Do Social Media Tools Impact the Development Phase? An Exploratory Study

Over the past two decades, firms have increasingly adopted information technology (IT) tools and services to improve the new product development (NPD) process. Recently, social media tools and/or tools that include social networking features are being utilized to allow users both inside and outside the organization to easily communicate and collaboratively design, manage, and launch new products and services. Unfortunately, there is little empirical evidence to suggest what influence these new IT tools have on NPD performance. Through a project‐level, exploratory, empirical study, the impact of these new IT tools on the development phase of the NPD process is investigated. We find that the use of these new tools is significantly lower than the adoption of traditional IT tools such as e‐mail and computer‐aided‐design. Traditional tools have a significant, positive impact on NPD outcomes, including team collaboration, the concepts/prototypes generated, and management evaluation. Interestingly, new media tools such as project wikis and shared collaboration spaces also have a significant, positive impact on concepts/prototypes generated, and management evaluation. Surprisingly, social networking tools like weblogs and Twitter negatively impact management evaluation while having no impact on NPD team collaboration and concepts/prototypes generated. These results suggest that social networking tools in their current guise are not helpful to the NPD team and may in fact be distracting to innovation management during the development phase.     

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.     

Capturing the Degree of Modularity Embedded in Product Architectures*

This article focuses on integrating various perspectives on product architecture modularity into a general framework and proposes a way to measure the degree of modularization embedded in product architectures. The article addresses trade‐offs between modular and integral product architectures and how components and interfaces influence the degree of modularization. The article identifies the following key elements of product architecture modularity: components (standard and new‐to‐the‐firm), interfaces (standardization and specification), degree of coupling, and substitutability. A mathematical model, termed the modularization function, is applied to measure the key elements and their combined effect on the degree of modularization embedded in product architectures. The application of the modularization function is illustrated by two distinct sets of product architectures: Chrysler Jeep's windshield wipers controllers and Schindler's hydraulic and traction‐pull transmission elevators. The analysis of the Chrysler case shows that the silent‐relay architecture produces more opportunities for modularization than the solid‐state architecture due to the higher substitutability factor and lower new‐to‐the‐firm component composition. The Schindler case captures the dynamics of modularity created by three types of components (standard, customizable, and new to the firm) and two types of interfaces (fundamental and optional). Based on the case studies, the article outlines testable propositions and discusses the managerial and theoretical implications for the modularization function.     

The Role of Information Technologies in Enhancing R&D–Marketing Integration: An Empirical Investigation

The effective integration of research and development (R&D) and marketing contributes to the development of successful new products. Barriers such as physical separation of R&D and marketing, goal incongruity, and cultural differences hamper the cross‐functional cooperation. However, it may not be either possible or desirable to eliminate the cross‐functional integration barriers in practice. Previous research findings suggest that information technology (IT) can be used to reduce the negative impact of the barriers. This paper examines the moderating role of communication technologies (ITc) and decision‐aiding technologies (ITd) in improving the R&D–marketing integration in new product development. The empirical findings from analyzing data on 171 new product development projects suggest that both IT systems can be used to reduce the negative impact of physical separation, goal incongruity, and cultural differences on R&D–marketing integration. However, effectiveness of the two types of IT differs. While IT_c appears to be more effective than IT_d in overcoming the constraint of physical separation, IT_d is more effective than IT_c in reducing the negative impact of goal incongruity and cultural differences. IT_c is found to have the strongest effect on reducing the negative relationship of physical separation and integration, a less strong effect on cultural differences, and a weak effect on goal incongruity. Conversely, IT_d is found to have a strong effect on goal incongruity. These empirical findings provide guidelines for project managers using a specific IT to address a specific integration barrier. If the major barrier is physical separation, IT_c is the best solution. On the other hand, if the major barrier is goal incongruity, IT_d is the best solution. In addition, it is important for management to note that IT requires more than simply installing computer hardware and software. In addition to investing in those “hard” improvements, project managers should strive to create a supportive “soft” environment by consistently improving members' IT experiences and familiarity. In the process of the continuous development of IT, state‐of‐the‐art technologies should be introduced in a timely manner and be made accessible to all team members. Finally, project managers should frequently observe their industry peers' IT usage to keep up with advances.     

Modularity in making: simplifying solution space for user innovation

An increasingly popular form of open innovation in the digital age is ‘making,’ where users innovate across multiple disciplines and make products that meet their needs, using mechanical, electronic, and digital components. These users have at their disposal, a wide solution space for innovation through various modular toolkits enabled by digital‐age technologies. This study explores and outlines how these users simplify this wide solution space to innovate and make tangible products. Following a modularity theory perspective, it draws on case studies of users and their innovations: (1) Users with initial prototype product designs based on the Internet of things (IoT) from a maker event and (2) users with established product designs from the online community platform Thingiverse. The studies found that users reused the design in the form of existing off‐the‐shelf products and utilized digital fabrication and low‐cost electronics hardware as a ‘glue’ to create physical and informational interfaces wherever needed, enabling bottom‐up modularity. They iteratively refined their innovations, gradually replacing re‐used designs with own integrated designs, reducing modularity, and reducing wastage. The study contributes to open innovation and modularity with implications on the design of products and toolkits enabled by the digital age.     

Consequences of New Product Development Speed: A Meta‐Analysis

Five meta‐analyses previously have been published on the topic of new product development involving the concept of new product development speed. Three of these studies have investigated antecedents to new product development success, of which just one was new product development speed. The other two studies used new product development speed as the dependent variable, and analyzed antecedents to achieving speed. This article extends previous empirical generalizations in this domain by using a meta‐analytic methodology to understand the link between new product development speed and new product success at a more granular level. Specifically, it considers the relationship with different dimensions of success as measured overall or compositely, operationally (i.e., the process measures of decreasing development costs and proficiently managing market entry timing and the product measures of technical product performance and product competitive advantage), and relative to external success outcomes (i.e., customer based and financial success). While the results indicate that, in general, new product development speed is associated with improving success outcomes, those relationships may diminish or even disappear depending upon a number of methodological design decisions and research contexts. A subsequent meta‐analysis of the antecedents of development speed provides a more holistic picture of development speed. These results are broadly consistent with those produced by another recent meta‐analytic investigation of the issue. Together, these findings have important implications for academics pursuing further research in this domain, as well as for managers considering implementing a program to increase new product development speed.     

The Long Tail of the Auto Industry Life Cycle

This article explores how the industry life‐cycle theory, proposed by Abernathy and Utterback, can be reinterpreted from the viewpoint of product architecture dynamics. The “long tail” of the automobile industry life cycle, observed during the past several decades, is explained by an evolutionary framework in which a product's architecture is treated as an endogenous variable affected by customers' functional requirements, environmental‐technical constraints, and their changes. The present article explains how the existing industry life‐cycle model effectively explains the early history of automotive product‐process innovations, but that it fails to explain the “long tail” of the life cycle, and that an evolutionary approach of product architectures can be used to explain the architectural sequence and the long‐term trend of the increase in nonradical innovations. That is, the industry life‐cycle model certainly fits well with the actual pattern of product‐process innovations at the early phase of the automobile's development, between the 1880s (invention) through the 1920s (the end of the Model T) and into the 1960s, when product differentiation continued without significant product/process innovations (e.g., the Big Three's annual model change). But the question remains how this model can explain the rest of the industry's history (1970s to 2010s), which is characterized by “rapid incremental innovations,” or a “long tail of the life cycle,” with its upward trend of technological advancement rather than the end of innovations or the beginning of another industry life cycle (i.e., “dematurity”). The evolutionary framework of product architecture predicts that the macro architecture of a given product category (e.g., passenger cars) will be relatively integral when the functional requirements that customers expect, the constraints imposed by society and the government, and the physical‐technical limits inherent in the product are strong, and that it will be relatively modular when they are weaker. The dynamic architectural analysis starts from the Lancaster‐type analysis of a set of function‐price frontiers for a given product category (e.g., cars). Based on the design theories, it hypothesizes that the shape of function‐price frontiers are different between integral models and modular models. It then hypothesizes that price‐oriented customers tend to choose relatively modular products, whereas function‐oriented customers choose relatively integral products more often than not, other things being equal. Thus, the macro architecture of a given product can be determined depending on whether each architecture's price‐function frontier touches the price‐function preference curves of its customers. As for the future architecture of the car, its macro architecture, determined by markets and environments, will remain relatively integral and complex as long as it continues to be a fast‐moving heavy artifact in the public space, whereas its micro architecture, determined by engineers, will be somewhat mixed, as the engineers try to simplify and modularize the automobile design wherever the market and technology permit. The evolutionary framework of architectures also predicts that the architectural sequence inside the industry life cycle will differ by products (e.g., cars and computers) depending upon the dynamic patterns of technological advancement (e.g., shifts of the price‐function frontier) and market‐societal constraints (e.g., shifts of the price‐function preference curve).     

Shared knowledge and product design glitches in integrated product development

Product development processes based on the joint collaboration of the cross-functional team, suppliers, and customers can minimize project glitches. Glitches in the product development project can cause project cost over-runs and delay a project past when first mover advantages are possible. While previous theoretical work has suggested a negative relationship between shared knowledge and product development glitches, empirical studies have not identified how different types of shared knowledge are associated with each other and the design glitches. This study proposes a model of the relationship between specific types of shared knowledge and design glitches in integrated product development (IPD) projects. We test our model using a sample of 191 projects from the automotive industry in the United States. The major findings were that: (1) shared knowledge of the development process can be built by improving a team's shared knowledge of customers, suppliers, and internal capabilities, (2) shared knowledge of the development process for a project reduces product design glitches, and (3) reduced product design glitches improve product development time, cost, and customer satisfaction.     

Back‐loading: A Potential Side Effect of Employing Digital Design Tools in New Product Development

Over the past 20 years, the use of digital design tools such as Computer‐Aided‐Design (CAD) has increased dramatically. Today, almost no product development project is conducted without the use of CAD models. Major advantages typically ascribed to using CAD include better solutions through broader exploration of the solution space as well as faster and less expensive projects through faster and earlier iterations. This latter effect, the shifting of simulation and testing traditionally accomplished with the help of physical prototypes late in the process—a slow and expensive activity—to doing similar activities with virtual prototypes faster and earlier in the process, has been identified as a key aspect of front‐loading, an activity shift promising to enable superior product development (PD) performance. Given CAD's recent pervasive use, the research questions for this paper became “how has CAD use actually changed the way in which product development is conducted, and through which mechanisms and pathways can CAD impact PD performance, especially with respect to the idea of front‐loading?” This paper addresses these questions by studying in a longitudinal comparison in detail two similar product development projects, one conducted in 2001, the other in 2009. The projects were carefully selected to isolate the substantially higher levels of CAD use of the second project while controlling for most other input factors that influence project performance. The project with substantially higher use of CAD exhibited significant improvements in prototyping costs but only marginal changes in project time and project engineering labor cost relative to the project with lower CAD use. In‐depth intra‐project analysis on the phase level reveals that the use of CAD affected how the product development was executed, with both positive and negative consequences. In addition to, and separate from positive aspects of front‐loading, unintended consequences in the form of back‐loading work are also observed. Back‐loading can occur in two places in the product development process: First, the availability of CAD systems can cause an early jump into detail design, effectively shortcutting concept development. Second, the ability to relatively quickly conduct small changes virtually to the design can erode process discipline; late changes are made simply because they are possible. Both of these effects back‐load work in the opposite direction of the positive front‐loading. The theoretical implications of our observations are discussed, and a simple framework to convert our findings into managerial advice is proposed.     

Time-Driven Development of Software in Manufactured Goods

Microprocessors are being incorporated into an increasingly wide range of products. However, many of the companies that manufacture such products are not effectively managing software development for these embedded systems. Despite the current focus on concurrent engineering and cross-functional teams, software engineering is often poorly integrated with the rest of the product development effort. The result is usually a costly delay in the product's introduction to the market. Tomlinson G. Rauscher and Preston G. Smith describe several practices that have proved helpful for accelerating the development of products that incorporate embedded software. Managerial and economic opportunities for accelerating development of hardware-software systems involve planning for dramatic growth in products that include embedded software, cultivating in-house software knowledge, recognizing the financial effects of project decisions, and measuring project progress. Improving time to market requires hiring and developing software engineering staff and managers with the requisite knowledge of the application, ensuring that they understand the techniques for specifying requirements and design, and providing them with clear guidelines for evaluating the trade-offs between project duration, project cost, and product performance. Progress should be measured in terms of the number of components completed, rather than the number of lines of code that are written. During the development process, emphasis should be placed on managing the scheduling links between hardware and software development, obtaining user feedback about the system as early as possible, and using a flexible, ongoing review process. Development groups should establish software requirements and design parameters before they start coding, and testing should commence early in the system design process. By creating a working prototype of the user interface, developers can obtain user feedback and thereby sharpen the design specification. Effective, timely software development requires focusing greater energy and resources on development of the requirements specification. By expending this effort in the first phase of a project, the development team can minimize its use of the time-consuming code-and-debug approach to software development. In addition to breaking down a complex system into understandable pieces, a modular design supports efforts to accelerate product development. With a modular design, work on various modules can be assigned concurrently to relatively independent teams. A modular design facilitates testing of the product as well as reuse of software that was developed and deployed in previous projects.     

The Impact of User‐Oriented Design on New Product Development: An Examination of Fundamental Relationships*

Design offers a potent way to position and to differentiate products and can play a significant role in their success. In many ways it is the focus on deep understanding of the customer or user—what may be termed user‐oriented design (UOD)—that transforms a bundle of technology with the ability to provide functionality into a “product” that people desire to interact with and from which they derive benefits. Even though the importance of this type of design is gaining recognition, several fundamental relationships between user‐oriented design contributions and the new product development (NPD) process and outcomes (i.e., product) remain unresearched, although they are assumed. This article examines the fundamental relationships underlying the incorporation of a user orientation into the NPD process. The discussion is organized around UOD's impact in terms of enhancing collaborative new product development (process oriented), improving idea generation (process oriented), producing superior product or service solutions (product oriented), and facilitating product appropriateness and adoption (product oriented). Each of these is developed and presented in the form of a research proposition relating to the impact of user‐oriented design on product development. The fundamental relationships articulated concerning UOD's impact on NPD form a conceptual framework for this approach to product design and development. For practitioners, the article suggests how user‐oriented design can improve NPD through its more grounded and comprehensive approach, along with the elevated appreciation of design challenges and heightened sense of possibilities for a product being developed. For scholars, the article identifies four important areas for UOD research. In addition to the rich avenues offered for research by each of these, the framework presented provides a foundation for further study as well as the development of new measures and tools for enhancing NPD efforts.     

Project Management Characteristics and New Product Survival

We develop a conceptual model of new product development (NPD) based on seminal and review articles in order to answer the question, “What project management characteristics will foster the development of new products that are more likely to survive in the marketplace?” Our model adopts Ruekert and Walker's theoretical framework of situational dimensions, structural/process dimensions, and outcome dimensions as an underlying structure. We conceptualize their situational dimensions more narrowly as project management dimensions, allowing us to examine more specifically how project management practices affect the NPD process. In our model, project management dimensions include project manager style, project manager skills, and senior management support. Structural/process dimensions include cross‐functional integration and planning proficiency. Outcome dimensions include process proficiency and new product survival. Our empirical analysis finds support for 20 hypotheses, a reversal of one hypothesis, and nonsignificant results for one hypothesis. These results show that projects are best led by managers with strong technical, marketing, and management skills, using a participative style and enjoying early and continuous support from senior management. These project management dimensions promote cross‐functional integration and planning, which are important to process proficiency and new product survival. Our study suggests two broad conclusions. First, it confirms the links in the extant literature between situational (project management) dimensions, structural/process dimensions, and outcome dimensions in NPD. Second, firms can improve cross‐functional integration and planning through various project management practices. Generally, we find that firms interested in improving both proficiency in their development process and the survival rate of new products should take steps to promote cross‐functional integration and to improve their planning processes. While the linkage between cross‐functional integration and NPD outcomes is well established in the literature, the impact of the planning process on NPD outcomes is a research area ripe with opportunity. Our study highlights three aspects of planning that contribute to NPD outcomes. Plans should be detailed, team members should participate actively in the planning process, and teams should be given flexibility and autonomy to respond to unanticipated issues as they appear.     

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.     

The Effect of "Front-Loading" Problem-Solving on Product Development Performance

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the link between problem‐solving capabilities and product development performance. In this article, the authors apply a problem‐solving perspective to the management of product development and suggest how shifting the identification and solving of problems—a concept that they define as front‐loading—can reduce development time and cost and thus free up resources to be more innovative in the marketplace. The authors develop a framework of front‐loading problem‐solving and present related examples and case evidence from development practice. These examples include Boeing's and Chrysler's experience with the use of “digital mock‐ups” to identify interference problems that are very costly to solve if identified further downstream—sometimes as late as during or—after first full‐scale assembly. In the article, the authors propose that front‐loading can be achieved using a number of different approaches, two of which are discussed in detail: (1) project‐to‐project knowledge transfer—leverage previous projects by transferring problem and solution‐specific information to new projects; and (2) rapid problem‐solving—leverage advanced technologies and methods to increase the overall rate at which development problems are identified and solved. Methods for improving project‐to‐project knowledge transfer include the effective use of “postmortems,” which are records of post‐project learning and thus can be instrumental in carrying forward the knowledge from current and past projects. As the article suggests, rapid problem‐solving can be achieved by optimally combining new technologies (such as computer simulation) that allow for faster problem‐solving cycles with traditional technologies (such as late stage prototypes), which usually provide higher fidelity. A field study of front‐loading at Toyota Motor Corporation shows how a systematic effort to front‐load its development process has, in effect, shifted problem‐identification and problem‐solving to earlier stages of product development. They conclude the article with a discussion of other approaches to front‐load problem‐solving in product development and propose how a problem‐solving perspective can help managers to build capabilities for higher development performance.     

PERSPECTIVE: Creating a platform-based approach for developing new services

This article explores the design and renewal of services. We do this through the lens of methods and processes for developing product platforms for physical products. We first articulate principles for effectively developing next generation product lines using platform concepts, and illustrate these principles with examples drawn from computer and electronic products. These principles include creating new insights into a firm's market segmentation, understanding both the perceived and latent needs of users, and doing so for new as well as existing groups of customers. These platform principles also include the design and implementation of subsystems and interfaces that can be used across different products and across different product lines. Such subsystems and interfaces become the operational platforms for new product development purposes. An approach to platform-centric organization design is also presented.
We then make the extension to services by applying these principles to understand the innovations of a large international reinsurer. This company has resegmented its market to identify unfulfilled needs and growth opportunities. It also defined new service platforms, comprising operational activity areas that closely follow the value chain of how it wished to provide new reinsurance solutions to its customers. This reinsurer also had to organize differently to facilitate the development and deployment of the capabilities required for its new services. The analogies between these service innovations and those platform innovations of manufacturers are both clear and striking.
We conclude by considering the difficulties faced by firms seeking to transition from a single product, nonplatform focused approach to new product development to the platform-centric ones described here.     

New Product Development: Impact of Project Characteristics and Development Practices on Performance

Concurrent product development process and integrated product development teams have emerged as the two dominant new product development (NPD) “best practices” in the literature. Yet empirical evidence of their impact on product development success remains inconclusive. This paper draws upon organizational information processing theory (OIPT) to explore how these two dominant NPD best practices and two key aspects of NPD project characteristics (i.e., project uncertainty and project complexity) directly and jointly affect the NPD performance. Contrary to the “best practice” literature, the analysis, based on 266 NPD projects from three industries (i.e., automotive, electronics, and machinery) across nine countries (i.e., Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United States), found no evidence of any direct impact of process concurrency or team integration on overall NPD performance. Instead, there is evidence of negative impact of the interaction between project uncertainty and concurrent NPD process and positive impact of the interaction between project complexity and team integration on overall NPD performance. Moreover, the study found no evidence of any direct negative impact of project uncertainty or complexity on overall NPD performance as suggested in the literature, but found evidence of a direct positive relationship between project complexity and overall NPD performance. The practical implications of these results are significant. First, neither process concurrency nor team integration should be embraced universally as best practice. Second, process concurrency should be avoided in projects with high uncertainty (i.e., when working with unfamiliar product, market, or technology). Finally, team integration should be encouraged for complex product development projects. For a simple product a loosely integrated team or a more centralized decision process may work well. However, as project complexity increases, team integration becomes essential for improved product development. There is no one‐size‐fits‐all solution for managing NPD projects. The choice of a product development practice should be determined by the project characteristics.     

The use of information technology tools in new product development phases: Analysis of effects on new product innovativeness, quality, and market performance

Extant research has largely ignored empirically examining how information technology (IT) affects new product effectiveness. Using the knowledge-based theory as a foundation, this study examines if, and how, particular IT tools used in the discovery, development, and commercialization phases of the new product development (NPD) process influence NPD effectiveness dimensions, namely, market performance, innovativeness, and quality of a new product. Based on data collected from NPD managers in the US and Canada, the findings indicate that specific IT tools contribute to various measures of new product effectiveness differently. Moreover, the results show the positive effect of these IT tools in different phases of the NPD process. This suggests that with regard to NPD, a decompositional approach that examines the role of IT within each phase of the NPD process is best. Based on these findings, the authors discuss theoretical and managerial implications of the study and suggest paths for future research. Managerially, some interesting results of our study are that decision support systems, file transfer protocols, and concept testing tools would significantly improve NPD effectiveness regardless of the phase they are used.     

Integration of Finance with Marketing and R&D in New Product Development: The Role of Project Stage

While the interfaces of marketing, research and development (R&D), and manufacturing in product development have been extensively studied, no large‐scale empirical study has focused on finance's role in the product development team. The present research investigates the role of finance in cross‐functional product development teams, thereby extending existing research on cross‐functional integration in product development. A set of hypotheses is tested with a survey of 389 project team leaders and top management team members from companies in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and Austria. The findings suggest that the integration of finance in cross‐functional teams positively impacts project performance and that the importance of the finance interface depends on the project development stage and the innovativeness of the product developed. The results indicate that the R&D–finance interface is most critical at the early stage of a project, while the marketing–finance interface is most important at the late stage, and that the integration between R&D and finance is especially useful in the development of less innovative products.     

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.     

The paradox of tie strength in customer relationships for innovation: a longitudinal case study in the sports industry

Current literature argues that firms should have strong ties to customers to benefit from increased customer retention and loyalty. Strong ties, however, have also shown to prevent innovation, suggesting that firms should also develop weak ties to other customer groups. This paper focuses on the potential for strong ties to facilitate, rather than prohibit, innovation. It is based in a 7‐year longitudinal research project with Adidas, a global sporting goods company. From the case, we find that the paradox of tie strength results from an overly simplified view of the nature of company–customer relationships. Contrary to the established literature, we find that strong ties in the Adidas case supported significant innovation. In fact, the involvement resulted in the development of a new product with a radically different product architecture and led to one of the most successful product launches in the company's history. To explain these findings, we introduce the nature of customer participation in a firm's value creation processes as a new dimension of the constitution of firm–customer ties and discuss how such a kind of relationship can develop.