The Agile–Stage‐Gate Hybrid Model: A Promising New Approach and a New Research Opportunity

Agile development methodologies have been widely employed in the software industry, where they have been found to yield positive results. But can these new methods, with their new tools such as sprints, scrums, burndown charts, and backlogs, really be integrated with the traditional and popular Stage‐Gate approach and then applied to physical products? Initial but limited evidence suggests yes: Larger IT firms have already integrated Agile and Stage‐Gate and gained the benefits of both approaches; and most recently, a handful of manufacturing firms have employed this Agile–Stage‐Gate hybrid model for physical new products. And if recent evidence can be trusted, this new approach promises to be the most significant change to our thinking about how new‐product development should be done since the introduction of today's popular gating systems 30 years ago. The benefits of this hybrid model are a faster and more adaptive response to changing customer needs, better integration of voice‐of‐customer, better team communication, improved development productivity, and faster to market. A case example from a toy company, LEGO, is provided as an illustration. But there are negatives as well, and additionally, manufacturers must make modifications to Agile in order to adopt it successfully. Although initial results appear promising, much research is needed to explore this new Agile–Stage‐Gate hybrid model, and many research challenges remain.     

Process reengineering: A review of enablers

In an attempt to improve productivity, performance and overall competitiveness in both domestic and global markets, organisations have realised that there is a need to reform their business practices and become more customer focused. Consequently, these organisations have recognised the need for organisational change, but do not necessarily know how and what to change, to achieve improvements in productivity and performance. Process reengineering has been described as the elixir for achieving dramatic improvements in production time and cost. Process reengineering is not about fixing current processes, but rebuilding them, with the aim of process improvement. This paper will explain what is meant by process reengineering and suggests that before an organisation attempts to process reengineer, a thorough understanding of current practices, procedures and enablers of change are required. Typically, information technology is implemented as the key change enabler of process reengineering implemented as the key enabler without prior consideration to other enablers such as organisational, human resource and total quality management. This paper suggests that the use of information technology as an enabler is rarely sufficient to cause process change. The paper concludes by suggesting that a combination of information technology, organisational and human resource enablers and a total quality management based philosophy are requisite for the effective redesign of business processes.     

An evolutionary approach to the introduction of corporate planning in the company

When corporate planning has been tried by a number of organizations a number of difficulties have arisen. These are often a consequence of the planning system itself and the manner of its introduction to the organization. A new approach is described in this paper by which planning is introduced in stages. Each is a logical development of the previous one but each makes a reasonable demand on the staff and there is time to ensure that the data needed at each stage by the staff is available. Furthermore, the staff contribute to the development of the planning system which, at each stage in its evolution, is adapted to their needs. Having thus described the introduction and evolution of a planning system in an organization, a later paper will review how the technical function of a company can link into it.     

The Effects of Environmental Turbulence on New Product Development Strategy Planning

Managers need guidance on how to cope with turbulent environments in order to improve corporate performance. Research on environmental turbulence has suggested that firms adopt a less centralized, more organic structure in dynamic, uncertain environments. Little work has been done specifically, however, on how environmental turbulence affects strategy planning for new product development (NPD). In this article, we specify a baseline model with firm innovativeness, market orientation and top management risk taking as antecedents to NPD speed and corporate strategic planning; these in turn are modeled as antecedents to NPD program (not project) performance. Two conceptualizations of the role of environmental turbulence are examined: (1) that market turbulence and technological turbulence are additional direct antecedents to NPD program performance; and (2) that the baseline model is moderated by turbulence (that is, that the strengths of the paths differ depending on levels of turbulence). A cross-sectional survey methodology including four diverse industries [automotive, electronics, publishing, and manufacturing/research and development (R&D) laboratories] was used to test the hypotheses. The latter conceptualization is supported. In particular, the paths from innovativeness to strategic planning and from risk taking to NPD speed are significantly greater in highly turbulent environments. A set of managerial recommendations and implications are provided. First, managers must recognize the possible improvements in new product performance by actively including NPD personnel in corporate strategic planning and also by involving corporate planners in NPD activities. Second, managers also should recognize that turbulent environments heighten the need to make risky investments, and sometimes, risky decisions; risk-taking decisions ought to be encouraged in such environments.     

THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE USE OF SOPHISTICATED CAPITAL BUDGETING PRACTICES AND CORPORATE PERFORMANCE

Since the early 1950s, the academic community has tried lo convince corporate managers that there are sophisticated techniques that can improve the capital budgeting decision-making process. Over the years, many studies have documented a trend toward increasing business use of such sophisticated capital budgeting techniques. However, there is no clear evidence whether better performing companies are more likely to employ sophisticated capital budgeting processes than are lower performing companies. This study is an attempt to measure the relationship between capital budgeting sophistication and business performance. It advances upon earlier studies by utilizing a more comprehensive capital budgeting sophistication metric, incorporating industry-adjusted independent variables (firm size, risk, capital intensity, and degree of focus), and by focusing on United States corporations. The results are similar with those of earlier studies; there is no discernible relationship between capital budgeting sophistication and corporate performance.     

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.     

Measuring New Product Success: The Difference that Time Perspective Makes

Management is often criticized for overemphasizing short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth. On the other hand, although numerous studies have explored the factors underlying new product success and failure, such studies rarely distinguish between short- and long-term success. In fact, little research has been conducted to explore the relationship between a company's time perspective and its choice of criteria for measuring new product success. For that matter, little consensus exists as to just what we mean by the term success. Expanding on work done by a PDMA task force on measurement of new product success and failure, Erik Jan Hultink and Henry S.J. Robben identify 16 core measures of new product success. In a survey of large Dutch companies, they explore managers' perceptions of new product success, hypothesizing that the importance attached to each of the 16 core measures depends on the company's time perspective. For example, they propose that criteria such as development cost and speed-to-market are more important in the short term, and return-on-investiment (ROI) is more important in the long term. The study also examines the type of market served, the innovation strategy, and the perceived innovativeness of the company's products. It is hypothesized that these factors will influence the importance the company attaches to the core measures of new product success. For example, it is expected that speed-to-market is probably more important for technological innovators than for fast imitators or cost minimizers. The findings support the hypothesis that the firm's time perspective influences the perceived importance of the core measures of success. For the short term, the respondents emphasize product-level measures such as speed-to-market and whether the product was launched on time. In the long term, the focus is on customer acceptance and financial performance, including attaining goals for profitability, margins, and ROI. Four factors are perceived as being equally important for short-term and long-term success: customer satisfaction, customer acceptance, meeting quality guidelines, and product performance level. Customer satisfaction was found to be the most important measure, regardless of a company's time perspective. Contrary to expectations, the perceived importance of the 16 core measures does not differ on the basis of the type of market, the innovation strategy, or the product's perceived innovativeness. In addition, the firm's functional orientation—technology push or market pull—does not affect the importance attached to the core measures of new product success.     

Crosscurrents in Workers Participation

As I contemplate developments in recent years relating to participation in management, I am impressed by the uncertainties, the shifting tides of thought, the atmosphere of experimentation. At the level of participation theory, there is more rather than less doubt. A few years ago in the United States, optimistic theories like those of McGregor and Likert regarding workers needs and desires for self-actualization seemed to be sweeping the field; today they are regarded as psychologically inadequate and faulty. In England the theory of joint consultation is confronted with something of a polarization - either toward apathy or toward codetermination. In Israel the ideology of participation, derived originally from socialist theory, has been subjected to increasing challenge from pragmatic considerations of efficiency and profitability. Profit-sharing plans, after a hundred years of experience and a widening acceptability, do not necessarily entail increased worker participation. At the level of practice, the dominant note once again is uncertainty rather than a clear progression toward either success or failure. Neither the Scanlon Plan in the US nor the Glacier Metals experiment in England have generated many followers. Joint consultation schemes appear generally to have declined in number. In Israel Koor experiments in joint management at the plant level have frittered away. Participation has not even been seriously tried in Australia. Reports from Yugoslavia and Germany, where participation programs have been most fully developed, raise questions about the impact of participation on the productivity and efficiency of the enterprises involved, as well as the degree of involvement of workers. On the other hand, there are some positive currents. The spread of collective bargaining to the local level in England and other European countries, the rising interest in productivity bargaining, the absorption of joint consultation committees by unions - all point in the direction of more worker participation in management, although the model may be one of bargaining rather than integration. Out of these crosscurrents we can distinguish some of the main problems confronting the advocates of greater workers participation in management:

• 1 How to persuade managers that their professional interests are best served by cooperating, if not taking the lead, in different types of participation schemes.
• 2 How to convince workers that “participating” is worth the effort, and how to educate them in various forms of the process.
• 3 How to involve worker representatives in both administration and policy-making on a basis other than bargaining that will not estrange them from their constituents.

Resolution of these problems will depend in part at least on recognition that participation is a multi-dimensional process, that different types of participation may work better with regard to different issues or subjects (depending on requirements of technical knowledge and time), and that participation expectations and arrangements may vary with the different levels of an enterprise.     

城镇化发展与居民消费 ——基于工业生产率地区差异视角

为探究城镇化发展与居民消费之间的内在作用机制,本文基于工业生产率地区差异视角展开深入研究。结果表明:城镇化率与居民消费率之间不存在自发产生的“U”型演变关系,但工业生产率水平对两者的影响具有明显的地区异质性。因此,必须立足于中国经济发展实际,提高工业生产率水平。同时,加快推进城乡“二元”经济结构向城乡融合发展的转变,实现城镇化发展对居民消费的拉动作用。     

Book Reviews

The first review describes the eighth book we have reviewed on the general topic of faster new product development. This book is distinguished by its emphasis on human issues, especially in the context of contracted development for an original equipment manufacturer. The second review covers a book that contrasts the Japanese and U.S. approach to product development. The book indicates that U.S. companies should put more emphasis on early predevelopment activities. The third review describes how Kodak's black and white film-making operation was overhauled by a team effort. Our reviewer suggests that many of the book's team-building lessons must be adopted for any company to change its culture and improve its product development performance. The fourth review describes a short book about quality function deployment (QFD). Although the book lacks specific product development examples, the reviewer recommends it as a helpful primer on this important product development tool. The fifth review reports on a technology management book. The book comprises a series of separately authored chapters on varied issues, some of which are directly pertinent to developers of technology-based new products. The reviews conclude with a brief note about a book on rapid prototyping.     

Corporate sexual equality and firm performance

Research summary: Previous studies have mixed findings on the relation between corporate socially responsible policies and firm performance. This paper focuses on a specific type of corporate social responsibility—corporate sexual equality, measuring how a firm treats its lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees, consumers, and investors—and examines whether and how it relates to firm performance. Using a longitudinal dataset of public firms in the U.S. during the period of 2002–2006, we demonstrate that firms with a higher degree of corporate sexual equality have higher stock returns and higher market valuation. We also identify one of the mediating channels, the labor market channel, that brings higher productivity to firms that embrace sexual equality. Managerial summary: Corporate sexual equality measures how a company treats its lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees, consumers, and investors. It is an important dimension of corporate social responsibility policies and diversity management. Using a longitudinal dataset of public firms in the U.S. during the period of 2002–2006, we demonstrate that firms with a higher degree of corporate sexual equality have higher stock returns, higher market valuation, and higher labor productivity. Our findings suggest that discriminatory hiring behaviors based on sexual orientation hurt employers and shareholders financially and that implementing corporate sexual equality policies can enhance firms' financial performance, generating competitive advantages in labor markets and mutual benefits between employers and employees. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A study of communication behaviour in an R & D laboratory

There is still much uncertainty about the determinants of technical communication flow in UK R & D laboratories and even more uncertainty about the causal link between communication behaviour and performance. Hence it is not clear what managerial action should be taken to improve technical communication flow and what effect such action would have on research productivity. In this study the main factors influencing communication flow are identified and the role of basic human characteristics in determining both communication behaviour and performance are studied and discussed.     

An Exercise To Explore The Future Impact Of New Technologies

New technologies have the potential to drastically change the way people and firms conduct business. But the future is difficult to predict, and the inherent uncertainty of a new technology's impact can be troubling. This article describes an exercise that has participants evaluate a 1937 U.S. Government sponsored technology forecast. The forecast identified thirteen inventions that were predicted to have a significant impact on society during the subsequent 10–25 years. These inventions included the television, facsimile machine, mechanical cotton picker, and trailer homes, among others. Participants in the exercise are challenged to evaluate the accuracy of the 1937 forecast, and develop and understanding of the issues inherent in predicting the future impact of new technologies. They are then challenged to identify today's new technologies, and make predictions regarding these technologies' future impact. Today's new technologies may change important aspects of everyday life over the next few decades, and significantly influence the competitiveness of certain firms. The exercise illustrates how difficult it can be to anticipate the future impact of new technologies. New technologies take time to develop, and most forecasts are overly optimistic regarding the rate of development and adoption. New technologies can also develop in ways not anticipated, and a new technology may have uses that are difficult to foresee. These challenges notwithstanding, it is still important to regularly track new technologies and attempt to anticipate their potential impact. The greatest danger comes not from having inaccurate predictions of the future impact of new technologies, but from having not thought about the potential impacts. The exercise was developed for use in an executive MBA program to encourage participants to think beyond the budgets and deadlines that drive much of their regular work activity. It was designed to challenge them to reevaluate whether they, and their firm, were thinking about how new technologies might impact their industry. The exercise has the greatest impact and applicability when conducted at corporate programs or with Executive MBA students, but can be used in a typical MBA or MS program as well. It can be conducted in a three‐four hour session, or over multiple shorter sessions. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.     

Compressing new product success-to-success cycle time: Deep customer value understanding and idea generation

Despite nearly 30 years of research focused on improving new product development (NPD) processes, recent research reveals that these improvements have failed to materialize as expected. Additionally, in today's continuous-change business environment, managers are focused on reducing cycle time in nearly all operations, including NPD, in order to realize acceptable returns on investments more quickly. Thus, we must not only be better but also faster at NPD, specifically at compressing the cycle time between new product successes, i.e., accelerating success-to-success velocity and not just accelerating each NPD project. But, how can businesses both improve the probability of new product successes and also speed up the process of doing so? This paper proposes that formalizing front-end processes will certainly help. Specifically, a process is presented which draws on customer value research that ought to help clarify the traditional “fuzzy front end” of NPD processes, resulting in consistently more successful new products.     

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.     

New Product Development Structures: The Effect of Customer Overload on Post-Concept Time to Market

In corporate policy statements, seminars, journal articles—even in television commercials—the message comes through loud and clear: To remain competitive, we must do a better job of listening to our customers. Through close contact with customers, designers can more accurately identify market requirements, quickly refine product specifications, and thus reduce time to market. However, too much customer input can create confusion and duplication of effort, which ultimately increases time to market. In other words, some firms run the risk of over-listening to their customers. In a study of three global players in the electronic component industry, Srikant Datar, Clark Jordan, Sunder Kekre, Surendra Rajiv, and Kannan Srinivasan explore the effects of having too much input from customers. Specifically, they examine the relationship between a company's new product development structure and the volume of customer input, which in turn can affect time to market. The high-tech, fast-cycle firms examined in this study employ two distinct new product development structures: concentrated and distributed. A concentrated structure locates all product designers in one facility. This facilitates cross-product learning among designers, but limits designers' contact with customers and process engineers. A distributed structure disperses new product development among numerous manufacturing sites, giving designers close contact with customers and process engineers. However, a distributed structure limits designers' opportunities for cross-product learning. Analysis of 220 new product efforts reveals that the distributed structure offered a time-to-market advantage as long as these firms efficiently managed the level of customer interaction. When designers received input on the product design from no more than 25 customers, the distributed structure provided shorter time to market than the concentrated structure. Beyond the 25-customer level, time-to-market performance of the distributed structure degraded quickly and at an increasing rate. In such cases, more effective management of customer interaction might allow firms employing a distributed structure to enjoy the benefits not only of customer input, but also of improved coordination between product designers and process engineers.     

What types of profitability reports do marketing managers receive?

Marketers have been subjected to considerable criticism for not understanding the financial impact of their decisions. Although profitability reports using contribution analysis have been advocated as a tool that will help marketers make strategic decisions about their firms' product offerings and the allocation of scarce corporate resources, this research found that the profitability reports used in major corporations varied significantly from company to company and from the format advocated in the literature. This paper identifies the shortcomings of corporate reporting methods and recommends ways to improve the current situation.     

Practices that Support Team Learning and Their Impact on Speed to Market and New Product Success

Competition is fierce today. Businesses are feeling extreme pressure to innovate and do so quickly. If they take too long in bringing a product to market or make a mistake along the way, they can be preempted by a faster moving competitor. One technique gaining popularity to help companies compete is establishing learning teams—teams that create and use knowledge rapidly and effectively. But how do teams learn? By studying the learning practices of 95 new product teams, we have uncovered several factors that improve a new product team’s ability to learn, innovate faster, and be more successful. These factors include thoroughly reviewing project information, having stable project goals, and following a rigorous new product development process.     

Project Selection in an Organizational Context

Abstract— Project selection is not a process which occurs at a particular instance in time and to which any single technique or even combination of techniques can be applied. It is an ongoing operation which requires inputs from the idea generation and creativity area and which raises questions about long-term planning and corporate strategy. This paper therefore considers the problem from an organizational point of view and draws upon a variety of research findings which help us to understand how the process might be improved and how some of the more formalized procedures which have been suggested in the literature can be of assistance.