A Stage‐Wise Approach to Exploring Performance Effects of Cycle Time Reduction

Research on reducing new product development (NPD) cycle time has shown that firms tend to adopt different cycle time reduction mechanisms for different process stages. However, the vast majority of previous studies investigating the relationship between new product performance and NPD cycle time have adopted a monolithic process perspective rather than looking at cycle time for the distinct stages of the NPD process (i.e., fuzzy front end, development, and commercialization). As a result, little is known about the specific effect of the cycle times of the different stages on new product performance or how they interact to influence new product performance. This study uses a stage‐wise approach to NPD cycle time to test the main and interacting effects of fuzzy front end, development, and commercialization cycle times on new product performance using objective data for 399 NPD projects developed following a Stage‐Gate® type of process in one firm. The results reveal that at least in this firm, new product performance only increases if all three stages of the NPD process are consistently accelerated. This finding, combined with the previous research showing that firms use different mechanisms to accelerate different stages of the process, emphasizes the need to conduct performance effect studies of NPD cycle time at the stage level rather than at the monolithic process level.     

Community acceptance of biodiversity offsets: evidence from a choice experiment

This study of the community's acceptance of biodiversity offsets in Australia provides insights relevant to future revisions of offset policies of both State and Commonwealth Governments. A choice experiment was used to measure preferences for the general acceptability of offsetting, and for a number of attributes that define how an offset can be implemented. Based on a sample of 204 respondents from Perth, WA, we found that the majority of respondents did not object to the practice of biodiversity offsetting in general. A minority of respondents preferred that offset actions be direct, but most accepted a combination of direct and indirect actions. Individuals generally preferred that the offset be located near the site of impact, and it became more unacceptable the further away that it was located. However, there was heterogeneity in preferences for protecting the impacted species or a more endangered one.     

Non‐market valuation: usage and impacts in environmental policy and management in Australia

An extensive literature exists on environmental nonmarket valuation research. It appears that results from these studies should be useful inputs to decision‐making about environmental policy or management. Here, we investigate the extent to which this occurs in practice in Australian environmental management bodies. Nonmarket valuation experts were surveyed about their studies that they believed to have influenced policy. Then, decision‐makers in environmental bodies were interviewed about the level of influence nonmarket valuation has had on their decisions. We find that researchers' perceptions of the influence that nonmarket valuation has on decision‐making are overly optimistic. Interviews with decision‐makers suggest that nonmarket valuation is little used in decision‐making. Indeed, the majority of them are unfamiliar with nonmarket valuation techniques. Nevertheless, once the concept was explained to them, many decision‐makers believed it could benefit environmental policy. Researchers' perceptions of the reasons for low usage of nonmarket valuation are largely inaccurate. We suggest a range of strategies that economists can use to promote the use of nonmarket valuation in environmental policy and management decisions, including ways to improve communication and engagement with decision‐makers, and strategies to increase the capacity for decision‐makers to use nonmarket valuation results.     

An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success and Failure

This article represents findings of a PDMA task force studying measures of product development success and failure. This investigation sought to identify all currently used measures, organize them into categories of similar measures that perform roughly the same function, and contrast the measures used by academics and companies to evaluate new product development performance. The authors compared the measures used in over seventy-five published studies of new product development to those surveyed companies say they use. The concept of product development success has many dimensions and each may be measured in a variety of ways. Firms generally use about four measures from two different categories in determining product development success. Academics and managers tend to focus on rather different sets of product development success/failure measures. Academics tend to investigate product development performance at the firm level, whereas managers currently measure, and indicate that they want to understand more completely, individual product success.     

Metrics for Measuring Product Development Cycle Time

As global competitive pressure increases and product life cycles compress, many companies are trying to shorten their product development cycles. Firms are implementing a wide variety of different techniques, management processes and development strategies in their quest for shorter development cycles. We read anecdotal accounts of some efforts that herald great success stories but seldom hear about any failures. Unfortunately, some of the companies changing their development processes do so without any a priori basis for determining whether the process change will have helped or hindered them. The firm implements the new process without having a cycle time performance baseline against which to compare results from the new process. In this article, Abbie Griffin presents a method for obtaining product development cycle time performance baselines. She also demonstrates how to use them to either forecast expected project duration, given that you have not changed your development process, or determine whether a process change has actually decreased development cycle times.     

Effects of recontracting on shareholder wealth: The case of voluntary spin-offs

This paper investigates the effect of voluntary corporate spin-off announcements on shareholder wealth. A significant positive share price reaction is documented for 93 voluntary spin-off announcements between 1963 and 1981. These shareholder gains do not appear to come wholly at the expense of bondholders. Evidence suggests the gains to shareholders may arise from tax and regulatory advantages and/or improved managerial efficiency resulting from the spin-off.