How Formal Control Influences Decision‐Making Clarity and Innovation Performance

Implementing formal planning instruments such as the stage‐and‐gate‐type system (SGS) and project management (PM) have long been seen as the key to new product development (NPD) success. They create the structure needed for managing NPD activities, supporting coordination among functional groups, reducing uncertainty and error, and assuring time and cost efficiency. But recent research presents ambiguous results, suggesting that SGS and PM as formal controls can also have a negative effect. Integrating ideas from three literatures—i.e., NPD management, organization control theory, and technical control theory—the present study assesses NPD programs in terms of three perspectives: (1) the formal control mechanisms used for managing NPD programs—specifically SGS, which is mainly seen as a higher organizational level approach used for guiding and implementing a portfolio of NPD projects, and PM, which is a precise formal control mechanism relevant for managing specific problems at a single project level; (2) the immediate outcome of the application of formal controls, i.e. decision‐making clarity (DMC); and (3) degree of NPD innovativeness, a key contingency hypothesized to impact the efficacy of formal controls. For the empirical analysis, data are collected through a survey of 162 corporate NPD programs (Austria and Denmark, manufactured goods and services) where a total of 1274 respondents provide information relevant to their position. Hierarchical regression analysis is used to test the relationships. Results indicate that the performance effect of NPD formal control is fully mediated by DMC. Further, of the six hypothesized outcome relationships, four are fully supported. Both SGS and PM are effective systems for managing NPD when degree of innovativeness is not taken into account. PM, however, loses its efficacy at higher degrees of NPD program innovativeness while SGS continues to work at achieving positive DMC at the radical end of the innovativeness spectrum. Analysis of interaction effects indicates that for more innovative NPD programs, best results are achieved when companies implement an interactive system of both SGS and PM, where the two systems complement each other.     

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

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

Development of a Design Audit Tool for SMEs*

There is strong evidence of the importance of good design to company success. However, it is apparent that despite this evidence, design skills are often marginalized in small and medium‐size enterprises (SMEs). This article presents a design audit tool that captures good design principles in a form accessible to industry. Previous audit approaches have focused extensively on the management of new product development (NPD). In this research, the audit tool is based on process maturity principles and explicitly targets the design related activities in NPD—specifically in small firms. The design audit has been developed iteratively by application in action research mode and is supported by evidence from literature and exploratory cases. This inductive development enabled the generation of a robust audit tool through intervention in small firms to improve design practices. The resulting audit tool is designed for use in a multifunctional workshop setting. Typical outputs from application include the generation of action plans for improvement in future performance. This audit tool is based around a model of good design that explicitly distinguishes between management and design related activities in NPD. The audit tool has succeeded in encouraging managers to pay greater attention to the design related elements of NPD. This complements the satisfaction of managerial goals typically emphasized in many NPD processes.     

Technological Innovativeness as a Moderator of New Product Design Integration and Top Management Support

Many war stories, as well as a number of empirical research studies, point to the value of design integration and top management support in new product development (NPD) efforts, where design integration is conceptualized as the coordination of product and process design activities performed by various organizational groups. However, some emerging evidence suggests that these aspects of program management are not equally valuable in all NPD contexts. Furthermore, the benefits of these approaches may not extend to all dimensions of NPD performance. This article addresses these issues as they relate to technological innovativeness. The author reports the results of a research study designed to (1) assess the direct contributions of design integration and top management support to several dimensions of NPD performance, and (2) identify potential moderating influences of technological innovativeness on these direct effects. A survey of 136 NPD projects drawn from firms representing most of the major U.S. manufacturing industries provides data for the study. The overall goals of the study were to amplify our understanding of management's role in NPD and to further the development of contingency theory explaining new product success. The results indicate that design integration is positively associated with higher design quality in NPD, but it is not significantly linked with better financial performance. In addition, design integration appears to be an important influence on achieving NPD time goals, but only in cases of high technological innovativeness. This result suggests that increased design integration produces its greatest impacts when development processes are full of uncertainty. Top management support is positively associated with better time‐based performance, design quality, and financial performance on the whole. However, a significant interaction effect suggests that high levels of top management support are ineffective in securing good financial performance in high technologically innovative environments. Other forces appear to be at work in these circumstances, making top management support less important. The article discusses the implications of these findings for management practice, a contingency‐oriented view of NPD processes, and future research.     

Enhancing the Creative Performance of New Product Teams: An Organizational Configurational Approach

Innovation is crucial to managing ever‐increasing environmental complexity. Creativity is the first stage of the innovation process and is particularly relevant in modern new product development (NPD) projects. In response to a call for further empirical research on collective creative performance combining individual and team levels in a comprehensive framework, this paper offers useful evidence for the design of NPD teams to foster creative performance. The results suggest that different sets of individual traits and collective processes combine and interact, enabling a similar level of creative performance from different configurations of individual and team “ingredients.” There are no consistently good‐quality or poor‐quality NPD teams or processes. However, equifinal configurations—based on team composition, and interpersonal, coordination, control, and diversity management processes—can be effective in producing creative products. Through a large‐scale study of 119 teams of students involved in an NPD activity, this paper contributes by expanding creativity and NPD team design literature, providing the basis for a “first right” approach to real‐world, in‐company research. It first proposes and tests the adoption of the configurational equifinality approach in the NPD team design domain, introducing the concept of complementarities among different types of “team ingredients,” both at the individual and team level. Second, it introduces different multidimensional measures of team creative performance, relevant to generalizing and comparing the research results. Third, it offers several guidelines for designing real‐world NPD teams through the combination of diversity and interpersonal management, as well as coordination and control processes, which have not been studied to any great extent but are at times controversial in creativity literature.     

Managing uncertain,complex product development in high‐tech firms: in search of controlled flexibility

This paper investigates ways of managing complexity and uncertainty in R&D simultaneously. Previous research on the subject indicates that these dimensions require different approaches, but these studies tend to provide suggestions either on managing complexity in stable industries or on handling uncertainty in less complex projects. In this paper, the two dimensions are studied simultaneously in three commercial product development projects at a firm that may be viewed as an extreme case of complexity and with multiple dimensions of uncertainty. The paper illustrates that a critical issue in this kind of high‐tech development is the search for and development of approaches that integrate and balance needs for formal organizational control with high levels of project flexibility. Four key elements of such integrated approaches are identified: hybrid formal systems, structured interaction in public arenas, transparent visual communication tools, and a system of participative reflection.     

Systematic Design Methods and the Creative Performance of New Product Teams: Do They Contradict or Complement Each Other?

Can organizations exert control and provide structure for NPD activities while at the same time encouraging and managing creative performance? Any new product development (NPD) project requires some level of creative effort. In new product development, creative performance is of preeminent importance. Most NPD projects are executed with the NPD team as the organizational nucleus. As a result, managing creativity in NPD thus implies managing the creativity of NPD teams. Besides having to manage creative performance, companies are generally also concerned with improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the NPD process. Modern NPD projects therefore have the need for an approach that can be planned, optimized, and verified. As a consequence, systematic design methods have become widely used in NPD. In this article conceptual model is developed of the effect of modern design methodology on the creative performance of NPD teams. First, it is argued that the effect of systematic design methodology on NPD team creativity is mediated by the communication patterns of the NPD team. It is then proposed that four principles underlie modern design methodology: hierarchical decomposition, systematic variation, satisficing, and discursiveness. These principles affect NPD communication by, respectively, influencing the establishment of subgroups, the frequency of communication, the level of agreement or disagreement in the team, and the level of centralization of communication. Next, arguments are presented of how each of these four communicational characteristics shapes the creative performance of NPD teams. This second part of the conceptual model is tested empirically. This is done by studying the communication patterns in 44 NPD teams, employing social network analysis tools. These patterns of communication are then related to team‐level creative performance through a set of regression analyses. The main conclusion of the article is that the design principles work together and need to be considered as an integrated whole: the creative performance of NPD teams can only effectively be managed by using and aligning all four of them.     

Management Practices Influencing New Product Success and Failure in the United States and Scandinavia: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study

This comparative cross-cultural study of United States (U.S.) and Scandinavian telecommunications products found both similarities and differences in the successful new product development (NPD) management practices within the U.S. and Scandinavia. Proficiencies in conducting development, marketing, and customer service activities were identified as important to NPD success in both Scandinavia and the U.S. However, differences between the U.S. and Scandinavia were found with regard to the importance of research and development/marketing integration and project manager competency, with these aspects being more important to NPD success in the U.S. Additional differences between Scandinavia and the U.S. were found in the successful NPD strategies for entering familiar versus unfamiliar markets, with the Scandinavian systems being more oriented toward product design strategies. The overall results characterized U.S. NPD management systems as product-market oriented, task focused, and project management driven. By comparison, the Scandinavian NPD management systems were characterized as product-service oriented, driven by enduring interpersonal relationships and socially oriented to helping others. These characterizations were found to be consistent with dissimilarities in the national cultures of the U.S. and Scandinavia, suggesting that some core NPD management principles may be generally important to success, whereas others may be culturally dependent. The importance of recognizing these differences is pointed out in a discussion of their implications for NPD theory and practice in today's global economy. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.     

Differentiating Major and Incremental New Product Development: The Effects of Functional and Numerical Workforce Flexibility*

This study seeks to explain the differential effects of workforce flexibility on incremental and major new product development (NPD). Drawing on the resource‐based theory of the firm, human resource management research, and innovation management literature, the authors distinguish two types of workforce flexibility, functional and numerical, and hypothesize differential effects on NPD outcomes. A large‐scale sample of 284 Dutch firms across various manufacturing goods and business services industries serves to test these hypotheses. The results suggest that functional flexibility positively influences incremental NPD only, internal numerical flexibility negatively influences incremental NPD only, and external numerical flexibility positively influences major NPD only. Thus, differences between major and incremental NPD are grounded in the human resource flexibility of the firm. This complements research that found that such differences lie in critical development activities, learning processes, and capabilities. It also complements product innovation research on flexibility in NPD processes and on flexibility in organizational structures and routines. It extends the resource‐based theory of the firm suggesting that human resource flexibility is part of the dynamic capabilities that allow firms to reconfigure existing competencies. The conclusions imply that managers of manufacturing and service firms may use training and education and create a functional flexible workforce that can progressively enhance incremental NPD outcomes. They may want to avoid paying overtime, because such internal numerical flexibility hampers incremental NPD, but use fixed‐term contracts to expand external numerical flexibility to enhance major NPD.     

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

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

Business Performance and Strategic New Product Development Activities: An Empirical Investigation

Despite the ongoing search for the so-called silver bullet that provides the ultimate competitive advantage, there is no roadmap showing the “right” way to perform new product development (NPD). What's more, it is highly unlikely that such a formula could be developed. Given the diversity of firms and industries as well as the complexity of the NPD process, no single set of NPD activities or steps can be defined that will be appropriate for all firms. However, Roger J. Calantone, Shawnee K. Vickery, and Cornelia Droge propose that it is possible to develop such a framework within the confines of a specific industry. They suggest that successful companies within an industry are likely to focus on certain essential NPD activities that allow them to achieve the best possible results within the constraints of their market. Their research is directed toward identifying the relationship between the performance of specific innovation-related activities and overall business performance in the furniture industry. This study also assesses the relationship between a firm's performance on an NPD activity and the importance assigned to that activity by the firm's chief executive officer (CEO). With the current emphasis on cross-functional teams, the study also seeks to determine whether performance on a given NPD activity is related to the assignment of responsibility for that activity. The following NPD activities were evaluated for their effect on corporate performance: customization, new product introduction, design innovation, product development cycle time, product technological innovation, product improvement, new product development, and original product development. Compared to their competitors, top performers consistently put more strategic emphasis on each of these activities. All of these activities have a strong positive influence on return on investment (ROI) and ROI growth. What's more, most of the activities also clearly relate to stronger market share, market share growth, return on sales (ROS), and ROS growth. The vision and focus on these essential NPD activities must begin with CEOs who recognize their strategic value. Such leaders will direct appropriate staff and technical resources toward performance of the necessary activities. They will also ensure that the organization is sufficiently flexible to accept the changes in responsibilities for coordination and leadership that are necessary during different stages in the NPD process. To gain the product flexibility necessary for competing in numerous market segments, top performers require greater input and leadership from design, engineering, and manufacturing.     

Governance of supplier collaboration in technologically uncertain NPD projects

Firms that are searching for new technologies from suppliers through collaborative new product development (NPD) need to devise effective approaches for governing the supplier relationship. Based on in-depth case studies of four collaborative NPD projects, this paper shows that in projects with a high degree of uncertainty (1) firms achieve governance by simultaneously limiting supplier involvement and allowing for high levels of collaboration, (2) transactional and relational governance have distinct roles in achieving limited supplier involvement and establishing high levels of collaboration, and (3) transactional and relational governance are organizationally separated. These findings have implications for the complementary use of relational and transactional governance, as well as for the role of purchasing and R&D in technologically uncertain NPD projects.     

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

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

Managing Seller–Buyer Relationships during New Product Development*

Ineffective relationship management with potential buyers during new product development (NPD) can be an important contributor to new product failure in technology‐based, industrial markets. However, empirical research on managing these relationships remains underdeveloped. This study addresses this deficiency by developing an empirically based taxonomy of relationship approaches used by sellers to develop technology‐based, industrial innovations, identifying situational characteristics that correlate with the choice of a particular relationship approach, and evaluating sellers' satisfaction with their relationship approach. The study's conceptual model is rooted in transaction cost analysis (TCA) and draws from extant literature on seller–buyer relationships during NPD. It was tested with data from 334 small to mid‐sized firms in a variety of technology‐based industrial markets. The results indicate that sellers use three basic relationship approaches during NPD: a bilateral approach, a buyer‐guided approach, and a seller‐guided approach. While the bilateral approach relies on a mutual exchange of information, the buyer‐guided and seller‐guided approaches do not. Juxtaposed with the high levels of satisfaction experienced by sellers in the sample, the study suggests that no one relationship approach is universally desirable. Therefore, managers may need to engage in a portfolio of relationship approaches with buyers during NPD; further, these approaches should correlate with buyer‐related (i.e., perceived buyer knowledge and prior relationship history) and innovation‐related (i.e., product customization and technological uncertainty) characteristics. Collectively, these results can help sellers optimize their relationships with buyers during NPD.     

Planning and uncertainty in new product development

The domain of New Product Development (NPD) is subject to considerable uncertainties. Aside from market‐related sources of uncertainty, the degree of innovativeness of the underlying product concept is a significant source of uncertainty, as unclear goals and specifications like, e.g. product specifications may lead to substantial delays in the project. However, companies are required to manage the innovation process as efficiently as possible. The resulting conflicting demands often leave companies struggling to achieve both efficiency as well as flexibility due to their often opposing implications for organizing and managing NPD projects. In this context, planning plays a central role; however, its usefulness for NPD project success is perceived quite differently. While there are reports about a positive influence of initial planning on various success measures, others have questioned the effectiveness of elaborated initial planning and contend that the ability to rapidly react to changes later in the process and to improvise may lead to success in NPD. This study aims at achieving a better understanding of planning in NPD by investigating a sample of 475 Research & Development projects in Japanese electrical and mechanical engineering companies. Regression analysis is used to shed more light on the interplay of planning intensity, changes, and the degree of technological newness of the NPD project and their influence on project success. Our results indicate planning to be of value for different types of innovation projects. Furthermore, the influences of the variables in question vary with the success measures that are taken into account, indicating that a more detailed and contingent understanding of planning in NPD needs to be developed.     

A Taxonomy of Relationship Approaches During Product Development in Technology-Based, Industrial Markets

Effective relationship management during new product development (NPD) is an important determinant of new product success in technology-based, industrial markets. This article investigates whether different relationship approaches are used by sellers of high-tech innovations during the NPD process. The results of our empirical study reveal that sellers are resorting to two approaches during NPD: bilateral versus unilateral product development relationships. Furthermore, the approach used in a particular dyad is aligned with the seller's marketing strategy for the innovation, particularly aspects related to targeting (buyer knowledge and prior relationship history) and product strategy (the extent of product customization).     

Your new product development (NPD) is only as good as your process: an exploratory analysis of new NPD process design and implementation

Given industry competitiveness, how do firms' new product development (NPD) process designs differ when responding to an innovation mandate? How do NPD design elements differ across firms when implementing NPD processes? These design elements are strategic business unit (SBU) senior management involvement, business case content, customer interactions, and cross‐functional integration. What are the consequences of different combinations of NPD process design elements for innovation productivity? We explore these questions via a collective case study of newly implemented NPD process designs at three different SBUs of a major US‐based international conglomerate, 1 year after receiving the mandate to grow through innovation. Our analysis suggests that industry competitiveness and firm characteristics influence the NPD process design as SBUs employ distinct combinations of NPD design elements. The differential emphasis on design elements leads to variation in process design and divergence in innovation productivity.     

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.     

A Model of Supplier Integration into New Product Development*

In many industries, firms are looking for ways to cut concept‐to‐customer development time, to improve quality, and to reduce the cost of new products. One approach shown to be successful in Japanese organizations involves the integration of material suppliers early in the new product development cycle. This involvement may range from simple consultation with suppliers on design ideas to making suppliers fully responsible for the design of components or systems they will supply. While prior research shows the benefit of using this approach, execution remains a problem. The processes for identifying and integrating suppliers into the new product development (NPD) process in North American organizations are not understood well. This problem is compounded by the fact that design team members often are reluctant to listen to the technology and cost ideas made by suppliers in new product development efforts. We suggest a model of the key activities required for successful supplier integration into NPD projects, based on case studies with 17 Japanese and American manufacturing organizations. The model is validated using data from a survey of purchasing executives in global corporations with at least one successful and one unsuccessful supplier integration experience. The results suggest that (1) increased knowledge of a supplier is more likely to result in greater information sharing and involvement of the supplier in the product development process; (2) sharing of technology information results in higher levels of supplier involvement and improved outcomes; (3) supplier involvement on teams generally results in a higher achievement of NPD team goals; (4) in cases when technology uncertainty is present, suppliers and buyers are more likely to share information on NPD teams; and (5) the problems associated with technology uncertainty can be mitigated by greater use of technology sharing and direct supplier participation on new product development teams. A supplier's participation as a true member of a new product development team seems to result in the highest level of benefits, especially in cases when a technology is in its formative stages.