A Longitudinal Examination of How Champions Influence Others to Support Their Projects

The image of the project champion fighting corporate inertia, rallying support, and leading a project to success makes for a great story, but that story may not reveal the true nature of the champion's role. All those oft-told tales about champions fail to provide hard evidence of the techniques that champions use, the activities they perform, and the effects that champions have on project success.
Stephen K. Markham addresses this knowledge gap in a study that examines how champions influence other people and what effects champions have on projects and the people those projects involve. The study uses responses from 53 champions of innovation projects in four large firms as well as team members from those projects. Rather than look at the champions' work on project tasks, the study focuses on the influence champions have on other people to support their projects.
The results of the study only partially support the idea that champions affect projects by influencing people. In the four firms studied, champions use cooperative rather than confrontative tactics to influence other people. However, the champions' choice of influence tactics does not affect the level of compliance or the willingness to participate in the project that those people demonstrate. On the other hand, the champions appear to have a strong influence on their target's behavior if the champions enjoy positive personal relationships with those people.
In general, the tactics used by the champions do not seem to play an important role in the projects studied. From the perspective of the team members, the results of this study do not support the notion that champions make a positive contribution to project performance. However, the champions in this study consistently hold a more positive view of the project than those of the team members.     

The Role of Champions in the External Commercialization of Knowledge*

Besides applying knowledge in their own products or services, firms may externally commercialize their knowledge assets (e.g., by means of outlicensing). The literature on champions, however, has focused on internal innovation. This gap in prior research is particularly remarkable as the potential for promoting external knowledge exploitation is high. Some pioneering firms realize great benefits, whereas most others experience major managerial difficulties. This paper tests five hypotheses regarding the emergence and impact of champions of external knowledge exploitation with data from 152 firms across industries. The results of the questionnaire‐based study demonstrate the relevance of champions of external knowledge exploitation. Championing constitutes an essential success factor and has strongly contributed to the recent increase in external knowledge commercialization. These findings help to explain the discrepancies between the few successful and the majority of unsuccessful firms. Beyond existing insights, the emergence of champions is affected by external determinants in addition to internal determinants. There is an inverted U‐shaped relationship between championing and the internal determinants, that is, organizational climate and active strategy. Moreover, there is a negative relationship between championing and market imperfection and an inverted U‐shaped relationship between championing and competitive intensity, which both constitute external determinants of championing. In contrast to the traditional understanding, champions tend to emerge in supportive environments, in which internal and external barriers are relatively low. This surprising finding calls for rethinking the role and motivation of champions.     

New Product Strategy, Structure, Process, and Performance in the Telecommunications Industry

A continuous flow of new products is the lifeblood for firms that hope to remain competitive in high-technology industries such as telecommunications. Faced with rapidly shrinking product life cycles, these firms must aggressively pursue the quest for more effective new product development (NPD). Ongoing success in such industries is dependent on choosing the right mix of new product strategy, organizational structure, and NPD processes. Rather than considering the interrelationships among these success factors, however, most previous studies of NPD have examined these issues individually. This shortcoming is compounded by the fact that past studies of NPD have typically cut across industry lines. Gloria Barczak addresses these problems by proposing that a firm's choice of new product strategy, structure, and process are interrelated, as are the effects of those choices on NPD performance. Because these choices and their effects also may be dependent on the unique characteristics of the industry in which a firm competes, her study focuses exclusively on firms in a specific, high-technology industry, telecommunications. The study finds that no single NPD strategy, in and of itself, stands out as being better than any other for the telecommunications industry. Instead, it appears that a company's focus should be on ensuring the best possible fit between its chosen NPD strategy and its corporate goals and capabilities. In keeping with the current focus on cross-functional teams, the study results indicate that project teams and R&D teams are the most effective means for organizing NPD efforts in the telecommunications industry. Perhaps not surprisingly, R&D teams are more important for first-to-market firms than they are for fast followers and late entrants. An R&D team provides the technical skills necessary for playing the role of pioneer. Regardless of the firm's NPD strategy and structure, the presence of a product champion is an important element in the success of new product efforts. In an era of rapid, technological advances, idea generation and screening efforts are essential to the success of telecommunications firms. To ensure that they do not fall into the trap of introducing technology for technology's sake, pioneering and fast-follower firms in particular must recognize the importance of staying in touch with their markets. Such market-oriented activities as customer prototype testing and concept definition and testing can help these firms ensure that their technological developments are in line with customer needs and requirements.     

Determinants of IT Usage and New Product Performance*

Explosive growth of information technologies (IT) has prompted interest in examining the role of IT in new product development (NPD). Through desktop software and Web‐based tools, IT has been used to aid idea generation and product testing as well as for NPD activities such as process and portfolio management. Recent research suggests, however, that a gap exists between IT availability and usage. Given the importance of IT in creating business value through the development of new products and services, the present study seeks to identify factors that affect IT usage. Further, anecdotal evidence and conceptual studies intimate that the usage of IT tools for NPD can shorten time to market, can improve product quality, and can increase productivity. However, empirical substantiation of this impact is mostly nonexistent. The current study investigates the relationship between IT usage and two measures of new product performance: speed to market and market performance. Employing a mail‐survey methodology, the study uses data from a sample of practitioner members from the Product Development & Management Association to examine the effect of project risk, existence of a champion, autonomy, innovative climate, IT infrastructure, and IT embeddedness on the extent of IT usage. These data are also used to explore the impact of IT usage on speed to market and market performance. The results indicate that project risk, existence of a champion, and IT embeddedness positively affect the extent of IT usage for NPD. Additionally, IT usage positively and significantly influences the performance of the new product in the marketplace. Surprisingly, and contrary to popular belief, IT usage does not have any impact on speed to market. An important implication of this study is that IT usage influences performance but not in the way managers expect. Specifically, IT usage does not seem to affect speed to market but rather positively impacts the performance of the new product in the marketplace. This result suggests that IT usage in NPD provides far more value to firms than previously thought and provides evidence to support greater investments in IT for product development efforts. Other implications of the study are that unless IT is embedded into the NPD process and champions for IT tools exist, chances are that IT will not be used and its benefits will not be realized.     

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.     

Individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing, and champion behavior: key predictors of project performance

Although increasing evidence points to the importance of champions for keeping product innovation ideas alive and thriving, little is known about how champions identify potential product innovation ideas, how they present these ideas to gain much needed support from key stakeholders, and their impact on innovation project performance over time. Jane M. Howell and Christine M. Shea address this knowledge gap by using measures of individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing and champion behavior to predict the performance of 47 product innovation projects. Champion behavior was defined as expressing confidence in the innovation, involving and motivating others to support the innovation, and persisting under adversity. Interviews with 47 champions were conducted to collect information about the innovation projects and the champions' tendency to frame the innovation as an opportunity or threat. Survey data were obtained from three sources: 47 champions provided information on their personal characteristics (locus of control and breadth of interest) and activities (environmental scanning), 47 division managers subjectively assessed project performance at two points in time, and 237 innovation team members rated the frequency of champion behavior. The results revealed that an internal locus of control orientation was positively related to framing the innovation as an opportunity, and breadth of interest was positively related to environmental scanning. Environmental scanning of documents and framing the innovation as a threat was negatively related to champion behavior, while environmental scanning through people was positively related to champion behavior. Champion behavior positively predicted project performance over a one‐year interval. Overall, the findings suggest that in scanning the environment for new ideas, the most effective source of information is the champion's personal network of people inside and outside the organization. Also, the simple labeling of an idea as a threat appears to diminish a champion's perceived influence and erode credibility in promoting an innovation. From the perspective of division managers, champions make a positive contribution to project performance over time, reinforcing the crucial role that champions play in new product development process.     

Managing New Product Development Teams in a Globally Dispersed NPD Program

Globalization is a major market trend today, one characterized by both increased international competition as well as extensive opportunities for firms to expand their operations beyond current boundaries. Effectively dealing with this important change, however, makes the management of global new product development (NPD) a major concern. To ensure success in this complex and competitive endeavor, companies must rely on global NPD teams that make use of the talents and knowledge available in different parts of the global organization. Thus, cohesive and well‐functioning global NPD teams become a critical capability by which firms can effectively leverage this much more diverse set of perspectives, experiences, and cultural sensitivities for the global NPD effort. The present research addresses the global NPD team and its impact on performance from both an antecedent and a contingency perspective. Using the resource‐based view (RBV) as a theoretical framework, the study clarifies how the internal, or behavioral, environment of the firm—specifically, resource commitment and senior management involvement—and the global NPD team are interrelated and contribute to global NPD program performance. In addition, the proposed performance relationships are viewed as being contingent on certain explicit, or strategic, factors. In particular, the degree of global dispersion of the firm's NPD effort is seen as influencing the management approach and thus altering the relationships among company background resources, team, and performance. For the empirical analysis, data are collected through a survey of 467 corporate global new product programs (North America and Europe, business‐to‐business). A structural model testing for the hypothesized effects was substantially supported. The results show that creating and effectively managing global NPD teams offers opportunities for leveraging a diverse but unique combination of talents and knowledge‐based resources, thereby enhancing the firm's ability to achieve a sustained competitive advantage in international markets. To function effectively, the global NPD team must be nested in a corporate environment in which there is a commitment of sufficient resources and where senior management plays an active role in leading, championing, and coordinating the global NPD effort. This need for commitment and global team integration becomes even more important for success as the NPD effort becomes more globally dispersed.     

Making Sense of an Interconnected World: How Innovation Champions Drive Social Innovation in the Not-for-Profit Context

Social innovation is critical for supporting the economic and social fabric of communities globally. Yet little is known about the processes through which social innovation occurs and how context shapes them. To date, scholarship has focused primarily on social entrepreneurs and social enterprise creation, while the role of established not-for-profits (NFPs) as agents of social innovation has received surprisingly little attention given their importance to communities. It is expected that innovation will be increasingly important for NFPs as shifts in their funding models create greater complexity in maintaining sustainability and continuity in social service delivery. This research generates a deeper understanding of the processes of social innovation within NFPs by examining how multiple levels of context influence the behaviors of a key set of agents: innovation champions. Adopting an interactionist lens, the study explores how shifts in funding policy at the macro level, and the role of leaders (CEOs and Boards) and organizational institutional logics at the meso level, influence champion behavior at the micro level. To do this, we draw on sensemaking as an important cognitive and action-enabling mechanism. A qualitative, multicase study design with 46 interviews across six case organizations allows an in-depth exploration of this under-investigated area. The findings indicate that bricolage activity can facilitate championing that supports social innovation within NFPs and that organizational context guides the direction and content of champion behavior. The findings further uncover a broader range of behaviors and outcomes than have been previously attributed to champions, while highlighting the critical role that bricolage-enabled championing can play in driving social innovation that is both directly impactful and offers significant longer-term social impact. The important roles that sensebreaking, sensegiving, and sensemaking play in connecting champions’ interpretations of their contexts to their behaviors are also outlined.     

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.     

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.     

Managing Innovation Champions: The Impact of Project Characteristics on the Direct Manager Role*

A key challenge for organizations seeking to improve the management of innovation lies in determining when to lend direct managerial support, and how much support, to those championing such projects. This research provides insights into the connection between project characteristics and the type and frequency of direct manager involvement. As such, it addresses the following research question: how does the level of project innovativeness, strategic relatedness, and resource requirements impact the level of empowerment of innovation champions and the sponsor or supervisor role played by managers? The research method involves a survey of 89 project champions from four divisions of large, multinational Korean companies. The results show that when innovativeness was high but projects were strategically related, there was greater project champion empowerment but also a more frequent managerial sponsor role. This suggests it may be best to allow innovators, who are close to the project's markets, technologies, and industry conditions, to have greater freedom over objectives and decisions. Yet they may also need the advice and support of their managers to function optimally under the highly uncertain conditions that characterize innovative projects. This combination of empowerment and a sponsor role, though appropriate for highly innovative projects, may also require high strategic relatedness, however. On the other hand, when projects are less strategically related and when resource requirements are high, the analysis suggests managers are more likely to exert control. Managers may therefore need to become more closely involved in decision making for costly ventures representing new strategic directions for their organizations. Overall, this research suggests that both empowerment and manager roles are relevant to the management of innovation. These results offer academic value in recognizing the nature of the direct manager role under different innovation project conditions. It further reveals a need for academics to recognize both the supervisor and sponsor roles in the management of innovation. For managers, the findings suggest that for organizations to effectively develop and commercialize innovations managers need to recognize when certain projects call for different levels and types of involvement.     

Involving purchasing in new product development

Purchasing is evolving into a strategic business activity and thus also a potential contributor to the successful development of new products. However, the literature on the involvement of purchasing in new product development (NPD) is sorely lacking. We conducted an exploratory study to investigate purchasing's involvement in NPD, the drivers of this involvement and the influence on new product success. We conducted telephone interviews with purchasing and NPD managers from 43 firms. The results show that firms differ in the extent to which they involve purchasing in NPD and that higher involvement has a positive effect on NPD performance. R&D managers can use the results to design a more effective purchasing–R&D interface and increase the success of NPD.     

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.     

Whom Should We Talk to? Investigating the Varying Roles of Internal and External Relationship Quality on Radical and Incremental Innovation Performance

Research suggests that close relationships with internal and external partners are likely to have a significant impact on new product development (NPD). What is unclear is how the effects of internal and external relationships influence development paths for different types of innovations. Prior literature indicates that the pathways for developing incremental innovations differ considerably from those for radical innovations. Thus it is plausible that the effects of external versus internal relationships vary across these two innovation types. This paper uses the 2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS) data set to investigate the roles of internal and external relationship quality on the development of both incremental and radical innovations. The results find that internal and not external relationship quality is beneficial for the development of incremental innovations. When driven by internal relationships, a flexible NPD process is advantageous for the financial performance of incremental innovations. Meanwhile external and not internal relationship quality is valuable for developing radical innovations. External relationship quality results in process flexibility, leading to project execution success and subsequent financial performance for radical innovations. As expected, project execution success consistently leads to increased financial performance. These findings indicate the critical differences in types of relationship quality required when developing new products based on radical versus incremental innovations.     

Championship Behaviors and Innovations Success: An Empirical Investigation of University Spin‐Offs*

Despite the flurry of scholarly research on champions, no prior article has explicitly addressed how different dimensions of championship behavior actually contribute to innovation success. In this article, based on an extensive literature review, the authors argue that champions display four behaviors, namely (1) pursuing innovative ideas, (2) network building, (3) persisting under adversity, and (4) taking responsibility for the idea. The authors use data from 123 university spin‐offs to test proposed linear and curvilinear relationships between the four behaviors and an objective measure of innovation success, namely a longitudinal measure of sales growth. The results indicate that network building has the desired positive relationship with sales performance. Surprisingly, pursuing the innovative idea is not related to sales growth. Furthermore, the present study also reveals some dysfunctional effects of champion behaviors. Persisting under adversity and taking responsibility have the hypothesized inverted‐U relationship with sales growth. The present study provides a more refined discussion of the benefits and dangers of championing behaviors. Our results show that linking technology to markets can be planned and controlled only to a very limited extent even if champions are working hard to sell the idea to potential customers. Moreover, any new idea is often competing with existing products and pursuing such ideas may result in opposition to the idea. In contrast, network building has the desired positive relationship with innovation success. Effective championing behavior keeps an innovative idea alive by mobilizing support and building coalitions around the idea with critical individuals or important third parties. Moreover, this study challenges the widespread “heroic” discussion of championing as fundamentally positive “across the board.” The results show that persisting under adversity and taking responsibility are desirable up to some levels. Beyond such critical levels, these two champion behaviors may actually become detrimental to the innovation process. Being too persistent in the face of adversity or taking too much responsibility for the innovative idea might undermine the power of the champion's justifications for an innovation and thereby increase resistance to change. An “over‐performing” champion may interpret opposing communications as an unwarranted and injurious response. By taking overmuch responsibility for the innovative undertaking, the champion is likely to discourage contributions from other team members who see no valuable opportunity to bring their expertise and knowledge to the idea.     

Corporate Culture and Commitment: Impact on Performance of International New Product Development Programs

To achieve success in today's competitive environment, firms increasingly must develop new products for international markets. To this end, they must leverage and must coordinate broad creative capabilities and resources, which often are diffused across geographical and cultural boundaries. Recent writings in the globalization and in the new product development (NPD) literatures suggest that certain “softer” dimensions that define the behavioral environment of the firm—that is, the firm's organizational culture and management commitment—can have an important impact on the outcome of these complex and risky endeavors. But what comprises these dimensions and what type of behavioral environment scenario is linked to high performance in the international NPD effort of firms has not been articulated clearly. This research focuses on these softer dimensions, with the objective of understanding and idengifying their specific makeup as well as their relationship to the outcome of international NPD programs. Based on an integration of three literatures—organizational, new product development, and globalization—the present study develops a research instrument, comprising 18 behavioral environment measurement items as well as several outcome measures, that is administered to a broad empirical sample of goods and services firms active in NPD for international markets. Using empirical results from 252 international NPD programs, three key dimensions are idengified: (1) the innovation/globalization culture of the firm; (2) the commitment of sufficient resources to the NPD program; and (3) top management involvement in the international NPD effort. These dimensions are used to derive four clusters of firms, where each grouping represents a distinctly different behavioral environment scenario. In a preliminary analysis, it is ascertained that other aspects of the firm such as “degree of internationalization,” location of the respondent to the NPD center, and other company parameters do not form the basis of cluster membership. By linking measures of performance to the four behavioral clusters, findings are developed that clearly support this study's hypothesis that international NPD outcomes are associated with the softer behavioral environment dimensions. Scenario performance ranges from “very high” to “very low” and appears to be linked clearly to the dimensions studied. The lower‐performing firms tended to emphasize positively only one, or sometimes two, of the three dimensions. The “best performers” were found to be firms with a “positive balanced” approach to international NPD, where all three behavioral environment dimensions are supported strongly. In other words, firms in this scenario have an open and innovative global NPD culture, they ensure that sufficient resources are committed to the NPD program, and their senior managers play an active and involved role in the international NPD effort. Given this evidence of a direct link between behavioral environment and international NPD performance, the present study's findings suggest some important messages for managers charged with the development of new products for international markets.     

Perspective—Riding the Wind: Managing New Product Development in an Age of Change

New product development (NPD) has never been more challenging or rewarding than it is today. With the dawning of the new millennium, new product developers now find themselves in an “age of change,” the likes of which the world has never known. The rate of change is numbing, if not stupefying for many business people. With the winds of change blowing at near gale force intensity levels, this is clearly a time for NPD professionals to pursue new product and market strategies that are anchored on sound business fundamentals. This article begins with a brief review of the Product Development & Management Association's 1998 International Research Conference held in Atlanta. The theme for the conference was “Achieving Excellence in New Product Development and Management.” The article then offers a reflective look at seven NPD themes that could dominate new millennium business thinking and offer guidance to those seeking new product success. The article's first theme discusses why NPD is increasing in importance. The second theme outlines key NPD building blocks which NPD champions must bolster for new product success. The third theme explores the value in conceptualizing NPD output in items of “turns per decade.” The fourth theme champions the notion that continuous quality improvement is an integral part of NPD's contribution to a firm. The fifth theme explains why product elimination is an essential element in the innovation process. Theme number six reminds readers that fun and optimism are essential and commonly overlooked ingredients for sustaining NPD achievement. The seventh theme states that product development professionals build credibility and successful careers by delivering on promises made. Innovation opportunities embedded within each theme are explored from both firm‐level and individual developer‐level perspectives. In building the case for their themes, the authors initially provide a rationale for NPD's growing stature and importance. Then they suggest NPD strategies that firms can implement with high likelihood of success. The article concludes with suggested actions that individual developers can undertake to bolster their own careers while simultaneously strengthening the NPD profession.     

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.     

Information Technology Tools in New Product Development: The Impact of Complementary Resources*,†

Emergent research has examined the antecedents to using information technology (IT) in the new product development (NPD) process and the impact of IT on NPD performance. Based on the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm, this study hypothesizes that particular resources create IT capabilities that significantly enhance NPD outcomes. More specifically, this research extends previous work by investigating whether three complementary resources, namely an executive champion for IT, global engagement, and organizational innovativeness, influence IT capabilities (IT use frequency and IT replacement frequency), which in turn affect NPD outcomes (NPD task proficiency and NPD performance). To test the conceptual model, survey data were collected from 220 NPD and IT managers in a variety of large Japanese firms. The results show that an executive champion for IT and global engagement are predictors of both IT tool use and replacement frequency while organizational innovativeness contributes only to IT tool replacement frequency. The results also indicate that both IT tool use and replacement frequency have a positive effect on NPD task proficiency, which improves NPD performance. This research contributes to the literature by adding understanding of the role of IT in NPD at the firm level in four ways. First, it examines particular organizational complementary resources and their relationship to IT capabilities. Second, it examines the RBV and IT in the context of NPD, an important business process. Third, it measures IT usage in a more granular fashion (i.e., IT tool use frequency and IT replacement frequency) rather than simply IT usage as a dichotomy. Finally, through testing the proposed model with data collected from Japanese firms, this study provides empirical evidence from an Asian country to answer the call for more NPD research to be conducted in countries other than North American and Western European contexts. The findings of the study also provide implications for managers. Importantly, they indicate that an executive level champion for IT is a key influencer in facilitating IT usage and replacement, and likely can help generate awareness of and support for greater IT investments so the firm can create IT capabilities for effective NPD.