Portfolio management for new product development: results of an industry practices study

Portfolio management for product innovation – picking the right set of development projects – is critical to new product success. This article reports on the new product portfolio practices and performance of a large sample of firms in North America. Reasons why portfolio management is important are identified, followed by the relative popularity of the different portfolio techniques: financial methods are first, followed by business strategy methods, bubble diagrams and scoring models. Next, how the various portfolio methods fare in terms of six performance metrics is probed. Financial methods, although the most popular and rigorous, yield the worst results overall, while top performing firms rely more on non‐financial approaches – strategic and scoring methods. The details of how some of these more popular methods are employed by firms to rate and rank development projects are also provided. Finally, managerial implications, including suggestions for making portfolio management more effective in industry, are outlined.     

An Empirical Study of Platform and Derivative Product Development Projects

Many firms now realize the importance of planning product families and product platforms. However, little research addresses planning and execution of different types of projects within a product family platform series. This study investigates project characteristics, development challenges, typical outcomes, and success factors for product development projects at different locations in the product family spectrum. “Platform” projects result in products that initiate a new product family platform for a company. “Derivative” projects result in products consisting of extensions to an existing product family platform. Data on 108 new product development projects from a variety of assembled products industries were collected via a detailed survey and analyzed. Findings indicate that: (1) platform and derivative projects differ in project task characteristics (including the amount of new technology development undertaken and project complexity) and market newness; (2) platform and derivative projects generally do not differ in terms of project success (achievement of project objectives, level of company satisfaction, and perceived customer satisfaction) or smoothness of project execution; (3) both platform and derivative projects generally are executed in similar ways; (4) certain managerial approaches (including contingency planning, project-based evaluation of personnel, and overlap of design and manufacturing engineering) are associated with higher project execution success for both platform and derivative projects; and (5) use of interdependent technologies and novel project objectives are associated with project execution failure for platform projects. The results suggest that firms can continue to employ a single product development management process for both platform and derivative projects, as long as modest customization of the process is made for the given project type. Completely different management processes are not required. In all, the results presented in this article suggest specific managerial actions companies can take to significantly improve product development success. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.     

Key Factors Affecting Customer Evaluation of Discontinuous New Products

Common sense, as well as plenty of research, tells us that customer feedback can play an important role in successful product development efforts. By understanding the key factors that affect customers' evaluations of a new product, a project team improves its chances of making the right decisions throughout the design and development effort. However, customers typically lack a useful frame of reference for evaluating discontinuous, or really new products. In all likelihood, the key factors that affect customers' evaluations of radically new products differ from those for incremental innovations. Robert Veryzer describes the results of a study that examines the customer research efforts and findings of seven firms involved in the development of discontinuous new products. This study has the following objectives: gaining insight into the customer research inputs such companies use during the development of discontinuous new products, and exploring the critical factors that influence customers' evaluations of these really new products. The subjects in this study conducted relatively little formal customer research during the early stages of the NPD projects. The methods used for obtaining customer input during the concept generation and exploration stages were primarily qualitative. Although the companies in the study still did not focus consistently on customer issues during the technical development and design stage, the less discontinuous projects did use such traditional quantitative techniques as concept tests, clinics, and experiments during this phase of NPD. Throughout the projects in this study, the real opportunities for obtaining customer input came during the prototype testing and commercialization phases of the NPD projects. Several key factors appeared to influence customer evaluations of the products that were being developed by the NPD teams in this study. Lack of familiarity was manifested in customers' resistance to the new products in the study. Similarly, unfamiliarity with these new products often seemed to lead customers to focus on product attributes that development team members viewed as relatively unimportant. Other factors that affected customer evaluation of the products in this study included customer uncertainty about the benefits and risks associated with the product, customers' ability to understand how the product operates, perceptions of the product's safety, and product aesthetics.     

Assessment of hidden and future customer needs in Finnish business‐to‐business companies

The development of new products should be based on the needs expected to exist even several years ahead – at the moment of market introduction and during the whole lifecycle of the product. To develop successful new products in the toughening business environment, companies should be able to surpass customers' expectations and to assess emerging customer needs proactively. Early, thorough understanding of the customer's real needs, including the assessment of hidden and future customer needs and requirements, plays a very important role in the successful development of new products.
The purpose of our paper is to study the assessment of new (hidden and future) customer needs for product development in Finnish business‐to‐business companies. We have carried out a survey in 93 Finnish business‐to‐business companies and SBUs to study their common problems in the assessment of unrecognized customer needs and potentially effective ways in clarifying new customer needs and dealing with important problems. On the basis of the results, we propose several possible ways to facilitate the assessment of unrecognized customer needs.     

Building Dynamic Capabilities in New Product Development through Intertemporal Integration

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

Subjective Performance Assessment of Innovation Projects*

Performance assessment of innovation projects is a central issue in innovation management research. Using existing literature, a model is developed to assess the performance of new product and new service development projects. In this model, project performance is defined as a combination of a formatively indicated operational performance construct and a reflectively indicated product performance construct. The validity of this model is tested based on a sample of 219 innovation projects assessed by innovation managers. Using only the innovation managers' responses, it is, however, not possible to distinguish between operational and product performance. The impact of common method bias and informant bias is subsequently assessed using a subsample of 128 of these 219 innovation projects that are assessed by the innovation manager and the project leader. These latter results show that operational and product performance are two distinct constructs. In addition, the multitrait–multimethod analyses show that especially the more abstract items of performance, such as the perceptions of quality, captured knowledge, competitive advantage, gained reputation, and customer satisfaction, suffer from random error and informant bias. Project leaders appear to be better informed to assess operational performance, while innovation managers are better in assessing product performance. The paper concludes with a qualitative comparison of several alternative performance models: the project performance model as derived from the literature, a similar (misspecified) reflective performance model, two stand‐alone models in which operational and product performance are assessed separately, and a mixed model that uses a combination of innovation managers' and project managers' data. Based on this comparison, it is advised to use either the stand‐alone models for operational performance and product performance or the mixed model whereby the project leader assesses operational performance and the innovation manager the product performance of an innovation project.     

Innovation and Product Development Strategies in the Italian Motorcycle Industry

The motorcycle industry in Italy offers fertile ground for anyone interested in developing a better understanding of the role innovation plays in enhancing a firm's competitive position. This industry includes both domestic and Japanese firms, with companies ranging from high-volume manufacturers to specialty or niche producers. Firms trying to gain a competitive edge in this crowded field must contend with not only advances in product and process technology, but also the whims of fashion. In a survey of top-level marketing and product development managers from eight leading firms in the Italian motorcycle industry, Moreno Muffatto and Roberto Panizzolo explore the innovation models these firms employ to enhance their competitive position. Their study has the following objectives: categorizing the various competitors in terms of their product and market strategies and their product development and innovation strategies; highlighting differences between the methods of Italian and Japanese firms competing in this market; analyzing the relationships between firms, as well as the roles suppliers play in the various innovation strategies; and identifying the various organizational models employed by the firms in this industry. Different product and market strategies are identified on the basis of three variables: total production volume, the number of different products offered, and the number of different engine capacities offered. Using these variables, the companies in the study are categorized as volume producers, specialists, or niche specialists. The firms are further differentiated on the basis of the relative emphasis each places on product technology and design, product innovation, product variety, and time-based competition. In the firms studied, partnerships play a key role in new product development. Nearly every firm participates in joint projects, most often involving development of either an entire vehicle or an engine. Other partnerships involve firms in countries that offer emerging markets for the motorcycle industry. Organizational structures and strategies employed by the volume producers in this study include: the large product leader, who oversees concept definition and product planning; the project leaders group, which coordinates all phases of development, including activities assigned to external groups; the project managers matrix, a matrix organizational structure with a strong product orientation; and the business unit program manager, who oversees all projects within an independent business unit.     

Collective action for small-scale producers of agricultural biodiversity products

The role of well-functioning markets for development is now widely recognized. However the challenge remains to make these markets benefit the poor and the environment. Increasing attention is being given to the potential role markets can play for agrobiodiversity conservation through product diversification and increasing competitiveness in niche and novelty markets. Several case studies were undertaken that explore the use of market-based approaches to on-farm agrobiodiversity management and livelihood improvement. This paper explores how the theory of collective action can provide a more synthetic understanding of how market chains operate, and the changes that could permit a more equitable distribution of benefits. The case studies illustrate the need for improved trust, mutual understanding of each actor’s involvement, and an agreed process of collective action with a high level of community participation. The cases differ in their degree of collective action, the level of market organization and the ways in which handling, processing, and innovative marketing add value to the agrobiodiversity products. Comparative analysis identified a range of situations in which market development can support agrobiodiversity conservation and livelihoods.     

Best new product development and management practices in the Korean high-tech industry

This paper investigates critical factors affecting the likelihood of new product success and effective new product development (NPD) models for Korean high-tech firms. Empirical results suggest that successful projects differ from unsuccessful projects in project environment, skills and resources, project leadership, strategic fit, efficient NPD process, and effective product-positioning strategies.This study confirmed that efficient and effective new product development and management were important determinants of high-tech firms' competitive advantage. Furthermore, the findings of this study raised questions about some commonly held beliefs when compared with Western studies focusing on high-tech industries.     

De‐escalation Mechanisms in High‐technology Product Innovation

Many decision‐makers struggle to reduce commitment to failing endeavors. While de‐escalation mechanisms have been documented and tested in information technology, accounting, psychology, and organizational behavior, little work has addressed de‐escalation in innovation. This study identifies and examines the applicability of de‐escalation mechanisms specifically in new product development (NPD) projects. Initially, we conducted an extensive literature review to identify de‐escalation mechanisms found in research across different academic disciplines. Subsequently, we conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews to gather primary data. In total, using a sample of organizations that compete in high‐technology industries, 31 managers and engineers in 15 NPD projects that were terminated prior to completion were interviewed regarding mechanisms used to de‐escalate commitment to failing new product innovation projects. Several mechanisms reportedly used for innovation projects parallel those identified in the previous literature. More importantly, the authors uncover novel and previously undocumented ways to discontinue or redirect poorly performing projects. Specifically, internal competitions, feature‐level de‐escalation, continual assumption assessment, benchmarking, roadmaps, and comprehensive product testing are particularly well suited for innovation projects. These findings extend the body of extant literature on de‐escalation of commitment to include innovation, notably in high‐technology settings. The study also highlights that organizations may want to accept or even encourage failure, thereby increasing the efficacy of resource use. Implications for further research and practice are offered.     

The importance of a common project management method in the corporate environment

Like so many other major companies in the world today, Ericsson runs most of its product development operations as projects. The increasing complexity of telecommunication solutions often requires that many technologies are brought together in one turnkey project, such as telephone switching, mobile radio networks, DECT radio Access and others. Competence centres within Ericsson, spread out over many countries need to work together in'cross functional' projects.
While the advantage of the project concept is obvious, carrying out projects in which various Ericsson companies participate, in different countries, can prove to be a very complex undertaking. Many such projects are running simultaneously and often compete for resources and priority with ever increasing time constraints. In order to succeed we need a common methodology for managing projects.
This methodology must provide Ericsson with a shared view on how we allocate scarce (human) resources, the roles that need to be played by all those involved in the project and the supporting line functions, the criteria to be used for decisions to be taken inside the project and in relation to other projects, and many more issues that require a common view. A shared view on project management is also a prerequisite for handling conflicts within an organization in which the project, as a working form, is predominant. Various Ericsson companies and units have achieved different degrees of maturity in their management of projects. This combined experience has produced a methodology called 'PROPS' that Ericsson uses today. The widespread use of PROPS has given Ericsson a common terminology and common perspective of projects. This contributes to shorter lead-time, time to market and time to customer. In this article is explained some of the PROPS features and how PROPS is applied.     

The importance of customer input in the development of very new products

This research explores the acquisition of customer input and its importance in the development of very new products. Data were gathered on 55 product development projects from the computer telephony integration industry – a new industry experiencing rapid technological change. The data were used to test hypotheses concerning the relationships between product newness, the importance of customer input in the development process, and the use of customer intensive market research methods. We found that the importance of customer input increases with market newness of a product up to a point and then drops off for very new products, whereas the importance of customer input increases with technological newness of a product without dropping off. We also found that the importance of customer input significantly increases the use of customer intensive market research methods; whereas, neither market nor technological product newness in themselves had much direct effect on research methods.     

Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in New Product Screening

The initial screening of a new product idea is critically important. Risky projects (i.e., those with high probabilities of failure) need to be eliminated early before significant investments are made and opportunity costs incurred. Unfortunately, previous research suggests that it is often difficult for managers to "kill" new product development projects once they have begun. Furthermore, recent studies (including some centering on PDMA members) suggest there is much room for improving new product screening, because this decision often is taken informally or unsystematically. Whereas tools such as Cooper's NewProd software are available to aid in the screening decision, management science decision support models for screening are not used frequently. In the present study, the authors illustrate the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a decision support model to aid managers in selecting new product ideas to pursue. The need for flexible models that are highly customized to each firm's challenges (such as AHP) to support the screening decision and to generate knowledge that will be used as input for a firm's expert support system is emphasized. The authors then present an in-depth example of an actual application of AHP in new product screening and discuss the usefulness of this process in gathering and processing knowledge for making new product screening decisions. Finally, the authors explain how a customized AHP process can be incorporated into a sophisticated information system or used as standalone support. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.     

Evaluating QFD's Use in US Firms as a Process for Developing Products

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a process that originated in Japan for managing product development. In this article, Abbie Griffin presents results of a field-based, scientific study of US firms' efforts to implement QFD methods. Her research goals were to understand the QFD process as it is used and implemented, to begin to estimate US product development improvements attributable to QFD and to identify factors linked to QFD's successful use. Based on a study of 35 projects, she found that QFD demonstrated only relatively minor, short-term, measurable impacts on product development performance. Yet, the process may have the potential to improve the development climate in the long term, possibly leading to future, measurable improvements in development performance. Successful projects differed in several ways from those projects that failed in their implementation efforts. Finally, the results suggest several characteristics of product development processes that improve the way products are developed in US companies, including structuring the decision-making processes across functional groups, building a solidly organized, highly motivated team and moving information efficiently from its origin to the ultimate user.     

Schedule Emphasis of New Product Development Personnel

The emphasis personnel place on the development schedule is one factor in determining how quickly a new product will reach the market. Normally, each team member will stress different development program aspects in ways that depend on their own background, functional specialty and sense of what their management desires. In this article, Milton Rosenau describes a means to measure the emphasis an individual places on schedule and other program aspects. The results of such a measure can then be used to improve team congruity.     

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.     

Determinants of Timeliness in Product Development

Speed to market is a compelling objective in new product development. Robert Cooper and Elko Kleinschmidt report the results of an extensive study of 103 new product projects in the chemical industry, with a particular emphasis on project timeliness. The key questions addressed in the study are: what are the drivers of an on-time, fast-paced project; and to what extent are timeliness and profitability connected? The strongest driver of project timeliness was the use of a cross-functional, dedicated, accountable team, with a strong leader and top management support. Number two was solid up-front or predevelopment homework, whereas building in the voice of the customer–a customer-focused, market-oriented new product effort–was the third key to on-time, fast-paced product development projects. In total, six drivers of project timeliness were uncovered. The authors expand on each timeliness driver, giving details of best practices in the projects and firms studied, as well as their recommendations to managers for driving products to market more quickly. There are some words of caution as well: the link between timeliness and profitability was also investigated, with some sobering and provocative results.     

Remodularization of a Product Line: Adding Complexity to Project Management

Faced with ever-tighter schedules, product development professionals employ various methods for staying at least one step ahead of the competition. In particular, an autonomous, cross-functional team offers an effective structure for meeting the sometimes conflicting objectives of timely delivery of a high-quality, easily manufactured product. To complicate matters, however, companies must manage not only individual projects, but also entire product lines. Changes in product and process technology eventually necessitate revamping of the product architecture—that is, the remodularization of a product line. Can an autonomous project team provide the long-term perspective necessary for such efforts? Or, does remodularization of a product line require centralized oversight by functional management? Mats Lundqvist, Niklas Sundgren, and Lars Trygg explore this issue by examining product development efforts at two Swedish manufacturing companies. Specifically, their study explores this research question: Does a high degree of project autonomy limit the possibility for effective remodularization of product architecture? Both companies were involved in remodularization projects with stringent requirements for project cost and duration, but the companies employed markedly different managerial models in these efforts. One company took a centralized approach, except that two design engineers worked full time on the project. The other company used the autonomous model, with two exceptions: functional managers worked closely with some project members during the task specification phase of the project; and the project leader, though a heavyweight in many respects, did not have formal decision-making power. The latter project demonstrated that an autonomous project team can maintain a long-term perspective during development of a product. In other words, this project team was able to meet challenging time and cost objectives while developing a product consisting of highly compatible modules and subsystems. Although a centralized management approach might be expected to offer greater efficiency, the company using that approach failed to meet project goals for development time, product cost, and long-term product line effectiveness. However, the shortcomings of that effort are more directly attributable to the management style of the project leader than to the management structure employed.     

Managing complex development projects: arenas, knowledge processes and time

The literature on project management has been dominated by techniques and methods for separating activities and making thought out plans. Closely related to this research stream is the research on product development, which seems to advocate somewhat of a different strategy where managing projects is a matter of enabling the crossing of functions and knowledge bases. This paper attempts to integrate these two lines of research.
The paper is based on two in–depth case studies of project management in product development contexts. The projects under study were highly complex and consisted of multiple interrelated parts, which called for 'tightly coupled' organizational solutions. From our point of view, much effort by the project management teams was put into establishing a project that was responsive and where participating local units were oriented toward various 'global' measures.
In our conception, the overall deadline seemed to have played an important role for promoting communal and interactive problem solving. Furthermore, the deadline emphasized the need for global arenas where the interactive problem solving could take place. It is argued that time–based controls set a global time for the project. The paper also demonstrates the importance of various global arenas, such as testing activities and project management forums, in order to keep track of time limits and to trigger global knowledge processes. Furthermore, based on the notion of 'separation' and 'coupling' of sub–systems and project phases, the paper suggests a model identifying four types of project organizations. The paper contributes to the knowledge on project management in complex product development.     

The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice*

Product design has been recognized as an opportunity for differential advantage in the market place. The appearance of a product influences consumer product choice in several ways. To help product development managers in optimizing the appearance of products, the present study identified the different ways in which the appearance of a product plays a role in consumer product evaluation and, hence, choice. In addition, the implications for product design of each role are listed, and managerial recommendations for optimizing the appearance of products are given. Based on a literature review, six different roles of product appearance for consumers are identified: (1) communication of aesthetic, (2) symbolic, (3) functional, and (4) ergonomic information; (5) attention drawing; and (6) categorization. A product's appearance can have aesthetic and symbolic value for consumers, can communicate functional characteristics and give a quality impression (functional value), and can communicate ease of use (ergonomic value). In addition, it can draw attention and can influence the ease of categorization of the product. In a large qualitative study (N=142) it was tested whether these roles indeed exist in consumers' process of product choice and whether they are sufficient to describe the way in which product appearance plays a role for consumers. In addition, qualitative insight into these roles was gained. After making a choice between two answering machines, subjects were interviewed about the reasons for their choice and the product information they used to form the judgments underlying their choice reasons. The six appearance roles indeed proved relevant for consumers and were sufficient to describe the influence of product appearance on product choice. The number of ways in which appearance played a role for consumers differed between 0 and 5; most subjects mentioned two different ways in which appearance influenced their product choice. The aesthetic and symbolic roles were mentioned most often. The preferred shape (e.g., rounded or angular), color, or size were found to differ depending on the way in which product appearance played a role for subjects. For example, bright colors may be valued from an aesthetic point of view but may diminish the impression of quality (i.e., functional value). This makes it difficult to optimize all roles and illustrates that the product value that is most important for consumers when purchasing a specific kind of product should be the starting point in the design of the product appearance. Furthermore, the influence of shape, color, or size on a certain kind of product value—aesthetic, symbolic, ergonomic, or functional—differed between subjects. One person may like a rounded shape, while another may prefer a rectangular shape. This means that the value of guidelines indicating how the perception of a specific kind of product value can be engendered by means of shape, color, and size is limited. This is especially the case for aesthetic and symbolic product value, which are very personal. Therefore it is recommended to test the performance of the appearance of a newly developed product on these six roles with the target group of consumers. Insight into the different ways in which appearance characteristics, such as form and color, may influence consumer choice will increase managers' awareness about how to use product appearance as a marketing tool. In addition, distinguishing these six appearance roles will help product development managers to optimize the product appearance better to market needs, as the roles have different and sometimes even conflicting implications for the design of the product appearance.