Accelerating New Product Development: A Preliminary Empirical Test of a Hierarchy of Implementation

Although time to market and a product's profitability are closely linked, simply speeding up new product development (NPD) is no guarantee of success. In fact, haphazardly adopting the numerous methods for accelerating NPD may jeopardize the potential success of the new product and the company. An article in a previous issue of The Journal of Product Innovation Management suggests that companies seeking to speed up their NPD process should take a hierarchical approach to implementing the various acceleration techniques. To improve the likelihood that efforts to accelerate NPD will pay off with shorter development time, greater market share, and improved profitability, it is recommended that a company start by focusing on simplification of the NPD process. From there, the company can proceed in sequence through techniques involving the elimination of unnecessary steps in the NPD process, parallel processing (i.e., performing two or more NPD steps at the same time), the elimination of delays, and speeding up of the NPD process. Ed J. Nijssen, Arthur R. L. Arbouw, and Harry R. Commandeur follow up on this earlier work by addressing several key questions regarding the proposed hierarchy of techniques for accelerating NPD. First, do companies that make extensive use of the proposed hierarchy develop new products faster than companies that do not? Second, do companies that make extensive use of the hierarchy enjoy better financial performance than those that do not? Third, regardless of the hierarchy, are products developed faster by companies that make more intensive use of acceleration methods than by companies that use fewer methods of acceleration? Finally, how does financial performance compare among companies that make more intensive use of acceleration methods without following the hierarchy and those that use fewer methods of acceleration? A survey of Dutch companies finds that the proposed hierarchy of techniques has a positive effect on NPD speed. The survey results also suggest that faster NPD is possible through the use of the various acceleration methods without regard for the order in which they are implemented. However, a strong positive relationship is evident between the hierarchy and the profitability of the product and the company. In other words, a random approach to NPD acceleration does not improve financial performance. By trying to accelerate NPD in accordance with the proposed hierarchy of methods, a company can avoid critical mistakes that might otherwise limit financial results.     

The Role of Salary and Incentives in the New Product Function

It seems reasonable to expect that a company's reward systems would recognize the importance of the new product function. It also seems reasonable that those systems should take into account the importance of cross-functional teams. Unfortunately, current reality does not meet those reasonable expectations. Laurence P. Feldman presents the results of a 1994 PDMA membership survey on the compensation of new product professionals. This study updates and extends the information collected in his 1990 PDMA survey, and thus meets four objectives: tracking changes in compensation levels since the 1990 survey; assessing the effects of various factors on compensation; examining the structure of non-salary financial incentives; and obtaining information on the extent and types of nonfinancial incentives used with cross-functional teams. The survey results indicate that compensation of new product professionals increased by 9.6% between 1989 and 1993. This compares unfavorably with a Labor Department benchmark of 14.7%. Survey findings indicate that the compensation of technical or scientific people does not differ significantly from that of marketing personnel. A firm's industry classification has a greater influence on compensation level than does a person's role in the new products process. Even more important are such factors as number of people supervised, length of time with the firm, and education level. Respondents indicate that performance-based financial incentives play a minor role in overall compensation. Such incentives gain importance as you move up the ranks of the organization, accounting for slightly more than 20% of total compensation at the vice presidential level. Despite the benefits of using cross-functional teams, compensation programs typically do not reward team efforts. Less than 20% of the respondents who served on such teams reported that any portion of their compensation was directly attributable to their team effort. In most cases, the new product professional's performance is evaluated by a functional manager rather than the team leader or project leader. In place of financial rewards for contributions to a team effort, companies often use nonfinancial rewards such as plaques, hoping to minimize the effect of possible errors in judging performance.     

Success Factors for Integrating Suppliers into New Product Development

Faster, better, cheaper—these marching orders summarize the challenge facing new product development (NPD). In other words, NPD teams must find the means for speeding time to market while also improving product quality and reducing product costs. Cross-functional teams have proved effective for meeting these challenges, and such teams may extend beyond company boundaries to include key materials suppliers. Effective integration of suppliers into NPD can yield such benefits as reduced cost and improved quality of purchased materials, reduced product development time, and improved access to and application of technology. As Gary Ragatz, Robert Handfield, and Thomas Scannell point out, however, those benefits do not automatically accrue to any NPD team that includes representatives from a supplier's company. In a study of 60 member companies from the Michigan State University Global Procurement and Supply Chain Electronic Benchmarking Network, they explore the management practices and the environmental factors that relate most closely to successful integration of suppliers into the NPD process. The study identifies supplier membership on the NPD project team as the greatest differentiator between most and least successful integration efforts. Although the respondents reported only moderate use of shared education and training, the study cites this management factor as another significant differentiator between most and least successful efforts. Respondents listed direct, cross-functional, intercompany communication as the most widely used technique for integrating suppliers into NPD. To integrate suppliers into NPD, a company must overcome such barriers as resistance to sharing proprietary information, and the not-invented-here syndrome. The results of this study suggest that overcoming such barriers depends on relationship structuring—that is, shared education and training, formal trust development processes, formalized risk/reward sharing agreements, joint agreement on performance measurements, top management commitment from both companies, and confidence in the supplier's capabilities. Overcoming these barriers also depends on assett sharing, including intellectual assets such as customer requirements, technology information, and cross-functional communication; physical assets such as linked information systems, technology, and shared plant and equipment; and human assets such as supplier participation on the project team and co-location of personnel.     

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.     

Architectural Redesign, Interpersonal Communication, and Learning in R&D

An effective R&D organization needs information from a complex web of sources, including customers, suppliers, sales and marketing, and company management. Within the R&D organization, information must flow into and among numerous teams. This network of interpersonal communications can go a long way toward determining the success of a company's innovation efforts. In an exploratory study of a Belgian company operating in the telecommunications industry, Rudy K. Moenaert and Filip Caeldries examine the effects of interpersonal communication on market and technological learning in R&D. Trying to improve the flow of information into and within its R&D organization, this company designed its new R&D facility with an eye toward improving both market and technological learning throughout the organization. By locating R&D personnel in closer proximity to one another, management hoped to provide them with improved access to market and technological information, and thus increase their innovativeness. Contrary to expectations, placing R&D professionals in closer proximity to one another did not increase technological learning in this organization. In fact, technological learning actually decreased slightly during the period studied, though the change is not statistically significant. On the other hand, market learning and product innovativeness improved significantly during the period studied. For an R&D professional in this company, members of other R&D teams seem to be more important as sources of market information than as sources of technological information. Surprisingly, the relocation of R&D personnel also did not increase the amount of communication that takes place, either within a project team, between members of different teams, or between R&D professionals and the management steering committee. However, the architectural redesign does appear to have improved the quality of communication. R&D team leaders report that since the relocation, the information flowing into R&D has been more customer focused. This is attributed to the company's ongoing efforts to provide the tools and structures necessary for supporting the objectives of the architectural redesign. For example, implementation of quality function deployment (QFD) has helped innovation team members to focus more clearly on relevant information. The success of the architectural design required approaching this effort as a complex, ongoing process, rather than a quick-fix solution.     

Customizing Concurrent Engineering Processes: Five Case Studies

Once hailed as the salvation of U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, concurrent engineering (CE) offers the potential for faster development of higher quality, more producible products. Unlike traditional, serial approaches to new product development (NPD), CE emphasizes cross-functional integration and concurrent development of a product and its associated processes. As Morgan L. Swink, J. Christopher Sandvig, and Vincent A. Mabert explain, however, CE is not a plug-and-play process. Successful CE implementation approaches differ depending on such factors as product characteristics, customer needs, and technology requirements. We can better understand those differences by examining CE implementation in the five NPD programs discussed here: the Boeing 777 aircraft, the heavy duty diesel engine at Cummins Engine Co., the thermoplastic olefin automotive coating at Red Spot Paint and Varnish Co., the airborne vehicle forward-looking infrared night vision system at Texas Instruments, and the digital satellite system at Thomson Consumer Electronics. Teams provide the primary integration mechanism in CE programs, and three types of teams appeared frequently in these projects: a program management team, a technical team, and numerous design-build teams. Depending on the project's complexity, an integration team may be needed to consolidate the efforts of various design-build teams. Task forces also may be formed to address specific problems, such as investigating an emerging technology. Some projects emphasized collocation and face-to-face communication. Others relied on phone conversations, documents, and electronic mail. Projects focusing on design quality relied on formal presentations and periodic review meetings. Projects emphasizing development speed required frequent, informal communications. Programs addressing design quality required extended product definition and performance testing, with input from design engineering, marketing, and customers. Efforts to reduce development time involved small, informal teams led by design engineers and managers. Aggressive product cost goals necessitated intensive interaction between product designers and manufacturing personnel. Highly innovative products required early supplier involvement and joint engineering problem solving. Formal design reviews and shared design data systems aided information sharing between internal and external design groups.     

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

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

A cross-national investigation of the R&D-marketing interface in the product innovation process

Managing the interface between R&D and marketing is a critical element of successful new product development programs. The purpose of this research is twofold. First, we develop testable hypotheses from a theoretical model of cross-functional team management in the product innovation process based on the seminal work of Gupta, Raj, and Wilemon. We test the hypotheses using data collected from 376 U.S., 292 Chinese, and 279 Japanese firms. Second, we uncover and highlight similarities and differences in cross-functional involvement between marketing and R&D in the product innovation process across these three countries. The results generally provide overall support for the model and reveal some surprising cross-national differences.     

Technical Professionals in Cross-functional Teams: Their Quality of Work Life

The idea that R&;D professionals typically spend a considerable amount of their time working as members of teams makes sense. After all, plenty of research indicates that the use of cross-functional teams improves the effectiveness of product development efforts. However, the increasing use of cross-functional teams raises an important question for researchers and R&;D practitioners: Does the use of cross-functional teams improve the quality of work life for technical professionals?Rene Cordero, George F. Farris, and Nancy DiTomaso address this question in study of 1,714 R&;D professionals working on projects. They suggest that being a member of a cross-functional team may be more demanding than working as a member of a functional project group. On the other hand, they expect that working on a cross-functional project team may be more rewarding than working in a functional project group. Their study tests these hypotheses by examining the relationships between measures of the extent to which respondents work on cross-functional teams and five measures each of the participants’ job demands and positive job outcomes.The study identifies positive relationships between working on cross-functional teams and the five positive job outcomes studied: job growth, job security, membership in successful teams, earning money, and job satisfaction. The study finds less consistent and weaker relationships between working on cross-functional teams and the five job demands studied. Specifically, the study identifies positive relationships between working on cross-functional teams and the following job demands: effort, job involvement, and considering a lot of difference of opinion. The results of this study do not find a conclusive relationship between cross-functional team membership and time pressure. And contrary to expectations, the study finds a negative relationship between working on cross-functional teams and job stress.Comparing the responses of participants who work on project teams with those who do not, the results of the study indicate that respondents who work on project teams face greater job demands than positive job outcomes. However, working on cross-functional teams seems to increase positive job outcomes more than job demands. In other words, working on cross-functional teams appears to increase the quality of work life for the technical professionals in this study.     

Antecedents and Consequences of Cross-Functional Cooperation: A Comparison of R&D, Manufacturing, and Marketing Perspectives

By breaking down the walls among the R&D, manufacturing, and marketing functions, techniques such as concurrent engineering and quality function deployment can pave the way to more effective new product development (NPD). Recognizing the benefits of such cross-functional efforts, practitioners and researchers have examined the interrelationships among various groups in the NPD process, paying particularly close attention to the R&D–marketing interface. However, manufacturing also plays an important role in NPD. Consequently, any thorough exploration of the relationship between cross-functional cooperation and NPD success must consider manufacturing's perspective. X. Michael Song, Mitzi M. Montoya-Weiss, and Jeffrey B. Schmidt provide such a balanced perspective in a study of cross-functional cooperation during NPD in Mexican high-tech firms. Notwithstanding the differing functional goals, objectives, and reward systems present in R&D, manufacturing and marketing, they hypothesize that all three functions recognize that successful NPD requires crossfunctional cooperation. In particular, they expect that representatives of these three functional groups will share similar perceptions, regarding both the drivers and the consequences of cross-functional cooperation. The survey results support the hypothesis that R&D, manufacturing, and marketing professionals share the same perceptions, regarding the drivers and the consequences of cross-functional cooperation. Respondents from all three groups view internal facilitators as the drivers of cross-functional cooperation. In other words, regardless of their functional area, the survey respondents believe that the strongest, most direct effects on cross-functional cooperation and NPD performance come from a firm's evaluation criteria, reward structures, and management expectations. Respondents perceive these internal facilitators as having a greater effect on cross-functional cooperation than that of external forces such as market competitiveness and technological change. In fact, contrary to expectations, the respondents do not view these external forces as having a significant effect on cross-functional cooperation or NPD performance. And contrary to persistent reports about friction between technical and nontechnical personnel, all three groups perceive a strong, positive relationship between cross-functional communication and NPD performance.     

Cross-functional integration as a knowledge transformation mechanism: Implications for new product development

The importance of cross-functional integration (CFI) teams involving workers with multiple forms of functional expertise to work on new product development cannot be overemphasized. CFI is an organic structure and it allows the team members' tacit knowledge embedded in individuals to be realized in the new product development team's collective knowledge - a holistic appreciation and understanding about how to achieve new product development goals. Specifically, despite the pivotal role of CFI and knowledge appreciation in new product development teams, scholars appear to have overlooked the integration of individual level factors, team level factors, individual tacit knowledge, and group collective knowledge within the context of achieving the new product development objectives. Adopting knowledge, CFI, and socialization theories, we propose a conceptual framework that stipulates that the factors at the team level (goal congruence, task cohesion, interpersonal cohesion, and transformational leadership) and the qualification of team members (common knowledge, functional expertise, and their positions in the network) influence the effectiveness of tacit-to-collective knowledge transformation.     

Perspective: Changing Product Development Strategy—A Managerial Challenge

By changing its product development strategies to match more closely the wants and needs of the marketplace, a firm can transform product development into a formidable competitive weapon. Just as formidible, however, is the effort that this transformation requires. Established organizational structures and corporate politics present significant barriers to acheiving fundamental changes in product development strategy. Christer Karlsson and Pär Åhlstrom present a case study of one firm's efforts to build capabilities for creating new products quickly and efficiently. Rather than focus on the content of the firm's product development strategies, however, they emphasize the process this electromechanical manufacturing firm used for changing its product development strategy. Drawing on their experiences as clinical researchers in this effort, they describe key lessons learned during the change process, and they offer suggestions for managing the process of changing product development strategy. They highlight five key lessons learned during the strategy development process. First, rather than viewing product development as a line function, a firm should view product development as a key executive area with responsibility for the company's competitive position. Second, market issues are the responsibility, not only of marketing, but also of product development and production. Third, to avoid corporate myopia, management control systems must consider not only time and money, but also acheivement of goals. Fourth, strategic planning flows more smoothly if the participants start by mapping the firm's past and present position before attempting to define the desired position. Finally, formulation of a product development strategy is the responsibility of a multifunctional team of executives. Managers should keep a few rules in mind when devising a process for formulating a product development strategy. First, adopt a learning strategy throughout the change process. Formulation of a product development strategy involves many abstract concepts, and a successful strategy requires cross-functional consensus. Second, combine tangible, direct activities with long-term strategic aims. Third, avoid the pitfall of best practice. The form that the product development organization takes depends, to a great extent, on the type of development work. Finally, before discussing future strategies, the strategy formulation process should focus on analyzing the current situation.     

Lean Launch: Managing Product Introduction Risk Through Response-Based Logistics

New product launch research has identified four strategic issues that involve activities essential to introduce a new product to its target market. The sum of these decisions is critical to new product success. Substantial research has focused on decisions guiding the proper product, price, and promotion mix to favorably impact market goals. Considerably less research has centered on determining how place capabilities such as logistics and supply chain relationships impact launch performance. Logistics and supply chain collaboration—the processes involved in planning, implementing, and controlling the efficient, effective flow and storage of goods, services, and related information from the point of origin to point of consumption for the purpose of conforming to customer requirements—can greatly reduce risk associated with new product launch. They combine to provide a structure to facilitate rapid response to developing demand by location and intensity. In this article, an effort is made to fill the gap in extant knowledge regarding new product launch strategies by reviewing relevant literature and comparing traditional launch strategies based on anticipatory demand forecasts with alternative lean launch strategies based on the principles of response-based logistics. The result is a lean launch model for continued empirical testing and managerial review. The article contrasts traditional logistics support of new product launch with an emerging logic called lean launch strategy. The traditional launch strategy is forecast driven and is based on anticipatory logistics (push). The lean launch strategy is formulated on principles of postponement and is based on response-based logistics (pull) and supply chain management. Response-based logistics systems provide flexibility that enables better management of inventory levels. Improved replenishment times and in-stock availability of products from a centralized inventory allows managers to rapidly react to actual demand. Lean launch enhances successful introduction by allowing greater flexibility in product variant selection while minimizing out-of-stock potential. Lean launch also can cut losses in product launch failures by reducing launch inventory exposure. Finally, lean launch can improve chances of new product success by helping limited volume technical successes achieve profitability.     

Leadership Style: Its Impact on Cross-Functional Product Development

This article reports the results of a study in which cross-functional product development projects in six companies were analyzed. The study was conducted as part of an interdisciplinary research involving technological, organizational, and behavioral analysis. The article draws on an excerpt of the data collected on leadership styles among project managers as well as some data on organizational climate and team learning. Leadership style, especially the leaders' employee orientation, co-varied significantly with how members of the cross-functional teams perceived their work climate and possibilities for innovative learning. The results of the analyses point to the leader's behavior, rather than his power, as an important factor determining the work climate in successful cross-functional product development projects.     

Benchmarking the Firm's Critical Success Factors in New Product Development

Managing new product development (NPD) is, to a great extent, a process of separating the winners from the losers. At the project level, tough go/no-go decisions must be made throughout each development effort to ensure that resources are being allocated appropriately. At the company level, benchmarking is helpful for identifying the critical success factors that set the most successful firms apart from their competitors. This company- or macro-level analysis also has the potential for uncovering success factors that are not readily apparent through examination of specific projects. To improve our understanding of the company-level drivers of NPD success, Robert Cooper and Elko Kleinschmidt describe the results of a multi-firm benchmarking study. They propose that a company's overall new product performance depends on the following elements: the NPD process and the specific activities within this process; the organization of the NPD program; the firm's NPD strategy; the firm's culture and climate for innovation; and senior management commitment to NPD. Given the multidimensional nature of NPD performance, the study involves 10 performance measures of a company's new product program: success rate, percent of sales, profitability relative to spending, technical success rating, sales impact, profit impact, success in meeting sales objectives, success in meeting profit objectives, profitability relative to competitors, and overall success. The 10 performance metrics are reduced to two underlying dimensions: program profitability and program impact. These performance factors become theX-and Y-ax.es of a performance map, a visual summary of the relative performance of the 135 companies responding to the survey. The performance map further breaks down the respondents into four groups: solid performers, high-impact technical winners, low-impact performers, and dogs. Again, the objective of this analysis is to determine what separates the solid performers from the companies in the other groups. The analysis identifies nine constructs that drive performance. In rank order of their impact on performance, the main performance drivers that separate the solid performers from the dogs are: a high-quality new product process; a clear, well-communicated new product strategy for the company; adequate resources for new products; senior management commitment to new products; an entrepreneurial climate for product innovation; senior management accountability; strategic focus and synergy (i.e., new products close to the firm's existing markets and leveraging existing technologies); high-quality development teams; and cross-functional teams.     

Team member experiences in new product development: views from the trenches

Although cross-functional teams are often used for new product development (NPD), many companies struggle to implement them successfully. Through in-depth interviews with 71 team members from 18 companies in a variety of technology-based industries, this study focuses on the experiences of the people who actually do much of the work of NPD (team members) and explores their perceptions and attitudes about cross-functional team assignments. The purpose of our study is to identify the factors that influence and shape NPD team member experiences. Our results suggest that although NPD work can be rewarding and productive, NPD team members are often neglected by other team members, project leaders, and senior management. This sense of neglect has important implications for all of these constituencies, but particularly for senior management.     

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.     

The impact of lean practices on inventory turnover

Lean manufacturing (LM) is currently enjoying its second heyday. Companies in several industries are implementing lean practices to keep pace with the competition and achieve better results. In this article, we will concentrate on how companies can improve their inventory turnover performance through the use of lean practices. According to our main proposition, firms that widely apply lean practices have higher inventory turnover than those that do not rely on LM. However, there may be significant differences in inventory turnover even among lean manufacturers depending on their contingencies. Therefore, we also investigate how various contingency factors (production systems, order types, product types) influence the inventory turnover of lean manufacturers. We use cluster and correlation analysis to separate manufacturers based on the extent of their leanness and to examine the effect of contingencies. We acquired the data from the International Manufacturing Strategy Survey (IMSS) in ISIC sectors 28-35.     

Measuring New Product Success: The Difference that Time Perspective Makes

Management is often criticized for overemphasizing short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth. On the other hand, although numerous studies have explored the factors underlying new product success and failure, such studies rarely distinguish between short- and long-term success. In fact, little research has been conducted to explore the relationship between a company's time perspective and its choice of criteria for measuring new product success. For that matter, little consensus exists as to just what we mean by the term success. Expanding on work done by a PDMA task force on measurement of new product success and failure, Erik Jan Hultink and Henry S.J. Robben identify 16 core measures of new product success. In a survey of large Dutch companies, they explore managers' perceptions of new product success, hypothesizing that the importance attached to each of the 16 core measures depends on the company's time perspective. For example, they propose that criteria such as development cost and speed-to-market are more important in the short term, and return-on-investiment (ROI) is more important in the long term. The study also examines the type of market served, the innovation strategy, and the perceived innovativeness of the company's products. It is hypothesized that these factors will influence the importance the company attaches to the core measures of new product success. For example, it is expected that speed-to-market is probably more important for technological innovators than for fast imitators or cost minimizers. The findings support the hypothesis that the firm's time perspective influences the perceived importance of the core measures of success. For the short term, the respondents emphasize product-level measures such as speed-to-market and whether the product was launched on time. In the long term, the focus is on customer acceptance and financial performance, including attaining goals for profitability, margins, and ROI. Four factors are perceived as being equally important for short-term and long-term success: customer satisfaction, customer acceptance, meeting quality guidelines, and product performance level. Customer satisfaction was found to be the most important measure, regardless of a company's time perspective. Contrary to expectations, the perceived importance of the 16 core measures does not differ on the basis of the type of market, the innovation strategy, or the product's perceived innovativeness. In addition, the firm's functional orientation—technology push or market pull—does not affect the importance attached to the core measures of new product success.     

From Experience: Securing Sponsors and Funding for New Product Development Projects—The Human Side of Enterprise

Gaining approval for a project requires playing a role that may be unfamiliar for many new-product development (NPD) professionals—that of salesperson. The NPD professional must sell management on the market potential of the product concept, and persuade management to commit the resources needed for transforming the concept into a marketable product. Finding a well-placed sponsor within the company's management ranks can improve the chances of obtaining approval for a project, but securing sponsorship is, in many respects, yet another sales job. Gary Tighe offers guidance for NPD professionals who must sell their projects to potential sponsors. He describes the key steps in the process of securing a sponsor, he gives guidelines for choosing the right sponsor based on the nature of the project, and he provides practical advice for developing a presentation that will gain the support of a prospective sponsor and company management. He then presents a vignette that illustrates the principles he discusses. He identifies three elements that are necessary for securing a sponsor and obtaining funding for a proposed project: clearly defining the project, its scope, and its objective; specifying how the proposed project affects the prospective sponsor and that person's organization; and detailing the project's effects on revenue, profits, cost, or output. These elements forge a strong link between project outcomes and the interests of the sponsor, the sponsor's organization, and the company as a whole. Choosing the right sponsor requires careful consideration of the project's expected effects on specific functional areas and the entire organization, the resources required, the project objectives, and time constraints. For example, senior management sponsorship is essential for projects that cut across existing organizational boundaries. After helping to ensure that projects receive adequate funding, sponsors may serve as advisers to project teams, and they may provide additional resources if a team encounters unexpected problems. Through regular progress reports and sponsor participation in team meetings, the project team can ensure the active, ongoing support of the sponsor.