IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijrema/v39y2022i3p907-926.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financial projections in innovation selection: The role of scenario presentation, expertise, and risk

Author

Listed:
  • Avagyan, Vardan
  • Camacho, Nuno
  • Van der Stede, Wim A.
  • Stremersch, Stefan

Abstract

Innovation project selection is a decision of major relevance to firms. Errors in this decision may have serious consequences for firms, especially as many firms struggle with optimizing innovation project selection decisions. In their pitches to innovation decision-makers, project teams invariably present financial projections on their innovation projects, which often include best- and worst-case scenario presentation. Despite the potential influence the presentation of such financial projections has on firms’ innovation project selection decisions, this topic has not received sufficient attention in the literature. This study examines the role of scenario presentation on financial projections in innovation project selection by conducting two conjoint experiments among 2,425 managers and 11 follow-up interviews with senior executives. First, the findings of this study suggest that firms should help project teams present small- rather than large-range scenarios. This is important for at least the 57% of firms surveyed in this study where project teams are reported to present ‘too wide’ and ‘too extreme’ scenarios. Second, firms seeking to promote transformational innovation in their innovation pipeline should make the presentation of small-range scenarios required for an innovation proposal to be presented to a project selection committee. This is relevant for 79% of surveyed firms that would like to select more transformational than core innovation projects and especially for the half of which that currently do not require scenario presentation. Third, project teams with less expertise should develop scenarios analytically rather than intuitively and convey the project’s strategic merit to decision-makers to help increase innovation project selection likelihood.

Suggested Citation

  • Avagyan, Vardan & Camacho, Nuno & Van der Stede, Wim A. & Stremersch, Stefan, 2022. "Financial projections in innovation selection: The role of scenario presentation, expertise, and risk," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 907-926.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:39:y:2022:i:3:p:907-926
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.10.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811621000902
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.10.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2011. "Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 211-232, June.
    2. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Decision Making under Ignorance: Arguing with Yourself," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 15-36, January.
    3. Lori Rosenkopf & Patia McGrath, 2011. "Advancing the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Novelty in Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1297-1311, October.
    4. Martin Messner & Brian Jørgensen, 2010. "Accounting and Strategising: A Case Study from New Product Development," Post-Print hal-00528382, HAL.
    5. Crowley, Ayn E & Hoyer, Wayne D, 1994. "An Integrative Framework for Understanding Two-Sided Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(4), pages 561-574, March.
    6. Jørgensen, Brian & Messner, Martin, 2010. "Accounting and strategising: A case study from new product development," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 184-204, February.
    7. Robert A. Baron & Michael D. Ensley, 2006. "Opportunity Recognition as the Detection of Meaningful Patterns: Evidence from Comparisons of Novice and Experienced Entrepreneurs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(9), pages 1331-1344, September.
    8. James G. March & Zur Shapira, 1987. "Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1404-1418, November.
    9. Ho, Joanna L Y & Keller, L Robin & Keltyka, Pamela, 2002. "Effects of Outcome and Probabilistic Ambiguity on Managerial Choices," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 47-74, January.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, October.
    11. Bennet A. Zelner, 2009. "Using simulation to interpret results from logit, probit, and other nonlinear models," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(12), pages 1335-1348, December.
    12. Paul Goodwin & George Wright, 2001. "Enhancing Strategy Evaluation in Scenario Planning: a Role for Decision Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 1-16, January.
    13. David Kirsch & Brent Goldfarb & Azi Gera, 2009. "Form or substance: the role of business plans in venture capital decision making," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 487-515, May.
    14. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    15. Noordhoff, C.S. & Kyriakopoulos, K. & Moorman, C. & Pauwels, P. & Dellaert, B.G.C., 2011. "The Bright Side and Dark Side of Embedded Ties In Business-to-Business Innovation," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2011-008-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    16. Dongil D. Keum & Kelly E. See, 2017. "The Influence of Hierarchy on Idea Generation and Selection in the Innovation Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 653-669, August.
    17. Roger J. Calantone & Jeffrey B. Schmidt & X. Michael Song, 1996. "Controllable Factors of New Product Success: A Cross-National Comparison," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 341-358.
    18. Glenn Hoetker, 2007. "The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 331-343, April.
    19. Du, Ning & Budescu, David V. & Shelly, Marjorie K. & Omer, Thomas C., 2011. "The appeal of vague financial forecasts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 179-189, March.
    20. Elke U. Weber & Christopher Hsee, 1998. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1205-1217, September.
    21. Karan Girotra & Christian Terwiesch & Karl T. Ulrich, 2010. "Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 591-605, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Avagyan, Vardan & Camacho, Nuno & Van der Stede, Wim A. & Stremersch, Stefan, 2022. "Financial projections in innovation selection: the role of scenario presentation, expertise, and risk," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112474, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Francois Collet & Déborah Philippe, 2014. "From Hot Cakes to Cold Feet: A Contingent Perspective on the Relationship between Market Uncertainty and Status Homophily in the Formation of Alliances," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 406-432, May.
    3. Joao Albino‐Pimentel & Pierre Dussauge & J. Myles Shaver, 2018. "Firm non‐market capabilities and the effect of supranational institutional safeguards on the location choice of international investments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(10), pages 2770-2793, October.
    4. Mittone, Luigi & Morreale, Azzurra & Ritala, Paavo, 2024. "Initial conditions and path dependence in explorative and exploitative learning: An experimental study," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. Hoenig, Daniel & Henkel, Joachim, 2015. "Quality signals? The role of patents, alliances, and team experience in venture capital financing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1049-1064.
    6. Albino-Pimentel, João & Dussauge, Pierre & El Nayal, Omar, 2022. "Intellectual property rights, non-market considerations and foreign R&D investments," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    7. Caliendo, Marco & Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Pfeifer, Harald & Uhlendorff, Arne & Wehner, Caroline, 2024. "Managers’ risk preferences and firm training investments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    8. Fischer, Timo & Henkel, Joachim, 2013. "Complements and substitutes in profiting from innovation—A choice experimental approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 326-339.
    9. Yong Li & Jing Li & Peng Zhang & Sunhwan Gwon, 2023. "Stronger together: Country‐of‐origin agglomeration and multinational enterprise location choice in an adverse institutional environment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 1053-1083, April.
    10. Jung , Taehyun & Walsh , John P., 2011. "Organizational paths of commercializing patented inventions: The effects of transaction costs, firm capabilities, and collaborative ties," Papers in Innovation Studies 2011/3, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    11. Magdalena Markowska & Dietmar Grichnik & Jan Brinckmann & Diana Kapsa, 2019. "Strategic orientations of nascent entrepreneurs: antecedents of prediction and risk orientation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 859-878, December.
    12. Jiang, Guoliang Frank & Holburn, Guy L.F., 2018. "Organizational performance feedback effects and international expansion," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 48-58.
    13. Tang Wang & Vikas A. Aggarwal & Brian Wu, 2020. "Capability interactions and adaptation to demand‐side change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1595-1627, September.
    14. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    15. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Tu, Gengyang, 2020. "Conveyance, envy, and homeowner choice of appliances," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    16. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    17. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    18. Arthur Van Soest & Arie Kapteyn & Julie Zissimopoulos, 2006. "Using Stated Preferences Data to Analyze Preferences for Full and Partial Retirement," Working Papers WR-345, RAND Corporation.
    19. Clark, Andrew E. & Senik, Claudia & Yamada, Katsunori, 2017. "When experienced and decision utility concur: The case of income comparisons," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-9.
    20. Lipeng Gary Ge & Cuili Qian & Jiatao Li, 2019. "Mimicry, Knowledge Spillover and Expatriate Assignment Strategy in Overseas Subsidiaries," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 59(6), pages 981-1007, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:39:y:2022:i:3:p:907-926. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-research-in-marketing/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.