Product development cycle time for business-to-business products

For a number of years, firms have been implementing changes in the way they develop new products, changes that are targeted at reducing overall product development cycle times. And over the years, a number of academics have conducted research trying to understand the factors that are related to reducing new product development (NPD) times. But the question remains — just how long does product development generally take in absolute numbers? Information on how long product development takes is helpful to firms for planning and controlling the flow of products into the marketplace and in determining resource needs for NPD. Other than anecdotal data pertaining to particular projects that have been commercialized by particular firms, very little hard data have been reported on this topic. This article analyzes data to quantify average cycle times for physical goods commercialized by business-to-business (B2B) firms. The data are a subset of a much larger data set from the Product Development & Management Association's (PDMA) Best Practices research. The analysis presents average product development cycle times for four different types of projects (new-to-the-world, new-to-the-firm, next generation improvements and incremental improvements), presents evidence of the lack of a relationship between cycle time and success and looks at factors that are associated with differences in the length of product development cycle times.     

PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices

Product development professionals may have the feeling that yet another buzzword or magic bullet always lurks just around the corner. However, researchers have devoted considerable effort to helping practioners determine which tools, techniques, and methods really do offer a competitive edge. Starting 30 years ago, research efforts have aimed at understanding NPD practices and identifying those which are deemed “best practices.” During the past five years, pursuit of this goal has produced numerous privately available reports and two research efforts sponsored by the PDMA. Abbie Griffin summarizes the results of research efforts undertaken during the past five years and presents findings from the most recent PDMA survey on NPD best practices. This survey, conducted slightly more than five years after PDMA's first best-practices survey, updates trends in processes, organizations, and outcomes for NPD in the U.S., and determines which practices are more commonly associated with firms that are more successsful in developing new products. The survey has the following objectives: determining the current status of NPD practices and performance; understanding how product development has changed from five years ago; determining whether NPD practice and performance differ across industry segments; and, investigating process and product development tools that differentiate product development success. The survey findings indicate that NPD processes continue to evolve and become more sophisticated. NPD changes continually on multiple fronts, and firms that fail to keep their NPD practices up to date will suffer an increasingly marked competitive disadvantage. Interestingly, although more than half of the respondents use a cross-functional stage-gate process for NPD, more than one-third of all firms in the study still use no formal process for managing NPD. The findings suggest that firms are not adequately handling the issue of team-based rewards. Project-completion dinners are for the most frequently used NPD reward; they are also the only reward used more by best-practice firms than by the rest of the respondents. The best-practice firms participating in the study do not use financial rewards for NPD. Compared to the other firms in the study, best-practice firms use more multifunctional teams, are more likely to measure NPD processes and outcomes, and expect more from their NPD programs.     

PERSPECTIVE: Establishing an NPD Best Practices Framework

Achieving NPD best practices is a top‐of‐mind issue for many new product development (NPD) managers and is often an overarching implicit, if not explicit, goal. The question is what does one mean when talking about NPD best practices? And how does a manager move toward achieving these? This article proposes a best practices framework as a starting point for much‐needed discussion on this topic. Originally presented during the 2004 Product Development Management Association (PDMA) Research Conference in Chicago, the article and the authors' presentation spurred a significant, expansive discussion that included all conference attendees. Given the interest generated, the decision was made to move forward on a series of rejoinders on the topic of NPD best practice, using the Kahn, Barczak, and Moss framework as a focal launching point for these rejoinders. A total of five rejoinders were received and accompany the best practices framework in this issue of JPIM. Each rejoinder brings out a distinct issue because each of the five authors has a unique perspective. The first rejoinder is written by Dr. Marjorie Adams‐Bigelow, director of the PDMA's Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS), PDMA Foundation. Based on her findings during the CPAS study, Adams comments on the proposed framework, suggesting limitations in scope. She particularly points out discrepancies between the proposed framework and the framework offered by PDMA's emerging body of knowledge. Dr. Elko Kleinschmidt, professor of marketing and international business at McMaster University, wrote the second rejoinder. Based on his extensive research with Robert G. Cooper on NPD practices, he points out that best practices really raise more questions than answers. Thomas Kuczmarski, president of Kuczmarski and Associates, is the author of the third rejoinder. Kuczmarski highlights that company mindset and metrics are critical elements needing keen attention. Where do these fit—or should they—in the proposed framework? The fourth rejoinder is written by Richard Notargiacomo, consultant for the integrated product delivery process at Eastman Kodak Company. Notargiacomo compares the proposed framework to a best practices framework Kodak has used for new product commercialization and management since 1998. The distinction of the Kodak framework is the inclusion of a product maturity model component. Dr. Lois Peters, associate professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), is the author of the fifth rejoinder. She brings out issues of radical innovation, a natural focal issue of RPI's radical innovation project (RRIP). It is highlighted that radical innovation may require unique, distinctive process characteristics a single framework cannot illustrate. Multiple layers of frameworks may be more appropriate, each corresponding to a level of innovation desired. The overall hope is that the discourse on best practices in this issue of JPIM generates more discussion and debate. Ultimately, the hope is that such discourse will lead to subsequent continued study to help discern what NPD best practice means for our discipline.     

Assessing New Product Development Practices and Performance: Establishing Crucial Norms

In 1968 and 1982 cross-sectional studies of the conduct and performance of new product development were reported, the wide-ranging results of which have been widely reproduced and cited as norms for product development. Since the more recent study, many changes in the practice and environment of product development have occurred. Albert Page describes the findings of a new cross-sectional study, sponsored by PDMA, which reports on the current status of new product development and updates those commonly referred to norms. On the one hand, this article reports that the state of practice, covering both structure and process, has improved, although there is still substantial room for further improvement. On the other hand, the results for five different measures of firm and program performance indicate these practice improvements have not resulted in notable improvements in the overall performance of the new product development activity within the responding companies.     

Corporate Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Canadian Study

In his study of 112 corporate innovations, Russell Knight describes how 100 large Canadian corporations identified innovative ideas, evaluated them, and allocated resources to support their development. These innovations ranged from new product introductions to new processes or systems within these firms. He conducted a series of interviews with managers to explore both the role of corporate entrepreneurs and top management in creating a favorable environment for innovation within the firms, examining the roles of marketing research, research and development, production planning and finance in the process. The article reports several general conclusions regarding the practices of the more successful firms and presents several recommendations concerning how firms should organize to explore, develop and produce new innovative ventures within the corporation. These results are also contrasted with those of an earlier article Knight published in this Journal.     

Portfolio management for new product development: results of an industry practices study

Portfolio management for product innovation – picking the right set of development projects – is critical to new product success. This article reports on the new product portfolio practices and performance of a large sample of firms in North America. Reasons why portfolio management is important are identified, followed by the relative popularity of the different portfolio techniques: financial methods are first, followed by business strategy methods, bubble diagrams and scoring models. Next, how the various portfolio methods fare in terms of six performance metrics is probed. Financial methods, although the most popular and rigorous, yield the worst results overall, while top performing firms rely more on non‐financial approaches – strategic and scoring methods. The details of how some of these more popular methods are employed by firms to rate and rank development projects are also provided. Finally, managerial implications, including suggestions for making portfolio management more effective in industry, are outlined.     

Product Development and Management Association's 2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study

Results of Product Development and Management Association (PDMA)'s Comparative Performance Assessment Study are presented from 453 companies. In addition to baseline questions from previous studies, new sections on culture, social media, services, sustainability, open innovation, and global product development practices are introduced. Extensive comparison between the best performing companies and the rest of the sample reveal numerous practices that lead to higher product performance in the market. Comparisons are also made between this study and previous PDMA best practices studies. In addition, geographic differences among North America, Europe, and Asia are explored. Practices leading to higher commercial performance are identified.     

U.S. industrial intracorporate entrepreneurship practices

This article reports the intracorporate entrepreneurial program (ICEP) practices, or‘venture management’ activities, of 210 American industrial firms. The survey reveals a growing concern among US. industrial enterprises about increasing competition and outlines a viable action-oriented response to these competitive pressures. Motives for creating long-term resource commitments to the creation of new product ventures and new technology divisions in existing companies are explored. A preliminary assessment is made of the effect of such programs on the human resources and performance measures of the organization. A cautious optimism for the successful continued growth of such programs is argued.     

Firm Characteristics and NPD Program Success: The Significant Influence of Global Discovery Management

Managing new product development (NPD) with a global point of view is argued to be essential in current business more than ever. Accordingly, many firms are trying to revitalize their NPD processes to make them more global. Therefore, examining global NPD management is one of the top priorities for research. While scholars have examined global launch management, there has been scant attention on the direct effect of global discovery management on NPD success. Therefore, this study investigates how a globally managed discovery phase enhances a firm's overall NPD success. Drawing upon the resource‐based view (RBV) and using Kotabe's ( 1990 ) generic model for market success in global competition as the overarching framework, this study examines four drivers of NPD success: global discovery management, the firm's “global footprint,” its inbound knowledge sourcing practices (i.e., “open innovation proclivity”), and nationality of the teams (i.e., “cross‐national global NPD team use”). The hypotheses are tested using a sample of 255 business units from multiple industries, headquartered worldwide, and surveyed during the 2012 PDMA Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS). The PLM‐SEM analyses show that, of the four drivers examined, only global discovery management strongly influences a firm's NPD program success. The findings enhance our understanding of the particularities in global NPD. Based on the study's results, suggestions are provided as to how multinationals can leverage their international operations in the course of their front‐end activities.     

Developing new business-to-business professional services: What factors impact performance?

Business-to-business professional services has been a high growth area for over a decade. Increasing complexity and high technology characterizes this sector, making new product development both essential and risky for firms. Surprisingly little research has been done to understand the industrial professional services sector and, in particular, to discover what factors lead to new product success or failure, however. This article reports the results of an investigation that examines how professional services firms develop new products and what factors impact the performance of these ventures.     

Changing Strategies and Tactics for New Product Development

There has been a considerable amount of effort and writing devoted to improving the new product development process during the last two decades. Although there have been some surprises in this literature and in reports from the field on how to manage this complex business process, we now have a good view of the state-of-the-art practices that work and do not work to accelerate commercial success of new ventures. We know much less about how firms change their strategies for new product development.
In this article, we report on a study to investigate how companies change the way they originate and develop new products in manufacturing. We made no prior assumptions about what best practices might be for changing the direction of the new product development process, but we reasonably were sure there would be trends in how companies were attempting to create this strategic change. Even though one size does not fit all, there were significant trends in our findings.
We studied eight manufacturing firms using in-depth, open-ended interviews and were surprised to find that most of these companies are beginning to develop products that are new to the firm, industry, and the world (nearly half, or 10 of 21 new product projects), where they had not been eager for radical change in the past. These newer products likely are to be driven by a combination of market and technology forces, with general requirements being directed by internal forces: middle and top management. Results also indicate significantly that being able to marshal resources and capabilities is easier if change is less demanding and less radical, but when middle managers are driving the conversion of general requirements into specifications, resource issues have yet to be resolved. Implications of these findings are discussed for companies aspiring to change the entire process of new product development in their firms based on these significant results.     

Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining Entrepreneurial Effectuation and Managerial Causation

This article reports a multimethod study of product innovation processes in small manufacturing firms. Prior studies found that small firms do not deploy the formalized processes identified as best practice for the management of new product development (NPD) in large firms. To explicate small firms' product innovation, this study uses effectuation theory, which emerged from entrepreneurship research. Effectuation theory discerns two logics of decision‐making: causation, assuming that means are selected to attain goals; and effectuation, assuming that goals are created based upon available means. The study used a process research approach, investigating product innovation trajectories in five small firms across 352 total events. Quantitative analyses revealed early effectuation logic, which increasingly turned toward causation logic over time. Further qualitative analyses confirmed the use of both logics, with effectual logic rendering product innovation resource‐driven, stepwise, and open‐ended, and with causal logic used especially in later stages to set objectives and to plan activities and invest resources to attain objectives. Because the application of effectuation logic differentiates the small firm approaches from mainstream NPD best practices, this study examined how small firms' product innovation processes deployed effectuation logic in further detail. The small firms: (1) made creative use of existing resources; (2) scoped innovations to be realizable with available resources; (3) used external resources whenever and wherever these became available; (4) prioritized existing business over product innovation projects; (5) used loose project planning; (6) worked in steps toward tangible outcomes; (7) iterated the generation, selection, and modification of goals and ideas; and (8) relied on their own customer knowledge and market probing, rather than early market research. Using effectuation theory thus helps us understand how small firm product innovation both resembles and differs from NPD best practices observed in larger firms. Because the combination of effectual and causal principles leverages small firm characteristics and resources, this article concludes that product innovation research should more explicitly differentiate between firms of different sizes, rather than prescribing large firm best practices to small firms.     

Do Broad‐based Employee Ownership,Profit Sharing and Stock Options Help the Best Firms Do Even Better?

This article analyses the linkages among group incentive methods of compensation (broad‐based employee ownership, profit sharing and stock options), labour practices, worker assessments of workplace culture, turnover and firm performance in firms that applied to the ‘100 Best Companies to Work For in America’ competition from 2005 to 2007. Although employers with good labour practices self‐select into the 100 Best Companies firms sample, which should bias the analysis against finding strong associations among modes of compensation, labour policies and outcomes, we find that employees in the firms that use group incentive pay more extensively participate more in decisions, have greater information sharing, trust supervisors more and report a more positive workplace culture than in other companies. The combination of group incentive pay with policies that empower employees and create a positive workplace culture reduces voluntary turnover and increases employee intent to stay and raises return on equity.     

PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study*

Since 1990, the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) has sponsored best practice research projects to identify trends in new product development (NPD) management practices and to discern which practices are associated with higher degrees of success. The objective of this ongoing research is to assist managers in determining how to improve their own product development methods and practices. This paper presents results, recommendations, and implications for NPD practice stemming from PDMA's third best practices study, which was conducted in 2003. In the eight years since the previous best practices study was conducted, firms have become slightly more conservative in the portfolio of projects, with lower percentages of the total number of projects in the new‐to‐the‐world and new‐to‐the‐firm categories. Although success rates and development efficiencies have remained stable, this more conservative approach to NPD seems to have negatively impacted the sales and profits impact of the new products that have been commercialized. As formal processes for NPD are now the norm, attention is moving to managing the multiple projects across the portfolio in a more orchestrated manner. Finally, firms are implementing a wide variety of software support tools for various aspects of NPD. NPD areas still seriously in need of improved management include idea management, project leadership and training, cross‐functional training and team communication support, and innovation support and leadership by management. In terms of aspects of NPD management that differentiate the “best from the rest,” the findings indicate that the best firms emphasize and integrate their innovation strategy across all the levels of the firm, better support their people and team communications, conduct extensive experimentation, and use numerous kinds of new methods and techniques to support NPD. All companies appear to continue to struggle with the recording of ideas and making them readily available to others in the organization, even the best. What remains unclear is whether there is a preferable approach for organizing the NPD endeavor, as no one organizational approach distinguished top NPD performers.     

Flexibility and Standardization: Test of a Contingency Model of Product Design–Manufacturing Integration

This article proposes and tests a contingency model of system integration of product design and manufacturing among producers of goods involving tooling development. The model predicts which combinations of organizational and technical practices will be most effective under conditions of high and low design newness. The results, based on data from 74 firms, largely support the model. Differentiating mechanisms, such as a tall hierarchy and job specialization, are negatively associated with design–manufacturing integration, particularly for new designs. Socio-integrative mechanisms, including such flexible practices as cross-functional teaming and collocation, are positively related to design–manufacturing integration for new designs only. However, the use of in-process design controls is positively related to design–manufacturing integration regardless of design newness, which suggests that some modes of standardization may be beneficial even for new designs.     

Applying Industrial Design and Cost Engineering to New Product Development in Early‐Stage Firms

For early‐stage firms, successful commercialization of each new product is critically important, given the shortage of financial resources, the limited product portfolio, and small staffs typical of such firms. This paper investigates two key contributing factors for new product success in entrepreneurial firms: designing products that are appealing to target users in both form and function and designing products that can be manufactured at an attractive margin so that the new enterprise can generate much needed positive cash flow. These two practices—industrial design and cost engineering—are well studied in the context of larger, established corporations but have not been explored in the context of new ventures. This study focuses on the intensity of individual and combined adoption of design and cost engineering as measured by product development efficiency and effectiveness. The study was conducted on a homogeneous sample of early‐stage firms that develop physical, assembled products where design plays a role. The data collection focused only on the first product developed by each firm respectively. The results show that when implemented together, industrial design and cost engineering enhance both the effectiveness and efficiency of new product development in early‐stage firms, to greater effect than each does individually. Intensive individual adoption of practices had a negative impact on development efficiency measures such as development cost and duration. Only cost engineering individually had a beneficial impact on development effectiveness as measured by product margins. When combined, these two practices had a beneficial impact on both development duration and cost for the company's first commercial product, thereby reducing time‐to‐market and precious cash expenditures while maximizing project breakeven timing. The most successful firms in the study achieved a balance between creative innovation and cost discipline in the NPD process with third‐party design and manufacturing resources. It was found that integrating third‐party design firms into the development process can challenge, simplify, and add additional creative resources to the core entrepreneurial team, maximizing the ability to catalyze beneficial tension between creativity and cost discipline.     

The Breakfast of Champions: Associations Between Champions and Product Development Environments, Practices and Performance

According to conventional wisdom, if an innovative new product development (NPD) effort is to stand any chance for success, the project must have a champion. The role of the champion has taken on almost mythic proportions, through oft-told tales of the development of such disparate products as instant cameras, automobiles, and microprocessors. Notwithstanding the purportedly essential role that champions play, however, we have only anecdotal evidence of the manner in which effective champions operate and the benefits that they offer. Stephen K. Markham and Abbie Griffin suggest that before we can explore questions about how champions affect product development performance, we must address an even more fundamental issue: whether champions actually influence performance. Using data from the 1995 PDMA study of best practices in product development, they test various widely held assumptions about champions and NDP performance. Specifically, they investigate the association between championing and the following variables: NPD performance at the program, firm, and project levels; industry characteristics; and project- and firm-related NPD characteristics. In several respects, the results of their study run counter to current beliefs about product development champions. For example, the study suggests that champions are just as likely to be found in large firms as they are in small firms. Similarly, the results indicate that the likelihood of finding a champion does not differ significantly between technology-driven firms and marketing-driven firms. For the firms in this study, champions are no more likely to support radical innovations than they are to back incremental innovations or product line extensions. The results of the study suggest that champions do not directly affect firm-level NPD performance. Instead, the results of this study associate increased championing with higher levels of NPD program performance, which positively affects firm-level performance. The results of this study also do not support the notion that a champion can directly improve the market success of a particular project.     

New Product Management Practices of Small High Technology Firms

Various methods exist for managing the planning, cost estimating, scheduling and statusing of new product development projects. David Boag and Brenda Rinholm investigate whether the use of formal management procedures and structured frameworks are the most effective methods for achieving control over new product development activities. This article describes the new product development management practices of 33 small and medium-sized high technology companies. The authors employ a judgmental procedure to group the firms into three stages of development for their management of new products. Findings indicate that success at new product development is greater for more formalized companies than for companies which are less formalized or which use informal methods.     

Controlling New Products in Large Diversified Firms: A Presidential Perspective

This article reports the findings of a pilot research project which investigated the nature and degree of control that presidents of large, diversified firms exercise over their new product initiatives. The research findings of this exploratory study challenge some of the conventional notions that exist regarding the management of new products. The control dimensions associated with "high" and "low" new product output situations are identified, and the role of a new product's strategic category in understanding the variations in presidential control is underscored. Most important, the findings represent a first step in capturing the "balance" that presidents appear to strike between "loose" and "tight" control when managing new products. As such, they suggest the potential for developing a control template against which presidents of other large, diversified firms might someday be able to judge their own new product control practices.     

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.