The Determinants of AI in Products:Evidence From the PDMA Best Practice Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The adoption of advanced technology is considered a source of competitive advantage over companies with slower technology assimilation capabilities. Early adoption of emerging technologies and tools is paramount, especially in business-critical functions such as R&D and product development. This seems especially important in the case of artificial intelligence (AI), a powerful new technology with the potential to affect not only a firm’s product portfolio but also the very development processes required to create products. However, recent surveys suggest that firms differ significantly in their ability to adopt AI, despite strong pre-existing technological competencies and clear business needs. Recent literature has established the potential of AI adoption not only in management (Kemp, 2023) but also in traditionally core human abilities such as creativity and innovation (Amabile, 2020). AI was initially considered to be useful only in more limited application domains, e.g., Verganti et al. (2019) focused on AI-empowered customer data collection and how it may improve design practices. Theory contributions conceptualizing AI as building blocks in the product developing innovation process have emerged only recently. For instance, Haefner et al. (2021) and Kakatkar et al. (2020) investigated how AI capabilities help managers overcome front-end innovation constraints, and Füller et al. (2022) introduced a theoretical framework that discusses AI use cases at every stage of innovation process, including development and commercialization. In the same vein, Cooper and McCausland (2024) explored how AI can be incorporated in specific stages during the NPD process. Thus, while some attention has been paid to how adoption of AI can enhance firm innovation capabilities (Gamma and Magistretti, 2023), the enablers of integration of AI into the products through the innovation process have been subject to only minimal scrutiny. Adoption of emerging technologies such as AI does not happen in a vacuum (Füller et al., 2022) and must be supported by strategic, operational, and organizational factors (Maghazei et al., 2020). In their research, Verganti et al. (2019) called for further investigation on whether AI-innovation practices were appropriate in any organizational context, or whether they depended on company-specific factors, such as culture and strategy, and if they did, which strategies could be associated with higher likelihood of AI adoption for innovation (e.g., Füller et al., 2022). Thus, while previous research has focused on AI adoption in the process, similar research on the integration of AI into the product itself is still underdeveloped. To investigate this research question, we use the results of the PDMA’s 2021 global NPD benchmarking survey, covering 651 responses from NPD and innovation managers on best practices in NPD and, among others, adoption of AI and other emerging technologies. Specifically, we investigated the relationship between self-declared innovation strategy (using the 1978 Miles & Snow classification) and AI adoption, extent of AI adoption in both product and process R&D, five different degrees of NPD formalization, and eventual performance of these firms in the marketplace. Our preliminary analysis shows that more proactive innovation strategy is positively associated with a higher likelihood of integration of AI into the product through innovation, whereas, the relationship with process innovation is ambivalent. We further test the effects of contextual characteristics such as degree of formalization of the innovation process, orientation towards new market and technologies, risk-taking on AI adoption for process. We also suggest that adoption of other emerging technologies such as additive manufacturing, simulation tools, augmented and virtual reality are drivers of AI adoption for process innovation. With these results this paper contributes to the understanding of drivers of product innovation with emerging technologies. In this way, the research is casting new light on the recent upsurge of research on AI within innovation management. The paper concludes with discussions and implications for innovation managers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,074 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».