The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues
Abstract
Despite differences in definitions, researchers understand that radical innovation within an organization is very different from incremental innovation [13,17,21] and that it is critical to the long‐term success of firms. Unfortunately, research has also shown that it is often difficult to get support for radical projects in large firms [14], where internal cultures and pressures often push efforts toward more low risk, immediate reward, incremental projects. Interestingly, we know considerably less about the effective management of the product development process in the radical than in an incremental context. The purpose of this study is to explore the process of radical new product development from a strategic perspective, and to outline key observations and challenges that managers face as they move these projects to market. The findings presented here represent the results of a longitudinal (since 1995), multidisciplinary study of radical innovation projects. A multiple case study design was used to explore the similarities and differences in management practices applied to twelve radical innovation projects in ten large, established North American firms. The findings are grouped into three high‐level strategic themes. The first theme, market scope, discusses the challenges associated with the pursuit of familiar versus unfamiliar markets for radical innovation. The second theme of competency management identifies and discusses strategic challenges that emerge as firms stretch themselves into new and unfamiliar territory. The final theme relates to the people issues that emerge as both individuals and the project teams themselves try to move radical projects forward in organizations that are not necessarily designed to support such uncertainty. A breadth of subtopics emerge within and across this framework relating to such ideas as risk management, product cannibalization, team composition, and the search for a divisional home. Taken together, our observations reinforce the emerging literature that shows that project teams engaging in radical innovation encounter a much different set of challenges than those typically faced by NPD teams engaged in incremental innovation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessing a Multidimensional Measure of Radical Technological Innovation
Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1995) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/17.403738 · Cited by 457
Cited by
Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M., & Jayaram, J. (2005) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2005.00067.x · Cited by 855
Service innovation and performance in SMEs
McDermott, C. M., & Prajogo, D. I. (2012) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443571211208632 · Cited by 226
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- McDermott, C. M., & O'Connor, G. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-11
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 424-438
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5885
- OpenAlex
- W4234166034
- Cited by
- 385
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1540-5885.1960424
- The paper
- McDermott, C. M., & O'Connor, G. C. (2002). Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1960424
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.