Stage‐to‐Stage Information Dependency in the NPD Process: Effective Learning or a Potential Entrapment of NPD Gates?

The new product development (NPD) process is a sequence of stages and gates. Each stage consists of NPD activities that provide NPD managers with information input about the new product project progression. Information input is used for review decisions at gates. Over the course of an NPD process, managers learn about a new product project as to ensure successful launch. The view is that a new product project is shaped by the path of NPD activities it has traveled. Because learning is assumed to take place over the course of the NPD process, stage‐to‐stage information dependency is an assumption of NPD research. A concern raised is that development activities for each NPD stage are rigorously followed by NPD managers. In other words, stage‐to‐stage information dependency may potentially trap NPD managers rather than create effective learning from end to end of the development process. The purpose of this paper is to explore the assumption of stage‐to‐stage information dependency in NPD. The investigated research questions are whether the selection of NPD activities is linked between stages and whether these information dependencies strengthen NPD gate decisions. For the information dependencies identified in the study, the innovation experience characteristics of NPD managers pursuing them and the influence of information dependencies on NPD gate decisions are analyzed so as to provide insights for a discussion of information dependency versus information independency in the NPD process. The applied research method is an experiential simulation of NPD gate decision‐making—NPDGATES. One hundred thirty‐one NPD managers from international product development strategic business units (SBUs) situated in Denmark participated in the study. Logistic regressions were conducted as the basis for the calculation of stage‐to‐stage information dependency probabilities. Based on the study findings, the assumption about information dependency in the NPD process held by NPD research is found to be flawed. End‐to‐end information paths in the NPD process are rare. Further, market condition changes are found to significantly influence the stage‐to‐stage information dependencies demonstrated by NPD managers. It seems that competition becomes a reassurance of NPD efforts. Also, the results show that NPD experience creates inflexibility in relation to the selection of NPD activities. The need for strict process management is strong among experienced NPD managers. In relation to NPD gates, the results show that information dependencies increase priority given to financial decision criteria at gates and lower priority given to customer and market decision criteria. Overall, stage‐to‐stage information dependency seems to create inflexibility that hinders successful NPD process implementation.     

New Product Development: Impact of Project Characteristics and Development Practices on Performance

Concurrent product development process and integrated product development teams have emerged as the two dominant new product development (NPD) “best practices” in the literature. Yet empirical evidence of their impact on product development success remains inconclusive. This paper draws upon organizational information processing theory (OIPT) to explore how these two dominant NPD best practices and two key aspects of NPD project characteristics (i.e., project uncertainty and project complexity) directly and jointly affect the NPD performance. Contrary to the “best practice” literature, the analysis, based on 266 NPD projects from three industries (i.e., automotive, electronics, and machinery) across nine countries (i.e., Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United States), found no evidence of any direct impact of process concurrency or team integration on overall NPD performance. Instead, there is evidence of negative impact of the interaction between project uncertainty and concurrent NPD process and positive impact of the interaction between project complexity and team integration on overall NPD performance. Moreover, the study found no evidence of any direct negative impact of project uncertainty or complexity on overall NPD performance as suggested in the literature, but found evidence of a direct positive relationship between project complexity and overall NPD performance. The practical implications of these results are significant. First, neither process concurrency nor team integration should be embraced universally as best practice. Second, process concurrency should be avoided in projects with high uncertainty (i.e., when working with unfamiliar product, market, or technology). Finally, team integration should be encouraged for complex product development projects. For a simple product a loosely integrated team or a more centralized decision process may work well. However, as project complexity increases, team integration becomes essential for improved product development. There is no one‐size‐fits‐all solution for managing NPD projects. The choice of a product development practice should be determined by the project characteristics.     

Information Use in New Product Development: An Initial Exploratory Empirical Investigation in the Chemical Industry*

In‐depth interviews with product developers and product development software providers in a previous qualitative phase of research uncovered eight general types of information that are used across the new product development process (strategic, project management, financial, market and customer, wants and needs, technical, competitor, and regulatory information) and three general approaches to managing information in the process (project‐centric, functionally oriented, and fully distributed). This paper presents a second phase of research trying to understand the role that managing knowledge and information plays in developing new products and achieving NPD success. This research phase empirically investigates use of the eight types of information across three general phases of the NPD process in the chemical industry using 81 mail survey responses from marketing and new product development professionals. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which each of the eight information types was used in each of the following general phases of new product development: the fuzzy front end, development, and testing and launch. The respondents also provided information on new product development success, information management system sophistication, and innovation strategy. This research makes several contributions to new knowledge. First, this research suggests that information management in product development is even more complex than initially posited in Zahay et al. (2004) , with each of the eight types of information identified being used in each of the three phases of development. Unexpectedly, for all but one type of information use is higher in later stages of the NPD process, even though use of several kinds of information early in the project is associated with increased success. Thus, managers may need to encourage teams to start gathering information from outside the firm earlier than is currently the norm. Second, the results suggest that more sophisticated information management systems are indeed associated with increased use of various different types of information, as expected. Third, more sophisticated information management systems are more highly associated with success than less sophisticated information management systems. These results are important, as most new product development information management systems are limited in their ability to handle complex and non‐quantitative information such as customer wants and needs, as well as strategic, competitor, and regulatory information. However, being able to transmit information on these issues is associated with increased firm performance and project success from these data. Thus, firms need to figure out how to improve their ability to manage and use non‐quantitative information more effectively.     

Improving the New Product Development Process: A Fractal Paradigm for High-Technology Products

Those professionals who are charged with improving the new product development (NPD) process may well feel as though they have been asked to bring order out of chaos. For every level in the organization, and for every step in the NPD process, they must contend with myriad, often interdependent choices—of products and processes; of tools and technologies; of proven best practices and hypothesized solutions. In turn, each choice may cascade into several additional decisions. With so many issues to address and so many variables to consider, practioners and researchers alike need a clear, but complete, framework for exploring, understanding, and improving the NPD process. To help bring some order to the study and the practice of NPD management, W. Austin Spivey, J. Michael Munson, and John H. Wolcott introduce a new metaphor, or paradigm, for product development: a fractal paradigm. Like some fractal images, their framework for understanding the essence of NPD rests on the concept of self-similarity. In other words, the picture their framework provides for understanding and managing the NPD process consists of the same set of concerns, regardless of the level at which the process is viewed. They developed this fractal paradigm during an empirical study of technology transition in a highly successful federal laboratory organization. Whether the focus is on the organization, the division, the team, or the individual, the essence of the NPD process as viewed through their framework comes down to two sets of factors: management factors and resource factors. In turn, each of these factors cascades into several interrelated sets of concerns. For example, the management factors comprise concerns about leadership and the management system. The resource factors include concerns about information, infrastructure, time, and money. Regardless of the level of detail at which the framework is viewed, improving the NPD process requires attention to all of these factors, by all levels within the organization. For example, visionary leadership on the part of senior management will have little effect if middle management and line supervisors fail to provide the necessary leadership for their respective groups of subordinates. Notwithstanding the complexity of the NPD process, the fractal paradigm focuses attention on those few key factors that must be managed continually, throughout all levels of the organization, to ensure successful commercialization of new products.     

Systematic Design Methods and the Creative Performance of New Product Teams: Do They Contradict or Complement Each Other?

Can organizations exert control and provide structure for NPD activities while at the same time encouraging and managing creative performance? Any new product development (NPD) project requires some level of creative effort. In new product development, creative performance is of preeminent importance. Most NPD projects are executed with the NPD team as the organizational nucleus. As a result, managing creativity in NPD thus implies managing the creativity of NPD teams. Besides having to manage creative performance, companies are generally also concerned with improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the NPD process. Modern NPD projects therefore have the need for an approach that can be planned, optimized, and verified. As a consequence, systematic design methods have become widely used in NPD. In this article conceptual model is developed of the effect of modern design methodology on the creative performance of NPD teams. First, it is argued that the effect of systematic design methodology on NPD team creativity is mediated by the communication patterns of the NPD team. It is then proposed that four principles underlie modern design methodology: hierarchical decomposition, systematic variation, satisficing, and discursiveness. These principles affect NPD communication by, respectively, influencing the establishment of subgroups, the frequency of communication, the level of agreement or disagreement in the team, and the level of centralization of communication. Next, arguments are presented of how each of these four communicational characteristics shapes the creative performance of NPD teams. This second part of the conceptual model is tested empirically. This is done by studying the communication patterns in 44 NPD teams, employing social network analysis tools. These patterns of communication are then related to team‐level creative performance through a set of regression analyses. The main conclusion of the article is that the design principles work together and need to be considered as an integrated whole: the creative performance of NPD teams can only effectively be managed by using and aligning all four of them.     

From experience: Capturing hard-won NPD lessons in checklists

The application of a good New Product Development (NPD) process is frequently limited by the experience of the user. Avoiding relatively minor errors and omissions that can lead to seriously flawed project results is still an art. Checklists for each stage of a development project can capture this art and their disciplined use can avoid many potentially critical omissions and errors. Development of checklists frequently comes from the hard experiences many of us have had in bringing new products to market. Consequently, benchmarking "trials and tribulations" rather than success stories can be more appropriate to developing a thoughtful checklist.
This article is a partial accumulation of one practitioner's experiences of over three decades of executing, managing, directing and observing these projects. Fifteen NPD case histories are examined to develop learnings from these experiences. These cases are organized around three basic product development issues: managing technical risks, managing commercial risks, and managing NPD personnel. In these examples, NPD project problems have a common theme of poor technical or commercial risk management, as opposed to technical failure. Improved planning and a more disciplined management interface would have avoided many of the problems discussed in these case histories.
Analysis of each of the case histories and learnings is provided from which suggested checklist items are derived. These checklist additions are presented by development stage to allow use by other NPD teams, with the intention of avoiding the repetition of similar problems.     

The use of information technology tools in new product development phases: Analysis of effects on new product innovativeness, quality, and market performance

Extant research has largely ignored empirically examining how information technology (IT) affects new product effectiveness. Using the knowledge-based theory as a foundation, this study examines if, and how, particular IT tools used in the discovery, development, and commercialization phases of the new product development (NPD) process influence NPD effectiveness dimensions, namely, market performance, innovativeness, and quality of a new product. Based on data collected from NPD managers in the US and Canada, the findings indicate that specific IT tools contribute to various measures of new product effectiveness differently. Moreover, the results show the positive effect of these IT tools in different phases of the NPD process. This suggests that with regard to NPD, a decompositional approach that examines the role of IT within each phase of the NPD process is best. Based on these findings, the authors discuss theoretical and managerial implications of the study and suggest paths for future research. Managerially, some interesting results of our study are that decision support systems, file transfer protocols, and concept testing tools would significantly improve NPD effectiveness regardless of the phase they are used.     

How Formal Control Influences Decision‐Making Clarity and Innovation Performance

Implementing formal planning instruments such as the stage‐and‐gate‐type system (SGS) and project management (PM) have long been seen as the key to new product development (NPD) success. They create the structure needed for managing NPD activities, supporting coordination among functional groups, reducing uncertainty and error, and assuring time and cost efficiency. But recent research presents ambiguous results, suggesting that SGS and PM as formal controls can also have a negative effect. Integrating ideas from three literatures—i.e., NPD management, organization control theory, and technical control theory—the present study assesses NPD programs in terms of three perspectives: (1) the formal control mechanisms used for managing NPD programs—specifically SGS, which is mainly seen as a higher organizational level approach used for guiding and implementing a portfolio of NPD projects, and PM, which is a precise formal control mechanism relevant for managing specific problems at a single project level; (2) the immediate outcome of the application of formal controls, i.e. decision‐making clarity (DMC); and (3) degree of NPD innovativeness, a key contingency hypothesized to impact the efficacy of formal controls. For the empirical analysis, data are collected through a survey of 162 corporate NPD programs (Austria and Denmark, manufactured goods and services) where a total of 1274 respondents provide information relevant to their position. Hierarchical regression analysis is used to test the relationships. Results indicate that the performance effect of NPD formal control is fully mediated by DMC. Further, of the six hypothesized outcome relationships, four are fully supported. Both SGS and PM are effective systems for managing NPD when degree of innovativeness is not taken into account. PM, however, loses its efficacy at higher degrees of NPD program innovativeness while SGS continues to work at achieving positive DMC at the radical end of the innovativeness spectrum. Analysis of interaction effects indicates that for more innovative NPD programs, best results are achieved when companies implement an interactive system of both SGS and PM, where the two systems complement each other.     

PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices

Product development professionals may have the feeling that yet another buzzword or magic bullet always lurks just around the corner. However, researchers have devoted considerable effort to helping practioners determine which tools, techniques, and methods really do offer a competitive edge. Starting 30 years ago, research efforts have aimed at understanding NPD practices and identifying those which are deemed “best practices.” During the past five years, pursuit of this goal has produced numerous privately available reports and two research efforts sponsored by the PDMA. Abbie Griffin summarizes the results of research efforts undertaken during the past five years and presents findings from the most recent PDMA survey on NPD best practices. This survey, conducted slightly more than five years after PDMA's first best-practices survey, updates trends in processes, organizations, and outcomes for NPD in the U.S., and determines which practices are more commonly associated with firms that are more successsful in developing new products. The survey has the following objectives: determining the current status of NPD practices and performance; understanding how product development has changed from five years ago; determining whether NPD practice and performance differ across industry segments; and, investigating process and product development tools that differentiate product development success. The survey findings indicate that NPD processes continue to evolve and become more sophisticated. NPD changes continually on multiple fronts, and firms that fail to keep their NPD practices up to date will suffer an increasingly marked competitive disadvantage. Interestingly, although more than half of the respondents use a cross-functional stage-gate process for NPD, more than one-third of all firms in the study still use no formal process for managing NPD. The findings suggest that firms are not adequately handling the issue of team-based rewards. Project-completion dinners are for the most frequently used NPD reward; they are also the only reward used more by best-practice firms than by the rest of the respondents. The best-practice firms participating in the study do not use financial rewards for NPD. Compared to the other firms in the study, best-practice firms use more multifunctional teams, are more likely to measure NPD processes and outcomes, and expect more from their NPD programs.     

New Product Development Practices and Early‐Stage Firms: Two In‐Depth Case Studies

New product development practices (NPD) have been well studied for decades in large, established companies. Implementation of best practices such as predevelopment market planning and cross‐functional teams have been positively correlated with product and project success over a variety of measures. However, for small new ventures, field research into ground‐level adoption of NPD practices is lacking. Because of the risks associated with missteps in new product development and the potential for firm failure, understanding NPD within the new venture context is critical. Through in‐depth case research, this paper investigates two successful physical product‐based early‐stage firms' development processes versus large established firm norms. The research focuses on the start‐up adoption of commonly prescribed management processes to improve NPD, such as cross‐functional teams, use of market planning during innovation development, and the use of structured processes to guide the development team. This research has several theoretical implications. The first finding is that in comparing the innovation processes of these firms to large, established firms, the study found several key differences from the large firm paradigm. These differences in development approach from what is prescribed for large, established firms are driven by necessity from a scarcity of resources. These new firms simply did not have the resources (financial or human) to create multi‐ or cross‐functional teams or organizations in the traditional sense for their first product. Use of virtual resources was pervasive. Founders also played multiple roles concurrently in the organization, as opposed to relying on functional departments so common in large firms. The NPD process used by both firms was informal—much more skeletal than commonly recommended structured processes. The data indicated that these firms put less focus on managing the process and more emphasis on managing their goals (the main driver being getting the first product to market). In addition to little or no written procedures being used, development meetings did not run to specific paper‐based deliverables or defined steps. In terms of market and user insight, these activities were primarily performed inside the core team—using methods that again were distinctive in their approach. What drove a project to completion was relying on team experience or a “learn as you go approach.” Again, the driver for this type of truncated market research approach was a lack of resources and need to increase the project's speed‐to‐market. Both firms in our study were highly successful, from not only an NPD efficiency standpoint but also effectiveness. The second broad finding we draw from this work is that there are lessons to be learned from start‐ups for large, established firms seeking ever‐increasing efficiency. We have found that small empowered teams leading projects substantial in scope can be extremely effective when roles are expanded, decision power is ground‐level, and there is little emphasis on defined processes. This exploratory research highlights the unique aspects of NPD within small early‐stage firms, and highlights areas of further research and management implications for both small new ventures and large established firms seeking to increase NPD efficiency and effectiveness.     

Does Strategic Planning Enhance or Impede Innovation and Firm Performance?*

Does strategic planning enhance or impede innovation and firm performance? The current literature provides contradictory views. This study extends the resource‐advantage theory to examine the conditions in which strategic planning increases or decreases the number of new product development projects and firm performance. The authors test the theoretical model by collecting data from 227 firms. The empirical evidence suggests that more strategic planning and more new product development (NPD) projects lead to better firm performance. Firms with organizational redundancy benefit more from strategic planning than firms with less organizational redundancy. Increasing R&D intensity boosts both the number of NPD projects and firm performance. Strategic planning is more effective in larger firms with higher R&D intensity for increasing the number of NPD projects. The results reported in this study also consist of several findings that challenge the traditional views of strategic planning. The evidence suggests that strategic planning impedes, not enhances, the number of NPD projects. Larger firms benefit less, not more, from strategic planning for improving firm performance. Larger firms do not necessarily create more NPD projects. Increasing organizational redundancy has no effect on the number of NPD projects. These empirical results provide important strategic implications. First, managers should be aware that, in general, formal strategic planning decreases the number of NPD projects for innovation management. Improvised rather than planned activities are more conducive to creating NPD project ideas. Moreover, innovations tend to emerge from improvisational processes, during which the impromptu execution of NPD activities without planning spurs “thinking outside the box,” which enhances the process of creating NPD project ideas. Therefore, more flexible strategic plans that accommodate potential improvisation may be needed in NPD management since innovation‐related activities cannot be planned precisely due to the unexpected jolts and contingencies of the NPD process. Second, large firms with high levels of R&D intensity can overcome the negative effect of strategic planning on the number of NPD projects. Specifically, a firm's abundant resources, when allocated and deployed for NPD activities, signal the high priority and importance of the NPD activities and thus motivate employees to acquire, collect, and gather customer and technical knowledge, which leads to creating more NPD projects. Finally, managers must understand that managing strategic planning and generating NPD project ideas are beneficial to the ultimate outcome of firm performance despite the adverse relationship between strategic planning and the number of NPD projects.     

An assessment of post-M&;A integration influences on new product development performance: An empirical analysis from China,Taiwan, and HK

This study examines the possible benefits and effects of post-M&A integration on new product development (NPD) performance in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. The total sample size was 251 respondents. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were used for statistical analysis. The results demonstrate that external integration correlates positively with internal integration. Although external integration relates positively to new product competitive advantage (NPCA), internal integration does not have a positive correlation with NPCA. Further, product vision positively correlates with NPCA and NPD performance, and NPCA positively correlates with NPD performance. In addition, an examination of the mediation effect in terms of Sobel t-test reveals that the NPCA is a significant mediator for the influence of interdepartmental integration on NPD performance. Moreover, this study provides a framework for managing post-M&A integration and closes with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of the research findings.     

Development Resource Planning: Complexity of Product Development and the Capacity to Launch New Products

Overcommitment of development capacity or development resource deficiencies are important problems in new product development (NPD). Existing approaches to development resource planning have largely neglected the issue of resource magnitude required for NPD. This research aims to fill the void by developing a simple higher‐level aggregate model based on an intuitive idea: The number of new product families that a firm can effectively undertake is bound by the complexity of its products or systems and the total amount of resources allocated to NPD. This study examines three manufacturing companies to verify the proposed model. The empirical results confirm the study's initial hypothesis: The more complex the product family, the smaller the number of product families that are launched per unit of revenue. Several suggestions and implications for managing NPD resources are discussed, such as how this study's model can establish an upper limit for the capacity to develop and launch new product families.     

Market Learning and Radical Innovation: A Cross Case Comparison of Eight Radical Innovation Projects

Does customer input play the same key role in every successful new-product development (NPD) project? For incremental NPD projects, market information keeps the project team focused on customer wants and needs. Well-documented methods exist for obtaining and using market information throughout the stages of an incremental NPD project. However, the role of market learning seems less apparent if the NPD project involves a really new product—that is, a radical innovation that creates a line of business that is new not only for the firm but also for the marketplace. In all likelihood, customers will not be able to describe their requirements for a product that opens up entirely new markets and applications. To provide insight into the role that market learning plays in NPD projects involving really new products, Gina Colarelli O'Connor describes findings from case studies of eight radical innovation projects. Participants in the study come from member companies of the Industrial Research Institute, a consortium of large company R&D managers. With a focus on exploring how market learning for radical innovations differs from that of incremental NPD projects, the case studies examine the following issues: the nature and the timing of market-related inquiry; market learning methods and processes; and the scope of responsibility for market learning, and confidence in the results. Observations from the case studies suggest that the market-related questions that are asked during a radical innovation project differ by stage of development, and they differ from the questions that project teams typically ask during an incremental NPD effort. For example, assessments of market potential, size, and growth were not at issue during the early stages of the projects in this study. Such issues came into play after the innovations were proven to work under controlled conditions and attention turned to finding applications for the technology. For several projects in the study, internal data and informal networks of people throughout relevant business units provide the means for learning about the hurdles the innovation faces and about markets that are unfamiliar to the development group. The projects in this study employ various techniques for reducing market uncertainty, including offering the product to the most familiar market and using a strategic ally who is familiar with the market to act as an intermediary between the project team and the marketplace.     

NPD Planning Activities and Innovation Performance: The Mediating Role of Process Management and the Moderating Effect of Product Innovativeness

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of planning and control on the performance of new product development (NPD) projects. It is hypothesized that (1) thorough business planning at the beginning of a project creates a basis for proficient project and risk planning; (2) the proficiency of project planning, risk planning, and process management activities each improves innovation performance directly; (3) the relationship of planning and success is mediated by process management; and (4) the strength of these relationships is moderated by uncertainty, as determined by the degree of innovativeness. To test the hypotheses, data from 132 NPD projects were collected and analyzed. A measurement model was used to establish valid and reliable constructs, a path model to test the main effects, and a multiple-moderated regression analysis for the moderator hypotheses. The results suggest that the proficiency of project planning and process management is important predictors of NPD performance. Specifically, project risk planning and goal stability throughout the development process are found to enhance performance significantly. Business planning proves to be an important antecedent of the more development-related planning activities such as project planning and risk planning. Additionally, the results lend support to the hypotheses regarding the mediating role of process management in the planning–performance relationship. Project planning and risk planning support the quality of process management and thus impact NPD performance indirectly. Only to a limited extent are the strengths of these relationships moderated by the degree of innovativeness of the NPD project.     

Transformational leadership,team climate,and team performance within the NPD team: Evidence from China

This study analyzes the impact of team transformational leadership on team performance during the new product development (NPD) process and the mediating role of team climate. Data were collected from 184 NPD projects of Chinese high-tech firms. The results show that NPD team transformational leadership is positively related to team performance. In addition, team climate mediates the relationship between most dimensions of NPD team transformational leadership (charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) and team performance.     

Sustainability,Social Media Driven Open Innovation,and New Product Development Performance*

Sustainability and social media use in open innovation play important roles in a firm's new product development (NPD) process. This research examines, in conjunction, the roles of sustainability and social media driven inbound open innovation (SMOI) for a firm's NPD performance, and further, takes a more refined approach by differentiating between different types of SMOI activities. To this end, this research develops and tests a conceptual framework, which predicts that (1) a firm's sustainability orientation (SO) is positively associated with its NPD performance, (2) customer focus (CF) partially mediates the SO–NPD performance link, and (3) particular SMOI activities moderate the CF–NPD performance link. The empirical results, using data from the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA)'s comparative performance assessment study, provide support for most of the framework. Notably, this research documents a positive link between SO and NPD performance, as well as a partial mediating role of CF. The results further suggest that social media driven open innovation activities focused on gathering market insights enhance CF directly, while social media driven open innovation activities that garner technical expertise enhance the link between CF and NPD performance. This paper bridges the separate literatures on sustainability and open innovation, and contributes to the NPD research. The findings suggest that managers should take a strategic approach to sustainability and embed it in the NPD process. Furthermore, managers should manage social media based open innovation carefully to fully benefit the firm during the front end and back end of NPD.     

Exploring New Product Development Project Review Practices*

Most organizations use new product development (NPD) processes that consist of activities and review points. Activities basically solve problems and gather and produce information about the viability of successfully completing the project. Interspersed between the development activities are review points where project information is reviewed and a decision is made to either go on to the next stage of the process, stop it prior to completion, or hold it until more information is gathered and a better decision can be made. The review points are for controlling risk, prioritizing projects, and allocating resources, and the review team typically is cross‐disciplinary, comprising senior managers from marketing, finance, research and development (R&D), or manufacturing. Over the past four decades, research has greatly advanced knowledge with respect to NPD activities; however, much less is known about review practices. For this reason, the present paper reports findings of a study on NPD project review practices from 425 Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) members. The focus is on three decision points in the NPD process common across organizations (i.e., initial screen, prior to development and testing, and prior to commercialization). In this paper, the number of (1) review points used, (2) review criteria, (3) decision makers on review committees and the proficiency with which various evaluation criteria are used are compared across incremental and radical projects and across functional areas (i.e., marketing, technical, financial). Furthermore, the associations between these NPD review practices and new product performance are examined. Selected results show that more review points are used for radical NPD projects than incremental ones, and this is related to a relatively lower rate of survival for radical projects. The findings also show that the number of criteria used to evaluate NPD projects increases as NPD projects progress and that the number of review team members grows over the stages, too. Surprisingly, the results reveal that more criteria are used to evaluate incremental NPD projects than radical ones. As expected, managers appear to more proficiently use evaluation criteria when making project continuation/termination decisions for incremental projects; they use these criteria less proficiently during the development of radical projects, precisely when proficiency is most critical. At each review point, technical criteria were found to be the most frequently used type for incremental projects, and financial criteria were the most commonly used type for radical ones. Importantly, only review proficiency is significantly associated with performance; the number of review points, review team size, and number of review criteria are not associated with new product performance. Furthermore, only the coefficient for proficiently using marketing criteria was significantly related to new product program performance; the proficiency of using financial and technical information has no association with performance. Finally, across the three focal review points of the NPD process in this study, only the coefficient for proficiency at the first review point, (i.e., the initial screen) is significantly greater than zero. The results are discussed with respect to research and managerial practice, and future research directions are offered.