The Impact of Cross-Functional Joint Involvement Across Product Development Stages: An Exploratory Study

Cross-functional integration offers numerous, well-documented benefits for new-product development (NPD), but it also can carry significant costs. Joint involvement of R&D, manufacturing, and marketing personnel can increase the quality, the manufacturability, and the marketability of the final product. However, building consensus among these groups, with their differing perspectives and goals, may require time-consuming meetings as well as tremendous finesse from the managers who guide the NPD effort. Those managers require an approach to cross-functional integration that strikes a balance between efficiency and effectiveness. X. Michael Song, R. Jeffrey Thieme, and Jinhong Xie propose that the right mix of cross-functional involvement may differ depending on the stage in the NPD process. They also suggest that blindly promoting the involvement of all functional areas in all stages of the NPD process may actually decrease NPD performance. They test these propositions in a study that examines the relationships between new product performance and cross-functional joint involvement between R&D, manufacturing, and marketing in five major stages of the NPD process: market opportunity analysis, planning, development, pretesting, and launch. Their objective in this study is to identify patterns of effective cross-functional involvement in different NPD stages. The study uses data collected from 236 managers working in the R&D, manufacturing, and marketing departments of 16 Fortune 500 firms. Their findings suggest that new-product success may be more likely when a firm employs function-specific and stage-specific patterns of cross-functional integration than it is when the firm attempts to integrate all functions during all NPD stages. For example, during the market opportunity analysis stage, the findings suggest that joint involvement between R&D and marketing may be productive, but joint involvement between R&D and manufacturing and among all three functions may be counterproductive. The results also indicate that joint involvement among all three functions either does not have a significant effect on new product success or may be counterproductive in all stages of the NPD process. For the firms in this study, the three functions seem to take turns playing the central role in cross-functional activities. During the product planning, development, and testing phases, the role of the focal function, or communication hub, shifts from manufacturing to R&D and then to marketing. (c) 1998 Elsevier Science Inc.     

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.     

Environmental Uncertainty, Organizational Integration, and New Product Development Effectiveness: A Test of Contingency Theory

R&D/marketing integration clearly improves new-product development (NPD) effectiveness. However, achieving this integration increases the costs of NPD efforts. If technical and market uncertainty moderate the effects of integration on NPD effectiveness, perhaps a firm can achieve NPD success in a more cost-effective manner by seeking the appropriate level of integration, based on the perceived level of uncertainty. In a study of 101 NPD projects at high-tech firms in the U.S. and the U.K., William E. Souder, J. Daniel Sherman, and Rachel Davies-Cooper explore the interplay between technical and market uncertainty, integration, and NPD effectiveness. Their study examines two types of integration: R&D/marketing integration and direct R&D/customer integration. The study measures NPD effectiveness in terms of such indicators as NPD cycle time, prototype development proficiency, design change frequency (a negative performance indicator), and product launch proficiency. The responses from both the U.S. and the U.K. firms provide balanced samples of high and low uncertainty projects, as well as successful and unsuccessful projects. The results of this study support previous research regarding the positive effects of both R&D/marketing integration and direct R&D/customer integration on NPD effectiveness. However, only one measure of NPD effectiveness—R&D comercialization effectiveness—was affected by both R&D/marketing integration and direct R&D/customer integration. This result suggests that the two types of integration are distinct from one another and that managers need to emphasize different types of integration, depending on which aspects of NPD effectiveness their firms need to improve. The results also suggest that technical and market uncertainty influence some aspects of NPD effectiveness. For example, the perceived level of technical uncertainty was found to influence prototype development proficiency and to moderate design change frequency. In other words, these results support the idea that a high level of technical uncertainty warrants paying extra attention to increasing prototype development proficiency in the interest of reducing design change frequency. However, the results also reinforce the idea that NPD activities generally involve high levels of technical and market uncertainty, which means that the high cost of integration may be a requirement for NPD success.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Innovation strategy and sanctioned conflict: a new edge in innovation?

Teamwork and harmony are worthy objectives, but a healthy dose of conflict also plays an important role in fostering innovation. In their pursuit of teamwork and harmony, companies run the risk of suppressing the creative tension that brings vitality to new-product development (NPD) efforts. Furthermore, a firm's choice of innovation strategy may have a significant effect on the organization's capability for managing conflict. Using results from a survey of 290 marketing and R&D managers from U.S. firms in the electronics industries, Barbara Dyer and X. Michael Song explore the link between strategy and conflict, and the effect this link has on NPD success. Their study examines the following issues: the influence of business strategy on specific conflict-handling behaviors; the relationship between those conflict-handling behaviors and positive conflict outcomes; and the relationship between constructive conflict and new-product success. The study classifies firms predominantly pursuing a more aggressive NPD strategy as prospectors and less aggressive firms as defenders. Three conflict-handling mechanisms are identified: integrating behaviors, forcing behaviors, and avoiding behaviors. Compared to the prospector firms, the defender firms in this study perceived significantly higher levels of conflict in their organizations. In handling conflict, the prospector firms perceived a higher level of integrative behavior than the defender firms. The defenders perceived higher levels of forcing and avoiding conflict behaviors. The study identifies a strong, positive relationship between integrative behaviors and constructive conflict. Positive relationships are also identified between constructive conflict and the success of cross-functional relationships, as well as between constructive conflict and NPD business success. For the firms in this study, the results indicate that strategy is associated with the conflict-handling mechanisms the firm uses. For example, the results suggest that an NPD manager in a prospector firm will encounter high use of integrative behaviors, a high number of complex conflicts, a relatively low level of perceived conflict, a high level of formalization, and frequent exchanges of written and verbal communication among the firm's personnel. The results suggest that managers may help to create an environment conducive to NPD success by assessing their firms' strategies, emphasizing integrative conflict-handling behaviors, and employing formalization of organizational procedures.     

New Product Development in Rapidly Changing Markets: An Exploratory Study

Rapid technological change can be both a blessing and a curse. For example, investors and firms of all sizes hope to reap the rewards that may arise from the apparent convergence of the computer, telecommunications, and entertainment industries. With the high level of uncertainty inherent to such rapidly changing markets, however, those potentially dazzling returns are counterbalanced by a daunting level of risk. John Mullins and Daniel Sutherland suggest that firms operating in such markets require NPD practices that can mitigate risk, manage uncertainty, and, of course, increase the likelihood of new product success. To gain insight into the NPD practices that can meet those challenges, they conducted in-depth interviews with managers who were directly involved in NPD projects at US WEST, Inc., a large, multinational firm in the telecommunications industry. The study focused on identifying practices that help the firm bring new products into rapidly changing markets quickly, efficiently, and effectively. A key objective of their study was to go beyond the basics—for example, the use of cross-functional teams—to identify specific practices that allow the firm to address the various levels of uncertainty that characterize its markets. They identify three levels of uncertainty that confront firms operating in rapidly changing markets. First, potential customers cannot easily articulate needs that a new technology may fulfill. Consequently, NPD managers are uncertain about the market opportunities that a new technology offers. Second, NPD managers are uncertain about how to turn the new technologies into products that meet customer needs. This uncertainty arises, not only from customers' inability to articulate their needs, but also from managers' difficulties in translating technological advancements into product features and benefits. Finally, senior management faces uncertainty about how much capital to invest in pursuit of rapidly changing markets as well as when to invest. The study identifies six practices that help the firm address the uncertainty and risk inherent in its rapidly changing markets. For example, market research in this firm's NPD process focuses more on probing than it does on measuring. Involvement of prospective customers in idea generation and the use of prototypes early in the NPD process help the firm uncover customer needs and market opportunities. Large-scale, quantitative market research focuses primarily on determining market size and price points.     

When Product Development Performance Makes a Difference: A Statistical Analysis in the Electronics Industry

Throughout the pages of JPIM and other publications, researchers and practitioners devote considerable effort to identifying the dimensions of new-product development (NPD) performance that relate most closely to business success. Although we may hope to unveil a set of universal truths about the relationship between NPD performance and business success, the relevant NPD performance measures appear to depend on the industry in which a firm competes. In fact, Christian Terwiesch, Christoph Loch, and Martin Niederkofler suggest that the overall relevance of NPD performance to business success depends on the firm's competitive market environment. In a study of 86 business units operating in 12 different electronics industries worldwide, they develop a market contingency framework for understanding the impact of NPD performance on a firm's profitability. Their study uses data from the “Excellence in Electronics” project, a joint research effort by Stanford University, the University of Augsburg, and McKinsey & Co. They describe market context in terms of three dimensions: market share, market growth, and external stability—that is, the average product life cycle duration in the market. Looking at all 86 business units in the study, they find that industry membership accounts for 23% of the variance in profits, with 18 percent of the variance determined by industry profitability and 5% by the three dimensions of market context. For the firms in the study, development performance has the most significant effect in slow-growth markets and in markets with long product life cycles. In these stable industries, low development intensity, product line freshness, and technical product performance increase profitability. The results indicate that NPD performance plays a much more important role for explaining the profitability of dominant firms than that of the low-market-share firms in the study. NPD performance explains 30% of the profitability variance among the high-market-share business units in the study, but none of the variance for the low-market-share business units. Although the profitability of the smaller firms in the study is driven primarily by the industry environment, these firms can compete on the basis of superior technical performance.     

New Product Development Speed: Too Much of a Good Thing?

New product development (NPD) speed has become increasingly important for managing innovation in fast‐changing business environments due to continuous reduction in the product life cycle time and increase in competition from technological advancements and globalization. While the existing literature has not produced consistent results regarding the relationship between speed and success for NPD projects, many scholars and practitioners assert that increasing NPD speed is virtually always important to NPD success. The purpose of this paper is to examine the implicit assumption that faster is better as it relates to new product success (NPS). From the perspectives of time‐compression diseconomies and absorptive capacity, the authors question the assumption that speed has a linear relationship with success. The authors further argue that time‐compression diseconomies depend on levels of uncertainty involved in NPD projects. Using survey data of 471 NPD projects, the hypotheses were tested by hierarchical regression analysis and subgroup polynomial regression. The results of this study indicate that NPD speed has a curvilinear relationship with NPS, and the nature of the speed–success relationship varies, depending on type and level of uncertainty. When turbulence or technological newness is high, the relationship is curvilinear, but when uncertainties are low, the relationship is linear. In contrast, the results of this study suggest a curvilinear relationship under conditions of low market newness but not when market newness is high. The present paper asserts that time‐compression diseconomies and absorptive capacity are important theoretical constructs in understanding speed in NPD. The different impact of market newness and market turbulence on NPD speed supports the distinction of newness and turbulence as two different sources of uncertainty. Discussion focuses on the implications of NPD speed under the different conditions of uncertainty. NPD teams need to pursue NPD speed as a critical strategy, but it is necessary to analyze the source and degree of uncertainty about projects before a time‐based strategy is selected. In order to address the challenges of high uncertainty, a firm needs to probe, learn, and iterate fast. In particular, NPD teams need to distinguish between the different requirements for new products in emerging and new markets, and those in fast‐changing markets. Moreover, NPD teams need to balance how fast they need to go with how fast they can go by considering team absorptive capacity and customer absorptive capacity.     

Measuring Development Performance in the Electronics Industry

Within a year or so, the computer you purchased last month will probably be obsolete. For a manufacturer faced with such short product life-cycles, the performance of the new product development (NPD) function can determine whether the firm itself is relegated to the scrap heap. With such a close link between NPD performance and a firm's overall success, we need to do more than simply ensure that individual projects are well managed; we need to assess NPD's overall contribution to the company's business performance. Christoph Loch, Lothar Stein, and Christian Terwiesch develop a two-step model for measuring the performance of the NPD function. In this model, development output performance is the direct driver of business success. In other words, the output and the productivity of the NPD function directly affect a company's profitability and sales growth. Development output performance is driven by development process performance—that is, the operational management of development projects. Using data from the “Excellence in Electronics” project (a joint research effort of Stanford University, the University of Augsburg, and McKinsey & Co.), the two-step model is applied to a sample of 95 business units operating in three international electronics industries: consumer/small products, computers/communications, and industrial measurement/large systems. This analysis has two main objectives: identifying the key measures of development output performance and their contribution to business success; and identifying the important measures of development process performance and their contributions to development output performance. Development productivity, measured by development expense intensity, is the clearest predictor of business success. In other words, you can't buy a competitive advantage by pouring more money into R&D. Success comes from more efficient NPD, not simply outspending the competition. In the computer industry, design-to-cost has a positive effect on profitability growth, and design quality has a positive influence on sales growth. The factors underlying development process performance are much more dependent on the nature of competition in each industry. For example, because competition in the large systems industry still focuses primarily on technical competence, design-to-cost efforts in this industry lag behind those of the computer industry. Important measures of development process performance for all industry segments examined in the study include supplier involvement in the design, early prototyping, a team-based development organization, the use of team rewards, and value engineering.     

Product development cycle time for business-to-business products

For a number of years, firms have been implementing changes in the way they develop new products, changes that are targeted at reducing overall product development cycle times. And over the years, a number of academics have conducted research trying to understand the factors that are related to reducing new product development (NPD) times. But the question remains — just how long does product development generally take in absolute numbers? Information on how long product development takes is helpful to firms for planning and controlling the flow of products into the marketplace and in determining resource needs for NPD. Other than anecdotal data pertaining to particular projects that have been commercialized by particular firms, very little hard data have been reported on this topic. This article analyzes data to quantify average cycle times for physical goods commercialized by business-to-business (B2B) firms. The data are a subset of a much larger data set from the Product Development & Management Association's (PDMA) Best Practices research. The analysis presents average product development cycle times for four different types of projects (new-to-the-world, new-to-the-firm, next generation improvements and incremental improvements), presents evidence of the lack of a relationship between cycle time and success and looks at factors that are associated with differences in the length of product development cycle times.     

Web-Based Product Development Systems Integration and New Product Outcomes: A Conceptual Framework

In hopes of improving the effectiveness of their new product development (NPD) processes, many firms increasingly are eager to adopt integrated web‐based NPD systems for NPD. However, few would argue that the mere use of web‐based NPD systems substantially will improve the NPD process. But we know little about how and when these systems can be used for enhancing NPD. An organization desiring to employ the web in its NPD process can use it at varying levels of functionality and sophistication, ranging from a tool for automating manual tasks and exchanging data to a means of integrating various intra‐ and interorganizational NPD functions and processes. At higher levels of technology sophistication or integration, an organization's NPD processes will get more integrated internally, i.e., between different stages of the NPD process and with the processes of its suppliers, technology providers, etc. Such integration of both internal and external NPD processes is considered important for successful innovation. Thus, on the surface, higher levels of web‐based systems integration may seem universally desirable. However, each increasing level of integration brings with it higher costs—not only the costs of expensive technology but also costs of implementing a complicated system, redesigning intra‐ and interorganizational processes, disrupting the status quo, and spending management time and energy during implementation. Therefore, it may not be wise for firms to jump blindly on the web‐based NPD bandwagon. High levels of web‐based NPD systems integration may be created when low levels of integration may not deliver the desired results. Further, if such systems are installed without appropriate conditions within and outside the firm, it may not be possible to exploit their full potential. As such, it is important to know how much web‐based NPD systems integration is suitable for different conditions. In this article, we develop a conceptual framework that focuses on how web‐based NPD systems integration can influence the outcome of NPD and how the relationship between systems integration and outcomes can be affected by various contextual factors. For this purpose, we draw on research in areas such as NPD, web‐based information systems, and organization theory and on many discussions we had with professionals and software vendors who deal with NPD and web‐based NPD systems. The contextual factors of interest in this framework are strategic orientation of the firm, product‐related factors, business environment, organizational factors, information technology factors, and partner‐characteristics. Managerial and research implications of the framework are discussed.     

Towards Holistic "Front Ends" In New Product Development

Any firm that hopes to compete on the basis of innovation clearly must be proficient in all phases of the new-product development (NPD) process. However, the real keys to success can be found in the activities that occur before management makes the go/no-go decision for any NPD project. In other words, the most significant benefits can be achieved through improvements in the performance of the front-end activities—product strategy formulation and communication, opportunity identification and assessment, idea generation, product definition, project planning, and executive reviews. Noting the inherent difficulty of managing the front end, Anil Khurana and Stephen R. Rosenthal discuss findings from in-depth case studies of the front-end practices in 18 business units from 12 U.S. and Japanese companies. They offer a process view of the activities that the front end comprises, and they discuss the insights that their case studies provide regarding key success factors for managing the front-end activities. The case studies involved companies in industries ranging from consumer packaged goods to electronics and industrial products. Foremost among the insights provided by the case studies is the notion that the greatest success comes to organizations that take a holistic approach to the front end. A successful approach to the front end effectively links business strategy, product strategy, and product-specific decisions. Forging these links requires a process that integrates such elements as product strategy, development portfolio, concept development, overall business justification, resource planning, core team roles, executive reviews, and decision mechanisms. The case studies suggest that firms employ two general approaches for achieving these links. Some companies rely on a formal process to lend some order and predictability to the front end. Other companies strive to foster a company-wide culture in which the key participants in front-end activities always remain focused on the following considerations: business vision, technical feasibility, customer focus, schedule, resources, and coordination. This cultural approach is more prevalent among the Japanese firms in the study; the U.S. firms tend to rely on formality of the front-end process. The case studies also suggest that the front-end approach must be compatible with the firm's product, market, and organizational contexts. For example, standardized approaches seem to work best for incremental innovations.     

Analyses of U.S. and Japanese Management Processes Associated with New Product Success and Failure in High and Low Familiarity Markets

As detailed in the pages of JPIM and other publications, considerable research effort has been devoted to identifying the preconditions for new product success. Studies of Japanese and U.S. new product development (NPD) practices have shown that such factors as sales and marketing expertise, technical expertise, decentralized decision making, R&D/marketing integration, project manager competency, and support from senior management can play key roles in influencing new product success. As William Souder and X. Michael Song point out, however, previous studies have not examined Japanese management practices across a range of environments. They also suggest that the similarities and differences between U.S. and Japanese NPD practices require more in-depth exploration. To help address these issues, they describe the results of a study involving 15 U.S. firms and 15 Japanese firms. Each participating firm provided information about two successful products and two unsuccessful products. Their conceptual model groups the various factors that influence new product success into three general classes: NPD climate, expertise, and management functions. In this model, a firm's level of familiarity with its target market moderates these influences. For example, greater expertise may be necessary to succeed in an unfamiliar market. Each participating firm in the study provided information about one successful product and one failure targeted for high familiarity markets; the other two products from each firm were targeted for low familiarity markets. The U.S. and Japanese models developed in this study exhibit some marked differences from one another. In a familiar market, the U.S. model emphasizes sales and marketing expertise and competent project managers. Under conditions of low market familiarity, this basic model is supplemented with high degrees of R&D/marketing integration, senior management involvement, and decentralization. In this way, the U.S. models reflect a degree of flexibility in adapting the approach to match the prevailing market conditions. In contrast, the two Japanese models of new product success (under low and high familiarity) point to a more invariant system. In other words, the findings from this study reinforce the notion that successful management of NPD requires careful consideration of the firm's environment. Practices that have been proven successful in a particular culture and market environment may not be directly transferable to another setting.     

The Role of Market and Technical Information Generation in New Product Development

Firms are investing an increasing amount of time and resources to gather information about market and technology in new product development (NPD). Yet there is a lack of consistent understanding of whether such costly information generation activities can improve product outcomes. More importantly, it is unclear how the benefit of market information and technical information generation may differ and how they may jointly impact new product performance. This study examines the role of market and technical information generation in NPD in three ways: (1) It contrasts the effects of market and technical information generation on product outcomes; (2) it identifies conditions that moderate the effects of market and technical information generation and further investigates how the moderating effects differ for these two types of activities; and (3) it examines the joint effect of market and technical information generation to understand potential synergies between them. Using survey data at the NPD project level, we find that market information generation has an inverted U‐shaped effect on new product advantage, whereas the effect of technical information generation follows a U‐shape. Furthermore, these effects are moderated differently by two conditions: a firm’s R&D intensity that influences NPD projects’ need for different types of information, and the use of multidisciplinary teams that affects the degree to which information can be shared and utilized to improve product design. The findings provide important implications for organizational learning and shed light on how to manage information generation activities to achieve NPD success.     

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.     

Cooperation and the Ability to Minimize the Time and Cost of New Product Development within the Spanish Automotive Supplier Industry

New product development (NPD) cycle time has become a strategic competitive weapon for corporations and a focus for research on product development management. Reducing NPD cycle time may create relative advantages in market share, profit, and long‐term competitiveness. This article follows recent research that already has moved beyond anecdotes and case studies to test factors empirically and variables that are associated with the company's NPD time and cost minimization abilities. One emerging research area is the impact of comprehensive lists or sets of firm variables (not project variables) on the ability to speed up NPD. At the same time, several authors' findings suggest a contingency approach to speeding up innovation. Contingency theory argues that there is not one “best answer” to a particular problem: Instead, the appropriateness of managerial interventions is dependent on the prevailing conditions that surround that problem. On the issue of NPD, several scholars point out that cooperation accelerates learning and product development: Firms that combine resources can gain a competitive advantage over firms that are unable to do so, and this is viewed as one of the key benefits of interfirm cooperation. A firm's network of cooperations represent a valuable resource that can yield differential returns in the same way as other tangible and intangible assets such as product brands or R&D capabilities. Combining both lines of research, this study seeks to add to the growing literature and further to inform practicing managers in speeding up NPD by analyzing the relationship between cooperation and the use of some NPD firm practices. This article shows the results of a survey of 63 Spanish automotive suppliers to test the moderation effect of cooperation in the relationship between the use of NPD firm practices and the company's NPD time and cost minimization abilities. Factor and regression analyses were used to test the article's hypotheses. It was found that high‐cooperation companies used more intensively sets of firm practices than low‐cooperation companies. It also was found that two out of four identified factors of NPD firm practices—Design‐Manufacturing Interface and Cross‐Functional Design—were related positively to the company's NPD time and cost minimization abilities in the subsample of high‐cooperation companies but not in the low‐cooperation companies. These results support late research in the area of speeding up NPD. The article discusses some implications for managers.     

Drivers and Pathways of NPD Success in the Marketing–External Design Relationship

Marketing often cooperates with external design in the new product development (NPD) process. While this relationship is crucial for NPD success and is a typical case of interorganizational collaboration between a business‐oriented function (marketing) and a creative partner (external design), a comprehensive understanding of this relationship remains lacking. As the NPD field evolves to open systems that have changed concepts like functional integration into interorganizational integration, this study contributes to NPD literature by developing an integrated conceptual framework leading to a model of drivers and pathways of NPD success in the marketing–external design relationship. Building on the literature on NPD, design management and relationship marketing, and on nine dyadic case studies from the luxury fragrance and cosmetics industry, a content analysis was conducted, enriched by a crisp‐set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). This research confirms several NPD success drivers suggested in the literature and reveals three new drivers: source of design expertise, designer brand commitment, and number of NPD stages involving designer. The first new driver (source of design expertise) impacts the relationship process, which then impacts NPD success, while the other two drivers (designer brand commitment, and number of NPD stages involving designer) directly influence NPD success. The paper also identifies the pathways of NPD success, showing that contact authority and designer brand commitment are necessary conditions for NPD success, especially when combined with a high number of NPD stages involving designer or a previous relationship. The results also indicate that pathways of NPD success may differ according to the source of design expertise. From a managerial perspective, this study provides recommendations to managers to select the right design partner and choose from a range of drivers and pathways to devise more effective ways to work with external designers, thereby leading to NPD success.