The Impact of Organizational Integration and Product Development Proficiency on Market Success

This research investigates three major hypotheses important to new product market success: the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater the market success; the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater new product development proficiency; and the greater new product development proficiency, the greater the market success. “Organizational integration” is defined as the degree of cooperation and communication between internal and external NPD “support” groups and NPD teams. “NPD process proficiency” is defined as how well new product development stages and the new product development process as a whole is performed. “New product market success” is represented by four measures: the degree to which profits and sales exceeded or fell short of what was expected, and the degree to which the new product was perceived to exceed or fall short of expectations related to entering existing and new markets. Information was obtained concerning the most and least successful new products of U.S. firms in the medical instruments, the electrical equipment, and the heavy construction equipment industries. The field survey approach was utilized in which surveys were mailed to recipients such as new product development managers who already had been designated by executives of the sample firms. Several important findings were uncovered during this research. Overall organizational integration was found to be significantly associated with new product market success. Internal integration, the coordination between new product development teams and functional departments, was found to be significantly related to product market success. A significant relationship between new product development proficiency during the NPD “post-launch stage” and the degree of integration between an NPD team and external NPD organizations, such as customers and suppliers, was detected. During the post-launch stage, new product development proficiency also was found to be significantly related to new product market success. These findings suggest several important implications for new product development managers and scholars.     

What Separates Japanese New Product Winners from Losers

Operating in the upper echelons of highly competitive, global markets, numerous Japanese firms enjoy well-deserved reputations for excellence in new product development. Despite this success, however, almost no research has been conducted to explore the keys to successful new product development in Japanese companies. For the most part, research in this area has focused on North American and European firms. X. Michael Song and Mark E. Parry address this gap with a study of 404 Japanese firms and 788 new product introductions. Their research explores the links between new product success and 10 factors: product advantage; marketing synergy; technological synergy; market potential; market competitiveness; market and technical understanding; senior management support; proficiency in the predevelopment planning process and in concept development and evaluation; proficiency in market research, market pretesting, and market launch; and technical proficiency. To avoid any cultural bias, development of the survey was preceded by in-depth case studies and focus group interviews with Japanese and American new product development teams. Although time-consuming and expensive, these preliminary steps were necessary for ensuring the validity of the survey contents and procedures. Notwithstanding the obvious cultural differences, the findings from this study suggest that Japanese new products professionals view the keys to success in much the same way as their North American counterparts. For the survey respondents, the most important success factor is product advantage. Other important success factors include predevelopment proficiency (that is, proficiency in the predevelopment planning process as well as in concept definition and evaluation) and marketing and technological synergy. Consistent with previous research on North American firms, market competitiveness was found to be the least important success factor. For managers who are trying to predict whether a project will result in a product advantage, several survey items may be useful as a checklist for assessing potential product advantage. In particular, these managers should consider whether the product offers potential for reducing consumer costs and expanding consumer capabilities, as well as the likelihood that the product offers improved quality, superior technical performance, and a superior benefit-to-cost ratio.     

A Causal Model of the Impact of Skills, Synergy, and Design Sensitivity on New Product Performance

Notwithstanding the best efforts of outstanding managers, project team members, researchers, and consultants, no product development plan can guarantee success. Every new products organization will experience its fair share of failures, but a firm can take steps to ensure that its failures do not outweigh its successes. By benchmarking the competition, a firm can gain insight into best practices–the factors that lead most directly to new product success. To help identify these best practices, X. Michael Song, William E. Souder, and Barbara Dyer develop and test a causal model of the relationships among the key variables leading to new product performance. The proposed model identifies five factors that lead to marketing and technical proficiency: process skills, project management skills, alignment of skills with needs, team skills, and design sensitivity. According to the model, marketing and technical proficiency directly determine product quality, and ultimately lead to new product success or failure. The causal model was tested using information on 65 completed projects–34 successes and 31 failures–from 17 large, multi-divisional Japanese firms. The study participants develop, manufacture, and market high-technology consumer and industrial products. These firms judged the success or failure of the projects in this study by using seven criteria: return on investment, profit, market share, sales, opportunities for technical leadership, market dominance, and customer satisfaction. These firms generally assigned the greatest importance to customer satisfaction, opportunity creation, and long-term growth. For the most part, the responses from these firms support the relationships presented in the causal model. According to the respondents, marketing proficiency and product quality have a strong, positive influence on their new product performance, as do process skills, project management skills, and alignment of skills and needs. The responses highlight the importance to these firms of responsiveness to customer wants and needs, as well as ensuring a close fit between project needs and the firm's skills in marketing, R&D, engineering, and manufacturing. Somewhat surprisingly, the responses do not support the model's suggested relationships between skills/needs alignment and technical proficiency or between technical proficiency and product quality.     

Exploring Mediating and Moderating Influences on the Links among Cycle Time,Proficiency in Entry Timing,and New Product Profitability*

Development cycle time is the elapsed time from the beginning of idea generation to the moment that the new product is ready for market introduction. Market‐entry timing is contingent upon the new product's cycle time. Only when the product is completed can a firm decide whether and when to enter the market to exploit the new product's window of opportunity. To determine the right moment of entry a firm needs to correctly balance the risks of premature entry and the missed opportunity of late entry. Proficient market‐entry timing is therefore defined as the firm's ability to get the market‐entry timing right (i.e., neither too early nor too late). The literature has produced divergent evidence with regard to the effects of development cycle time and proficiency in market‐entry timing on new product profitability. To explain these disparities this study (1) explores the mediating roles of development costs and sales volume in the relationships among development cycle time, proficiency in market‐entry timing, and new product profitability, respectively; and it (2) explores the moderating influence of product newness on the relationship between development cycle time and development costs and that of new product advantage on the link between proficiency in market‐entry timing and sales volume. The results from a survey‐based study of 72 manufacturers of industrial products in the Netherlands suggest that development costs mediate the relationship between development cycle time and new product profitability and that sales volume mediates the link between proficiency in market‐entry timing and new product profitability. In addition, the findings indicate that new product advantage strengthens the positive relationship between proficiency in market‐entry timing and sales volume. The results provide no evidence for a moderating effect of product newness. These results have important implications because to maximize new product profitability managers need to distinguish between costs and demand side effects of development cycle time and market‐entry timing on new product profitability. Keeping this distinction in mind should help them to better determine the relative profit impact of investments in cycle time reduction or improved entry timing. Moreover, the findings suggest that highly advantaged products that enter the market at the right time may have a highly attenuated sales volume. It also implies that new products with lower advantage may have very little leeway in hitting the “sweet spot” in market. The message is that “doing the right thing” (i.e., to develop a highly advantaged new product) may be at least as important as correctly balancing the risks of premature entry and the missed opportunity of late entry.     

The Roles of Sustainability Orientation and Market Knowledge Competence in New Product Development Success

Firms’ sustainability orientation (SO) is widely understood as a strategic resource, which can lead to competitive advantage and superior (financial) performance. While recent empirical evidence suggests a moderate and positive relationship between SO and financial performance on a corporate level, little is understood about the influence of SO on new product development (NPD) success. Building on the natural‐resource‐based view (NRBV) of the firm, we hypothesize that firms’ SO positively influences NPD success, because of efficiency gains and differentiation advantages. However, scholars have also argued that the win–win paradigm postulated by NRBV might not always hold because NPD managers might find it difficult to balance sustainability objectives with the needs of their customer and the competitive dynamics in their markets. It is, therefore, proposed that market knowledge competence (MKC) is an important capability, which helps firms to balance social and ecological objectives with economic goals such as profitability and market share. Using data from 343 international firms from 24 countries that was collected by the Product Development and Management Association, structural equation modeling results suggest that (1) SO positively influences NPD and that (2) this relationship is partially mediated by firms’ market knowledge capabilities. The findings suggest that strategic‐level SO and MKC are complementary in that they help in balancing trade‐offs between sustainaility objectives and profitability goals. In this way, the study contributes to a better understanding of how critical NPD practices can help managers to translate firms’ SO into NPD success. The article concludes by highlighting implications for product innovation managers.     

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.     

The Impact of Market Orientation, Product Advantage, and Launch Proficiency on New Product Performance and Organizational Performance

Some scholars have suggested recently that a market‐oriented culture leads to superior performance, at least in part, because of the new products that are developed and are brought to market. Others have reinforced this wisdom by revealing that a market‐oriented culture enhances organizational innovativeness and new product success, both of which in turn improve organizational performance. These scholars do not reveal, however, through which new product development (NPD) activities a market‐oriented culture is converted into superior performance. To determine how critical NPD activities are for a market‐oriented firm to achieve superior performance, our study uses data from 126 firms in The Netherlands to investigate the structural relationships among market orientation, new product advantage, the proficiency in new product launch activities, new product performance, and organizational performance. We focus on product advantage—because product benefits typically form the compelling reasons for customers to buy the new product—and on the launch proficiency—as the launch stage represents the most costly and risky part of the NPD process. Focusing on the launch stage also is relevant because it is only during the launch that it will become evident whether a market orientation has crystallized into a superior product in the eyes of the customer. The results provide evidence that a market orientation is related positively to product advantage and to the proficiency in market testing, launch budgeting, launch strategy, and launch tactics. Product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics are related positively to new product performance, which itself is related positively to organizational performance. Market orientation has no direct relationship to new product performance and to organizational performance. An important implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on organizational performance is channeled through the effects of a market orientation on product advantage and launch proficiency; subsequently through the effects of product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics on new product performance; and finally through the effect of new product performance on organizational performance. These channeling effects are much more subtle and complex than the direct relationship of market orientation on organizational performance previously assumed. Another implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on performance occurs through the launch activities rather than being pervasive to all organizational processes and activities. A reason for this finding may be that NPD is the one element of the marketing mix that predominantly is the responsibility of the firm, whereas promotion and distribution often are in control of organizations outside the firm (e.g., advertising agencies, major retailers) and whereas the channel or the market often dictates the price. Both implications provide ample opportunities for further research on market orientation and NPD.     

Balancing Development Costs and Sales to Optimize the Development Time of Product Line Additions*

Development teams often use mental models to simplify development time decision making because a comprehensive empirical assessment of the trade‐offs across the metrics of development time, development costs, proficiency in market‐entry timing, and new product sales is simply not feasible. Surprisingly, these mental models have not been studied in prior research on the trade‐offs among the aforementioned metrics. These mental models are important to consider, however, because they define reality, specify what team members attend to, and guide their decision making. As such, these models influence how development teams make trade‐offs across the four metrics to try to optimize new product profitability. Teams with such an objective should manage to a development time that minimizes development costs and to a proficient market‐entry timing that maximizes new product sales. Yet many teams use mental models for development time decision making that focus either just on development costs or on proficiency in market‐entry timing. This survey‐based study uses data from 115 completed NPD projects, all product line additions from manufacturers in The Netherlands, to demonstrate that there is a cost to simplifying decision making. Making development time decisions without taking into account the contingency between development time and proficiency in market‐entry timing can be misleading, and using either a sales‐maximization or a cost‐minimization simplified decision‐making model may result in a cost penalty or a sales loss. The results from this study show that the development time that maximizes new product profitability is longer than the time that maximizes new product sales and is shorter than the development time that minimizes development costs. Furthermore, the results reveal that the cost penalty of sales maximization is smaller than the sales loss of development costs minimization. An important implication of the results is that, to determine the optimal development time, teams need to distinguish between cost and sales effects of development time reductions. To determine the relative impact of these effects this study also estimates the elasticities of development costs, new product sales, and new product profitability with regard to development time. Armed with this knowledge, development teams should be better equipped to make trade‐offs among the four metrics of development time, development costs, proficiency in market‐entry timing, and new product sales.     

Managing salespeople strategically when promoting new products—Incorporating market orientation into a sales management control framework

Salespeople play a pivotal role in promoting new products. Therefore, managers need to know what control mechanism (i.e., output-based control, behavior-based control, or knowledge-based control) can improve their salespeople's new product sales performance. Furthermore, managers may be able to assist salespeople in performing better by having a strong market orientation. The literature has been inconsistent regarding the effects of sales management control mechanisms and has not yet incorporated market orientation into a sales management control framework. The current study surveyed 315 Taiwanese salespeople from publicly traded electronics companies with the aim of contributing to the sales management literature. The results show that sales management controls can directly affect salespeople's innovativeness, which, in turn, affects new product sales performance. However, sales management controls cannot affect performance directly. Furthermore, market orientation can positively moderate the relationship between salespeople's innovativeness and new product sales performance.     

Product Change Intensity, Product Advantage, and Market Performance: An Empirical Investigation of the PC Industry

Product change decisions, such as the frequency of new product introductions, can impact product performance characteristics, sales, and market share of several generations of products and, therefore, a firm's long‐term survival and growth. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of a firm's product change frequency, also referred to as product change intensity. A conceptual model linking a firm's product change intensity to its product advantage—and, in turn, to its market performance—with strategic product change orientation and technology competence as moderating effects, was used as a foundation for the study's hypotheses. These were tested using hierarchical and linear regressions, based on survey data collected from 55 U.S. companies in the personal computer (PC) industry. The analysis confirmed that a PC firm's product rate of change is positively associated with its product advantage and that its product advantage, in turn, is positively associated with its market share and growth performance. However, the hypothesized moderating effects were not confirmed. Rather, a firm's product change orientation and its level of technology competence are more likely to have a direct impact on product advantage. The implications of these findings are that, in general, firms that release new products frequently will have them viewed more favorably by the market than products with lower change intensities. Also, firms with higher levels of competence in the product technology domain tend to create products with greater market attraction. Finally, more radical changes to PC product architectures may pay off better than relatively minor changes. These results may not apply to other industries due to the specific design of personal computers and the nature of this fast‐paced market. Neither do the findings necessarily apply to all firms regardless of those firms' specific product and market strategies. More research is necessary to understand how a firm's adopted strategy, and the industry in which it operates, affect the relationships demonstrated in this study.     

Managing salespeople strategically when promoting new products – incorporating market orientation into a sales management control framework

Salespeople play a pivotal role in promoting new products. Therefore, managers need to know what control mechanism (i.e., output-based control, behavior-based control, or knowledge-based control) can improve their salespeople’s new product sales performance. Furthermore, managers may be able to assist salespeople in performing better by having a strong market orientation. The literature has been inconsistent regarding the effects of sales management control mechanisms and has not yet incorporated market orientation into a sales management control framework. The current study surveyed 315 Taiwanese salespeople from publicly traded electronics companies with the aim of contributing to the sales management literature. The results show that sales management controls can directly affect salespeople’s innovativeness, which, in turn, affects new product sales performance. However, sales management controls cannot affect performance directly. Furthermore, market orientation can positively moderate the relationship between salespeople’s innovativeness and new product sales performance.     

Identifying the Key Success Factors in New Product Launch

Effective product launch is a key driver of top performance, and launch is often the single costliest step in new product development. Despite its importance, costs, and risks, product launch has been relatively underresearched in the product literature. We reviewed the extant literature on product launch to identify the most critical strategic, tactical, and information-gathering activities influencing the launch success. We then used a retrospective methodology to gather managerial perceptions regarding launch activities pertaining to a recent new product launch, and the product's performance in terms of profitability, market share, and relative sales. A mail survey of PDMA practitioners elicited data on nearly 200 recent product launches. Successful launches were found to be related to perceived superior skills in marketing research, sales force, distribution, promotion, R&D, and engineering. Having cross-functional teams making key marketing and manufacturing decisions, and getting logistics involved early in planning, were strategic activities that were strongly related to successful launches. Several tactical activities were related to successful launches: high quality of selling effort, advertising, and technical support; good launch management and good management of support programs; and excellent launch timing relative to customers and competitors. Furthermore, information-gathering activities of all kinds (market testing, customer feedback, advertising testing, etc.) were very important to successful launches. We conclude with observations about current product launch practice and with recommendations to management. Logistics plays a key role in successful strategy development and should receive the requisite amount of managerial attention. In particular, activities involving logistics personnel in strategy development showed much room for improvement. We also find that the timing of the launch (i.e., when the launch is conducted from the point of view of the company, the competition, and the customer) is just as important as whether the activities are performed. More managerial attention should be devoted to launch timing with respect to all of these viewpoints in order to improve the chances of success.     

New product development in Asia: An introduction to the special issue

Given the increasing importance of Asia, the purpose of this special issue is to broaden the scope of our understanding of New Product Development (NPD) by going beyond the traditional Western research settings and looking at how new products are developed in Asia. This paper introduces the special issue on NPD in Asia and identifies key patterns of similarities and differences between Asian and Western NPD practices. The paper highlights key similarities and differences in the areas of organizational/top management support; technological proficiency; customer/market orientation; information sharing; cross-functional interface; entrepreneurship orientation; NPD strategies; innovation orientation; contingencies of innovation orientation; innovative marketing strategies; NPD process; appointment of project managers; rewarding team members; success rate; and cycle time.     

Externally Directed and Internally Directed Market Launch Management: The Role of Organizational Factors in Influencing New Product Success

Introducing new products remains a critical challenge for managers. Consumer acceptance of new products is key to new product success and requires the effective implementation of market launch activities. The present study describes the relationship between different types of market launch activities and market‐related, time‐related, and financial market launch success. The study's framework extends previous work on launch management by complementing the view that launch activities are predominantly outwardly directed with the notion that launch management can also be inwardly directed. More specifically, launch activities can both target customers as the external audience, for example, via communication and pricing, and address an internal audience, such as management and sales personnel, for example, using departmental coordination or employee incentives. The study also sets out to investigate how situational factors impact the relative effectiveness of both externally directed and internally directed launch activities in engendering successful new product launches. In particular, product newness, technology drivers, and firm size are considered as relevant variables. Structural equation analysis of data on 178 new products across industries provide empirical evidence that market launch success depends on the intensity of both externally directed and internally directed market launch activities. With regard to the overall impact of internally directed activities, the findings confirm that organizational factors and antecedents indeed play a critical role in new product launch and its respective performance with internally directed activities having an even stronger impact on time‐related and financial success than outwardly directed instruments. Specifically, these internal activities are often viewed as idiosyncratic resources that are hard for competitors to observe and are therefore more difficult—if not impossible—to replicate compared to externally directed activities in market launch. The paper clearly pinpoints that the successful launch of new products is a complex task that also necessitates the implementation of internally directed launch activities. Fast market penetration requires coordination among the different internal players as well as support from top management. Furthermore, the financial objectives of the market launch can only be met if employees and executives both receive the necessary incentives and support to effectively execute the new product introduction. The study also demonstrates that moderators impact the strength of the effectiveness of these two different types of market launch activities. This research provides important implications for launch management by advocating that the two foci on external and internal constituencies should not be pursued in isolation but that instead, the opposite is true.     

Building and leveraging competence exploitation and exploration for firm new product success

We theorize that industry conditions of collaboration intensity and innovation intensity drive the development of competence exploitation and exploration in manufacturer-manufacturer collaborations, and that such competencies can be leveraged to increase firm-level new product sales and market share, contingent on the firm's establishment of non-proprietary knowledge transfer capability. We test our model using a survey of 224 manufacturer-manufacturer collaborations. Our findings indicate that collaboration intensity drives firms to build both competence exploration and exploitation while innovation intensity drives neither. We also find that while non-proprietary knowledge capability enhances the influence of competence exploration on a firm's new product sales and market share, it dampens the firm's ability to leverage competence exploitation for firm-level new product success.     

Benchmarking the Firm's Critical Success Factors in New Product Development

Managing new product development (NPD) is, to a great extent, a process of separating the winners from the losers. At the project level, tough go/no-go decisions must be made throughout each development effort to ensure that resources are being allocated appropriately. At the company level, benchmarking is helpful for identifying the critical success factors that set the most successful firms apart from their competitors. This company- or macro-level analysis also has the potential for uncovering success factors that are not readily apparent through examination of specific projects. To improve our understanding of the company-level drivers of NPD success, Robert Cooper and Elko Kleinschmidt describe the results of a multi-firm benchmarking study. They propose that a company's overall new product performance depends on the following elements: the NPD process and the specific activities within this process; the organization of the NPD program; the firm's NPD strategy; the firm's culture and climate for innovation; and senior management commitment to NPD. Given the multidimensional nature of NPD performance, the study involves 10 performance measures of a company's new product program: success rate, percent of sales, profitability relative to spending, technical success rating, sales impact, profit impact, success in meeting sales objectives, success in meeting profit objectives, profitability relative to competitors, and overall success. The 10 performance metrics are reduced to two underlying dimensions: program profitability and program impact. These performance factors become theX-and Y-ax.es of a performance map, a visual summary of the relative performance of the 135 companies responding to the survey. The performance map further breaks down the respondents into four groups: solid performers, high-impact technical winners, low-impact performers, and dogs. Again, the objective of this analysis is to determine what separates the solid performers from the companies in the other groups. The analysis identifies nine constructs that drive performance. In rank order of their impact on performance, the main performance drivers that separate the solid performers from the dogs are: a high-quality new product process; a clear, well-communicated new product strategy for the company; adequate resources for new products; senior management commitment to new products; an entrepreneurial climate for product innovation; senior management accountability; strategic focus and synergy (i.e., new products close to the firm's existing markets and leveraging existing technologies); high-quality development teams; and cross-functional teams.     

Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and product development performance

Various research studies have shown that a market orientation and interdepartmental integration can positively influence product development performance. Addressed in this article is whether market orientation and interdepartmental integration both equally influence product development performance, whether one of these constructs is more influential than the other, and whether such influence is dependent on the type of department being examined? Analyzing survey data from 156 marketing, manufacturing, and R&D managers, the tentative results suggest that a market orientation and interdepartmental integration correlate to improved product development and product management performance in varying degrees across these three manager sets. It appears that a positive relationship between market orientation and product development petformance is likely to be reflected by the marketing department, while marketing and manufacturing departments are likely to reflect a positive relationship between the general construct of market orientation and product management performance. Manufacturing managers also reflect a positive relationship between interdepartmental integration and product development and product management performance. Further analyses involving the elements of a market orientation and interdepartmental integration find that a customer orientation appears important to performance in the case of marketing managers, and that collaboration is important to performance in the case of manufacturing managers. R&D managers did not reflect any statistically significant relationships between market orientation, interdepartmental integration, their constructs, and performance. These results should not be taken as refuting the claim of an important relationship between market orientation and product development performance, however. The present results refine our understanding of market orientation to consider department‐specific effects, as well as temper the claims that implementing a market orientation will readily lead to improved product development performance across all departments in an organization. This may or may not be the case, depending on the focal department.     

PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study*

Since 1990, the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) has sponsored best practice research projects to identify trends in new product development (NPD) management practices and to discern which practices are associated with higher degrees of success. The objective of this ongoing research is to assist managers in determining how to improve their own product development methods and practices. This paper presents results, recommendations, and implications for NPD practice stemming from PDMA's third best practices study, which was conducted in 2003. In the eight years since the previous best practices study was conducted, firms have become slightly more conservative in the portfolio of projects, with lower percentages of the total number of projects in the new‐to‐the‐world and new‐to‐the‐firm categories. Although success rates and development efficiencies have remained stable, this more conservative approach to NPD seems to have negatively impacted the sales and profits impact of the new products that have been commercialized. As formal processes for NPD are now the norm, attention is moving to managing the multiple projects across the portfolio in a more orchestrated manner. Finally, firms are implementing a wide variety of software support tools for various aspects of NPD. NPD areas still seriously in need of improved management include idea management, project leadership and training, cross‐functional training and team communication support, and innovation support and leadership by management. In terms of aspects of NPD management that differentiate the “best from the rest,” the findings indicate that the best firms emphasize and integrate their innovation strategy across all the levels of the firm, better support their people and team communications, conduct extensive experimentation, and use numerous kinds of new methods and techniques to support NPD. All companies appear to continue to struggle with the recording of ideas and making them readily available to others in the organization, even the best. What remains unclear is whether there is a preferable approach for organizing the NPD endeavor, as no one organizational approach distinguished top NPD performers.     

Speed-to-Market and New Product Performance Trade-offs

When pressed to accelerate a development effort, more than a few managers have responded in terms such as “Good, fast, cheap … Pick any two.” Time-to-market decisions clearly play an important role in determining the ultimate success or failure of a new product. Just as clearly, however, speed to market is not the sole determinant of success. The seemingly offhanded “Pick any two” response points to the tradeoffs that product development managers must make in their decisions about development time and costs. Barry Bayus discusses the relationship between product development time and costs, and he fomulates a mathematical model that simultaneously considers the decisions regarding time-to-market and product performance levels. He applies the model to two competitive scenarios, and he identifies the optimal entry timing and product performance decisions for various market, demand, and cost conditions. In the first scenario, a firm must decide whether to accelerate development efforts to catch a competitor that has just introduced a new product. Analysis of the tradeoffs among the various parameters in the model suggests that fast development of low-performance products is optimal under the following conditions: a relatively short window of market opportunity, a weak competitor, and relatively high development costs. For example, if the competitor is weak, high performance levels are not necessary and the firm can safely reduce time-to-market. Under the same scenario (that is, accelerating development to catch a competitor), the analysis suggests that fast development of products with high performance levels is optimal under conditions of relatively high sales and relatively flat development costs. In the second scenario, the firm must decide whether to speed development efforts to beat the competition to market. Analysis of the various tradeoffs for this scenario suggests that first-to-market status for a product with a high performnace level is optimal under the following conditions: a relatively long window of market opportunity, relatively high sales, and relatively flat development costs. With a long product lifecycle, stable margins, and high sales, the firm can generate sufficient revenue to offset the increased cost incurred in speeding a high-performance product to market. Beating a competitor to market with a low-performance product is never optimal for the cases considered here.     

PERSPECTIVE: Cross‐Functional Integration in Spanish Firms

Published studies of new product development in Spain provide conflicting evidence regarding the role of cross‐functional integration in new product success. One possible explanation for these results is the use of idiosyncratic scales for measuring the level of cross‐functional integration. This study adopts the scale items used in a previous study and replicates that research process using data collected from managers of 134 Spanish companies involved in new product development. Findings confirm the appropriateness of these scales in a Spanish context and the importance of cross‐functional integration to new product success in Spanish firms. No support is found for the hypothesis that participative management is positively correlated with the level of cross‐functional integration. Cross‐functional integration is found to be negatively related to goal incongruity and positively related to top‐management support for integration.