2 No. I, pp. 6-11. Juslin, H. and Hansen, E. (2003), Strategic Marketing in the Global Forest hzdzlst~ies,Academic Press, corvallis, OR, p. 610. Kamien, M.I. and Schwartz, N.L. (1975), "Market structure and innovation: a survey",Journal of Bonomic Literature, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-37. K h a , J., Hansen, E., Juslin, H. and Seppala, J. (2002a), "Green marketing of softwood lumber in Western North America and Nordic Europe", Forest Products Journal, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 34-40. Karna, J., Juslin, H., Ahonen, V. and Hansen, E. (2002b),"Green advertising - greenwash or a true reflection of marketing sb-ategies?", Greener Management International, Vol. 33, Spring, pp. 59-70. Lee, L., Cohen, D. and Maness, T. (1999), "Markets and technology in Western Canadian sawmills", Forest Products Journal, Vol. 49 No. 718, pp. 36-42. Lunn, J. (1982), "Research and development and the Schumpeterian hypothesis: alternate approach", Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 209-17. McKee, D.O., Varadarajan, P.R. and Pride, W.M. (1989), "Strategic adaptability and firm performance: A market-contingent perspective", Joulnal of Marketing, Vol. 53, July, pp. 21-35. McNulty, P.J. (1974), "On firm size and innovation in the Schumpeterian system", Journal of Econonzic Issues, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 627-32. Motwani, J., Danh-idge, T., Jian, J. and Soderquist, K. (1999), "Managing innovation in French small and medium-sized enterprises", Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 106-14. Niemila, J. (1993),Acta Forestalia Faznica 240, The Society of Forestry in Finland, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki. North, D. and Smallbone, D. (2000), "The innovativeness and growth of iural SMEs during the 1990sV,Regional Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 145-57. Porter, M.E. (1996), "What is strategy?", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 61-78. Rich, S. (1986), "Recent shifts in competitive marketing strategies in the US forest products firms and the increased importance of key marketing functions", Forest ProductsJournal, Vol. 36 NO. 718, pp. 34-44. Rogers, E.M. (1995), Ih;ffiion of Innovations, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY, p. 519. Scarborough, N. and Zimrnerer, T. (2002), Effective S7ml Bm'ness Management: An Entrepreneuvial Approach, PI-entice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 752. Schumpeter, J. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper, New York, NY, p. 381. Snow, C. and Hambrick, D. (1980), "Measuring organizational strategies: Some theoretical and methodological problems", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 527-38. Stock, G.N., Noel, N.P. and Fischer, W.A. (1996), ''Film size and technological innovation in the computer modem industry", Academy of Management Boceedings, Vol. 56, pp. 383-7. Thomas, R. (1995), New Product Success Stories: Lessons fiom Leading Innovators, Wiley, New York, NY, p. 352. US Department of Commerce (2003), State of tlze Nation, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, available at: www.stat-usa.gov/econtest.nsf (accessed March 15, 2003).

Innovation in large versus small companies 849

MD 43,6

850

Utterback, J.M. (1994), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can S&e Qbportunities in the Face of Technological CImnge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, p. 253. Vlosky, R.P., Westbrook, T. and Kofi, P. (2002), "Anexploratory study of internet adoption by primary wood pi-oducts manufacturers in the Western United States", Forest Products Joumal, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 35-43. Wagner, E.R. and Hansen, E.N. (2002), "Methodology for evaluating green advertising of forest products in the United States: a content analysis", Forest Products Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 17-23. West, C.D. and Sinclair, S.A. (1992), "A measure of innovativeness for a sample of firms in the wood household furniture industryn,Forest Science, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 509-24. Winer, R.S. (1999),Marketilzg Ma~zagement,Prentice-Hall,Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 551. Yip, G.S. (1995), Total Global Strategy: Managing for Worldwide Competitive Advantage, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli£fs, NJ, p. 318.

Further reading Crow 's Forest Induspy Journal (2002), Vol. 57, JanuaryRebruary.