This study investigates the effectiveness of accelerator support for Japanese startups by focusing on the timing and type of startup. Accelerators have gained attention in recent years within startup ecosystems, but their impact on growth remains unclear. To address this gap in the literature, this study applies the resource-based view (RBV) framework to determine when and for whom accelerator support is most effective. Accelerator support is most beneficial during the early stages of a startup when resources like capital, human resources, and entrepreneurial experience are limited. We hypothesize that accelerator effects on growth are greater for startups that participate early in their existence compared to those who participate later. Furthermore, certain types of startups, particularly R&D-intensive startups like bio-ventures, face challenges due to longer development timelines and uncertainties related to the value of technological resources, which make them less suited for accelerators with short program durations and limited funding. We hypothesize that accelerator effects on growth are smaller for R&D startups compared to non-R&D startups. The study tests these hypotheses using data from startups founded in 2016. Ordinary least squares (OLS) and probit regression analyses are employed to assess the relationship between accelerator participation, timing, and startup type on total funding raised within one year of accelerator involvement. The results support the first hypothesis, indicating that early engagement in an accelerator correlates with higher total funding. As for the second hypothesis, we find no significant difference in funding raised between R&D and non-R&D startups in accelerator programs. This study’s significance lies in its application of RBV in a startup context, revealing that the effectiveness of accelerator support is influenced by the timing of participation and the startup’s type. To maximize accelerator impact, startups should join early in their development. Additionally, the study emphasizes the importance of selecting startups based on their development stage and industry to optimize accelerator outcomes.

　Information communication technologies (ICTs) offer an informational environment that enables organizational members to share information quickly, post and edit texts and files, and host video conferences. While much research has approached ICTs as an informational tool, this study conceptualizes ICTs as an informational environment in which an excessive amount of information can be quickly shared and conversations become complex, which easily breaks down and hinders effective information processing of employees. Therefore, drawing on attentional resources theory (Kanfer and Ackerman, 1989), our study focuses on cognitive load to hypothesize that the cognitive load mediates the relationship between coordination among organizational members and their job performances. This study examines three coordination types on ICTs necessary to reduce information overload and communication overload: organization and maintenance of information, timely responses, and accurate communication in collaborative work on ICTs. Survey data collected from 305 collaborative platforms users at work (study 1) and 226 knowledge workers providing human resources services (study 2) were used to test the hypotheses. The results show that communication overload generated by information sharing via ICTs negatively influenced job performance throughout hindering effective information understanding. In Study 2, coordination among members that groups developed to respond timely and to keep information manageable accurately promoted job performance through reducing communication overload. This study highlights the importance of coordination for maintaining information environment to efficiently acquire the desired information and increase social interaction.

　Quality management has historically been regarded as a cornerstone of the international competitiveness of Japanese companies. However, given the substantial transformation of the business environment encompassing Japan’s manufacturing sector in recent times, the pursuit of high-quality standards, and production of high-quality goods may have an adverse effect on companies’ competitiveness. Previous research has often overlooked the classification of excessive quality, the challenges it affords, and the intricate mechanisms that underlie its development. Therefore, this study focuses on the classification of excessive quality, the challenges it affords, and the intricate mechanisms that underlie its development in the Japanese automobile industry. In this study, we collected data through interviews with individuals who possessed substantial expertise in the field of quality management at seven Japanese automobile companies. Additionally, we used secondary sources. The grounded theory method was employed to conduct data analysis, which also incorporated the applied Gioia method.

　The study yielded four preliminary conclusions. First, excessive quality is defined as the practices of “designing or testing products at a level that exceeds the quality requirements of domestic and overseas customers and markets for which the company’s products are targeted.” Second, two types of excessive quality were determined: excessive inspection and design. Excessive inspection comprises four subtypes, and excessive design comprises five subtypes. Third, excessive quality can lead to four challenges: cost, quality, delivery time, and flexibility. Fourth, on the basis of three themes: “establishing global uniform quality standards,” “bias resulting from demanding customers and markets,” and “the difficulty of lowering established quality standards.”—factors contributing to excessive quality were discussed. These themes encompass environmental and management factors, which contribute to the prevalence of excessive inspection and design. The management factors were found to mediate the impact of environmental factors on excessive quality.

　This study examines obstacles faced by professionals who participate in activities related to innovations in their professions, an area that has not been thoroughly explored in prior studies on user innovation. While many user innovation studies concentrate on hobbyist users who innovate as an extension of their hobbies, less attention has been paid to professional users who use products in their professional roles and leverage their expertise to develop those products.

　Like hobbyists, professional users engage in innovation activities of their own volition. However, they must balance these activities in the context of their primary professional responsibilities. This suggests that their primary employment and organizational context may impact their participation in innovation. This study investigates the obstacles that may impede professionals from becoming involved in innovation, especially given their organizations’ influence on this involvement.

　This study surveys 81 doctors affiliated with a university hospital and related hospitals. Using an exploratory factor analysis, we identify three main barriers to doctors’ involvement in innovation: lack of recognition from peers, limited resources such as time, and a mismatch with their areas of expertise. A regression analysis using the Tobit model reveals that a scarcity of resources significantly hampers doctors’ involvement in innovation activities, indicating that the way doctors’ work responsibilities are allocated, which is largely controlled by their departments, influences their level of engagement in innovation.

　The key theoretical contributions of this study are in identifying barriers to doctors’ participation in innovation activities and demonstrating how organizational factors affect individual involvement. Given that organizational task assignments greatly affect the amount of time available to doctors who want to pursue innovation activities, their organizations clearly influence the extent of their involvement in such activities. Contrary to prior studies that presumes users have ample autonomy, our findings indicate that organizational constraints limit professional users’ involvement in innovation. The insights gleaned from this study are crucial for future research on user innovation, emphasizing the importance of organizational dynamics in understanding how professionals engage in innovation activities.