Discussion and Conclusion

Table 12. The relationship between expenditure and human resources inputs and objectives of the new product improvements.

New product improvements Innovation resources

Improvement of rejected products

number (T-1)_3

Improvement of non-compliant products number

(T-1)_3

Production cost improvement

(T-1)_2

Workforce 0.2388 0.2388 0.8969

So, we come back to validate both hypothesis # 1 and # 2 for inputs in R & D personnel and expenditures in R&D.

Here we have the workforce (r = 0.77; p = 0.11), and spending on information technology (r = 0.87; p = 0.05) which play a role in improving low and moderately the non-compliance of the new final product.

After we have external expenditure on research and development (r = 0.87; p = 0.05) spending on equipment (r = 0.87; p = 0.04) spending on advanced technologies (r = 0.87; p = 0.05) and spending on information technology (r = 0.91; p = 0.02), which affect strongly and significantly enough the low and medium improved time of production.

So, we come back to validate the hypothesis 3a for entries in equipment and materials.

Here we have the engineers in research and development (r = 0.80; p

= 0.10) and labor (r = 0,071; p = 0.17) associated positively and significantly enough to the average improvement cost of production.

We also return to validate assumptions #1 and #2 for inputs in R&D personnel and workforce.

On the other hand, we have focused on unfamiliar resources in the world of industry, namely, resources directly related to the innovation activity.

The resources or determinants chosen in this study were selected on the basis of the nature of the stages of the innovation process.

According to the previous studies [9], investments in R&D and ICT are mainly associated with design and prototyping phases.

This has been effectively validated for the first two stages of the innovation process. However, for the production stage, the performance of the new product was rather impacted by the workforce. This is very logical to the extent that the workforce has been well framed by the team leaders.

However, to complement the performance measure of the new product, our internal schema must be linked to an external schema where other measures are taken at post-launching stages.

In addition, internal performance is not simply a matter of improving the cost or quality objective but concerned with achieving efficiency in the new product.

References:

1. Fouad, F., Tourabi, A. and Lakhnati, G. (2015) Measuring Innovation in the Process Approach: The Case of Agro-Food Products in Morocco.

International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 5, 6-11.

[Citation Time(s):7].

2. EuroMed@Change (2013) Opportunités d’affaires en méditerranée:

Focus sur l’Agroalimentaire au Maroc. [Citation Time(s):2].

3. Kleinschmidt, E.J. and Cooper, R.G. (1991) The Impact of Product Innovativeness on Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8, 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(91)90046-2 [Citation Time(s):2].

4. Chiesa, V. and Frattini, F. (1996) Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Research and Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 105-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(95)00109-3 [Citation Time(s):1].

5. Cooper, R.G. (2001) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch. 3rd Edition, Perseus Books, Reading.

[Citation Time(s):2].

6. Blindenbach-Driessen, F.P., Van Dalen, J. and Van Den Ende, J.

(2005) A Critical Assessment of Performance Measurement of NPD Project.

Proceedings of the 12th International Product Development Management Conference, Copenhagen, 12-14 June 2005. [Citation Time(s):1].

7. Griffin, A. and Page, A.L. (1993) An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success and Failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 291-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(93)90072-X [Citation Time(s):1].

8. Suomala, P. (2001) Multifaceted New Product Development Performance: Survey on Utilization of Performance Measures in Finnish

Industry. Tampere University of Technology, Cost Management Center on Finland, 1-27. [Citation Time(s):1].

9. Suradi, N.R.M., Omar, A. and Shahabuddin, F.A. (2015) The Importance of Basic Factors in Innovation Processes and Their Effects on Innovation Capability of Malaysian-Owned Manufacturing Companies. 2nd ISM International Statistical Conference, Pahang, 12-14 August 2014, 524- 530. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4907489 [Citation Time(s):2].

10. Lebars, A. (2001) Innovation Sans Recherche: Les compétences pour innover dans les PME de l’agroalimentaire, Thèse, Université Pierre Mendès-France, Grenoble. [Citation Time(s):1].

11. Kessler, E.H. and Chakrabarti, A.K. (1996) Innovation Speed: A Conceptual Model of Context, Antecedents and Outcomes. Academy Management Journal, 21, 1143-1191. [Citation Time(s):1].

12. Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1995) Product Development:

Past Research, Present Findings, and Future Directions. Academy of Management Review, 20, 343-378. [Citation Time(s):1].

13. Adler, P.S. (1995) Interdepartmental Interdependence and Coordination: The Case of the Design/Manufacturing Interface. Organization Science, 6, 147-167. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.2.147 [Citation Time(s):1].

14. Avermaetea, T., Viaenea, J., Morgan, E.J., Crawford, E.P.N. and Mahon, D. (2004) Determinants of Product and Process Innovation in Small Food Manufacturing Firms. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15, 474- 483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2004.04.005 [Citation Time(s):1].

15. Hamzaoui, A. and Bouami, D. (2012) Development of an Integrated Innovation Management Methodology Based on Moroccan Agro-Food Firms. International Conference on Education and Management Innovation, 30, 106-110. [Citation Time(s):1].

16. Jefferson, G., Bai, H., Guan, X. and Yu, X. (2006) R&D Performance in Chinese Industry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15, 345-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590500512851 [Citation Time(s):1].

17. Chen, K. and Guan, J. (2011) Mapping the Innovation Production Process from Accumulative Advantage to Economic Outcomes: A Path Modeling Approach. Technovation, 31, 336-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.technovation.2011.03.004 [Citation Time(s):3].

18. National Federation of Seefood Processing and Valorisation Industries. http://www.fenip.com/fenip/contenu.asp?id_rub=13&ID_S RUB

=23 [Citation Time(s):2].

19. Cooper, R.G. (1988) The New Product Process: A Decision Guide for Management. Journal of Marketing Management, 3, 238-255.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.1988.9964044 [Citation Time(s):1].

20. Romer, P. (1990) Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71-102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725 [Citation Time(s):1].

21. Guan, J. and Chen, K. (2011) Measuring the Innovation Production Process: A Cross-Region Empirical Study of China’s High-Tech Innovations.

Technovation, 30, 348-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.02.

001 [Citation Time(s):1].

22. Narin, F., Noma, E. and Perry, R. (1987) Patents as Indicators of Corporate Technological Strength. Research Policy, 16, 143-155.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(87)90028-X [Citation Time(s):1].

23. Roussel, P., Durrieu, F., Campoy, E. and El Akremi, A. (2002) Méthodes d’équations structurelles: Recherches et applications en gestion.

Edition Economica, Paris. [Citation Time(s):1].

24. Lahmouz, K. and Duyck, J.P. (2008) Implication organisationnelle et stress professionnel, role de l’auto-efficacité. Communication au 29ème congrès de l’AGRH, Dakar. [Citation Time(s):1].

25. Sosik, J., Kahai, S. and Piovoso, M. (2009) Silver Bullet or Voodoo Statistics? A Primer for Using the Partial Least Squares Data Analytic Technique in Group and Organization Research. Group & Organization Management, 34, 5-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108329198 [Citation Time(s):1].

26. Loch, C.H. and Terwiesch, C. (1999) Accelerating the Process of Engineering Change Orders: Capacity and Congestion Effects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 145-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/

S0737-6782(98)00042-3 [Citation Time(s):1].

27. Chiou, W.C., Kuo, H.W. and Iuan Yuan, L. (1999) A Technology Oriented Productivity Measurement Model. International Journal of Production Economics, 60, 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925- 5273(98)00187-X [Citation Time(s):1]