In some industries, copying is common and extensive. Most literature on the topic focuses on legal issues and interprets copying as a problem. To better understand the copying phenomenon, this study investigates the relationship between copying and design processes in five case companies in a copying-intensive industry. The findings reveal that unlike design processes, copying processes lack early conceptual activities. Furthermore, resources and contact with the end market are found to be prerequisites for professional and strategic design processes, whereas a lack of these better suits copying processes, especially in industries with low product variety and limited design problems.

Researchers have proposed that scarce resources are the main factor hindering product innovation in small companies. However, despite scarce resources, small companies do innovate, so the research question is: How do small companies manage resource scarcity in product innovation? To answer the research question a multiple case study of three small established companies and their product innovation was used, including interviews and observations over a period of five months. The small companies were found to use many different bootstrapping methods in combination within their product innovation. The methods can be classified into three different functional categories: bootstrapping methods for increasing resources, for using existing resources more efficiently, and those for securing a fast payback on resources put into product innovation. Due to their resource scarcity, the studied companies also favoured an innovation strategy only involving new products done with known technology and targeting existing markets. This strategy seems to avoid unsuccessful innovation but at the same time exclude technologically radical innovation.

Research and small company practice have a different logic. It is difficult to bring these two greatly differing activities together to create mutual benefit within a research project on innovation management. This is a problem especially if the researcher wishes to make a direct practical contribution to the companies involved in the research. This research aims to explore the difficulties in collaboration for mutual benefit, but also provides an example of a research approach which created mutual benefit for all involved. The conclusions build on an earlier PhD project on product innovation processes in small companies together with extensive reflections and discussions with the strategic manager at one of the involved companies. The study presents several major differences between research and small company practice and gives arguments for why more traditional research approaches in the innovation management field by themselves, such as survey and interview research, seem to be less suitable if mutual benefit is a goal. Finally, the study illustrates a research approach creating mutual benefit, knowledge creation, and knowledge transfer from academia to business practice and vice versa. This research approach includes concurrently giving the involved company valuable input and flexibility so as not to disturb the company’s cash flow.

This thesis examines product innovation processes in small established enterprises. The research questions are: (1) what motivates small established enterprises to innovate, (2) how do small established enterprises perform product innovation, and (3) how do small established enterprises manage resource scarcity in their product innovation processes? To answer the research questions, a multiple case study approach was chosen with three small established enterprises as cases and different product innovation processes as embedded units of study. The data collection method used was observation during a period of five months, complemented by interviews and secondary data. Product innovation in small established enterprises seems to be motivated by solving existing customers’ problems and the need for a sustained steady cash flow. A steady cash flow is also found to be a prerequisite during the product innovation processes. Product innovation seems to occur when there is a risk of decreased cash flow and/or when existing customers can be satisfied with new products that increase their loyalty so as to secure future sales, cash flow, and the enterprise’s survival in the long run. Promising innovation ideas alone do not result in product innovation. An innovation idea must also have supportive existing customers for product innovation to occur.

Product innovation processes in the studied small established enterprises are found highly context dependent, intertwined in operational processes and made possible by a small organic organization and closeness to existing customers. The product innovation processes are further found to follow a flexible and informal overall scheme optimized for decreasing market and technology uncertainty and risk, dealing with resource scarcity, and facilitating fast and easy commercialization to avoid or moderate dips in cash flow. The design processes within the innovation processes can be linearly structured or cyclical and experimental, depending on the experienced novelty.

To manage resource scarcity during the product innovation processes, the studied small enterprises used many different bootstrapping methods in combination. These methods can be divided into three categories according to their overall functions: for using existing resources more efficiently, for increasing resources and to secure a fast payback on resources invested in NPD. The studied small enterprises were due to their resource scarcity further found to favor an innovation strategy, only involving new products done with known technology and targeting existing markets. This way to innovate, which creates new products in a resource-efficient way that are accepted by the enterprises’ existing markets, seems to prevent unsuccessful product innovation, while at the same time excluding technologically radical innovation and innovation targeting new markets. 

This study examines which factors motivate small enterprises to realise product innovations and how these factors affect their innovation processes. In a multiple embedded case study of three small enterprises, 11 different innovation processes, both realised and unrealised, were discovered and analysed. Strategy, competition, profit, growth, source of innovation idea, innovation process size and novelty were not found to explain the motivation to innovate, but ten interdependent motivating factors did, of which four externally oriented factors were found conclusive for innovation to occur. The factors found, dealing with resource scarcity, technology and market uncertainty and risk, and cash flow, highly affected how the innovation processes were carried out. The findings further show that the need to maintain steady cash flow seems to be the overall motive for product innovation in small enterprises.

Small enterprises have scarce resources, which is the main factor hindering their innovation of new products. Despite this resource scarcity, some small enterprises do innovate. The research question is: how do small enterprises manage resource scarcity in their product innovation processes? A multiple case study of three different small enterprises was used to answer the research question. The enterprises implement several approaches to use existing resources more efficiently or increase existing resources, such as reducing formality and including customers and users in the innovation processes, intertwining innovation processes, working concurrently on innovation and operational processes, adopting lead-user inventions, and only starting innovation processes when a current customer asks for or needs the potential new product. The efficiency of these approaches is found to be explained by common small enterprise characteristics. One conclusion from this study is that resource scarcity can be managed and small enterprises’ specific characteristics can facilitate innovation if these are recognized and used as strengths. 

Small enterprises have scarce resources, which is the main factor hindering their innovation and design of new products. Despite this resource scarcity, some small enterprises do innovate and design new products. The research question is: how do small enterprises manage resource scarcity in their design processes? A multiple case study of three different small enterprises was used to answer the research question. The enterprises implement several approaches to use existing resources more efficiently or increase existing resources, such as reducing formality and including customers and users in the design processes, intertwining design processes, working concurrently on design and operational processes, adopting lead-user inventions, and only starting design processes when a current customer asks for or needs the potential new product. The efficiency of these approaches is found to be explained by common small enterprise characteristics. One conclusion from this study is that resource scarcity can be managed and small enterprises’ specific characteristics can facilitate innovation and design if these are recognized and used as strengths.

This article explores the design processes in small companies and investigates how these design processes are executed. The influence of two different kinds of novelty on the design processes is further examined: the relative novelty of the product being developed and the relative novelty of design processes. The relative novelty of the product is high if it is a radically new product to develop. High relative novelty for design processes typically means no experience or knowledge about design processes. Based on an embedded multiple case study of three small companies in Sweden, eight different design processes are described and analysed. The results show that the design processes differ, even within the same company, and that relative novelty affects the design process. If the relative novelty of both the product to be developed and of the design processes is low, a formalized and linear design process was found to work. A design process that is cyclical, iterative and knowledge-creating was found to work irrespective of the relative novelty. Customers and users were found to play a large and important role in the design processes.

This study explores the design processes in small established companies and investigates how these design processes are executed. How two different kinds of novelty influence the design processes is further examined: the relative novelty of the product being developed and the relative novelty of design processes. The relative novelty of the product is high if it is a radically new product to develop.

High relative novelty for design processes typically means no experience or knowledge about design processes. Based on an embedded multiple case study of three small established companies in Sweden, eight different design processes are described and analyzed. The results show that the design processes differ, even within the same company. The results also show that relative novelty affects the design process. If the relative novelty of both the product to be developed and of design processes is low, a linear, structured, and systematic design process was found to work. A design process that is cyclical, experimental, and knowledge-creating seems to work no matter the relative novelty.