Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study seeks to address a gap in the literature by investigating product management (PM) as a set of firm‐level activities, distinct from the behaviours embedded within the market orientation (MO) construct. This research establishes PM as a set of organizational activities, which lie at the boundary between the traditional functions of the firm. Design/methodology/approach A model is proposed and tested using a heterogeneous sample of 316 Canadian small and medium‐sized enterprises, where PM mediates the relationship between MO and firm performance. Data were analyzed using a partial least squares, structural equation model. Findings PM behaviour is found to fully mediate the MO – firm performance relationship. Two of the three PM constructs, namely channel analysis/support and market/technical integration account for this effect. Research limitations/implications These results support the PM literature, which infers that more emphasis on external boundary spanning activities and internal coordination should positively influence firm performance. Limitations include the heterogeneous nature of the sample, time frame and geographic bias. Practical implications Managerial implications include the establishment of an empirical link between PM practices and how firms ultimately perform. This could assist practitioners in enhancing coordination activities between the marketing and technological factions within the organization. Originality/value This research establishes PM as a set of activities, which lie at the boundary between the traditional functions of the firm. These activities are found to fully mediate the MO – firm performance relationship and introduce the hereto untested link between PM and firm performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".