1

The final version of this article has been published:

Veilleux, S., Haskell, N., et D. Béliveau. (2018) «Profitable Growth Through International

High-Technology Product and Market Development», International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 35 (3): 408-427.

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2018.095900

Profitable Growth Through International High-Technology Product and Market

Development

Sophie Veilleux1, Nancy Haskell2, Donald Béliveau3

1 Sophie.Veilleux@fsa.ulaval.ca

2 Nancy.Haskell@fsa.ulaval.ca

3 Donald.Beliveau@fsa.ulaval.ca

Faculté des sciences de l'administration

Pavillon Palasis-Prince

2325, rue de la Terrasse

Université Laval

Québec (Québec) G1V 0A6 CANADA

Sophie Veilleux is an Associate Professor, specialized in Technology and International

Entrepreneurship at Laval University (Canada). She holds a PhD in Management of Technology

from the Université du Québec à Montréal (Quebec, Canada). Her research interests include

international entrepreneurship, technology entrepreneurship, international strategic alliances,

high-tech firms’ management and internationalization process, with a special focus on

biotechnology and photonics industries. She has co-authored journal articles which appeared in

Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Strategy, International Journal of

Technoentrepbreneurship, International Journal of Business and Globalisation, International

Journal of Biotechnology, and International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Management. She teaches the process of high technology firms’ development, from their

creation up to their international growth, entrepreneurship, and innovation management.

Nancy Haskell is an Associate Professor of Marketing Strategy and International Marketing at

the Faculty of Business Administration, Laval University in Quebec, Canada, where she is a

member of GREMM (Research Group on Marketing Evaluation and Measurement). She has co-

authored articles which appeared in the Journal of Business Strategy, International Journal of

Business and Globalisation, and Business Review Cambridge. Her research interests include

strategic market planning as well as internationalization and planning issues of entrepreneurs

and SMEs. She teaches strategic market planning and development of global markets. She

2

obtained a Ph.D. in marketing (specialization in strategic market planning) from the University

of Michigan (Ann Arbor).

Donald Béliveau is Full Professor of pricing strategy and international marketing at the Faculty

of Business Administration, Laval University in Quebec, Canada, where he is a member of

GREMM (Research Group on Marketing Evaluation and Measurement). His research interests

include international development of SMEs and international pricing issues. He has recently

turned his attention to the biotechnology and photonics sectors. He obtained a Ph.D. in

International marketing at the University of California – Los Angeles (U.C.L.A.) and is a

certified accountant and certified management accountant.

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Société et culture

(FRQSC).

Abstract

This article seeks to answer the following question: how do firms adapt their technological

innovations in a way that sustains profitable growth in global markets? The context examined is

small and medium high-technology firms as they face the challenges of being young firms that

must serve global markets with their limited resources. A multi-case exploratory study captures

the product and market development processes during two phases of the growth cycle. The

comparison of five start-up firms and five growth firms from Quebec City’s photonics cluster

(Canada) points to an error frequently made by start-up firms: spending too much time and

money creating or adapting products for each initial customer. Growth firms, on the other hand,

have built product platforms that respond to basic client needs. The results confirm the strategic

role of mass customisation.

Keywords: technological innovation; mass customisation; platform; internationalisation;

growth; adaptation; product development; market development; small- and medium-size firms;

product family architecture

3

Introduction

The massive influx of SMEs on the international scene is not consistent across all

industries (Fernhaber et al., 2007). High-technology sectors are characterised by emerging

international markets that usually appear as specialised niches with a narrow customer segment

in a globalised industry (Onetti et al., 2012). In order to achieve the economies of scale required

to absorb high R&D costs, these firms must implement a strategy that will enable them to

maintain sustained growth in several foreign markets (Murmann et al., 2015). The variety of

products offered and geographic market diversity interact positively to increase the perceived

value of their offerings and the performance of their firms (Gaur et al., 2009).

The proposed innovation thus assumes an important role; its development must not only

satisfy the target customer segments, but also ensure the firm is profitable.

Easingwood et al. (2006) suggest that technological innovations that are tailored to target

markets obtain the greatest market share. Furthermore, this strategy leads to the highest

profitability (Hultman et al., 2009; Kouropalatis et al., 2012). Such innovations possess a

competitive advantage since the offer is difficult for competitors to imitate (Cambra-Fierro et al.,

2011). However, personalising each technological innovation to specific customers’ or target

markets’ needs requires the firm to make important financial investments and to mobilise

considerable resources, which can hinder profitable and rapid growth (Miller, 2001). Moreover,

the failure rate of new high-tech firms that possess promising technology is well documented. It

is therefore essential to answer the following question: how can new high-tech firms design

product and market development strategies in a way that sustains profitable growth in foreign

markets?

Within this context, one of the major challenges in high-tech product and market

development is finding an appropriate balance between standardisation and adaptation; i.e.,

facilitating economies of scale and learning effects while ensuring that the product is sufficiently

adapted to attract clients in particular segments. In this perspective, mass customisation (MC)

may allow firms to find this balance by increasing the scope of their product line with adapted

and even personalized products while reducing costs.

The following pages discuss the literature on MC and present the methodology and

results of our study designed to answer the question posed above. Results are followed by a

discussion of this study’s contribution to the theory and practice of technological

entrepreneurship and management of innovation.

Literature review

Mass Customisation

Mass customisation strategy (MC) is defined as the capacity to manufacture tailor-made products

on a large scale and at a low cost (Pine II, 1993). This is a common commercial strategy (Kotha,

1995) that can provide a significant competitive advantage (Salvador et al., 2009). This is why

an increasing number of firms from several industrial sectors use “mass” manufacturing of

personalized products at a lower cost, as can be seen in the health, food, electronic and

telecommunications industries (see McIntosh et al. 2010; Partanen and Haapasalo, 2004;

Comstock et al., 2004; Boland, 2008; Pallari et al., 2010 for examples). Meyer and Lehnerd,

4

1997) identified several advantages to adopting an MC strategy: faster product adaptation, lower

product development costs, increased product reliability, and greater flexibility in the firm’s

strategy. These MC advantages have in fact been underscored in several studies (Fogliatto et al.,

2012; Vinodh et al., 2010; Bardakci and Whitelock, 2003; Jiang et al., 2006; Kaplan and

Haenlein, 2006; Salvador et al., 2009; McIntosh et al., 2010).

The MC strategy involves all types of strategy related to product adaptation and flexible

production (Piller, 2003). It also allows for a broad range of standardised, customised and

personalized products on the basis of three elements: modular design of products and/or services,

use of flexible processes, and integration among members of the supply chain (Davis, 1989; Pine

II, 1993). Chen et al. (2009) identified several fundamental elements to the adoption of an MC

strategy: a flexible organisation that can adapt quickly and easily; heterogeneous market niches;

a product family with a short life cycle; and client participation in product development.

In order to maintain costs that are comparable to those of mass production, product

adaptation is carried out through modularity and the search for common design

elements (Daaboul et al., 2011). This is why the strategy must focus on developing a range of

products that share a common platform (Chen et al., 2009; Asan et al., 2004). A platform may

be defined as “the collection of assets that are shared by a set of products” (Robertson and Ulrich,

1998; p.20). It is generally made up of various independent “modules” that can be interconnected

(Meyer and Lehnerd, 1997). In the field of operations management, the concept of modularity

implies that certain components of a product can be separated into different “modules” that are

easily interchangeable or replaceable (Heizer and Render, 2004). This somewhat represents the

degree to which a system component can be recombined in order to create a variety of different

configurations without losing its usefulness (Schilling, 2000).

Increasing the number of an available product’s characteristics while reducing costs

makes modularity a key element in the MC process (Ulrich, 1995; Pine II, 1993). By offering

the possibility of producing a standardised platform, it allows for adaptation through the addition

of components that meet the specific needs of each customer for a broader range of products

(Duray et al., 2000). Modularity therefore helps improve a firm’s capacity to meet the

requirements of its clientele (Mukhopadhyay and Setoputro, 2005). This results in “mass

standardisation” that allows for lower production costs and serving a broader diversity of

markets.

The MC strategy presents significant design and production challenges. This is why the

literature proposes the concept of Product Family Architecture (PFA) (Tseng et al., 1996). PFA

is at the core of the MC strategy by enabling firms to develop a broad and complete range of

products intended for various segments. According to Sunikka and Bragge (2009), attempting to

implement an adaptation strategy without a clearly defined product family and a platform can be

risky for a firm. PFA allows a firm to determine the modules that are to be common and those

that are to be adaptable on the basis of cost and feasibility (Berry et al., 2012). Thus, the various

product families share certain functional modules, whereas others are developed with several

variants; the full set of combinations provides a wide variety of finished products. Typically, an

open architecture is composed of three types of modules: (i) common modules that are shared

within the product platform; (ii) customised modules that allow clients to select and assemble;

and (iii) personalized modules that allow clients to create and conceive (Hu, 2013).

5

Client Involvement in the MC Strategy

In their literature review, Fogliatto et al. (2012) identified customers as one of the key elements

of an MC strategy (see Merle et al., 2010; Franke et al., 2010; Bharadwaj et al., 2009 for

examples). Design activities require close co-operation between the firm and the

customer (Khalid and Helander, 2003). This client involvement in design activities determines

the degree of adaptation that can be provided by MC systems (Ogawa and Piller, 2006). MC is

therefore not merely a production strategy, but a way of rethinking and conceiving the

organisation in its entirety with the ultimate goal of gaining profits from a diverse

clientele (Salvador et al., 2009).

Customers represent facilitators (Claycomb et al., 2005) as their needs help determine

the optimal advantages to be developed (or added) to the product (Magnusson and Pasche, 2014).

Clients thus engage in dialogue or interaction in an activity called co-creation (or co-production)

(Payne et al., 2009; Koren et al., 2013).

An intimate understanding of a customers’ needs therefore represents a crucial step in the

adoption of an MC strategy (Chen et al., 2009). The learning outcomes derived from client

involvement are in fact positively associated with the firm’s MC capacity (Huang et al., 2008).

One study has shown that the better a client is informed, the more a personalized product offer

will be of interest to that client (Tang et al., 2010). Likewise, Cooper (2011) argues that poor

product adaptation can explain the high failure rate for some innovations. Customer

collaboration is therefore essential to develop innovative products and increase perceived value

while lowering production costs (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2006). MC is therefore a strategy that

focuses on the clients by placing their requirements and preferences at the core of new

technological product development.

The diversity of needs among clients will push firms to adopt a market segmentation

approach. A given market can be defined along three principal dimensions: groups of buyers,

technologies, and solutions sought (Lambin and de Moerloose, 2012). The intersection of these

three dimensions, each of which must be more precisely defined based on market characteristics,

reveals all segments that are theoretically possible. Once the segments have all been identified,

the manager eliminates those deemed unappealing (too small, unprofitable, too expensive to

serve, strays too far from the firm’s strategy, etc.). A combination of segments (individually

unprofitable) is also an option if these segments can be served with a single marketing program

(product, promotion, price, distribution). The firm’s marketing strategy is based on its decisions

related to market coverage; i.e., which market segment(s) to serve, or market scope. Against the

backdrop of a global market, these segments are not confined to one country or even one

continent. Similarities of needs across borders may lead to the definition of a regional strategy

(e.g. Latin America, South Asia), global segments (e.g. research laboratories in western

countries, canned-goods manufacturers in countries around the world), or other configurations.

An MC strategy, along with the associated PFA concept, enables a firm to broaden the scope of

its market coverage with the aim of increasing sales volume and profits. The firm’s ability to

profitably manufacture a greater variety of customised and even personalized products or

6

services at more reasonable costs allows it to serve otherwise unprofitable or unattainable market

segments. It simultaneously spreads its commercial risk over a variety of segments and countries.

This study aims to improve our understanding of how firms adapt their technological

innovations and develop their markets in a way that sustains profitable growth in global markets.

The literature review above suggests that MC and product family platforms, in combination with

market segmentation analysis and management decisions related to market scope, are associated

with successful product design and adaptation for a variety of market segments. This literature

presents a foundation for discussions of the respondent firms’ current product adaptation and

market selection practices. Given that strategies evolve over time, the methodology for the

present study includes SMEs in two phases of development: start-up firms and growth firms.

Methodology

Because of the importance of context on entrepreneurial behaviour, qualitative research has been

argued to be appropriate in entrepreneurship studies (Dana and Dana, 2005). Furthermore, large

samples are not required; indeed, a small sample enables rich description and may provide

insights. It is thus possible to gain a truly deep understanding of the entrepreneurial process. In

addition, Dana and Dumez (2015) point out that at an early stage of a comprehensive research

project, qualitative analysis of a small sample permits the evaluation of complex processes and

classification of similarities and differences between cases. For an in-depth analysis, Eisenhardt

(1989) recommended the study of multiple (4 to 10) cases.

Since the objective here is to compare the realities of start-up firms with those of growth firms,

we created two samples. Among the 40 photonics firms operating in the Quebec City

region (Canada), 10 firms were analysed: five start-ups (< 10 employees) and five growth firms

(10 to 250 employees). Several sampling criteria were developed to select the firms: (i) firms

were required to be operating in the field of photonics and be located in the Quebec City region;

(ii) firms were required to be independent and not branches of a parent company; (iii) firms were

required to manufacture a finished product internally, and not as a subcontractor; (iv) firms were

required to generate yearly revenues of less than CAD$ 25 M. Table 1 provides the profiles of

the sample firms.

Table 1 – Sample Firm Profiles

Firms Year of

Foundatio

n

No. of

Employee

s

Yearly

Revenues

Percentage of

Foreign Sales

No. of

Countrie

s

No. of

Continen

ts

S1 2008 1 to 5 Less than

100k

100% 1 to 5 3

S2 2005 1 to 5 100k to 249k 95% 1 to 5 2

S3 2009 6 to 10 2M to 2.9M 95% 21 to 30 3

S4 2009 1 to 5 250k to 499k 95% 11 to 20 3

S5 2007 11 to 25 1.5M to 1.9M 85% 1 to 5 1

G1 2002 11 to 25 5M to 9.9M 100% 21 to 30 3

G2 2000 26 to 50 5M to 9.9M 80% 41 to 50 4

7

G3 1992 100 or

more

10M to

24.9M

85% 6 to 10 3

G4 1990 51 to 100 5M to 9.9M 95% 31 to 40 4

G5 1999 26 to 50 5M to 9.9M 90% 1 to 5 3

S = start-up; G = growth

Data collection was carried out in two steps. First, we conducted a series of semi-directed

individual interviews with all 10 entrepreneurs. Second, we collected the opinions of four

technological entrepreneurs, specialised in photonics but who presented no conflict of interest

with sample firms, who acted as experts. This convenience sample was established with the co-

operation of partner organisations and subjected to the approval of the ethics committee.

We used a descriptive data sheet as well as an interview guide for each of the 10 firms in

our sample. The semi-directed individual interviews, of approximately two hours each, were

conducted at each firm’s place of business. The goal was to create ample freedom for the

discussion of topics to be developed, thus allowing us to potentially identify new avenues that

have yet to be suggested in the literature. The interview guide essentially covered subjects such

as firm creation, product development, internationalisation. A descriptive data sheet contained

information on each firm’s foundation, products, and international presence. Each sheet was

completed by researchers using public information available on corporate websites,

media (Eureka database), and Internet databases (Quebec Enterprise Register, Corporations

Canada). The entrepreneurs subsequently validated the sheets. Lastly, the information collected

was compiled into an Excel file to develop the sample profile.

The method proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994) was used to analyse our data,

namely coding, organisations, and identifying relationships. The interviews were transcribed and

analysed in order to extract any information that was relevant to the general themes of the study.

This information was then coded using QDA Miner software based on a specific grid that was

prepared beforehand. The grid was established on the basis of the literature on the subject and

the interview guides. For greater reliability, two people coded interviews.

Findings

The results below are presented by group; i.e., for the five start-up firms and the five growth

firms. The objective was to understand the product and market development practices of start-

up firms given their young age, their global market imperatives, their resource limitations and,

ultimately, to compare their realities to the product and market development practices that have

led members of the second group to successfully grow.

The Development of Technological Innovations

Both groups were analysed with regard to their product development stage, technology

application sectors, prospecting strategies (new application sectors and/or individual clients),

strategies to adapt their technology to client needs, client types, recurring sales, and their ability

to meet increased demand.

8

The analysis of the results reveals that the firms from both groups are involved in a variety

of technological innovations at various stages of development: product concepts that are still

somewhat vague; prototypes (to determine feasibility of the technical or business solution) to be

adapted by a client’s engineers or by the firm as a service sold; pilot projects (of production

quality but on a small scale – useful for receiving feedback); standardised and semi-standardised

products; and products surrounded by complementary products and/or services. The innovations

of the majority of start-up firms are still in the R&D or prototype stage, while growth firms

manufacture finished products but may also sell prototypes. The application sectors for both

groups are quite varied: growth firms manufacture measurement, control or medical devices,

followed by communications material, semiconductors and other electronic components and

medical supplies or equipment. Start-ups also manufacture measurement, control or medical

devices, or machines used in the retail and service industries.

For both start-up and growth firms, identifying client groups that may benefit from their

technology is a constant challenge. Start-ups mostly find their inspiration to develop their

innovations in requests from potential clients as a result of conferences (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5) and

the publication of scientific articles, information requests generated by visits to their websites

(S1) and suggestions from their partners (S4). Furthermore, the numerous requests from

distributors interested in representing a firm suggest the types of industries in which their

products may find new buyers (S4). For their part, growth firms mention more concrete sources

of inspiration: the patent database (to fuel creativity) (G5), the possibilities offered by new

machinery to increase their ability to create, and proximity to clients and partners that fosters the

development of their offering (G2, G3, G5).

The majority of the firms from both groups (S2, S3, S4, S5, G1, G2, G3) in this study

stated that they sell a small number of products at a time (1 to 5 products) to each client and

record few repeat sales on an annual basis. Their objective is in fact to increase this recurrence,

and subsequently shorten the sales cycle to become profitable and increase growth. Start-up (S1,

S4, S5) and growth firms (G1, G2, G3) indicated that they had the production capacity to meet

increasing demand: in addition to their own equipment and personnel, many of them (S1, S2,

S5, G4) also have access to subcontractors.

A common element shared by the vast majority of the firms in our sample (S1, S2, S3,

S4, G1, G2, G4, G5) is the need to begin with the sale of prototypes (or pilot projects) in order

to test the technology’s application in the specific context of a given industry (e.g. national

defence). It is during discussions over a prototype that a firm makes contact, often for the first

time, with the needs expressed by potential clients. For those firms, which are sometimes

unaccustomed to seeing their technology or applications from an end user’s perspective, this

contact with potential clients is key to the firm’s survival. It is therefore not surprising that

several of these firms, as well as certain experts (E2, E3, E4), agree that technology firms cannot

wait to have a finished product before initiating marketing development efforts. Firms must

know their clients’ needs. To achieve this, they must hold discussions with them about how their

technology can solve their problems. Returning to see a potential client with a prototype as a

result of this type of discussion often leads to a better adapted solution. The manufacturer thus

develops an alliance with its clients for the purpose of adapting the technology as closely as

possible to their needs.

9

Overall, the results show that all 10 firms support their operations through alliances with

different categories of clients. At the top rank are private firms, followed by public laboratories

and, lastly, universities (Table 2). The functions of these alliances are mostly R&D, followed by

marketing and administration.

Table 2: Client Categories

Client Categories Number of Start-

Up Firms (n=5)

Number of

Growth

Firms (n=5)

Private Firms

End users product/services/data)

Systems integrators

5

3

2

4

2

2

Government Bodies

Transportation Ministry(provincial and

national)

Department of National Defence and the Armed

Forces

4

4

0

3

1

2

Universities and Research Centres 1 1

Customer firms may be end users of the innovation or the data it generates, as well as

systems integrators. To target customers that are more financially solid, respondent firms identify

“leads” (potential buyers). However, a growth (G4) firm warned of the hazards of having a large

multinational corporation represent 25% of a firm’s annual revenues. The buying firm may

experience delays and have to postpone projects. On the other hand, doing business with such a

large corporation helps SMEs build their reputation. Depending on the nature of the product,

when a firm’s sales resources are limited, they can turn to systems integrator firms that already

have a well-established clientele.

With regard to government bodies, firms do business with the transportation (S1, S3, S5)

and national defence (G1) departments. They mention the long sales cycle involved in calls for

tenders. Product purchases may also be the result of a political decision. Firms are therefore

vulnerable, in particular to political changes and scandals that have had an impact on

infrastructure projects. Major changes in government personnel can also result in project delays.

The military sector requires particular attention. One firm (S5) indicated having decided not to

approach this sector because of the required accreditations. Collaborations with universities are

also appreciated in developing applications. Universities provide feedback on applications with

the possibility of writing of a technical note or a citation on their website. However, these

institutions have a long purchase cycle. One growth (G2) firm helps universities obtain funding

to purchase equipment, even though university researchers must subsequently go to tender. The

call for bids may specify the purchase of their technology or product, given its uniqueness.

10

One expert pointed out that no client category is preferable over the others, as the types

of clients depend first on the offer. Although a mix of customer segments is best, it is not always

possible for firms to build a customer portfolio that allows the maintenance of optimal levels of

working capital. Whenever possible, firms must select clients that will provide the quickest

revenue stream. In many cases, private firms can more quickly pay for a solution to a problem

or to fill a need. However, an expert mentions that small potential client firms are not necessarily

more likely to buy early and accept a product that has not yet completely been perfected. Larger

potential clients firms present an interesting opportunity; however, a firm selling a product that

is not well honed to a large organisation is cautioned to be prepared to provide after-sales service

to ensure the customer’s satisfaction and also avoid gaining a poor reputation from the outset.

On the downside, relationships with large organisations are longer to develop as these take more

time to make decisions. It is thus not the size of the client that must be considered, but whether

there is a need that justifies early purchase in the product’s development. Regulations in effect

can also at times impose a choice of segments.

In short, both start-up and growth firms serve the same types of clients and must work in

partnership with them in order to adapt their technology to expressed clients’ needs, often

through prototypes or pilot projects. They generally sell one or a few products to a given client

and, for the purpose of profitability, cannot limit themselves to a single client or market segment.

On the other hand, growth firms, given their experience, are at a more advanced product

development stage (finished products based on a platform) and adopt more sophisticated

strategies in terms of their search for new clients and application sectors.

Adaptation of Technological Innovations

The analysis of the results shows that a common error on the part of certain start-up firms is to

devote too much time and resources to developing or adapting a product for a client without

being able to subsequently capitalise on that investment. On expert stated:

« Customs products are extremely expensive because each time we have to do

engineering. It’s very satisfying for the technicians or engineer, but for the

profitability of the firm, it’s very expensive. So, from the beginning, we said, « We’ll

make a standard product and we’ll push it. » E4

Should a firm offer a standardised or a tailor-made product? The answer sometimes depends on

the product and/or client but, generally speaking, photonics growth firms (G1, G2, G4, G5) have,

often after a learning period, found a middle ground in the development of a platform that can

be adapted as needed. The experts (E2, E3, E4) are also of the opinion that it is always best to

have a platform upon which the firm can build:

«We developed our platform after bringing out the first product. At that time, we

realised that we were going to make new versions that we wanted to be able to

evolve very quickly into new products. » E4

11

This approach provides the most flexibility as, in the start-up phase, a firm often does not yet

know what the market really wants; it has not yet gauged the market response. A platform

strategy is a winning formula in all regards: simplicity and development time, lower costs and

procurement economies of scale. However, whether a platform can be developed quickly

depends on the product, the market, and the competition, as indicated by the following expert

(E2):

« That is to say that standardisation cannot be done from the outset; it’s impossible

because you don’t bring out the maximum of the technology. So if you want to bring

out the maximum of the technology from the beginning, you have what we call a

closed system. Therefore, often, what happens in the history of a new product on the

market, the platform is closed: the manufacturer, the developer does it all. Then,

with time, as it matures and use becomes generalised in the market, customers start

to search for other sources. There comes a time when there is a need for

standardisation and we’ll go from a market where the platform was closed to an

open platform. Clients, at that time, will have several sources; the industry will

fragment. » E2

« Because standardisation means (customers will want) input, a call for tenders

from competitors. Because if it’s standard, it’s standard; which means that anyone

can make it based on the standard. It’s public. Which means you will be a source

for someone, but your neighbour can be a replacement source one to one for your

product. So, normally, the industry starts with closed platforms; then, as volume

increases and the application is generalised, there is a fragmentation, so to speak,

and it becomes specialised in different layers (segments). » E2

Target Market Selection

Firms reported a large diversity of ways in which they chose their customers. Two of the start-

up firms (S3, S5) target more than one industry, but in related fields. A third firm (S2) offers

services in another niche to fund R&D. It aspires to migrate as quickly as possible from services

to recurrent product sales that will generate profits through repeated sales of a given product.

Whereas one firm (S1) mentioned the importance of focus, a fourth firm (S5) added that, armed

with a flawless application, they could solicit the same segment anywhere. A few growth firms

(G1, G2, G4, G5) operate in this manner in market niches where there is little or no competition

and where they can quickly assume the leading position. The following growth firm develops its

products by emphasising the points that set them apart from the competition.

« For a small player, I think it’s important to target niches where there is no

competition and in which we can quickly take the lead. That’s what we always try

to do. This positioning strategy is central to our product development. Blue Ocean,

it’s a sort of a buzzword that comes from a book that was popular where you

12

analyse the characteristics of the product, or, better, the offer that we want to

make, and we compare it to the competition. And the idea is to optimise our offer

or to develop our product by putting the emphasis on the points that are very

different from the competition, and thus create a niche where we are able to

differentiate our offer. When there is a large call for tenders, it’s the type of

strategy that permits us to have unique characteristics. And we develop our sales

pitch around these points that differentiate us and don’t put emphasis on the points

that don’t differentiate us.» G2

In order to find its niche, another growth firm analysed the market by classifying its competition

into a “price/technology performance” analytical grid. They then selected a market position that

was unoccupied by the competition in terms of price/performance, identified the industrial

potential, and analysed the corresponding sales potential. Still another growth firms reported

having started out with sales in several industries before refocusing, as opposed to another firm

(G5) that felt the time had come to diversify:

« We realised that to be a laser firm we had to master other things than just fibre

optics; it was necessary to master electronics, to master mechanics, etc. Those

are the things that we are also able to do at the prototyping level, but we don’t

necessarily have a big value added. We worked hard on that. We talked to our

clients. We understood the needs of our clients. And we finally converged on a

business model. » G5

One growth firm (G4) suggested creating a clear grid of all the segments of all markets to

optimise its selection, while taking great care to properly justify each decision. They preferred

“early adopters,” segments in which competitors are absent, those that offer a high volume, and

those where clients are grouped together geographically where they may be served more easily.

According to this firm, this proximity allows them to offer quicker after-sales service. The

process they describe resembles segmentation analysis and market coverage decisions suggested

by the literature.

Several experts (E1, E3, E4) interviewed agree that firms must first be familiar with the

overall needs of the sector they wish to address. Who are the flagship customers that will bring

them credibility? They can subsequently evaluate the time required to sell to each client on the

basis of purchase criteria. They maintain that photonics firms can seldom focus on a single client

category; the selection of markets to serve must therefore be meticulously planned. For example,

the number of potential clients influences the approach they will select. A small number of clients

around the world will be targeted directly. If the number of customers is significant enough, the

best approach is by geographic market. However, one of the experts (E2) insisted that, for a start-

up firm, it is normal to mainly focus its resources on one client category:

« In the beginning, I think you must target your principal market, because it’s

dangerous to scatter (your efforts). What is the most expensive is market

13

development, it’s not product development. And it’s dangerous to go too large

at the beginning.» E2

Overall, the experts (E2, E3) were left with the sense that firms in both groups do not choose

their customers; it is rather the customers that choose them. They conclude that a small start-up

firm must be opportunistic, as it must be in a position to quickly seize business opportunities as

they appear. One expert (E3) elaborated on this point:

« On one hand, there is the interest of the entrepreneur to explore different

sectors to validate his business plan. But I also think that it’s a symptom, very

often, of a lack of money: the firm wants to run after everything (opportunity)

that passes. So it is more by opportunism than by choice, I would say. Because,

in reality, it’s probably initiated by clients who contact them or by clients that

they meet. » E3

Strategic Planning and Opportunism

The bigger a firm gets, the less it can proceed as described above. A strategic plan and processes

must then be implemented to ensure the firm can deliver on its commitments and reduce costs.

« Certainly a good business plan, a good financial plan reassures our

stockholders and ensures that we have the backing of our Board of directors to

develop a (product) line and target a (certain) clientele. Because at the end of

the line, it’s more profitable to do that than to run after all opportunities. There’s

a big danger in scattering…our money everywhere. It’s true that we run after lots

of opportunities, but it’s not a guarantee of return on investment. (And) it’s not

free: the time that we spend running after several opportunities at the same

time… and the loss of focus -- has a price. » E2

The analysis of the sample’s growth firms supports the importance of strategic planning in the

development of technological innovations. One of these firms reported having turned to such

planning after missing their target a few times, whereas for three other growth firms, the

management team systematically drafts a three-year strategic plan. This plan is revised and

adjusted every year and a follow-up plan is implemented throughout the year. Each department

has a tactical development plan for the year, which is reviewed on a quarterly basis and attached

to an operational budget. Once a year, these firms present the results from the previous year to

their employees, as well as the budgets for the following year, the plans specific to each

department, and a product development plan. The strategies are implemented within the

departments. The objectives are distributed among the employees. They must think as a team,

and then individual objectives are assigned in order for each employee to know how to

participate in the plan. Objectives are set in terms of sales, but also in terms of meetings with

current and potential clients. One of the growth firms pointed out, however, that what is planned

14

rarely happens. They emphasised the importance of remaining patient and maintaining

confidence in the firm’s abilities, given that it had succeeded in the face of difficulties in the

past and will do so again in the future. Start-up firms do search out events to make contact with

potential clients and to explore possible applications for new technology; however, their efforts

are far from the level of sophistication practised by growth firms in their planning.

Discussion

The fragility of start-up firms is well known, even when they possess promising technology. This

study therefore aimed to gain a better understanding of the technological innovation development

strategies that ensure profitable and sustained growth in foreign markets. The results show that

the growth of technological firms is in great part based on the balance to be reached between

adaptation and standardisation during the product development process for target markets. The

growth firms and one start-up firm in the study adopted strategies based on a platform that allows

for standardised, customised, and even personalized modules. This enabled them to resolve the

paradox of mass production of personalized technological innovations in order to sustain

economies of scale and ensure the firm’s growth and profitability in foreign markets. A middle

ground can therefore be struck by identifying similarities among the needs of clients or client

groups and developing a flexible platform that allows for adaptations to those clients or client

groups, if necessary. Firms thus prefer to target client groups that will provide recurrent sales.

Start-up firms, however, often admit to not having the required time, working capital or

knowledge of their technology’s potential to meet their clients’ needs (which is initially often

very vague). To compensate for this lack of resources and to become more familiar with

customers’ needs, some firms in our sample followed variations in the strategy described above.

First, as a service, those firms sell data generated by the use of their technology rather than selling

the product itself. This strategy served to bring them closer to their target clients, helped them to

identify the best solutions for them and, in addition, generated revenues. Second, this source of

revenue led to the development of a flexible platform that mainly targets the sale of products that

have been adapted to the needs identified during the first phase.

Firms that offer an alternative solution to a currently existing product usually have

enough information to be able to specify the dimensions of an appropriate platform. However,

certain start-up firms that have identified potential applications in industries that were not

previously served followed another variation of the process. They produced several iterations,

sold prototypes and developed pilot projects to respond to the needs of clients and client groups

in a given industry. However, given a lack of recurring sales of the initial product sold to the first

segment or client, they must continue to search for application opportunities in new market

segments or industries to make their technology profitable. Thus, they do not yet clearly “see”

the possibilities of their technology and the potential market(s) for them to know how to proceed.

Given that the first clients expressed their needs, but that there are always differences among the

needs of different clients, they find it difficult to identify a common denominator. In such cases,

to the best of their knowledge and based on the information they can obtain, those firms seek out

opportunities that appear to be the most promising at the moment rather than planning optimal

segment choice and market scope. They will subsequently attempt to expand to other products,

15

markets and segments. Firms that are unable to do this may see their future development delayed,

jeopardising the firm’s survival. Based on the experience of the growth firms and according to

the experts, a high-tech firm’s success does not necessarily depend on manufacturing a perfect

product right from the start; success lies in their ability to turn around and adapt. The firm should

therefore develop the finished product required by the market only after the firm has gained a

solid understanding of what the product (line) should be.

Customers are at the Heart of the Process; MC Based on a Platform is the Key

Designing technology adaptation around customers’ needs requires close collaboration between

a firm and its clients (Khalid and Helander, 2003), including sharing of knowledge, skills, and

resources (Meyer and Lehnerd, 1997; Sawhney, 1998; Meyer and de Tore, 2000). Hu (2013)

suggests that customers participate in the design process, while other authors (Franke and Piller,

2003; Tseng et al., 2003) specify that this involvement may extend from the definition stage, to

configuration or the modification for an individual solution. As stated earlier, an MC strategy is

far from a simple production strategy, but is rather manner to totally rethink and design the

organisation with the ultimate goal of gaining profit from a heterogeneous clientele (Salvador et

al., 2009). An environment which facilitates flexibility based on a platform and open architecture

is thus essential (Hu, 2013). However, Daaboul et al. (2011) underline that an MC strategy

requires solid planning to attain a balance between variety (of modules) and complexity. They

suggest that variety be analysed to include the entire network (clients, suppliers, costs, perceived

value, etc.), not just clients. Other authors have explored the concept of variety and to what extent

it affects an MC strategy (Jiao et al., 2007; Zhang and Tseng, 2007).

Learning and Gaining Experience

Several respondent firms as well as experts agreed that a firm should not wait to have a finished

product to begin commercialisation. Start-up firms need to understand clients’ needs and must

discuss with them how the technology can solve their problems. Returning to the potential client

after such discussion with a prototype will often lead to a well-adapted solution and an important

learning experience for the high-tech firm. Prototypes may also be useful when the development

(or the adaptation) for a client is too costly. This may be accomplished by selling a prototype

and supervising the technical team of the buyer that adapts the prototype to their needs. The

high-tech firm will gain experience and may use this new knowledge to improve the prototype,

to do pilot projects for other clients, and eventually to develop recurring sales. It is therefore not

surprising that the sale of prototypes or pilot projects is often mentioned as a necessary first step

to test applications within an industry.

However, growth firms mention the importance of stepping back after the first projects

to verify that these efforts are leading toward the eventual development of a platform integrated

into an MC strategy. They further emphasise that the pertinence of selling prototypes to be

developed by potential clients depends on the business strategy of the firm. If the firm receives

a request for a prototype but is not sufficiently solid financially or does not have the human

16

resources to exploit that market niche, or the prototype is not essential to the development of its

platform, the firm may, alternatively, grant a licence to a partner who will develop that niche.

The firm receives royalties from the licence and the partner develops a new application of the

technology or an application for a specific industry.

Market Development

The eventual development of a flexible platform allowing incremental innovation and the sale

of products to other customers in the same segment, to a regional or global segment, or to related

segments is a market development strategy for long-term profitability. The literature insists on

the importance, for market development, to first analyse the market and competitors before

developing a platform strategy, deciding which markets, segments, and clients offer the best

growth perspectives (Pekkarinen and Ulkuniemi, 2008). This requires segmentation analysis. To

grasp total market potential requires information about the market, competitors, and potential

customers, as well as market trends. Moreover, it requires sufficient understanding of the

diversity of needs in the market to be able to define segments with different needs that will

respond to tailored offers. Market segmentation of an industrial market consists of defining

submarkets within the larger market by three dimensions: types of customers, solutions to

customers’ problems (needs) – including desired performance --, and the technologies which

offer such solutions. A segment is then one type of customer with a problem to solve (a need)

that can be resolved with a specific technology (or level of performance). An essential criterion

for retention of a segment is its profit potential. For high-technology products, where repeat

sales are infrequent (unless it is to sell related products/services), firms in the study used the

number of potential clients in a segment as a measure of potential and, thus, of profitability.

When the number of clients is limited, the firm will solicit all potential clients in the segment. If

the number is large, the firm targets geographic zones which contain the greatest number of

potential clients. Results show that start-up firms had a tendency to choose urban zones and

concentrated industrial sectors. However, growth firms more often sought out global market

niches; that is, they searched for a certain profile of buyers with identical or similar needs in

several countries, allowing for standardisation or a flexible platform to respond to demand.

Results of the present study indicate that, in general, segmentation analysis is not well

understood by firms in the sample. Several mentioned that they segmented their market, but their

approach was rather the identification and choice of clients or segments that they believed the

most appropriate for the firm, without attempting to analyse the global potential market and then

targeting segments with the most potential for the firm. Furthermore, the literature suggests that

other factors are important in market choice, such as knowledge and the firm’s needs (Ibeh et

al., 2004) and its size (Mittelstaedt et al., 2006). The maturity of the industry, risk, and the degree

of the firm’s internationalisation also affect its choices (Anderson, 2004; Rothaermel et al.,

2006). Moreover, in spite of cost savings related to an MC strategy, firms must avoid direct

competition with mass producers in large markets due to the superior scale economies of those

firms (Mendelson and Parlakturk, 2008).

Planning and the Necessity to Seek Opportunities

17

It follows that for the firms in the study, different types of potential customers (universities,

research laboratories, private firms in specific sectors) should be examined with respect to their

needs and desired solutions. Ministries and universities (domestic and international) are

frequently the first to procure avant-garde technologies developed by the photonics sector.

Unfortunately, their buying cycle can be long and unpredictable. There are occasions when

purchases are never finalised. These types of clients may be classified as innovators. The

technology adoption life cycle (Moore, 2014) suggests that, for a disruptive innovation (i.e., an

innovation that displaces an established technology or a ground-breaking product that creates a

completely new industry, such as the PC or email), sales have a tendency to slow after initial

sales to innovators. It is therefore essential for the firm to plan ahead of time how and where to

create value by identifying other groups of buyers either in the same sector, in a related sector,

or in a new context, or different solutions for other groups (i.e., different applications of the

technology for different types of customers) to ensure the profitability of the technology.

Firms in the present study, both start-ups and growth firms, are faced with such a

situation, since photonics products very often change (and often improve) the manner in which

operations are performed, and frequently at lower cost. Initial clients may influence new clients

in the same sector, but the potential number of buyers may be limited. The firm must not only

invest in product development but also in market development if it is to survive. Medium- and

long-term strategic planning is therefore imperative to plan for this transition and growth, using

an MC strategy that is the result of strategic planning and based on segmentation analysis.

However, due to the rapid evolution of technology in the photonics sector, certain experts still

dedicate a portion of their activities to actively monitoring the technology and opportunity

landscapes while pursuing a target market strategy. In effect, good strategic planning does not

exclude opportunism.

Conclusion

The analysis of the realities faced by ten firms in the photonics sector, combined with comments

from experts in the same sector, shed new light on the manner in which these firms adapt their

technological innovations to ensure profitable growth in foreign markets. Study results

contribute to the development of the literature on international entrepreneurship by its focus on

two groups of firms: start-up and growth firms within an industrial (B2B) context and the

knowledge it furnishes concerning product and market development strategies of these firms.

In addition to its theoretical contribution, the study demonstrates that finding a balance

between adaptation and standardisation of an innovation is a question of survival for a high-

technology firm. Product development requires a mass customisation strategy based on flexible

platform development, resolving the paradox of mass production of customised technological

innovations and supporting scale economies that are needed for the growth and profitability of

the firm. Analysis shows that it is preferable, from the very beginning, to plan the development

of a platform that can respond to common needs of particular types of clients. The firm thus

gains on all fronts: simplicity and reduced development time, lower costs, and scale economies

during procurement. However, start-up firms face challenges that too often lead them to

suboptimal product development practices. In addition, market development must be planned

18

from the beginning and is not independent of product development. High-technology firms

generally have customers spread out over several countries, and Grimal and Guerlain (2014)

confirm that an MC strategy is not in opposition to considerable physical distance. They suggest

that information technologies allow the multiplication of interactions between a firm its markets

and improve their knowledge of target markets. Knowledge of target markets facilitates market

development, through more thorough segmentation analysis and subsequent market choice. A

customisable product line of platform-based products in turn facilitates market choice.

Further research is required to deepen our understanding of how to optimise a strategy of

MC for high-technology firms. The question remains as to whether these firms can develop a

revenue model based on recurring sales.

Finally, this research was conducted using ten firms from a regional photonics cluster.

While limited in terms of generalisation due to sample size and nature, the use of multiple data

sources (literature, semi-structured interviews, and validation by experts in the field) aims at

lessening the possible distortion effects of responses of one or several respondents in small

samples. It therefore lends both internal validity by confirmation of information across sources

and external validity by confirmation by industry experts to results found for the present sample.

However, future research in the same sector should involve a larger sample and include more

than a single geographic area. The study’s results should also be verified in other high-

technology sectors. Finally, longitudinal studies are highly indicated, since product and market

development and internationalisation are processes and an MC strategy must evolve as the firm

grows.

19

References

Anderson, D. M. (2004) Build-to-Order & Mass Customization - The ultimate supply chain

management and lean manufacturing strategy for low-cost on-demand production without

forecasts or inventory. CIM Press, Cambria: California.

Asan, U., Polat, S. and Serdar, S. (2004) ‘An integrated method for designing modular

products’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp.29-49.

Bardakci, A. and Whitelock, J. (2003) ‘Mass-Customisation in Marketing: The Consumer

Perspective’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp.463–79.

Berry, C., Wang, H. and Hu, S. J. (2012) ‘Product Architecturing for Personalization.

Assembly Technologies and Systems for Quality, Productivity and Customization’,

Proceedings of the 4th CIRP Conference on Assembly Technologies and Systems, May, Ann

Arbor.

Bharadwaj, N., Naylor, R. W. and Hofstede, F. T. (2009) ‘Consumer Response to and Choice

of Customized Versus Standardized Systems’, International Journal of Research in

Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp.216–227.

Boland, M. (2008) ‘Innovation in the food industry: personalized nutrition and mass

customization’, Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.53-60.

Cambra-Fierro, J. J., Hart, S., Mur, A. F. and Redondo, Y. P. (2011) ‘Looking for

performance: How innovation and strategy may affect market orientation models’,

Innovation-Management Policy & Practice, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp.154-172.

Chen, S. L., Wang, Y. and Tseng, M. M. (2009) ‘Mass Customization as a Collaborative

Engineering Effort’, International Journal of Collaborative Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 2,

pp.152-167.

Claycomb, C., Droge, C. and Germain, R. (2005) ‘Applied customer knowledge in a

manufacturing environment: flexibility for industrial firms’, Industrial Marketing

Management, Vo. 4 No. 6, pp.629–640.

Comstock, M., Johansen, K. and Winroth, M. (2004) ‘From mass production to mass

customization: enabling perspectives from the Swedish mobile telephone industry’,

Production Planning & Control, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp.362-72.

Cooper , R. G. (2011) Winning at New Products: Creating Value Through Innovation, 4th ed.,

Basic Books-Perseus, New York.

Daaboul, J., Da Cunha, C., Bernard, A. and Laroche, F. (2011) ‘Design for mass

customization: Product variety vs. process variety’, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing

Technology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp.169–174.

20

Dana, L.-P. and Dana, T.E. (2005) ‘Expanding the scope of methodologies used in

entrepreneurship research’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,

Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.79-88.

Dana, L.-P. and Dumez, H. (2015) ‘Qualitative research revisited: epistemology of a

comprehensive approach’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,

Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.154–170.

Davis, S. (1989) ‘From future perfect: mass customizing’, Planning Review, Vol. 17 No. 2,

pp.16-21.

Duray, R., Ward, P.T., Milligan, G.W. and Berry, W. L. (2000) ‘Approaches to mass

customization: configurations and empirical validation’, Journal of Operations

Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp.605-625.

Easingwood, C., Moxey, S. and Capleton, H. (2006) ‘Bringing high technology to market:

successful strategies employed in the worldwide software industry’, Journal of Product

Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp.498-511.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Building Theories From Case Study Research’, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp.532-550.

Fernhaber, S.A., Gilbert, B.A. and McDougall, P.P. (2007) ‘International entrepreneurship and

geographic location: An empirical examination of new venture internationalization’,

Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp.267-290.

Fogliatto, F.S., da Silveira, J-C. and Borenstein, D. (2012) ‘The mass customization decade:

An updated review of the literature’, International Journal of Production Economics,

Vol. 138 No. 1, pp.14–25.

Franke, N. and Piller, F. (2003) ‘Key Research Issues in User Interaction with Configuration

Toolkits in a Mass Customization System’, International Journal of Technology

Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp.578–599.

Franke, N., Schreier, M. and Kaiser, U. (2010) ‘The "I Designed It Myself" Effect in Mass

Customization’, Management Science, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp.125–140.

Gaur, S. S., Vasudevan. H. and Gaur, A.S. (2009) ‘Market orientation and manufacturing

performance of Indian SMEs: Moderating role of firm resources and environmental factors’,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 7-8, pp.1172-1193.

Grimal, L. and Guerlain, P. (2014) ‘Mass Customization in Apparel Industry - Implication of

Consumer as Co-Creator’, Journal of Economics & Management, Vol. 15 No. ), pp.105-

121.

21

Heizer, J. and Barry R. (2004) Operation Management, 7th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall Inc.,

USA.

Hu, J.S. (2013) ‘Evolving Paradigms of Manufacturing: From Mass Production to Mass

Customization and Personalization’, Forty Sixth CIRP Conference on Manufacturing

Systems, Procedia CIRP, 7(1), 3–8.

Huang, X., Mehmet, M. K. and Schroeder, R.G. (2008) ‘Linking learning and effective process

implementation to mass customization capability’, Journal of Operations Management,

Vol. 26 No. 6, pp.714–729.

Hultman, M., Robson, M. J. and Katsikeas, C. S. (2009) ‘Export Product Strategy Fit and

Performance: An Empirical Investigation’, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 17

No. 4, pp.1-23.

Ibeh, K., Johnson, J.E., Dimitratos, P. and Slow, J. (2004) ‘Micro multinationals: Some

Preliminary Evidence on an Emergent Star of the International Entrepreneurship Field’,

Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp.289-303.

Jiang, K., Lee, H.L. and Seifert, R.W. (2006) ‘Satisfying customer preferences via mass

customization and mass production’, IIE Transaction, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp.25–38.

Jiao, J., Simpson, T.W. and Siddique, Z. (2007) ‘Product family design and platform-based

product development: a state-of-the-art review’, International Journal of Intelligent

Manufacturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp.5-29.

Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2006) ‘Toward a parsimonious definition of traditional and

electronic mass customization’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 2,

pp.168–182.

Koren, Y., Hu, S.J., Gu, P. and Shpitalni, M. (2013) ‘Open Architecture Products’, CIRP

Annals-Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp.234-249.

Khalid, H. M. and Helander, M. G. (2003) Web-based Do-It-Yourself Product Design, in

Tseng M. M. and F. T. Piller (Eds.), The Customer Centric Enterprise, Advances in Mass

Customization and Personalization, Springer, Berlin, pp.247-266.

Kotha, S. (1995) ‘Mass Customization: Implementing the Emerging Paradigm for Competitive

Advantage’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp.21–42.

Kouropalatis, Y., Hughes, P., and Morgan, R. E. (2012) ‘Pursuing "flexible commitment" as

strategic ambidexterity: An empirical justification in high technology firms’, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol.46 No.10, pp.1389-1417.

Lambin, J.-J. and de Moerloose, C. (2012) Marketing stratégique et opérationnel: du

Marketing à l’Orientation Marketing, 8th ed., Dunod, Paris.

22

Magnusson, M. and Pasche, M. (2014) ‘A Contingency‐Based Approach to the Use of Product

Platforms and Modules in New Product Development’, Journal of Product Innovation

Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp.434-450.

McIntosh, R. I., Matthews, J., Mullineux, G. and Medland, A. J. (2010) ‘Late customization:

issues of mass customization in the food industry’, International Journal of Production

Research, Vol. 48 No.6, pp.1557-1574.

Mendelson, H. and Parlakturk, A.K. (2008) ‘Product-line competition: Customization vs.

proliferation’, Management Science, Vol. 54 No. 12, pp.2039–2053.

Merle, A., Chandon, J-L., Roux, E. and Alizon, F. (2010) ‘Perceived Value of the Mass-

Customized Product and Mass Customization Experience for Individual Consumers’,

Production and Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp.503-514.

Meyer, M.H. and Lehnerd, P. (1997) The Power of Product Platforms, The Free Press, New

York.

Meyer, M. H. and de Tore, A. (2000) ‘Perspective: creating a platform-based approach for

developing new services’, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 3,

pp.188-204.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis, 2nd ed., Sage, London.

Miller, W. (2001) ‘Innovation for business growth’, Research Technology Management,

Vol. 44 No. 5, pp.26-41.

Mittelstaedt, J.D., Ward, W.A. and Nowlin, E. (2006) ‘Location, industrial concentration and

the propensity of small US firms to export: Entrepreneurship in the international

marketplace’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp.486-503.

Moore, Geoffrey A. (2014) Crossing the Chasm: marketing and selling disruptive products to

mainstream customers (Collins Business Essentials), 12th ed., Harper Business, New York.

Mukhopadhyay, S.K. and Setoputro, R. (2005) ‘Optimal return policy and modular design for

build-to-order products’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp.496-506.

Murmann, J. P., Ozdemir, S.Z. and Sardana, D. (2015) ‘The Role of Home Demand in the

Internationalization of New Ventures’, Research Policy, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp.1207-1225.

Ogawa, S. and Piller, F.T. (2006) ‘Reducing the Risks of New Product Development’, Sloan

Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp.65-72.

23

Onetti, A., Zucchella, A., Jones, M.V. and McDougall-Covin, P.P. (2012) ‘Internationalization,

innovation and entrepreneurship: Business models for new technology-based firms’,

Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp.337-368.

Pallari, J. H. P., Dalgarno, K. W. and Woodburn, J. (2010) ‘Mass customization of foot

orthoses for rheumatoid arthritis using selective laser sintering’, IEEE Transactions on

Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp.1750-1756.

Partanen, J. and Haapasalo, H. (2004) ‘Fast production for order fulfilment: Implementing

mass customization in electronics industry’, International Journal of Production

Economics, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp.213-222.

Payne, A., Storbacka, K. and Frow, Pennie (2009) ‘Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and

designing the relationship experience’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3,

pp.379-389.

Pekkarinen, S. and Ulkuniemi, P. (2008) ‘Modularity in developing business services by

platform approach’, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 1,

pp.84–103.

Piller, F. (2003) Mass Customization, 3rd ed., Gabler, Wiesbaden.

Pine II, B.J. (1993) Mass Customisation: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard

Business School Press, Boston.

Robertson, D. and Ulrich, K. (1998) ‘Platform product development’, Sloan Management

Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp.19–31.

Rothaermel, F.T., Kotha, S. and Steensma, H.K (2006) ‘International market entry by U.S.

internet firms: an empirical analysis of country risk, national culture, and market size’,

Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp.56–82.

Salvador, F., de Holan, P.M. and Piller, F. (2009) ‘Cracking the code of mass customization’,

MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp.71-78.

Sawhney, M. S. (1998) ‘Leveraged high-variety strategies: From portfolio thinking total form

thinking’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp.54–61.

Schilling, M.A. (2000) ‘Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and its Application to

Interfirm Product Modularity’, Academy Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp.312–334.

Sunikka, A. and Bragge, J. (2012) ‘Applying text-mining to personalization and customization

research literature – Who, what and where?’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39

No. 11, pp.10049-10058.

24

Tang, D., Zhu, R., Tang, J. Xu, R. and He, R. (2010) ‘Product design knowledge management

based on design structure matrix’, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 24 No. 2,

pp.159-166.

Tseng, M., Kjellberg, T. and Lu, S. (2003) ‘Design in the New E-Commerce Era’, Annals of

the CIRP, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp.509–519.

Tseng, M., Jiao, M.J. and Merchant, M. E. (1996) ‘Design for mass customization’, CIRP

Annals-Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp.153-156.

Ulrich, K. (1995) ‘The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm’, Research

Policy, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp.419-440.

Vinodh, S., Sundararaj, G., Devadasan, S. R., Kuttalingam, D. and Rajanayagam, D. (2010)

‘Amalgamation of mass customization and agile manufacturing concepts: the theory and

implementation study in an electronics switches manufacturing company’, International

Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp.2141-2164.

Zhang, M. and Tseng, M. (2007) ‘A product and process modelling based approach to study

cost implications of product variety in mass customization’, IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp.130–144.