Conceptualizing, assessing, and managing front-end fuzziness in innovation/NPD projects

Front-end fuzziness (FEF) within innovation/NPD projects remains unclear and under-explored. In this research, FEF is clarified to have three change patterns of dynamic fuzziness levels and to have both positive and negative effects on the success of an innovation/NPD project. In this context, FEF sources are categorized into front-end environment, means, and goals, and FEF dimensions are extended to include uncertainty, equivocality, complexity, and variability. Accordingly, a management template is developed to help innovators track specific FEF to relative sources, assess FEF quantitatively, and manage both the positive and the negative effects of FEF. Finally, the article concludes with suggestions of the applications of the FEF management template.     

Orchestrating resources for FMA in coopetitive NPD

The rapid introduction of new products in high‐tech industries is a key competence for firms wanting to benefit from the first‐mover advantage (FMA). Prior studies call for forging links between FMA and the resource‐based view, as the resources at the disposal of a firm tend to influence the likelihood and timing of market entry. Analysing the way firms orchestrate internal and external resources enables a better understanding of this link. More precisely, synchronising the combination of internal and external resources is important in determining the development time of new products. This issue becomes vital when the NPD process regroups competitors due to the short age of the acquired knowledge. An in‐depth case study of the product development strategies of four competitors that collaborated to develop Ethernet solutions identifies three different product introduction strategies based on different resource orchestrations and timing: pioneer, wise and slow. The firms that structured their resources early to make them available for bundling during coopetition were able to introduce products faster than firms that structured their resources during coopetition. Furthermore, our results show that only prepared firms are able to reap benefits from knowledge gained through coopetitive NPD.     

Impact of new product development (NPD) proficiency and NPD entry strategies on product quality and risk

This research explores the variation of new product quality and risk associated with New Product Development (NPD) entry strategies (e.g. in‐house developments and joint ventures). Our first two research questions examine the quality of new products and the variation of risk across five NPD entry strategies. Our third and fourth research questions investigate the association of the proficiency with which NPD technical activities are performed with new product quality and the risk involved in developing new products. Our final two research questions explore whether the type of NPD entry strategy mediates the association between the proficiency with which NPD technical activities are performed and the quality and risk associated with the development of new products. Our study focuses on new products developed by three major industries, namely medical devices, electrical equipment, and heavy construction equipment. Our research suggests that there is no difference in the quality or the risk associated with the development of new products across NPD entry strategies. We also found that new product quality was associated with the proficient performance of many NPD technical activities whereas risk was associated with the proficient performance of fewer NPD technical activities. We found that choice of NPD entry strategy mediates the relationship between new product quality and NPD technical activity proficiency. Unlike product quality, NPD entry strategy selection appears to mediate NPD risk minimally. Our study contributes to NPD knowledge and managerial decision making by pointing out that the technical activities performed during the early stages of the NPD process are important to the attainment of a quality product and positively, not negatively, associated with perceived NPD risk. Additionally, our study extends knowledge of the association between proficiently performed NPD technical activities and the resultant product quality and perceived risk felt when individual NPD entry strategies are implemented.     

Who Knows What in NPD Teams: Communication Context,Mode, and Task Contingencies

The use of cross‐functional teams in new product development (NPD) benefits firms in many ways. One benefit is the diverse knowledge team members bring to the project, but that benefit can only be appreciated if team members fully utilize and integrate the differentiated expertise of members. As reliance on cross‐functional NPD teams grows, however, firms struggle to exploit the full potential of functionally diverse groups, the biggest obstacle being integrating team members' varied knowledge, expertise, and abilities. Therefore, understanding how information is integrated and used is a primary concern for both practitioners and researchers. Databases and other forms of hard data are methods team members can use to effectively share and integrate knowledge; another method based on social cognition is transactive memory systems (TMS). TMS indicates who will learn what and from whom. The notion is that knowledge is distributed among people in the group, and to make effective use of it, individuals need to know who knows what and who knows who knows what. Grounded in the knowledge‐based theory of the firm, this study investigates the influence of different communication contexts and modes on TMS under different NPD task environments (i.e., exploitation and exploration) in cross‐functional NPD teams. A theoretical model is developed and empirically tested using data collected from 272 ongoing NPD teams of 128 Chinese high‐tech companies. Findings suggest that when teams face tasks defined by exploration, informal communication and face‐to‐face communication are positively associated with TMS, whereas for tasks defined by exploitation, formal communication and computer‐mediated communication are positively related with TMS. Additionally, this study found that TMS is positively related to NPD performance both in terms of project performance and in terms of market performance. Based on these findings, theoretical and managerial implications are drawn regarding resource deployment that encourages the development of effective TMS leading to successful NPD projects.     

Managing the Unexpected Across Space: Improvisation,Dispersion, and Performance in NPD Teams

Organizations are increasingly moving toward a team‐based structure for managing complex knowledge in new product development (NPD) projects. Such teams operate in an environment characterized by dynamic project requirements and emergent nonroutine issues, which can undermine their ability to achieve project objectives. Team improvisation—a collective, spontaneous, and creative action for identifying novel solutions to emergent problems—has been identified as a key team‐situated response to unexpected challenges to NPD team effectiveness. Geographic dispersion is increasingly becoming a reality for NPD teams that find themselves needing to improvise solutions to emergent challenges while attempting to leverage the knowledge of team members who are physically distributed across various locations. However, very little is known about how teams' improvisational actions affect performance when such actions are executed in increasingly dispersed teams. To address this gap in the literature, this paper draws on the emerging literature on different forms and degrees of team dispersion to understand how team improvisation affects team performance in such teams. In particular this paper takes into account both the structural and psychological facets of dispersion by considering the physical distance between team members, the configuration of the team across different sites, as well as the team members' perception of being distant from their teammates. Responses from 299 team leaders and team members of 71 NPD projects in the software industry were used to analyze the relationship between team improvisation and team performance, as well as the moderating effect of the three different conceptualizations of team dispersion. Results of the study indicate that team improvisation has a positive influence on project team performance by allowing team members to respond to unexpected challenges through creative and timely action. However, increasing degrees of team member dispersion (both structural and psychological) attenuate this relationship by making it difficult to have timely access to other team members' knowledge and by limiting real‐time interactions that may lead to the development of creative solutions. The results of this research offer guidance to managers about when to balance the desire to leverage expertise to cope with unexpected events. Moreover, the present paper provides directions for future research on improvisation and team dispersion. Future research is encouraged to investigate factors that may help highly dispersed teams to overcome the shortcomings of team dispersion in dealing with emergent events.     

Sources and assessment of complexity in NPD projects

When examining the reasons why NPD projects are late, over budget, or why they suffer from performance problems, complexity is often directly linked to the results achieved. While some research has been done in the complexity area, more research is needed to assess the role that complexity plays in the successful development of new products. In this paper complexity is defined and several reasons are examined why this factor can be a significant issue in successfully managing NPD efforts. Several sources of complexity are also examined including technological; market; development; marketing; organizational; and intraorganizational complexity, i.e., one company partnering with another to develop a new product or technology. A template is then constructed to help product developers evaluate complexity in their development projects. Finally, the paper concludes with suggestions of how the complexity template can be applied by development managers and their teams.     

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.     

Measuring Involvement of a Network of Customers in NPD

The new product development (NPD) literature is rife with suggestions to involve customers in the innovation process, and many firms collaborate with customers. But the extant literature does not offer much guidance concerning the nature and quality of involving such a network of customers. This paper contributes to the extant literature on customer involvement by identifying a comprehensive set of metrics to measure the involvement of a network of customers in NPD. It introduces metrics describing three aspects of customer involvement: (1) the rationale for involving a network of customers in NPD, (2) the network of customers involved in NPD, and (3) the interaction process between manufacturer and customers at the level of individual customers. These metrics help to understand the roles of customers, the timing of their involvement at each stage in the development process, the type and number of customers that are involved, as well as the frequency and intensity of their involvement. The use of these metrics is illustrated by a study of customer network involvement by Irish business‐to‐business companies. Forty‐six percent of the sampled firms (n = 1400) were actively involved in NPD, but very few of them involved customers in the early stages (n = 77). The involvement of customers in early NPD stages is significant, although manufacturers tend to go back to the same customers repeatedly. The intensity of customer involvement is also extensive, but even more so during the later NPD stages, especially for new products as opposed to product improvements. By incorporating a network perspective, the proposed metrics for customer network involvement provide a new approach for researchers to study the involvement of customers in NPD.     

Transformational leadership,team climate,and team performance within the NPD team: Evidence from China

This study analyzes the impact of team transformational leadership on team performance during the new product development (NPD) process and the mediating role of team climate. Data were collected from 184 NPD projects of Chinese high-tech firms. The results show that NPD team transformational leadership is positively related to team performance. In addition, team climate mediates the relationship between most dimensions of NPD team transformational leadership (charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) and team performance.     

The dynamics of multicultural NPD teams in virtual environments

Changes in the business environment, responses of companies to these changes and the available information and communication technologies (ICT) pose a number of challenges to present and future product developers, as well as to educational institutions. An appropriate response to these challenges is to create a solid basis for strategies to combat stronger competition, since existing educational programs have provided this only to a small extent. Several European universities provided this basis with the development of an international design course European Global Product Realization (EGPR). The main objective of the EGPR course is to provide a stimulating working environment for students, where they can conquer the design competences needed for their future professional practice. The main focus is put on multidisciplinary, multinational and multicultural teams, using virtual technological developments in solving a new product development (NPD) problem at a global level. This paper studies how the growth of the course internationally affects the design process carried out. A survey was carried out among the students of the past four courses and the analysis shows that the cultural background of the students has significant effect on their perception of the courses’ processes. This is a novel challenge that the developers of the course need to face in order to provide the highest level of knowledge possible to the students.     

Governance of supplier collaboration in technologically uncertain NPD projects

Firms that are searching for new technologies from suppliers through collaborative new product development (NPD) need to devise effective approaches for governing the supplier relationship. Based on in-depth case studies of four collaborative NPD projects, this paper shows that in projects with a high degree of uncertainty (1) firms achieve governance by simultaneously limiting supplier involvement and allowing for high levels of collaboration, (2) transactional and relational governance have distinct roles in achieving limited supplier involvement and establishing high levels of collaboration, and (3) transactional and relational governance are organizationally separated. These findings have implications for the complementary use of relational and transactional governance, as well as for the role of purchasing and R&D in technologically uncertain NPD projects.     

Supplier involvement in NPD: A quasi-experiment at Unilever

Growing technological complexity makes it impossible for individual firms to be updated on all technologies relevant to new product development (NPD). Involving suppliers, who have knowledge of complementary technologies, in the early phases of NPD is therefore quite a common practice. However, the timing of involvement presents a management challenge. We explore how task ambiguity pertaining to NPD affects buyer-supplier interaction. We set up a quasi-experimental study, manipulating causal ambiguity to observe how this impacts buyer-supplier interactions over time. Our findings reveal that causal ambiguity influences the role expectations and resource mobilisation of the suppliers before interaction, the actors' mobilisation and their pattern of interaction, and the transformation of outcome and mobilisation of resources ex post interaction. We discuss the implications for managers and researchers in a buyer-supplier context.     

From experience: Capturing hard-won NPD lessons in checklists

The application of a good New Product Development (NPD) process is frequently limited by the experience of the user. Avoiding relatively minor errors and omissions that can lead to seriously flawed project results is still an art. Checklists for each stage of a development project can capture this art and their disciplined use can avoid many potentially critical omissions and errors. Development of checklists frequently comes from the hard experiences many of us have had in bringing new products to market. Consequently, benchmarking "trials and tribulations" rather than success stories can be more appropriate to developing a thoughtful checklist.
This article is a partial accumulation of one practitioner's experiences of over three decades of executing, managing, directing and observing these projects. Fifteen NPD case histories are examined to develop learnings from these experiences. These cases are organized around three basic product development issues: managing technical risks, managing commercial risks, and managing NPD personnel. In these examples, NPD project problems have a common theme of poor technical or commercial risk management, as opposed to technical failure. Improved planning and a more disciplined management interface would have avoided many of the problems discussed in these case histories.
Analysis of each of the case histories and learnings is provided from which suggested checklist items are derived. These checklist additions are presented by development stage to allow use by other NPD teams, with the intention of avoiding the repetition of similar problems.     

A multilevel investigation of factors influencing creativity in NPD teams

Understanding creativity in the context of a new product development (NPD) team is of paramount importance, especially in the high-technology industry where creativity is a key resource. Building on the mood-as-input model, this study examines how contextual factors (organizational support and organizational control) moderate the relationship between team affective tone and team creativity. The data collected comprise 343 sets of responses involving 106 NPD teams drawn from high-technology firms. The results of this study show that negative affective tone relates positively to team creativity when organizational support is high and organizational control is low, but the linkage between positive affective tone and team creativity as moderated by context factors is found to be insignificant. This article likewise includes research limitations, future research directions, and theoretical and managerial implications.     

An Exploratory Investigation of NPD Practices in Nonprofit Organizations*

Studies of practices in new product and service development have focused predominantly on for‐profit organizations, whereas attention to the nonprofit sector has been minimal. Such attention is needed given that nonprofit organizations are unique in their structures and are growing with regards to impact on the world economy and society in general. Moreover, such disparate attention suggests a void in this discipline's understanding of new product development (NPD) practices of nonprofit organizations. Two particular research questions are posed: (1) To what extent are the practices of for‐profit organizations employed in nonprofit organizations? (2) How do the practices of nonprofits compare to those of for‐profit organizations? In the course of answering these questions, the present study reviewed literature and the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) certification work. The study subsequently identified six dimensions of successful NPD efforts: strategy, portfolio management, process, market research, people, and metrics and performance measurement. These dimensions were applied via an in‐depth case‐study methodology to six large, U.S. nonprofit organizations: American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Red Cross, Boys and Girls Club of America, and Goodwill Industries. The dimensions assisted in categorizing and analyzing the responses of 40 respondents across the six organizations. Results show that some NPD practices of large nonprofit organizations are similar to for‐profit organizations, but other practices are more distinctive and related to the nature of nonprofit organizations. Large nonprofit organizations tend to be very good at articulating their mission, embedding it throughout, and using it to drive programs and activities. These organizations tend to view product development as a tactical endeavor versus a strategic one and do not engage in portfolio management practices for their new programs. Instead, broad criteria such as fit with mission, funding availability, and presence of a champion are used for evaluating programs. The NPD process tends to be informal with little structure, and individual departments and local chapters tend to undertake their own NPD initiatives and have their own process for doing so. Nonprofits place a heavy emphasis on ideation and less emphasis on other activities such as concept development and testing, project evaluation, and business analysis. Pilot testing is the most used type of market research. These results suggest that NPD processes within large nonprofit organizations share some of the same weaknesses as those of for‐profit organizations, with NPD metrics being a particularly weak area. The NPD practices of nonprofits also have some unique characteristics that include the following: a heavy emphasis on the mission, a desire for flexibility, strong influence of external sponsors, and difficulty in assessing long‐term program success. Management of nonprofit NPD and directions for future research are discussed.     

Stage‐to‐Stage Information Dependency in the NPD Process: Effective Learning or a Potential Entrapment of NPD Gates?

The new product development (NPD) process is a sequence of stages and gates. Each stage consists of NPD activities that provide NPD managers with information input about the new product project progression. Information input is used for review decisions at gates. Over the course of an NPD process, managers learn about a new product project as to ensure successful launch. The view is that a new product project is shaped by the path of NPD activities it has traveled. Because learning is assumed to take place over the course of the NPD process, stage‐to‐stage information dependency is an assumption of NPD research. A concern raised is that development activities for each NPD stage are rigorously followed by NPD managers. In other words, stage‐to‐stage information dependency may potentially trap NPD managers rather than create effective learning from end to end of the development process. The purpose of this paper is to explore the assumption of stage‐to‐stage information dependency in NPD. The investigated research questions are whether the selection of NPD activities is linked between stages and whether these information dependencies strengthen NPD gate decisions. For the information dependencies identified in the study, the innovation experience characteristics of NPD managers pursuing them and the influence of information dependencies on NPD gate decisions are analyzed so as to provide insights for a discussion of information dependency versus information independency in the NPD process. The applied research method is an experiential simulation of NPD gate decision‐making—NPDGATES. One hundred thirty‐one NPD managers from international product development strategic business units (SBUs) situated in Denmark participated in the study. Logistic regressions were conducted as the basis for the calculation of stage‐to‐stage information dependency probabilities. Based on the study findings, the assumption about information dependency in the NPD process held by NPD research is found to be flawed. End‐to‐end information paths in the NPD process are rare. Further, market condition changes are found to significantly influence the stage‐to‐stage information dependencies demonstrated by NPD managers. It seems that competition becomes a reassurance of NPD efforts. Also, the results show that NPD experience creates inflexibility in relation to the selection of NPD activities. The need for strict process management is strong among experienced NPD managers. In relation to NPD gates, the results show that information dependencies increase priority given to financial decision criteria at gates and lower priority given to customer and market decision criteria. Overall, stage‐to‐stage information dependency seems to create inflexibility that hinders successful NPD process implementation.