IJIBEC International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics Av a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / e - j o u r n a l . i a i n p e k a l o n g a n . a c . i d / i n d e x . p h p / I J I B E C / ISSN: 2599-3216 E ISSN: 2615-420X Article Info Article history: Received : 17 February 2018 Accepted : 12 May 2018 Published : 1 June 2018 Keywords: service dominant logic; Islamic religiosity; shariah value logic; Islamic marketing. JEL: G21 G41 Abstract To analyze shariah value logic as the role mediating in the relationship between NPD Innovation and NPD Performance. We purposed shariah value logic as mediating role in this study. The questionnaires will be given to only the managers of LKMS (the board of shariah micro finance) in Pekalongan, Indonesia with total 246 responden from 24 LKMS (Baitul Maal wa Tamwil, Baitul Tamwil, Kospin Jasa Shariah, and KSPP Shariah). Shariah Value Logic significantly affect to Customer Brand Trust. Research limited in muamalah, future research can exploring in ebadat. LKMS adapted shariah value logic to get customer brand trust. Shariah value logic as the new variable and theory concept. Indirect, NPD Innovation positive significantly affect to NPD Performance with shariah value logic and customer brand trust are as mediating role. Shariah Value Logic to Enhance NPD Performance Mansur Chadi Mursid Doctoral Graduade Programme in Management Science, Economics and Business Faculty, Jenderal Soedirman University and IAIN Pekalongan email: mansurchadimursid@gmail.com mailto:mansurchadimursid@gmail.com International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics, 2(1) June 2018, 2 7 - 3 728 1. Introduction Studies have provided various perspectives on the performance effectof product innovativeness, and several scholars have argued that product innovativeness positively affects new product performance (Mishra, Kim, & Lee, 1996; Atuahene-Gima, 1996; Hultink & Robben, 1995; Fang, 2008, Warren, 2017). Conversely, several studies have indicated that product innovativeness is negatively associated with newproduct performance. Buyers may be averse to new productswith a high degree ofinnovativeness because of a heightenedpotential of social, performance, or financialrisks that accompany thepurchase of such products (Calantone et al., 2006; Sethi, 2000). Several studies have also observed that product innovativeness does not influence new product performance (Calantone et al., 2006), unidentified (Santos, et.al., 2013), whereas other evidence supports the hypothesis that a negative effect occurs (Cooper, 1979; Fu & Jones, 2008). Extant metaanalytic reviews, Huang & Tsai (2014) reported the significant and positive association of product innovativeness with new product performance (Henard & Szymanski, 2001; Szymanski et al., 2007). According to Rogers’s (2003) innovation diffusion theory, buyers within a population may have distinct preferences regarding innovativeness. Thus, the product innovativeness–performance relationship may be ambiguous. Conversely, we observed that the performance association of product innovativeness vanishes when considering the shariah value logic and customer brand trust as intermediary variables.New product innovativeness, and new product performance by constructing a mediated moderation or moderated mediation as research gap in this study. NPD Performance NP performance has been measured in different ways (Gotteland and Boule, 2006). Driva et al. (2001) reported that all the performance measure in product development can be grouped into three main categories. The first category is the time which comprises average time to market, on-time delivery and schedule adherence. NPD performance (Lee, 2008) is often referred to as the extent to which the new product has achieved its expected performance, including profit margin, return on assets and return on investment. The second category is the cost which includes total project cost against budget, profitability analysis (performance against objectives), product cost, actual to predicted profit on products, product development cost as percentage of turnover and margin analysis. The third category was stated as the number and nature of engineering change requests per project, adherence to original product specification and field trials which were described as quality and customer. O’Dwyer and Ledwith (2009) grouped NP performance measures under five categories, (1) market-level measures; (2) financial measures; (3) customer measures; (4) product level measures; and (5) timing measures. Nevertheless, amongst the five categories, customer and financial measures were termed “core success/failure measures” (Griffin and Page, 1993; Im et al., 2003). Godener and Soderquist (2004) identified seven areas of measurement that were related to NPD which are financial performance measurements, customer satisfaction measurements, process management measurements, innovation measurements, strategic measurements, technology management measurements and knowledge management measurements. Sherman et al. (2005) utilized six performance variables in their investigation. Of these six variables, product prototype development proficiency, product launch proficiency and design change frequency were process- oriented performance variables. While variables like market forecast accuracy and technological core competency fit were grouped as performance competencies, the only standalone variable was product development cycle time. Ledwith and O’Dwyer (2009) reported that new product performance is measured in terms of market-level measures, financial measures, customer acceptance measures, product-level measures and timing measures. Liu et al. (2005) identifed International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics, 2(1) June 2018, 2 7 - 3 7 29 three performance measures are as follows, (1) new product life cycle; (2) new product sales and profits; and (3) time to market for new product. We adapt the NPD performance measures proposed by Akroush (2012) in the present study, two NPD performance measures are as follows financial performances, and customer performance. NPD Innovation Innovation is vital to the survival of modern corporations (Ko, To, Zhang, Ngai, & Chan, 2011). Rogers (1983) defined an innovation asan idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. A product, service, or process can be the subject of innovation (Bhoovaraghavan and Vasudevan 1996).Schumpeter (1934)classifies innovations in two types: (1) radical and (2) incremental. Radical innovations are those originating from the process of creative destruction, a term coined to explain technological or market paradigm breakthroughs, shifting to something completely new and that can be represented by a product or a process. Product innovativeness refers to the level of perceived newness,originality, and uniqueness of a product (Garcia & Calatone, 2002). For any organization, NPD innovation is crucial in achieving the success. Vinayak & Kodali (2014) proposed six elements NPD innovation, (1) product innovation; (2) process innovation; (3) market innovation; (4) service innovation; (5) behavioral innovation; and (6) managerial innovation. Product innovation is often referred to as the novelty and meaningfulness of new products introduced to the market in a timely fashion (Wang and Ahmed, 2004). Product innovation is critical to product success which in turn is highly related to sustainable business success, providing great opportunities for businesses in terms of growth and expansion into new areas (Cooper, 2000; Henard and Szymanski, 2001). Process innovation refers to the introduction of new production methods and new technology that can be used to improve production processes (Wang and Ahmed, 2004). Maravelakis et al. (2006) emphasized that process innovation may result in product innovation and likewise product innovation may force process innovation, an inference that product innovation and process innovation are strongly correlated. In our study, process innovation constructs have been taken as those related to product development process issues concerning production methods and the distribution cycle. Market innovation is the newness of approaches that organization adopts to enter and exploit the targeted market, i.e. innovation related to market research, advertising and promotion as well as identification of new market opportunities and entry into new markets (Wang and Ahmed, 2004). Market innovation is central to product innovation and likewise, product innovation maintains a central focus for product newness. Here, we refer to market innovation in the context of novelty of market-oriented approaches. Similarly, service innovation refers to the differences and novelties that can be built into the dimensions of intangible service offerings (Zolfagharian and Paswan, 2008). In service innovation, activities are undertaken to deliver core services so as to attract more consumers (Oke, 2007), which in turn tend to create a new revenue streams. Behavioral innovation in the organization is directly related to the people and their practices. Here, innovation is brought in to the social system of an organization like focusing on the innovative practices, culture, the overall internal receptivity to new ideas and innovation adapted by individuals and teams in the organization. Managerial innovation practices focuses more on leadership/senior management’s role in building the organizational structure, administrative processes and enabling the human resources toward an innovative culture. In the present study, management strategy on innovation, administration or leadership innovation, focus on feasibility studies or risk-taking attitude of management, support for knowledge management, organization’s characteristics and motivation of people to innovate were taken as constructs of managerial innovation. International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics, 2(1) June 2018, 2 7 - 3 730 Customer Brand Trust Trust is the belief that an exchange partner is honest, reliable, and is interested in the welfare of the other party (Doney and Cannon 1997; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Brand is not only a symbol but also an entity (something that has unique and distinct existence) which can be easily recognized and promise certain values (Nicolino, 2004). Brand is actually a reflection of promises about the product promoted by producer to the consumer about the product’s quality. Hence, there needs to be a trust in the brand. In branding, trust is the willingness or the want of consumers in facing the risk associated with the notion that the purchased brand will provide a positive or favorable results (Lau and Lee, 1999). According to Keller (2003), brand lowers the risk in using the product. Consumers often interact with brands as if the brand is human, thus the similarities between the consumer self- concept to the brand can build trust towards the brand. Trust involves the willingness of a person to behave particularly because of the belief that its partner will deliver what he/she expected, and an expectation that is generally owned by someone that the word, promise or statement of other people can be trusted. It is the emerging force of customer retention, because the trust can create a relationship exchange with great value to both parties. Herbiniak (in Morgan and Hunt, 1994) stated that relationship, which is characterized by trust, is highly valued on parties with a desire to commit or bind themselves to a particular relationship. Commitment is prone to change without involving trust aspects. Therefore, trust in the brand became the basis of ongoing relationship in maintaining valuable and important relationships created by the existence of the trust. Trust in the brand is the customer’s trust behavior toward the shariah product. Trust creates exchange relationships that are highly valued (Morgan and Hunt 1994). Definition of trust provided by Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpande (1992, p. 315) and Morgan and Hunt (1994: 23). Chaudhori & Holbrook (2001) define brand trust as the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function. Brand trust was measured as a four-item index based on five-point ratings of agreement (1 = very strongly disagree, 5 = very strongly agree) with the following four statements: “I trust this brand,” “I rely on this brand,” “This is an honest brand,” and “This brand is safe.” Shariah Value Logic Service science is the study of service systems and of the co-creation of value within complex constellations of integrated resources (Spohrer et al., 2007, 2008). Service is the application of competences (knowledge and skills) by one entity for the benefit of another (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2006). This definition provides a fresh perspective for understanding economic phenomena, by implying that value is created collaboratively in interactive configurations of mutual exchange. It centers on the participants, processes, andresources that interact to create value in service systems. So value and value creation are at the heart of service and are critical to understanding the dynamics of service systems and to furthering service science. But value is an elusive term. Marketing basics highlight the importance of understanding different consumer segments and relating to their needs (Kotler and Armstrong, 2006). Mirroring the holistic view of Islamic legislation through its prime underpinning objectives (maqasid ash-shari’ah) and seeing Islam not only as a culture but as creed (‘aqidah), worship (‘ebadat), interactions (mu’amalaat), and morality (akhlaq), El- Bassiouny (2014) attempted to set a humble precedent aimed at presenting amacro- marketing view(see p. 46) of the potential implications of Islamic marketing according to the macro-level and integrated approach of the spirit and heart of Islam, namely the sources and goals of Islamic shari’ah. Overall depiction of the transcendental values integration model discussed in El-Bassiouny (2014). International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics, 2(1) June 2018, 2 7 - 3 7 31 The “maqasid ash-shari’ah” of preservation of self, intellect, posterity, wealth, and faith represent the soul of Islamic legislation that permeate its inherent value system, and offer a broad framework for actions and deeds consistent with its morals, priorities, and ideals (El-Bassiouny, 2015). Based service dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2006) and Islamic religiusity (El-Bassiouny, 2015), we proposed measure in the present study as shariah value logic with the following five statements, (1) create values religiusity to stakeholders; (2) use a spiritual brand character; (3) prioritization of values religiusity; (4) co-creation business based shariah values; and (5) create values religiusity system, preservation of self,intellect, posterity, wealth, and faith. Proposed Model and Hypotheses Figure 1 introduces the paper’s proposed model and its related hypotheses. 43  Figu re 1. Pro pose d Re sea rch M ode l H1 H2/H7 H3/H6 H4 H5 systems and to furthering service science. But value is an elusive term.    Marketing  basics  highlight  the  importance  of  understanding  different  consumer  segments and relating to their needs (Kotler and Armstrong, 2006). Mirroring the holistic  view  of  Islamic  legislation  through  its  prime  underpinning  objectives  (maqasid  ash‐ shari'ah) and seeing Islam not only as a culture but as creed (‘aqidah), worship (‘ebadat),  interactions (mu'amalaat), and morality (akhlaq), El‐ Bassiouny (2014) attempted to set a  humble precedent aimed at presenting amacro‐marketing view(see p. 46) of the potential  implications of Islamic marketing according to the macro‐level and integrated approach of  the spirit and heart of  Islam, namely the sources and goals of  Islamic shari'ah. Overall  depiction  of  the  transcendental  values  integration  model  discussed  in  El‐Bassiouny  (2014).    The “maqasid ash‐shari'ah” of preservation of self, intellect, posterity, wealth, and  faith represent the soul of Islamic legislation that permeate its inherent value system, and  offer a broad framework for actions and deeds consistent with its morals, priorities, and  ideals  (El‐Bassiouny,  2015).  Based  service  dominant  logic  (Vargo  &  Lusch,  2006)  and  Islamic  religiusity  (El‐Bassiouny,  2015),  we  proposed  measure  in  the  present  study  as  shariah  value  logic  with  the  following  five  statements,  (1)  create  values  religiusity  to  stakeholders; (2) use a spiritual brand character; (3) prioritization of values religiusity; (4)  co‐creation  business  based  shariah  values;  and  (5)  create  values  religiusity  system,  preservation of self,intellect, posterity, wealth, and faith.    Proposed Model and Hypotheses  Figure 1 introduces the paper’s proposed model and its related hypotheses.              According to the model, we proposed seven hypotheses, (1) NPD Innovation is positively associated with shariah value logic; (2) Shariah value logic is positively associated with NPD Performance; (3) NPD Innovation is positively associated with customer brand trust; (4) Customer brand trust is positively associated with NPD Performance; (5) Shariah value logic is positively associated with customer brand trust; (6) NPD Innovation is positively associated with shariah value logic and customer brand trust through shariah value logic; (7) Shariah value logic is positively associated with customer brand trust and NPD Performance through customer brand trust. 2. Research Methods Purposive Sampling is applied to this study. The questionnaires will be given to only the customers of LKMS (shariah micro finance board) in Pekalongan, Indonesia with total 199 customer from 13 LKMS (Baitul Maal wa Tamwil, Baitul Tamwil, Kospin Jasa Shariah, and KSPP Shariah). Step analysis consist of confirmatory factor analysis, analysis exogen construct confirmatory, analysis inter endogen construct confirmatory, estimate structural full model, and examine discriminant validity. The constructs include, NPD Performance, NPD Innovation, Shariah Value Logic, and customer brand trust. All questionnaire items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strong agree”. International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics, 2(1) June 2018, 2 7 - 3 732 Table 1. Construct, Indicator Construct, and Code Research Construct Indicator construct Code NPD Performance Increasing our company’s revenues from new Customers Increasing our current customers account share Increasing our company’s market share Increasing our company’s sales volume Increasing our company’s net profits Increasing our company’s cash revenues Overall, our customers are more satisfied with our NP/s NP fits target customers better Increasing our customers’ loyalty Attracting more new customers due to our NP/s Our NPs are more successful the marketplace than before Our customers encourage other people to buy our NPs X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 X 8 X 9 X 10 X 11 X 12 NPD Innovation Newness/novelty/originality/uniqueness New production methods Customer focus/customer relationship management After-sales support services Employees individual innovativeness Administration/leadership innovation X 13 X 14 X 15 X 16 X 17 X 18 Shariah ValueLogic Create values religiusity to stakeholders Use a spiritual brand character Prioritization of values religiusity Co-creation business based shariah values Create values religiusity system, preservation of self, intellect, posterity, wealth, and faith X 19 X 20 X 21 X 22 X 23 Customer Brand Trust I trust this brand This is an honest brand This brand is safe We trust that this LKMS keeps our best interests in mind Immediate supervisors at timesmust make decisions which seem to be against the interest of the customer We had a trust-based relationship with our subcontractor X 24 X 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 3. Result With regard to construct validity, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998), exploratoryfactor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to assessconstructs validity. All the research items were subjected to EFA. An index of Kaiser’smeasure of sampling adequacy (overall MSA = 0,846) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity Sig. 0,000 suggested that factor analysis is appropriate for analyzing the data.Based on eigenvalue greater than 1, the results of EFAindicate that the research items loaded on five factors, four relective and one formative (NPD Innovation). To validate the findings that emerged from using EFA, the four factor model wasevaluated by CFA using smartPLS 3.0 software as shown in Table 3, consist of outer loading, composite reliability (cronbach alpha),and average variance extracted (rho alpha). International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics, 2(1) June 2018, 2 7 - 3 7 33 Table 2. VIF values dan Outer Weights NPD Innovation NPD Innovation VIF Outer Weights Newness/novelty/originality/uniqueness 1,096 0,022 Administration/leadership innovation 1,119 0,924** Customer focus/customer relationship management 1,115 0,085 After-sales support services 1,185 0,075 Employees individual innovativeness 1,199 0,120* New transaction methods 1,102 0,003 ** p < 0,01 * p < 0,05 Evaluate outer model for NPD Innovation shown in Table 2. VIF values is not between 5 – 10, administration/leadership innovation was significant (p<0,001), andemployees individual innovativeness was significant (p<0,005). Table 3. R2 Values R Square Standard Deviation T Statistics P Values Customer Brand Trust 0,059 0,041 1,441 0,075 NPD Performance 0,076 0,036 2,105 0,018 Shariah Value Logic 0,784 0,023 34,396 0,000 To evaluate inner model using R2, we calculate Q2, andGoodness of Fit (GoF). Value of Q2 = 0,812 and GoF = 0,492. Accordingly, research model is fit and robust to examine hypotheses (Tenenhaus, 2010). Table 4. Examine Hypotheses Relationship Coefisien p values H1: NPD Innovation à Customer Brand Trust H2: NPD InnovationàShariah Value Logic H3: Shariah Value LogicàCustomer Brand Trust H4: Customer Brand TrustàNPD Performance H5: Shariah Value LogicàNPD Performance H6:NPD InnovationàShariah Value Logicà Customer Brand Trust H7: Shariah Value LogicàCustomer Brand Trust àNPD Performance 0,052 0,885 0,196 0,172 0,178 0,174 0,034 0,367 (0,340) 0,000** (68,923) 0,090 (1,345) 0,027* (1,925) 0,019* (2,008) 0,090 (1,340) 0,156 (1,011) HTMT NPD Performanceà Customer Brand Trust Shariah Value LogicàCustomer Brand Trust Shariah Value LogicàNPD Performance SRMR d_ULS d_G Chi-Square NFI rms Theta 0,244 0,283 0,243 0,065 0,971 0,356 242,319 0,871 0,157 0,000** (3,320) 0,000** (3,452) 0,000** (3,720) * p < 0,05 ** p < 0,01 International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics, 2(1) June 2018, 2 7 - 3 734 Direct, Indirect, and Total Effect NPD Innovation significantly affect toward Shariah Value Logic, and Shariah Value Logic significantly affect toward NPD Performance. NPD Innovation significantly affect toward Customer Brand Trust, and Customer Brand Trust significantly affect toward NPD Performance. Table 6 shown direct, indirect, and total effect between research constructs. Table 5. Direct, Indirect, and Total Effect Relationship Direct Indirect Total T Statistics P Values NPDI à CBT 0,052 0,174 0,226** 0,340(1,340)2,670 0,367(0,090)0,004 SVL à NPDF 0,178* 0,034 0,211** 2,088(1,011)2,745 0,019(0,156)0,003 NPDI à NPDF - 0,196** 0,196* 3,035 0,001 CBT à NPDF 0,172* - 0,172* 1,925 0,027 NPDI à VL 0,885** - 0,885** 68,923 0,000 SVL à CBT 0,196 - 0,196 1,345 0,090 ** p < 0,01 * p < 0,05 NPDF = NPD Performance NPDI = NPD Innovation SVL = Shariah Value Logic CBT = Customer Brand Trust Discussion The NPD Innovation that formed from six dimensions as a whole, positively affects toward Customer Brand Trust, but only managerial innovation and behavioral innovation are significantly. This indicates that indirectly NPD Innovation affect toward NPD Performance.There is a positive and significant effect of NPD Innovation toward Shariah Value Logic. Shariah values are referred to the theory Islamic Religiosity, developed by El-Bassiouny (2015) in the concept of transcendental values integration, states that the process of developing shariah value, especially in the service of a company based on shariah involves value co-creation activities that have a positive impact on Marketing activities (in this case supporting research results). Vargo (2006) argues that, there is a value creation process in instilling trust in customers when marketing or selling new products resulting from innovation and product development.With regard to mediation variable, as recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986), in the first order shown that Shariah Value Logic and Customer Brand Trust mediated between NPD Innovation and NPD Performance. Conclusion The conclusions of the research are the creation of Shariah Value Logic values and the Customer Brand Trust mediating the relationship between NPD Innovation and NPD Performance in The Board of Sharia Micro Finance, it must be corroborated by the trust of customers in the name of products that have a spiritual character. The absolute affect of NPD Performance is shown in the relationship between NPD Performance and NPD dimension of Customer Performance. In general, the relationship between constructs is not significant, but the relationship between construct and construct construct dimension is significant, as shown in the relationship between NPD Innovation with Product, International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics, 2(1) June 2018, 2 7 - 3 7 35 Process, Market, Behavior and Managerial Innovation dimensions, also between NPD Performance and NPD Financial dimensions and Customer Performance. References Akroush, M.N. (2012), Organizational Capabilities and New Product Performance: The Role of New Product Competitive Advantage. Review: An International Business Journal, 22(4), 343 – 365. Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Differential potency of factors affecting innovation performance in manufacturing and services firms in Australia. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(1), 35–52. Bhoovaraghavan, S., and Vasudevan, A. (1996), ‘Resolving the process vs. product innovation dilemma: a consumer choice theoretic approach’, Management Science, 42(2), 232–246. Calantone, R. J., Chan, K., & Cui, A. S. (2006). Decomposing product innovativeness and its effects on new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(6), 408–421. Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M.B., 2001. The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 81-93. Cooper, R. G. (1979). The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure. Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 93–103. ------------------. (2000), “Product innovation technology strategy”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 38-44. Driva, H., Pawar, K.S. and Menon, U. (2001), “Performance evaluation of new product development from a company perspective”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 368- 378. Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(April), 35–51. El-Bassiouny, N. (2014). The One-Billion-Plusmarginalization: Toward a scholarly understanding of Islamic consumers. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 42–49. El-Bassiouny, N. (2015). Where is Islamic marketing heading A commentary on Jafari and Sandikci’s (2015) “Islamic” consumers, markets, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 569-578. Fang, E. (2008). Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness and speed to market. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 96–104. Fu, F. Q., & Jones, E. (2008). Product innovativeness, customer newness, and new product performance: A time-lagged examination of the impact of salesperson selling intentions on new product performance. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 28(4), 351–364. Garcia, R., & Calatone, R. J. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(3), 110–132. Godener, A. and Soderquist, K.E. (2004), “Use and impact of performance measurement results in R&D and NPD: an exploratory study”, R&D Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 191-219. Griffin, A. and Page, A.L. (1993), “An interim report on measuring product development success and failure”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 291-308. Gotteland, D. and Boule, J.-M. (2006), “The market orientation-new product performance relationship: redefining the moderating role of environmental conditions”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23, pp. 171-85. Henard, D.H. and Szymanski, D.M. (2001), “Why some new products are more successful than others”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 362-375. Huang, C-T., dan Tsai, K-H., 2014. Synergy, Environmental Context, and New Product Performance: A Review Based on Manufacturing Firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1407 – 1419. International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics, 2(1) June 2018, 2 7 - 3 736 Hultink, E. J., & Robben, H. S. J. (1995). Measuring new product success: The difference that time perspective makes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(5), 392–405. Im, S., Nakata, C., Park, H. and Ha, Y.-W. (2003), “Determinants of Korean and Japanese new product performance: an international and process view”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 81-112. Keller, K.L. (2003). Strategic Brand Management. Singapore: Person Education Inc. Ko, K. K. B., To, C. K.M., Zhang, Z.M., Ngai, E.W. T., & Chan, T. L. K. (2011). Analytic collaboration in virtual innovation projects. Journal of Business esearch, 64(12), 1327–1334. Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2006). Principles of marketing. Upper Saddle River, NewJersey: Prentice Hall International. Lau, G. T. and S. H. Lee. (1999). Consumer’s Trust in Brand and The Link to Brand Loyalty. Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol. 4. No. 4, 341-370. Ledwith, A. and O’Dwyer, M. (2009), “Market orientation, NPD performance, and organizational performance in small firms”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 652-661. Lee, L.T.S. (2008), “The effects of team reflexivity and innovativeness on new product development performance”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 4, pp. 548-569. Liu, P.L., Chen, W.C. and Tsai, C.H. (2005), “An empirical study on the correlation between the knowledge management method and new product development strategy on product performance in Taiwan’s industries”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 637-644. Maravelakis, E., Bilalis, N., Antoniadis, A., Jones, K.A. and Moustakis, V. (2006), “Measuring and benchmarking the innovativeness of SMEs: a three-dimensional fuzzy logic approach”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 283-292. Mishra, S., Kim, D., & Lee, D. H. (1996). Factors affecting new product success: Crosscountry comparisons. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(6), 530–550. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(July), 20–38. Moorman, Christine, Gerald Zaltman, and Rohit Deshpande, (1992), “Relationships Between Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust Within and Between Organizations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 314–28. Nicolino, P. F. (2004). The Complete Ideal’s Guide Brand Management. Jakarta: Prenada. O’Dwyer, M. and Ledwith, A. (2009), “Determinants of new product performance in small firms”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 124-36. Oke, A., Burke, G. and Myers, A. (2007), “Innovation types and performance in growing UK SMEs”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 735- 753. Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovation (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. ----------------. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Santos, et. al., 2013. Innovation efforts and performances of Brazilian firms.Journal of Business Research, 67 (2014) 527–535 Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sherman, J.D., Berkowitz, D. and Souder, W.E. (2005), “New product development performance and the interaction of cross-functional integration and knowledge management”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 399-411. Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P., Bailey, J. and Gruhl, D. (2007) Steps toward a science of service systems. Computer 40, 71–77. ----------, Vargo, S. L., Caswell, N. and Maglio, P. P. (2008) The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science, January, p. 104. International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics, 2(1) June 2018, 2 7 - 3 7 37 Szymanski, D.M., Kroff, M. W., & Troy, L. C. (2007). Innovativeness and new product success: Insights from the cumulative evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 35–52. Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing 68(January), 1–17. -------------------------------------. (2006) Service-dominant logic: What It Is, What It Is Not, What It Might Be. In The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions, (eds) R. F. Lusch and S. L. Vargo, pp. 43–56. M.E. Sharpe Inc., Armonk. Vinayak, K & Kodali, R, 2014. The Relationship Between NPD Innovation and NPD Performance: The Moderating Role of NPD Best Practices In Indian Manufacturing Industry. Measuring Business Excellence Vol. 18 no. 2, pp. 39-59. Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2004), “The development and validation of the organizational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 303-313. Zolfagharian, M. and Paswan, A. (2008), “Do consumers discern innovations in service elements?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 338-352.