Creating Dynamic Capability: The Role of Intertemporal Integration, Knowledge Retention, and Interpretation

Uncertainty about the ability for technological knowledge to be transformed to meet market demands, lack of complementary technologies, the lack of developed markets for a given technical feature, and other types of uncertainty add significant challenges to organizations as they develop products for future markets. In spite of these significant challenges, some organizations develop a dynamic capability in new product development that becomes a powerful source of competitive advantage and a source of renewal, growth, and adaptation as the environment changes. Many approaches to new product development (e.g., cross‐functional development teams, quality function deployment, early supplier involvement, heavyweight product development teams) address the need to integrate knowledge more rapidly and effectively within projects. These approaches do not address, however, how knowledge is integrated over time or how integration of knowledge from previous new product development efforts influences the firm's new product development performance. This study focuses on providing a greater understanding of the integrative practices that contribute to this capability in new product development. Based on insights from the innovation and learning literatures, this study proposes relationships about the influence of knowledge retention and interpretation activities on the organization's ability to integrate knowledge developed in prior new product development projects and on new product development performance. Data collected from a sample of new product development professionals are employed to test the proposed relationships among knowledge retention, knowledge interpretation, integration of prior knowledge, and new product development performance. The findings suggest that knowledge retention and interpretation activities positively impact a firm's new product development performance. In particular, practices that enable the retention and interpretation of knowledge improve new product development performance indirectly through the firm's enhanced ability to apply knowledge developed in prior product development projects to subsequent projects. Practices that enable the interpretation of knowledge in the firm's current strategic context also improve new product development performance directly. These findings lead to important implications for managing new product development.     

Integrating Knowledge and Knowledge Processes: A Critical Incident Study of Product Development Projects

Various scholars have argued that knowledge processes in organizations are integrally linked in practice. The extant literature though treats them separately and thereby disregards the interactions and tensions between them. A result of this way of studying knowledge processes is that little is known about their relative importance and how they work together. This paper addresses this gap in the literature through a critical incident study of knowledge processes in product development projects of high‐tech small firms. The paper starts off with a conceptual framework comprised of four knowledge processes—knowledge creation, knowledge application, knowledge integration, and knowledge retention—and their interactions. From the framework, three hypotheses are derived concerning the importance of these types of knowledge processes and their interactions, which in turn guide the empirical research. The hypotheses were tested in a retrospective study of 58 critical incidents in product development projects of 16 high‐tech small firms in the Netherlands. Data were collected through semi‐structured interviews using the critical incident interviewing technique. Interviewees were asked to “relive” and describe particular successful and unsuccessful examples of product development projects in the past. The analysis of the interview data focused upon whether there are differences between successful and unsuccessful projects in the types of knowledge processes and interactions that are performed. After coding all data into the various types of knowledge processes and interactions of the framework, t‐tests were used to test for significance of differences. The findings indicate that the difference between success and failure in these projects lies primarily in the extent to which knowledge integration and integration between knowledge processes have taken place. These findings demonstrate that, of the four knowledge processes, knowledge integration had the most significant impact on product development project success. The study demonstrates furthermore that higher degrees of interactions between knowledge processes were also associated with project success. Despite the limitations of this study, these results provide empirical support for the claim that integration is a key factor in organizations in general and in innovation projects in particular. For academics, this suggests further research on knowledge integration, and integration between knowledge processes, is warranted. For practitioners, it means that integration is a key process to be considered when choosing and executing new product development projects.     

Customizing Concurrent Engineering Processes: Five Case Studies

Once hailed as the salvation of U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, concurrent engineering (CE) offers the potential for faster development of higher quality, more producible products. Unlike traditional, serial approaches to new product development (NPD), CE emphasizes cross-functional integration and concurrent development of a product and its associated processes. As Morgan L. Swink, J. Christopher Sandvig, and Vincent A. Mabert explain, however, CE is not a plug-and-play process. Successful CE implementation approaches differ depending on such factors as product characteristics, customer needs, and technology requirements. We can better understand those differences by examining CE implementation in the five NPD programs discussed here: the Boeing 777 aircraft, the heavy duty diesel engine at Cummins Engine Co., the thermoplastic olefin automotive coating at Red Spot Paint and Varnish Co., the airborne vehicle forward-looking infrared night vision system at Texas Instruments, and the digital satellite system at Thomson Consumer Electronics. Teams provide the primary integration mechanism in CE programs, and three types of teams appeared frequently in these projects: a program management team, a technical team, and numerous design-build teams. Depending on the project's complexity, an integration team may be needed to consolidate the efforts of various design-build teams. Task forces also may be formed to address specific problems, such as investigating an emerging technology. Some projects emphasized collocation and face-to-face communication. Others relied on phone conversations, documents, and electronic mail. Projects focusing on design quality relied on formal presentations and periodic review meetings. Projects emphasizing development speed required frequent, informal communications. Programs addressing design quality required extended product definition and performance testing, with input from design engineering, marketing, and customers. Efforts to reduce development time involved small, informal teams led by design engineers and managers. Aggressive product cost goals necessitated intensive interaction between product designers and manufacturing personnel. Highly innovative products required early supplier involvement and joint engineering problem solving. Formal design reviews and shared design data systems aided information sharing between internal and external design groups.     

Knowledge sharing and strategic fit in integrated product development proejcts: An empirical study

While product strategy has been approached from a variety of perspectives, the role of strategic fit as a critical linkage of knowledge sharing practices and new product development outcomes have not been adequately explored. This paper discusses how strategic fit is instrumental for cross-functional teams to integrate product development outcomes. This paper identifies critical knowledge sharing components that enhances the extent of strategic fit that in turn improves the success of product development efforts. Strategic fit or alignment requires knowledge sharing practices of the product development team. Teams with a shared knowledge base are more capable of thinking strategically, adapting their actions to their project environment and accordingly engaging in innovative problem-solving while ultimately achieving project goals of time, cost and value. This paper presents and tests a research model using a sample of 285 product development projects of firms from USA, Canada and Spain. The results suggest that strategic fit is associated with greater knowledge sharing and enhance product development outcomes in both small and large firms as well as diverse regions (i.e., USA, Canada and Spain).     

Improving Supplier New Product Development Performance: The Role of Supplier Development

Suppliers play an increasingly central role in helping firms achieve their new product development (NPD) goals. The literature implicitly assumes that suppliers are able to meet or exceed the quality standards and technological expectations of the firm, and yet, in practice, suppliers often lack the technological capabilities needed to undertake collaborative NPD. In such situations, a firm may choose to intervene and actively develop the supplier's technological and product development capabilities. We develop a theoretical framework that conceptualizes supplier development activities within interorganizational NPD projects as part of a bilateral knowledge‐sharing process: design recommendations, technical specifications, and new technology flow from supplier to the firm, and in turn, the firm can implement supplier development activities to upgrade the supplier's technological capabilities. Antecedents (supplier responsibility, skills similarity, single sourcing strategy) and consequences of supplier development activities (on supplier, product, and project performance) are examined using a sample of 153 interorganizational NPD projects within UK manufacturers. We find broad support for our hypotheses. In particular, we show that the relational rents (in the form of improved product and project performance) attained from supplier development activities in new product development are not achieved directly, but rather indirectly, via improvements in the supplier's creative and technological capabilities. Our results emphasize the importance of adopting a strategic view of the potential returns available from investing in the NPD capabilities of key suppliers, and provide clues about underlying reasons for the suboptimal experiences of many companies' collaborative NPD projects.     

Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products

Does the development of really new products require a different approach from that of incremental new products? Current research and management practice seem to suggest that any successful new product development (NPD) process comprises a set of key activities, regardless of a product's innovativeness. It seems almost foolhardy to suggest that NPD could proceed without proficiency in all of the following tasks: strategic planning, idea development and screening, business and market opportunity analysis, technical development, product testing, and product commercialization. Suggesting that the difference may be in the details, X. Michael Song and Mitzi Montoya-Weiss present the results of a study that examines the development of 163 really new products and 169 incremental new products. The study's objective is to compare the NPD processes and performance outcomes of really new and incremental products. In other words, the study examines the interplay between a product's innovativeness, the NPD process, and the product's performance in the marketplace. For the firms in the study, four sets of NPD activities—strategic planning, market analysis, technical development, and product commercialization—are key determinants of new product success for both really new products and incremental products. However, strategic planning and business and market opportunity analysis activities play contrasting roles for the two types of products. Working to improve proficiency in business and market opportunity analysis may be counterproductive for really new products, but it can increase the profitability of incremental products. Conversely, improving the proficiency of strategic planning activities has a positive effect on the profitability of the really new products, but it has a negative effect for the incremental products. Overall, the really new products in the study surpass the incremental products in meeting profit objectives. Comparing current practice to best practice, the firms in the study have room for improvement. For both really new and incremental products, the firms in the study do not place sufficient emphasis on product commercialization activities. The participants also need to reassess the relative emphasis they place on strategic planning activities. The projects involving really new products do not place sufficient emphasis on strategic planning, while the incremental projects exhibit a relatively high level of proficiency in this area—exactly the opposite of the order that this study recommends.     

Experiential Education In New Product Design And Business Development

We describe an experiential approach to teaching new product design and business development in a year‐long course that combines intensive project work with classroom education. Our course puts together up to six teams of graduate students from management and engineering who work on projects sponsored by individual companies. Student teams work with faculty from multiple disciplines and personnel from the sponsoring companies. The year‐long format and involvement with company personnel provide opportunities for students to gain hands‐on experience in a real product development project. Time constraints, coupled with students' determination to demonstrate what they can accomplish, stimulate teams to learn how to compress the design and development cycle. To help students generalize from their own projects to a wider universe of product design and business development phenomena, students participate continuously in constructive critiques of others' projects; and in presentations, case discussions and workshops that help them learn about the product and business development process itself. This article describes course objectives, syllabus, projects, sponsors, faculty, students and our course administration. In an effort to move towards a “paperless” course, we have put as much of the course material as possible on the World Wide Web; relevant websites are referred to in the article. At the end of the course each team presents a prototype and a protoplan to the sponsoring company in a final report, which in many cases includes suggestions for the sponsor on how to improve its design and development process. Students' positive evaluations, along with their comments, indicate that they are attaining their educational goals. Course projects have resulted in commercialized products, patents, continuing development projects in sponsoring companies, and placements for students. The course has generated public relations value for the units involved and for the university as a whole. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.     

Coordination of Design Supply Chains for Bundling Physical and Software Products*

Research on product development management has concentrated on physical products or on software, but not both. This article explores a special new product development (NPD) approach in which the internal development of core physical products is augmented by bundled and largely outsourced software features. We studied a medical device producer that has established a new medical information product group (MIPG) within their NPD organization to create software features that are bundled with their core physical products. The MIPG has conceptualized these software features as multiple software development projects, and then coordinated their realization largely through the use of external software suppliers. This case study centers on the question: how can firms effectively coordinate such product development processes? Our analysis of case evidence and related literature suggests that such product bundling processes, when pursued through design supply chains (DSC), are more complex than is typical for the development of streams of either physical products or software products individually. We observe that DSC coordination transcends the requirements associated with traditional “stage‐gate” NPD processes used for physical product development. Managers in DSC settings face a tension inherent to distributed work: keeping internal and external development efforts separate to exploit the design capabilities within a network of software suppliers, while ensuring effective delivery of a stream of bundled products. Many managers face this coordination tension with little, if any, prior knowledge of how to create a streamlined and effective DSC. Our research indicates that these managers need to make a series of interrelated decisions: the number of suppliers to qualify and include in or exclude from the DSC; the basis for measuring and modifying the scope of the suppliers' work; the need to account for asymmetric cost structures and expertise across the DSC; the mechanisms for synchronizing development work across elements of the DSC; and the approaches for developing skills—both technical and administrative—that project managers need for utilizing in‐house competencies while acquiring and assimilating design know‐how from external development organizations. When managers take a flexible approach toward these decisions based on a modular set of software development projects, they can improve their NPD outcomes through technical and organizational experimentation and adjust their own resource deployment to best utilize the suppliers' capabilities within their DSC.     

The Effect of "Front-Loading" Problem-Solving on Product Development Performance

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the link between problem‐solving capabilities and product development performance. In this article, the authors apply a problem‐solving perspective to the management of product development and suggest how shifting the identification and solving of problems—a concept that they define as front‐loading—can reduce development time and cost and thus free up resources to be more innovative in the marketplace. The authors develop a framework of front‐loading problem‐solving and present related examples and case evidence from development practice. These examples include Boeing's and Chrysler's experience with the use of “digital mock‐ups” to identify interference problems that are very costly to solve if identified further downstream—sometimes as late as during or—after first full‐scale assembly. In the article, the authors propose that front‐loading can be achieved using a number of different approaches, two of which are discussed in detail: (1) project‐to‐project knowledge transfer—leverage previous projects by transferring problem and solution‐specific information to new projects; and (2) rapid problem‐solving—leverage advanced technologies and methods to increase the overall rate at which development problems are identified and solved. Methods for improving project‐to‐project knowledge transfer include the effective use of “postmortems,” which are records of post‐project learning and thus can be instrumental in carrying forward the knowledge from current and past projects. As the article suggests, rapid problem‐solving can be achieved by optimally combining new technologies (such as computer simulation) that allow for faster problem‐solving cycles with traditional technologies (such as late stage prototypes), which usually provide higher fidelity. A field study of front‐loading at Toyota Motor Corporation shows how a systematic effort to front‐load its development process has, in effect, shifted problem‐identification and problem‐solving to earlier stages of product development. They conclude the article with a discussion of other approaches to front‐load problem‐solving in product development and propose how a problem‐solving perspective can help managers to build capabilities for higher development performance.     

Can Quality‐Oriented Firms Develop Innovative New Products?

Research suggests that a strong focus on quality improvement can adversely affect exploration and thus the development of innovative new products. The focus on quality improvement including total quality management (TQM) has been termed quality orientation. The literature suggests that one way to reduce the adverse effect of a quality orientation on innovativeness is to adopt ambidextrous or dual organizational forms. However, dual organizational forms are cumbersome and expensive to implement. This paper argues that a less demanding structural arrangement for developing innovative products in quality‐oriented organizations involves the creation of cross‐functional teams that are explicitly encouraged to take risk and granted autonomy. In this model, the two dimensions of innovativeness—namely, novelty and appropriateness— are treated separately because quality orientation and encouragement to take risk can have differential effects on these two dimensions. A survey of 141 new product development projects reveals that quality orientation does not adversely affect product novelty in cross‐functional product development teams. However, encouragement given to cross‐functional teams to take risk leads to more novel products. On the other hand, while a quality orientation improves product appropriateness, encouragement to take risk affects it adversely. Quality orientation is able to mitigate the adverse effect of encouragement to take risk on appropriateness. But encouragement to take risk does not influence the relationship between a quality orientation and novelty. Autonomy improves the positive effect of encouragement to take risk on new product novelty but does not influence the effect of a quality orientation on novelty. Both novelty and appropriateness enhance a new product's performance, and both these dimensions of innovativeness partially mediate the effect of quality orientation and fully mediate the effect of encouragement to take risk on new product performance.     

The contributions of interpreters to the development of radical innovations of meanings: the role of ‘Pioneering Projects’ in the sustainable buildings industry

Studies of innovation management have often focused on two domains: technologies and markets. An ever‐increasing standard of living is pushing companies to develop products and services that are not only profitable but also socially responsible. Sustainable housing offers an intriguing empirical setting that allows the investigation of new processes able to support innovations that must be both profitable and socially responsible. Energy‐efficient houses not only require technological changes (new sustainable energy technologies) but also require behavioural changes in consumers' attitudes, decisions and practices about living in sustainable houses. Companies are not only innovative in regard to their own product but apply the entire system of application with which their specific technologies interact. The development of Pioneering Projects requires many skills and competencies that often exceed the capacity and competencies of a single company. In other words, Pioneering Projects are testing grounds for experimentation, where unconventional, temporary partnerships of stakeholders from different industries unite in the development of real market applications. The paper addresses the value of key interpreters in facilitating the development of radical innovations of meanings in the sustainable buildings industry. Specifically, the paper analyses the ability to create value for the Pioneering Projects from the exploration and knowledge diversity of the interpreters and the impact that Pioneering Projects have on the companies' outcomes. Empirical data about Pioneering Projects were collected from two manufacturing companies in Denmark: DOVISTA and Saint‐Gobain Isover.     

Selecting Influential Business-to-Business Customers in New Product Development: Relational Embeddedness and Knowledge Heterogeneity Considerations

This study examines how the most influential business‐to‐business (B2B) customers, both existing and potential, involved in providing input to a new product development (NPD) project influence new product advantage. As the relational literature suggests, involving customers who have had close and embedded relationships with a firm's new product organization, such as a firm's largest customers, and customers who have been involved in past collaborative activities, should lead to the development of superior products. To the contrary, the innovation literature suggests that a firm may become too close to its large, embedded customers resulting in less innovation and in lower performing products. Also, the relationship between the heterogeneity of the knowledge of the most influential customers and new product advantage is examined. A contingency perspective is hypothesized such that the degree of product newness sought in the project moderates the effects of both relational embeddedness and knowledge heterogeneity on new product advantage. Empirical findings from a sample of 137 NPD projects support this contingency view. For projects seeking to develop incremental products, where the product being developed is an extension or an enhancement to an existing product, new product advantage tended to be higher in projects using embedded or homogeneous customers. For incremental projects, projects using less‐embedded or heterogeneous customers tended to have lower product performance. For projects following a highly innovative product strategy, new product advantage tended to be higher in projects that involved heterogeneous customers. These heterogeneous customers provided NPD projects with a diversity of perspectives, competencies, and experiences that fostered significant product innovations. The study contributes to the literature by empirically testing relational and innovation theories in NPD projects and by providing evidence on the importance of relational embeddedness and knowledge heterogeneity in selecting influential customers in NPD projects.     

“Squeezing R&D”: A Study of Organizational Slack and Knowledge Creation in NPD,Using the SECI Model

During new product development (NPD), functional areas such as marketing, R&D, and manufacturing work together to understand customer needs, create product concepts, and solve technical issues. NPD is dependent on the creation of new knowledge and the interplay between tacit knowledge (knowledge that is difficult to articulate and codify) and explicit knowledge (knowledge that can be codified and documented). Knowledge creation requires time and resources, and the dichotomy facing senior management is how much spare capacity in NPD teams—so‐called organizational slack—is appropriate. Too much organizational slack and precious development resources will be wasted; but when slack is eliminated, there is a danger that knowledge creation will be severely hindered. There have been very few studies of organizational slack at the project level, and so the aim of our research was to examine the impact of changes in organizational slack on knowledge creation in NPD projects. Six projects were studied at two companies, over a two‐year period. Multiple sources of data were used to determine how changes in organizational slack impacted knowledge creation, which was operationalized using Nonaka's socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (SECI) model. It was found that the creation of knowledge in NPD projects is susceptible to changes in organizational slack. A significant finding was that every time there were changes in organizational slack, there was always some impact on knowledge creation. Increased slack enabled knowledge creation; but, importantly, the impacts of decreasing organizational slack were often very negative and disrupted the work of NPD teams, particularly at the end of projects. Managers who feel that “squeezing R&D” is important should think again—their action might disrupt knowledge creation and compromise innovation.     

A Model of Supplier Integration into New Product Development*

In many industries, firms are looking for ways to cut concept‐to‐customer development time, to improve quality, and to reduce the cost of new products. One approach shown to be successful in Japanese organizations involves the integration of material suppliers early in the new product development cycle. This involvement may range from simple consultation with suppliers on design ideas to making suppliers fully responsible for the design of components or systems they will supply. While prior research shows the benefit of using this approach, execution remains a problem. The processes for identifying and integrating suppliers into the new product development (NPD) process in North American organizations are not understood well. This problem is compounded by the fact that design team members often are reluctant to listen to the technology and cost ideas made by suppliers in new product development efforts. We suggest a model of the key activities required for successful supplier integration into NPD projects, based on case studies with 17 Japanese and American manufacturing organizations. The model is validated using data from a survey of purchasing executives in global corporations with at least one successful and one unsuccessful supplier integration experience. The results suggest that (1) increased knowledge of a supplier is more likely to result in greater information sharing and involvement of the supplier in the product development process; (2) sharing of technology information results in higher levels of supplier involvement and improved outcomes; (3) supplier involvement on teams generally results in a higher achievement of NPD team goals; (4) in cases when technology uncertainty is present, suppliers and buyers are more likely to share information on NPD teams; and (5) the problems associated with technology uncertainty can be mitigated by greater use of technology sharing and direct supplier participation on new product development teams. A supplier's participation as a true member of a new product development team seems to result in the highest level of benefits, especially in cases when a technology is in its formative stages.     

The relative importance of project success dimensions

Traditionally, the success of a project is assessed using internal measures such as technical and operational goals, and meeting schedule and budget. More recently, it has been recognized that several other measures should be used to define project success. These measures reflect external effectiveness: the project's impact on its customers, and on the developing organization itself.
In our study of 110 defense projects performed by Israeli industry, we used a multidimensional approach to measure the success of defense projects. Based on previous studies, we defined four dimensions of success: meeting design goals ; benefits to the customer ; benefits to the developing organization ; and benefits to the defense and national infrastructure . For each project, we asked three different stakeholders (the customer, the developing organization, and the coordinating office within the Ministry of Defense) for their views on the relative importance of these dimensions of success. Analysis of the data revealed that the dimension benefits to the customer is by far the most important success dimension. The second in importance is meeting design goals . The other two dimensions are relatively unimportant.     

New Product Activities and Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Hostility

In the race to bring new products to market, a company may be tempted to cut corners in the new product development (NPD) process. And a hostile environment—that is, one marked by intense competition and rapid technological change—only heightens the pressure to reduce NPD cycle time. However, hasty completion of the NPD process may actually jeopardize a product's chances for success. In a study of Fortune 500 manufacturers of industrial products, Roger J. Calantone, Jeffrey B. Schmidt, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto explore the relationships among new product success rates, proficiency in the execution of NPD activities, and the perceived level of hostility in the competitve environment. Their study examines how proficiency in NPD activities affects the odds of success for industrial new products. Adding environmental hostility to the mix, they also investigate whether the perceived level of hostility in the competitive environment affects the relationship between NPD proficiency and success. In this way, they provide insight into the factors managers must consider when attempting to accelerate cycle time in a hostile competitive environment. The respondents to their survey—142 senior managers involved in NPD or product innovation rated environmental hostility in terms of the extent to which the firm perceives its industry as safe, rich in investment opportunity, and controllable. To assess NPD proficiency, respondents were asked about their firms' performance in predevelopment marketing and technical activities, development marketing and technical activities, and financial analysis. Respondents assessed new product performance in terms of product profitability. As expected, the responses indicate that proficiency in the performance of NPD activities increases the likelihood of new product success. Proficiency in development marketing activities produced the largest increase in likelihood of success—nearly 25 percent over that of projects in which respondents rated performance of these activities at any level below “most proficient.” More importantly, the responses indicate that a hostile competitive environment increases the impact of NPD proficiency. In other words, by improving performance of key NPD activities under hostile environmental conditions, a firm can greatly increase the likelihood of success for a new industrial product. Rather than simply cut corners in the NPD process, a firm faced with a hostile environment must strike a balance between speed and quality of execution.     

MULTIPROJECT STRATEGY AND SALES GROWTH: THE BENEFITS OF RAPID DESIGN TRANSFER IN NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

This paper explores the impact on sales growth of different product development strategies, especially an approach that focuses on the coordination of multiple projects that overlap in time and share critical components. The data for our analysis comes from the automobile industry, although the principles we discuss should apply to any industry where firms compete with multiple product lines and where the sharing of components among more than one distinct product is both possible and desirable. Some firms compete by trying to develop ‘hit’ products in isolation, with little or no reuse of components or coordination with other products. Another way to compete is to leverage a firm’s investment in new technologies across as many new products as possible as quickly as possible, while the technologies are still relatively new. This paper proposes a typology that captures this effect by categorizing product development strategies into four types: new design, rapid (or concurrent) design transfer, sequential design transfer, and design modification. An analysis of 210 projects from the automobile industry between 1980 and 1991 indicates that firms utilizing the rapid design transfer strategy—quickly leveraging new platform components across multiple projects–increased sales more than when they or their competitors did not use this strategy. The study’s results suggest that not only the sharing of technology among multiple projects but also the speed of technology leveraging are important to sales growth. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Building Dynamic Capabilities in New Product Development through Intertemporal Integration

Although successful development of a given product may help explain the current success of a firm, creating longer‐term competitive advantage demands significantly more attention to developing and nurturing dynamic integration capabilities. These capabilities propel product development activities in ways that build on and develop technological and marketing capabilities for future product development efforts and create platforms for future product development. In this article, we develop a conceptual model of a dynamic integration process in product development, which we call intertemporal integration (ITI). In its most general form ITI is defined as the process of collecting, interpreting, and internalizing technological and marketing capabilities from past new product development projects and incorporating that knowledge in a systematic and purposeful manner into the development of future new products. Research propositions outlining the relationship of ITI to performance are presented. We provide specific examples of managerial mechanisms to be used in implementing ITI. We conclude with implications for research and practice. Effective management of ITI can increase new product development success and long‐term competitive advantage. This implies that management needs to engage in activities that gather and transform information and knowledge from prior development projects so that it can be used in future development projects. Project audits, design databases in computer‐aided design (CAD) systems, engineering notebooks, collections of test and experimental results, market research and test market results, project management databases, and other activities will all be important in the acquisition of knowledge from prior new product development (NPD) projects. Managers also should initiate the creation and maintenance of databases of technical and marketing information from prior projects, job performance reports, seminars and workshops related to technological issues and advances, and publication of technical journals to assist in the process of knowledge acquisition. Similarly, techniques such as assigning project managers from earlier development projects, reusing key components and technologies, and developing a company‐wide methodology for managing projects can be used to boost the application and use of knowledge.     

Modified Stage‐Gate® Regimes in New Product Development*

The purpose of this research was to explore the nature of the Stage‐Gate^®process in the context of innovative projects that not only vary in new product technology (i.e., radical versus incremental technology) but that also involve significant new product development technology (i.e., new virtual teaming hardware‐software systems). Results indicate that firms modify their formal development regimes to improve the efficiency of this process while not significantly sacrificing product novelty (i.e., the degree to which new technology is incorporated in the new offering). Four hypotheses were developed and probed using 72 automotive engineering managers involved in supervision of the new product development process. There was substantial evidence to creatively replicate results from previous benchmarking studies; for example, 48.6% of respondents say their companies used a traditional Stage‐Gate^®process, and 60% of these new products were considered to be a commercial success. About a third of respondents said their companies are now using a modified Stage‐Gate^®process for new product development. Auto companies that have modified their Stage‐Gate^®procedures are also significantly more likely to report (1) use of virtual teams; (2) adoption of collaborative and virtual new product development software supporting tools; (3) having formalized strategies in place specifically to guide the new product development process; and (4) having adopted structured processes used to guide the new product development process. It was found that the most significant difference in use of phases or gates in the new product development process with radical new technology occurs when informal and formal phasing processes are compared, with normal Stage‐Gate^®usage scoring highest for technology departures in new products. Modified Stage‐Gate^®had a significant, indirect impact on organizational effectiveness. These findings, taken together, suggest companies optimize trade‐offs between cost and quality after they graduate from more typical stage‐process management to modified regimes. Implications for future research and management of this challenging process are discussed. In general, it was found that the long‐standing goal of 50% reduction in product development time without sacrificing other development goals (e.g., quality, novelty) is finally within practical reach of many firms. Innovative firms are not just those with new products but also those that can modify their formal development process to accelerate change.     

Linking Product Development Outcomes to Market Valuation of the Firm: The Case of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry*

The purpose of this research was to examine empirically the effects of new product development outcomes on overall firm performance. To do so, first product development and finance literature were connected to develop three testable hypotheses. Next, an event study was conducted in order to explore whether the changes in the stock market valuation of firms are influenced by the outcomes of efforts to develop new products. The pharmaceutical industry was chosen as the empirical context for the present study's analysis largely because the gate‐keeping role played by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provides a specific event date on which to focus the event study methodology. As such, this study's events were dates of public announcements of the FDA decisions to approve or to reject the New Drug Applications submitted by the sponsoring firms. Consistent with the efficient market hypothesis, this study's results show that market valuations are responsive strongly and cleanly to the success or failure of new product development efforts. Hence, one of this study's key results suggests that financial markets may be attuned sharply to product development outcomes in publicly traded firms. This study also finds that financial market losses from product development failures were much larger in magnitude than financial market gains from product development successes—indicating an asymmetry in the response of financial markets to the success and failure of new product development efforts. Hence, another implication of this study's results is that managers should factor in a substantial risk premium when considering substantial new development projects. The present study's results also imply that managers should refrain from hyping new products and perhaps even should restrain the enthusiasm that the financial community may build before the product fully is developed. The effect on firm value is severe when expectations about an anticipated new product are not fulfilled. Managers in effect should take care to build reasonable and realistic expectations about potential new products.