Mariano Corso

Continuous improvement and inter-project learning in new product development

In an age of discontinuity, one of the few sources of sustainable competitive advantage remains in the ability of companies to innovate their products effectively. As innovative processes for products become more frequent and strategically relevant, long-term competitiveness compels firms to exploit synergy and learning among projects. In fact, mastering the overall process of knowledge creation, dissemination and application is the basis for creating and continuously improving a capability in product development. Learning through sequences of unique innovations, however, is neither simple nor natural, but requires adequate enabling mechanisms. This paper proposes an interpretative model of learning in product innovation. The objective is to identify the barriers that inhibit learning and the main enabling mechanisms to overcome them. The application of these mechanisms and their effects on a firms performance are discussed on the basis of the results of research involving nineteen case studies of Italian and Swedish companies.

From continuous improvement to collaborative innovation: the next challenge in supply chain management

This paper considers the growing importance of inter-company collaboration, and develops the concept of intra-company continuous improvement through to what may be termed collaborative innovation between members of an extended manufacturing enterprise (EME). The importance of ICTs to such company networks is considered but research has shown that no amount of technology can overcome a lack of trust and ineffective goal setting between key partners involved in the cross-company projects. Different governance models may also impact on the success or otherwise of the network. This paper provides an overview of the main topics considered in this Special Issue.

Knowledge management configurations in Italian small‐to‐medium enterprises

To survive in the global economy small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have to improve their products and processes exploiting their intellectual capital in a dynamic network of knowledge‐intensive relations inside and outside their borders. By erasing traditional constraints to SMEs innovation ability and leveraging their flexibility and responsiveness, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) provide SMEs with opportunities for Knowledge Management (KM) today in most cases largely unexploited. Focusing on the area of Product Innovation (PI) and drawing evidence from the analysis of a multiple‐case study on 47 Italian SMEs, patterns in the adoption and use of new ICT tools are explained in relation both to Contingencies and to KM internal processes. Complexity at both product and system levels, emerges as a key factor driving technological choices. Three different KM configurations emerge in relation to ICT approaches. Implications of this study are relevant for both SMEs managers and ICT developers/vendors.

Continuous and Discontinuous Innovation: Overcoming the Innovator Dilemma

Challenged by competition pressures and unprecedented pace of change, firms can no longer choose whether to concentrate on the needs of todays customers or on the anticipation of those of tomorrow: they must be excellent in both. This requires managing two related balancing acts: on the one side, being excellent in both exploitation and exploration of their capabilities and, on the other side, being excellent in managing both incremental and radical innovation. These balances are critical since exploitation and exploration, on the one side, and incremental and radical innovation, on the other, require different approaches that have traditionally been considered difficult to combine within the same organization. Working on evidence and discussion from the 7th CINet Conference held in Lucca (Italy) in 2006, this Special Section is aimed at contributing to theory and practice on these two complex balancing acts that today represent a hot issue in innovation management.

From product development to Continuous Product Innovation: mapping the routes of corporate knowledge

Product innovation has long been considered as the outcome of New Product Development (NPD) projects, that is, efforts isolated in time and space and performed by a subsystem of the overall organisation. This paper aims to enlarge on this perspective by looking at product innovation as a continuous process of knowledge creation, embodiment and transfer that occurs with the contribution of a large part of the organisation and is extended to all phases of the product life cycle. NPD projects are only one, yet an extremely important phase of this process, which we will refer to as Continuous Product Innovation (CPI). Contributions of all the other downstream phases to innovation can be relevant and are not limited to providing feedback on experience collected for future application. All phases of CPI can be actual opportunities to innovate the product applying knowledge from different sources inside and outside the organisation. On the basis of evidence from 12 explorative studies, this paper will discuss how a sustainable competitive advantage can be gained through careful management of this continuous and cross-functional process of knowledge creation, transfer and integration inside and outside the organisational boundaries of a firm. A supportive model is proposed to help companies to assess their own ability and to share experience concerning knowledge management in Product Innovation.

How management can foster continuous product innovation

Competition is today forcing companies to increase their effectiveness exploiting synergy and learning in product innovation. Most literature, however, is still mainly focused on how product development projects, seen as isolated efforts, are organised and managed. Basing on preliminary results from the Euro‐Australian co‐operation project CIMA (Euro‐Australian co‐operation centre for Continuous Improvement and innovation MAnagement), this paper proposes a model to explain how companies can gain a substantial competitive advantage by facilitating knowledge generation and transfer during the overall product life‐cycle

Tools and abilities for continuous improvement: what are the drivers of performance?

This article reports findings of the Italian part of the 2nd International Continuous Improvement (CI) survey, where 440 firms were randomly contacted and 60 responses received (response rate of 13.6%). Three research questions are investigated in this article: the CI tools and enablers adopted in Italy (RQ1); the state of the improvement activities and their evolution (RQ2); and finally, the relations between CI tools, ability development and performance (RQ3).

Collaborative improvement in the extended manufacturing enterprise: lessons from an action research process

Continuous improvement (CI) has been developed so far mainly within single companies, but today competition is moving to the level of extended manufacturing enterprises (EMEs). This paper proposes a model of collaborative improvement (CoI), i.e. CI at the EME level, developed and tested through an action research process in the aerospace industry in Italy. CoI is described in terms of organization—partially derived from consolidated CI concepts—and process—a cyclical sequence of phases, derived from the PDCA (plan, do, check, act) cycle of CI. Similarities and differences with CI are discussed, in the light of the successful implementation in a real case. CoI, in particular during its first implementation, is more likely to be structured and directive instead of emergent and spontaneous. A project structure is needed, at least at the beginning, and specific attention should be devoted to the alignment of the goals of the various companies involved. The EME dimension of CoI allows one to exploit the experience of all the companies of the learning network, disclosing a higher potential for improvement compared to CI.

Continuous Learning in Global Product Development: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

The paper develops a framework for the analysis of inter-project learning in different cultures, applies the framework to a comparative case study within one multinational company, and presents preliminary results about cultural differences in learning patterns. The results indicate that the designers in the Italian unit, representing a multi-active culture, enthusiastically use meetings for the transfer of explicit knowledge between R&D projects. In the Finnish unit, on the contrary, the designers prefer face-to-face discussion and transfer of tacit as well as codified knowledge, which is typical of a reactive culture. First results from the replication of the study in a German unit reveal that this unit prefers more structured forms of communication between projects, which fits its linear-active culture. This communication style is also observed in the Swedish centre organisation, representing a linear-active culture. At the end of this paper, some implications of cultural differences for learning strategies and reward systems in global R&D project management are discussed, and directions for future research are presented.

Continuous Product Innovation: a comparison of key elements across different contingency sets

This paper discusses results from an international study of continuous improvement in product innovation. The empirical research is based upon a theoretical model of continuous product innovation (CPI) that identifies contingencies, behaviours, levers and performances relevant to improving product innovation processes. As successful knowledge management is widely recognised as a key capability for firms to successfully develop CPI, companies have been classified according to identified contingencies and the impact of these contingencies on key knowledge management criteria. Comparative analysis of the identified groups of companies has demonstrated important differences between the learning behaviours found present in the two groups thus identified, and in the levers used to develop and support these behaviours. The selection of performance measures by the two groups has highlighted further significant differences in the way the two groups understand and measure their CPI processes. Finally, the paper includes a discussion of appropriate mechanisms for firms with similar contingency sets to improve their approaches to organisational learning and product innovation.