The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success*

The relationship and network literature has primarily focused on particular partner types, for example, buyer–supplier relationships or competitor interaction. This article explores the nature and relative importance of different types of interfirm relationships for new product development (NPD) success. The underlying premise of the study is that not only the type of interfirm relationships but also the combination of relationships are important for NPD performance. The interaction with a specific type of partner is expected to influence innovative performance by means of appropriate knowledge transfer. Varying needs for external knowledge, and thus types of relationships, are observed depending on the particular stages in the NPD process, the character of the knowledge base of the firm, and the industrial conditions. The absorption of external knowledge is discussed using the degree of redundancy in knowledge, which is defined as the degree of overlap in the knowledge base of the sender and the recipient of knowledge. Hence, the degree of redundancy has direct implications for the ease and, hence, use of knowledge shared with an external partner. The article is based on data from the Know for Innovation survey on innovative activities among European firms, which was carried out in 2000 in seven European countries covering five industries. The article explores the extent of use of external relationships in collaborative product development and finds that customers are involved more frequently in joint development efforts. Second, the industry association of the most important relationship is studied, and the results show that firms tend to partner with firms from their own industry. The danger in this approach is that firms from their own industry tend to contribute similar knowledge, which ultimately may endanger the creation of new knowledge and therefore more radical product developments. The analyses combine the finding that relationships with customers are used most frequently at both early and late stages of the product development process, with a second and more contradictory finding that at the same time customer relationships have a negative impact on innovative success. Moreover, the combination of customers, with both universities and competitors, has a significant negative effect on innovative performance. The potential causes of this apparent paradox can be narrowed down to two: (1) the average customer may be unable to articulate needs for advanced technology‐based products; and (2) the average customer may be unable to conceptualize ideas beyond the realm of his or her own experience. Based on this evidence the article cautions product development managers to think explicitly about what certain customers can contribute with and, more importantly, to match this contribution directly with their own sense of what direction product development should go in the future. Finally, the role of complementary as well as supplementary knowledge is investigated for innovative success finding that sharing of supplementary knowledge with external partners in NPD leads to a positive effect on innovative performance. The article is concluded by a discussion of the implication of this finding for building knowledge within the firm and for selecting external partners for NPD.     

Capturing the Degree of Modularity Embedded in Product Architectures*

This article focuses on integrating various perspectives on product architecture modularity into a general framework and proposes a way to measure the degree of modularization embedded in product architectures. The article addresses trade‐offs between modular and integral product architectures and how components and interfaces influence the degree of modularization. The article identifies the following key elements of product architecture modularity: components (standard and new‐to‐the‐firm), interfaces (standardization and specification), degree of coupling, and substitutability. A mathematical model, termed the modularization function, is applied to measure the key elements and their combined effect on the degree of modularization embedded in product architectures. The application of the modularization function is illustrated by two distinct sets of product architectures: Chrysler Jeep's windshield wipers controllers and Schindler's hydraulic and traction‐pull transmission elevators. The analysis of the Chrysler case shows that the silent‐relay architecture produces more opportunities for modularization than the solid‐state architecture due to the higher substitutability factor and lower new‐to‐the‐firm component composition. The Schindler case captures the dynamics of modularity created by three types of components (standard, customizable, and new to the firm) and two types of interfaces (fundamental and optional). Based on the case studies, the article outlines testable propositions and discusses the managerial and theoretical implications for the modularization function.     

自由软件开发的模块化理论解释与启示

本文以GNU/Linux为例讨论了源代码的内部结构在自由软件开发中所起的重要作用。为此,我们考虑了源代码的模块化属性。源代码的模块化将直接影响开发者是否参与对自由软件的开发。基于模块化的自由软件开发不仅实现了劳动的分工,同时也实现了劳动价值的分割,在自由软件的开发过程中较好地解决了搭便车问题。同时,模块化理论对我国发展软件产业也有一定的借鉴作用。     

Using Exploratory and Exploitative Market Learning for New Product Development*

While the need for research on the market‐learning efforts of a firm in relation to its new product development is continuously emphasized, the empirical results on this issue reported so far have been mixed. The current study contends that the inconclusive nature of the empirical evidence is mostly due to the existence of different dimensions of organizational market learning—exploratory and exploitative—and to possible different routes by which these learning dimensions are linked to new product performance. More specifically, this study argues that exploratory market learning contributes to the differentiation of the new product because it involves the firm's learning about uncertain and new opportunities through the acquisition of knowledge distant from existing organizational skills and experiences. By contrast, this study posits that exploitative market learning enhances cost efficiency in developing new products as it aims to best use the currently available market information that is closely related to existing organizational experience. This study provides empirical support for this two‐dimensional scheme of organizational market learning and its consequent effects on two components of new product advantage: new product differentiation and cost efficiency. Further, given that the effectiveness of firms' strategic efforts is contingent upon the nature of the market environment, the current study examines the moderating effects of environmental dynamism and market competitiveness for this market learning—new product advantage relationship. This study is based on survey data from 157 manufacturing firms in China that encompass various industries. The empirical findings support the two‐dimensional market learning efforts that increase new product differentiation and cost efficiency, respectively. The study confirms that exploratory market learning becomes more effective under a turbulent market environment and that exploitative market learning is more contributive when competitive intensity is high. It also suggests that because of their differential direct and moderating effects on new product advantage either exploratory or exploitative market learning may not be used exclusively, but the two should be implemented in parallel. Such learning implementations will help to secure both the feature and cost‐based new product advantage components and will consequently lead to the new product success. The current study attempts to contribute to greater clarity and better understanding of how market learning influences new product success as it theoretically identifies and empirically validates the two forms of new product advantage as the conceptual mediator between market learning and new product performance.     

Interfirm Innovation under Uncertainty: Empirical Evidence for Strategic Knowledge Partitioning*

This paper analyzes how uncertainty and life‐cycle effects condition the knowledge boundary between assemblers and suppliers in interfirm product development. Patents associated with automotive emission control technologies for both assemblers and suppliers are categorized as architectural or component innovations, and technology‐forcing regulations imposed by the government on the auto industry from 1970 to 1998 are used to define periods of high and low uncertainty. Results confirm that suppliers dominate component innovation whereas assemblers lead on architectural innovation. More importantly, when facing uncertainty firms adjust their knowledge boundary by increasing the knowledge overlap with their supply‐chain collaborators. Suppliers clearly expand their knowledge base relatively more into architectural knowledge during such periods. But assemblers' greater emphasis on component innovation in periods of greater uncertainty is only true as a relative deviation from an overall trend toward increasing component innovation over time. This trend results from an observed life‐cycle effect, whereby architectural innovation dominates before the emergence of a dominant design, with component innovation taking the lead afterward. Thus, for assemblers life‐cycle effects may dominate over task uncertainty in determining relative effort in component versus architectural innovation. This work extends research on strategic interfirm knowledge partitioning as well as on the information‐processing view of product development. First, it provides a large‐scale empirical justification for the claim that firms' knowledge boundaries need to extend beyond their task boundaries. Further, it implies that overlaps in knowledge domains between an assembler and suppliers are particularly important for projects involving new technologies. Second, it offers a dynamic view of knowledge partitioning, showing how architectural knowledge prevails in the early phase of the product life cycle whereas component knowledge dominates the later stages. Yet the importance of life‐cycle effects versus task uncertainty in conditioning knowledge boundaries is different for assemblers and suppliers, with the former dominating for assemblers and the latter more influential for suppliers. Finally, it supports the idea that architectural and component knowledge are critical elements in the alignment of cognitive frameworks between assemblers and suppliers and thus are key for information‐exchange effectiveness and resolution of task uncertainties in interfirm innovation.     

Exploring New Product Development Project Review Practices*

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

New Product Development Practices of Industrial Marketers*

William L. Moore personally interviewed a number of senior managers employed in 25 large industrial marketing companies about new product development practices. These managers are familiar with all phases of the development of typical new products, from the time ideas are generated until market introduction. Most respondents were either division heads or those directly responsible for a division's new product development program. In agreement with a previous study, the use of formal new product strategies and sophisticated quantitative marketing research techniques was found to be lacking in most companies. However, many other elements of the new product development process were carried out more completely than previously reported. For example, respondents reflected sensitivity to informal understanding of new product strategies. A number of the less sophisticated, small scale qualitative research methods actually used may be more appropriate than more sophisticated methods. While several research areas are suggested, the general assessment of the new product practices of these firms is more positive than that of Feldman and Page.     

Trust Formation in Collaborative New Product Development*

This research examines antecedents of trust formation in new product development partnerships and the effect of trust on performance. Trust is modeled as an outcome of communication behavior, shared problem‐solving, perceived fairness, the existence of conflicts during the development project, and partner egoism. The hypotheses are tested with data on 44 product development partnerships representing the perspective of the manufacturer. The findings suggest that communication behavior and fairness are positive contributors to trust. In contrast, conflicts during product development and perceived egoism of the partner appear to have a detrimental effect. High levels of trust were found to create the conditions for successful outcomes. A higher level of trust clearly differentiates between high‐ and low‐performing collaborative relationships in new product development. Trust also was found to be a powerful mediator, particularly as it relates to mitigating conflicts during such partnerships.     

Impact of Strategic Type on Success Measures for Product Development Projects*

Does the strategic type of firm affect which success measures should be used for product development (PD) projects? This paper theorizes that it should and finds that it does because the PD projects undertaken are usually an expression of the strategic type of the firm. The purpose of this research is to affirm a 1996 survey of members of the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) that proposes that firms' PD performance measures should vary by their strategic type. Thus, for example, prospectors, the strategic type most likely to introduce new products to new markets, should place greater importance on PD success measures consistent with their characteristic strategies of changing product lines and early market entry. In contrast, defenders, the strategic type most likely to maintain stable product lines for existing markets, should place greater importance on PD success measures consistent with their characteristic strategies of stable product lines and market penetration. Analyzers, a hybrid type between prospectors and defenders, should prefer measures consistent with their characteristic strategies for improving products and being early followers in newer markets. To relate strategic types to specific success measures for PD projects, this paper proposes a model of the relationship based on the degree of project newness to the firm and then catalogs measures of PD project success and groups them according to degree of project newness. The research findings are based on survey responses from 222 individuals who are employed by financial service providers, who identified their firms by strategic type and rated the importance of PD success measures to their firms. The importance of 21 performance measures is compared by strategic type to find significant differences among prospectors, analyzers, and defenders. This research finds several significant relationships. prospectors, for example, attach greater importance to customer satisfaction, launch timeliness, and product return on investment, all of which may be characterized as relating to a higher degree of project newness to the firm. defenders and analyzers, on the other hand, attach more importance than prospectors to measures of unit volume, cost reduction, and margin goals, all of which relate to a lower degree of project newness to the firm. In short, because prospectors seek to introduce new products to new markets, they consider important those measures, which accord with greater product and market newness. The major conclusion of this paper is that strategic type affects the importance of project performance measures and that all firms should not use the same success measures. Firms should contextualize their success in PD projects based on their strategic type. This conclusion resonates with previous findings that strategy is a key determinant of PD success, though it is infrequently included in PD success studies. This paper, therefore, challenges the implicit assumption in the mainstream of PD success literature that success can be determined without regard to firm strategy.     

Marketing/R&D Interaction in New Product Development: Implications for New Product Success Rates

A growing body of literature has evolved which deals with the interaction between marketing and R&D in new product development. Much of this research, unfortunately, fails to associate various variables with new product success levels. Thus, it cannot suggest consensus guidelines for marketing's involvement to increase the performance levels of new products in the market place. Richard Hise, Larry O'Neal, A. Parasuraman and James McNeal report results of their analysis of the new product development procedures of 252 large manufacturing companies. The authors conclude that collaborative efforts between marketing and R&D during the actual designing of new products appear to be a key factor in explaining the success levels of new products, that management effort should focus on the design stage of the new product development process rather than on the earlier and later stages and that R&D's contributions cannot be ignored while decisions are made about marketing's role in developing new consumer and industrial products.     

The Impact of Product Innovativeness on the Link between Development Speed and New Product Profitability*

A review of the literature reveals that the relationship between development speed and new product profitability is not as strong and straightforward as conventional wisdom suggests. A number of studies show positive results, others show mixed results, and some present no evidence of a relationship. In other words, the valence of the link between development speed and new product profitability is unclear at this time. Therefore, this study investigates whether or not speeding new products to market has positive or negative effects on new product profitability. Prior research shows that product innovativeness influences both development speed and new product profitability. This raises the question of whether increasing speed is equally successful in improving profitability across new products that differ in their degree of innovativeness. Therefore, this study also investigates the moderating effect of product innovativeness on the relationship between development speed and new product profitability. The results from a survey‐based study of 233 manufacturers of industrial products in the Netherlands reveal an inverted U‐shaped relationship between development speed and new product profitability. The findings also show that the optimal point is different for two new product types—product improvements and line additions—that vary in their innovativeness. These results provide an onset for the development of a decision tool that helps managers to determine how much to spend on accelerating the development of individual new products and how they should allocate that spending across products in their new product portfolio.     

A Model of Supplier Integration into New Product Development*

In many industries, firms are looking for ways to cut concept‐to‐customer development time, to improve quality, and to reduce the cost of new products. One approach shown to be successful in Japanese organizations involves the integration of material suppliers early in the new product development cycle. This involvement may range from simple consultation with suppliers on design ideas to making suppliers fully responsible for the design of components or systems they will supply. While prior research shows the benefit of using this approach, execution remains a problem. The processes for identifying and integrating suppliers into the new product development (NPD) process in North American organizations are not understood well. This problem is compounded by the fact that design team members often are reluctant to listen to the technology and cost ideas made by suppliers in new product development efforts. We suggest a model of the key activities required for successful supplier integration into NPD projects, based on case studies with 17 Japanese and American manufacturing organizations. The model is validated using data from a survey of purchasing executives in global corporations with at least one successful and one unsuccessful supplier integration experience. The results suggest that (1) increased knowledge of a supplier is more likely to result in greater information sharing and involvement of the supplier in the product development process; (2) sharing of technology information results in higher levels of supplier involvement and improved outcomes; (3) supplier involvement on teams generally results in a higher achievement of NPD team goals; (4) in cases when technology uncertainty is present, suppliers and buyers are more likely to share information on NPD teams; and (5) the problems associated with technology uncertainty can be mitigated by greater use of technology sharing and direct supplier participation on new product development teams. A supplier's participation as a true member of a new product development team seems to result in the highest level of benefits, especially in cases when a technology is in its formative stages.     

Increasing Learning and Time Efficiency in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams*

Despite the growing popularity of new product development across organizational boundaries, the processes, mechanisms, or dynamics that leverage performance in interorganizational (I‐O) product development teams are not well understood. Such teams are staffed with individuals drawn from the partnering firms and are relied on to develop successful new products while at the same time enhancing mutual learning and reducing development time. However, these collaborations can encounter difficulties when partners from different corporate cultures and thought worlds must coordinate and depend on one another and often lead to disappointing performance. To facilitate collaboration, the creation of a safe, supportive, challenging, and engaging environment is particularly important for enabling productive collaborative I‐O teamwork and is essential for learning and time efficient product development. This research develops and tests a model of proposed factors to increase both learning and time efficiency on I‐O new product teams. It is argued that specific behaviors (caring), beliefs (psychological safety), task‐related processes (shared problem solving), and governance mechanisms (clear management direction) create a positive climate that increases learning and time efficiency on I‐O teams. Results of an empirical study of 50 collaborative new product development projects indicate that (1) shared problem solving and caring behavior support both learning and time efficiency on I‐O teams, (2) team psychological safety is positively related to learning, (3) management direction is positively associated with time efficiency, and (4) shared problem solving is more strongly related to both performance dimensions than are the other factors. The factors supporting time efficiency are slightly different from those that foster learning. The relative importance of these factors also differs considerably for both performance aspects. Overall, this study contributes to a better understanding of the factors that facilitate a favorable environment for productive collaboration on I‐O teams, which go beyond contracts or top‐management supervision. Establishing such an environment can help to balance management concerns and promote the success of I‐O teams. The significance of the results is elevated by the fragility of collaborative ventures and their potential for failure, when firms with different organizational cultures, thought worlds, objectives, and intentions increasingly decide to work across organizational boundaries for the development of new products.     

Is Integration Enough for Fast Product Development? An Empirical Investigation of the Contextual Effects of Product Vision*

Research into development time performance has suggested that integration—both internal, adopting cross‐functional organizational structures for development, and external, involving customers and suppliers in the process—can be a powerful driver when it comes to compressing cycle times and enhancing development punctuality. Some recent studies have also highlighted the compelling role of product vision to obtain high performances with product development. What these studies seem to suggest is that product vision guarantees the right goals and clarity of direction that integration mechanisms need to quickly develop new products and to stay on the development schedule. However, past studies have rarely considered or measured product vision as a construct and explicitly tested whether or not product vision acts as a contingent factor in determining the relationships between the aforementioned organizational drivers and development time. This research study maintains that product vision is crucial to pushing organizational drivers toward increased development efficiency. To find theoretical support for this position and to define a reference framework for the study, previous literature was analyzed. In the framework, both internal and external development integration are assumed to be positively related to time performance; however, these relationships are moderated by product vision. The model was then tested empirically on an international sample of 157 firms to verify and to obtain empirical support for the hypothesized relationships. The results confirm the importance of external integration in achieving better time performance. However, the influence of this driver on cycle time can also be increased by the presence of a very well‐defined product vision. The relationship between internal integration and time performance is more complex. Though it seems to slow down the process as a single factor, its interaction effect with product vision is in fact positive. These results have several managerial implications. First, externally integrated development can greatly improve time performance; however, the best results in terms of acceleration can be obtained when there is a well‐defined product vision. Furthermore, product vision is essential in the case of internal integration: A cross‐functional process alone would not be enough for development acceleration in the absence of product vision. Hence, managers interested in obtaining high time performances should accompany the adoption of integration mechanisms with increased attention to sharing clear objectives and directions with all those—both inside the firm (i.e., team members and functional representatives) and outside the firm (i.e., customers and suppliers)—involved in development and as well as throughout the firm.     

R&D Collaborations and Product Innovation*

This paper studies the relative impact on product innovation of research and development (R&D) collaborations with universities, suppliers, customers, and competitors. It argues that each type of R&D collaboration differs in terms of the breadth of new knowledge provided to the firm and in the ease of access of this new knowledge, resulting in a different impact on product innovation. As a result, it proposes that R&D collaborations with universities are likely to have the highest impact on product innovation, followed by R&D collaborations with suppliers, customers, and, finally, competitors. These arguments are tested on the R&D collaborations undertaken by a sample of 781 manufacturing firms during 1998–2002. The tests find that R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest positive impact on product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities. Surprisingly, R&D collaborations with customers do not appear to affect product innovation, and collaborations with competitors appear to harm it. Moreover, the positive influence of R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers is sustained over the long‐term, but the negative influence of R&D collaborations with competitors is, fortunately, short‐lived. These findings indicate that ease of knowledge access, rather than breadth of knowledge, appears to drive the success of R&D collaborations for product innovation. R&D collaborations with suppliers or universities, which are characterized by relatively easy knowledge access, have a positive influence on product innovation, whereas R&D collaborations with customers or competitors, which are characterized by reduced ease in knowledge access, are not related or are even negatively related to product innovation. Moreover, to achieve product innovation with the help of R&D collaborations, it appears that the collaboration must first have mechanisms in place to facilitate the transfer of knowledge; once these are in place, it is better if the partner has a relatively narrow knowledge base. Thus, while R&D collaborations with both suppliers and universities are positively related to product innovation, the narrow knowledge base provided by collaborations with suppliers appears to have a larger positive impact on product innovation than the wider knowledge base provided by collaborations with universities. These arguments and findings are important and novel. The paper is one of the first to theoretically explain and empirically show that various types of collaborations have a differential influence on product innovation. It goes beyond previous literature by providing a theoretical logic for ranking the likely impact of types of collaborations on product innovation. The study also suggests to managers to carefully select the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Collaborations with suppliers appear to be the most promising for product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities, whereas collaborations with competitors may be detrimental to product innovation.     

Managing Seller–Buyer Relationships during New Product Development*

Ineffective relationship management with potential buyers during new product development (NPD) can be an important contributor to new product failure in technology‐based, industrial markets. However, empirical research on managing these relationships remains underdeveloped. This study addresses this deficiency by developing an empirically based taxonomy of relationship approaches used by sellers to develop technology‐based, industrial innovations, identifying situational characteristics that correlate with the choice of a particular relationship approach, and evaluating sellers' satisfaction with their relationship approach. The study's conceptual model is rooted in transaction cost analysis (TCA) and draws from extant literature on seller–buyer relationships during NPD. It was tested with data from 334 small to mid‐sized firms in a variety of technology‐based industrial markets. The results indicate that sellers use three basic relationship approaches during NPD: a bilateral approach, a buyer‐guided approach, and a seller‐guided approach. While the bilateral approach relies on a mutual exchange of information, the buyer‐guided and seller‐guided approaches do not. Juxtaposed with the high levels of satisfaction experienced by sellers in the sample, the study suggests that no one relationship approach is universally desirable. Therefore, managers may need to engage in a portfolio of relationship approaches with buyers during NPD; further, these approaches should correlate with buyer‐related (i.e., perceived buyer knowledge and prior relationship history) and innovation‐related (i.e., product customization and technological uncertainty) characteristics. Collectively, these results can help sellers optimize their relationships with buyers during NPD.     

The Roles of Marketing and Industrial Design in Discontinuous New Product Development*

Radical or “discontinuous” products based on new technological breakthroughs are playing an ever‐increasing role in the success of firms. However, little research has been conducted that investigates the roles of marketing and industrial design (ID) in the development of these types of products. Further, past research has tended to overlook the role that industrial design, and the impact of the marketing‐industrial design interaction, can have on the development of discontinuous new products. Frequently, the term design is used broadly or is equated with engineering; thus, while the marketing–research and development (R&D) interaction is studied, the marketing–ID as well as the industrial design–R&D relationships are not considered. This article examines the roles of marketing and industrial design in the product development process for discontinuous innovations. Specifically, questions concerning how and the degree to which marketing and industrial design are integrated into the development process are investigated. The investigation employs multiple methods, or triangulation, in order to secure an in‐depth understanding of the roles of these disciplines. In the course of examining these questions, key factors influencing industrial design and marketing involvement are identified and preliminary models are examined. The research, which was conducted in two phases, employed a mixed‐method, multiple sample design. The methods used included a survey, field observation study, and depth‐interviewing. Data were collected from three different samples: R&D managers, project team members (including personnel from various disciplines—marketing, R&D, industrial design, engineering, etc.), and industrial design managers. The use of the different data sources and sampling of various groups of managers was employed in order to provide a rich context for investigating the research questions of interest. In addition, a preliminary analysis of factors (e.g., degree of product discontinuity, product innovation objectives, process discontinuity, process formality) identified in the first phase was conducted, and these relationships were explored further in the second phase of the research. Findings across the two phases of this research suggest that the development of discontinuous new products involves a process that is different from more conventional new product development—particularly as it concerns the roles of marketing and industrial design. The high degree of discontinuity inherent in such projects, along with the strong R&D orientation often surrounding them, results in delayed involvement of marketing and ID, as well as altering their roles in the new product development (NPD) process. Factors such as the degree of product discontinuity (DPD), process discontinuity (PCD), and process formality (PF) seemed to exert a differential influence on the involvement of marketing and ID. Although their roles and involvement are altered in discontinuous new product development, this research suggests that marketing and ID roles in this context involve increased challenges with respect to validation of key assumptions and product application directions. Additionally, managers operating in this development context need to explicitly consider the influence of factors such as discontinuity level in undertaking NPD projects with respect to how it affects the execution of industrial design and marketing activities.     

Attribution Biases in the Evaluation of New Product Development Team Members*

Managers are often concerned with the potential negative reputation impact of being assigned to a new product development project. Social psychology theories, and in particular the group attribution error theory, suggest that their worries might be justified, with individual team members being evaluated on the basis of the overall project performance, without regard for the processes by which the team outcome was reached. The objective of this paper is to empirically test for the existence of such biases in the evaluation of new product development team members. For this purpose, three independent experiments based on scenarios test the extent to which the group attribution error is at play in the evaluation of new product development team members and the extent to which it can be removed. Overall, this paper indicates that this bias does indeed affect the evaluation of new product development team members as well as decisions based on these evaluations. In the studies presented in this paper, analysis of variance showed that subjects inferred that team members' attitudes were consistent with the decision made and failed to adjust adequately for the decision rule used. Subjects then used these summary judgments as the basis for deciding on reward allocations and making competence attributions about the team members. In Study 1 , the decision rule used was either a vote or a team leader decision, and therefore the bias might have been explained by the lack of information available. Study 2 , however, provided unambiguous information about team members' positions, yet subjects did not adequately take this information into account. Study 3 replicated these results with experienced new product team managers, suggesting that theses biases are likely to be at play in the workplace. Moreover, subjects in Studies 2 and 3 felt quite confident that their judgments were being fair, even in the cases where these judgments truly were not, which suggests a lack of awareness of the bias on their part. The robustness of this bias should be cause for concerns for managers working in new product development teams or involved in the evaluation of the performance of such teams. The studies conducted in this paper suggest that team members can get unfairly rewarded or punished for decisions over which they have little or no control and that their reputation can also get affected by these decisions. Moreover, the fact that the group attribution error affected evaluations even in the case where experienced participants had specific information about team members' positions suggests that this bias will not be easy to remove.     

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.     

The Moderating Effect of Environmental Uncertainty on New Product Development and Time Efficiency*

This empirical study examines the influence of environmental uncertainty on industrial product innovation. The present study addresses what is believed to be a shortcoming in the new product development literature and explores potential effects of environmental uncertainty on the development process, project organization, and on project timeliness with a sample of development projects in two countries, Canada and Australia. When looking at the combined sample of 182 completed projects, this study finds that the perceived market‐related project environment has a direct and positive impact on time efficiency. Further, this research finds that a higher degree of technological uncertainty moderates the relationship between development process, project organization and time efficiency. Consequently, innovating companies may benefit by adapting some of their development approaches to different environmental conditions and to varying degrees of uncertainty. However, when examining country‐specific effects, the results change quite significantly. In particular, the findings indicate that environmental uncertainty in the Canadian sample neither directly impacts time efficiency, nor does it have any moderating effect. Instead, technical proficiency in the development process, project team organization, and process compression appear to be viable strategies to increase time‐efficient development. In contrast, the results of the Australian study suggest that perceived market and technological uncertainty impact time efficiency. In particular, under conditions of technological unpredictability, project team organization increases time efficiency, whereas process compression appears to decrease time‐efficient product development. However, process compression seems to be a viable strategy in environments characterized by lower technological uncertainty. The results also point to the importance of disaggregating data when studying product development processes across countries.