IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/scaman/v17y2001i4p409-420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Short-term R&D bias, competition on cost rather than innovation, and time to market

Author

Listed:
  • Dunk, Alan S.
  • Kilgore, Alan

Abstract

Mounting evidence indicates that capital markets often apply short-term pressure on firms to gain short-term results by focusing primarily on reported financial performance. As a result of short termism, it has been argued that companies are likely to cut expenditure on R&D which might otherwise improve longer-term performance. As there is a growing consensus that R&D is critically important to both organizational and national performance, short termism may have significant detrimental organizational consequences. One implication arising from a short-term R&D bias, and examined in this paper, is its effect on market time reduction. Arguments are examined that suggest a dominant R&D strategy is to reduce product time to market. Concerns have been expressed, however, that such a strategy is applicable in specific circumstances only. A review of the literature suggests that analyst and shareholder bias against high-risk, long-term research in favor of lower-risk, short-term product R&D influences organizations to reduce the time it takes to get a product to market when the emphasis in the marketplace is on cost competition rather than product innovation. The findings of the study suggest that when the emphasis on competition on cost rather than innovation is low, short-term R&D bias does not affect market time. In contrast, when the emphasis on competition on cost rather than innovation is high, the results indicate that short-term R&D bias positively influences market time reduction. The study concludes with suggestions for further research.

Suggested Citation

  • Dunk, Alan S. & Kilgore, Alan, 2001. "Short-term R&D bias, competition on cost rather than innovation, and time to market," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 409-420, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:scaman:v:17:y:2001:i:4:p:409-420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095652210000004X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robert Rieg, 2015. "Dynamics of value-based management: does shareholder value cause short-termism?," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 193-224, August.
    2. Valérie Sabatier & Vincent Mangematin & Tristan Rouselle, 2010. "From Business model to Business model portfolio in the european biopharmaceutical industry," Post-Print hal-00430782, HAL.
    3. repec:tkp:ijsrsy:v:2:y:2012:i:2:p:73-91 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Indra Abeysekera, 2021. "Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management Research towards Value Creation. From the Past to the Future," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Julen Castillo‐Apraiz & Jesus Matey, 2020. "Customizing competitive strategy to entry timing: Implications for firm performance in the pharmaceutical industry," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 976-985, September.
    6. Marzieh ShahmariChatghieh & Harri Haapasalo & Anyanitha Distanont, 2013. "A Comparison of R&D Supply Chains and Service and Manufacturing Supply Chains," International Journal of Synergy and Research, ToKnowPress, vol. 2(2), pages 73-91.
    7. Marzieh Shahmari Chatghieh & Harri Haapasalo & Anyanitha Distanont, 2013. "Comparing Manufacturing and Services Sourcing against R&D Sourcing," Diversity, Technology, and Innovation for Operational Competitiveness: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Technology Innovation and Industrial Management,, ToKnowPress.
    8. Ellefson, Paul V. & Moulton, Robert J. & Kilgore, Michael A., 2003. "Public agencies and bureaus responsible for forest management and protection: an assessment of the fragmented institutional landscape of state governments in the United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 207-223, September.

    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:scaman:v:17:y:2001:i:4:p:409-420. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/872/description#description .

    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.