New Product Development Processes and New Product Profitability: Exploring the Mediating Role of Speed to Market and Product Quality

In new product development, faster is not always better. Conceptually, being faster to market should improve financial performance by improving product quality and reducing development expenses. Empirical support is mixed, however, demonstrating that higher speed to market exhibits an inverted U‐shaped relationship with product profitability. Conventional wisdom and empirical research suggest managers make speed to market–product quality–development expense trade‐offs. A particular concern regarding speed to market is that extreme speed may jeopardize product quality. Some researchers suggest that speed to market improves product quality while others suggest firms must balance both speed to market and product quality. Also, shorter lead times may be associated with reduced development expenses, but empirical evidence is conflicting. This research attempts to reconcile conflicting results regarding the speed to market–product quality relationship, their joint impact on product profitability, and their mediation role in the effects of development expenses and cross‐functional integration on product profitability. Partial least squares (PLS) is used to analyze multiplexed archival and survey data collected from NPD managers for 1115 different NPD projects in several firms. The results support the hypothesized equations, explaining 27% of speed to market variance, 35% of product quality variance, and 45% of product profitability variance. This study makes two contributions. First, because speed to market and product quality are related, simultaneous consideration of both factors enhances insight into their joint effect. Second, it provides evidence that speed to market and product quality jointly mediate development expense by NPD phase and cross‐functional integration effects on product profitability. Key results from the large sample data analysis include the following. Speed to market and product quality both enhance product profitability, but the impact of speed to market is larger than that of product quality. Speed to market and product quality partially mediate the impact of fuzzy front end phase expenses on product profitability, while expenses in the latter phases exhibit no impact on the mediators or profitability. Thus, the results suggest that trade‐offs are made not only between time, quality, and expense (i.e., if additional expenses are incurred at all), but also that trade‐offs relate to when (i.e., in which NPD phase) additional development expenses are incurred. Finally, cross‐functional integration (both internal and external) substantially impacts product profitability through a mix of direct and mediated effects.     

Profitability Goals,Control Goals,and the R&D Investment Decisions of Family and Nonfamily Firms

Research and development (R&D) investments can help build sustainable competitive advantages and improve firm performance. Nevertheless, managers also acknowledge the difficulties associated with managing R&D and the low chances of success of innovation programs. For this reason, researchers have long been interested in understanding how managers make R&D investment decisions. Research grounded in the behavioral theory of the firm suggests that a primary driver of R&D investment decisions is profitability: when profitability goals have not been met, managers are more likely to initiate a problemistic search through increasing R&D investments. While emphasizing profitability goals and their relationship with R&D investments, prior research largely downplays the role of goals beyond profitability that exist in a significant number of firms (family firms) that are owned and managed by family members whose primary concern is preserving their control over the organization. Research indicates that these family‐centered noneconomic goals lead family managers to minimize R&D investments and that the coexistence of multiple goals produces highly variable R&D investment behavior. Yet, how family‐centered goals for control and profitability enter decision‐making in family firms is not fully understood. In this study, we propose that family managers form distinctive reference points that capture supplier bargaining power and are used to evaluate the degree of external obstruction to their managerial control. The empirical analysis of panel data on 431 private Spanish manufacturing firms observed over the period 2000–2006 shows that the importance of profitability and control goals follows a sequential logic in family firms, such that family firms react more strongly to increasing supplier bargaining power when their profitability reference points have been reached. This study extends current understanding of the distinctive organizational processes engendered by family management in business organizations leading to new research opportunities at the intersection of the innovation management and family business literatures.     

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

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

Ain't it “suite”? Bundling in the PC office software market

Research Summary: We examine the importance of office suites for the evolution of the personal computer (PC) office software market in the 1990s. An estimated discrete‐choice model reveals a positive correlation of consumer values for spreadsheets and wordprocessors, a bonus value for suites, and advantages for Microsoft products. We employ the estimates to simulate various hypothetical market structures to evaluate the profitability, welfare, and competitive effects of suites under alternative correlation assumptions. We find that firms benefit greatly from bundling components (i.e., a spreadsheet and a word processor) when the correlation of consumer preferences over the components in the bundle is positive. Our work adds another aspect to the recent work in the strategy literature that examines benefits from bundling when there are complementary relationships across the products in the bundle. Managerial Summary: Our research helps managers understand the conditions under which product bundling is likely to be most profitable. We show that one key to enhanced profitability is the correlation in consumer preferences over the individual products. We consider the performance implications of bundling under a variety of alternative market structures and competitive environments. Our analysis reveals that firms benefit greatly from bundling when the correlation of consumer valuations over the products is positive. Consumers benefit as well. Hence, bundling is a win‐win for firms and their customers. Since profits increase by more than consumer surplus, bundling leads to increased value capture by the firms. Consequently, it may be profitable for firms to invest in actively increasing the correlation in consumer preferences over products in the bundle.     

Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products

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

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.     

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

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

Examining Proactive Strategic Decision‐Making Flexibility in New Product Development

While strategic flexibility is widely accepted as a prerequisite for a firm's success, its application in strategic decision making to a firm's new product development (NPD) activities is limited to only a few studies. Furthermore, many organizations still have difficulties creating proactive strategic flexibility in their decision‐making processes. Past research studies have largely ignored the relationship between strategic decision‐making flexibility and firms' resources and/or capabilities and success in the context of NPD. This study advances strategic flexibility by adopting the proactive approach of NPD decision‐making flexibility and by examining its role in translating organizational resources and capabilities into NPD success. This study draws upon the resources, capabilities (i.e., flexibility), and performance framework to show how proactive strategic decision‐making flexibility plays a crucial role in developing new products that can create new opportunities and comply with market needs. Therefore, this research aims to (1) develop an operational definition of strategic decision‐making flexibility and (2) propose a framework to understand the drivers and the subsequent new product performance outcomes of strategic decision‐making flexibility. This study adopts the proactive perspective of strategic decision‐making flexibility and defines it as a capability that enables firms to develop NPD strategies to respond to future changes in the environment. The analysis, based on data collected from 103 European firms, shows that that the effects of long‐term orientation, strategic planning, internal commitment, and innovative climate on proactive strategic decision‐making flexibility are significant. The findings indicate specifically the roles of both champions and gatekeepers, who infuse a firm's knowledge with a clear understanding of its resources, constraints, and market needs, thereby enhancing decision makers' motivation to behave proactively to precipitate transformation. The results also reveal a positive association between proactive strategic decision‐making flexibility and NPD performance outcomes. As such, strategic flexibility provides firms with an ability to adapt to changing environments and to create new market opportunities, product, and technological arenas, and to deliver successful new products. When firms open new market, technological, and product arenas, they can easily foresee their new demands and changes and successfully deliver new products, meeting customer needs/demands, and offering benefits such as quality, cost, and timeliness. This study therefore provides a valuable reference point for future research in strategic decision‐making flexibility in NPD.     

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

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

Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining Entrepreneurial Effectuation and Managerial Causation

This article reports a multimethod study of product innovation processes in small manufacturing firms. Prior studies found that small firms do not deploy the formalized processes identified as best practice for the management of new product development (NPD) in large firms. To explicate small firms' product innovation, this study uses effectuation theory, which emerged from entrepreneurship research. Effectuation theory discerns two logics of decision‐making: causation, assuming that means are selected to attain goals; and effectuation, assuming that goals are created based upon available means. The study used a process research approach, investigating product innovation trajectories in five small firms across 352 total events. Quantitative analyses revealed early effectuation logic, which increasingly turned toward causation logic over time. Further qualitative analyses confirmed the use of both logics, with effectual logic rendering product innovation resource‐driven, stepwise, and open‐ended, and with causal logic used especially in later stages to set objectives and to plan activities and invest resources to attain objectives. Because the application of effectuation logic differentiates the small firm approaches from mainstream NPD best practices, this study examined how small firms' product innovation processes deployed effectuation logic in further detail. The small firms: (1) made creative use of existing resources; (2) scoped innovations to be realizable with available resources; (3) used external resources whenever and wherever these became available; (4) prioritized existing business over product innovation projects; (5) used loose project planning; (6) worked in steps toward tangible outcomes; (7) iterated the generation, selection, and modification of goals and ideas; and (8) relied on their own customer knowledge and market probing, rather than early market research. Using effectuation theory thus helps us understand how small firm product innovation both resembles and differs from NPD best practices observed in larger firms. Because the combination of effectual and causal principles leverages small firm characteristics and resources, this article concludes that product innovation research should more explicitly differentiate between firms of different sizes, rather than prescribing large firm best practices to small firms.     

Timing Product Replacements under Uncertainty—The Importance of Material–Price Fluctuations for the Success of Products That Are Based on New Materials

Being first to market with new products is one of the most enduring pieces of strategic advice handed to managers. This view also emphasizes the importance of launching new products that are based on new materials as soon as possible. However, when the input costs of products that embody new materials are uncertain because of volatile material prices, the advantage of being an early mover comes along with the risk of paying unexpectedly high material prices. Real‐option theory suggests delaying material substitution under uncertainty even if the new material enables superior product performance. Firms who have created the flexibility to switch between alternative inputs can benefit from responding to opportunities or threats that arise from changes in the environment. The current study formalizes this logic in a switching‐option model and tests it on a sample of material substitution projects from the manufacturing sector. Our findings shed light on how input‐cost fluctuations influence the timing–performance relationship and bring into question the common advice to launch new products as soon as possible. Instead, our results suggest that firms who align the timing of market launch to trends and fluctuations of material prices improve their competitive positions. These insights suggest novel ways for new product development (NPD) managers how to successfully use external information at the back‐end of the NPD process and how to compete in an era defined by volatile material prices and technological change.     

Motivation matters: Corporate scope and competition in complementary product markets

Research summary : We argue that a pure capabilities‐based view does not accurately explain the competitive dynamics of increasingly common settings in which firms act as both complementors and competitors. We propose that the Awareness‐Motivation‐Capability framework is more appropriate for these settings. We derive predictions from both a pure capabilities view and the AMC framework, and test those predictions in the U.S. auto leasing market, in which the leasing subsidiaries of car manufacturers directly compete with the same independent lessors who provide complements to the manufacturers. Although our results are consistent with capabilities playing an important role, motivation appears to be a critical factor explaining the competitive dynamics of the market. Managerial summary : Firms that compete with business units owned by larger corporate parents face additional considerations. Such subsidiary competitors can be motivated by broader corporate considerations, shifting their objectives, and consequently, their strategic actions. Expecting subsidiary competitors to pursue business unit profitability can mislead managers toward pricing, product mix, or market entry errors. We present an important example from consumer finance, where independent auto lessors, such as Bank of America (BoA), compete with captive leasing subsidiaries like Ford Motor Credit (FMC). Since FMC is motivated to subsidize and support vehicle sales for its manufacturer parent, a cost advantage is not enough for BoA to dominate the market. Understanding broader corporate motivations of competitors helps managers anticipate competition levels in potential markets, thereby improving decision‐making and performance. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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

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

An Empirical Investigation of the Antecedents and Outcomes of NPD Portfolio Success

Managing new product development (NPD) portfolios is difficult and little is known about how successful NPD portfolio management can improve overall firm performance. Despite regular calls in the literature for more research on NPD portfolio management, what successful NPD portfolio management means and how firms can achieve it remains unclear. For this reason, this paper combines theory and previous empirical findings to build a model of the antecedents and outcomes of NPD portfolio success. We generate and test 12 hypotheses with empirical data from 189 paired dyads in Dutch firms. Our results show that all three dimensions of NPD portfolio decision‐making effectiveness (i.e., portfolio mindset, focus, and agility) are associated with achieving the three dimensions of NPD portfolio success (i.e., strategic alignment, maximal NPD portfolio value, and portfolio balance), which in turn influences market performance. While a portfolio mindset and agility are related to all three dimensions of NPD portfolio success, focus is related only to strategic alignment and maximal value. No one dimension of NPD portfolio decision‐making effectiveness or portfolio success is sufficient to achieve overall market performance. We also found several unexpected findings with important implications. For example, portfolio balance, one recommended measure of portfolio success, has no direct link to market performance, but operates through the other two dimensions of NPD portfolio success, i.e., strategic alignment and maximal portfolio value. We conclude our paper with implications for further theory development and testing on successful NPD portfolio decision‐making, and with implications for managerial practice.     

Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance

While some degree of freedom and flexibility is an essential ingredient to productive cross‐functional NPD teams, upper‐managers are faced with the challenge of instituting effective control mechanisms which head projects in the right strategic direction, monitor progress toward organizational and project goals, and allow for adjustments in the project if necessary. But too much or the wrong type of control may constrain the team's creativity, impede their progress, and injure their ultimate performance. Therefore, this study examines formal and interactive control mechanisms available to upper‐managers in controlling new product development (NPD) projects, and the relationship between these mechanisms and NPD project performance. Formal output and process controls are examined which consist of the setting and monitoring of outcomes, such as goals, schedule and budgets, and of processes and procedures, respectively. This study also looks at how the effectiveness of these control mechanisms may be contingent upon the degree of innovativeness in the project and the degree to which the project is part of a broad product program. In addition, the use of formal rewards for achieving team performance as opposed to rewards for individual achievement is investigated. Lastly, interactive controls are examined which consist of upper‐managers interacting directly with project members in the development of strategy and operational goals and procedures prior to the start of the project, and upper‐managers intervening in project decision‐making. Questionnaire data are collected on 95 projects across a variety of industries. The findings suggest that while NPD projects teams need some level of strategic direction concerning the objectives to be accomplished and the procedures to be followed, upper‐level managers can exert too much control. In particular, the findings showed a negative association between the use of upper manager‐imposed process controls and project performance. The findings also indicated that the degree to which upper‐managers intervened in project‐level decisions during the project was negatively related to project performance. However, the results showed support for the notion that early and interactive decision‐making on control mechanisms is important for effective projects. In particular, early team member and upper‐management involvement in the setting of operational controls, such as goals and procedures for monitoring and evaluating the project, was positively associated with project performance. This study provides additional insight into our understanding of upper‐management support in new product development. The study suggests that upper‐managers can over control with the wrong type of controls, and suggests effective ways of implementing participative and interactive control mechanisms.     

Success Through Customer-Driven New Product Development: A Comparison of U.S. and New Zealand Small Entrepreneurial High Technology Firms

Although high-tech, entrepreneurial firms may be small in size, they often play a large role in developing innovative products and thus spurring economic growth. Managers from firms of all sizes may gain useful insights by examining the new-product development (NPD) practices of these small, technology-based firms. And in an era of increasingly global competition, those managers can benefit from understanding the NPD practices of firms from various countries. William Souder, David Buisson, and Tony Garrett contribute to that understanding by describing the results of a study that compares the relative NPD proficiency of small, technology-based firms in the United States and New Zealand. The firms participating in the study (26 from the U.S. and 29 from N.Z.) operate in rapidly growing, highly competitive markets characterized by evolving customer needs. The participating companies share similar goals: creating technically superior products with unique features for emerging markets, with the ultimate goal of becoming the product and market leaders within their respective industries. Despite these similarities, the study reveals several important differences between the U.S. and N.Z. participants. Overall, the N.Z. respondents had higher levels of NPD performance than those of their U.S. counterparts. In particular, the relationship marketing and customer-focused NPD practices of the N.Z. firms set them apart from the U.S. firms. Top-level managers from the N.Z. participants report higher levels of satisfaction than their U.S. counterparts with the results of their NPD efforts. The results of the study indicate that repondents from the two countries differ in terms of the focus of their NPD mangement systems and the manner in which they strive to achieve success. For the U.S. firms in the study, their NPD management systems focus on the characteristics of the project manager. The N.Z. respondents place greater emphasis on marketing skills and NPD proficiencies. The results suggest that the higher levels of NPD performance acheived by the N.Z. firms in the study arise from greater insights into their users' needs, together with better capabilities for acting on those insights.     

The Effects of Environmental Turbulence on New Product Development Strategy Planning

Managers need guidance on how to cope with turbulent environments in order to improve corporate performance. Research on environmental turbulence has suggested that firms adopt a less centralized, more organic structure in dynamic, uncertain environments. Little work has been done specifically, however, on how environmental turbulence affects strategy planning for new product development (NPD). In this article, we specify a baseline model with firm innovativeness, market orientation and top management risk taking as antecedents to NPD speed and corporate strategic planning; these in turn are modeled as antecedents to NPD program (not project) performance. Two conceptualizations of the role of environmental turbulence are examined: (1) that market turbulence and technological turbulence are additional direct antecedents to NPD program performance; and (2) that the baseline model is moderated by turbulence (that is, that the strengths of the paths differ depending on levels of turbulence). A cross-sectional survey methodology including four diverse industries [automotive, electronics, publishing, and manufacturing/research and development (R&D) laboratories] was used to test the hypotheses. The latter conceptualization is supported. In particular, the paths from innovativeness to strategic planning and from risk taking to NPD speed are significantly greater in highly turbulent environments. A set of managerial recommendations and implications are provided. First, managers must recognize the possible improvements in new product performance by actively including NPD personnel in corporate strategic planning and also by involving corporate planners in NPD activities. Second, managers also should recognize that turbulent environments heighten the need to make risky investments, and sometimes, risky decisions; risk-taking decisions ought to be encouraged in such environments.     

The influence of competition from informal firms on new product development

Research summary : Existing research describes a broad range of determinants of new product development (NPD), a fundamental competitive activity of firms. A considerable share of this work has occurred in the context of developed economies, raising a concern that some important determinants may remain unexamined. We suggest that one such determinant is competition from informal (unregistered) firms. Drawing from the attention‐based view, we investigate the effects of informal competition on NPD in a large sample of firms located across Eastern Europe and Central Asia. We examine not only the direct effect but also how this effect is moderated by characteristics of the competitive and institutional context. Managerial summary : The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between competition from informal (unregistered) firms and new product development (NPD) by formal firms. We argue that NPD is an effective response to differentiate from informal firms, and our analyses of over 9,000 firms located in emerging economies across Eastern Europe and Central Asia indicate that NPD activities are more likely in formal firms who rate informal competition as a greater obstacle. The strength of this direct relationship depends on aspects of the competitive and institutional environment: it is weakened when levels of competition from other formal firms are higher, when alternative responses such as corruption are more available, and when managers are more optimistic about the regulatory environment. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Market frictions as building blocks of an organizational economics approach to strategic management

This paper shows that market frictions are fundamental building blocks for an organizational economics approach to strategic management. Various organizational economic approaches (transaction costs, property rights, real options, and resource‐based) have distinctive focal problems and emphasize different combinations of market frictions. A wider recognition of the role of market frictions is useful for three main objectives. First, it helps identify an evolving market‐frictions paradigm in strategic management. Second, it shows how two primary questions in strategy of why firms exist and why some firms outperform others and the three primary strategic goals of cost minimization, value creation, and value capture can be better joined and evaluated. Third, different combinations of market frictions can generate new research questions and advance theory development in the strategic management field. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.