- Review Article Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001).It is in separate attachment.
- Examine Table 2 and Table 3.
- Compare Table 2 with the discussion section.
- Do you agree with the interpretation of the results made by the authors?
- How are your conclusions different?
- Examine Appendix A.
- Are all the factors strong?
- Which factors make you question the validity of the conclusions of the authors? Explain your answer.
- Considering the statistical evidence provided in the article, would you feel comfortable using this data to support management decisions? Why or why not?
H1: There is a significant difference in new product performance among the four groups of firms and;
- ME firms have higher new product performance than EO,MO and CO firms.
- MO firms have higher new product performance than EO and CO firms.
- EO firms have higher new product performance than CO firms.
H2: There is a significant difference in the timing of market entry among the four groups of firms and that;
- EO firms have faster market entry than ME,MO and CO firms.
- ME firms have a faster market entry than MO and CO firms.
- MO firms have a faster market entry than CO firms.
H3: There are significant difference in product quality among the four groups of firms and that;
- ME firms have higher product quality than EO and CO firms.
- MO firms have higher product quality than EO and CO firms.
- EO firms have high product.
H4: There are significant differences in the mean level of market synergy among four groups.
- MO firms have higher marketing synergy than ME,EO and CO firms.
- ME firms have higher marketing synergy than EO and CO firms.
- CO firms have higher marketing synergy than EO firms.
H5: There are significant differences in the mean level of proficiency of market launch among the four the four groups of firms and that
- ME firms are more proficient in market launch than EO,MO and CO firms.
- MO firms are more proficient in market launch than EO and CO firms.
- EO firms are more proficient in market launch than CO firms.
H6: There are significant differences in the mean level of management support for product innovation among the four groups of firms and that;
- ME firms give greater management support to innovation than MO,EO and CO firms.
- EO firms give greater management support to innovation than MO and CO firms.
- MO firms gives greater management support to innovation than CO firms
H7: There are no significant differences among the four groups of firms in their perception of environment hostility and intensity of market competition.
Examine Table 2 and Table 3
Table 2 shows the ANOVA and PCT, which is a presentation of the output analysis that will aid in proofing or disapproving the seven hypotheses but based on a more objective measures of new product performance which is found to yield stronger results than the analysis based on the perceptual measures. Table 3 in the other context analyses deeply into the seven hypotheses postulated in this article.
Table 2 and Discussion
The table has a PCT which is meant to support for most of the hypothesis, this value is obtained using proportion of variance multiplied by maximum contrast the discussion part of the table. The table tries to give explanatory nature of the study which also shows for control of type I error and with a more conservative scheffe comparison procedure and results being discussed accordingly. The discussion starts by looking into the first hypothesis H1 which is explained as outputted in the table that is H1a : ME>EO,MO and CO. H1b and H1b is however are said to not be supported though the mean difference are in predicted direction.
An assertion is placed that the table places it analysis based on a more objective measures of new product performance which is seen to yield stronger results than the use of perceptual based measurements. The next hypothesis given H2 involves the timing of market entry, which according to the discussion H2a is partially supported by the data, with H2b and H2c being fully supported. The partial support achieved by H2a is discussed that EO firms would have first market entry compared to the other firms. This has been explained to have been brought about by the way the other three firms focuses on exploratory, risk seeking approach to product innovation. Regarding Hypothesis H3, H3a is supported by the data whereas H3b and H3c are not supported by the data. The fourth hypothesis H4 is explained to have H4a being partially supported by the data because MO firms have significantly high mean scores on market synergy than EO or CO firms but not higher than ME. H4 b is not supported whereas H4c is supported with EO firms having lower marketing synergy compared to CO firms. With hypothesis H5, H5a and H5b are partially supported since MO and ME firms have significantly higher proficiency of market launch than CO firms. H5c is not support although the means are in the direction of the predicted hypothesis. Hypothesis H6 provides management support innovation, there exist a strong support to this hypothesis H6a and H6c being fully supported whereas H6b being partially supported because EO firms have higher means scores than CO firms. The last hypothesis H7 is fully supported by the table thus indicating that the four groups of firms do not significantly differ on perceived environmental hostility and intensity of market competition.
Do you agree with interpretation of results made by the authors?
The interpretation of the results by the authors is a pure reflection of the output in the analysis part of the article. I hereby agree with this interpretation. Nonetheless a model representing the contribution of each of the four firms in innovation would have highly depict more on the interpretation as an added conclusion. As well the notion of partial support of a portion of an hypothesis has to be fully explained.
Are all factors strong?
All the factors are explained with the extent it deserves, but the limiting feature only comes when the value of Variance explained diminishes. The highest variance explained is on the market orientation at a factor 18.3, whereas the lowest is on environmental hostility and proficiency of market launch. The inclusion of this sets of factors denounce the aspect of statistical significance. There was need therefore to perform a principal component analysis before the analysis was undertaken.
The statistical evidence provided in the article does not fully explain the effect of Market Orientation and Entrepreneurship Orientation Alignment on Product Innovation. A major explanation that would support management decision would have included a regression model each with an extent to which if contributes on product Innovation.