Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development

Emerald Article: Product launch, product advantage and market orientation in SMEs Ann Ledwith, Michele O'Dwyer

Article information:
To cite this document: Ann Ledwith, Michele O'Dwyer, (2008),"Product launch, product advantage and market orientation in SMEs", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 Iss: 1 pp. 96 - 110 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000810850865 Downloaded on: 02-05-2012 References: This document contains references to 37 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 2270 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF DERBY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm

JSBED 15,1

Product launch, product advantage and market orientation in SMEs

Ann Ledwith
College of Engineering, Enterprise Research Centre, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Ireland, and

96

Michele ODwyer
Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose The importance of new product development to the survival and success of rms is well supported in the literature; however, few studies have investigated new product development in small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This study aims to examine the impact of product launch, product advantage and market orientation on new product development performance and organisational performance in SMEs. Design/methodology/approach This model was tested using data collected from 48 small and large sized rms in Ireland. Findings from 33 small and 15 large rms were compared, and a correlation analysis was used to establish the relationships dened in the model for both small and large rms. Findings The study identied several signicant differences between the impact of product launch, product advantage and market orientation on new product development and organisational performance in small and large rms. It also indicated several areas in which small rms can improve their new product and organisational performance. Research limitations/implications This research builds on prior empirical research that has established a positive link between customer and competitor orientation and performance of small rms. Practical/implications The managerial implications suggest that managers need to place a greater emphasis on product launch prociency, new product characteristics and market orientation. Originality/value The results show that a market orientation, as well as having a direct impact on organisational performance, also affects new product development activities. Keywords Organizational performance, Product development, Small to medium-sized enterprises, Competitive advantage, Product launch, Market orientation Paper type Research paper

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development Vol. 15 No. 1, 2008 pp. 96-110 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1462-6004 DOI 10.1108/14626000810850865

Introduction This paper addresses the inuence of product launch, product advantage, and market orientation, on performance in small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The signicance of product launch and product advantage to new product performance has been documented in literature (Nakata et al., 2005; Hultink and Hart, 1998; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994; Cooper, 1979, 2001). Additionally, literature suggests that organisations that are market-oriented can better satisfy customers, thereby improving their organisational performance (Ramaseshan et al., 2002); however these relationships have not been explored to date in the context of SMEs. Given that SMEs provide approximately 65 million jobs and represent 99 per cent of all

enterprises in the European Union (EU) (Coelho-Rodriguez, 2001), increasing our understanding of the key determinants of successful SME performance is essential. The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of product launch, product advantage and market orientation on new product development (NPD) performance in SMEs. The paper starts with a synopsis of the three main streams of literature; product launch, product advantage, and market orientation and their relationship with performance, a brief review of NPD in small rms follows, from which the conceptual model and underlying rationale are developed. This is followed by an outline of the research methodology employed; the results, and survey are then presented and discussed. Finally, the conclusions address the relationships between performance and product launch, product advantage, and market orientation. Product launch and performance Successful new products and services are critical for many organisations, since product innovation is signicant in helping organisations to adapt to changes in markets, technology, and competition. However, the success rate of new products worldwide has been low (Bogue and Delahunty, 1999), given the strong correlation between new product success and a companys health (Shepherd and Ahmed, 2000) it is essential that organisations maximise the potential of their new products. Di Benedetto (1999) in an exploration of key success factors in new product launch found that the cost of commercialising successful new products was over six times that of products that failed, indicating the signicance of launch budgeting to new product success and organisational performance. Hultink and Hart (1998) identied a paucity of literature regarding the nature of the launch strategy despite its signicance to new product performance and in turn organisational performance. Launch strategy for a new product, according to Hultink and Schoorsman (1995) is a crucial decision made by marketing managers. In high tech industries, being the rst to launch a new product can bring signicant benets such as greater market share and price premiums, whereas conversely the delay of the introduction of new products may lead to a loss of market share or even more critically a loss of goodwill (Rosas-Vega and Vokurka, 2000, p. 157). Hart and Tzokas (2000) posit that product launch success was enhanced by three product launch variables one of which is high product advantage, which forms one of the foundations of this research. Di Benedetto (1999) found that, although both product launch tactics and strategy to have a signicant impact on new product success, product launch tactics were of more signicance. Furthermore, Debruyne et al. (2002) found that the greater the amount of marketing resources a rm invests in the development and the launch of a new product, the higher its probability of success. Effective market testing and research are critical in eliciting information regarding customers, and the effectiveness of marketing efforts at the time of the product launch (Di Benedetto, 1999). Langerak et al. (2004) demonstrated that market-oriented cultures inuence is restricted to the launch phase on the NPD process, however, its effect was found to be critical at the product launch stage, leading to superior new product performance and organisational performance. In summation, the literature reviewed indicates the signicance of prociency in market testing, launch budgeting, launch strategy and launch tactics to new product success and organisational performance.

Product launch in SMEs

97

JSBED 15,1

98

Product advantage and performance Product advantage is a critical determinant of the success of new products and services (Nakata et al., 2005; Hultink and Hart, 1998; Cooper, 1979, 2001; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994), and is suggested by Langerak et al. (2004) to lead to superior new product performance and organisational performance. Song and Montoya-Weiss (2001, p. 65) dene product advantage in terms of competitors as being a products perceived superiority relative to competitive products; while Calantone and Di Benedetto (1988) relate product advantage to customer needs referring to the benets customers derive from new products. Equally valid, both denitions reect the complex nature of product advantage whereby an over focus on customer needs can lead to less competitive products (Christensen and Bower, 1996). Slater and Narver (2000) argue that product advantage leads to the creation of superior value for customers relative to that offered by competitors. Hua and Wemmerlov (2006, p. 318) propose that product advantage is the perceived level of a products design, attributes, and quality relative to competition, thus echoing Coopers (1979) reference to the signicance of successful new products being of a higher quality than competing products. Product advantage has also been shown to be a key factor in new product success with Cooper (2001) citing it as the most important driver of new product success. However, a study of NPD in small US rms (Yap and Souder, 1994) found that small rms were more likely to succeed with new products that were compatible with existing processes, products and technologies rather than highly innovative and superior new products. In summation, the literature reviewed indicates that product advantage is dened in terms of a products quality, superiority compared to competitor products and its ability to provide benets and value to customers. Additionally, product advantage has been found to be a key determinant of new product success and in turn organisational performance. Market orientation and performance Many studies support the existence of a positive relationship between organisational performance and the adoption of a market orientation (Deshpande et al., 1993; Ruekert, 1992; Narver and Slater, 1990). Organisations that are market-oriented, tracking and responding to customer needs and preferences, can better satisfy customers thereby improving their organisational performance (Ramaseshan et al., 2002). Slater and Narver (1994) found that market orientation is positively associated with return on assets, sales growth, and new product success as measures of business performance; additionally they found that competitor orientation is not signicant in the relationship between organisational performance and market orientation. More recently, Brown et al. (2005) found that the implementation of market orientation leads to improved nancial and marketing performance. Additionally, Slater and Narver (2000) found that market orientation and business performance are positively related; and Kohli and Jaworski (1990) claimed that market orientation enhances the performance of an organisation through return on investment, prots, sales volume, market share, and sales growth. Positive performance is supported by interfunctional co-ordination, which is essential to maximise the effectiveness of marketing and non-marketing activities (Di Benedetto, 1999).

Jaworski and Kohli (1993, p. 63) state that market orientation is signicantly related to business performance a nding echoed by Slater and Narver (2000, 1994). However, in contrast Langerak et al. (2004) found that market orientation has no signicant direct relationship with organisational performance. In summation, the literature reviewed indicates the signicance of customer orientation, competitor orientation, and interfunctional co-ordination to new product success and organisational performance. NPD in small rms Literature on the management of NPD in small rms is scarce but what has been published does suggest that there are signicant differences between NPD management in small and large rms. There is a level of consensus that small rms should develop new products that are compatible with existing technical standards (Yap and Souder, 1994), that they should adopt one core technology and avoid high levels of diversication (Dodgson and Rothwell, 1991). This impacts the marketing strategies adopted by small rms. Several authors have taken a contingent approach claiming that there is no best process for developing new products but rather that the process should be selected to suit the context, including the rm size, within which the rm operates (Bessant and Francis, 1997; Loch, 2000). A key difference between small and large rms is that NPD processes in small rms tend to be informal (Roper, 1997; Hoffman et al., 1998). Some studies have linked more complete, or formal, NPD processes with increased success (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1988; Rochford and Rudelius, 1997), although no studies were found that linked NPD process formality (or completeness) with new product success in small rms. Top management support and skill have been highlighted as important for new product success in small rms (Hoffman et al., 1998) though most NPD projects undertaken by small rms have been found to have the support of top management (Maidique, 1980). Finally, small rms are considered to be more organic than large rms and to have better communications between functional groups. Therefore interfunctional coordination on NPD projects is not considered to be a problem for small rms (Dodgson and Rothwell, 1991). In summary, there are areas where there is some consensus about how NPD in small rms should be managed, but there are many more areas where research into NPD management in small rms is lacking. Based on the literature reviewed a working model was developed that relates product advantage, product launch performance, interfunctional coordination, customer orientation and competitor orientation with the two performance measures of interest new product performance and organisational performance. This is shown in Figure 1. Research sample The research reported is a cross-sectional survey of a sample of 48 rms located in Ireland. The research strategy adopted was to use the survey to identify the key relationships between new product development, new product performance, organisational performance, interfunctional coordination and customer/competitor orientation. The rms included in the survey were selected from within the mid-west region of Ireland to represent the industry sectors active within the Irish economy. The decision to compare small and large rms was made because much of the research in

Product launch in SMEs

99

JSBED 15,1

100

Figure 1. Working model

this area has focussed on large rms. This study will help to clarify whether or not these ndings can also apply to small rms. The survey included both small independent start-up rms and business units of large multinational rms operating in a range of industries. Firm size was classied in terms of ownership, employment levels and annual turnover, in-line with the denition of SMEs adopted by the EU Commission in May 2005 (see http://europa.eu.int/comm/ enterprise/enterprise_policy, accessed 13 April 2006). Small rms were dened as those under the direct supervision and control of the owner, having fewer than 250 employees, an annual turnover below e50 million. Large-size rms were dened as those having more than 200 employees and an annual turnover greater than e100 million. A breakdown of the rms included in this study is shown in Table I. The research instrument was a structured questionnaire administered via a postal and electronic mail survey in line with expectations of the interviewees. At the outset of the research process respondents were asked to identify a project or portfolio of projects launched by their rm in the last ve years. Based on this the research instrument addressed the following research measures; market orientation, product launch prociency, new product performance, organisational performance, product advantage and market description these measures are described in detail in the following section. Research measures The research measures used were based on those used by Langerak et al. (2004) in their study of the impact of market orientation on new product and organisational performance. Seven composite measures were selected; several of these were broken down into sub measures. These are detailed below: . Organisational performance was measured using six nancial and market performance indicators including sales growth, protability, market share, sales and return on investment relative to those of all other competitors in the rms principal served markets. . New product performance was also based on the work by and consisted of three sub measures: market level measures, nancial measures and timing measures.

Characteristics Firm type Small rm Large rm Industry Pharmaceutical and medical equipment Electrical and electronics ICT Industrial engineering Financial services Packaging Owner/management Owner Management Annual sales turnover (e million) Under 3 3-50 51 and over Product/service Products Services Product and service Industrial/consumer Industrial Consumer Industrial and consumer
.

Number of rms (n 48) 33 15 13 11 15 4 4 1 13 35 7 23 18 34 12 2 33 12 3

Product launch in SMEs

101

Table I. Characteristics of rms surveyed and prole of respondents

Product advantage was measured using a scale which included eight items describing the nature of the advantage of the new product compared to existing products and also the benets offered to customers. Product launch prociency was assessed using four sub measures: prociency in: market testing, launch budgeting, launch strategy, and launch tactics. Each of these sub measures consisted of four or more items. Interfunctional coordination was measured using seven items that described the coordination between the different functional groups within the rm specically when dealing with customers. Customer orientation was measured using a scale that consisted of six items measuring the extent to which the rm was familiar with and focused on their customers. Competitor orientation was also measured using a scale that consisted of a further seven items measuring the rms knowledge of their competitors.

The measures were reported using seven-point Likert type scale which either required respondents to agree with the statement on a scale of 1 Strongly disagree to 7 Strongly agree, or to rate their rms performance on a scale from 1 Very poorly to 7 Excellent. Table II summarises the reliability of the measures for the complete sample of 48 rms. The Cronbachs alphas were also above 0.7 for each measure when tested

102

JSBED 15,1

Research measure 6 11 4 4 3 8 20 5 4 6 5 7 6 7 0.861 0.952 0.959 0.926 0.875 0.799 0.941 0.761 0.894 0.929 0.895 0.911 0.820 0.843 5.50 4.77 4.66 5.00 5.33 5.82 5.09 4.70 4.88 5.50 5.40 5.14 5.67 5.14 5.33 4.64 4.50 4.50 5.33 5.75 4.85 4.40 4.75 5.00 5.40 5.14 5.50 5.00

Organisational performance New product performance Market level measures Financial measures Timing measures Product advantage Product launch prociency Prociency in market testing Prociency in launch budgeting Prociency in launch strategy Prociency in launch tactics Interfunctional coordination Customer orientation Competitor orientation

Notes: a Because of the nonparametric nature of the data care needs to be taken in interpreting these results; * statistically signicant, p # 0:05

Table II. Summary of research measures No. of items Cronbachs Alphaa Median all rms (n 48) Median small rms (n 33) Median large rms (n 15) 5.83 5.82 6.00 5.75 5.67 5.88 5.55 5.20 5.75 5.67 6.00 5.14 5.83 5.29 Comparison of medians 0.033 * 0.023 * 0.004 * 0.031 * 0.332 0.373 0.050 * 0.024 * 0.091 0.221 0.018 * 0.876 0.332 0.242

separately on the sample of 33 small rms and 15 large rms. As the data collected is non-parametric the medians for the complete sample and also for small and large rms are also shown and compared in Table II using the Mann-Whitney U test Table II illustrates that there are signicant differences between small and large rms in development practice and performance. Large rms reported higher levels of organisational and new product performance, specically in terms of market level and nancial measures. Large rms were also found to be more procient in launching new products, they were better at market testing and at launch tactics. Interestingly there were no differences between large and small rms in any of the three market orientation measures used. While Table II reports the values of the research measures used, it is also interesting to look at the relationships between the measures, this is presented in the next section. Results For the purpose of analysis the data from small and large rms were analysed separately in order to explore the impact of rm size on the research measures: organisational performance, new product performance, product advantage, product launch prociency, interfunctional coordination, customer orientation and competitor orientation. The data gathered are ordinal and have therefore been analysed using non-parametric statistical tests including Spearman rank order correlation. The large rms correlations are presented in Table III demonstrating signicant relationships between organisational performance and new product performance as indicated in the literature reviewed. Additionally, product launch prociency is seen to be signicantly correlated with both organisational and new product performance. However, the anticipated link between product advantage and performance, organisational and new product, is not apparent. Furthermore, the measures relating to market orientation were also found not to be related to performance. Table IV replicates the above analysis on small rms. The expected relationships between organisational performance, new product performance and product launch prociency found in large rms are also present in the small rm data. However, in contrast to the large rms, the market orientation variables are signicantly related to performance and to product launch prociency. Again, the anticipated link between product advantage and performance is not apparent. In order to explore the above results in more depth the sub measures were individually analysed in the context of large and small rms. Tables V and VI explore
(n 15) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Organisational performance New product performance Product advantage Product launch prociency Interfunctional coordination Customer orientation Competitor orientation 1 1 0.854 * 0.322 0.656 * 0.495 0.179 0.328 2 1 0.138 0.695 * 0.364 0.278 0.441 3 4 5 6 7

Product launch in SMEs

103

1 0.424 0.079 0.051 0.431

1 0.173 0.072 0.411

1 0.449 0.009

1 0.261

Note: * Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Table III. Large rm correlations

JSBED 15,1

(n 33) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Organisational performance New product performance Product advantage Product launch prociency Interfunctional coordination Customer orientation Competitor orientation

1 1 0.794 * * 0.308 0.591 * * 0.389 * 0.403 * 0.590 * *

2 1 0.101 0.610 * * 0.407 * 0.296 0.558 * *

104
Table IV. Small rm correlations

1 0.283 0.126 0.278 .0280

1 0.456 * * 0.383 * 0.572 * *

1 0.654 * * 0.471 * *

1 0.606 * *

Notes: * Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); * * correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

the relationship between product launch prociency and performance in large and small rms. Tables V and VI demonstrate the strength of signicance of the relationship between prociency in product launch across all measures (organisational performance, new product performance, market level measure, nancial measure and timing) for both small and large rms. However in large rms there is no signicant relationship between performance and prociency in market testing and launch budgeting (with the exception of market level measures). By contrast, in small rms all four types of prociency (market testing, launch budgeting, launch strategy and launch tactics) are signicantly linked to new product and organisational performance, the only exception being the lack of relationship between launch strategy and tactics and nancial performance measures. The results presented in Tables III and IV show no signicant link between product advantage and performance. In order to explore this unexpected nding in more detail the relationships between the individual items used to measure product advantage and performance in small and large rms were examined. This analysis demonstrated that there were no statistically signicant correlations between any of the product advantage variables and any of the performance measures in large rms. The same was found for small rms with the exception of a link between the ability of a new
Organisational performance 0.656 * * 0.463. 0.451 0.818 * * 0.628 * New product performance 0.695 * * 0.463 0.510 0.872 * * 0.620 * Market level measures 0.832 * * 0.614 * 0.628 * 0.908 * * 0.762 * * Financial measures 0.551 * 0.301 0.415 0.733 * * 0.517 * Timing measures 0.564 * 0.318 0.380 0.786 * * 0.513

(n 15) Product launch prociency Prociency in market testing Prociency in launch budgeting Prociency in launch strategy Prociency in launch tactics level (two-tailed)

Table V. Product launch vs performance: large rms

Notes: * Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); * * correlation is signicant at the 0.01

(n 33) Product launch prociency Prociency in market testing Prociency in launch budgeting Prociency in launch strategy Prociency in launch tactics

Organisational performance 0.591 * * 0.507 * * 0.625 * * 0.423 * 0.459 * *

New product performance 0.610 * * 0.502 * * 0.617 * * 0.475 * * 0.433 * *

Market level measures 0.561 * * 0.399 * 0.617 * 0.457 * * 0.354 * *

Financial measures 0.447 * * 0.373 * 0.423 * 0.343 0.307

Timing measures 0.616 * * 0.489 * * 0.679 * * 0.512 * * 0.488 * *

Product launch in SMEs

105

Notes: * Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); * * correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Table VI. Product launch vs performance: small rms

product to solve customers problems and the timing measures (the Spearman correlation coefcient measures was 0.423, this was signicant at the 0.05 level). It is also noteworthy that in small rms the relationship between nancial measures of new product performance and product advantage is negative (the Spearman correlation coefcient measures was 2 0.066), though not statistically signicant. Finally, the relationships between the measures of market orientation (customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination) and performance in small and large rms are examined in more detail in Tables VII and VIII. Again some key differences between large and small rms emerge. All three measures of market orientation are signicantly linked with organisational performance in small rms but not in large rms. When this is further explored it is found that competitor orientation is the most important aspect of market orientation for small rms being signicantly linked to both market and timing
Organisational performance 0.179 0.328 0.0495 New product performance 0.278 0.441 0.364 Market level measures 0.255 0.449 0.426 Financial measures 0.201 0.334 0.337 Timing measures 0.239 0.458 0.079 Table VII. Market orientation vs performance: large rms

(n 15) Customer orientation Competitor orientation Interfunctional coordination

(n 33) Customer orientation Competitor orientation Interfunctional coordination

Organisational performance 0.406 * 0.509 * * 0.389 *

New product performance 0.296 0.558 * 0.407 *

Market level measures 0.308 0.528 * 0.254

Financial measures 0.066 0.318 0.331

Timing measures 0.403 * 0.601 * 0.509 * *

Notes: * Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); * * correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Table VIII. Market orientation vs performance: small rms

JSBED 15,1

measures of new product performance. Notably, none of the market orientation measures are signicantly correlated to the nancial new product performance measures. In larger rms unexpectedly there were no links found between market orientation measures and any of the performance measures. Discussion and implications The research measures presented in Table II show that the performance of large rms is signicantly higher than that of small rms; with large rms gaining higher market share and reporting higher levels of nancial success. In examining some of the reasons for this the research results demonstrate that organisational performance is linked to new product performance in both small and large rms. This is supported by earlier ndings (Langerak et al., 2004; Cooper, 2001, Hultink and Hart, 1998). In addition product launch prociency is linked to both new product and organisational performance in both large and small rms. Although product launch prociency was found to be important for both large and small rms, see Tables V and VI, as predicted by Di Benedetto (1999) and Hultink and Hart (1998), large rms are signicantly more procient at market testing and launch tactics (Table II). The implication of this for small rms is that product launch is a critical activity impacting new product success and organisational performance, at the same time small rms have been found to be less procient at launching new products than large rms. In other words by improving product launch prociency small rms should improve their new product success. The analysis failed to identify a signicant relationship between product advantage and new product and organisational performance in either large or small rms. The results suggest that when small rms try to develop unique, innovative and superior products they tend to experience poor nancial returns. A possible explanation for this could be found in Yap and Souders (1994) research, which suggests that small rms are more likely to succeed with compatible rather than innovative new products. Moreover, it is difcult to dene best practice for small rms because they operate under very volatile conditions making the link between practice and performance less deterministic than in large rms, this is reected in Bessant and Francis (1997) who suggested a contingency approach to new product development in SMEs. To gain a clearer understanding of the link between new product characteristics and performance would require a more complex research instrument than was used in this study. The study shows that in small rms there was a signicant link between market orientation and performance, this was not reected in large rms. However, there are no signicant differences in the degree of market orientation in small and large rms, as shown in Table II. In other words, the ndings illustrated that market orientation has a more signicant impact for small rms, than large rms. Moreover, research by Langerak et al. (2004) also identied the absence of a relationship between market orientation and performance, as also found in the large rms in this study. It is interesting to note that in small rms competitor orientation is most strongly linked with new product performance than either customer orientation or interfunctional co-ordination. Reecting on Table II small rms reported poor performance on many of the measures used, for example, the median new product performance reported was 4.64,

106

this was less than Somewhat good on the scale used. Additionally they reported lack of prociency in launching new products, with a median value of 4.85, this is between Undecided and Somewhat good on the scale used. This indicates the level of performance improvement required by small rms. The discussion above suggests the following implications for small rms: . Product launch prociency is a key determinant of new product success; currently small rms are performing signicantly less well than large rms. Small rms need to improve their ability to successfully launch new products. . Small rms need to understand the new product characteristics that are linked with success, focusing on the nancial and organisational performance outcomes of their new product development process. . Market orientation is critical for success in small rms. Small rms need to understand their customers and competitors while involving all functions in the development of new products that satisfy customer needs. Returning to the research model presented in Figure 1, it is found to be more relevant to small rather than large rms. The model is updated based on the research results and presented again in Figure 2 for small and large rms. Conclusion The empirical ndings presented in this paper contribute to existing literature by demonstrating that market orientation as well as having a direct impact on organisational performance also affects new product development activities. The study has identied several signicant differences between the impact of product launch,

Product launch in SMEs

107

Figure 2. Updated working model

JSBED 15,1

108

product advantage and market orientation on new product development and organisational performance in small and large rms. These differences can be summarised as follows: . Small rms perform less well than large rms in terms of organisational performance, new product performance, and product launch prociency. . Market orientation, comprising interfunctional coordination, customer orientation and competitor orientation, is signicantly linked with new product success in small but not in large rms. . Prociency in market testing and launch budgeting are linked with organisational and new product performance in small but not in large rms. The study has indicated several areas in which small rms can improve their new product and organisational performance. These include improving the product launch process; maintaining high levels of customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination; and determining the new product characteristics linked with new product success. During the course of this study several limitations have become apparent. The research instrument failed to identify any relationships between product advantage and new product performance, this contradicts many previously published results and while it could be a factor of the rms studied it could also point to a limitation in the research instrument used. This study was conducted in Ireland a relatively small economy and the number of rms who responded to the questionnaire was limited to 48, the number of large rms involved was particularly low. This limited the quality of the analysis that could be performed. An expansion of the sample size could yield further results. The research instrument was selected to provide compatibility with earlier studies but on reection a more complex research instrument could have been useful in understanding some of the issues addressed by this study. Finally the rms included in the study came from several different sectors, it could be argued that the new product development process varies so dramatically between sectors that limiting the research sample to one industrial sector would result in more specic and applicable ndings. Finally, while the quantitative methods used above are useful in identifying trends and relationships a greater understand of the impact of product launch prociency, product advantage and market orientation on new product and organisational performance could be achieved by employing more qualitative research methods.
References Bessant, J. and Francis, D. (1997), Implementing the new product development process, Technovation, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 189-97. Bogue, J. and Delahunty, C. (1999), Market-oriented new product development: cheddar-type cheese, Agri-business Discussion Paper No. 23, Department of Food Economics UCC, UCC, Cork. Brown, G., Green, K.W. Jr, Inman, R.A. and Willis, T.H. (2005), Market orientation: relation to structure and performance, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 276-84. Calantone, R.J. and Di Benedetto, A.C. (1988), An integrative model of new product development process, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 201-15.

Christensen, C.M. and Bower, J.L. (1996), Customer power, strategic investments and the failure of leading rms, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 197-218. Coelho-Rodriguez, A. (2001), Euro Info Centre to expand to EU candidate countries, Enterprise Europe: Enterprise Policy News and Reviews, January. Cooper, R.G. (1979), The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 277-91. Cooper, R. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1988), Resource allocation in new product success and failure, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 249-62. Cooper, R.G. (2001), Winning at New Products, 3rd ed., Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA. Debruyne, M., Moenaert, R., Grifn, A., Hart, S., Hultink, E.J. and Robben, H. (2002), The impact of new product launch strategies on competitive reaction in industrial markets, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 159-70. Deshpande, R., Farley, J. and Webster, F. (1993), Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese rms: a quadrad analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 23-37. Di Benedetto, C. (1999), Identifying the key success factors in new product launch, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 530-44. Dodgson, M. and Rothwell, R. (1991), Technology strategies in small rms, Journal of General Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-55. Hart, S. and Tzokas, N. (2000), New product launch mix in growth and mature product markets, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 389-405. Hoffman, K., Parejo, M., Bessant, J. and Perren, L. (1998), Small rms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: a literature review, Technovation, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-55. Hua, S.Y. and Wemmerlov, U. (2006), Product change intensity, product advantage, and market performance: an empirical investigation of the PC industry, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 316-29. Hultink, E.J. and Hart, S. (1998), The worlds path to the better mousetrap: myth or reality? An empirical investigation into the launch strategies of high and low advantage new products, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 106-22. Hultink, E.J. and Schoorsman, J.P.L. (1995), How to launch a high-tech product successfully: an analysis of marketing managers strategy choices, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 229-42. Jaworski, B. and Kohli, A. (1993), Market orientation: antecedents and consequences, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, July, pp. 53-70. Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 1-18. Langerak, F., Hultink, E.J. and Robben, H.S.J. (2004), The impact of market orientation, product advantage, and launch prociency on new product performance and organisational performance, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 21, pp. 79-94. Loch, C. (2000), Tailoring product development to strategy: case of a European technology manufacturer, Research Policy, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 246-58. Maidique, M.A. (1980), Entrepreneurs, champions, and technological innovation, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 59-76. Montoya-Weiss, M. and Calantone, R. (1994), Determinants of new product performance: a review and meta-analysis, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 397-417.

Product launch in SMEs

109

JSBED 15,1

110

Nakata, C., Im, S., Park, H. and Ha, Y.W. (2005), Antecedents and consequence of Korean and Japanese new product advantage, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 28-36. Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), The effect of a market orientation on business protability, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, October, pp. 20-35. Ramaseshan, B., Caruna, A. and Pang, L.S. (2002), The effect of market orientation on new product performance: a study among Singaporean rms, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 399-409. Rochford, L. and Rudelius, W. (1997), New product development process: stages and successes in the medical products industry, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 67-84. Roper, S. (1997), Product innovation and small business growth: a comparison of the strategies of German, UK and Irish companies, Small Business Economics, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 523-37. Rosas-Vega, R. and Vokurka, R.J. (2000), New product introduction delays in the computer industry, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 157-63. Ruekert, R. (1992), Developing a market orientation: an organisational strategy perspective, International Journal of Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 225-45. Shepherd, C. and Ahmed, P.K. (2000), From product innovation to solutions innovation: a new paradigm for competitive advantage, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 100-6. Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1994), Market orientation, customer value and superior performance, Business Horizons, March-April, pp. 22-8. Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (2000), The positive effect of a market orientation on business protability: a balanced replication, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 69-73. Song, M. and Montoya-Weiss, M.M. (2001), The effect of perceived technological uncertainty on japanese new product development, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 61-80. Yap, C.M. and Souder, W.E. (1994), Factors inuencing new product success and failure in small entrepreneurial high-technology electronics rms, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 418-32. Further reading Pelham, A.M. and Wilson, D.T. (1996), A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure, rm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-rm performance, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 27-43. About the authors Ann Ledwith is a Lecturer in the Department of Manufacturing and Operations Engineering at the University of Limerick. Her research interests include the management of new product development and project management in small rms. Ann Ledwith is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ann.ledwith@ul.ie Michele ODwyer is a Lecturer in Entrepreneurship at the University of Limerick. Her research interests focus on issues at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship interface, research which is aided by her continuing close links with industry.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints