Turbulence as a Double–Edged Sword: The Moderating Role of I4.0 Technologies in the Frugal Innovation–New Product Development Performance Link

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Technology Management, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran

2 Department of Management, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

Abstract
New product development (NPD) is a strategic tool for firms to compete, differentiate themselves, and outperform competitors, yet NPD remains a key organizational challenge. This study examined the impact of frugal innovation (FI) on new product development performance (NPDP) within the small household electrical appliances (SHEA) sector. Additionally, it explored the moderating roles of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) technologies and technological turbulence (TT) in linking FI to NPDP. Grounded in the Resource–Based View (RBV), Human–Organization–Technology (HOT) framework, and Schumpeterian innovation theory, this research, from a paradigmatic perspective, fell under post–positivism. In terms of approach and reasoning, the study followed a quantitative–deductive approach, and from the perspective of method and nature, it employed a descriptive survey design. Data were collected from 111 senior managers in the Iranian SHEA industry, exceeding the minimum required sample size of 108, as determined by G*Power analysis. The data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS–SEM) via Smart–PLS 4 software. The results confirmed that FI significantly and positively influenced NPDP. Furthermore, the study found that I4.0 technologies strengthen this relationship by enabling precise engineering, rapid prototyping, and cost–effective production, thus enhancing the benefits of FI under varying technological conditions. Technological turbulence also moderated the impact of I4.0, amplifying the positive effects on NPDP by fostering organizational agility and responsiveness to rapid change. The importance–performance map analysis highlighted I4.0 adoption as a critical area for managerial focus to sustain competitive advantages. These findings advanced the theoretical understanding of innovation management by clarifying the interplay between frugal innovation, Industry 4.0 technologies, and technological turbulence, enriching the understanding of their joint effects on NPDP. From a practical perspective, the results guide managers in resource allocation and strategic adoption of digital technologies to enhance innovation outcomes amid technological turbulence, thereby supporting sustained competitive advantages in resource–constrained and dynamic market environments.

Keywords


Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage publications.
Agarwal, N., & Brem, A. (2012). Frugal and reverse innovation: Literature overview and case study insights from a German MNC in India and China. In 2012 18th International ICE Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (pp. 1–11). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2012.6297683.
Aqmala, D., Panjaitan, R., Ardyan, E., & Putra, F. I. F. S. (2025). The role of green blue ocean strategy in enhancing frugal innovation through IoT and AI: A resource-based view perspective. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management & Innovation, 21(2), 56–81.
Ardito, L., Petruzzelli, A. M., Panniello, U., & Garavelli, A. C. (2019). Towards industry 4.0: Mapping digital technologies for supply chain management-marketing integration. Business Process Management  Journal, 25(2), 323-346.
Awwad, A., & Akroush, D. M. N. (2016). New product development performance success measures: exploratory research. EuroMed Journal of Business, 11(1), 2-29.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of  Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Bas, C. L. (2020). Frugal innovation as environmental innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 83(1-3), 78-96.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961).  The management of innovation. Tavistock Publications.
Chen, J., Neubaum, D. O., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2015). The relationship between team autonomy and new product development performance under different levels of technological turbulence. Journal of Operations Management, 33, 83-96.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Psychology Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd  Ed.). Hillsdale:  Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, S. (2017). Rethink manufacturing, KPMG. Designing a UK industrial strategy for the age of industry 4.0. KPMG.
Davari, A., & Rezazadeh, A. (2013). Structural equation modeling with PLS. Jahad University, 215(2), 224.
Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2018). Predictions from partial least squares models. In F. Ali, S. M. Rasoolimanesh, & C. Cobanoglu (Eds.), Applying partial least squares in tourism and hospitality research (pp. 35–52). Emerald Publishing Limited.
De Silva, R. J., Rupasinghe, T. D., & Apeagyei, P. (2019). A collaborative apparel new product development process model using virtual reality and augmented reality technologies as enablers. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology & Education, 12(1), 1-11.
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 434–449.
Dijkstra, T. K. (2010). Latent variables and indices: Herman Wold’s basic design and partial least squares. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (Vol. II, pp. 23–46). Springer.
Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS  Quarterly, 39(2), 297–316.
Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (Eds.). (2000). The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. Oxford university press.
Dost, M., Pahi, M. H., Magsi, H. B., & Umrani, W. A. (2019). Effects of sources of knowledge on frugal innovation: Moderating role of environmental turbulence. Journal of Knowledge  Management, 23(7), 1245-1259.
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 313-327.
 Fiorini, P. D. C., Jugend, D., Scaliza, J. A. A., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., & Latan, H. (2025). Digitalisation of manufacturing and innovation: The role of inbound open innovation and environmental turbulence in enabling Industry 4.0-based innovation. Production Planning & Control, 36(13), 1713-1732.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing  Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fransisca, L., Renaldo, N., Chandra, T., Augustine, Y., & Musa, S. (2025). Digital innovation capability and customer value co-creation on new product performance with digital transformation maturity as a moderating variable in trading companies in Indonesia. Luxury: Landscape of Business Administration, 3(1), 1-15.
Iqbal, Q., & Piwowar-Sulej, K. (2023). Frugal innovation embedded in business and political ties: transformational versus sustainable leadership. Asian Business & Management, 22(5), 2225-2248.
Iqbal, Q., Piwowar-Sulej, K., & Kallmuenzer, A. (2025). Sustainable development through frugal innovation: the role of leadership, entrepreneurial bricolage and knowledge diversity. Review of Managerial Science, 19(2), 573-594.
Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer Nature.
He, X., & Wu, X. (2024). Social networks and ambidextrous innovation in SMEs: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities and the moderating role of technological turbulence. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(10), 2662-2675.
Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W. (2010). A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Structural Equation  Modeling, 17(1), 82-109.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of  Marketing, 57(3), 53-70.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409–426.
Knorringa, P., Peša, I., Leliveld, A., & Van Beers, C. (2016). Frugal innovation and development: aides or adversaries?. The European Journal of Development Research, 28(2), 143-153.
Kumar, S., & Bhatia, M. S. (2021). Environmental dynamism, industry 4.0 and performance: Mediating role of organizational and technological factors. Industrial Marketing Management, 95, 54-64.
Knudsen, M. P., Von Zedtwitz, M., Griffin, A., & Barczak, G. (2023). Best practices in new product development and innovation: Results from PDMA's 2021 global survey. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 40(3), 257-275.
Li, C., Murad, M., Ashraf, S. F., & Jiatong, W. (2024). Leadership styles, team innovative behavior, and new green product development performance. Management Decision, 62(10), 3208-3234.
Lim, C., & Fujimoto, T. (2019). Frugal innovation and design changes expanding the cost-performance frontier: A Schumpeterian approach. Research Policy, 48(4), 1016-1029.
Lim, C., Lee, J. H., Sonthikorn, P., & Vongbunyong, S. (2020). Frugal innovation and leapfrogging innovation approach to the industry 4.0 challenge for a developing country. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 29(1), 87-108.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-47.
Obradović, T., Vlačić, B., & Dabić, M. (2021). Open innovation in the manufacturing industry: A review and research agenda. Technovation, 102, 102221.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied  Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Qin, W. (2024). How to unleash frugal innovation through internet of things and artificial intelligence: Moderating role of entrepreneurial knowledge and future challenges. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 202, 123286.
Radomir, L., & Moisescu, O. I. (2020). Discriminant validity of the customer-based corporate reputation scale: Some causes for concern. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(4), 457–469.
Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: The importance-performance map analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1865-1886.
Rosca, E., Reedy, J., & Bendul, J. C. (2018). Does frugal innovation enable sustainable development? A systematic literature review. The European Journal of Development Research, 30(1), 136-157.
Safardoust, A., Pourqasem Sostani, M., & Salami, R. (2023). Identifying strategic components affecting the position of small home appliance industry. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 14(53), 1-24.
 Sarstedt, M., Bengart, P., Shaltoni, A. M., & Lehmann, S. (2018). The use of sampling methods in advertising research: A gap between theory and practice. International Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 650-663.
Sarstedt, M., & Mooi, E. (2014). A concise guide to market research: The process, data, and methods using IBM SPSS Statistics (2nd ed.). Springer.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. E. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of market research (pp. 587–632). Springer.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Sinaga, O., Saudi, M. H. M., & Roespinoedji, D. (2019). The dynamic nexus of digital evolution, environmental turbulence and environmental performance: A case of high-tech industries in the emerging 4th industrial revolution. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(6), 386-393.
Singh, P., & Anthonysamy, L. (2025). Development and validation of an instrument to assess instructors’ usage, acceptance, and confidence towards ChatGPT: a reliability and discriminant validity analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 30(17), 25251-25271.
Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. Blond & Briggs.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1912/2002). The economy as a whole: Schumpeter’s lost seventh chapter to “The Theory of Economic Development.” Industry and Innovation, 9(1/2), 91–145.
Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Estrada, J. M. V., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of business Research, 69(10), 4552-4564.
Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322-2347.
Song, M., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). The effect of perceived technological uncertainty on Japanese new product development. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 61-80.
Stentoft, J., & Rajkumar, C. (2020). The relevance of Industry 4.0 and its relationship with moving manufacturing out, back and staying at home. International Journal of Production Research, 58(10), 2953-2973.
Stentoft, J., Adsbøll Wickstrøm, K., Philipsen, K., & Haug, A. (2021). Drivers and barriers for Industry 4.0 readiness and practice: empirical evidence from small and medium-sized manufacturers. Production Planning & Control, 32(10), 811-828.
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validation and multinomial prediction. Biometrika, 509-515.
Teeluckdharry, N. B., Teeroovengadum, V., & Seebaluck, A. K. (2024). A roadmap for the application of PLS-SEM and IPMA for effective service quality improvements. The TQM Journal, 36(5), 1300-1345.
Tiedemann, F., Johansson, E., & Gosling, J. (2020). Structuring a new product development process portfolio using decoupling thinking. Production Planning & Control, 31(1), 38-59.
Trizano-Hermosilla, I., & Alvarado, J. M. (2016). Best alternatives to Cronbach's alpha reliability in realistic conditions: congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 769.
Tsai, K. H., & Yang, S. Y. (2013). Firm innovativeness and business performance: The joint moderating effects of market turbulence and competition. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(8), 1279-1294.
Vesci, M., Feola, R., Parente, R., & Radjou, N. (2021). How to save the world during a pandemic event. A case study of frugal innovation. R&D Management, 51(4), 352-363.
Weyrauch, T., & Herstatt, C. (2017). What is frugal innovation? Three defining criteria. Journal of Frugal Innovation, 2(1), 1–17.
Wijewardhana, G. E. H., Weerabahu, S. K., Nanayakkara, J. L. D., & Samaranayake, P. (2021). New product development process in apparel industry using Industry 4.0 technologies. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 70(8), 2352-2373.
Wu, S., Levitas, E., & Priem, R. L. (2005). CEO tenure and company invention under differing levels of technological dynamism. Academy of management Journal, 48(5), 859-873.
Ukbaeva, Z., Wöllner, T., & Bican, P. M. (2026). Constraints and frugal innovation: Enabling sustainable production through the new product development process. Sustainable Development, 34, 1392-1413.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. (A/RES/70/1). United Nations: Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf.
Yadlapalli, A., Rahman, S., & Gunasekaran, A. (2018). Socially responsible governance mechanisms for manufacturing firms in apparel supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics, 196, 135-149.
Yusof, M. M., Papazafeiropoulou, A., Paul, R. J., & Stergioulas, L. K. (2008). Investigating evaluation frameworks for health information systems. International Journal of Medical  Informatics, 77(6), 377-385.