The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-038X.htm

Cultivating product innovation Organizational

agility and
performance through creativity: flexibility

the impact of organizational agility

and flexibility under 741
technological turbulence Received 26 October 2020
Revised 21 February 2021
Accepted 23 February 2021
Wilert Puriwat and Danupol Hoonsopon
Department of Marketing, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract
Purpose – This study is to compare the impact of organizational agility and flexibility on performance of each
type of product innovation (radical vs incremental innovation). Additionally, the moderating effect of
technological turbulence on the relationship between the two types of organization is examined.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on gaps in the existing literature, the survey data are collected
from managers who are in charge of developing new products in three industries: food and beverage, chemical
and machinery (N 5 431). Confirmatory factory analysis is used to verify measurement items and regression
analysis is used to test hypotheses.
Findings – The results show that organizational agility increases performance in radical innovation both in a
certain situation and an environment with technological turbulence. In contrast, the impact of organizational
flexibility is limited to increasing performance in both radical and incremental innovation performance in a
certain situation.
Originality/value – Our study extends the knowledge of organizational agility and flexibility in the domain
of product innovation. Adaptation of organization to respond the technological turbulence will stimulate
creativity of new product development teams to produce new useful ideas and transform these ideas to product
innovation. The different types of organizing a new product development team to handle technological
turbulence will provide different results in product innovation performance. In addition, the findings provide a
recommendation on how the organization of a new product development team can improve performance in
each type of product innovation under technological turbulence.
Keywords Organizational agility, Organizational flexibility, Creativity, Product innovation, Technological
turbulence, Performance
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Currently, product innovation plays an important role in the success of firms. Unfortunately,
in a fiercely competitive and unsettled environment, the success rate of product innovation is
low and has actually been slightly decreasing (Castellion and Markham, 2013). Organizations
are thus forced to compete and endlessly adapt to effectively respond to the unpredictable
needs of customers by providing superior product value (Bolwijn and Kumpe, 1990; Hajli
et al., 2020; Shahin and Mahdian, 2020) and increasing their rates of innovation success
(Oliveira, 2017).
The issue of organizational adaptation to an unpredictable business environment is
becoming of increasing importance in research on new product development (NPD). The NPD
process relates to a sequence of stages designed to deliver functional benefits to customers
(Harmancioglu et al., 2007). The adaptation of organizations in response to business
Journal of Manufacturing
turbulence stimulates NPD teams to creatively generate new and useful ideas and transform Technology Management
these ideas into product innovation (Shahin and Bakhshi, 2013). Numerous scholars (e.g. Cai Vol. 33 No. 4, 2022
pp. 741-762
et al., 2019; Lal and Bharadwaj, 2016; Teece et al., 2016) agree that organizing NPD teams to © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-038X
become more agile and flexible is key to enhancing the success of product innovation. DOI 10.1108/JMTM-10-2020-0420
JMTM Sharifi and Zhang (1999) coined the term “organizational agility” to refer to a firm’s capacity
33,4 to operate in competitive environments, in which changes in technology and customer
demands are unpredictable. In contrast, Dunford et al. (2013) define “organizational
flexibility” as a firm’s ability to respond to foreseeable changes in external environments.
Organizational agility and flexibility have been studied in various areas, such as
manufacturing (Chan et al., 2017; Jacobs et al., 2011; Yuan et al., 2010), IT (Berg et al., 2020;
Brunswicker and Schecter, 2019; Golden and Powell, 2000; Lal and Bharadwaj, 2016; Lu and
742 Ramamurthy, 2011), organizational learning (Nezam et al., 2016), small to medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) (Alpkan et al., 2007) and supply chains (Charles et al., 2010; Yi et al., 2011).
Currently, the literature on NPD (e.g. Broekaert et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2014) acknowledges the
need to make NPD teams more agile or flexible to be able to respond to business turbulence.
When organizing an NPD team, a firm should consider the processes of the internal team and
external factors that strengthen creativity, forming the starting point for the success of
product innovation (Goldman and Nagel, 1993).
The terms organizational agility and flexibility have been defined based on various
scholars’ perspectives. Some scholars use the terms agility and flexibility interchangeably
(Hatum and Pettigrew, 2006). However, several studies have attempted to distinguish
between agility and flexibility (Bernardes and Hanna, 2009; Oliveira, 2017). It is surprising
that the findings of the existing literature are conclusive given the diverse definitions of
organizational agility and flexibility used in the NPD domain (e.g. Broekaert et al., 2016;
Hoonsopon and Puriwat, 2019; Wei et al., 2014). It may be that conclusive findings appear in
certain contexts. This study aims to explore this phenomenon. Additionally, several studies
have investigated agility and flexibility in Western contexts. Currently, an increasing
number of studies are exploring the role of organizational agility and flexibility in Eastern
contexts (e.g. Lal and Bharadwaj, 2016; Wei et al., 2014; Yi et al., 2011). Calantone et al. (2010)
suggest that the national setting involved should have no differentiating effect at the NPD
organizational level. It is interesting, then, to investigate the generalizability of the roles of
organizational agility and flexibility in the area of product innovation.
Innovation results when resources and capabilities are integrated to apply new ideas or
creativity to the development of unique products (Niroumand et al., 2020; Shahin and Bakhshi,
2013). The existing literature (e.g. De Visser and Faems, 2015) suggests that an appropriate
combination of radical and incremental innovation is important for long-term success. To
address different characteristics of product innovation, each type of product innovation may
require different resources and capabilities in the development process (Benner and Tushman,
2003). In the past, scholars defined product innovation in various ways in reference to
modularity, technology, frugal, disruption and open innovation. In general, product innovation
is classified into two types: radical and incremental innovation (e.g. Sheng and Chien, 2016).
Radical innovation involves the creation of a product that provides novel benefits or attributes
that customers have not identified (Shahin et al., 2017a, b). Incremental innovation involves the
creation of a product that introduces slight changes to an existing product or adds certain
features to current products. Capabilities such as the organizational structure of an NPD team
required to support innovation are not the same for the two types of innovation (Kobarg et al.,
2019; Teece et al., 2016). Firms must design organizations, especially NPD teams, that are
suitable for each type of innovation (Zhou and Wu 2010). Currently, an increasing number of
studies (e.g. Biazzo, 2009; Cai et al., 2019; Hajli et al., 2020; Oliveira, 2017; Yuan et al., 2010) are
examining the role of organizational agility and flexibility in the performance and success of
product innovation. However, effective ways to develop organizations to improve performance
for each type of product innovation, especially in the case of incremental innovation, remain
unclear.
Dynamic changes in the business environment must be considered in relation to NPD
(Candi et al., 2013; Kock and Gemunden, 2016) and especially turbulence (Biazzo, 2009;
Hanvanich et al., 2006). There are various sources of turbulence, such as market and Organizational
technological turbulence (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). Under environmental turbulence, NPD agility and
teams have been forced to generate ideas and transform them into product innovations to
respond to such turbulence and maintain firm performance (Bassett-Jones, 2005;
flexibility
Darvishmotevali et al., 2020). External factors such as technological turbulence have an
impact on the success of product innovation (Akgun et al., 2012; Biazzo, 2009; Viriyasitavat
and Hoonsopon, 2019). Technological turbulence is defined as “the degree of change
associated with product and process technologies in the industry in which a firm is 743
embedded” (Hanvanich et al., 2006, p. 601). To manage technological turbulence, firms must
appropriately adapt the organization of their NPD teams to seize opportunities emerging
from changing technologies, such as by introducing novel product value to the market.
Currently, the literature investigates how the ways in which firms organize their NPD teams
to respond to technological turbulence affect the success of product innovation. For example,
Darvishmotevali et al. (2020) focus on the moderating effect of organizational agility on
technological turbulence. Similarly, Kock and Gemunden (2016) examine the moderating role
of turbulence in the success of organizational agility. However, little attention has been given
to empirically examining the role of organizational flexibility in creating product innovation
under technological turbulence.
Enhancing understanding of the role of organizational agility and flexibility is important
to the NPD domain. However, in the existing literature, some gaps in knowledge remain; for
example, empirical evidence is limited due to inconsistent definitions, the different types of
product innovation and the effect of technological turbulence. The objective of this study is to
compare the impacts of organizational agility and flexibility on each type of product
innovation (radical vs incremental innovation). Additionally, the moderating effects of
technological turbulence on the relationship between the two types of organization are
examined. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews theoretical
foundations and related literature. Section 3 presents our conceptual framework and
hypotheses. Sections 4 and 5 outline the research methodology used for our survey conducted
in Thailand and analyze our data with confirmatory factor and regression analyses. Section 5
presents are research findings. Finally, Sections 6 and 7 discuss the theoretical and
managerial contributions and conclusions of this study.

2. Theoretical foundations
2.1 Organizational agility and flexibility
There have been numerous attempts to explain how to design organizations so that they can
creatively respond to rapid changes in the business environment (Hill et al., 2017; Khaddam,
2020; Teece et al., 1997). In the NPD domain, several scholars (e.g. Broekaert et al., 2016;
Kammerlander and Ganter, 2015) have explored the role of organizational agility and
flexibility in the success of product innovation. However, these schools define the terms
agility and flexibility in various ways. Some scholars use the two terms interchangeably (e.g.
Hatum and Pettigrew, 2006; Lal and Bharadwaj, 2016). Dunford et al. (2013) accept that the
concepts of agility and flexibility overlap significantly and are difficult to distinguish.
Bernardes and Hanna (2009) and Teece et al. (2016) differentiate between agility and
flexibility. Bernardes and Hanna (2009) suggest that organizational flexibility is normally
used to describe changes in systems observed in a certain situation while organizational
agility is an organizational approach used to reconfigure systems when unforeseeable
changes occur. To summarize, in all definitions used, agility and flexibility are considered to
be processes of adaptation occurring as a response to changes.
Organizational agility and flexibility are dynamic capabilities that allow organizations to
coordinate, mobilize, respond and integrate their resources and capabilities for the long-term
JMTM advantage of a firm (Hajli et al., 2020; Sanchez, 1995; Wei et al., 2014). Organizational agility is
33,4 defined as a firm’s capacity to effectively and efficiently transform its resources to create new
value (Teece et al., 2016). Regarding organizational agility, Kohtam€aki et al. (2020) and
Kammerlander and Ganter (2015) suggest that the capacity to adapt an organization is
important when reconfiguring resources and cooperative strategies to achieve more
successful product innovation. The ability to remain agile helps organizations respond to
business turbulence and create product value based on customer demand (Darvishmotevali
744 et al., 2020) by acquiring new knowledge, soliciting new feedback from customers,
distributing information and fostering creativity (Brown and Duguid, 2001). Other benefits of
organizational agility include improved collaboration with customers, improved internal
communication and competence in NPD teams (Berg et al., 2020). Important characteristics of
organizational agility include responsiveness, competence, flexibility and efficiency (Sharifi
and Zhang, 1999; Sherehiy et al., 2007). Jacobs et al. (2011) and Sharifi and Zhang (1999)
suggest that an agile firm operates effectively in a competitive environment in which changes
in technology and customer demand are unpredictable. Agile firms identify business
opportunities in a competitive market and relentlessly seize these opportunities to enhance
their performance (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). An agile organization explores and exploits
new and existing opportunities in an uncertain environment (March, 1991; O’Reilly and
Tushman, 2008). Exploration concerns an organization’s experimentation with new
alternatives to compete with other firms (March, 1991). In contrast, exploitation involves
the modification and development of existing products, technologies and standards (March,
1991). Lu and Ramamurthy (2011) classify organizational agility into two types: operational
adjustment agility and market capitalization agility. Operational adjustment agility is
defined as a firm’s ability to adapt its internal business processes to realize a material and
rapid response to changes in customer demand (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). Market
capitalization agility is defined as a firm’s capacity to continuously and quickly improve its
products and services to accommodate customers’ needs (Lu and Ramamurthy, 2011). To
summarize, organizational agility refers to a firm’s capacity to relentlessly respond to
unpredictable changes and introduce novel products to the market.
Some scholars (e.g. Dunford et al., 2013; Lal and Bharadwaj, 2016; Yi et al., 2011) define
organizational flexibility as a firm’s ability to respond to a foreseeable change in external
environments, such as a slight change in customer needs. Wei et al. (2014) suggest that
flexibility helps an NPD team bundle resources and knowledge to add new product value to
fulfill the requirements of a predictable market. Flexibility can be adopted in the NPD process
since the planning phase (i.e. generating new product concepts and product planning) does
not involve the NPD phase (Verganti, 1999). Hence, NPD processes used in flexible
organizations have been changed to support product innovation (Ojha et al., 2020). As several
conventional organizations focus on standardization, limiting the ability to develop new
products, organizational flexibility has been identified as a key factor affecting product
innovation (Dunford et al., 2013). As shown by the literature, flexible organizations enhance
their NPD performance by improving the innovation capabilities of their NPD teams, such as
by changing their cultures of innovation and exploring new markets (Brozovic, 2018; Oke,
2013). Usually, flexible organizations are assumed to exhibit less top-down management
control and more empowerment of individuals and teams (Bolwijn and Kumpe, 1990;
Englehardt and Simmons, 2002). This approach enables development teams to freely and
promptly respond to uncertain situations. Additionally, interaction and communication
between departments involved in NPD greatly affect flexible product innovation (Malhotra
et al., 1996). Golden and Powell (2000) examine flexibility based on four characteristics:
temporal, range, intention and focus. The temporal trait refers to the rate of organizational
adaptation to environmental changes. The range refers to a firm’s organizational ability to
respond to both unforeseeable and foreseeable unsettled environments. Intentions refer to
attitudes toward flexibility, whether proactive/offensive or reactive/defensive. Finally, focus Organizational
concerns the application of flexibility in internal and external organizations. Broekaert et al. agility and
(2016) suggest that firms that continuously innovate should be flexible about changing their
decision-making processes and internal structures. An appropriate structure depends on
flexibility
environmental factors and the types of innovation involved (Broekaert et al., 2016). However,
when an organization effectively responds to environmental changes, it does not experience
flexibility but stability (Brozovic, 2018) because its staff will then be familiar with the
conventional or the same working process. 745
To summarize, organizational agility and flexibility enhance a firm’s product innovation
performance and sustain the firm’s long-term competitiveness. Furthermore, both traits help
firms withstand external turbulence that influences their potential to take advantage of
product innovation.

2.2 Radical and incremental innovation

Because the characteristics of product innovation are not the same and because it is not clear how
these characteristics impact NPD, academicians and practitioners (e.g. Shahin et al., 2017a, b;
Shahin et al., 2020) classify types of product innovation using several criteria, such as newness,
technology and the environment. Product innovation can be classified into two types: radical and
incremental innovation (Menguc et al., 2014). Radical innovation involves the creation of a product
whose value or benefits did not exist before (Shahin et al., 2017a, b); in contrast, incremental
innovation involves the creation of a product that adds features or benefits to an existing product
(Hoonsopon and Ruenrom, 2012). Innovation is the mechanism required for a firm to develop new
products, services and processes to respond to changes in the market, in technology and in
competition (Nezam et al., 2016). Moreover, these changes tend to result in an unpredictable NPD
process (Shahin and Bakhshi, 2013). According to Chen et al. (2010), the degree of newness in
product innovation is a major source of uncertainty in NPD. Coccia (2017) suggests that a firm
should engage in developing radical and incremental innovations to sustain its innovation
activities.
The resources and capabilities required to develop radical and incremental
innovations are not the same (Benner and Tushman, 2003). Radical innovation requires
resources and capabilities beyond the existing resources and capabilities of the NPD
process (Sheng and Chien, 2016). Development teams frequently encounter unexpected
situations, from identifying unmet needs to proposing novel benefits for customers
(Shahin and Mahdian, 2020). As a result, unique resources and capabilities such as
technology, skills and knowledge are necessary (Shahin et al., 2017a, b). In contrast,
incremental innovation can be achieved by a firm using its existing resources and
capabilities (Benner and Tushman, 2003). A development team can predict and better
understand the existing needs of customers based on current business conditions and use
such predictions and understanding as guidelines for development. Hence, unique or
superior knowledge, skills, processes and technology may not be needed to achieve
incremental innovation.
To respond to known and unknown situations while developing incremental and radical
innovation, appropriately designing the organization of a development team such that it is
more agile or flexible is necessary. The agility and flexible organization of an NPD team
requires different resources and capabilities. Furthermore, a firm’s resources and capabilities
for developing each type of innovation are not the same. Customer needs, technology for
development and skills and knowledge of development staff for developing radical and
incremental innovations vary. Therefore, a firm must properly organize its NPD team and
allocate its resources and capabilities to each type of innovation to maximize the firm’s
performance (Zhou and Wu, 2010).
JMTM 3. Development of hypotheses
33,4 Drawing from the concepts of organizational agility and flexibility, we develop a conceptual
model and present hypotheses in Figure 1 to illustrate the relationship between
organizational agility and flexibility and product innovation performance (in radical and
incremental innovation). Additionally, we propose the moderating role of technological
turbulence in the model.
746
3.1 Impact of organizational agility and flexibility on the performance of new products
The organizational agility of an NPD team is the key to a firm’s success in developing product
innovations (Teece et al., 2016). When developing radical innovations, an NPD team may
encounter various unexpected situations (Hoonsopon and Ruenrom, 2012) and especially
unmet customer needs and technological uncertainty. The agile organization of an NPD team
allows its members to relentlessly dedicate their time to exploring hidden needs; build and
test prototypes; and identify the attitudes, preferences and behaviors of customers in relation
to new product ideas until a final product is introduced to the market (Shahin and Bakhshi,
2013; Berg et al., 2020). A final product that has been continuously adapted based on
customers’ opinions is more likely to succeed when it enters the market (Pitchayadol et al.,
2018). Moreover, a firm can earn substantial revenue from potential customers by achieving
radical product innovation that introduces new value. However, the empirical investigation of
the impact of organizational agility and performance on radical innovation has been
overlooked.
In contrast, organizational flexibility may not enhance performance in radical innovation
(Zhou and Wu, 2010). An NPD team may not have the resources and capabilities to manage
the unpredictable situations that frequently occur when developing radical innovation. A
lack of ability to manage unforeseen situations increases the risks and costs of radical
innovation (Darvishmotevali et al., 2020). As a result, a firm’s performance in radical
innovation may not achieve the firm’s objectives in terms of survival rates, profits, revenue
and customer satisfaction (Zhou and Wu, 2010). Although the existing literature, such as
Broekaert et al. (2016), provides empirical evidence showing that the flexible organization of
an NPD team helps enhance performance in radical innovation, the definition
of organizational flexibility is similarly related to that of organizational agility in the
previous literature. Broekaert et al. (2016) define organizational flexibility in terms
of introducing new business practices, new methods for organizing a firm and new ways
of organizing external relationships. For an organization to continuously innovate with new
products, a flexible NPD team must be able to respond to environmental changes and
improve its decision-making process (Miles et al., 2010). Wei et al. (2014) suggest that
flexibility within the development team reduces structural and routine inertia resulting from

Technological
Turbulence

H3a-b
Organizational
H1a-b
Agility
Product Innovation
Performance
H4a-b
● Radical Innovation
● Incremental Innovation
Figure 1. Organizational
Conceptual model H2a-b
Flexibility
resource dependence. This process increases the efficiency and effectiveness of the Organizational
development process, such as in terms of development speed, resource allocation, agility and
understanding customer needs and adapting the technology of new products (Calantone
et al., 2010). Organizations gain these benefits by introducing novel products to the market.
flexibility
For these inconclusive reasons, we still expect the flexible organization of NPD teams to not
be able to enhance the performance of radical innovation in terms of handling unpredictable
situations. To summarize, we hypothesize that:
747
H1a. Organizational agility has a positive impact on performance in radical innovation.
H2a. Organizational flexibility does not have an impact on performance in radical
innovation.
Scholars (e.g. De Visser and Faems, 2015; Kobarg et al., 2019) argue that the performance of
incremental innovation can generate spectacular results in terms of firm performance of
depending on the situations a firm encounters. In certain situations, incremental innovation
may be appropriate for firms to pursue (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2008). Under agile
organization, NPD teams have the ability to respond to both predictable and unpredictable
forms of environmental turbulence (March, 1991). When developing incremental innovation,
the value of incremental innovation is marginally different from that of existing products
(Shahin and Zeinali, 2013). The marginal value of incremental innovation to customers can be
predicted by gaining insight from customers (Hoonsopon and Ruenrom, 2012). Additionally,
the technologies and processes of product development from incremental innovation are
similar to those of current products (Kobarg et al., 2019). As a result, the organizational agility
of an NPD team helps in better understanding predictable situations (customer needs,
technology and development processes) and responding to such situations to enhance the
performance of incremental innovation.
Similar to organizational agility, organizational flexibility affords an NPD team the ability
to detect existing business conditions, such as existing customer needs and the latest
technologies (Oliveira, 2017). The flexible organization of an NPD team can enable the team to
adapt to certain factors, such as customers’ existing needs and allow the benefits of current
technologies to guide in the development of incremental innovation (Zhou and Wu, 2010). As
a result, organizational flexibility is expected to enhance performance in incremental
innovation. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H1b. Organizational agility has a positive impact on performance in incremental
innovation.
H2b. Organizational flexibility has a positive impact on performance in incremental
innovation.

3.2 The moderating effect of technological turbulence

External factors, such as a changes in demand, technology and competition, affect a firm’s
performance (Akgun et al., 2012; Darvishmotevali et al., 2020). It has been acknowledged that
the organizational process involved in adapting to environmental changes to maintain
efficiency and effectiveness is complex (Miles et al., 2010). To survive changes in the latest
technologies, an organization must support its development staff to adjust and renew the
capabilities of the NPD process (Burgelman, 1991) and then cope with and obtain the benefits
of new technologies (Sanchez, 1995). Additionally, an organization should understand and
focus on the latest technologies related to its core business to respond to changing
environments and ensure the success of new product innovation (Sun and Zhong, 2020).
Given the great risks and uncertainties involved in developing radical innovation (Keizer
and Halman, 2007; Kobarg et al., 2019; Rice et al., 2001), new technologies may disrupt a firm’s
JMTM new product innovation by offering the new benefits that existing technologies of a product
33,4 cannot offer. To overcome this issue, firms must organize their NPD teams to be more agile to
cope with changes in technology (Teece et al., 2016). An NPD team should anticipate future
situations and seize opportunities provided by new technologies to develop new products
offering new benefits based on the latest technologies that cannot be found in current
products. This technological uncertainty may provide great opportunities for firms to
improve their long-term competitiveness (Rice et al., 2001). Therefore, we expect the
748 organizational agility of a development team to address risks from the external environment,
such as changes in technology, to create new products that result in spectacular performance
for the firm.
On the other hand, the organizational flexibility of an NPD team may create obstacles to
the success of radical innovation with rapid changes in technology. This is the case because
staff concentrate on known customer needs, technologies and product attributes (Bernardes
and Hanna, 2009), and they lack experience with handling unknown situations. As a result,
the abilities of NPD staff may be limited in regard to understanding unexpected customer
needs and forecasting technological trends that can be applied to a new firm product.
Changing technologies may place limits on the performance of radical innovation due to an
inability to adopt new technologies within a product and provide novel benefits to customers.
It can thus be assumed that technological uncertainty reduces performance in radical
innovation through the organizational flexibility of an NPD team. As a result, it can be
hypothesized that:
H3a. Technological turbulence positively moderates the relationship between
organizational agility and performance in radical innovation.
H4a. Technological turbulence negatively moderates the relationship between
organizational flexibility and performance in radical innovation.
Given the low levels of risk and variation involved in developing incremental innovation (De
Visser and Faems, 2015), an NPD team can predict customers’ requirements for new products.
An NPD team can add product benefits and features to a current product to satisfy the
additional needs of customers (Kobarg et al., 2019). Although changing technologies can
provide new product features, customers’ needs may already be largely served by existing
products (Menguc et al., 2014); for example, customers may need a convenient product that is
not a high-tech product. Bernardes and Hanna (2009) and Sharifi and Zhang (1999) suggest
that organizational flexibility is a subset of organizational agility whereby the agile
organization of an NPD team can also result in an understanding of existing customers’ needs
and technologies. Both agile and flexible organizations of an NPD team can enable a firm to
cope with uncertain situations. It can thus be inferred that technological uncertainty does not
affect the extent to which an NPD team’s organizational agility and flexibility can improve
performance in incremental innovation. Hence, we posit the following:
H3b. Technological turbulence does not moderate the relationship between
organizational agility and performance in incremental innovation.
H4b. Technological turbulence does not moderate the relationship between
organizational flexibility and performance in incremental innovation.

4. Research methodology
4.1 Sample
This study involved a survey conducted in Thailand. An emerging market such as Thailand
serves as a suitable place to empirically examine the role of agile and flexible organizations in
firms’ performance in radical and incremental innovation. In the past, the roles of Organizational
organizational agility and flexibility in the success of firms have been explored in Western agility and
contexts. However, an increasing number of studies have been conducted on Eastern
contexts. Our findings expand the boundaries of knowledge in the organizational domain for
flexibility
this context. The Thai government has promoted a national vision termed “Thailand 4.0” and
the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC). The objectives of this vision are to shift the country
from a focus on agriculture to innovation-based industries and to overcome the middle-
income trap. To create high-value industries, the government has increased research and 749
development (R&D) spending in the private and public sectors to 2% of gross domestic
product (GDP), especially in targeted industries, which include the biotechnology, food,
mechatronic, robotic, system integration and service sectors. Hence, the population examined
in this study includes managers or those in higher-level positions who are in charge of
developing new products in three industries: food and beverages, chemicals and machinery.
The list of firms studied was obtained from the database of the Thailand Ministry of
Commerce. Because more than 100,000 Thai companies operate in the above targeted
industries, we randomly selected 4,000 firms from the database. A self-administered
questionnaire with a cover letter explaining the aims of the study was sent to the managing
director of each firm by mail. If it was inconvenient for a managing director to complete the
questionnaire, we requested that he/she forward it to the appropriate NPD project manager or
to staff involved with the corresponding firm’s NPD. All respondents were kept anonymous
by not listing their names or affiliated companies on the questionnaire. Questionnaires with
more than 20% of data missing were excluded from the analysis. A total of 463
questionnaires were returned (representing a response rate of approximately 12%). After
screening the returned questionnaires, a total of 431 useable questionnaires remained. We
classified the sample into two groups: radical (N 5 214) and incremental innovation
(N 5 217). We classified the questionnaires by type of product innovation to compare the
impacts of organizational flexibility, agility and environmental uncertainty on product
innovation performance. The characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1.

4.2 Measures
Descriptive statistics of the items, constructs and control variables used are shown in Tables
2 and 3. All of the constructs measured in this study (Table 4) were measured on a seven-point
Likert scale (ranging from 1 5 strongly disagree to 7 5 strongly agree). Because some
respondents may not have been familiar with the English language, which was used in the
questionnaire, a back-translation technique was used following the guidelines given by
Bernard (2017). Rather, three Thai translators fluent in English used back-translation to
translate the measures into Thai to check the equivalence of the measurement items to the
original items. To test the content, sequence and clarity of the questions and the validity and
credibility of our framework and constructs, we interviewed and conducted a pretest of three
scholars focused on NPD and five practitioners with more than ten years of experience in
NPD. These specialists provided valuable comments and feedback in regard to adjustments
to our framework and constructs.
Five constructs are measured in this study: organizational agility (OA), organizational
flexibility (OF), technological turbulence (TT), NPD performance (PER) and degree of
innovation (INN). To evaluate organizational agility, a four-item measure was modified from
Bernardes and Hanna (2009) and Lu and Ramamurthy (2011). For organizational flexibility, a
four-item measure was modified from Bernardes and Hanna (2009). To assess technological
uncertainty, a three-item measure was adapted from Akgun et al. (2012). To measure the
degree of innovation, we used a six-item scale adapted from Gatignon and Xuereb (1997) and
Hoonsopon and Ruenrom (2012). When the necessary information had been gathered from
JMTM Position Types of business
33,4
CEO 109 (26.8%) Chemical 192 (45.6%)
Vice president 29 (7.1%) Machinery 148 (35.1%)
Project manager 181 (44.5%) Food and Beverage 81 (19.2%)
NPD staff 42 (10.3%)
Other 46 (11.3%)
750
Number of employees Years of operation

<50 employees 170 (39.8%) <5 years 6 (1.4%)

50–200 employees 163 (38.2%) 5–10 years 55 (12.8%)
201–400 employees 42 (9.8%) 11–15 years 91 (21.2%)
401–600 employees 20 (4.7%) 16–20 years 55 (12.8%)
>600 employees 32 (7.5%) >20 years 223 (51.9%)

Firm capital Revenue

<10 million baht 58 (13.7%) <10 million baht 52 (12.4%)

10–100 million baht 99 (23.3%) 10–100 million baht 155 (37.0%)
101–200 million baht 52 (12.3%) 101–200 million baht 72 (17.2%)
Table 1. 201–300 million baht 69 (16.3%) 201–300 million baht 27 (6.4%)
Sample characteristics >300 million baht 146 (34.4%) >300 million baht 113 (27.0%)

OA OF TT PER INN

OA 0.769
OF 0.503** 0.828
TT 0.375** 0.215** 0.854
PER 0.244** 0.320** 0.285** 0.911
INN 0.175** 0.174** 0.174** 0.339** 0.607
Mean 5.598 5.614 4.750 5.368 6.254
Table 2. S.D 0.835 0.891 1.270 0.866 0.460
Descriptive statistics CR 0.746 0.849 0.859 0.896 0.691
for radical AVE 0.425 0.589 0.672 0.596 0.433
innovation group Note(s): **indicate level of significance 0.05

OA OF TT PER INN

OA 0.839
OF 0.653** 0.858
TT 0.409** 0.401** 0.880
**
PER 0.362 0.372** 0.325** 0.950
INN 0.408** 0.352** 0.444** 0.623** 0.854
Mean 4.461 4.566 3.932 4.007 4.107
Table 3. S.D 1.036 1.063 1.295 1.041 0.951
Descriptive statistics CR 0.830 0.849 0.885 0.942 0.863
for incremental AVE 0.551 0.589 0.721 0.733 0.679
innovation group Note(s): **indicate level of significance 0.05
 λRad λInc
Organizational
agility and
Organizational agility flexibility
Organization always looks for new methodology to improve its new product development 0.595 0.730
process
Organization searches for new opportunity arisen from the change of customers’ needs in the 0.697 0.844
market
Organization has ability to adjust new product development process to suit dynamic and 0.684 0.684 751
unpredictable customers’ needs
Company analyzes future events that may effect on developing company’s new products 0.625 0.700
Organizational flexibility
Organization has ability to decide and develop new product quickly after perceiving 0.745 0.674
customers’ needs
Organization has ability to adjust new product development process quickly in order to 0.828 0.770
respond the changes from external factors
Organization has ability to adjust new product development process to suit current customers’ 0.862 0.937
needs
Organization has ability to adjust new product development process to suit current 0.610 0.656
technology
Technological turbulence
Company’s production technology changes rapidly 0.805 0.802
Technology within company’s product changes rapidly 0.915 0.969
Change of technology generates many new ideas of new product in the company 0.729 0.762
NPD performance
Sales volume of new product meets the company’s target 0.817 0.857
Profit from new product meets the company’s target 0.874 0.938
Revenue from new product meets the company’s target 0.933 0.934
Customer’s perception of new product meets the company’s target 0.630 0.843
Customer’s satisfaction of new product meets the company’s target 0.612 0.776
Increasing number of customers after new product sales meets company’s target 0.711 0.774
Degree of Innovation
Organization intends to sell a new product to a new customer group** – –
Technology used in new product manufacturing is more advanced than the technology used – –
in the company’s existing product manufacturing**
New product manufacturing process is different from the company’s existing product – –
manufacturing process**
Company’s new product generates competitive advantage to the company 0.783 0.829
Company’s new product is able to respond to customers’ needs 0.597 0.897
Company sees new products more newness comparing to company’s existing product 0.573 0.739 Table 4.
Note(s): **deleted from further analysis The measures

the respondents, the median split technique was applied to our scale to classify the data into
two groups: firms with low (incremental) and high (radical) levels of innovation. Numerous
methods for classifying groups of respondents using a continuous variable have been
developed. Hair et al. (2010) note that a median split can be used to reasonably group
continuous moderating variables. Hoonsopon and Puriwat (2020) and Howell and Avolio
(1993) recommend the median split technique as an alternative means of classifying forms of
product innovation. Therefore, firms with scores below the median were classified as
exhibiting incremental innovation, whereas firms with scores above the median were
classified as exhibiting radical innovation. Nevertheless, a median split presents some
limitations due to the information lost when collapsing metric data (the summated scale of
JMTM INN) with nonmetric data (the radical and incremental innovation categories). In sum, 214 and
33,4 217 of the studied firms engage in radical and incremental innovation, respectively.
To account for the impacts of extraneous variables, we add four control variables: firm
size (EMP), firm experience (EXP), firm capital (CAP) and firm revenue (REV). Firm age and
size are normally used as control variables in innovation contexts because larger and more
established firms have greater capabilities and resources than smaller and newly founded
firms (Hagedoorn and Duysters, 2002). Firm capital is another criterion used to measure the
752 size of firms (Hoonsopon and Puriwat, 2019). Prior firm revenue has a positive impact on both
radical and incremental innovation performance, such as the number of innovations launched
to the market (Zhou and Wu, 2010). To assess firm size (EMP), the number of employees was
used as recommended by Hagedoorn and Duysters (2002). As suggested by Hagedoorn and
Duysters (2002), firm experience (EXP) was measured by the number of years of operation.
We assessed a firm’s capital (CAP) based on the firm’s registered capital as proposed by
Hoonsopon and Puriwat (2019). Finally, following Zhou and Wu (2010), firm revenue (REV)
was measured as the firm’s revenue in the previous year.
Common method variance (CMV) may appear when conducting survey research and can
bias research findings. To examine this effect, Harman’s one-factor test was performed. The
findings show that 50.49% of the variance is explained by one factor, which is an
approximation with the acceptable value according to Podsakoff and Organ (1986). CMV can
also be measured by testing the construct validity of the measurement model (Campbell,
1982). As shown in the data analysis below, our results provide empirical evidence of validity.
Therefore, CMV is not a major concern in this study.

5. Data analysis
5.1 Measurement model evaluation
To demonstrate the reliability of our findings, we test the reliability and validity of the
constructs used in the model following the recommendations of Anderson and Gerbing
(1988). LISREL version 8.5 was used to analyze the data. For the radical innovation group, we
assess the reliability of the constructs by using Cronbach’s alpha (α). The results show that all
constructs have α greater than 0.7, demonstrating good reliability (Nunnally 1978). Next, the
convergent validity of the constructs is investigated. Hair et al. (2010) suggest that
standardized factor loadings should be greater than 0.5. The results show that all measures
have standardized factor loadings of greater than 0.5, indicating strong convergent validity.
Moreover, the convergent validity of the measurement model is tested by using the average
variance extracted (AVE) proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The findings reveal that all
constructs except for OA have an AVE of greater than 0.5, demonstrating good convergent
validity. Although the AVEs of OA and DIN are lower than 0.5, Fornell and Larcker (1981)
argue that the convergent validity of a construct is still satisfactory if the CR is higher than
0.6. Hence, OA and DIN have satisfactory convergent validity. To test discriminant validity,
we follow Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) conclusions that the square root of the AVE exceeds
the correlations between all pairs of constructs, confirming discriminant validity. The results
show that each construct of the model is distinct from the other constructs. Next, we conduct
chi-square difference tests for all the constructs in the model (the 16 pairs of correlations
between the constructs). The findings show statistically significant differences for all
construct pairs, indicating discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Finally, the
construct validity of the measurement model is investigated following the guidelines given
by Marsh et al. (1996) and Browne and Cudeck (1992). The results show an acceptable fit
between the observed data and the measurement model: χ 2[110] 5 210.270, p < 0.000, χ 2/
d.f. < 2; root mean square error of approximation 5 0.066; comparative fit index 5 0.967;
normed fit index 5 0.936; and incremental fit index 5 0.967. To summarize, the measurement Organizational
model for the radical innovation group exhibits both reliability and validity. agility and
The reliability of the constructs is also examined for the incremental innovation group.
The findings reveal that all constructs have α greater than 0.7, demonstrating good
flexibility
reliability. Additionally, the CR of all of the constructs is greater than 0.7, indicating good
reliability. In testing for convergent validity, the findings show that each item of the
measurement model has a standardized factor loading of greater than 0.5, demonstrating
good convergent validity. Additionally, the AVEs of all of the constructs are greater than 0.5, 753
indicating that the measurement model exhibits convergent validity. Regarding discriminant
validity, the findings indicate that the square root of the AVE is greater than any correlation
between the pairs of constructs, exhibiting discriminant validity. Chi-square difference tests
were used to assess discriminant validity. The results show statistically significant
differences for all construct pairs in the model. Finally, we assess the construct validity of the
measurement model. The indices indicate a reasonable fit between the measurement model
and the observed data: χ 2[110] 5 196.455, p < 0.000, χ 2/d.f. < 2; root mean square error of
approximation 5 0.061; comparative fit index 5 0.983; normed fit index 5 0.964; and
incremental fit index 5 0.984). Hence, the measurement model for the incremental innovation
group exhibits both reliability and validity.

5.2 Results of regression analysis and moderating effects

We test the hypotheses of the conceptual models using a regression analysis. Statistical
Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) 22 is used for the data analysis. In this study,
organizational agility and flexibility are applied as independent variables. Product
innovation performance is used as the dependent variable. Finally, technological
turbulence is used as a moderating variable. In the radical innovation group,
organizational agility has a partially positive impact on radical innovation performance
(β 5 0.176, p < 0.1). Hence, H1a is partially supported. Next, we find that organizational
flexibility enhances performance in radical innovation (β 5 0.189, p < 0.05). However, we
hypothesize that organizational flexibility does not have an impact on the performance of
radical innovation. Thus, H2a is not supported. We find that technological turbulence
positively moderates the relationship between organizational agility and performance in
radical innovation (β 5 0.140, p < 0.01). Thus, H3a is supported. However, technological
turbulence does not moderate the relationship between organizational flexibility and
performance in radical innovation (β 5 0.006, p > 0.1). Therefore, H4a is not confirmed.
For the incremental innovation group, organizational agility does not enhance
performance in incremental innovation (β 5 0.134, p > 0.1). Thus, H1b is not supported.
Similarly, organizational flexibility has a positive impact on performance in incremental
innovation (β 5 0.169, p < 0.05). Hence, H2b is fully supported. Regarding the moderating role
of technological turbulence, the results show that technological turbulence does not moderate
the relationship between organizational agility (β 5 0.038, p > 0.1) or flexibility (β 5 0.116,
p > 0.1) and performance in incremental innovation performance. Therefore, H3b and H4b are
fully confirmed. All of the above findings are illustrated in Tables 5 and 6.

6. Discussion
This study compares the effects of organizational agility and flexibility on performance in
product innovation under conditions of technological turbulence. Our empirical analysis
shows that agility in NPD teams improves performance in radical innovation. This finding is
consistent with the studies by Shahin et al. (2017a, b). Additionally, NPD team flexibility also
enhances performance in incremental innovation. Corroborating the studies by O’Reilly and
JMTM Dependent variable
33,4 PERRAD PERINC
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Independent variables
OA (H1) 0.150 (1.887) 0.176 (1.936) 0.192 (2.249) 0.134 (1.529)
OF (H2) 0.227 (3.068) 0.189 (2.364) 0.220 (2.647) 0.169 (1.978)
754 Moderators
TT 0.076 (1.457) 0.144 (2.492)
OA*TT (H3) 0.140 (2.751) 0.038 (0.420)
OF*TT (H4) 0.006 (0.926) 0.116 (1.271)
Control variables
EMP 0.011 (0.157) 0.029 (0.398) 0.106 (1.333) 0.106 (1.324)
EXP 0.017 (0.318) 0.024 (0.465) 0.000 (0.001) 0.015 (0.252)
CAP 0.047 (0.858) 0.051 (0.949) 0.032 (0.513) 0.034 (0.548)
Table 5. REV 0.015 (0.213) 0.035 (0.521) 0.025 (0.364) 0.025 (0.360)
Regression analysis R2 0.121 0.187 0.163 0.207

Tushman (2008), we find that flexibility is more important than agility for firms seeking to
enhance their performance in product innovation in certain situations. Similar to
Darvishmotevali et al. (2020), we find that agility in NPD teams helps firms improve their
performance in radical innovation under conditions of technological turbulence. Meanwhile,
our results indicate that the agility and flexibility of NPD teams do not improve performance
in incremental innovation under technological turbulence.
Some of our hypotheses were not confirmed. NPD team agility does not affect performance
in incremental innovation. It may be that the ability to identify and address unknown
customer needs and technologies may not be required to support incremental innovation, as
such innovation develops based on the existing needs of customers and technologies (Kobarg
et al., 2019). Thus, performance in incremental innovation is not dependent on the ability to
handle uncertain situations. Moreover, flexibility in an NPD team can enhance performance
in radical innovation. NPD teams may unexpectedly find themselves able to quickly respond
to the external environment during NPD in terms of product benefits, the rate of market entry,

No Hypothesis Finding

H1a Organizational agility has a positive impact on performance in radical innovation Partial
support
H1b Organizational agility has a positive impact on performance in incremental innovation Not support
H2a Organizational flexibility does not have an impact on performance in radical Not support
innovation
H2b Organizational flexibility has a positive impact on performance in incremental Support
innovation
H3a Technological turbulence positively moderates the relationship between Support
organizational agility and performance in radical innovation
H3b Technological turbulence does not moderate the relationship between organizational Support
agility and performance in incremental innovation
H4a Technological turbulence negatively moderates the relationship between Not support
Table 6. organizational flexibility and performance in radical innovation
Summary of H4b Technological turbulence does not moderate the relationship between organizational Support
hypotheses testing flexibility and performance in incremental innovation
quality and services (Oliveira, 2017). A combination of these processes may generate a unique Organizational
product differentiated from competitors’ products, which help enhance performance in agility and
radical innovation. Last, we find an insignificantly negative effect of the moderating role of
flexibility and technological turbulence on radical innovation performance. It may be that
flexibility
radical innovation may not require use of new technologies in the development process or
among products. Although NPD teams cannot identify changes in technology, unpredictable
technological changes may not be related to the development or performance of radical
innovation. 755

6.1 Theoretical contributions

Our study extends the knowledge on organizational agility and flexibility in the domain of
product innovation in several ways. First, we define organizational agility and flexibility
based on the existing literature. Although organizational agility and flexibility have been
assigned diverse definitions (Bernardes and Hanna, 2009) that are often overlapping and
interchangeable (Hatum and Pettigrew, 2006), it would be surprising if the effects of these
constructs on a firm’s success were the same (e.g. Broekaert et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2014).
Similar to what is found dynamic capabilities, we expect the different means of NPD team
organization for managing technological turbulence to have different outcomes in terms of
product innovation performance. Our findings confirm our expectations.
Second, our study differs from existing studies (e.g. Hoonsopon and Puriwat, 2019; Wei
et al., 2014), as it examines the effect of organizational agility and flexibility on performance in
each type of product innovation. A limited number of studies have examined this effect. Our
findings demonstrate how firms can improve their performance in each type of product
innovation. Under certain situations, flexible organization in an NPD team is appropriate
when a firm focuses on developing both radical and incremental innovation. The NPD team
will then quickly respond to certain customer needs and technologies (e.g. electric vehicles
and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention) and use this certainty as a guideline for
developing incremental innovation when modifying existing or inventing new products. In
contrast, agility in an NPD team has a partial effect on the success of radical innovation and
has no impact on incremental innovation performance. Corroborating Jacobs et al. (2011),
agility in an NPD team operates effectively in unpredictable situations. To develop radical
innovation, experiments and iterations are keys to an NPD team’s ability to launch a new
product to the market. An NPD team must test a prototype until the new features of the
product, which has not been discovered before in the market, are accepted by customers. In
developing incremental innovation, an NPD team may not need to identify and seize business
opportunities when customer needs are known or new technologies are not needed. Our study
furthers our understanding of these phenomena.
Third, this is one of the first studies to investigate the moderating role of technological
turbulence in the relationship between the two types of NPD team organization and product
innovation performance. According to Burgelman (1991) and Teece et al. (2016), agility and
flexibility in an NPD team may improve new product performance. Nonetheless, the existing
literature does not classify types of product innovation. Our findings reveal new ways to
manage technological turbulence. In the early stages of product innovation, NPD teams are
forced to respond to external turbulence. An agile and flexible NPD team tries to integrate its
capabilities and resources with creative ideas and convert these ideas into product
innovations that satisfy customer demand and firm strategies. To succeed in developing
radical innovations, firms must organize their staff, especially their NPD teams, to be more
agile and better respond to unexpected changes, such as the introduction of the latest
technologies, and thus provide new value to the firm and its customers. In contrast, flexibility
in a development team hinders performance in radical innovation by rendering a team’s
JMTM inability to cope with changing technologies related to product value. On the other hand,
33,4 neither the agile nor the flexible organization of an NPD team requires technological
turbulence during incremental innovation. Although new technologies are introduced into
the industry, incremental innovation develops based on existing products. Minor changes in
product features or value may not require technologies during development. Therefore, an
organization with a limited ability to foresee future conditions or quickly adapt should focus
on incremental innovation because the impact of technological turbulence on the success of
756 incremental innovation is limited. An NPD team that can anticipate unpredictable changes in
technology can manage turbulence and maintain the firm’s success in radical innovation. To
summarize, firms can tolerate changes in technology when they are able to choose
appropriately between agile and flexible organization in their NPD teams.
Fourth, an increasing number of studies have investigated the role of organizational
agility and flexibility in improving firm performance (e.g. Lal and Bharadwaj, 2016; Yi
et al., 2011) in the Eastern context. Nonetheless, few studies have examined the NPD
domain. Our study serves as an early attempt to explore the impact of organizational
agility and flexibility in the NPD domain in an Eastern context. Our findings further the
understanding of how firms located in Eastern or developing countries can enhance their
performance in each forms of product innovation by adopting the appropriate
organizational structures for their NPD teams. The adaptation of organizations in
response to business turbulence encourages NPD teams to generate new useful ideas and
convert these ideas into product innovations that support their missions. Our findings
and related literature (Wei et al., 2014) extend the boundaries and generalizability of the
agility and flexibility concepts previously investigated in Western contexts.

6.2 Managerial implications

This study proposes guidelines for managers responsible for NPD and innovation
management. Managers should acknowledge that degrees of creativity involved in each
type of product innovation are not the same (Cropley et al., 2011). As a result, managers
must adapt the organization of NPD teams according to each type of product innovation
that firms intend to engage in to address customer needs. To foster radical innovation,
which provides customers with novel benefits, managers should focus on rendering NPD
teams more agile than flexible. Although flexible organization can enhance performance
in radical innovation, the impact is marginal compared to that of agile organization in
times of technological turbulence. This is the case because radical innovation sometimes
emerges based on predictable customer needs or current technologies. An example is
Coca-Cola Zero, which was introduced to the market in 2005 and reformulated as Coca-
Cola Zero Sugar in 2016. Managers should thus encourage their development teams to
become more agile by improving on firm capabilities, such as the ability of a firm to detect
changes in the business environment, to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its
NPD activities and to rapidly perform tasks (Sharifi and Zhang, 1999).
A manager should focus on flexible rather than agile NPD when developing
incremental innovations in predictable situations because a flexible organization
requires fewer organizational capabilities than an agile organization. Hence, the
flexible organization of an NPD team is suitable for developing incremental
innovations, which concentrate on adding new product features. However, the agile
and flexible organization of an NPD team does not help improve incremental
innovation performance in times of technological turbulence. Managers should
concentrate on other factors, such as fuzzy front-end features suggested by
Hoonsopon and Puriwat (2019), to improve performance in incremental innovation
in times of technological turbulence.
7. Conclusion Organizational
With extensive theoretical contributions and implications for managers, this study explains agility and
how the organizational agility and flexibility of NPD teams can improve performance in
radical and incremental innovation under technological turbulence. The agility and flexibility
flexibility
of NPD teams directly impact performance in product innovation. However, under
technological turbulence, NPD team agility is identified as the main means to enhance
performance in radical innovation. Overall, we propose ways for academicians and managers
to adapt the organization of NPD teams such that they are more agile or flexible not only to 757
encourage product innovation but to also address features of the external environment,
especially technological turbulence. Such guidelines can help firms enhance their product
innovation performance.

7.1 Limitations and directions of future research

In every empirical study, some limitations must be considered when interpreting the findings.
First, as this study uses a cross-sectional research design, we could not measure actual
changes in creativity, NPD processes and product innovation performance over time. Ideally,
these factors should be investigated with longitudinal data.
Second, we use subjective measures, which limit the accuracy of our measurement of
product innovation performance and classification of the types of product innovation. To
enhance the reliability and validity of the measure, a classification of the types of product
innovation used in this study may be applied together with other methods, such as
evaluations from experts in the field, for further study. Additionally, future work should use
objective measures to quantify performance in product innovation along with subjective
measures, such as firm revenue, profits and market share.
Third, this study concentrates on the moderating effect of technological turbulence.
However, other important forms of external turbulence that impact on performance in
product innovation, such as demand and competitive uncertainty, might exist
(Darvishmotevali et al., 2020). Future research could analyze the impacts of this turbulence
on each type of organization and product innovation. Additionally, other moderating
variables, such as megatrends, business regulation and innovativeness, which may impact
performance in product innovation should be considered.

ORCID iDs
Danupol Hoonsopon http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6408-4790

References
Akgun, A.E., Keskin, H. and Byrne, J. (2012), “Antecedents and contingent effects of organizational
adaptive capability on firm product innovativeness”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 29 No. S1, pp. 171-189.
Alpkan, L., Yilmaz, C. and Kaya, N. (2007), “Market orientation and planning flexibility in SMEs:
performance implications and an empirical investigation”, International Small Business Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 152-172.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Bassett-Jones, N. (2005), “The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation”, Creativity
and Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 169-175.
Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the
productivity dilemma revisited”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 238-56.
JMTM Berg, V., Birkeland, J., Nguyen-Duc, A., Pappas, I.O. and Jaccheri, L. (2020), “Achieving agility and
quality in product development-an empirical study of hardware startups”, Journal of Systems
33,4 and Software, p. 110599.
Bernard, H.R. (2017), Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,
Rowman & Littlefield, Altamira Press, Oxford.
Bernardes, E.S. and Hanna, M.D. (2009), “A theoretical review of flexibility, agility and responsiveness
in the operations management literature: toward a conceptual definition of customer
758 responsiveness”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 30-53.
Biazzo, S. (2009), “Flexibility, structuration, and simultaneity in new product development”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 336-353.
Bolwijn, P.T. and Kumpe, T. (1990), “Manufacturing in the 1990s—productivity, flexibility and
innovation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 44-57.
Broekaert, W., Andries, P. and Debackere, K. (2016), “Innovation processes in family firms: the
relevance of organizational flexibility”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 771-785.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2001), “Creativity versus structure: a useful tension”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 93-94.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1992), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, Sociological Methods
and Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 230-258.
Brozovic, D. (2018), “Strategic flexibility: a review of the literature”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 3-31.
Brunswicker, S. and Schecter, A. (2019), “Coherence or flexibility? The paradox of change for
developers’ digital innovation trajectory on open platforms”, Research Policy, Vol. 48 No. 8,
p. 103771.
Burgelman, R.A. (1991), “Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational
adaptation: theory and field research”, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 239-262.
Cai, Z., Liu, H., Huang, Q. and Liang, L. (2019), “Developing organizational agility in product
innovation: the roles of IT capability, KM capability, and innovative climate”, R&D
Management, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 421-438.
Calantone, R.J., Harmancioglu, N. and Droge, C. (2010), “Inconclusive innovation ‘returns’: a meta-
analysis of research on innovation in new product development”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1065-1081.
Campbell, J.P. (1982), “Some remarks from the outgoing editor”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67
No. 6, pp. 691-700.
Candi, M., van den Ende, J. and Gemser, G. (2013), “Organizing innovation projects under
technological turbulence”, Technovation, Vol. 33 Nos 4-5, pp. 133-141.
Castellion, G. and Markham, S.K. (2013), “Perspective: new product failure rates: influence of
Argumentum ad Populum and self-interest”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 976-979.
Chan, A.T., Ngai, E.W. and Moon, K.K. (2017), “The effects of strategic and manufacturing flexibilities
and supply chain agility on firm performance in the fashion industry”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 259 No. 2, pp. 486-499.
Charles, A., Lauras, M. and Van Wassenhove, L. (2010), “A model to define and assess the agility of
supply chains: building on humanitarian experience”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40 Nos 8/9, pp. 722-741.
Chen, J., Damanpour, F. and Reilly, R.R. (2010), “Understanding antecedents of new product
development speed: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 17-33.
Coccia, M. (2017), “Sources of technological innovation: radical and incremental innovation problem- Organizational
driven to support competitive advantage of firms”, Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 1048-1061. agility and
Cropley, D.H., Kaufman, J.C. and Cropley, A.J. (2011), “Measuring creativity for innovation
flexibility
management”, Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 13-30.
Darvishmotevali, M., Altinay, L. and K€oseoglu, M.A. (2020), “The link between environmental
uncertainty, organizational agility, and organizational creativity in the hotel industry”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 87, p. 102499. 759
De Visser, M. and Faems, D. (2015), “Exploration and exploitation within firms: the impact of CEOs’
cognitive style on incremental and radical innovation performance”, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 359-372.
Dunford, R., Cuganesan, S., Grant, D., Palmer, I., Beaumont, R. and Steele, C. (2013), “‘Flexibility’ as the
rationale for organizational change: a discourse perspective”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 83-97.
Englehardt, C.S. and Simmons, P.R. (2002), “Organizational flexibility for a changing world”, The
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 113-121.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 382-388.
Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.-M. (1997), “Strategic orientation of the firm and new product
performance”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 77-90.
Golden, W. and Powell, P. (2000), “Towards a definition of flexibility: in search of the Holy Grail?”,
Omega, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 373-384.
Goldman, S.L. and Nagel, R.N. (1993), “Management, technology and agility: the emergence of a new
era in manufacturing”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 8 Nos 1-2,
pp. 18-38.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J. and Black, W.C. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hajli, N., Tajvidi, M., Gbadamosi, A. and Nadeem, W. (2020), “Understanding market agility for new
product success with big data analytics”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 86,
pp. 135-143.
Hanvanich, S., Sivakumar, K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2006), “The relationship of learning and memory with
organizational performance: the moderating role of turbulence”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 600-612.
Harmancioglu, N., McNally, R.C., Calantone, R.J. and Durmusoglu, S.S. (2007), “Your new product
development (NPD) is only as good as your process: an exploratory analysis of new NPD
process design and implementation”, R&D Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 399-424.
Hatum, A. and Pettigrew, A.M. (2006), “Determinants of organizational flexibility: a study in an
emerging economy”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 115-137.
Hill, M.E., Cromartie, J. and McGinnis, J. (2017), “Managing for variability: a neuroscientific approach
for developing strategic agility in organizations”, Creativity and Innovation Management,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 221-232.
Hagedoorn, J. and Duysters, G. (2002), “External sources of innovative capabilities: the preferences for
strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 167-188.
Hoonsopon, D. and Puriwat, W. (2019), “Organizational agility: key to the success of new product
development”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2019.
2929500.
JMTM Hoonsopon, D. and Puriwat, W. (2020), “The role of leadership behaviour of project manager in
managing the fuzzy front end in the development of radical and incremental innovation”,
33,4 International Journal of Innovation Management. doi: 10.1142/S1363919621500225.
Hoonsopon, D. and Ruenrom, G. (2012), “The impact of organizational capabilities on the development
of radical and incremental product innovation and product innovation performance”, Journal of
Managerial Issues, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 250-276.
Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of
760 control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 891-902.
Jacobs, M., Droge, C., Vickery, S.K. and Calantone, R. (2011), “Product and process modularity’s effects
on manufacturing agility and firm growth performance”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 123-137.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 53-70.
Kammerlander, N. and Ganter, M. (2015), “An attention-based view of family firm adaptation to
discontinuous technological change: exploring the role of family CEOs’ noneconomic goals”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 361-383.
Keizer, J.A. and Halman, J.I. (2007), “Diagnosing risk in radical innovation projects”, Research-
Technology Management, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 30-36.
Khaddam, A. (2020), “Impact of personnel creativity on achieving strategic agility: the mediating role
of knowledge sharing”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 10 No. 10, pp. 2293-2300.
Kobarg, S., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J. and Welpe, I.M. (2019), “More is not always better: effects of
collaboration breadth and depth on radical and incremental innovation performance at the
project level”, Research Policy, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Kock, A. and Georg Gem€ unden, H. (2016), “Antecedents to decision-making quality and agility in
innovation portfolio management”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 670-686.
Kohtam€aki, M., Heimonen, J., Sj€odin, D. and Heikkil€a, V. (2020), “Strategic agility in innovation:
unpacking the interaction between entrepreneurial orientation and absorptive capacity by
using practice theory”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 118, pp. 12-25.
Lal, P. and Bharadwaj, S.S. (2016), “Understanding the impact of cloud-based services adoption on
organizational flexibility: an exploratory study”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 566-588.
Lu, Y. and Ramamurthy, K. (2011), “Understanding the link between information technology
capability and organizational agility: an empirical examination”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 931-954.
Malhotra, M., Grover, V. and Desilvio, M. (1996), “Reengineering the new product development
process: a framework for innovation and flexibility in high technology firms”, Omega, Vol. 24
No. 4, pp. 425-441.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. and Hau, K.-T. (1996), “An evaluation of incremental fit indices: a clarification
of mathematical and empirical properties”, in Marcoulides, G.A. and Schumacker, R.E. (Eds),
Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah,
NJ, pp. 315-353.
Menguc, B., Auh, S. and Yannopoulos, P. (2014), “Customer and supplier involvement in design: the
moderating role of incremental and radical innovation capability”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 313-328.
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Fjeldstad, Ø.D., Miles, G. and Lettl, C. (2010), “Designing organizations to meet
21st-century opportunities and challenges”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 2 No. 39, pp. 93-103.
Nezam, M.H.K., Ataffar, A., Isfahani, A.N. and Shahin, A. (2016), “Human capital and new product Organizational
development performance efficiency-the mediating role of organisational learning capability”,
International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 26-46. agility and
Niroumand, M., Shahin, A., Naghsh, A. and Peikari, H.R. (2020), “Frugal innovation enablers: a
flexibility
comprehensive framework”, International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, Mc Graw-Hill, Auflage, New York.
Ojha, D., Struckell, E., Acharya, C. and Patel, P.C. (2020), “Managing environmental turbulence 761
through innovation speed and operational flexibility in B2B service organizations”, Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing. doi: 10.1108/JBIM-01-2020-0026.
Oke, A. (2013), “Linking manufacturing flexibility to innovation performance in manufacturing
plants”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 143 No. 2, pp. 242-247.
Oliveira, S.R.M. (2017), “High Radicality of product innovation and high flexibility and high agility of
system of manufacturing: towards the smart factories”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 11,
pp. 1324-1334.
O’Reilly, C.A. III and Tushman, M.L. (2008), “Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the
innovator’s dilemma”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 185-206.
Pitchayadol, P., Hoonsopon, D., Chandrachai, A. and Triukose, S. (2018), “Innovativeness in Thai
family SMEs: an exploratory case study”, Journal of Small Business Strategy, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 38-48.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Rice, M., Kelley, D., Peters, L. and Colarelli O’Connor, G. (2001), “Radical innovation: triggering
initiation of opportunity recognition and evaluation”, R&D Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 409-420.
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A. and Grover, V. (2003), “Shaping agility through digital options:
reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 237-263.
Sanchez, R. (1995), “Strategic flexibility in product competition”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 16 No. S1, pp. 135-159.
Shahin, A. and Bakhshi, E. (2013), “Prioritization of innovation factors by the integration of
concurrent function deployment and P diagram with a case study in Sepahan industry group”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 952-971.
Shahin, A. and Mahdian, E. (2020), “Ranking the indicators of open innovation adoption based on
NPD factors”, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 408-428.
Shahin, A. and Zeinali, Z. (2013), “Investigating the relationship between control factors and
innovation performance in Isfahan steel Company”, International Journal of Innovation and
Learning, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Shahin, A., Barati, A., Dabestani, R. and Khalili, A. (2017a), “Determining factors influencing radical
and incremental innovation with a case study in the petrochemical industry”, International
Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 62-79.
Shahin, A., Barati, A. and Geramian, A. (2017b), “Determining the critical factors of radical innovation
using an integrated model of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-fuzzy Kano with a case study in
Mobarakeh steel company”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 74-86.
Shahin, A., Imanipour, N., Shahin, A. and Wood, L.C. (2020), “An integrative approach for structuring
and prioritising eco-innovation determinants with a survey in knowledge-based companies”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 799-824.
Sharifi, H. and Zhang, Z. (1999), “A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations:
an introduction”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 7-22.
JMTM Sheng, M.L. and Chien, I. (2016), “Rethinking organizational learning orientation on radical and
incremental innovation in high-tech firms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 6,
33,4 pp. 2302-2308.
Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W. and Layer, J.K. (2007), “A review of enterprise agility: concepts,
frameworks, and attributes”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 445-460.
Sun, Y. and Zhong, Q. (2020), “How modularity influences product innovation: the mediating role of
762 module suppliers’ relationship-specific investments”, Management Decision, Vol. 58 No. 12, pp.
2743-2761.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Teece, D., Peteraf, M. and Leih, S. (2016), “Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility”, California
Management Review, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 13-35.
Verganti, R. (1999), “Planned flexibility: linking anticipation and reaction in product development
projects”, Journal of Product Innovation Managemen, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 363-376.
Viriyasitavat, W. and Hoonsopon, D. (2019), “Blockchain characteristics and consensus in modern
business processes”, Journal of Industrial Information Integration, Vol. 13, pp. 32-39.
Wei, Z., Yi, Y. and Guo, H. (2014), “Organizational learning ambidexterity, strategic flexibility, and
new product development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 832-847.
Yi, C.Y., Ngai, E. and Moon, K. (2011), “Supply chain flexibility in an uncertain environment:
exploratory findings from five case studies”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 271-283.
Yuan, L., Zhongfeng, S. and Yi, L. (2010), “Can strategic flexibility help firms profit from product
innovation?”, Technovation, Vol. 30 Nos 5-6, pp. 300-309.
Zhou, K.Z. and Wu, F. (2010), “Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 547-561.

Corresponding author
Danupol Hoonsopon can be contacted at: danupol@cbs.chula.ac.th

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com