Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 198–206

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

From new-product development to commercialization through networks

Leena Aarikka-Stenroos ⁎, Birgitta Sandberg 1
Department of Marketing, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, 20014 University of Turku, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The research on research and development (R&D) networks is plentiful but network relations in
Received 1 July 2009 commercialization of innovations attract surprisingly little attention. This study analyzes how firms combine
Received in revised form 1 September 2009 resources and utilize their relations in order to ensure the success of their innovations. The theoretical basis
Accepted 1 November 2009
combines literature on innovation, industrial networks, and innovation networks. The study includes two
cases on commercialization networks. The results indicate that an innovating firm needs resources to engage in
Keywords:
Innovation networks
customer education, distribution, marketing communication, relationship mediation, and credibility building
Commercialization when moving from R&D tasks to commercialization tasks. To acquire these resources, the firm needs to
Launch experience changes in network relations. Accordingly, the innovating firm needs particular commercialization
Case study competence in terms of accessing, mobilizing, and organizing relational resources.
Network change © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Network competence

1. Introduction The innovation process includes both development and marketing

activities that may overlap. According to the linear view, the process
The tendency to develop innovations within research and develop- begins with an idea, proceeds with product development, and ends
ment (R&D) networks is becoming stronger because of high costs when the product actually creates wealth, whereas an increasingly
and technological complexity (Biemans, 1991; Ritter & Gemünden, popular non-linear approach emphasizes interaction with partners on
2003). Diverse network actors such as customers, distributors, product development and marketing/commercialization activities
research institutions, and competitors can contribute to innovation (Pellikka & Virtanen, 2009). The term commercialization refers to
development (Ritter, 1999; Ritter & Gemünden, 2003). The research the development of the product concept, its successful launch, and
on innovation networks concentrates mainly on resource combina- interaction with potential buyers (Jolly, 1997; Pellikka & Virtanen,
tions for product development (Ritter & Gemünden, 2003) and 2009).
emphasizes how to get the technology ready for the market (Story, Bringing a new product to market requires new activities and
Hart, & O'Malley, 2009). Nevertheless, firms also need to mobilize resources related to the creation of demand, markets, and delivery
the relational resources within their networks to ensure that the channels (Harrison & Waluszewski, 2008; Woodside & Biemans, 2005),
market accepts the product. Successful commercialization is crucial in creating critical new challenges for innovating firms (Easingwood &
transforming invention into innovation (Schumpeter, 1934). Even Koustelos, 2000; Urban & Hauser, 1993). Firms that are technology-
though a few studies of innovation network mention commercializa- oriented and concentrate on product development tend to face
tion or launch (Heikkinen, Mainela, Still, & Tähtinen, 2007; Millson & problems in the acquisition of marketing resources, in communi-
Wilemon, 2008; Partanen, Möller, Westerlund, Rajala, & Rajala, 2008), cating effectively with end-users, in building national and interna-
they do not focus on commercialization networks. Some research tional distribution channels, and in accessing market and customer
investigates how users and stakeholders can contribute to innovation information (Harrison & Waluszewski, 2008; Pellikka & Virtanen,
diffusion (Troshani & Doolin, 2007) and launch (Biemans, 1991; 2009). Additionally, customers and other actors in the business
Harrison & Waluszewski, 2008) but does not emphasize the network environment tend to resist new products (Christensen, 1997; Harrison
approach to commercialization in-depth. Hence, the purpose of this & Waluszewski, 2008). Nevertheless, successful diffusion requires
paper is to analyze network relations, actors, and resource require- adoption among users, complementors, and intermediaries (Woodside
ments for the commercialization of innovations. & Biemans, 2005).
The basic premise of this study is that the resources of a single
company are rarely sufficient to cover the commercialization of a
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel. + 358 2 3339 229; fax: + 358 2 3338 900.
E-mail addresses: leena.aarikka-stenroos@utu.fi (L. Aarikka-Stenroos),
new product, and therefore resource interaction with other actors in
birgitta.sandberg@utu.fi (B. Sandberg). commercialization is crucial. The resources of diverse network actors
1
Tel.: + 3582 3339 230; fax: + 3582 3338 900. facilitate not only the generation but also the commercialization of

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.05.023
 L. Aarikka-Stenroos, B. Sandberg / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 198–206 199

innovations. Customers and other actors external to the firm may the benefits and potential use (Harrison & Waluszewski, 2008;
have a role in commercialization by identifying potential users, Woodside & Biemans, 2005). The firm needs to focus on marketing
demonstrating how the product works, assessing its market potential, activities such as demonstrations of the product, advertising, brand
and evaluating the extent to which it meets user needs (Biemans, development, promotional events, and organizing distribution
1991; Harrison & Waluszewski, 2008). (Biemans, 1991; Harrison & Waluszewski, 2008; Partanen et al., 2008).
Small firms in particular may lack financial and competence The necessary resources and activities depend on the features of
resources and the legitimacy that enables them to reach potential the innovation including its complexity, trialability, relative advan-
customers. Additionally, innovating firms may create future demand tage, observability, and compatibility (Rogers, 1983). Ease of use of
and new markets by integrating their complementary resources, the innovation facilitates its diffusion and speeds-up its adoption.
products, and channel relationships through networking (Möller & Running trials reduces customer uncertainty and reinforces positive
Rajala, 2007). In offering access to the resources of other firms attitudes, and thus eases adoption (Robertson, 1971). Customers
(Håkansson & Snehota, 1995), network relations could provide evaluate the relative advantage and therefore need to be convinced
manifold complementary resources for commercialization and thereby about the potential benefits (Rogers, 1983). The more observable such
support diffusion and adoption of new products. benefits are and the more compatible the innovation is with existing
The emphasis in this study is on the role of network relations in values, experiences, and needs, the faster the adoption tends to be.
both R&D and, specifically, commercialization activities. Because the Hence, awareness-building, customer education and trial opportuni-
innovating firm requires different resources for commercialization ties improve innovation success (Easingwood & Koustelos, 2000;
than for R&D, it needs to renew its existing relations or create Eng & Quaia, 2009). Communicative activities, such as synergetic
completely new ones. Hence the first research question is: What kinds marketing communication and supporting brands (Chen, Shen, &
of actors and resources are able to contribute to commercialization Chiu, 2007), and word-of-mouth communication (Hoeffler, 2003),
activities, and how do the changing resource requirements change weaken resistance toward adoption. Intermediaries, whose resistance
network relations? can negatively affect commercial success, need educating and
Certain periods and events induce particular changes in networks convincing of the value of the innovation for their customers
(Håkansson & Snehota, 1995; Halinen, Salmi, & Havila, 1999). The (Parthasarathy, Sohi, & Hampton, 1994; Woodside & Biemans, 2005).
commencement of commercialization activities presumably leads Diverse actors provide resources for commercialization. Actors in
to changes in resource requirements and thus changes in network R&D networks may include competitors, distributors, buyers, consul-
relations. However, knowledge about change in innovation networks tants, suppliers, research institutes and universities, government
is still deficient, and empirical studies are few in number (Heikkinen agencies, and industry associations (Biemans, 1991; Möller, Rajala, &
et al., 2007). Svahn, 2005; Ritter & Gemünden, 2003). Presumably, commerciali-
Network competence is essential in the R&D phase (Ritter, 1999; zation networks also comprise similar organizational and personal
Ritter & Gemünden, 2003), but also in commercialization, firms need actors. Vertically related actors provide distribution resources, and
the ability to access and mobilize the necessary relational resources horizontally or diagonally related competitors or partners beyond the
(Story et al., 2009). Commercialization, particularly, sets up substantial traditional supply chain facilitate bringing innovations to market
challenges in managing network relations. For example, Heikkinen by pushing/pulling the new product through or creating new markets
et al. (2007) show how a new-product-development network (Möller & Rajala, 2007; Story et al., 2009). Intermediaries are crucial in
disintegrated during the commercialization phase because of actors' the case of consumer products because they make the product available
diverging goals. The second research question is thus: What kinds of to users (Parthasarathy et al., 1994; Woodside & Biemans, 2005).
network competence facilitate the management of resources during Public organizations and educational institutions may support
commercialization? diffusion by articulating optimistic visions of the use of the innovation
This paper aims to enhance the theoretical understanding of the in society, but due to a lack of power they often take a wait-and-see
network approach to commercialization by identifying the necessary stance (Troshani & Doolin, 2007). Users contribute by demonstrating
resources and actors, providing descriptions of network change the use of products and acting as references (Biemans, 1991; Harrison
during the innovation process and analyzing network competence & Waluszewski, 2008). Local municipalities and universities establish
in managing relations related to commercialization activities. A trust and expertise and foster relations with political authorities
commercialization network refers to a group of actors involved that could facilitate the development of new business (Möller &
formally or informally in the commercialization of an innovation. The Svahn, 2009; Partanen et al., 2008). New ventures in particular need
literature suggests manifold definitions of the term innovation (Garcia high-profile partners in order to establish credibility (Zott & Huy,
& Calantone, 2002). This study concentrates on product innovations, 2007), given that the credibility of reputable companies tends to
and employs the term innovation to mean a successfully developed spread to their partners (Anderson, Håkansson, & Johanson, 1994).
and launched new or improved product (Trott, 2002). The literature on adoption and diffusion highlights the role of
The structure of the article is as follows. The next section focuses individuals in innovation success. For example, lead users, mavens,
on commercialization activities and resources, changes in network expert opinion leaders and hub persons impact on opinion formation/
relations, and the management of relations. The subsequent empirical change and thus accelerate or block the adoption of the product
study describes two cases of innovation commercialization. A case (Goldenberg, Han, Lehmann, & Hong, 2009; Harrison & Waluszewski,
analysis and discussion about network relations in commercialization 2008; Woodside & Biemans, 2005). Such key persons provide publicity,
follow. The final section discusses the theoretical conclusions, the give advice and function as lead-teachers, demonstrate the new
potential contributions, and the managerial implications. product, and explain its unique benefits over what is currently available
(Harrison & Waluszewski, 2008; Woodside & Biemans, 2005).
2. Moving toward networks for commercialization In summary, commercialization requires resources such as techni-
cal competence, experience of the industry, customer and market
2.1. Commercialization activities and the necessary resources knowledge, the ability to identify the optimal functionality of the
product, communication, distribution, and close relationships
New activities emerge when a firm begins commercialization of an with key actors. Interconnectedness among actors provides indirect
innovation. The imperative is no longer to combine resources in order relationships through direct relations, considerably increasing the
to create a new product, but to overcome the resistance of end-users, resources available and producing access effects (Håkansson &
intermediaries, and complementaries, and to share knowledge about Snehota, 1995; Ritter, 2000). The actors and their resources contribute
200 L. Aarikka-Stenroos, B. Sandberg / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 198–206

to the main commercialization activities, which are trust creation, can assume new dimensions, or novel interaction may emerge from
credibility establishment, awareness building, customer education, completely new resource combinations. However, creating new
distribution, trial opportunities, and provision of complementary resource combinations requires the deformation of earlier conven-
offerings. Changes in activities and resource requirements lead to tions (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002).
network change in the move from R&D to commercialization. This
change is the subject of the next section. 2.3. The management of network relations for commercializing innovations

2.2. Changes in network relations The literature on manageability of networks expresses two
opposite views. According to the resource-based view, large firms
Diverse situations and events trigger changes in network relations. are able to intentionally create and control the network, whereas the
Such changes may originate from internal and endogenous factors industrial marketing and purchasing (IMP) approach posits that
(e.g., when the firm learns how to utilize new combinations of business networks are not under the control of an individual firm but
resources in relationships) or exogenous factors (e.g., economic or are within the sphere of influence of all actors through direct and
political changes in the business environment affect several network indirect relationships (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995; Möller et al.,
actors simultaneously) (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995; Halinen et al., 2005; Ritter, Wilkinson, & Johnston, 2004). This study rests on the
1999). premise that even if a network is not completely manageable,
The change may be incremental, that is, the character of the cooperation for commercialization requires coordination of relations.
relationship alters, or radical, as a relationship between two actors Innovating firms need network competence that is a company-
breaks down or a new actor initiates a new relationship (Halinen specific ability to build relationships with important partners, or
et al., 1999). Some periods may be particularly prone to radical change to identify new areas of cooperation in existing relationships so that
in individual dyads (Halinen et al., 1999), such as when resource they all complement each other and fit together (Ritter & Gemünden,
requirements change at the commencement of commercialization. 2003). Consequently, in order to succeed in commercialization, a
The change that takes place in dyads could eventually spread to firm needs the ability to access, mobilize, and organize relational
other relationships in the network. For example, an incremental dyadic resources. Fig. 1 illustrates how resource requirements change due
change may lead to a radical network change if other actors consider to new commercialization activities. This causes change in network
it important, and may consequently provoke strong responses (Halinen relations and requires commercialization competence.
et al., 1999). Thus, the changes reflect how the other actors discover, A firm pursuing new relationships needs to identify potential
interpret and act on new connections through relationship develop- partners, and to motivate them to integrate their resources by
ment (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). revealing the resources it has and indicating the potential benefits
Håkansson and Waluszewski (2002) discuss how path depen- of collaboration (Ritter, 1999). Access to others' resources tends to
dence restricts and facilitates changes in interaction in the network. be easier if antecedents of trust exist rather than being absent.
Development and adaptation of technical solutions do not occur Antecedents of trust include pre-existing social relations originating
independently. At some point, new ways of combining actors, in R&D and other business relations, reputational knowledge (Jarillo,
resources, and activities emerge on account of the multifaceted 1988; Larson, 1992; Partanen et al., 2008), and organizational
nature of resources and their various physical, social, and economic achievements such as awards and references (Zott & Huy, 2007).
dimensions. Such new configurations provide both opportunities Motivating network actors to engage in commercialization might be
and challenges in terms of commercialization. Existing interaction challenging given that it is easier to avoid risks by being a follower rather

Innovation process

R&D network Commercialization network

Resources needed to put a new Resources needed for trust creation,

idea into a physical and Change in activities credibility establishment,
psychological entity and resource awareness building, customer education,
requirements trial opportunities, distribution, and
complementary offerings.

Network competence: Network competence:

Ability to Ability to
• identify and involve Change in network • access resources for the
resources for R&D relations commercialization through social
• manage the network for relations and trust building
technological • mobilize resources for the
development commercialization through motivating
and providing resource trade-offs
• organize resources for the
commercialization and accommodate
interconnectedness, reciprocity, and
goal coherence

Fig. 1. Moving from R&D to commercialization: changes in activities, resource requirements, relations, and network competence.
 L. Aarikka-Stenroos, B. Sandberg / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 198–206 201

than an innovator. Engaging network actors in commercialization empirical data, thereby allowing new insights to emerge. Case study
includes the question of who dares to be an innovative intermediary or research facilitates holistic understanding of complex phenomena that
user (cf., Harrison & Waluszewski, 2008; Parthasarathy et al., 1994). do not separate easily from their contexts (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005;
Several reasons can motivate actors to cooperate in the field of Yin, 1989) and allows the researcher to focus on “understanding the
innovations. Actors may share mutual goals and collaborate for gaining dynamics present within single settings” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 534).
negotiation power. Cooperation may also provide growth and profit, Case study research maximizes the realism of the context at the
facilitate access to a new market, enhance reputation, or advance expense of precision and generalizability (McGrath, 1982). The unit of
learning and idea generation. Some firms seek support from other actors analysis in this study is a network of organizations developing and
because of the complexity of the product (Bullinger, Auernhammer, commercializing a particular innovation. The cases are instrumental
& Gomeringer, 2004; Harrison & Waluszewski, 2008; Ritter & (Stake, 1995) and aim to enhance understanding about the utilization
Gemünden, 2003; Ritter et al., 2004). An innovating firm may possess of network relations during commercialization. The study here
a creative reputation or growth potential which may make it a incorporates two cases in order to allow rich description and
particularly attractive partner (Partanen et al., 2008). comparison (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Advantages of networking may, however, turn into disadvantages The case selection rested on literal replication logic (Yin, 1989),
for innovating firms. Among these disadvantages are coordination with the intention of finding two cases that were as similar as possible.
difficulties that result from increased capabilities and ideas, and However, given the complexity of the phenomenon, finding two cases
generation of new competitors in newly created markets (Millson & that are directly comparable is next to impossible (Halinen & Törnroos,
Wilemon, 2008). If companies lack a common history—and therefore 2005). The cases concern the commercialization of Nordic Walkers
lack trust—collaboration on innovations is particularly challenging (poles for fitness walking) and the Bone Health Exercise Monitor
(Story et al., 2009). Trust building becomes pertinent when parties (a device for monitoring bone exercise). In both cases the context is
aim to avoid opportunism and competition. Trust emerges through the fitness industry, and Finnish firms developed the innovations for
choosing partners with similar values. Similarity in strategies, international consumer markets. The Nordic Walkers case originated
technologies, products, markets, or cultures facilitates knowledge in a previous research project that highlighted the importance of
transfer and predicts cooperation success (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; network relations throughout the innovation-development process.
Jarillo, 1988). Problems easily arise when partners in the innovation The researchers noticed the Bone Health Exercise Monitor later in a
process belong to different systems (Biemans, 1991). However, newspaper article when looking for a comparable case.
dissimilarity may also be a predictor of success: weak ties with The study of network change is inherently longitudinal (Halinen &
dissimilar actors bring in new and different insights and innovation Törnroos, 2005), so this study relies mainly on several years' worth of
potential (Granovetter, 1973; Möller & Rajala, 2007). retrospective data. The commercialization of Nordic Walkers dates
Organizing and planning are also relevant in the management of back to early 1997, and the data collection took place in 2002–2009.
relations for commercialization. Actors seeking new resource combi- The commercialization of Bone Health Exercise Monitor started in late
nations in the context of commercializing a product should be able to 2005 and the data relate to 2007–2009.
generate ideas and focus on the best ones. However, if the concept The main data collection method was semi-structured interviewing,
is very new and vague it may be difficult to discuss the details of which provides the formality for analyzing complex phenomena, and
the cooperation clearly (Möller & Svahn, 2009). Highly centralized allows the emergence of unexpected issues (Wengraf, 2001). The main
innovation networks usually have a hub firm orchestrating the questions were the same for all respondents, but there were separate
interaction, but in the absence of a dominant player, the actors must questions on the specific roles of the respondent, and follow-up
agree upon the means of organizing the interaction. From the questions on the emergent issues. All interviews covered the following
innovating firm's perspective, the management of interconnections aspects: 1) the characteristics of the innovation; 2) the actors, activities,
among relationships involves planning, staffing, and controlling the and resources involved in the R&D; 3) the actors, activities, and
network relations (Ritter, 1999; Ritter et al., 2004). On a more general resources involved in the commercialization; 4) the nature of and
level, organizing requires communication, compatible planning and reasons for the cooperation at different stages; and 5) the current state
decision making, and control and selection systems (Grandori & of the innovation.
Soda, 1995). Apparently, reciprocity, trust, and coherence in goals are The researchers found the key informants through newspaper
more important than formal agreements (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; articles and snowball sampling, and conducted ten face-to-face
Larson, 1992). interviews (four in the Nordic Walkers case and six in the Bone Health
Nevertheless, enactments of power embedded in interaction Exercise Monitor case). The interviewees included CEOs, managing
create dependencies among networked actors whereby a more directors, directors, and project coordinators representing the firms
dependent firm often becomes a follower that adapts to the wishes and other organizations involved in the R&D and commercialization
of a more powerful firm. Consequently, a more powerful firm becomes activities. Researchers did not gain access to those actors who rejected
highly effective in gaining network support for the operations this cooperation invitations, but the interviewees reasoned their possible
firm advocates for the network (Ritter et al., 2004). motives for opting out of the collaboration.
Interconnectedness and network effects facilitate the use of Interviewees that take part in retrospective studies may have
resources within the network but also constrain further networking difficulties recalling events they did not recognize as important at the
through lock-ins (Anderson et al., 1994; Håkansson & Snehota, 1995; time of the original event. Data triangulation in the present study
Ritter & Gemünden, 2003); they bias change and further interaction. enhances the trustworthiness of the findings; numerous telephone
Actors aiming to commercialize innovations may thus find themselves discussions, email correspondence, and secondary data (118 news-
locked into cooperating with each other and locked out of opportu- paper articles and 81 Internet pages in the Nordic Walkers case, and
nities to cooperate with others. 33 newspaper articles and 22 Internet pages in the Bone Health
Exercise Monitor case) supplement the interview data.
3. Methods The interviews lasted between one and two hours. The researchers
recorded and transcribed them and crosschecked the data to
This study on network relations in commercialization of in- eliminate possible errors. Data analysis involved two steps including
novations follows a strategy that balances the inductive and deductive within-case analysis and cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles
approaches. Dubois and Gadde (2002) support this kind of procedure & Huberman, 1994). In the within-case analysis, the researchers
and suggest modifying a framework derived from the literature with classified the data chronologically by listing the order of events and
202 L. Aarikka-Stenroos, B. Sandberg / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 198–206

then identified critical incidents occurring during both R&D and attractive. Exel was the prime mover in the network. Strong social
commercialization. The subsequent interpretation phase involved links, trust, and commitment already existed due to the R&D network
the organization of the data into themes related to the theoretical which motivated the actors to co-promote the innovation.
framework: the key actors (their goals and characteristics), the The commercialization began in the fall of 1997 when the Central
resources, and activities involved in R&D and commercialization. Association started to organize Pole Walking Nights and other mass
The analysis of network change involved drawing old and new events at which people had the opportunity to try the sport and to
networks and comparing them. The interviewees had the opportunity learn to use the poles. Exel provided walking poles for loan on these
to review the case descriptions and to correct factual errors. The occasions. The biggest challenge was getting people to walk with
cross-case analysis allowed comparison of the similarities and poles. Building awareness was easier since the media eagerly showed
differences between the cases in terms of the key actors, resources, people practicing “the new strange sport” and thus provided a
and activities in both R&D and commercialization. The concepts from massive amount of publicity. The actors started to actively employ
the theoretical framework facilitated characterization of the cases and their existing relations and to forge new ones with diverse actors such
their framing in terms of specific theoretical and contextual aspects as national sports and health associations, experts, instructors,
(Ragin, 1992). community fitness centers, and sports clubs, all of which expanded
the commercialization network.
4. Cases The actors took care of diverse commercialization tasks. All three
core actors with the media, health associations, and doctors built
The following two cases illustrate how companies apply a network awareness. Non-profit expert actors in particular generated trust and
approach and combine resources in the commercialization of new credibility since health associations (such as the Rheumatism
products. The emphasis is on the focal actors, the change in resources Association) and doctors publicly highlighted the health benefits of
and activities, and ways of managing commercialization relations. the sport. The Sports Institute of Finland, the Central Association, and
various sports associations offered trial opportunities and provided
4.1. Nordic Walkers education. Complementary offerings started to emerge from sports-
apparel manufacturers and fitness clubs. In addition, the actors
Network relations played a crucial role during commercialization decided to build a sports-instructor network. They started cooperation
of the Nordic Walkers poles by the Finnish firm. Exel specializes in with sports and health associations in finding instructors, educating
designing, manufacturing, and marketing composite sports equip- them about the new sport, and providing them with training material
ment and industrial applications. Its market share grew during the and poles, in which the Central Association played a pivotal role. The
1980s, but in the 1990s the market for cross-country skiing Sports Institute introduced the sport to its visitors. Lead-users became
equipment began to decline. Global warming, the increasing amount lead-teachers by giving instruction on the use of poles, communicating
of leisure time, and the growing numbers of senior citizens created benefits, and consequently accelerating the diffusion of the innovation.
new potential target groups and pushed idea generation towards the This multidimensional expanding commercialization network finally
creation of special poles that everyone could use throughout the year brought about the new-product breakthrough:
in walking. In 1995 three actors ideated a new sport, Nordic Walking,
and thus formed the R&D network. They were Exel, the Sports They had people coming in their store going, “Have you got any
Institute of Finland (henceforth the Sports Institute), and the Central Nordic walking poles?” and at first, many offered them hiking poles
Association for Recreational Sports and Outdoor Activities (hence- and the like, but it worked out pretty well when people started
forth the Central Association). The Sports Institute is a science-based insisting that, “They have to be Exel Nordic Walkers”. And then the
center of education for leisure and sports activities that also develops store managers started calling us that, “We've got some people here
and markets training, exercise, and educational services for sports who want to buy those Nordic walking poles of yours, would you
instructors, top-level sports organizations, and the personnel of mind sending some, please.” (Senior Vice President, Exel)
various firms. The Central Association is a non-profit organization
that encourages people to take an interest in outdoor activities. The Demand started to grow in winter 1997. Nordic Walkers achieved
resources of the focal actors were complementary. Exel had pole- commercial success quickly, and Exel started to export them to almost
manufacturing know-how and a widely known sports brand, and 30 countries. Exel has used basically the same kind of tactics in each
could provide equipment for the new sport. The Central Association country.
had knowledge of outdoor sports and the Sports Institute had sports-
related scientific knowledge about different training methods. The 4.2. Bone Health Exercise Monitor
sport innovation would benefit each of them, since despite their
different backgrounds and business logics they shared the common Newtest is a small company specializing in the development and
goal to change end-user attitudes towards sport. manufacture of human-performance-testing high-tech products. It
Following the development of the product and the concept during invented the Newtest Bone Exercise Monitor, which is a small monitor
1995–1997, Exel started its commercialization activities, but problems with a patented accelerometer estimating whether the amount and
started to arise. The first production run was only a couple of thousand quality of daily exercise are adequate to develop bone density. The
pairs, and it met resistance from the distributors. The trade did not R&D network consisted of Oulu University and the VTT Technical
believe in the product and the retailers were not keen to take it onto Research Centre of Finland. The idea behind the invention was to
their shelves. prevent osteoporosis, which is becoming a serious health threat, and
thus it was fairly easy to arouse interest in the device. Nevertheless,
We introduced this to Finnish store executives saying that commercialization was difficult in that Newtest had to create a new
walking with poles could become something big, and how about concept, “bone exercise for bone strengthening”:
if we start taking this further together. They practically laughed in
our faces; they thought nobody would start walking with poles! There is a market out there! It's a challenge that the need remains
(Senior Vice President, Exel) unrecognized. We should create the demand for bone exercise
and then break through with the monitor. But we don't have the
The three actors realized the need to combine their resources for money to do that. We'd need to have an extensive network to
the commercialization of the product and concept to make the sport succeed. (CEO)
 L. Aarikka-Stenroos, B. Sandberg / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 198–206 203

The R&D network actors and their resources were not utilized in looking for short-term paybacks and clear private trade-offs; they
commercialization. Instead, Newtest started to build a commercial- were not willing to commit to common strategic cooperation for
ization network from scratch. It knew of the successful Nordic bone-health promotion.
Walkers case and wanted to apply a similar type of networking. Some actors did understand the potential, however. For example, a
Newtest's potential customer in Japan also suggested testing the idea device rental company was willing to engage in cooperation because
in Finland with a view to later replication in Japan. The basis for such it could utilize the market potential of the monitor by selling and
networking seemed solid in that markets related to wellness and renting it to customers. The company also proposed that other
health are expanding, and the growing markets offer a large diversity network members, such as a certain private health clinic, might be
of products and services. useful partners in the future.
In 2006 Newtest started a project in order to build a network Following negotiations, there was a meeting in March 2007 to
that would create a market for products and services related to bone formalize the cooperation as the Bone Health Association. The
health. Through networking, firms could better raise awareness of the committed actors were Newtest, a provider of products and services
concept and create new synergistic offerings. Newtest recruited a related to medical testing, a distributor of health-care technologies,
project manager who started to look for actors from diverse industries a private health-care service company, an insurance company, a
associated with bone health. provider of products and services related to prostheses and aids, a
In fact, the project had originally focused on bone exercise, but soon hospital specialized in treating fractures, a nutrient wholesaler, and
broadened to include bone health in general. This meant that food the local municipality. Newtest was willing to give the leader role over
companies, for example, were suitable actors because milk products to one of the big actors, but none of them wanted to take on more
containing calcium contribute to bone health. The aim was to set up responsibility.
a multi-industry network and combine “electronics and the food This new type of networking with blurred goals left the actors
industry,” as the CEO of Newtest noted. The CEO and the project confused about their roles and how they should proceed. The opinions
manager contacted the market leaders in each bone-health-related on future interaction and modes of organizing differed, and as an
industry, including providers of osteoporosis diagnosis equipment, example, one informant expressed that the network should remain a
private health clinics, sports and health associations, sports clubs, food small group of committed and socially interactive actors and the
manufacturers, pharmacy chains, pharmaceutical-industry actors such network should not pursue aggressive resource-recruitment strate-
as manufacturers of calcium and vitamin D, and insurance companies. gies. As a consequence of dissents and unclear modes of cooperation,
They also contacted non-profit organizations (e.g., national osteopo- formal cooperation for bone health ceased. Newtest introduced its
rosis foundations) that could provide more credibility, as well as actors product to the market in 2005, and in spite of its recognized potential,
with established relations to doctors, trainers, and the media. the product launch was not particularly successful.
Given Newtest's objective to penetrate international markets,
it strived to involve global firms in the network. Food company D, 5. Discussion
the global leader in fresh dairy products, was the first international
company to show an interest, and this motivated others to make a In both cases, the innovating firm attempted to commercialize
commitment. However, company D withdrew from the negotiations a completely new kind of product. Neither product was complex,
later because its marketing goals concentrated on low-fat attributes but both called for new patterns of behavior and attitudes among
of the products rather than on bone-health attributes, which reduced prospective customers and business partners. Nordic Walkers
the synergy potential. represents an extreme case (cf., Parthasarathy et al., 1994) in that
The plan was that awareness building about bone health would be the intermediaries did not adopt the product and the innovating
the responsibility of the key actors and the media, together with the firm had to circumvent them in order to ensure the success of the
health associations and doctors, who would also generate trust and innovation.
establish the credibility of the monitor. Pharmacies, sports-equipment The cases illustrate how collaboration for commercialization can
retailers, department stores, and providers of equipment-rental and vary from pursuing strategic long-term goals to implementing
other complementary services (e.g., fitness clubs and health care) marketing practices in the short term. The Nordic Walkers commer-
organized trial opportunities, and handled education and distribution. cialization network was an extension of the R&D innovation network
For example, an orthopedic hospital was willing to rent out equipment and the cooperation was strategic for all actors. The Bone Health
and to teach people how to use it. Exercise Monitor commercialization network, on the other hand, was
Combining resources for commercializing the product and not an extension of the original R&D network, and rather resembled
creating markets for bone health proved difficult because the idea innovative networking for promoting new value (to enhance bone
was remarkably novel, and the initiator firm Newtest was small and health), which was strategic only for some actors.
relatively unknown. The contacted firms wanted to know who the For Nordic Walkers, a variety of actors made a contribution to each
other actors would be, and it became clear that it would be impossible of the commercialization tasks, and the dissimilarity of the actors
to involve competitors in the collaboration. Thus, if an actor from and the multidimensional structure of the network facilitated the
a certain industry engaged in cooperation, there was no attempt promotion. Awareness building was not, in fact, a problem in either
to approach other companies within the same industry. The vague case, as the media tended to be interested in innovations. Whereas
line between competition and cooperation inhibited networking expert opinion leaders and non-profit organizations would have
in this case: made an important contribution in both cases, only Exel succeeded in
integrating its resources with both profit and non-profit organizations.
The main principle has been not to involve competitors in the The innovation seemed more credible when two kinds of opinion
network, but what actually is a competitor and where? It's leaders—both medical doctors and actors in the sphere of sport, fitness
difficult to define (CEO of one of the recruited firms). and wellness such as trainers and health associations—convinced the
customers of the benefits of the innovation. Opinion leaders and non-
Most of the contacted actors expressed their interest but were not profit organizations also provided their divergent direct relations in
willing to enter into formal cooperation. Even though these actors order to reach new actors or end-users. In addition, key issues were
dealt with bone health, their target groups varied from teenagers equipment distribution and the availability of supporting comple-
to elderly people, which complicated potential common activities. mentary offerings. Lead users grew into lead teachers via educating
Besides, only smaller-scale actors were interested. Some were only new users about the benefits and usage. Thus, the lead user-to-teacher
204 L. Aarikka-Stenroos, B. Sandberg / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 198–206

Nordic Walkers: Bone Health Exercise Monitor:

Commercialization
Distributors R&D
network
and network
R&D network complementors Health Associations
Oulu
Exel University
Sports Health Doctors
Institute of Associations
Media
Finland Newtest
Trainers
Central VTT
Association… Doctors Technical
Research Distributors
Centre of and
Trainers Finland complementors
Media
Sports Associations

Commercialization network

Fig. 2. The actors in the R&D and commercialization networks.

transformation played a major role for successful market entry for are, the more difficult it may be to prove the potential of resource
Nordic Walkers, but not for the Bone Health Exercise Monitor. interaction and trade-offs and to recognize the actors' own roles in the
Fig. 2 depicts the actors and the changes in networks relations commercialization. The intended actors for the Bone Health Exercise
throughout the innovation process. Comparison of the two cases Monitor varied in size and market (local SMEs vs. global enterprises),
demonstrates how Exel benefited in commercialization from the type (business vs. municipality), and industry (food, high-tech, and
established relations it forged during product development, and how services). Such diversity offers not only opportunities but also
it achieved a radical network change. Its interaction with R&D actors management challenges. Large firms may be reluctant to form
changed incrementally, but as all the involved actors forged new horizontal networks with smaller-scale actors that do not offer a
relations representing radical dyadic changes, the whole network clear resource trade-off, for example. Consequently, Newtest was on
changed radically. The utilization of established existing relations its own in attempting to identify and motivate more actors to create
facilitated the transition from the R&D to the commercialization markets for bone-health offerings, and thereby, also in commercial-
network which expanded as the need for new kinds of resources izing the monitor. The challenges in mobilizing and organizing
emerged. Thus, in the case of Nordic Walkers, the main actors were resources for commercialization originate from diverging individual
committed, they trusted each other, and they were willing to share goals, uncertain resource trade-offs, lack of trust and the fear that
relations while they all benefited from the success of the innovation. cooperation will turn into competition, differences in strategic
Newtest, on the other hand, aimed at radical network change through relevance, and disagreement about the organizing systems.
the integration of diverse, unfamiliar actors on the basis of a common Table 1 summarizes the actors and resources involved in the two
value-creating issue. The company managed to form relations with commercialization networks in question, the change in network
some local actors with which it had prior social relations, but failed relations, and the abilities required to manage relations constituting
to do so with global actors, the most advantageous ones seeing no network competence.
value in this new cross-industry networking. As new relations did not
rest on previous organizational or social relations, and the benefits 6. Conclusions and implications
of cooperation were not clear, only a few radical dyadic changes
emerged and no radical network change occurred. This illustrates how 6.1. Theoretical contribution
radical network change is easier to realize gradually, starting with
incremental changes and proceeding towards more radical dyadic This study enhances the understanding of how firms use network
changes, rather than attempting discrete radical change. relations and combine resources in the commercialization of new
The potential actors and resources were easy to identify, but products. The contribution of the study lies in the exploration of
difficult to motivate and mobilize on account of the diversity in previously neglected commercialization networks within the innova-
strategic orientation, size, industry, and markets. In the Nordic tion process, and in the analysis of the manifold actors and resources
Walkers case, the actors set out the common goal “to get people that contribute to the commercialization activities. Research on
to exercise” and committed themselves to achieving it already during innovation networks focuses so far on R&D and only seldom refers
the R&D activities, which made it easier to mobilize the required explicitly to commercialization networks (e.g., Heikkinen et al., 2007;
resources for commercialization. For the Bone Health Exercise Möller & Svahn, 2009).
Monitor, the goal “to get people to take care of their bone heath” Commercializing a product appears to be more complicated than
emerged during commercialization. Pursuing such a goal through the literature depicts. This study shows how various actors with
cross-industry cooperation was too radical and blurred for most of diverse resources execute crucial commercialization tasks and
the potential actors, as the statement from a municipal non-profit thereby reduce resistance to newness (see Fig. 3). In the ideal
actor illustrates: situation, the commercialization network is versatile, including both
horizontal and vertical dimensions. It should combine the comple-
Is this trade policy, social policy, or public-health policy or what? mentary resources of non-profit organizations and of service and
It's like pioneering. product providers from distinct but related industries. Therefore, the
innovating firm needs to forge relations not only with users (Harrison
The results indicate that the more heterogeneous the actors and & Waluszewski, 2008) but also with opinion leaders and lead
the more “path-dependence-cracking” new resource combinations partners, such as distributors and complementaries, who are able to
 L. Aarikka-Stenroos, B. Sandberg / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 198–206 205

Table 1
The main findings on commercialization networks.

Nordic Walkers Bone Health Exercise Monitor

The commercialization network: actors, tasks, structure, and features

Required actors and their tasks Sports and health-related business and non-profit actors providing Diverse bone-health-related business actors providing marketing
awareness, teaching and learning, benefit illustrations, events, communication, branding, and information
and demonstrations
The structure Horizontal, multidimensional network relations that were strategic Horizontal, multidimensional network relations that had strategic
for all actors relevance only for some actors
Features Continuation of the R&D network A new “value innovation” network

The change from R&D to commercialization

The change trigger Resistant distributors Need to commercialize the product and identification of “bone health”
markets
Initiator No need for an initiator since the commercialization continued The innovator
from R&D
Features of change Gradual radical change: Incremental dyadic changes as interaction Discrete radical change: Forging new relationships on the basis of
within existing relations changed, and radical changes as new new value arguments, pursuing new relations without histories,
relations emerged isolated R&D and commercialization relations

Managing network relations in the commercialization

Accessing resources through Social and R&D relations Cold calls, some social ties
Mobilizing resources through The common goal: to get ordinary people to exercise outdoors The common goal: to get people to take care of their bone health
Resource trade-offs: clear Resource trade-offs: blurred
Commitment: originating from the R&D network and involvement Commitment: not forthcoming
in the issue
Organizing resources through Informal interactive management, evolutionary planning, and Informal discussion and formal management through association,
consequent evolvement of task and actor requirements semiformed selection systems and task planning, and common
staff (project manager)

accelerate diffusion, adaptation, and market creation. If the actors The findings support the perspective that commercialization
are dissimilar and carry out different tasks in a multidimensional demands a new kind of network competence including the ability to
network, they are more likely to complement each other. identify and access the required resources, to mobilize and organize
The analysis of how radical network changes emerge throughout resource combinations, and to manage the change of network
the innovation process is an additional contribution. Overcoming path relations. Actors in R&D networks combine resources for product
dependence (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002) and inducing changes development, but in the commercialization phase they easily face
that produce radically new combinations of resources among actors challenges related to blurred goals and problems with trust. Similarity
who have not previously cooperated is quite a challenge. The existing in goals, but dissimilarity in resources and complementarity in
relations and resources of the actors in the R&D network are also offerings, facilitate resource interaction for commercialization.
influential in enabling change in the commercialization in terms of Commercialization likely benefits from inter-organizational coop-
building trust, credibility, and commitment. Research should focus eration across industry borders and radical combinations of resources,
attention to the linkages between R&D and commercialization but actor diversity and dissimilarity might also complicate managing
networks. This focus would allow consideration of the commercial- commercialization activities. Potential partners need clear resource
ization partners' and the users' needs in the R&D activities as well as trade-offs as motivators to integrate resources, and will commit to
involving lead partners and users to actively promote the innovation the commercialization only if it fits in with their activities, strategy,
in the commercialization activities. and business model. Due to blurred activities and expectations,

R&D: Commercialization:
the network aims to combine technology the network aims to commercialize the
and knowledge resources to create a product or to create markets for innovations
product to survive:
experts, users, distributors, and providers of
Technical complementary offerings
resources Knowledge
- build awareness
resources Awareness - establish credibility
builders and trust
- communicate
Innovator usability and
firm benefits
Credibility - organize distribution
builders and trials
- produce supporting
offerings
Distributors - give negotiation
Complementaries Educators power
Benefit illustrators - provide access to
Demonstrators internationalization

Fig. 3. The emergence of new activities and the contribution of the commercialization network actors.
206 L. Aarikka-Stenroos, B. Sandberg / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 198–206

problems with trust easily emerge, and the unclear distinction Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 1989;14:
532–50.
between competitors and cooperators may hinder both the building Eng T-Y, Quaia G. Strategies for improving new product adoption in uncertain
of commercialization relations and interaction among relevant actors. environments: a selective review of the literature. Ind Market Manage 2009;38:
275–82.
Garcia R, Calantone R. A critical look at technological innovation typology and
6.2. Managerial implications innovativeness terminology: a literature review. J Prod Innov Manage 2002;19:
110–32.
The findings inform managerial implications for successful com- Goldenberg J, Han S, Lehmann DR, Hong JW. The role of hubs in the adoption process.
J Market 2009;73(2):1–13.
mercialization and the effective management of network relations Grandori A, Soda G. Inter-firm networks: antecedents, mechanisms and forms. Org Stud
within the innovation process. From this research, two strategies 1995;16:183–214.
emerge for applying the network approach to the commercialization Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. Am J Soc 1973;78:1360–80.
Håkansson H, Snehota I. Developing Relationships In Business Networks. New York:
of new products. Firms can use a portfolio of inter-organizational
Routledge; 1995.
relationships (cf., Ritter & Gemünden, 2003) and thus offer clear Håkansson H, Waluszewski A. Path dependence: restricting or facilitating technical
benefits and resource trade-offs to actors who are able to make a development? J Bus Res 2002;55:561–70.
contribution. Alternatively, innovating firms can collaborate in a Halinen A, Salmi A, Havila V. From dyadic change to changing business networks: an
analytical framework. J Manage Stud 1999;36:779–94.
strategic way and use their network relations to create markets Halinen A, Törnroos J-Å. Using case methods in the study of contemporary business
and new business fields (cf., Möller et al., 2005), although this kind networks. J Bus Res 2005;58:1285–97.
of network should focus on innovative issues and new business models Harrison D, Waluszewski A. The development of a user network as a way to re-launch
an unwanted product. Res Policy 2008;37:115–30.
rather than particular innovations. Heikkinen M, Mainela T, Still J, Tähtinen J. Roles for managing in mobile service
Managers in innovating firms should acknowledge the links development nets. Ind Market Manage 2007;36:909–25.
between R&D and commercialization and should purposefully create Hoeffler S. Measuring preferences for really new products. J Market Res 2003;40:
406–20.
relations with diverse actors who are either of direct use in the Jarillo JC. On strategic networks. Strateg Manag J 1988;9:31–41.
commercialization activities or have relations with other relevant Jolly VK. Commercializing new technologies. Getting form mind to market. Boston:
actors. Managers should consider the potential contribution of non- Harvard Business School Press; 1997.
Larson A. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: a case study of the governance of
profit organizations. In the context of risky innovations, firms should exchange relationships. Adm Sci Q 1992;37:76–104.
employ the trust-creation effect of their R&D network actors, utilize McGrath JE. Dilemmatics. The study of research choices and dilemmas. In: McGrath JE,
existing network relations when extending their relationship base, Martin J, Kulka RA, editors. Judgement calls in research. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications; 1982. p. 69–102.
and be cautious about pursuing discrete radical changes.
Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications;
1994.
6.3. Evaluation and avenues for future research Millson M, Wilemon D. Designing strategic innovation networks to facilitate global NPD
performance. J Gen Manage 2008;34(2):39–56.
Möller K, Rajala A, Svahn S. Strategic business nets—their type and management. J Bus
As each network is context-specific, the generalizability of the Res 2005;58:1274–84.
results is limited. The two cases do not represent all industries or firms, Möller K, Rajala A. Rise of strategic nets—new modes of value creation. Ind Market
and studies on other industries may give different answers. In this Manage 2007;36:895–908.
Möller K, Svahn S. How to influence the birth of new business fields—network
research, the end-users of the innovations were consumers who perspective. Ind Market Manage 2009;38:450–8.
accentuate the role of intermediary actors. Nevertheless, most new Partanen J, Möller K, Westerlund M, Rajala R, Rajala A. Social capital in the growth of
knowledge on commercialization networks is likely to be applicable to science-and-technology-based SMEs. Ind Market Manage 2008;37:513–22.
Parthasarathy M, Sohi R, Hampton RD. Dual diffusion: analysis and implication for sales
business markets. Future research on inter-organizational networks force management. J Market Theory Pract 1994;2(3):1–14.
should take commercialization aspects into account more explicitly Pellikka J, Virtanen M. Problems of commercialization in small technology-based firms.
and investigate commercialization and market-creation networks in Int J Entrep Innov Manage 2009;9:267–84.
Ragin CC. “Casing” and the process of social inquiry. In: Ragin C, Becker HS, editors.
different industries and for different types of innovation. What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 1992. p. 217–26.
Acknowledgements Ritter T. The networking company. Antecedents of coping with relationships and
networks effectively. Ind Market Manage 1999;28:467–79.
Ritter T. A framework of analysing interconnectedness of relationships. Ind Market
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions from the Manage 2000;29:317–26.
anonymous reviewers and the editor, the commentors at the Ritter T, Gemünden HG. Network competence: its impact on innovation success and its
IMP2007, IMP2009 and GBATA2008 conferences, Aino Halinen-Kaila, antecedents. J Bus Res 2003;56:745–55.
Ritter T, Wilkinson I, Johnston W. Managing in complex business networks. Ind Market
and Jaana Tähtinen. The authors are also grateful to the Foundation Manage 2004;33:175–83.
for Economic Education for providing a grant for this research. Robertson TS. Innovative behaviour and communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston; 1971.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press; 1983.
References Schumpeter JA. The theory of economic development. An inquiry into profits, capital,
credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1934.
Anderson JC, Håkansson H, Johanson J. Dyadic business relationships within a business Stake RE. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1995.
network context. J Market 1994;58(4):1–15. Story V, Hart S, O'Malley L. Relational resource and competences for radical product
Biemans WG. User and third-party involvement in developing medical equipment innovation. J Market Manage 2009;25:461–81.
innovations. Technovation 1991;11:163–82. Troshani I, Doolin B. Innovation diffusion: a stakeholder and social network view. Eur J
Bullinger H-J, Auernhammer K, Gomeringer A. Managing networks in the knowledge- Innov Manage 2007;10:176–200.
driven economy. Int J Prod Res 2004;42:3337–53. Trott P. Innovation management and new product development. Harlow: Pearson
Chen C-W, Shen C-C, Chiu W-Y. Marketing communication strategies in support Education; 2002.
of product launch: an empirical study of Taiwanese high-tech firms. Ind Market Urban GL, Hauser JR. Design and marketing of new products. Englewood Cliffs:
Manage 2007;36:1046–56. Prentice-Hall; 1993.
Christensen CM. The innovator's dilemma. When new technologies cause great firms to Wengraf T. Qualitative research interviewing. Biographic narrative and semi-structured
fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1997. methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2001.
Dhanaraj C, Parkhe A. Orchestrating innovation networks. Acad Manage Rev 2006;31: Woodside AG, Biemans WG. Modeling innovation, manufacturing, diffusion and
659–69. adoption/rejection processes. J Bus Ind Market 2005;20(7):380–93.
Dubois A, Gadde L-E. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. Yin R. Case study research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1989.
J Bus Res 2002;55:553–60. Zott C, Huy QN. How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources.
Easingwood C, Koustelos A. Marketing high technology: preparation, targeting, Adm Sci Q 2007;52:70–105.
positioning, execution. Bus Horiz 2000;43(3):27–34.