exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (npd)...

21
Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study Gabriele Colombo 1 , Claudio Dell’Era 2 and Federico Frattini 3 1 Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Piazza L. da Vinci, 32-20133 Milano, Italy. [email protected] 2 Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Piazza L. da Vinci, 32-20133 Milano, Italy. [email protected] 3 Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Piazza L. da Vinci, 32-20133 Milano, Italy. [email protected] In the ‘knowledge economy’upheld by the European Lisbon strategy, knowledge-intensive services are considered a key driver for innovation and competitiveness. A category of knowledge-intensive services that has become of utmost importance in the last few decades is new product development (NPD) services, which interconnect distant knowledge domains with the client firms. In addition to NPD service providers, web-based innovation inter- mediaries have started to help innovative firms access dispersed bodies of knowledge. Despite the heterogeneity of their characteristics, however, a clear typology of the strategies used by traditional NPD service providers and web-based intermediaries to interact with their knowledge sources and with their clients is missing. This typology would be very useful for those firms that are willing to collaborate with innovation intermediaries because it could highlight the typologies of NPD problems different intermediaries are apt to address and the managerial challenges that working with them entails. Developing such a classifi- cation framework is the main goal of this paper. The typology proposed in this paper suggests that innovation intermediaries should be distinguished based on the following: (1) the way they access their distributed knowledge sources and (2) the way they deliver value to their clients. By combining these two dimensions, four categories of innovation intermediaries are identified, which are named brokers, media- tors, collectors and connectors. A multiple case study analysis involving four innovation inter- mediaries and 12 of their clients is presented in the paper. The analysis provides exploratory insights into (1) the typologies of NPD problems that each class of intermediaries addresses and (2) the managerial challenges that working with each of them entails. These preliminary findings call for further theoretical and empirical research into the complex interaction among innovation intermediaries, their dispersed sources of knowledge and their clients. © 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1

Upload: federico

Post on 27-Jan-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

Exploring the contribution ofinnovation intermediaries to thenew product development (NPD)process: a typology and anempirical study

Gabriele Colombo1, Claudio Dell’Era2 andFederico Frattini3

1Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Piazza L.da Vinci, 32-20133 Milano, Italy. [email protected] di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, PiazzaL. da Vinci, 32-20133 Milano, Italy. [email protected] di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Piazza L.da Vinci, 32-20133 Milano, Italy. [email protected]

In the ‘knowledge economy’ upheld by the European Lisbon strategy, knowledge-intensiveservices are considered a key driver for innovation and competitiveness. A category ofknowledge-intensive services that has become of utmost importance in the last few decadesis new product development (NPD) services, which interconnect distant knowledge domainswith the client firms. In addition to NPD service providers, web-based innovation inter-mediaries have started to help innovative firms access dispersed bodies of knowledge.Despite the heterogeneity of their characteristics, however, a clear typology of the strategiesused by traditional NPD service providers and web-based intermediaries to interact withtheir knowledge sources and with their clients is missing. This typology would be very usefulfor those firms that are willing to collaborate with innovation intermediaries because itcould highlight the typologies of NPD problems different intermediaries are apt to addressand the managerial challenges that working with them entails. Developing such a classifi-cation framework is the main goal of this paper.The typology proposed in this paper suggests that innovation intermediaries should bedistinguished based on the following: (1) the way they access their distributed knowledgesources and (2) the way they deliver value to their clients. By combining these two dimensions,four categories of innovation intermediaries are identified, which are named brokers, media-tors, collectors and connectors. A multiple case study analysis involving four innovation inter-mediaries and 12 of their clients is presented in the paper. The analysis provides exploratoryinsights into (1) the typologies of NPD problems that each class of intermediaries addressesand (2) the managerial challenges that working with each of them entails. These preliminaryfindings call for further theoretical and empirical research into the complex interactionamong innovation intermediaries, their dispersed sources of knowledge and their clients.

bs_bs_banner

© 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1

Page 2: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

1. Introduction

In the ‘knowledge economy’ upheld by the Euro-pean Lisbon strategy, knowledge-intensive ser-

vices are considered a key driver for innovationand competitiveness (NSF, 2010). A category ofknowledge-intensive services that has become ofutmost importance in the last few decades is newproduct development (NPD) services. NPD serviceproviders span multiple markets and technologydomains and support their clients’NPD process with abroad array of knowledge-intensive services, such astechnology and market scouting, concept generationand design, engineering and testing (Czarnitzki andSpielkamp, 2000). Because innovation is increasinglythe result of novel associations among pieces of pre-viously unrelated knowledge (Schumpeter, 1934;Kodama, 1992), NPD service providers spur innova-tion by connecting knowledge domains that are other-wise disconnected (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997;Hargadon, 1998).

NPD service providers adopt different intermedi-ary strategies for connecting unrelated knowledgedomains with their clients (Obstfeld, 2005; Tranet al., 2011). For instance, IDEO, one of the mostwell-known NPD service providers, uses its networkposition to acquire and recombine knowledge fromdisconnected domains and then offers a ‘turn-key’solution to its clients (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997).In contrast, Presans, a French NPD service providerwhose mission is to create a linkage between busi-ness and expertise, has developed X-Search, atool allowing automatic competence and expertisemapping (e.g., from scientific publications, patentsand corporate websites). Through this means,Presans helps its clients identify and establish rela-tionships with experts who have different educationaland professional backgrounds.

More recently, a new class of NPD service provid-ers has emerged that takes advantage of the increas-ing pervasiveness of Web 2.0 technologies. Theseso-called web-based intermediaries (Colombo et al.,2013) offer their clients the opportunity to access theexpertise and creativity of large communities of firmsand, above all, of individuals active in heterogeneousand geographically distant fields (Jeppesen andLakhani, 2010; Boudreau et al., 2011). For instance,IDEO expanded its business model in 2010 bylaunching OpenIDEO, an online community wherepeople are encouraged to create solutions to someof the world’s toughest innovation challenges.Community members can contribute in a variety ofways, e.g., by submitting inspirational observations,photos, ideas, business models and snippets ofcode.

It is clear that firms today are exposed to a broadand heterogeneous range of innovation intermedi-aries1 with which they can collaborate along the NPDprocess in an attempt to improve their product inno-vation performance. Nevertheless, there is a lack ofunderstanding of (1) the strategies that different cat-egories of intermediaries use when they interact withtheir knowledge sources and with their clients and (2)the classes of NPD problems they address and thechallenges client firms have to overcome when inter-acting with the service provider (Verona et al., 2006).This understanding would be very important forthose firms that wish to extract the maximum valuefrom their collaboration with an innovation inter-mediary and to design effective policies that fosterthe contribution of innovation intermediaries toindustrial innovation.

The first objective of this paper is to take a steptoward filling these gaps by developing a typology ofthe strategies innovation intermediaries adopt whenthey interact with their knowledge sources and withtheir clients. Second, this study aims to provide apreliminary understanding of (1) the contributionsdifferent classes of innovation intermediaries maketo the NPD process of their clients by focusing on thecategories of NPD problems they are able to addressand (2) the capabilities firms deploy when theycollaborate with intermediaries adopting differentintermediary strategies. To pursue these goals, anexploratory multiple case study involving four inno-vation intermediaries (i.e., Continuum, MaterialConneXion, Aedo-to and TakeACoder) and 12 oftheir clients is presented after the development of thetypology.

In order to achieve the above-mentioned researchobjectives, we have organized the paper as follows.The next section briefly reviews the relevant litera-ture. Afterward, the theoretical framework and theresearch methodology adopted in the empiricalanalysis are illustrated. The fifth section presentsand discusses the results of the empirical analysis.Finally, conclusions are drawn, and avenues forfuture research are outlined.

2. Literature review

2.1. NPD service providers

According to Howells (2006), innovation intermedi-aries can be defined as agents or brokers ‘helping toprovide information about potential collaborators;brokering a transaction between two or more parties;acting as a mediator, or go-between, bodies ororganizations that are already collaborating; and

Gabriele Colombo, Claudio Dell’Era and Federico Frattini

2 R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 © 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Page 3: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

helping find advice, funding and support for the inno-vation outcomes of such collaborations’ (Howells,2006, p. 720). The role of intermediaries in the inno-vation process has been studied from different per-spectives in various research fields (Howells, 2006):(1) technology transfer and diffusion (Seaton andCordey-Hayes, 1993); (2) innovation management(Hargadon and Sutton, 1997; McEvily and Zaheer,1999); (3) systems and networks (Stankiewicz, 1995;Lynn et al., 1996); and (4) service organizations, par-ticularly knowledge-intensive business services, orKIBS (O’Farrell and Wood, 1999; Miles, 2000;Chiesa et al., 2007; Abecassis-Moedas et al., 2012).

Specifically, innovation management scholarshave paid attention to the brokering role played byinnovation intermediaries. NPD service providers aredefined as ‘organizations that span multiple marketsand technology domains and innovate by brokeringknowledge from where it is known to where it is not’(Hargadon, 1998, p. 2). They exploit their uniquemarket position by acquiring knowledge from differ-ent domains, recombining it and delivering it in theform of a solution to firms’ innovation problems(Hargadon, 1998; Hargadon and Sutton, 2000).

Prior research shows that NPD service providerscan adopt very different strategies when they interactwith their sources of knowledge (Chiaroni et al.,2008). For instance, Hargadon and Sutton (2000)highlight the brokering role performed by NPDservice providers, while Obstfeld (2005) suggeststhat such intermediaries play a bridging functionby introducing or facilitating interactions betweenparties that would otherwise be disconnected. More-over, some studies have explored the different waysthrough which NPD service providers create valuefor their clients, from increasing product develop-ment speed to offering new and enhanced productattributes (Tran et al., 2011). Similarly, Gassmannet al. (2011) identify three mechanisms throughwhich NPD service providers add value to theirclients in cross-industry innovation processes, whichare called innovation broadener, leverager, andmultiplier.

According to the best knowledge of the authors,however, no systematic effort has been made topropose a typology of the different strategies NPDservice providers adopt when they interact with theirsources of knowledge and with their clients and todiscuss the implications of each strategy for the inter-action between the intermediary and its clients.

2.2. Web-based intermediaries

In the last few years, a new category of innovationintermediaries has emerged that leverages the

increased pervasiveness of 2.0 web technologies.These are called web-based intermediaries (Colomboet al., 2013), and their mission is to offer their clientsthe opportunity to access the power and creativity oflarge communities of individuals, known as solvers,with educational and professional experience in dif-ferent geographical and disciplinary areas. Severalstudies have shown that these intermediaries can bemore effective than traditional NPD service provid-ers because of their superior ability in leveragingtheir network position (Verona et al., 2006).

Because of the growing presence of web-basedintermediaries, scholars have started to investigatewhich factors affect their ability to support innova-tion. Among others, Terwiesch and Xu (2008) showthat increasing the number of solvers benefits inno-vation by broadening the search for solutions, there-fore increasing the ability of the intermediary toaccess different knowledge domains. Boudreau et al.(2011) find similar results when analyzing a sampleof 645 innovation problems posted on Topcoder,while Jeppesen and Lakhani (2010) explain that thesuccess of such intermediaries lies in their ability toattract specialized solvers with a range of diversescientific interests.

Similarly to NPD service providers, research hasdocumented the existence of different strategiesused by web-based intermediaries to access dis-persed knowledge and transfer it to their clients(Chesbrough, 2006; Huston and Sakkab, 2006;Verona et al., 2006; Pisano and Verganti, 2008;Colombo et al., 2013). Despite the importance ofthe topic, however, a typology of these strategies islacking (Verona et al., 2006). Moreover, there is noattempt in the literature to provide an integrative andcomparative view of the approaches adopted by tra-ditional NPD service providers vis-à-vis web-basedinnovation intermediaries, even though firms con-fronted with an innovation problem and that arewilling to collaborate with an intermediary have twooptions from which to choose, namely, relying on amore traditional NPD service provider or engagingin a collaboration with a web-based intermediary.Therefore, having an understanding of the categoriesof innovation problems, each type of intermediary isable to address, and the capabilities firms have todeploy to improve the chances of the collaboration’ssuccess is an important aspect for R&D and innova-tion managers today.

3. Theoretical framework

According to Hargadon and Sutton (1997), the com-petitive advantage of an innovation intermediary

Contribution of innovation intermediaries to NPD process

© 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 3

Page 4: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

depends ‘on both its network position as a brokerand on an organizational memory that allows it toacquire, retain, and retrieve new combinations ofinformation obtained through such a position’.(Hargadon and Sutton, 1997, p. 717). This suggeststhat innovation intermediaries use and offer to theirclients two different types of knowledge: (1) know-who, which refers to knowledge about who knowswhat and is a result of their network position(Lundvall and Johnson, 1994) and (2) know-how,which refers to knowledge regarding the perfor-mance of an action and is related to the ability of aninnovation intermediary to access and recombine dif-ferent sources of knowledge to propose a solution toa specific problem (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994;Hargadon and Sutton, 1997). Know-how and know-who represent two forms of tacit knowledge, asdefined by Polanyi (1966), because they are rooted inpractical experience and in social interactions and,therefore, can be transferred only through close rela-tionships with the recipients of this knowledge(Lundvall and Johnson, 1994).

Due to the challenges sharing tacit knowledgeentails, research has given particular attention to theprocesses innovation intermediaries adopt to transfersuch knowledge to their clients (Hargadon andSutton, 1997, 2000; Verona et al., 2006; Jeppesenand Lakhani, 2010). In particular, research suggeststhat the transfer process can be divided into two mainsteps: (1) access to and acquisition of dispersedknowledge and (2) absorption, implementation anddelivery of this knowledge. In the remainder of thepaper, we label these two dimensions of the inter-mediary process access and delivery. Access capturesdifferences in how innovation intermediaries interactwith their network of knowledge sources, whereasdelivery considers heterogeneity in how innovationintermediaries interact with their clients to bringknowledge to them.

Following this line of reasoning, it can be arguedthat innovation intermediaries can use the two typesof knowledge (know-who and know-how) along boththe access and delivery steps of the intermediaryprocess. This understanding sets the foundation forour typology:

• Concerning the access dimension, know-who andknow-how can be interpreted respectively assources and proposals accessed by the innovationintermediary. Indeed, the literature indicates thatsome innovation intermediaries actively search forthe most appropriate knowledge sources (know-who) based on their clients’ needs (Hargadon andSutton, 1997). These intermediaries know exactlywho has the right pieces of knowledge required to

address their client’s innovation problem. In con-trast, other innovation intermediaries, especiallythose operating on the web, simply ask their entirecommunity of solvers to submit proposals or solu-tions for a specific problem addressed by theirclients (Jeppesen and Lakhani, 2010; Boudreauet al., 2011). They do not know exactly who hasthe right competencies to address a specificproblem, but they have the capability to identifyand access the right pieces of knowledge (know-how). Of course, they are capable to solicit propo-sals developed by a very large network of expertsthat operate in different knowledge domains.

• Concerning the delivery dimension, know-who andknow-how can be interpreted respectively as con-tacts and solutions delivered by the innovationintermediary. Research shows that some innova-tion intermediaries create a link between theknowledge sources and their clients, facilitatingthe cooperation (Burt, 2004; Obstfeld, 2005; Singhand Fleming, 2010) and delivering to their clientsthe contacts (know-who) that help them to estab-lish a relationship with the most appropriatesources of knowledge. Instead, other innovationintermediaries provide their clients with a practical‘turn-key’ solution (know-how) to their needs(Hargadon and Sutton, 1997, 2000; Hargadon,1998; Jeppesen and Lakhani, 2010).

By combining these insights, it is possible to iden-tify four classes of innovation intermediaries (seeFigure 1).

Collectors are those intermediaries that, startingfrom the need of their clients, access their network of

Proposals

Sources

Solutions Contacts

CONNECTORCOLLECTOR

MEDIATORBROKER

Access

Delivery

Figure 1. Typology of innovation intermediaries.

Gabriele Colombo, Claudio Dell’Era and Federico Frattini

4 R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 © 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Page 5: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

potential solvers soliciting proposals. They encour-age their network of solvers to deliver solutions thatare needed by their clients. Collectors transfer thesesolutions to their clients, who can select the bestsolution based on their idiosyncratic needs. Brokersare similar to collectors in that they provide theirclients with solutions that are ready to be used in theirinnovation process. However, they do not solicitideas and suggestions from their network of knowl-edge sources but selectively access the sources ofknowledge that are deemed most appropriate. Media-tors are those intermediaries that, starting from anunderstanding of their clients’ needs, identify whichsources of knowledge within their broad networkare more appropriate and establish a relationshipbetween them and their clients. They provide there-fore to their clients the appropriate contacts toaddress their innovation needs. Finally, connectorsaccess their network of solvers and ask to proposethemselves as a potential partner to collaborationwith the clients. After having received all the appli-cations from the solvers, connectors disclose them tothe client that can choose the contact of the solverthat is more appropriate in light of its specific need.

Starting from this typology, the analysis presentedin the remainder of the paper provides exploratoryevidence regarding the following: (1) what innova-tion problems each category of innovation intermedi-aries depicted in Figure 1 is used to address and (2)what capabilities firms have to deploy when theycollaborate with innovation intermediaries belongingto each class reported in Figure 1. The core theoreti-cal framework informing the empirical study is sum-marized in Figure 2.

Concerning the capabilities firms need to bene-fit from collaboration with different categories ofinnovation intermediaries, our analysis draws fromresearch on the concept of absorptive capacity(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990), according to which a

firm’s ability to absorb external knowledge (e.g., pro-vided by an innovation intermediary) depends on itslevel of absorptive capacity, which should be con-ceived as a set of organizational capabilities concern-ing the acquisition and assimilation of externalknowledge and its transformation into new products,services and processes (Kogut and Zander, 1992;Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). This set of capabilitieshas also been labeled as combinative capabilities(Kogut and Zander, 1992), and can be classified as(1) coordination capabilities, (2) systems capabilitiesand (3) socialization capabilities. Coordination capa-bilities are those that ‘enhance knowledge absorptionthrough relations between members of a group’ (Vanden Bosch et al., 1999, p. 556). These capabilitiesrefer to specific organizational mechanisms, such ascross-functional interfaces, participation in decisionmaking and job rotation, which favor knowledgesharing and absorption within an organization(Henderson and Cockburn, 1994; Van den Boschet al., 1999). System capabilities allow firms to‘program behaviors in advance of their execution andprovide a memory for handling routine situations’(Jansen et al., 2005, p. 1002). They enable firms todevelop organizational routines that lower the effortspent on decision making by providing an efficientstructure for collective action (Cohen and Bacdayan,1994). System capabilities also improve a firm’sability to efficiently tackle unexpected situations thatmight surface during collaboration with innovationintermediaries, thus streamlining the assimilationand use of external knowledge. Finally, socializationcapabilities ‘create broad, tacitly understood rules forappropriate action’ (Jansen et al., 2005, p. 1003) andcontribute to establish shared values and dominantcodes of communications. This benefit favors com-munication among people with different educatio-nal backgrounds and professional experience andtherefore eases the interaction with providers ofknowledge coming from different educational andgeographical backgrounds (Fisher, 1986; Chao et al.,1994). The importance of looking at the capabilitiesfirms have to deploy to extract the maximum valuefrom collaboration with innovation intermediariesis due to the tacit nature of the knowledge theyexchange with their clients, which requires particularmanagerial attention to be properly transferred andassimilated (Bianchi et al., 2011). Moreover, theliterature on organizational integration in NPDprocesses (e.g., Souder et al., 1998; Millson andWilemon, 2002) points to the importance of coopera-tion and communication between different functions(e.g. R&D, marketing and operations) and with exter-nal organizations participating in the NPD processfor the successful completion of the innovation

Category of innovationintermediary, i.e., collector, connector, broker, mediator

Type of NPD problemsaddressed by each category

of intermediary

Capabilities required to collaborate with each

category of intermediary

Figure 2. The core theoretical framework.

Contribution of innovation intermediaries to NPD process

© 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 5

Page 6: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

process. Capabilities that ease the interactive natureof this process are therefore of particular importanceduring collaboration with innovation intermediaries.The empirical analysis reported in the remainder ofthe paper will suggest that each of the capabilitiespresented above becomes especially critical when afirm collaborates with a particular category of inno-vation intermediaries.

4. Methodology

We used a multiple case study methodology for ourempirical analysis (Yin, 1984). We believe thisapproach is well suited to the exploratory nature ofour investigation because it allows an exploration ofthe phenomenon of interest, i.e., the interactionamong different categories of innovation intermedi-aries and their clients in its whole complexity(Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Our case studieshave an exploratory intent and are retrospective innature (Yin, 1984). We studied four innovation inter-mediaries that adopt different intermediary strat-egies, and we collected information from 12 of theirclients. In particular, we theoretically sampled fourcases of intermediaries that are heterogeneously dis-tributed along the access and delivery dimensionsof the typology presented above (Figure 1). This‘polar types’ theoretical sampling (Eisenhardt andGraebner, 2007) enables us to study the phenomenonof interest under particularly insightful circum-stances and to more easily unearth relationshipsbetween the type of innovation intermediary and theway in which the interaction with client firms takesplace.

We relied on a panel of 10 experts to sample thecases. The panel included four professors working atPolitecnico di Milano in the Department of Manage-ment, Economics and Industrial Engineering and inthe Department of Industrial Design; four managersfrom international manufacturing firms with respon-sibilities for collaborative R&D projects; and twomanagers from design agencies involved in thesupply of knowledge-intensive services. Each expertwas asked to indicate four innovation intermediariesthey were knowledgeable about, resulting in a list of28 intermediaries. The list was sent back to theexperts, with the request to classify each of them inone of the four quadrants of our typology (Figure 1).At least one of the authors contacted each expert toexplain our framework and the criteria used to clas-sify the intermediaries. All the experts agreed on theposition of 23 intermediaries within our typology. Westarted from this list of 23 intermediaries and selectedonly those with a focused and easily observable strat-

egy (Eisenhardt, 1989), as they offered a core andidentifiable service that was not bundled with addi-tional open innovation or consultancy activities. Wepaid special attention to building a balanced sampleof cases along the four quadrants of our typology toallow for insightful cross-case comparisons. Thisstep led us to a list of 16 intermediaries. Finally, weselected those intermediaries where direct interviewscould be conducted in the native language of theauthors to ease data collection and analysis. Ulti-mately, we restricted our analysis to the four inter-mediaries reported in Table 1. The remaining 12cases that were not studied through direct interviewsare reported in Appendix A, with synthetic informa-tion gathered from secondary data sources.

Regarding data collection, for each innovationintermediary reported in Table 1, at least two inter-views with founders and senior managers were con-ducted to collect empirical evidence concerning howthe intermediary interacts with its sources of knowl-edge and clients (to corroborate the position in ourtypology) and, most importantly, to understandwhich types of NPD problems it helps clients toaddress. Appendix B reports the protocol used tosupport these interviews and to enhance the reliabil-ity of the study (Yin, 1984). During the interviewswith founders and senior managers, we identifiedthree NPD projects for each intermediary thatwere representative of its intermediary activity (seeTable 2 for a brief description of the 12 projectsidentified).

We contacted the client firms involved in theseprojects and interviewed at least two informants foreach of them (typically, the project leader and asenior manager). During this second round of inter-views, we corroborated the findings that emergedfrom the interviews with the intermediaries by col-lecting data about the type of NPD problems thatwere addressed during the collaboration. Comparingthe information collected from the intermediaries andfrom their clients was particularly helpful to increasethe validity of our research (Yin, 1984). Moreover,the second round of interviews allowed us to collectdata about the barriers the clients’ firms had to over-come to ensure smooth progress of the collaborationwith the innovation intermediary and the capabilitiesrequired to do so. The interview protocol in Appen-dix C reports the open-ended questions posed to theinformants from the client firms.

The interviews lasted between 1 hr and 2 hr, andthey were tape recorded and transcribed. In total, thedata set comprised over 27 hr of interviews and 140pages of transcripts. Information collected throughdirect interviews was triangulated using documentsprovided by the innovation intermediaries and their

Gabriele Colombo, Claudio Dell’Era and Federico Frattini

6 R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 © 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Page 7: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

Table 1. Case study overview

Intermediary Access Delivery

BROKER: Continuum[continuuminnovation.com]Continuum Innovation is a design and

innovation consultancy firm based in theUnited States, with other offices in Italy,Japan and China. The company’s coredisciplines include, for example, brandexperience, design strategy, organizationalinnovation and product innovation.Continuum was founded in 1983, and itcurrently employs approximately 180people, with an annual turnover of about 2million €. It has worked with clients inseveral industries: medical, consumer,computer, automotive, hospitality andfinancial services. Continuum has won 14IDSA/BusinessWeek International DesignExcellence Awards since 2003 and hasdeveloped more than 330 design and utilitypatents.

Access sourcesContinuum establishes collaborations with its

clients according to a standard sequence ofactivities. Specifically, the collaborationstarts with a kick-off meeting in which theclient exposes a rough brief of the project.After the kick-off meeting, the collaborationprocess goes through a very critical activitycalled Alignment and Learning. The aim ofthis phase is twofold. First, Continuumgathers and interprets, through severalface-to-face personal contacts with theclient’s managers; the client’s needs anddiagnoses its organizational culture(Alignment). Then, the characteristics of themarket where the client sells its products arethoroughly investigated by Continuum, withthe aim to identify useful insights for thedevelopment of the new product (Learning).

Delivery solutionsContinuum acts as a ‘knowledge broker’,

spanning multiple markets and technologydomains and innovating by brokeringknowledge from where it is known to whereit is not. The opportunity to collaborate withcompanies that operate in differentindustries allows Continuum to transfersolutions from one sector to another. Incollaborating with heterogeneous partners,Continuum not only increases itsrecombination possibilities but alsorecognizes opportunities ahead ofcompetitors. Collaboration withheterogeneous partners may lead toconstructive conflict, thereby increasingContinuum’s problem-solving capabilitiesand approaching new opportunities throughnew frameworks.

MEDIATOR: Material ConneXion[http://www.materialconnexion.com]Material ConneXion is a global materials

consultancy that innovates through smartmaterials thinking. Built on the belief thatEvery Idea has a Material Solution™, theyadvise Fortune 500 companies, smallerforward-thinking companies, andgovernment agencies seeking a creative orcompetitive edge through strategic materialselections. With offices in New York,Bangkok, Cologne, Daegu and Milan,Material ConneXion’s international networkof material specialists provides a global,cross-industry perspective on materials,sustainable alternatives, and their potentialuses. Material ConneXion helps companiesinnovate through smart materials thinking.

Access sourcesMaterial ConneXion’s Materials Library is the

largest library of advanced, innovative,sustainable materials and processes in theworld with over 5,000 materials. On-siteaccess allows clients to conduct research inthe physical archives. Online access givesthe user access to Material ConneXion’sonline database of innovative materials.Materials are chosen through a strict reviewprocess. Material ConneXion’s consultingservices help expand design opportunitiesfor a wide range of clients – from Fortune500 companies to progressive,forward-thinking companies that understandthe key to innovation lies with the rightmaterial choices.

Delivery contactsMaterial ConneXion aims to connect material

suppliers and manufacturing companies,providing value-added services. Theycontinuously collect and analyze informationabout new materials in order to provide thecurrent state-of-the-art in the materials field.Specifically, they support manufacturers inthe identification of materials suppliers thatcan enable their innovations. For example,in the case of GINA (concept car designedby Chris Bangle and presented by BMW in2008; GINA represents a visionary shape-shifting sports car made from polyurethane-coated Lycra stretched over a wirealuminum frame), Material ConneXionproposed an interesting selection ofextremely tear-proof and resistant textileswith interesting details about associatedmanufacturers.

COLLECTOR: Aedo-to[http://www.aedo-to.com]Aedo-to.com is a design community that

facilitates the interaction between industryand designers. Aedo-to gathers thecommunity of designers in the ‘internettime’, spreading information and know-howto the design world and the design-orientedmanufacturers. Aedo-to.com was born inJanuary 2001 as a creativity portal. Aedo-torelates with companies and designers. Theidea is simple: talented designers areeverywhere, and companies, to compete onthe market, have to develop new ideas.

Access proposalsEvery designer, from every country in the

world, can engage in this kind ofcompetition. The process is quite simple.Companies that have a design project todevelop, that is, the seeker, post a brief onAedo-to’s website. The brief describes indetail what the seeker wants and thecharacteristics of the project.

Delivery solutionsSolvers work separately on the project and

submit their solutions to the design problem.The seeker screens all the solutionssubmitted and chooses the best one. Thedeveloper of the winning solution isawarded with a monetary prize.

CONNECTOR: TakeACoder[http://www.takeacoder.com]TakeACoder is a platform that wants to change

the rules of business giving to enterprises,entrepreneurs and common people thechance to deliver their innovative ideas atthe top; leveraging the best of breed ofworldwide human skills and capabilities andstreamlining the actual process of delivery.TakeACoder intends to redesign thebusiness professional services market,giving to professionals a marketplace wherethey can sell their skills and knowledge toenterprises inside a framework thatmaximizes value for both.

Access proposalsOn TakeACoder firms, mainly SMEs, post a

short description, called a brief, of theproblem they want to solve. The solvers(anyone in the world can register as solverson TakeACoder) look at the description ofthe problems posted on the platform anddecide the ones they want to try to solve.

Delivery contactsThe solvers submit their bids to the problem’s

owner, that is, the seeker, describing theircompetences, their past experiences, thedelivery time and the amount of money theywant for working on the solution of theproblem. The seeker examines the bids andselects the best solver, that is, the solverwho will work on the brief. After theselection of the bid that best matches theseeker’s needs, the solver will start work.

Contribution of innovation intermediaries to NPD process

© 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 7

Page 8: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

clients (e.g., project reports, intermediate deliveries,contractual agreements between the intermediary andits clients) and publicly available sources (e.g., web-sites, press articles). Again, this served to increase theconstruct validity of the study (Yin, 1984).

The data analysis was mainly based on interviewtranscripts. Each case was analyzed by at least twoauthors, which further enhanced the construct valid-ity (Yin, 1984). Starting from the transcripts, a datamatrix was developed, as recommended by Miles and

Huberman (1994). The transcripts and the matrixwere analyzed iteratively and separately by theauthors. We looked for and found regularities acrosscases. The analysis of the across-case matrix servedto identify recurrent patterns in our data, allowing usto suggest the existence of significant differences inthe type of NPD problems solved by the intermediaryand the critical capabilities required to collaboratewith it, depending on the position of the intermediaryin our typology. These structured procedures for data

Table 2. Summary of the projects undertaken by the intermediaries with their clients

Intermediary Brief description of the projects

Continuum In 2004, Continuum collaborated with a leading Italian manufacturer in the shoe industry. In theearly 2000s, its market position worsened due to increased competition. To face this challenge, itcollaborated with Continuum to reinforce its technical credibility trough the commercialization ofan innovative shock absorption system for its tennis shoe line.

In 2006, Continuum collaborated with the worldwide market leader in the vendor machine industry.It was ahead of its competitors in terms of technical and innovation capabilities. It engagedContinuum to develop scenarios of what the vending machine of the future would be to maintainits leading market position.

In 2005, Continuum collaborated with one of the world’s leading international appliance companies.It started the collaboration with Continuum to make a synthesis of the results it has achieved aftera year of internal concept generation activities. It asked to develop an operating model, i.e., aprototype that looks and works like a new product, for a new household appliance.

MaterialConneXion

GINA is an unusual car concept from BMW that was first presented to the public in July 2008. Theidea for the car’s fabric was inspired by a collaboration with Material ConneXion in New York.The idea was inspired by an exhibition created by Material ConneXion in New York (Tensions inArchitecture). During the research process, Material ConneXion of New York proposed to BMWan interesting selection of extremely tear-proof and resistant textiles with associated manufacturers.

In April 2010, PUMA previewed a sustainable packaging and distribution system created byindustrial designer Yves Behar that will significantly reduce the amount of waste and CO2emissions compared with that generated by traditional product packaging, such as shoe-boxes andpolyethylene apparel bags. The bag is made of non-woven polyester consisting of polypropyleneand is recyclable. Material ConneXion advised on the material, fabrication methods andsustainability process.

When it developed the Uruku line of makeup, Aveda was compelled to create a cosmetic packagingmade entirely of recycled materials. To find the right solution, Aveda’s design consultant HarryAllen asked Material ConneXion for help sourcing a material that was visually appealing as wellas compatible with Aveda’s sustainability requirements and existing injection and compressionmolds.

Aedo-to Aedo-to.com collaborated with an Italian manufacturer leader in household accessories. Theintermediary launched a competition open to all women in the world with the aim to include newperspectives in its design process, as household accessories had always been designed by men.

In 2009, Aedo-to.com collaborated with a leading Japanese electronics company to design a newdigital audio player. Aedo-to.com was able to solicit numerous solutions from designers around theworld. Identifying the best idea was a long process due to the high number of solutions received.

Aedo-to.com collaborated with an important firm leader in the protective clothing industry. Theproject concerned the design of a new type of sun-glasses that can be worn under the crash helmet.Even in this case, the company benefitted from a large set of different designs.

Take a coder TakeACoder helped an Italian start-up identify a specialized programmer to develop two iPhoneapplications. The peculiarities of such applications are related to the use of the Newton meter andall other mobile spatial and motion sensors available on the iPhone to give a Wii-like experience.

TakeACoder connected an e-commerce company with the professor of a well-known business schoolto develop a three to five year business plan for the company.

TakeACoder collaborated with a company to develop a Project Management Service software similarto basecamp.com by connecting the company to different expert programmers.

Gabriele Colombo, Claudio Dell’Era and Federico Frattini

8 R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 © 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Page 9: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

analysis served to ensure the internal validity of ourstudy (Yin, 1984). Finally, follow-ups with the inter-viewed people were conducted to further increasethe validity of the research.

Figure 3 provides a synoptic view of how thedata analysis process and the interviews with thekey informants enabled us to build an exploratoryunderstanding of the key elements of our theoreticalframework.

It should be noted here that it is not possible tostatistically generalize results from an exploratorycase study analysis (Yin, 1984). Our aim is to makeanalytical and theoretical generalizations of the exist-ing body of knowledge regarding the strategiesthrough which NPD service providers and web-basedintermediaries’ access knowledge and deliver it totheir clients and, most importantly, the types of NPDproblems they address and the capabilities requiredof the client firm to interact with them. It is our intentthat these findings inform future theoretical andempirical studies regarding the interaction betweeninnovation intermediaries and their clients, but werecognize that they cannot be generalized to popula-tions of firms or markets.

5. Results and discussion

This section presents and discusses the results of ourmultiple case study analysis organized around the

four categories of innovation intermediaries identi-fied in the typology presented in Figure 1.

5.1. Broker

Brokers (see Figure 4) choose the most appropriatesources of knowledge to address the needs of theirclients based on a careful understanding of the latter(access sources), to acquire pieces of knowledgefrom these sources and to recombine them to providea ‘turn-key’ solution to their clients (delivery solu-tions). The broker strategy is usually adopted by tra-ditional NPD service providers such as Continuum,IDEO, Frog Design and Future Concept Lab (seeAppendix A).

Category of innovationintermediary, i.e., collector, connector, broker, mediator

Type of NPD problemsaddressed by each category

of intermediary

Capabilities required to collaborate with each

category of intermediary

Inteviews with intermediaries

Inteviews with clients of the

intermediaries

Within-case and cross-case

analysis

Figure 3. The core theoretical framework and the empirical analysis.

Sources of knowledge

BROKER

Client

Figure 4. Innovation intermediary – broker.

Contribution of innovation intermediaries to NPD process

© 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 9

Page 10: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

The distinctive characteristic of brokers is theirability to access and acquire deep knowledge distrib-uted in different domains and transfer it to theirclients by delivering solutions. Brokers know exactlywho has the right pieces of knowledge required toaddress the client’s problem, and hence they canstraightforwardly access such sources of knowledge.Starting from these premises, our analysis suggeststhat brokers help their clients solve complex innova-tion problems, characterized by unclear technical andmarket requirements, where a deep knowledge ofdifferent scientific and technological domains isrequired. As stated on the Continuum website: ‘Withdesigners and strategists located around the world,Continuum solves complex problems by understand-ing what is meaningful to people’. Similarly, IDEOclaims in its manifesto: ‘We identify new ways toserve and support people by uncovering latent needs,behaviors, and desires. [. . .] Design thinking is adeeply human process that taps into abilities we allhave but get overlooked by more conventionalproblem-solving practices. It relies on our ability tobe intuitive, to recognize patterns, to construct ideasthat are emotionally meaningful as well as func-tional, and to express ourselves through meansbeyond words or symbols’. As noted by the DesignManager of Continuum, the fact that the companyhas worked with clients in many different industries(including medical, consumer, computer, automo-tive, hospitality and financial services) allows it toeasily transfer solutions from one sector to the other,by connecting knowledge domains that are otherwiseunconnected. This also emerged from our deeperanalysis of the three projects conducted by Contin-uum. The client firms we interviewed admitted thatthey decided to rely on Continuum because theyknew that, to identify a valuable and ready-to-usesolution to their innovation needs, it was necessary toscout out different technological and industrialdomains and to use solutions that were alreadyknown in novel ways, which was something Contin-uum could do very well.

Given the complexity and the high level of uncer-tainty characterizing the NPD problems in whichbrokers are usually involved, our analysis suggeststhat it is crucial, for the success of the collaboration,to establish appropriate mechanisms that ensurestraightforward coordination and communicationbetween the intermediary and its clients. Forinstance, Continuum pays particular attention to thedevelopment of several prototypes throughout theentire innovation process and uses them as a means tocontinuously interact with its clients. This is evenmore important if one considers how brokers work todeliver a solution to their clients. Brokers interpret

the clients’ needs and then choose the most appropri-ate sources of knowledge among the different optionsthey have access to, which entails the need for anaccurate alignment between the visions and needs ofthe client and of the broker. It is for this reason thatbrokers usually start the collaborative process withan ‘alignment and learning’ activity that is aimed atrefining the original project brief and sharing theexpected project impacts (Colombo et al., 2011). The‘alignment and learning’ phase is of outmost impor-tance for creating trust between the broker and theclient, as noted by the Design Manager of Contin-uum: ‘The first phase of the collaboration is funda-mental for establishing a good and trustworthyrelationship with the client. How you are dressed,how you talk with the other team members, what youknow about their products and experience . . . allthese aspects impact how you are accepted by theteam of the client. [. . .] The most critical thingduring the Alignment and Learning phase is to winthe trust of and enter in close, personal relationshipwith those people that do not believe in the project. Itis obviously much more difficult in shorter projects’.The relevance of the ‘alignment and learning’ activityis also confirmed by the interviews with the clients ofContinuum, which suggests that a critical capabilitythey had to develop to make the most out of thecollaboration with the intermediary was to achieve athorough alignment of the project’s objectives withthe intermediary (alignment) as well as to transfer tothe intermediary the relevant knowledge about theindustry in which they operate (learning). A pooralignment and learning phase can indeed underminethe successful completion of a project, as happenedduring Continuum’s collaboration with a leadinghome appliances manufacturer. As noted by theproject leader of the manufacturing firm: ‘We wereunable to coordinate ourselves with Continuum andto communicate to them that our priority was not todevelop a new product that was excellent from atechnical point of view. Due to this apparently stupidmistake, we lost several months and a lot of moneyon this project’. Therefore, it seems that the priorityfor a firm willing to collaborate with a broker is todevelop strong coordination capabilities (Jansenet al., 2005). Our analysis suggests that this can bedone, for instance, by organizing the team workingwith the broker in the form of a joint task force andusing the design brief2 as a knowledge-sharing toolthat is continuously analyzed, reviewed and updatedfrom the time the collaboration began. This was acommon practice in all three projects that were con-sidered in our study (see Table 2). As noted, forinstance, by the project leader of a shoe manufacturerwith which Continuum worked a few years ago: ‘The

Gabriele Colombo, Claudio Dell’Era and Federico Frattini

10 R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 © 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Page 11: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

fact of having a unique repository containing allthe relevant information regarding the goals of theproject, our requirements and expectations, as well asContinuum’s decisions, that served as a shared plat-form around which the joint task force took criticaldecisions, was of paramount importance for ensuringcontinuous coordination with the provider and easingthe progress of the project.’

5.2. Mediator

Mediators (see Figure 5) select the most appropriatesolvers based on the fit between their capabilities andthe client’s problem (access sources). They then givethe clients access to their contacts and, in so doing,favor potential collaborations (delivery contacts).Companies such as Material ConneXion,YourEncore,Experts Exchange and PerInnovare adopt this inter-mediary strategy (see Appendix A).

Similarly to brokers, mediators are able to acquiredeep knowledge distributed in different domainsduring the access stage of the intermediary process,thanks to their knowledge about who has the rightcompetencies required to solve their client’s prob-lems. Unlike brokers, however, mediators providetheir clients with contacts and relationships withpotentially valuable knowledge sources. Whilebrokers exploit their network position by accessingand connecting separate knowledge domains, media-tors introduce unconnected organizations to eachother and ease communication and coordinationin the delivery stage of the intermediary process(Dell’Era and Verganti, 2013). Leveraging theseidiosyncratic abilities in both the access and deliverystages of the intermediation process, mediatorsusually help their clients address innovation prob-lems that require deep scouting of specific knowl-edge domains and continuous monitoring ofemerging innovation trends. For example, Material

ConneXion describes itself on its website as: ‘madeup of an international team of multidisciplinaryexperts that bridge the gap between science anddesign to create practical manufacturing solutions.[. . .] We act as a catalyst for new material andproduct ideas. We create new opportunities forproduct development and optimization’. During thecollaboration with BMW for the development of theGINA concept car (a visionary shape-shifting sportscar made from polyurethane-coated lycra stretchedover a wire aluminum frame), Material ConneXiondid not develop the final material that was used forthe concept car, but it provided two fundamental con-tributions. First, it inspired Chris Bangle (Chief ofDesign for BMW Group) by inviting him to an exhi-bition about tensions in architecture, where he notedthe potential applications of high-strength and tear-resistant textiles. Second, it proposed an interestingselection of extremely tear-proof and resistant tex-tiles with details about the firms that could manufac-ture them. As noted by Chris Bangle, Chief of Designfor BMW Group: ‘[. . .] it dawned on me that weinvest so much in sheet metal that we could be cre-ating incredible emotion at virtually zero cost [. . .] Idedicated a team to work around this idea of fixedtooling, and for that, we went back to MaterialConneXion, who we used as a very valuable resourceto help us identify swatches that we could thendevelop into what would become the GINA’. The keyaspect that characterizes this class of innovationintermediaries is that mediators interpret and elabo-rate their clients’ problems and select the most suit-able sources of knowledge, therefore connectingtheir clients with the appropriate knowledge expert.In other words, mediators do not provide solutions totheir clients but contacts. Therefore, firms willing tocollaborate with a mediator have to be able to clearlytransfer to the intermediary their needs and theirknowledge about the specific innovation problem,i.e., to perform an adequate ‘alignment and learning’activity to enable the mediator to identify the mostappropriate knowledge domains to tap into. Further-more, clients have to be open enough to understandand evaluate, without cognitive barriers, the potentialcontributions from organizations that are usuallyunknown, operate in very different industries andhave dissimilar backgrounds and goals.

The interviews with the Material ConneXionclients indicate that this requires developing theability to transfer tacit knowledge to the intermediaryand to easily establish trusting relationships with thepotential partner identified by the intermediary. Thefirst issue often brings the intermediary to reiteratethe first draft of the design brief in a document whereits own interpretation of the problem is illustrated.

Sources of knowledge

MEDIATOR

Client

Figure 5. Innovation intermediary – mediator.

Contribution of innovation intermediaries to NPD process

© 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 11

Page 12: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

For this reason, the brief becomes a critical toolthrough which the intermediary and its clients sharereciprocal knowledge and align themselves beforeproject activities start. Similar to the case of thebroker, the establishment of a successful cooperationwith a mediator requires that clients develop coordi-nation capabilities (Jansen et al., 2005) that enable arapid and effective alignment with the intermediary.

Regarding the need to establish a trustful relation-ship with the partner suggested by the mediator, amanager in Material ConneXion says: ‘Especially inthe collaborations with new clients, it happens thatthey like the proposed profile of the new partner, butthen they decide to scout it in their network. Aftersome collaborations, our clients trust not only theprofile we propose but also the partner we suggest.They develop the capability to establish trust withorganizations outside their network, which is key forthe success of the collaboration’. Our analysis sug-gests that clients should develop socialization capa-bilities to extract the maximum value from thecollaboration with a mediator (Jansen et al., 2005).This is consistent with the existing literature thatrecognizes the importance of socialization capabil-ities in favoring the collaboration with external part-ners and enhancing the capability to assess, withoutcognitive boundaries, the contributions of distantand heterogeneous potential partners (Adler andKwon, 2002). Our analysis suggests that firms canstrengthen their socialization capabilities during theircollaboration with a mediator by involving in theproject team people with highly heterogeneous com-petence backgrounds, industrial experience and func-tional belonging. The project leaders we interviewedin the three firms that collaborated with MaterialConneXion (i.e., BMW, PUMA and Aveda) notedthat the eclectic nature of the team strongly reducesthe cognitive barrier that often prevents firms fromgiving an objective evaluation of an opportunitycoming from outside their boundaries, which is alsoknown as Not-Invented-Here syndrome (Laden,1996).

5.3. Collector

Collectors (see Figure 6) ask the members of theirinnovation network to provide solutions regardingspecific innovation problems faced by their clients(access proposals). Afterward, they help their clientsselect the most appropriate solutions (delivery solu-tions). The collector strategy is used by intermedi-aries such as Aedo-to, BootB, Innocentive andNinesigma (see Appendix A).

More specifically, collectors allow their clients toattract many different solutions from the members

(usually individuals) of their large network. This isfeasible thanks to the capabilities developed by col-lectors regarding the access of different knowledgedomains. In particular, collectors make the innova-tion problems of their clients visible to their largenetworks of experts active in different fields. Collec-tors do not know in advance which are the relevantknowledge domains to tap to solve the clients’ inno-vation problems, but they know perfectly how tosolicit solutions from experts in their network. At theend of this process, collectors share with their clientsthe solution(s) they received, and the client choosesthe best solution(s) and awards the proposer(s). Putdifferently, collectors deliver to their clients solutionsbased on competences belonging to different knowl-edge domains. The idiosyncratic characteristics ofcollectors explain why they are particularly suited tohelp their clients address ‘idea factoring’ problems,in which there is a benefit from receiving a highnumber of novel alternatives coming from differentknowledge domains. Our analysis suggests that col-lectors usually support their clients in the fuzzy frontend of the NPD process by identifying novel ideas fornew products and services (as in the case of Aedo-toand BootB) or by searching for technologies thatenable novel functionalities (as what happens withInnocentive and Ninesigma). As noted by the founderof Aedo-to.com: ‘Aedo-to offers to its clients thepossibility to collect fresh ideas for new productdevelopment projects in an easy and cost-effectiveway thanks to the involvement of a community ofcreative people. Aedo-to.com is indeed able toprovide, on average, 400 concepts for each newproduct creation brief, assuring at least 30 (or 50according to the duration and the total award ofthe completion) high-quality concepts’. Similarly,BootB reports on its website: ‘Our Creators provideon average 214 solutions for every creative challengeyou offer. Simply publish your creative brief, receive

Sources of knowledge

COLLECTOR

Client

Figure 6. Innovation intermediary – collector.

Gabriele Colombo, Claudio Dell’Era and Federico Frattini

12 R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 © 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Page 13: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

loads of creative solutions, purchase the best!’ Themost important contribution of this class of innova-tion intermediaries is that they allow their clients tothink ‘outside the box’, as underlined by the seniormanager of Aedo-to: ‘In order to design good sun-glasses, it is important to involve in the processpeople that have already designed sun-glasses, butalso people that have never designed sun-glasses. Thelatter can bring new, fresh concepts by looking at theissue in a novel and unconventional way’.

However, to extract the maximum benefit fromthe collaboration with collectors, client firms needto develop specific capabilities. In particular, ourempirical evidence suggests that, given the highnumber of solutions that collectors are able to attractby tapping into their network of solvers, the criticalchallenge for firms wishing to interact with a collec-tor is to develop effective procedures for timely andcost-effective screening of the solutions to theirinnovation problems identified through the help ofthe intermediary. Even if the collector usually pro-vides suggestions about what solutions are bestsuited to the client’s needs, the ultimate decisionis in the hands of the client. Such decision-makingprocesses can be very costly and complex, and thereis a risk that the best ideas can be inadvertentlyscreened out. This process requires the selectionof formalized go/non-go criteria and qualitativemethods that can be used to quickly reduce the largenumber of alternative solutions to a pool from whichthe best solution can be easily identified. Thefounder of Aedo-to said: ‘The best firms, when theycome to select the most promising ideas, have devel-oped two alternative screening procedures. The firstone consists in naming an external jury, comprisingknowledgeable and well-respected experts in the rel-evant knowledge domain(s). This usually works verywell for identifying the best solution from a designperspective, avoiding the client having to choose asolution that is not characterized by a high level ofinnovativeness, but it is aligned with the client’sestablished way of thinking. The second alternativeis to define, at the beginning of the collaborativeprocess, the criteria along which the solutions will beevaluated, creating something like a scoring tool.Usually those firms that adopt this method imple-ment some pre-screening criteria to quickly reducethe number of solutions and then go through adetailed evaluation of the most promising solutions.This process works well to identify alternatives thatare aligned with the client’s needs even if there isthe risk of penalizing radically new solutions’. Theimportance of these practices is also highlighted bythe Aedo-to clients we interviewed. For instance, theproject leader in a manufacturer of household acces-

sories (see Table 3) noted that: ‘If you don’t have agood mechanism in place that allows you to quicklyscreen out the less promising solutions and to objec-tively evaluate those that are potentially useful toyou, the opportunity to receive a large number ofsolutions can become a problem rather than a help!We have some experience in this regard and havelearnt over time to apply structured, although quali-tative, criteria for idea screening, plus involvingsome external advisors when necessary’. This empi-rical evidence points, therefore, to the importance,for the collectors’ clients, of developing systemcapabilities that increase the effectiveness of theirsolution screening process (Cohen and Bacdayan,1994). In particular, these capabilities concern theestablishment of appropriate organizational routinesthat increase the efficiency and effectiveness of thedecision-making process through the reduction ofthe effort required.

5.4. Connector

Connectors (see Figure 7) receive informationregarding the experience and competencies of themembers of their network that are willing to collabo-rate with their clients (access proposals) and allowthe latter to choose those firms or individuals who arethe most appropriate for working and collaboratingwith given a specific innovation problem (deliverycontacts). The connector strategy is adopted by inter-mediaries such as TakeACoder, oDesk, Elance andGetACoder (see Appendix A).

Connectors enable their clients to attract manydifferent bids from experts active in different knowl-edge domains, leveraging the capabilities of the con-nector regarding how to access their network ofexperts. In particular, the connector asks the membersof its community to provide a bid in which theydescribe their competencies, past experience, thedelivery time and the compensation they require forworking on the innovation problem. Similarly to col-lectors, connectors do not know which knowledgedomains are necessary to look into to address theclients’ innovation problems, but they know perfectlyhow to connect their clients with experts active indifferent technological and industrial domains. Atthe end of this process, connectors share all the bidsreceived with the client that has the opportunity toselect the most appropriate expert with which tocollaborate. Based on this understanding of the pecu-liarities of the connector strategy, our analysis sug-gests that this category of intermediaries addressesexperience-based innovation problems, characterizedby clear requirements that can be solved by relying onthe contribution of low-cost experts. TakeACoder

Contribution of innovation intermediaries to NPD process

© 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 13

Page 14: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

Tabl

e3.

Sum

mar

yof

the

case

stud

yfin

ding

s

Bro

ker

Med

iato

rC

olle

ctor

Con

nect

or

Type

sof

new

prod

uct

deve

lopm

ent

(NPD

)pr

oble

ms

addr

esse

dby

the

inte

rmed

iary

Com

plex

inno

vatio

npr

oble

ms

char

acte

rize

dby

uncl

ear

tech

nica

lan

dm

arke

tre

quir

emen

tsth

aten

tail

unpr

edic

tabl

ere

com

bina

tion

ofex

istin

gkn

owle

dge.

Inno

vatio

npr

oble

ms

requ

irin

gde

epsc

outin

gof

spec

ific

know

ledg

edo

mai

ns,c

onne

ctio

nsto

unkn

own

sour

ces

ofco

mpe

tenc

ies

and

cont

inuo

usm

onito

ring

ofin

nova

tion

tren

ds.

Idea

fact

orin

gpr

oble

ms,

whe

rela

rge

num

ber

ofcr

eativ

eal

tern

ativ

essh

ould

beex

plor

edqu

ickl

yan

def

fect

ivel

y.

Exp

erie

nce-

base

din

nova

tion

prob

lem

s,ch

arac

teri

zed

bycl

ear

requ

irem

ents

that

can

beso

lved

byre

lyin

gon

the

cont

ribu

tions

oflo

w-c

ost

expe

rts.

Exa

mpl

esof

NPD

prob

lem

sad

dres

sed

byth

ein

term

edia

ry

Dev

elop

men

tof

ane

wpr

oduc

tlin

efo

ra

food

com

pany

that

isen

teri

nga

new

geog

raph

ical

mar

ket.

Iden

tifica

tion

ofa

new

pack

agin

gso

lutio

nab

leto

doub

leth

esh

elf-

life

ofa

new

food

prod

uct.

Dev

elop

men

tof

alo

gofo

ra

man

ufac

turi

ngco

mpa

nyth

atw

ants

tost

reng

then

itsim

age

inth

em

arke

t.

Prep

arat

ion

ofa

5-ye

arbu

sine

sspl

anfo

ran

e-co

mm

erce

star

t-up

com

pany

,whe

refa

rmer

sse

llth

eir

prod

ucts

onlin

edi

rect

lyto

cons

umer

s.

Cap

abili

ties

requ

ired

toco

llabo

rate

with

the

inte

rmed

iary

Coo

rdin

atio

nca

pabi

litie

sth

atal

low

rapi

dan

def

fect

ive

visi

onal

ignm

ent

betw

een

clie

ntan

din

term

edia

ry.

Coo

rdin

atio

nan

dso

cial

izat

ion

capa

bilit

ies

that

allo

wra

pid

and

effe

ctiv

evi

sion

alig

nmen

tbe

twee

ncl

ient

and

inte

rmed

iary

and

the

abili

tyto

colla

bora

tew

ithsu

pplie

rsfr

omdi

ffer

ent

indu

stri

esan

dw

ithdi

ffer

ent

expe

rien

ces.

Syst

emca

pabi

litie

sth

atal

low

quic

kan

dco

st-e

ffec

tive

scre

enin

gof

man

yid

eas

prov

ided

byso

lver

sbe

long

ing

tono

vel

know

ledg

edo

mai

ns.

Syst

eman

dso

cial

izat

ion

capa

bilit

ies

that

allo

wqu

ick

and

cost

-eff

ectiv

esc

reen

ing

ofso

lver

san

den

sure

the

abili

tyto

colla

bora

tein

avi

rtua

len

viro

nmen

t.

Exa

mpl

esof

prac

tices

that

enab

leca

pabi

lity

deve

lopm

ent

ËO

rgan

ize

the

team

wor

king

with

the

brok

erin

the

form

ofa

join

tta

skfo

rce.

ËU

seth

ede

sign

brie

fas

akn

owle

dge-

shar

ing

tool

that

isco

ntin

uous

lyan

alyz

ed,r

evie

wed

and

upda

ted

from

the

begi

nnin

gof

the

colla

bora

tion.

ËE

xten

sive

use

ofa

desi

gnbr

ief.

ËIn

volv

ein

the

proj

ect

team

peop

lew

ithhi

ghly

hete

roge

neou

sco

mpe

tenc

eba

ckgr

ound

s,in

dust

rial

expe

rien

cean

dfu

nctio

nal

belo

ngin

g.

ËA

pply

form

aliz

edgo

/non

-go

crite

ria

and

qual

itativ

em

etho

dsth

athe

lpsc

reen

out

the

solu

tions

prop

osed

byth

ein

term

edia

ry.

ËIn

volv

ein

the

scre

enin

gpr

oces

san

exte

rnal

jury

com

pose

dof

know

ledg

eabl

eex

pert

sin

the

rele

vant

know

ledg

edo

mai

ns.

ËU

seth

eto

ols

offe

red

byth

eco

nnec

tor

(e.g

.,sy

stem

sth

attr

ack

the

feed

back

sre

ceiv

edov

ertim

eby

the

solv

ers

and

live

mes

sage

boar

ds)

tosu

ppor

tth

ese

lect

ion

proc

ess

and

stre

amlin

eth

eco

mm

unic

atio

nbe

twee

ncl

ient

san

dso

lver

s.

Gabriele Colombo, Claudio Dell’Era and Federico Frattini

14 R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 © 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Page 15: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

says on its website: ‘TakeACoder intends to redesignthe business professional services market, giving toprofessionals a marketplace where they can sell theirskills and knowledge to enterprises inside a frame-work maximize value for both. TakeACoder has beendesigned to be the first consulting firm of the 2.0 era.Enterprise will find high skilled professionals toengage inside their projects or to who give the com-plete development of new ideas and services’. Simi-larly, GetACoder says on its website: ‘Find FreelanceProgrammers, Web Designers and Freelance Writersfor your next request. Outsource jobs to your homecountry or to countries where labor is cheap. Post arequest for free and start receiving bids withinminutes. Thousands of outsourced jobs prove thatGetACoder is a cost-effective way to get the besttalent in the world at an amazing low price. Growyour business and achieve a greater return on invest-ment by using GetACoder’. This point is clear in thewords of the TakeACoder clients we interviewed. Forinstance, the Project Leader in a start-up that workedwith the intermediary for the development of iPhoneapplications said: ‘We rely on intermediaries likeTakeACoder when we need very specific expertiseat much lower costs compared with traditionalconsultants’.

Based on our analysis, it appears that the connec-tor strategy has similarities with both the mediatorand collector strategies. Like collectors, connectorsleverage their capabilities to access their network ofexperts, requiring that their clients engage in ascreening process aimed at identifying the mostappropriate experts to collaborate with. This is con-firmed, for instance, by a firm that worked withGetACoder and says on the website of the interme-diary: ‘I worked on a coding problem for nearlya month. Two days after posting my job onGetACoder, I not only had a dozen programmers tochoose from, but within minutes of picking a winner

I had my problem solved. Next time, rather thanbanging my head against the wall, I’m going straightto GetACoder to get the job done!’ The intermediaryoffers their clients the opportunity to receive manydifferent bids for a specific innovation problem. Theclients have to be able to identify the best solversif they want to take advantage of the service.Therefore, systemic capabilities that allow the estab-lishment and consistent application of effectivescreening routines are needed. The project leader ofa start-up that worked with TakeACoder for thedevelopment of iPhone applications said: ‘Of course,to realize the benefits of this kind of collaboration,you need to define very clearly the type of problemthat you have to address. This is the only waythrough which you can attract serious contributors’.Furthermore, as with mediators, connectors deliverto their clients the know-who in terms of expertswith whom to collaborate. To develop a solution toits innovation problems, the client has to be able tocollaborate successfully with the selected experts.To this aim, firms relying on the service of a con-nector have to develop socialization capabilities thatallow them to interact with individuals and compa-nies with different backgrounds and experience toextract the maximum value from interacting withthem. These socialization capabilities are even morecritical here because with connectors, the interactionbetween clients and solvers usually takes place vir-tually, through the web. As noted by the InnovationManager of a service firm that collaborated withTakeACoder: ‘After you select the right partner towork with, which is not an easy thing to do, youhave to start working with him, which can be evenmore challenging unless you have strong interactionand communication abilities and you are open toreceive contributions from external, unconventionalsources’. Connectors are usually very active in pro-viding their clients with several tools that help themdevelop such systemic and socialization capabilities.For instance, connectors may allow their clients toprovide feedback on the work performed by thesolver, which enables a selection process based ontheir track record. Moreover, interactive and content-rich communication media (such as specificallydesigned live message boards) are used to streamlinethe communication and interaction between clientsand solvers. As noted by the project leader of ane-commerce firm that worked with TakeACoder:‘The online Private Message Board is somethingexcellent that others do not have. This feature helpsboth parties to clarify things related to the project inreal time’.

A synthesis of the findings of our empirical analy-sis is provided in Table 3.

Sources of knowledge

CONNECTOR

Client

Figure 7. Innovation intermediary – connector.

Contribution of innovation intermediaries to NPD process

© 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 15

Page 16: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

6. Conclusions

NPD service providers and web-based innovationintermediaries provide a varied range of servicesthat can help their clients improve the performanceof the NPD process. Despite the increasing impor-tance of this phenomenon, no efforts have beenmade thus far to propose a classification of the alter-native strategies innovation intermediaries adopt tointeract with their sources of knowledge and delivervalue to clients.

This paper suggests that innovation intermediariesshould be distinguished into four classes, labeledbroker, mediator, collector and connector, based onhow they access their sources of knowledge anddeliver value to their clients. In particular, brokers arethose intermediaries that identify the sources ofknowledge that are best suited to address the needs oftheir clients, acquire pieces of knowledge from thesesources and recombine them to provide a ready-to-use solution to their clients. Similar to brokers,mediators identify the most appropriate sources ofknowledge based on the fit between them and theirclients’ problems. Afterward, they establish a rela-tionship between these sources of knowledge andtheir clients, easing collaboration between them. Col-lectors are those intermediaries that ask that themembers of their innovation network provide solu-tions regarding specific innovation problems facedby their clients. They then help their clients select thebest solutions. Finally, connectors gather informationregarding the experience and competences of themembers of their network of knowledge sources(usually comprising both firms and individuals) andallow their clients to choose those members that arethe most appropriate for working and collaboratingwith, considering the peculiarities of their innovationproblem.

The multiple case study analysis presented in thepaper suggests that the proposed typology is usefulbecause each category of innovation intermediariesis, due to the approach it uses to access knowledgeand deliver value to clients, more apt to address aspecific class of NPD problems. Brokers are used tohelp their clients address complex innovation prob-lems characterized by unclear technical and marketrequirements, which entail unpredictable recombi-nations of existing knowledge. Mediators, instead,help their clients with problems requiring deepscouting of specific knowledge domains and themonitoring of promising innovation trajectories.Innovative firms rely on collectors when they areconfronted with idea factoring problems requiring aquick and effective exploration of a large number ofcreative alternatives, whereas connectors are used to

help clients with experience-based NPD challengesthat have clearly defined requirements. This repre-sents a useful contribution to management practice,as it provides a first exploratory framework thathelps firms confronted with an innovation problemidentify the most appropriate intermediary on whichto rely. These findings also have interesting policyimplications. They suggest that to maximize thecontribution of intermediaries to industrial innova-tion, policy intervention should take into properaccount the consistency between the characteristicsof different innovation intermediaries and theproduct innovation challenges they are involvedin.

Our analysis also suggests that firms willing tointeract with a particular category of innovation inter-mediary need to develop specific capabilities toextract the maximum value from the collaboration.Whereas coordination capabilities are necessary tointeract successfully with brokers and mediators,collaboration with connectors and mediators requiresspecial socialization skills. Finally, system capabil-ities are needed to successfully interact with collec-tors and connectors. This is a further practicalimplication of our study, which can help those inno-vative firms that have decided to invest time andmoney in the collaboration with a particular categoryof intermediary overcome the organizational barriersthat might impede successful completion of thecollaboration.

The paper also suggests theoretical implications,and its most important contribution is furtheringresearch on open and collaborative innovation(Chesbrough, 2003; Pisano and Verganti, 2008). Inparticular, by suggesting that collaborating witha particular category of innovation intermediaryrequires consistency between the characteristics ofthe intermediary itself, the type of NPD problems tobe addressed and the organizational capabilities ofthe client firm, it points to the contextual nature ofopen innovation practices, which is an area ripe forfuture research (West and Bogers, 2013).

Of course, this study has several limitations thatpoint to the existence of other promising researchopportunities. First, because of the exploratorynature of our multiple case study analysis, it is notpossible to statistically generalize results to popula-tions or firms or markets. Our aim was to make ana-lytical and theoretical generalizations to the existingbody of knowledge regarding intermediary strategiesand the contribution of innovation intermediariesto the NPD process of their clients. The patternslinking the adherence to a particular intermediarystrategy, the type of innovation problem addressed bythe intermediary and the capabilities firms need when

Gabriele Colombo, Claudio Dell’Era and Federico Frattini

16 R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 © 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Page 17: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

they collaborate with different categories of inter-mediaries unearthed by our study need to be sub-jected to further confirmatory empirical analysesusing larger representative samples of innovationintermediaries and client firms. It is our intent thatour preliminary findings will inform future theoreti-cal and empirical studies regarding intermediarystrategies and interactions between intermediariesand their clients. Second, this study focuses on thecontribution of intermediaries to the NPD process oftheir clients, with the aim of identifying the types ofinnovation problems they address. Future researchcould examine the impact collaborating duringproduct development with different classes of inno-vation intermediaries has on the performance of theNPD process in terms of speed, quality, marketsuccess and profitability. It would be interesting tounderstand under what conditions (e.g., type of NPDproblem or characteristics of the client) each class ofinnovation intermediary (i.e., collector, connector,broker and mediator) has a more positive impact onNPD performance, thereby corroborating our pre-liminary findings concerning the type of NPDproblem each class of intermediary seems moresuited to address. In this vein, an intriguing avenuefor future research is investigating the network char-acteristics of each class of innovation intermediary interms of structural hole and structural autonomy andtheir relationships with the intermediaries’ perfor-mance. Finally, integrated strategies, whereby anintermediary adopts more than a single approach tointeract with its knowledge sources and clients (asIDEO has recently done with the OpenIDEO onlineplatform) is a phenomenon that deservers furtherempirical investigation.

References

Abecassis-Moedas, C., Mahmoud-Jouini, S.B., Dell’Era,C., Manceau, D., and Verganti, R. (2012) Key resourcesand internationalization modes of creative knowledge-intensive business services: the case of design consul-tancies. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 3,315–331.

Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S. (2002) Social capital: prospectsfor a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27,1, 17–40.

Bianchi, M., Chiesa, V., and Frattini, F. (2011) Sellingtechnological knowledge: how firms can win thecomplexities of technology transactions. Research-Technology Management, 54, 2, 18–26.

Borja De Mozota, B. (2003) Design Management – UsingDesign in Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation.New York: Allworth Press.

Boudreau, K., Lacetera, N., and Lakhani, K. (2011) Incen-tives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: anempirical analysis. Management Science, 57, 5, 843–863.

Burt, R.S. (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Ameri-can Journal of Sociology, 110, 2, 349–399.

Chao, G.T., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein, H.J.,and Gardner, P.D. (1994) Organizational socialization:its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 79, 5, 730–743.

Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Impera-tive for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston,MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Chesbrough, H. (2006) Open Business Models: How toThrive in the New Innovation Landscape. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., De Massis, A., and Frattini, F.(2008) The knowledge bridging role of technical andscientific services in knowledge-intensive industries.International Journal of Technology Management, 41,3/4, 249–272.

Chiesa, V., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., and Manzini,R. (2007) How to sell technology services to innova-tors: evidence from nanotech Italian companies.European Journal of Innovation Management, 10, 4,510–531.

Cohen, M.D. and Bacdayan, P. (1994) Organizational rou-tines are stored as procedural memory. OrganizationScience, 5, 4, 554–568.

Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990) Absorptive capacity: anew perspective on learning and innovation. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 35, 1, 128–152.

Colombo, G., Dell’Era, C., and Frattini, F. (2011) NewProduct Development (NPD) service suppliers in OpenInnovation practices: processes and organization forknowledge exchange and integration. InternationalJournal of Innovation Management, 15, 1, 165–204.

Colombo, G., Klanner, I.M., Roiser, S., and Buganza, T.(2013) Web-based intermediaries and problem typolo-gies: an explorative study. International Journal of Inno-vation Management, 17, 2, 1–24.

Czarnitzki, D. and Spielkamp, A. (2000) Business servicesin Germany: bridges for innovation. ZEW discussionpaper, 00–52. Mannheim.

Dell’Era, C. and Verganti, R. (2013) Relational strategiesto connect technology and design: technology brokeringand mediating. International Journal of Technology andIntelligence Planning, 9, 1, 10–25.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case studyresearch. Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 532–550.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007) Theory build-ing from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academyof Management Journal, 50, 1, 25–32.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000) Dynamic capa-bilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal,21, 10/11, 1105–1121.

Fisher, C.D. (1986) Organizational socialization: an inte-grative review. Research in Personnel and HumanResource Management, 4, 101–145.

Contribution of innovation intermediaries to NPD process

© 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 17

Page 18: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

Gassmann, O., Daiber, M., and Enkel, E. (2011) The role ofintermediaries in cross-industry innovation processes.R&D Management, 41, 5, 457–469.

Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. (1997) Technology brokeringand innovation in a product development firm. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 42, 4, 716–749.

Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. (2000) Building an innovationfactory. Harvard Business Review, 78, 3, 157–166.

Hargadon, A.B. (1998) Firms as knowledge brokers:lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. CaliforniaManagement Review, 40, 3, 209–227.

Henderson, R. and Cockburn, I. (1994) Measuring compe-tence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceuticalresearch. Strategic Management Journal, 15, IssueSupplement S1, 63–84.

Howells, J. (2006) Intermediation and the role of inter-mediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 5, 715–728.

Huston, L. and Sakkab, N. (2006) Connect and developinside Procter & Gamble’s new model for innovation.Harvard Business Review, 84, 3, 58–66.

Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W.(2005) Managing potential and realized absorptivecapacity: how do organizational antecedents matter?.Academy of Management Journal, 48, 6, 999–1015.

Jeppesen, L.B. and Lakhani, K. (2010) Marginality andproblem solving effectiveness in broadcast research.Organization Science, 21, 5, 1016–1033.

Kodama, F. (1992) Technology fusion and the new R&D.Harvard Business Review, 70, 4, July–August, 70–78.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992) Knowledge of the firm,combinative capabilities, and the replication of technol-ogy. Organization Science, 3, 3, 383–397.

Laden, K. (1996) ‘Not invented there,’ or, the otherperson’s dessert always looks better!. Research Technol-ogy Management, 39, 6, 10–12.

Lundvall, B.-A. and Johnson, B. (1994) The learningeconomy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1, 2, 23–42.

Lynn, L., Reddy, M., and Aram, J. (1996) Linking technol-ogy and institutions: the innovation community frame-work. Research Policy, 25, 1, 91–106.

McEvily, B. and Zaheer, A. (1999) Bridging ties: a sourceof firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Stra-tegic Management Journal, 20, 12, 1133–1156.

Miles, I. (2000) Services innovation: coming of age in theknowledge-based economy. International Journal ofInnovation Management, 4, 4, 371–389.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative DataAnalysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Millson, M.R. and Wilemon, D. (2002) The impact oforganizational integration and product developmentproficiency on market success. Industrial MarketingManagement, 31, 1, 1–23.

NSF. (2010) Science and engineering indicators 2010.O’Farrell, P.N. and Wood, P.A. (1999) Formation of stra-

tegic alliances in business services: towards a new client-oriented conceptual framework. The Services IndustriesJournal, 19, 1, 133–151.

Obstfeld, D. (2005) Social networks, the tertius iungensorientation, and involvement in innovation. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 50, 100–130.

Pisano, G.P. and Verganti, R. (2008) Which kind of col-laboration is right for you? Harvard Business Review,86, 12, 76–86.

Polanyi, M. (1966) The logic of tacit inference. Philoso-phy, 41, 155, 1–18.

Schumpeter, J. (1934) The Theory of Economic Develop-ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

Seaton, R.A.F. and Cordey-Hayes, M. (1993) The devel-opment and application of interactive model of industrialtechnology transfer. Technovation, 13, 1, 45–53.

Singh, J. and Fleming, L. (2010) Lone inventors as sourcesof breakthroughs: myth or reality? Management Science,56, 1, 41–56.

Souder, W.E., Sherman, J.D., and Davies-Cooper, R.(1998) Environmental uncertainty, organizational inte-gration, and new product development effectiveness: atest of contingency theory. Journal of Product Innova-tion Management, 15, 6, 520–533.

Stankiewicz, R. (1995) The role of the science and tech-nology infrastructure in the development and diffusionof industrial automation in Sweden. In: Carlsson, B.(ed.), Technological Systems and Economic Perfor-mance: The Case of Factory Automation. Dordrecht:Kluwer. pp. 165–210.

Terwiesch, C. and Xu, Y. (2008) Innovation contests, openinnovation, and multiagent problem solving. Manage-ment Science, 54, 9, 1529–1543.

Tran, Y., Hsuan, J., and Mahnke, V. (2011) How do inno-vation intermediaries add value? Insight from newproduct development in fashion markets. R&D Manage-ment, 41, 1, 80–91.

Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., and de Boer, M.(1999) Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowl-edge environment: organizational forms and combinativecapabilities. Organization Science, 10, 5, 551–568.

Verona, G., Prandelli, E., and Sawhney, M. (2006) Innova-tion and virtual environments: towards virtual knowl-edge brokers. Organization Studies, 27, 6, 765–788.

West, J. and Bogers, M. (2013) Leveraging externalsources of innovation: a review of research on openinnovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,31, 7. Forthcoming. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12125

Yin, R.K. (1984) Case Study Research, Design andMethods. London: Sage Publications.

Notes

1. In this paper, we use the term innovation intermediary toindicate both NPD service providers and web-basedinnovation intermediaries.

2. According to Borja de Mozota (2003), the design briefactivates the concept generation, and it consists of threemain elements: the design project objective, informationabout the client company and information about the project.

Gabriele Colombo, Claudio Dell’Era and Federico Frattini

18 R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 © 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Page 19: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

Gabriele Colombo is Research Fellow in Manage-ment, Economics and Industrial Engineering atPolitecnico di Milano. He is a lecturer in ProjectManagement in the Master of Business Administra-tion program at the MIP (Politecnico di MilanoSchool of Management). His research and profes-sional interests include innovation strategies andstrategic management of knowledge in an open envi-ronment. In particular, his research is devoted tounderstand the several alternatives that a firm has toimprove and enlarge its existing knowledge base col-laborating with different external subjects.

Claudio Dell’Era is Assistant Professor in theDepartment of Management, Economics and Indus-trial Engineering at Politecnico di Milano, where heserves also as Co-Director of MaDe In Lab, theLaboratory of Management of Design and Innovation

of MIP Politecnico di Milano. His research interestsare in the area of management of innovation. He haspublished in leading international journals, such asJournal of Product Innovation Management, LongRange Planning, R&D Management, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management,Industry & Innovation, International Journal ofInnovation Management.

Federico Frattini is Assistant Professor in theDepartment of Management, Economics and Indus-trial Engineering at Politecnico di Milano, Italy. Hisresearch interests are R&D, technology manage-ment and commercialization of innovation. On thesetopics, he has published more than 90 articles,including papers in leading journals such as theJournal of Product Innovation Management andCalifornia Management Review.

Appendix A. Additional examples of innovation intermediaries

Broker

IDEO [http://www.ideo.com]

IDEO is an award-winning global design firm that takes a human-centered, design-based approachto helping organizations in the public and private sectors innovate and grow. They identify newways to serve and support people by uncovering latent needs, behaviors, and desires. Theyenvision new companies and brands and design the products, services, spaces, and interactiveexperiences that bring them to life. They help organizations build creative culture and theinternal systems required to sustain innovation and launch new ventures.

Frog Design [http://www.frogdesign.com]

frog works with the world’s leading companies, helping them to design, engineer, and bring tomarket meaningful products and services. With an interdisciplinary team of more than 1,600designers, strategists, and software engineers, frog delivers connected experiences that spanmultiple technologies, platforms, and media. frog works across a broad spectrum of industries,including consumer electronics, telecommunications, healthcare, energy, automotive, media,entertainment, education, finance, retail, and fashion. Clients include Disney, GE, HP, Intel,Microsoft, MTV, Qualcomm, Siemens, and many other Fortune 500 brands. Founded in 1969,frog is headquartered in San Francisco, with locations in Amsterdam, Austin, Boston, Chennai,Bangalore, Gurgaon, Johannesburg, Kiev, Milan, Munich, New York, Seattle, Shanghai, andVinnitsa. frog is a company of the Aricent Group, a global innovation and technology servicesfirm.

Future ConceptLab [http://www.futureconceptlab.com]

Future Concept Lab is a research Institute that stands out on the international landscape as one ofthe most advanced research centers specialized in marketing issues and trends in consumption.With extensive research activities in Europe, North America, South America and Asia, FutureConcept lab was born as a global project. It is headquartered in Milan, and in January 2011opened a new office in São Paulo (Brasil). Future Concept Lab has correspondents intwenty-five countries around the world, a reality present on a virtual platform: the Genius LociLab. The goal of Future Concept Lab is to develop and share new concepts regarding products,communication and distribution in order to enable clients to effectively deal with both theadvanced and emerging markets, working in terms of the key words of the future. The Institutecarries out integrated research projects based on specific methodologies that lead to thedefinition of sector-related scenarios, offers consultancy and training services, publishes worksthat represent the Institute’s main activities, internationally and internally, like for instance themost recent book Consum-Authors.

Contribution of innovation intermediaries to NPD process

© 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 19

Page 20: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

Appendix A. (Contd.)

Mediator

Presans [http://www.presans.com]

PRESANS is a French start-up that aims to connect business and expertise. In order to achievethis objective, the company has developed X-Search, a tool allowing automatic competence andexpertise mapping (from scientific publications, patents, corporate websites, etc.). PRESANSclients simply describe their needs by a few keywords and X-Search will find the most relevantexperts to address it among its database of over a million experts worldwide.

Experts Exchange[http://www.experts-exchange.com]

Experts Exchange is a technology help website. Its experts are real people with real-worldtechnology experience from around the globe. Microsoft MVPs, IT consultants and many more.They volunteer their time to provide tech support in our patented Q&A forums. If a firm has got atechnology problem-big or small- Experts Exchange can help solve it. Experts Exchange worksbecause it is a patented knowledge-sharing platform that enables people to work together to solvetheir technology problems. From routine system errors to complex coding bugs, ExpertsExchange is where the world’s top IT professionals come to find the solutions they need.

PerInnovare S.p.a[http://www.perinnovare.com]

PerInnovare S.p.a is an Italian company that aims at supporting the innovation activities of itsclients through the creation of ad hoc project teams. Perinnovare S.p.a has established overtime a set of consolidated relationships with different subjects ranging from industrial firms touniversities and research centers. By leveraging this network, the company is able to analyzeand deeply understand the innovation problems of its clients and to create hoc project teamsthat include all the competences required to address the clients’ innovation needs.

Collector

BootB [http://www.bootb.com]

BootB is the Pitching Engine that brings Brand Builders and Creative Brains together. What is theusual way Brands seek Creativity? If they have the opportunity to choose, they start a pitch andselect the best proposal from a limited number of participants. BootB is designed as an onlinealternative to that process that has no offline limitations. The BootB platform is built to runPitches. Firms can start your Pitch and obtain Solutions from an unlimited number of Creatorsfrom anywhere on the entire planet.

Innocentive [http://www.innocentive.com]

InnoCentive is an open innovation and crowdsourcing pioneer that enables organizations to solvetheir key problems by connecting them to diverse sources of innovation, including employees,customers, partners, and the world’s largest problem solving marketplace. Their provenChallenge Driven Innovation methodology, a community of millions of problem Solvers, andtheir cloud-based technology platform combine to fundamentally transform the economics ofinnovation and R&D through rapid solution delivery and the development of sustainable openinnovation programs. Leading commercial, government, and nonprofit organizations such as EliLilly, Life Technologies, NASA, nature.com, Popular Science, Procter & Gamble, Roche,Rockefeller Foundation, and The Economist partner with InnoCentive to solve problems andinnovate faster and more cost effectively than ever before.

Nine Sigma[http://www.ninesigma.com]

NineSigma is the most experienced and advanced Open Innovation service provider in the world.Founded in 2000, NineSigma has been offering open innovation solutions long before it was anaccepted management practice. In fact, NineSigma is responsible for a large part of how openinnovation is practiced today, and continues to evolve its services and organization to ensurethat your organization will be prepared to move to the next level of open innovation capability,regardless of where you are today. They Engage companies across all industry sectors with theglobal innovation community, and Enable their organizations to leverage their open innovationnetwork of external resources to solve immediate challenges, fill product pipelines and integratenew knowledge and capabilities into their organizations.

Connector

oDesk [http://www.odesk.com]

oDesk is the marketplace for online workteams, with the best business model for both employersand contractors. Its unique approach guarantees to employers that an hour billed is an hour worked,while guaranteeing to contractors that an hour worked is an hour paid. This win-win approachattracts more work to oDesk than to any other online work marketplace. Each month, thousandsof companies of all sizes post jobs on oDesk, representing more than $65,000,000. At the sametime, hundreds of thousands of top-notch professionals, including web developers, softwareprogrammers, graphic designers, writers, customer service representatives and virtual assistants,offer their services through oDesk. With an average job size of $5,000, oDesk is the best place tofind meaningful work and top-flight talent. More than doubling in size each year since 2004,oDesk is where companies are building their entire organizations online and is the primarysource of income for thousands of contractors. oDesk is truly changing how the world works.

Gabriele Colombo, Claudio Dell’Era and Federico Frattini

20 R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 © 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Page 21: Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

Appendix A. (Contd.)

Connector

Elance [http://www.elance.com]

As the world’s leading platform for online employment, Elance helps businesses hire and managein the cloud. For businesses looking to staff-up a team on an hourly or project basis, Elanceoffers instant access to qualified professionals who work online and provides the tools to hire,view work as it progresses and pay for results.

GetACoder [http://www.2rentacoder.com]

GetACoder enables its clients to find Freelance Programmers, Web Designers and FreelanceWriters for working at every kind of innovation task. Thanks to its innovative business model,GetACoder helps clients outsource jobs where labor is cheap. Clients can post a request forfree and start receiving bids within minutes. Thousands of outsourced jobs prove thatGetACoder is a cost-effective way to get the best talent in the world at an amazing low price.

Appendix B. Interview protocol (interviewees working for the intermediary)

Main questions regarding the intermediary and its strategy:

• What is the business model adopted by (name of the intermediary)?• How does the intermediary access and explore different sources of knowledge?• Does the intermediary implement specific tools to access and explore different sources of knowledge?• How does the intermediary disclose different knowledge domains to its client?• Does the intermediary develop any specific tool to disclose knowledge to its clients?• What benefits does collaborating with you confer to your clients?• What are the main problems clients face during the collaboration?• What are the main issues clients want to solve in collaborating with you?• Can you please identify other intermediaries that are similar to you? Why they are similar? What are the main

differences with them? Which kinds of innovation problems do they try to solve? Why should a client chooseyou rather than another intermediary?

The main questions regarding each innovation project considered in the study:

• Can you please give us a brief description of the project?• What are the main benefits the client receives from the collaboration?• What are the main problems you faced during the collaboration with the client?• What could you improve in similar collaboration projects?

Appendix C. Interview protocol (interviewees working for the intermediary’s clients)

The main questions regarding each innovation project considered in the study:

• Why did you choose to collaborate with an NPD service provider to solve this particular kind of innovationproblem?

• How do you define this type of innovation problem? Does it differ according the innovation problems youusually have to face?

• Do you think you could solve similar innovations problems more effectively with other intermediaries? Why?• What factors could hinder future collaborations with the intermediary?• Do you plan to engage in similar collaboration projects in the future?

Contribution of innovation intermediaries to NPD process

© 2014 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management ••, ••, 2014 21