Characterizing the Role of Design in New Product Development: An Empirically Derived Taxonomy*

This article empirically explores the nature of the role of design in the new product development process. The investigation adopts a multiple case study methodology. Data were collected through a six‐month interview program carried out with mid‐size to large U.K. manufacturing companies. The researchers articulate the scope and detailed nature of actions undertaken by design across all phases of the new product development process. Design functional, integration, and leadership actions are unraveled from the data. A taxonomy characterizing three roles for design in new product development is developed and explained. In the first role, design is explored as a functional specialism. The second categorization develops the role of design as part of a multifunctional team. The third role depicts the designer as process leader. Detailed actions and skills associated with each role are discussed and illustrated. Contextual factors explaining and influencing each design role are unraveled. These are articulated as speed of development process, innovativeness of the product development effort, and use of external design agencies. The implications of these findings for the development of design skills and capabilities are discussed in terms of recruitment, training, and educational policies.     

An exploratory study of Principal Investigator roles in UK university Proof‐of‐Concept processes: an Absorptive Capacity perspective

The increasing emphasis on academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and research commercialisation within UK universities is predicated on basic research being developed by academics into commercial entities such as university spin‐off companies or licensing arrangements. However, this process is fraught with challenges and risks, given the degree of uncertainty regarding future returns. In an attempt to minimise such risks, the Proof‐of‐Concept (PoC) process has been developed within University Science Park Incubators (USIs) to test the technological, business and market potential of embryonic technology. The key or the pivotal stakeholder within the PoC is the Principal Investigator (PI), who is usually the lead academic responsible for the embryonic technology. Within the current literature, there appears to be a lack of research pertaining to the role of the PI in the PoC process. Moreover, Absorptive Capacity (ACAP) has emerged within the literature as a theoretical framework or lens for exploring the development and application of new knowledge and technology, where the USI is the organisation considered in the current study. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore the role and influence of the PI in the PoC process within a USI setting using an ACAP perspective. The research involved a multiple case analysis of PoC applications within a UK university USI. The results demonstrate the role of the PI in developing practices and routines within the PoC process. These practices and processes were initially tacit and informal in nature but became more explicit and formal over time so that knowledge was retained within the USI after the PIs had completed the PoC process.     

Soaking It Up: Absorptive Capacity in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams

Prior research has acknowledged the importance of an organization's absorptive capacity—the ability to acquire new knowledge and information, assimilate, transform, and exploit it—for innovation purposes. Because innovations are usually developed by project teams, this suggests that absorptive capacity, as a construct, may also be usefully applied at the team level. Consequently, this study developed a measure for team‐level absorptive capacity, investigated the potential influencing factors, and examined its relationship to team effectiveness in terms of product innovativeness in an interorganizational context. Specifically, building on the theory of homophily and information and decision‐making theories, three factors (social‐category similarity, work‐style similarity, and knowledge complementarity between the recipient and the partner organization teams) were identified as likely antecedents of team absorptive capacity. The hypotheses were tested on data from 98 interorganizational new product development teams and included responses from team members, team leaders, and team‐external managers. With regard to the antecedents of team absorptive capacity in interorganizational settings, the results showed a significant positive association with partners' work‐style similarity and an inverted U‐shaped relationship with partners' knowledge complementarity. Social‐category similarity was not significantly associated with team absorptive capacity. We also examined whether team absorptive capacity was related to interorganizational team effectiveness and found a significant positive relationship between team absorptive capacity and product innovativeness. The study demonstrates that absorptive is indeed related to team effectiveness outcomes in an interorganizational context, which underlines the importance of team‐level absorptive capacity for product innovation management and suggests paying more attention to the lower levels of absorptive capacity.     

Design Inertia: Designing for Life‐Cycle Flexibility in Internet‐Based Services*

Managing innovation in rapidly moving environments, such as Internet‐based services, is a major challenge in theory and in practice. Most of the existing literature focuses on the development process as the main area in which innovation takes place. However, in environments where the pace of change of technology and market needs is extremely high, managing service innovations means not only being able to design a good service but also, more importantly, continuously redesigning and adapting the service in order to deal with frequent exogenous changes and opportunities. A high number of innovations therefore must be introduced throughout the entire life cycle of a service. This capability of introducing incremental and radical innovations during the service life cycle (i.e., to adapt a service to contextual changes and opportunities after it has been first released onto the market) at low costs and in the shortest possible time is what is defined here as service life‐cycle flexibility. This process of service adaptation and upgrading implies significant challenges that can be traced back to when a service is first conceived and designed. In fact, many decisions made during the first design process (i.e., the choice of a given database environment) involve a low reversibility rate and may reduce the possibility of taking advantage of future unpredictable opportunities, creating what is called inertia toward innovation. In other words, service life‐cycle flexibility largely depends on how a service has been first designed. This article analyzes two in‐depth case studies of Italian online newspapers and identifies five possible inertia factors that may influence service life‐cycle flexibility, namely (1) technological inertia; (2) internal organizational inertia; (3) external organizational inertia; (4) customer inertia toward changes in the service package; and (5) customer inertia toward changes in the service interaction design. These inertia factors are traced back to the service development process in order to suggest design practices that may increase the service life‐cycle flexibility.     

New Product Preannouncement as a Signaling Strategy: An Audience‐Specific Review and Analysis*

Firms in various industries with highly competitive environments use new product preannouncement (NPP) as one of the most effective and popular signaling tools. Preannouncements can bring both benefits and costs to firms. Extant research has studied NPP from different perspectives and tackled the questions, “Should a new product be preannounced and when?” and “What information should be preannounced and why?” However, the benefits and costs of preannouncements from an audience‐specific perspective are less well understood. It is important to notice that benefits and costs of a preannouncement vary among different audiences and firms need to apply group‐specific weights in assessing the overall benefits and costs prior to making new product preannouncements. The purpose of this article is to review the existing literature on new product preannouncements for commonly observed marketing problems and to develop a general approach focusing on the target audiences and the incentives in sending signals to each audience and the impacts of these signals. This paper first reviews the literature on marketing‐related NPP issues as well as the determinants and effects of various factors on NPP decisions. Then, it discusses the phenomenon of new product preannouncements linked to other marketing and economics problems: (1) product development and positioning; (2) product diffusion and adoption; (3) firm value; (4) vaporware and antitrust litigations; and (5) consumer welfare. In addition, this paper divides the target audience of the new product preannouncement into four groups: customers, competitors, investors, and distributors. Based on current signaling theory, it proposes an audience‐specific framework to analyze the determinants, incentives, and impact of new product preannouncements. The proposed approach may provide more comprehensive insights on NPP strategies to managers and industrial decision makers. Finally, the paper suggests a number of future research directions from four different perspectives (i.e., customer, firm, government/industry, and methodology).     

企业社会资本与技术创新：基于吸收能力的实证研究

本文针对我国企业社会资本影响技术创新的机制问题展开分析,从企业社会资本的特征维度出发,引入吸收能力的视角,提出了基于吸收能力的企业社会资本与技术创新绩效的概念模型。在问卷调查的基础上,通过多元线性回归分析和结构方程模型分析,对我国企业社会资本如何影响技术创新的问题进行了实证研究。研究结果表明,在不考虑吸收能力作用的情况下,企业社会资本的结构、关系和认知等三个维度的水平对于我国企业技术创新绩效的提升均具有积极显著的作用;企业社会资本三个特征维度的水平通过提高吸收能力进而正向影响技术创新绩效;其中,认知维度在结构维度和关系维度发挥效应中承担中介变量的作用。为提高企业技术创新绩效,建议以知识的获取和利用为导向,注重企业社会资本三个维度水平的均衡提高。     

Market Vision and Market Visioning Competence: Impact on Early Performance for Radically New,High‐Tech Products*

Having the “right” market vision (MV) in new product scenarios involving high degrees of uncertainty has been shown to help firms achieve a significant competitive advantage, which can ultimately lead to superior financial results. Despite today's increased rate of radical innovation, and hence the importance of effective vision, relatively little research has been undertaken to improve our understanding of this phenomenon. The exploratory and empirical investigation undertaken herewith responds to this research gap by focusing on MV and its precursor, market visioning competence (MVC), for radically new, high‐tech products. MV is a clear and specific mental model/image that organizational members have of a desired and important product‐market for a new advanced technology, and MVC is a set of individual and organizational capabilities that enable the linking of advanced technologies to a future market opportunity. Based on samples of high‐tech firms involved in early technology developments, the measurement study indicates that five factors comprise MV (i.e., clarity, magnetism, specificity, form, and scope) and that four factors underlie MVC (i.e., networking, idea driving, proactive market orientation, and market learning tools). Structural equation modeling is used to demonstrate that MVC significantly and positively impacts MV and that each of these constructs significantly and positively influences certain aspects of early performance (EP) in new product development. This is the first empirical study to develop a comprehensive set of scales to measure these constructs and then to combine them in a model by which to examine their interrelationships.     

The Impact of Fit Measures on the Consumer Evaluation of New Co‐Branded Products*

A popular strategy currently employed for new product introductions is co‐branding. Such a strategy allows a brand to innovate with the support of a partner brand. The present study investigates how consumers perceive a new product with two brands. Previous research focused on the logic of a brand combination by investigating the impact of the fit between both existing product categories (i.e., product‐product fit) and the fit between both brand images (i.e., brand‐brand fit) on the evaluation of a new co‐branded product. However, no study has yet focused on the relationships between both brands and their existing product categories, and the specific new product that has been developed. The present paper aims to improve the understanding of the potential benefits of co‐branding by taking the role of the new product into account. The empirical study discussed in this paper replicates and extends the model of Simonin and Ruth (1998) by adding two new measures to their model. These measures are related to the fit of both existing product categories with the new product (i.e., new‐product‐product fit) and the fit of both brand images with the new product (i.e., new‐product‐brand fit). The results from this empirical study with 210 consumers in The Netherlands show that product‐product fit, brand‐brand fit, and new‐product‐brand fit have a significant positive impact on the evaluation of a new co‐branded product. New‐product‐product fit was not significantly related to consumer evaluations. In addition, the results show that consumers prefer a new co‐branded product that can be clearly associated with one of the brands in the partnership so that it can be categorized unambiguously. This paper discusses these findings and provides implications for research and managerial practice in the important and growing field of brand‐driven innovation.     

Success Factors in New Ventures: A Meta‐analysis*

Technology entrepreneurship is key to economic development. New technology ventures (NTVs) can have positive effects on employment and could rejuvenate industries with disruptive technologies. However, NTVs have a limited survival rate. In our most recent empirical study of 11,259 NTVs established between 1991 and 2000 in the United States, we found that after four years only 36 percent, or 4,062, of companies with more than five full‐time employees, had survived. After five years, the survival rate fell to 21.9 percent, leaving only 2,471 firms still in operation with more than five full‐time employees. Thus, it is important to examine how new technology ventures can better survive. In the academic literature, a number of studies focus on success factors for NTVs. Unfortunately, empirical results are often controversial and fragmented. To get a more integrated picture of what factors lead to the success or failure of new technology ventures, we conducted a meta‐analysis to examine the success factors in NTVs. We culled the academic literature to collect data from existing empirical studies. Using Pearson correlations as effect size statistics, we conducted a meta‐analysis to analyze the findings of 31 studies and identified the 24 most widely researched success factors for NTVs. After correcting for artifacts and sample size effects, we found that among the 24 possible success factors identified in the literature, 8 are homogeneous significant success factors for NTVs (i.e., they are homogeneous positive significant metafactors that are correlated to venture performance): (1) supply chain integration; (2) market scope; (3) firm age; (4) size of founding team; (5) financial resources; (6) founders' marketing experience; (7) founders' industry experience; and (8) existence of patent protection. Of the original 24 success factors, 5 were not significant: (1) founders' research and development (R&D) experience; (2) founders' experience with start‐ups; (3) environmental dynamism; (4) environmental heterogeneity; and (5) competition intensity. The remaining 11 success factors are heterogeneous. For those heterogeneous success factors, we conducted a moderator analysis. Of this set, three appeared to be success factors, and two were failure factors for subgroups within the NTVs' population. To facilitate the development of a body of knowledge in technology entrepreneurship, this study also identifies high‐quality measurement scales for future research. The article concludes with future research directions.     

How Individuals Engage in the Absorption of New External Knowledge: A Process Model of Absorptive Capacity

This paper offers a process model of how individuals engage in the absorption of new external knowledge. Data collection is centered on the experiences of knowledge workers in recognizing, assimilating, and applying external knowledge. The process model delineates how individuals engage in the absorptive capacity (AC) process through: (1) valuing knowledge potential by assessing the motivation to assimilate knowledge and by evaluating technological feasibility, which together constitute the recognition of value; (2) corroborating knowledge value by ensuring legitimacy and demonstrating a shared understanding of the business value in achieving knowledge assimilation; and (3) championing knowledge integration by lobbying for support and securing resources in order to integrate and apply the knowledge within the organization, ultimately ensuring that knowledge is exploited. The process model clarifies how an individual’s proficiency in external knowledge absorption activities can result in three possible outcomes: knowledge is exploited, knowledge is terminated, or knowledge gets “stuck” in limbo. These findings contribute to the AC literature by underscoring the pivotal role of individual engagements in recognition, assimilation, and application of external knowledge and add new elements and a process perspective to the understanding of the path from potential to realized AC. The paper also provides insights into how individuals and firms can better manage knowledge absorption in practice.     

Incremental and Radical Innovation in Coopetition—The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Appropriability

This study examines why some firms are better able than others to reap benefits from collaborating with their competitors in innovation. Whereas on the general level, collaborative innovation has been studied widely, and firm‐specific success factors in collaboration between competitors (i.e., coopetition) have not been exhaustively addressed. Earlier literature describes coopetition as a risky but potentially rewarding relationship in which sharing, learning, and protection of knowledge are recognized as the key issues determining the possible benefits and hazards. This study provides evidence of factors related to this, suggesting that the firm's ability to acquire knowledge from external sources (potential absorptive capacity) and to protect its innovations and core knowledge against imitation (appropriability regime) are relevant in increasing the innovation outcomes of collaborating with its competitors. This study also distinguishes between incremental and radical innovations as an outcome of coopetition, and provides differing implications for the two innovation types. The empirical evidence for the study was gathered from a cross‐industry survey conducted on Finnish markets. The data are analyzed with multivariate multiple regression analysis. The results of the analysis suggest that (1) potential absorptive capacity and appropriability regime of the firm both have a positive effect in the pursuit of incremental innovations in coopetition, and (2) in the case of radical innovations, appropriability regime has a positive effect, while the effect of absorptive capacity is not statistically significant. However, the results also indicate that there is a moderating relationship between these variables, in that the potential absorptive capacity is positively associated with creation of radical innovations within high levels of appropriability regime. These results yield important theoretical and managerial implications. As a whole, the results presented in this study provide new evidence on which types of firms can reap success in the challenging task of collaborative innovation with rivals. In the case of incremental innovation, a firm‐level emphasis on knowledge sharing and learning will positively affect the results of coopetition, as will an emphasis on knowledge protection. Thus, when incremental developments are pursued in coopetition, firms should not only seek to exchange knowledge to create value but also remember to secure the firm‐specific core knowledge within the firm's borders to stay competitive. On the other hand, when the firm is pursuing radical innovation with its rivals, the heaviest emphasis should be on protecting its existing core knowledge and also emerging novel innovations and market opportunities. Capabilities in knowledge acquisition are also beneficial in these cases, but the full benefits of knowledge exchange realize only when the firm's knowledge protection mechanisms are sufficiently strong, allowing for safe knowledge exchange between rivals.     

Modified Stage‐Gate® Regimes in New Product Development*

The purpose of this research was to explore the nature of the Stage‐Gate^®process in the context of innovative projects that not only vary in new product technology (i.e., radical versus incremental technology) but that also involve significant new product development technology (i.e., new virtual teaming hardware‐software systems). Results indicate that firms modify their formal development regimes to improve the efficiency of this process while not significantly sacrificing product novelty (i.e., the degree to which new technology is incorporated in the new offering). Four hypotheses were developed and probed using 72 automotive engineering managers involved in supervision of the new product development process. There was substantial evidence to creatively replicate results from previous benchmarking studies; for example, 48.6% of respondents say their companies used a traditional Stage‐Gate^®process, and 60% of these new products were considered to be a commercial success. About a third of respondents said their companies are now using a modified Stage‐Gate^®process for new product development. Auto companies that have modified their Stage‐Gate^®procedures are also significantly more likely to report (1) use of virtual teams; (2) adoption of collaborative and virtual new product development software supporting tools; (3) having formalized strategies in place specifically to guide the new product development process; and (4) having adopted structured processes used to guide the new product development process. It was found that the most significant difference in use of phases or gates in the new product development process with radical new technology occurs when informal and formal phasing processes are compared, with normal Stage‐Gate^®usage scoring highest for technology departures in new products. Modified Stage‐Gate^®had a significant, indirect impact on organizational effectiveness. These findings, taken together, suggest companies optimize trade‐offs between cost and quality after they graduate from more typical stage‐process management to modified regimes. Implications for future research and management of this challenging process are discussed. In general, it was found that the long‐standing goal of 50% reduction in product development time without sacrificing other development goals (e.g., quality, novelty) is finally within practical reach of many firms. Innovative firms are not just those with new products but also those that can modify their formal development process to accelerate change.     

Why Customers Value Self‐Designed Products: The Importance of Process Effort and Enjoyment*

This study analyzes which factors prompt customers to attribute value to products they design themselves using mass‐customization (MC) toolkits. The assumption that self‐design delivers superior customer value is fundamental to the concept of MC toolkits and can be found in almost any conceptual work in this field. However, spectacular failures reinforce the practical relevance of developing a deeper understanding of why and when MC toolkits generate value for customers—and when they do not. Research to date has assumed that the closer fit between the self‐designed product's characteristics and the preferences of the customer is the dominant source of value. In this research, it is asked whether the enjoyment and perceived effort of the self‐design process have an additional impact on the perceived value of self‐designed products. This question is interesting because one could argue that a rational actor would hardly be willing to pay ex post for an economic good already consumed. The hypotheses are tested on 186 participants designing their own scarves with an MC toolkit. After completing the process, they submitted binding bids for “their” products in Vickrey auctions. Therefore, real buying behavior, not merely stated intentions, is observed. The present study finds that the subjective value of a self‐designed product (i.e., one's bid in the course of the auction) is indeed impacted not only by the preference fit the customer expects it to deliver but also by (1) the process enjoyment the customer reports, (2) the interaction of preference fit and process enjoyment, and (3) the interaction of preference fit and perceived process effort. In addition to its main effect, preference fit can be interpreted as a moderator of the value‐generating effect of process evaluation: in cases where the outcome of the process is perceived as positive (high preference fit), the customer also interprets process effort as a positive accomplishment, and this positive effect adds (further) value to the product. It appears that the perception of the self‐design process as a good or bad experience is partly constructed on the basis of the outcome of the process. In the opposite case (low preference fit), effort creates a negative effect that further reduces the subjective value of the product. Likewise, process enjoyment is amplified by preference fit, although enjoyment also has a significant main effect, which means that regardless of the outcome, customers attribute higher value to a self‐designed product if they enjoy the process. In a way, this effect resembles of the classic story of Tom Sawyer and the fence, in which Tom manages to “frame” the tedious chore of whitewashing a fence as a rare opportunity—thus persuading his friends to pay him for letting them work. Manufacturers designing an MC system therefore are advised to designing MC toolkits in a way that they elicit positive affective reactions that make their customers value their work.     

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

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

Neo‐Rawlsian Fringes: A New Approach to Market Segmentation and New Product Development*

Prior research into the link between new product development and market segmentation has focused on two main approaches: (1) design, segment, and do limited competitive evaluation; and (2) segment first, design second. This paper proposes a third approach, which is to simultaneously design, perform segmentation according to benefit and to evaluate against competitive designs. This research uses a benefit segmentation technique based on conjoint analysis (or other techniques that relate product attributes to consumer utility) in which the segments emerge simultaneously with the design based on certain design principles or “strategies.” Herein a method is proposed to narrow down the many possible feasible designs (combinations of attributes) to a finite set and to examine the appeal of each design. Five distinct design strategies are proposed for modeling and studying competitive reaction. These include “traditional” ones such as differentiation and new ones whose fringe customers have high utility. The paper shows that these five strategies are adequate for modeling competitive reaction using simulation. Another contribution of the paper is the way competitive reaction is modeled. In generating and evaluating a design the desire herein is also to assess the defensibility of the design and include it in the evaluation criteria. These issues are addressed by decomposing the solution procedure into two phases. In the first phase, different optimal designs are created based on predefined product development strategies. In the second, these optimal designs are compared against one another with regard to market share and potential to secure market leadership. This work shows that the nature of competition as well as the variability of customer preferences are critical to how a strategy performs. This process uncovers a surprisingly robust design strategy—developing attributes such that a “lower fringe” is most satisfied—that even achieves market dominance under certain conditions. This methodology is also applied to partworth data on refrigerators, which provides a concrete example of the concepts and demonstrates results consistent with the propositions developed earlier in the paper.     

Managing Supplier Involvement in New Product Development: A Multiple‐Case Study*

Existing studies of supplier involvement in new product development have mainly focused on project‐related short‐term processes and success factors. This study validates and extends an existing exploratory framework, which comprises both long‐term strategic processes and short‐term operational processes that are related to supplier involvement. The empirical validation is based on a multiple‐case study of supplier collaborations at a manufacturer in the copier and printer industry. The analysis of eight cases of supplier involvement reveals that the results of supplier–manufacturer collaborations and the associated issues and problems can best be explained by the patterns in the extent to which the manufacturer manages supplier involvement in the short term and the long term. The results of this study reveal that the initial framework is helpful in understanding why certain collaborations are not effectively managed yet conclude that the existing analytical distinction among four different management areas does not sufficiently reflect empirical reality. This leads to the reconceptualization and further detailing of the framework. Instead of four managerial areas, this study proposes to distinguish between the strategic management arena and the operational management arena. The strategic management arena contains processes that together provide long‐term, strategic direction and operational support for project teams adopting supplier involvement. These processes also contribute to building up a supplier base that can meet current and future technology and capability needs. The operational management arena contains processes that are aimed at planning, managing, and evaluating the actual collaborations in a specific development project. The results of this study suggest that success of involving suppliers in product development is reflected by the firm's ability to capture both short‐ and long‐term benefits. If companies spend most of their time on operational management in development projects, they will fail to use the leverage effect of planning and preparing such involvement through strategic management activities. Also, they will not be sufficiently able to capture possible long‐term technology and learning benefits that may spin off from individual projects. Long‐term collaboration benefits can only be captured if a company can build long‐term relationships with key suppliers, with which it builds learning routines and ensures that the capability sets of both parties are aligned and remain useful for future joint projects.     

Perspective: The Stage‐Gate® Idea‐to‐Launch Process—Update,What's New,and NexGen Systems*

Stage‐Gate has become a popular system for driving new products to market, and the benefits of using such a robust idea‐to‐launch system have been well documented. However, there are many misconceptions and challenges in using Stage‐Gate. First, Stage‐Gate is briefly outlined, noting how the system should work and the structure of both stages and gates. Next, some of the misconceptions about Stage‐Gate—it is not a linear process, nor is it a rigid system—are debunked, and explanations of what Stage‐Gate is and is not are provided. The challenges faced in employing Stage‐Gate are identified, including governance issues, overbureaucratizing the process, and misapplying cost‐cutting systems such as Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing to product innovation. Solutions are offered, including better governance methods such as “gates with teeth,” clearly defined gatekeepers, and gatekeeper rules of engagement, as well as ways to deal with bureaucracy, including leaner gates. Next‐generation versions of Stage‐Gate are introduced, notably a scalable system (to handle many different types and sizes of projects), as well as even more flexible and adaptable versions of Stage‐Gate achieved via spiral development and simultaneous execution. Additionally, Stage‐Gate now incorporates better decision‐making practices including scorecards, success criteria, self‐managed gates, electronic and virtual gates, and integration with portfolio management. Improved accountability and continuous improvement are now built into Stage‐Gate via a rigorous postlaunch review. Finally, progressive companies are reinventing Stage‐Gate for use with “open innovation,” whereas others are applying the principles of value stream analysis to yield a leaner version of Stage‐Gate.     

Information in Launch Messages: Stimulating the Adoption of New High‐Tech Consumer Products

This research investigates how the adoption of new high‐tech consumer products can be stimulated by communicating product‐related information in launch messages. In an initial pilot study, the authors find that for making an adoption decision, consumers require different types of product‐related information, i.e., technical information, financial information, and personal/social information. In three experiments, the authors then examine how adoption intention and behavior is affected by communicating these information types. The first experiment shows that communicating personal/social information results in the highest adoption intention. This effect is moderated by the way in which the information is represented in the message. Adoption intention is highest when personal/social information is communicated in an abstract manner, while financial and technical information are most effective when communicated in a concrete manner. The second experiment shows that the effects hold for actual adoption behavior. In addition, visual imagination is found to mediate these effects. In the last experiment, visual imagination is directly manipulated by thematic priming and has a direct effect on adoption behavior. The results emphasize that activating the imagination in a product‐relevant situation stimulates adoption behavior.     

Development Resource Planning: Complexity of Product Development and the Capacity to Launch New Products

Overcommitment of development capacity or development resource deficiencies are important problems in new product development (NPD). Existing approaches to development resource planning have largely neglected the issue of resource magnitude required for NPD. This research aims to fill the void by developing a simple higher‐level aggregate model based on an intuitive idea: The number of new product families that a firm can effectively undertake is bound by the complexity of its products or systems and the total amount of resources allocated to NPD. This study examines three manufacturing companies to verify the proposed model. The empirical results confirm the study's initial hypothesis: The more complex the product family, the smaller the number of product families that are launched per unit of revenue. Several suggestions and implications for managing NPD resources are discussed, such as how this study's model can establish an upper limit for the capacity to develop and launch new product families.     

Championship Behaviors and Innovations Success: An Empirical Investigation of University Spin‐Offs*

Despite the flurry of scholarly research on champions, no prior article has explicitly addressed how different dimensions of championship behavior actually contribute to innovation success. In this article, based on an extensive literature review, the authors argue that champions display four behaviors, namely (1) pursuing innovative ideas, (2) network building, (3) persisting under adversity, and (4) taking responsibility for the idea. The authors use data from 123 university spin‐offs to test proposed linear and curvilinear relationships between the four behaviors and an objective measure of innovation success, namely a longitudinal measure of sales growth. The results indicate that network building has the desired positive relationship with sales performance. Surprisingly, pursuing the innovative idea is not related to sales growth. Furthermore, the present study also reveals some dysfunctional effects of champion behaviors. Persisting under adversity and taking responsibility have the hypothesized inverted‐U relationship with sales growth. The present study provides a more refined discussion of the benefits and dangers of championing behaviors. Our results show that linking technology to markets can be planned and controlled only to a very limited extent even if champions are working hard to sell the idea to potential customers. Moreover, any new idea is often competing with existing products and pursuing such ideas may result in opposition to the idea. In contrast, network building has the desired positive relationship with innovation success. Effective championing behavior keeps an innovative idea alive by mobilizing support and building coalitions around the idea with critical individuals or important third parties. Moreover, this study challenges the widespread “heroic” discussion of championing as fundamentally positive “across the board.” The results show that persisting under adversity and taking responsibility are desirable up to some levels. Beyond such critical levels, these two champion behaviors may actually become detrimental to the innovation process. Being too persistent in the face of adversity or taking too much responsibility for the innovative idea might undermine the power of the champion's justifications for an innovation and thereby increase resistance to change. An “over‐performing” champion may interpret opposing communications as an unwarranted and injurious response. By taking overmuch responsibility for the innovative undertaking, the champion is likely to discourage contributions from other team members who see no valuable opportunity to bring their expertise and knowledge to the idea.