Showing papers by "Stefan Stremersch published in 2018"

The what, who and how of innovation generation

Abstract: The majority of companies agree that innovation is one of their top priorities. However, there is much disagreement about what innovation exactly entails, who carries the responsibility for innovation, and how the process of creating innovation is structured. The “what” of innovation has shifted from a focus on process and product innovation to a focus on service and business model innovation. Companies such as Tesla, Nespresso and Netflix have revolutionized industries with their disruptive business models. The “who” issue for many companies has shifted from a pure top-down model to a more open and bottom-up approach. Incumbents such as P&G and IBM have embraced new sources of innovation and have welcomed customers to their ideation process. Others, such as Michelin and Merck, have leveraged the immense potential of their employee base through grassroots innovation. Finally, the “how” of innovation concerns the various processes of creating innovation, which range from structured stage-gates to leaner ones. Startups such as LinkedIn and Dropbox have fully embraced the lean mentality, decreasing the time to develop the product by involving customers in the early development stages. In this chapter, we provide researchers and managers with a comprehensive review of the innovation generation process. We shed light on the different facets of the process by discussing case examples from a wide variety of industries and by drawing insights from both startups and multinationals. This chapter helps managers better understand what it takes to innovate and provides an overview of the tools at their disposal. This chapter is organized as follows. In Section 3.2, we discuss four types of innovation (what) and how companies can combine them to achieve success. We complement this discussion with a classification of innovation based on the differences in risk and time horizon. We thus set the stage by reviewing avenues companies can pursue in their innovation agenda. This is followed by a discussion of who then takes responsibility for innovation. Hence, in Section 3.3, we review five methodologies for innovation (who) and the transition from a closed to a more open model of innovation generation. In Section 3.4, we explore five innovation processes (how) and disentangle their advantages and disadvantages. Figure 3.1 provides an overview of the components of the innovation generation process that this chapter explores.

Academic Research in Marketing and Business School Health: Limiters and Improvement Opportunities

Abstract: Academic research in marketing is of key importance to the health of business schools. However, there has been considerable debate in recent years whether academic research in marketing, and business in general, delivers enough on this promise. Our goal is to add a coherent and novel faculty management perspective to this debate. We identify three limiters in the faculty management system that restrict the impact academic research in marketing may have on business school health: (1) the imperfect metrics used to evaluate marketing academics that focus primarily on quantity, (2) the weak professional alignment between marketing academics and professionals relevant to marketing, and (3) the incentives for marketing academics that have started to emphasize extrinsic rewards such as bonuses for publications. In response to these limiters, we offer three improvements for increasing the impact marketing can have on business school health. These include: (1) supplementing the quantitative metrics with a qualitative assessment of the work, (2) socializing marketing academics into the practice of marketing, and (3) strengthening intrinsic rewards and reducing extrinsic rewards.

Academic Research in Marketing and Business School Health: Limiters and Improvement Opportunities

Abstract: textAcademic research in marketing is of key importance to the health of business schools. However, there has been considerable debate in recent years whether academic research in marketing, and business in general, delivers enough on this promise. Our goal is to add a coherent and novel faculty management perspective to this debate. We identify three limiters in the faculty management system that restrict the impact academic research in marketing may have on business school health: (1) the imperfect metrics used to evaluate marketing academics that focus primarily on quantity, (2) the weak professional alignment between marketing academics and professionals relevant to marketing, and (3) the incentives for marketing academics that have started to emphasize extrinsic rewards such as bonuses for publications. In response to these limiters, we offer three improvements for increasing the impact marketing can have on business school health. These include: (1) supplementing the quantitative metrics with a qualitative assessment of the work, (2) socializing marketing academics into the practice of marketing, and (3) strengthening intrinsic rewards and reducing extrinsic rewards.

Academic Research in Marketing and Business School Health

Abstract: Academic research in marketing is of key importance to the health of business schools. However, there has been considerable debate in recent years whether academic research in marketing, and business in general, delivers enough on this promise. Our goal is to add a coherent and novel faculty management perspective to this debate. We identify three limiters in the faculty management system that restrict the impact academic research in marketing may have on business school health: (1) the imperfect metrics used to evaluate marketing academics that focus primarily on quantity, (2) the weak professional alignment between marketing academics and professionals relevant to marketing, and (3) the incentives for marketing academics that have started to emphasize extrinsic rewards such as bonuses for publications. In response to these limiters, we offer three improvements for increasing the impact marketing can have on business school health. These include: (1) supplementing the quantitative metrics with a qualitative assessment of the work, (2) socializing marketing academics into the practice of marketing, and (3) strengthening intrinsic rewards and reducing extrinsic rewards.