Management of Technology and Innovation in Japan

280 C. Nakata and S. Im
analysis in two steps for each country. 1 First, we regressed new product advantage
on the three antecedents of cross-functional integration, new product team proficiency,
and initiation process (F = 10.59/13.24, p’s < .01, R 2 = .23/.22 for Japan/Korea
samples). Second, NPP was regressed on new product advantage (F =
12.96/18.13, p’s < .01, R 2 = .11/.11 for Japan/Korea samples).
Main Findings
The results of the simple path analyses are summarized in Figure 1. The following
country-specific results pointed out important similarities and differences in Japanese
and Korean new product development.
Process
Antecedents
Crossfunctional
Integration (CFI)
New Product
Team Proficiency
(NPTP)
Initiation Process
(IP)
H1: -.04/.26**
H2: .31**/.22*
H3: .28**/.06
New Product Advantage NPD Outcome
New Product
Advantage (NPA)
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework and estimation results
H4: .33**/.33**
New Product
Performance (NPP)
Standardized Coefficients: Japan/Korea
* significant at p < .05 level
** significant at p < .01 level
In H1 cross-functional integration (CFI) was posited to be an antecedent of new
product advantage in Korea but not Japan. The standardized coefficient of .26 was
significant (p.05) in Japan. The findings supported H1.
We had also hypothesized through H2 that a second antecedent, new product
team proficiency (NPTP), is positively tied to new product advantage in Japan as
well as Korea. The relationship was significant and positive based on the corresponding
standardized coefficients of .31 (p