New Product Activities and Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Hostility

In the race to bring new products to market, a company may be tempted to cut corners in the new product development (NPD) process. And a hostile environment—that is, one marked by intense competition and rapid technological change—only heightens the pressure to reduce NPD cycle time. However, hasty completion of the NPD process may actually jeopardize a product's chances for success. In a study of Fortune 500 manufacturers of industrial products, Roger J. Calantone, Jeffrey B. Schmidt, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto explore the relationships among new product success rates, proficiency in the execution of NPD activities, and the perceived level of hostility in the competitve environment. Their study examines how proficiency in NPD activities affects the odds of success for industrial new products. Adding environmental hostility to the mix, they also investigate whether the perceived level of hostility in the competitive environment affects the relationship between NPD proficiency and success. In this way, they provide insight into the factors managers must consider when attempting to accelerate cycle time in a hostile competitive environment. The respondents to their survey—142 senior managers involved in NPD or product innovation rated environmental hostility in terms of the extent to which the firm perceives its industry as safe, rich in investment opportunity, and controllable. To assess NPD proficiency, respondents were asked about their firms' performance in predevelopment marketing and technical activities, development marketing and technical activities, and financial analysis. Respondents assessed new product performance in terms of product profitability. As expected, the responses indicate that proficiency in the performance of NPD activities increases the likelihood of new product success. Proficiency in development marketing activities produced the largest increase in likelihood of success—nearly 25 percent over that of projects in which respondents rated performance of these activities at any level below “most proficient.” More importantly, the responses indicate that a hostile competitive environment increases the impact of NPD proficiency. In other words, by improving performance of key NPD activities under hostile environmental conditions, a firm can greatly increase the likelihood of success for a new industrial product. Rather than simply cut corners in the NPD process, a firm faced with a hostile environment must strike a balance between speed and quality of execution.     

NPD Planning Activities and Innovation Performance: The Mediating Role of Process Management and the Moderating Effect of Product Innovativeness

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of planning and control on the performance of new product development (NPD) projects. It is hypothesized that (1) thorough business planning at the beginning of a project creates a basis for proficient project and risk planning; (2) the proficiency of project planning, risk planning, and process management activities each improves innovation performance directly; (3) the relationship of planning and success is mediated by process management; and (4) the strength of these relationships is moderated by uncertainty, as determined by the degree of innovativeness. To test the hypotheses, data from 132 NPD projects were collected and analyzed. A measurement model was used to establish valid and reliable constructs, a path model to test the main effects, and a multiple-moderated regression analysis for the moderator hypotheses. The results suggest that the proficiency of project planning and process management is important predictors of NPD performance. Specifically, project risk planning and goal stability throughout the development process are found to enhance performance significantly. Business planning proves to be an important antecedent of the more development-related planning activities such as project planning and risk planning. Additionally, the results lend support to the hypotheses regarding the mediating role of process management in the planning–performance relationship. Project planning and risk planning support the quality of process management and thus impact NPD performance indirectly. Only to a limited extent are the strengths of these relationships moderated by the degree of innovativeness of the NPD project.     

Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products

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

Navigating the purchasing power gap in new product development in multinational corporations

Multinational corporations (MNCs) face a significant purchasing power gap of customers between developed and emerging economies. In R&D intensive industries making physical products, MNCs can benefit from economies of scale. Therefore, managers strive to achieve a product standardization–adaptation (S‐A) balance when navigating the purchasing power gap. Through focusing on five MNCs headquartered in developed countries, I examined how MNCs can achieve such a balance through new product development (NPD). I found that (1) an S‐A balance can be achieved through three NPD strategies (product simplification, product retaining, and reverse innovation); (2) managers need to take into account five key factors when choosing NPD strategies (product complexity, product modularity, brand strategy, position in local competition, and internal technical standards); and (3) the NPD strategies can be implemented through structural separation, temporal separation, and a shared value. This research reveals the complexity of achieving an S‐A balance when managers navigate the purchasing power gap in NPD. Different NPD strategies have certain advantages and shortcomings. High product complexity and product modularity can serve as favorable conditions for a product simplification strategy. A brand strategy of leading‐edge technologies can serve as an adverse condition for a product retaining strategy. Strong local competitors in emerging markets can be a motivation for a reverse innovation strategy, while stringent internal standards for safety can be an adverse condition. This research also reveals the nuances of implementation of NPD strategies in terms of managing innovation and refinement activities. MNCs may need temporal separation when adopting both downhill and uphill NPD strategies.     

Exploring New Product Development Project Review Practices*

Most organizations use new product development (NPD) processes that consist of activities and review points. Activities basically solve problems and gather and produce information about the viability of successfully completing the project. Interspersed between the development activities are review points where project information is reviewed and a decision is made to either go on to the next stage of the process, stop it prior to completion, or hold it until more information is gathered and a better decision can be made. The review points are for controlling risk, prioritizing projects, and allocating resources, and the review team typically is cross‐disciplinary, comprising senior managers from marketing, finance, research and development (R&D), or manufacturing. Over the past four decades, research has greatly advanced knowledge with respect to NPD activities; however, much less is known about review practices. For this reason, the present paper reports findings of a study on NPD project review practices from 425 Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) members. The focus is on three decision points in the NPD process common across organizations (i.e., initial screen, prior to development and testing, and prior to commercialization). In this paper, the number of (1) review points used, (2) review criteria, (3) decision makers on review committees and the proficiency with which various evaluation criteria are used are compared across incremental and radical projects and across functional areas (i.e., marketing, technical, financial). Furthermore, the associations between these NPD review practices and new product performance are examined. Selected results show that more review points are used for radical NPD projects than incremental ones, and this is related to a relatively lower rate of survival for radical projects. The findings also show that the number of criteria used to evaluate NPD projects increases as NPD projects progress and that the number of review team members grows over the stages, too. Surprisingly, the results reveal that more criteria are used to evaluate incremental NPD projects than radical ones. As expected, managers appear to more proficiently use evaluation criteria when making project continuation/termination decisions for incremental projects; they use these criteria less proficiently during the development of radical projects, precisely when proficiency is most critical. At each review point, technical criteria were found to be the most frequently used type for incremental projects, and financial criteria were the most commonly used type for radical ones. Importantly, only review proficiency is significantly associated with performance; the number of review points, review team size, and number of review criteria are not associated with new product performance. Furthermore, only the coefficient for proficiently using marketing criteria was significantly related to new product program performance; the proficiency of using financial and technical information has no association with performance. Finally, across the three focal review points of the NPD process in this study, only the coefficient for proficiency at the first review point, (i.e., the initial screen) is significantly greater than zero. The results are discussed with respect to research and managerial practice, and future research directions are offered.     

The Impact of Organizational Integration and Product Development Proficiency on Market Success

This research investigates three major hypotheses important to new product market success: the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater the market success; the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater new product development proficiency; and the greater new product development proficiency, the greater the market success. “Organizational integration” is defined as the degree of cooperation and communication between internal and external NPD “support” groups and NPD teams. “NPD process proficiency” is defined as how well new product development stages and the new product development process as a whole is performed. “New product market success” is represented by four measures: the degree to which profits and sales exceeded or fell short of what was expected, and the degree to which the new product was perceived to exceed or fall short of expectations related to entering existing and new markets. Information was obtained concerning the most and least successful new products of U.S. firms in the medical instruments, the electrical equipment, and the heavy construction equipment industries. The field survey approach was utilized in which surveys were mailed to recipients such as new product development managers who already had been designated by executives of the sample firms. Several important findings were uncovered during this research. Overall organizational integration was found to be significantly associated with new product market success. Internal integration, the coordination between new product development teams and functional departments, was found to be significantly related to product market success. A significant relationship between new product development proficiency during the NPD “post-launch stage” and the degree of integration between an NPD team and external NPD organizations, such as customers and suppliers, was detected. During the post-launch stage, new product development proficiency also was found to be significantly related to new product market success. These findings suggest several important implications for new product development managers and scholars.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

An Exploratory Investigation of NPD Practices in Nonprofit Organizations*

Studies of practices in new product and service development have focused predominantly on for‐profit organizations, whereas attention to the nonprofit sector has been minimal. Such attention is needed given that nonprofit organizations are unique in their structures and are growing with regards to impact on the world economy and society in general. Moreover, such disparate attention suggests a void in this discipline's understanding of new product development (NPD) practices of nonprofit organizations. Two particular research questions are posed: (1) To what extent are the practices of for‐profit organizations employed in nonprofit organizations? (2) How do the practices of nonprofits compare to those of for‐profit organizations? In the course of answering these questions, the present study reviewed literature and the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) certification work. The study subsequently identified six dimensions of successful NPD efforts: strategy, portfolio management, process, market research, people, and metrics and performance measurement. These dimensions were applied via an in‐depth case‐study methodology to six large, U.S. nonprofit organizations: American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Red Cross, Boys and Girls Club of America, and Goodwill Industries. The dimensions assisted in categorizing and analyzing the responses of 40 respondents across the six organizations. Results show that some NPD practices of large nonprofit organizations are similar to for‐profit organizations, but other practices are more distinctive and related to the nature of nonprofit organizations. Large nonprofit organizations tend to be very good at articulating their mission, embedding it throughout, and using it to drive programs and activities. These organizations tend to view product development as a tactical endeavor versus a strategic one and do not engage in portfolio management practices for their new programs. Instead, broad criteria such as fit with mission, funding availability, and presence of a champion are used for evaluating programs. The NPD process tends to be informal with little structure, and individual departments and local chapters tend to undertake their own NPD initiatives and have their own process for doing so. Nonprofits place a heavy emphasis on ideation and less emphasis on other activities such as concept development and testing, project evaluation, and business analysis. Pilot testing is the most used type of market research. These results suggest that NPD processes within large nonprofit organizations share some of the same weaknesses as those of for‐profit organizations, with NPD metrics being a particularly weak area. The NPD practices of nonprofits also have some unique characteristics that include the following: a heavy emphasis on the mission, a desire for flexibility, strong influence of external sponsors, and difficulty in assessing long‐term program success. Management of nonprofit NPD and directions for future research are discussed.     

Measuring Involvement of a Network of Customers in NPD

The new product development (NPD) literature is rife with suggestions to involve customers in the innovation process, and many firms collaborate with customers. But the extant literature does not offer much guidance concerning the nature and quality of involving such a network of customers. This paper contributes to the extant literature on customer involvement by identifying a comprehensive set of metrics to measure the involvement of a network of customers in NPD. It introduces metrics describing three aspects of customer involvement: (1) the rationale for involving a network of customers in NPD, (2) the network of customers involved in NPD, and (3) the interaction process between manufacturer and customers at the level of individual customers. These metrics help to understand the roles of customers, the timing of their involvement at each stage in the development process, the type and number of customers that are involved, as well as the frequency and intensity of their involvement. The use of these metrics is illustrated by a study of customer network involvement by Irish business‐to‐business companies. Forty‐six percent of the sampled firms (n = 1400) were actively involved in NPD, but very few of them involved customers in the early stages (n = 77). The involvement of customers in early NPD stages is significant, although manufacturers tend to go back to the same customers repeatedly. The intensity of customer involvement is also extensive, but even more so during the later NPD stages, especially for new products as opposed to product improvements. By incorporating a network perspective, the proposed metrics for customer network involvement provide a new approach for researchers to study the involvement of customers in NPD.     

Sources and assessment of complexity in NPD projects

When examining the reasons why NPD projects are late, over budget, or why they suffer from performance problems, complexity is often directly linked to the results achieved. While some research has been done in the complexity area, more research is needed to assess the role that complexity plays in the successful development of new products. In this paper complexity is defined and several reasons are examined why this factor can be a significant issue in successfully managing NPD efforts. Several sources of complexity are also examined including technological; market; development; marketing; organizational; and intraorganizational complexity, i.e., one company partnering with another to develop a new product or technology. A template is then constructed to help product developers evaluate complexity in their development projects. Finally, the paper concludes with suggestions of how the complexity template can be applied by development managers and their teams.     

The Effects of Decentralization in Strategy‐Making and National Culture on NPD Portfolio Planning

Traditionally, the understanding among scholars and practitioners has been that a portfolio of NPD projects is the expression of a firm's strategy and thus it must support the strategy. In keeping with this view, the current study focuses on new product development (NPD) portfolio planning, which is defined as a firm's effort to formulate portfolio decisions using a defined innovation strategy. Connecting portfolio decisions to a defined innovation strategy has been associated with higher innovation success. Surprisingly, empirical research indicates that portfolio decisions do not always support the company's innovation strategy. Furthermore, during recent years, an increasing number of authors underscore the importance of responsiveness and adaptability in portfolio decision‐making. The current study addresses these two issues by examining a direct effect of decentralization in strategy‐making on NPD portfolio planning, and a moderating effect of decentralization in strategy‐making on the relationship between NPD portfolio planning and NPD program success. The study also examines the influence of national culture on the proposed relationships. The theoretical model was tested using data from the 2012 PDMA Comparative Performance Assessment Study. Findings indicate that NPD portfolio planning positively influences NPD program success. Also, results revealed inverted U‐shaped direct and moderating effects, respectively, of decentralization in strategy‐making on NPD portfolio planning, and of decentralization in strategy‐making on the relationship between NPD portfolio planning and NPD program success. With regard to the moderating effect of national culture, results indicate that uncertainty avoidance does not moderate the relationship between NPD portfolio planning and NPD program success. Nonetheless, we found significant moderating effects of individualism and power distance on the curvilinear relationship between decentralization in strategy‐making and NPD portfolio planning.     

Determinants of integrated product development diffusion

Integrated product development (IPD) is an approach for developing new products focused on the early and active involvement of design, manufacturing, marketing and other key new product development (NPD) stakeholders in order to achieve cross-functional integration and concurrent execution of various NPD activities. The benefits of IPD are well known in both the academic literature and popular press, including significant reductions in NPD cycle time and costs. However, in spite of these benefits, for the majority of manufacturing organizations, IPD is not used on 100% of NPD projects. This research develops a model of the organizational contextual factors influencing the diffusion of IPD in organizations. Results of surveying 269 NPD managers indicate that the complexity of certain IPD practices and support for IPD directly influence IPD diffusion, while an innovative organizational climate and the complexity of the organization's NPD activities indirectly influence IPD diffusion through IPD support.     

Exploring new product portfolio management decisions: The role of managers' dispositional traits

Product strategy links to new product development (NPD) through new product portfolio management (NPPM). This dynamic decision process addresses the strategy implementation questions of identifying which new product ideas to pursue and their relative priorities. Despite the importance of NPPM in implementing product strategy, firms exhibit substantial performance-affecting differences. We investigate one potential source for such differences by examining the impact of managers' dispositional factors as a possible explanation. Using a case study research method, we examine differences in NPPM strategies and managers' revealed dispositional traits across three divisions of a single conglomerate firm operating in different business-to-business markets. Based on our analysis, we offer propositions relating managers' dispositions to NPPM strategy: analytic cognitive style is associated with balance, ambiguity tolerance is associated with strategic fit, and leadership style is associated with the relative weights applied to each dimension.     

The Impact of Market Orientation, Product Advantage, and Launch Proficiency on New Product Performance and Organizational Performance

Some scholars have suggested recently that a market‐oriented culture leads to superior performance, at least in part, because of the new products that are developed and are brought to market. Others have reinforced this wisdom by revealing that a market‐oriented culture enhances organizational innovativeness and new product success, both of which in turn improve organizational performance. These scholars do not reveal, however, through which new product development (NPD) activities a market‐oriented culture is converted into superior performance. To determine how critical NPD activities are for a market‐oriented firm to achieve superior performance, our study uses data from 126 firms in The Netherlands to investigate the structural relationships among market orientation, new product advantage, the proficiency in new product launch activities, new product performance, and organizational performance. We focus on product advantage—because product benefits typically form the compelling reasons for customers to buy the new product—and on the launch proficiency—as the launch stage represents the most costly and risky part of the NPD process. Focusing on the launch stage also is relevant because it is only during the launch that it will become evident whether a market orientation has crystallized into a superior product in the eyes of the customer. The results provide evidence that a market orientation is related positively to product advantage and to the proficiency in market testing, launch budgeting, launch strategy, and launch tactics. Product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics are related positively to new product performance, which itself is related positively to organizational performance. Market orientation has no direct relationship to new product performance and to organizational performance. An important implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on organizational performance is channeled through the effects of a market orientation on product advantage and launch proficiency; subsequently through the effects of product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics on new product performance; and finally through the effect of new product performance on organizational performance. These channeling effects are much more subtle and complex than the direct relationship of market orientation on organizational performance previously assumed. Another implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on performance occurs through the launch activities rather than being pervasive to all organizational processes and activities. A reason for this finding may be that NPD is the one element of the marketing mix that predominantly is the responsibility of the firm, whereas promotion and distribution often are in control of organizations outside the firm (e.g., advertising agencies, major retailers) and whereas the channel or the market often dictates the price. Both implications provide ample opportunities for further research on market orientation and NPD.     

Connecting Interfirm and Intrafirm Collaboration in NPD Projects: Does Innovation Context Matter?

Interfirm collaboration is an important strategy for firms to generate new products and services. Whereas existing research emphasizes the importance of interfirm collaboration engagement to realize synergistic benefits in interfirm NPD projects, it remains surprisingly silent on the potential impact of intrafirm relational processes and how they can impact the interfirm setting. In this article, we therefore explore the impact of intrafirm collaboration engagement on the relationship between interfirm collaboration engagement and new product development (NPD) performance in interfirm NPD projects. Relying on insights from information processing theory, the authors hypothesize that intrafirm collaboration engagement increases firms' capacity to process complex information flows in the case of extensive interfirm collaboration engagement. Moreover, it is expect that the added value of extensive intrafirm collaboration engagement depends on the innovation objective (i.e., incremental versus radical new product development) of the interfirm NPD project. In particular, we hypothesize that the positive moderating impact of intrafirm collaboration engagement on the relationship between interfirm collaboration engagement and NPD performance is stronger for radical interfirm projects than incremental interfirm projects. Analyzing 195 interfirm NPD projects, a negative interaction effect between interfirm and intrafirm collaboration engagement is observed in radical interfirm NPD projects, whereas significant interactions between them remain absent in incremental interfirm NPD projects. Jointly, these findings provide first evidence that intrafirm relational processes can substantially impact partners' ability to realize relational rents in interfirm settings. Moreover, the negative interaction effect between interfirm and intrafirm collaboration engagement points to potential trade‐offs between inward‐looking and outward‐looking absorptive capacity.     

From experience: Capturing hard-won NPD lessons in checklists

The application of a good New Product Development (NPD) process is frequently limited by the experience of the user. Avoiding relatively minor errors and omissions that can lead to seriously flawed project results is still an art. Checklists for each stage of a development project can capture this art and their disciplined use can avoid many potentially critical omissions and errors. Development of checklists frequently comes from the hard experiences many of us have had in bringing new products to market. Consequently, benchmarking "trials and tribulations" rather than success stories can be more appropriate to developing a thoughtful checklist.
This article is a partial accumulation of one practitioner's experiences of over three decades of executing, managing, directing and observing these projects. Fifteen NPD case histories are examined to develop learnings from these experiences. These cases are organized around three basic product development issues: managing technical risks, managing commercial risks, and managing NPD personnel. In these examples, NPD project problems have a common theme of poor technical or commercial risk management, as opposed to technical failure. Improved planning and a more disciplined management interface would have avoided many of the problems discussed in these case histories.
Analysis of each of the case histories and learnings is provided from which suggested checklist items are derived. These checklist additions are presented by development stage to allow use by other NPD teams, with the intention of avoiding the repetition of similar problems.     

Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study

In the ‘knowledge economy’ upheld by the European Lisbon strategy, knowledge‐intensive services are considered a key driver for innovation and competitiveness. A category of knowledge‐intensive services that has become of utmost importance in the last few decades is new product development (NPD) services, which interconnect distant knowledge domains with the client firms. In addition to NPD service providers, web‐based innovation intermediaries have started to help innovative firms access dispersed bodies of knowledge. Despite the heterogeneity of their characteristics, however, a clear typology of the strategies used by traditional NPD service providers and web‐based intermediaries to interact with their knowledge sources and with their clients is missing. This typology would be very useful for those firms that are willing to collaborate with innovation intermediaries because it could highlight the typologies of NPD problems different intermediaries are apt to address and the managerial challenges that working with them entails. Developing such a classification framework is the main goal of this paper. The typology proposed in this paper suggests that innovation intermediaries should be distinguished based on the following: (1) the way they access their distributed knowledge sources and (2) the way they deliver value to their clients. By combining these two dimensions, four categories of innovation intermediaries are identified, which are named brokers, mediators, collectors and connectors. A multiple case study analysis involving four innovation intermediaries and 12 of their clients is presented in the paper. The analysis provides exploratory insights into (1) the typologies of NPD problems that each class of intermediaries addresses and (2) the managerial challenges that working with each of them entails. These preliminary findings call for further theoretical and empirical research into the complex interaction among innovation intermediaries, their dispersed sources of knowledge and their clients.     

Customer interactivity and new product performance: Moderating effects of product newness and product embeddedness

Understanding customer needs which drive significant product innovation is particularly challenging for new product development (NPD) organizations. Research has addressed how organizations benefit from interacting with customers, but more conceptualization is needed into the dimensions of the customer interaction process. In a business-to-business (B2B) setting, customer interactivity is conceptualized as a multi-dimensional construct consisting of bidirectional communications, participation, and joint problem solving during NPD projects. Drawing upon organizational information processing theory, customer interactivity is hypothesized to be positively related to customer information quality when developing highly innovative products, but not when developing modifications or extensions of existing products. Another condition affecting this relationship studied is the embeddedness of the new product in the customer's business environment. Customer interactivity is hypothesized to be positively related to information quality for highly embedded product, but not for low embedded product. Results from a sample of NPD organizations in several B2B industries support these hypotheses. The study contributes to the marketing literature and practice by identifying important dimensions of the customer interaction process which lead to more proactive organizations, and identifying two moderating conditions of the customer interactivity and NPD performance relationship.