The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success*
Abstract
The relationship and network literature has primarily focused on particular partner types, for example, buyer–supplier relationships or competitor interaction. This article explores the nature and relative importance of different types of interfirm relationships for new product development (NPD) success. The underlying premise of the study is that not only the type of interfirm relationships but also the combination of relationships are important for NPD performance. The interaction with a specific type of partner is expected to influence innovative performance by means of appropriate knowledge transfer. Varying needs for external knowledge, and thus types of relationships, are observed depending on the particular stages in the NPD process, the character of the knowledge base of the firm, and the industrial conditions. The absorption of external knowledge is discussed using the degree of redundancy in knowledge, which is defined as the degree of overlap in the knowledge base of the sender and the recipient of knowledge. Hence, the degree of redundancy has direct implications for the ease and, hence, use of knowledge shared with an external partner. The article is based on data from the Know for Innovation survey on innovative activities among European firms, which was carried out in 2000 in seven European countries covering five industries. The article explores the extent of use of external relationships in collaborative product development and finds that customers are involved more frequently in joint development efforts. Second, the industry association of the most important relationship is studied, and the results show that firms tend to partner with firms from their own industry. The danger in this approach is that firms from their own industry tend to contribute similar knowledge, which ultimately may endanger the creation of new knowledge and therefore more radical product developments. The analyses combine the finding that relationships with customers are used most frequently at both early and late stages of the product development process, with a second and more contradictory finding that at the same time customer relationships have a negative impact on innovative success. Moreover, the combination of customers, with both universities and competitors, has a significant negative effect on innovative performance. The potential causes of this apparent paradox can be narrowed down to two: (1) the average customer may be unable to articulate needs for advanced technology‐based products; and (2) the average customer may be unable to conceptualize ideas beyond the realm of his or her own experience. Based on this evidence the article cautions product development managers to think explicitly about what certain customers can contribute with and, more importantly, to match this contribution directly with their own sense of what direction product development should go in the future. Finally, the role of complementary as well as supplementary knowledge is investigated for innovative success finding that sharing of supplementary knowledge with external partners in NPD leads to a positive effect on innovative performance. The article is concluded by a discussion of the implication of this finding for building knowledge within the firm and for selecting external partners for NPD.
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
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/225469 · Cited by 40,491
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001 · Cited by 18,010
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809
The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1998.1255632 · Cited by 9,943
The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits
Hansen, M. T. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667032 · Cited by 5,809 · cited 1×
“…the form, the content, and intensity of interaction have been analyzed where the latter is closely related to the strength of ties perspective (For a theoretical account see, e.g., Granovetter, 1973; Mathews et al., 1998; for empirical testing see, e.g., Hansen, 1999; McEvily and Zaheer, 1999).”
BackgroundThe Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259056 · Cited by 4,773
Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation
Dosi, G. (2000) · Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics · doi:10.4337/9781782541851.00008 · Cited by 4,272
Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital
Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200003)21:3<217::aid-smj95>3.0.co;2-y · Cited by 2,980
Social Structure and Alliance Formation Patterns: A Longitudinal Analysis
Gulati, R. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393756 · Cited by 2,664
Cited by
Santoro, G., Vrontis, D., & Pastore, A. (2017) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-02-2017-0120 · Cited by 133
Metadata
- Authors
- Knudsen, M. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-02-22
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 117-138
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5885
- OpenAlex
- W2093208232
- Cited by
- 466
- References
- 47
- FWCI
- 42.06
- 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: The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00238.x
- The paper
- Knudsen, M. P. (2007). The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success*. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00238.x
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.