Antecedents and Consequences of Reflexivity in New Product Idea Screening*

Pre‐development activities, such as new product idea screening, are considered to play an important role in innovation success. At the screening stage, a management team evaluates new product and service ideas and makes a first go/no‐go decision under high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. Paying more attention to the decision‐making process in the screening stage appears important because too rigorous a use of rigid evaluation criteria and inflexible methods have been shown to have an adverse effect on market performance of novel products. The present study proposes and tests a model of team‐level antecedents and consequences of reflexivity—the explicit evaluation and discussion of working methods, tools, and criteria within a team. Recently, researchers have proposed that cognitive style and leadership style are major antecedents of decision‐making performance. This study posits that reflexivity offers an explanation of how transformational leadership and cognitive style can eventually affect decision‐making performance in the context of new product idea screening. Results of a survey among 126 top managers from large international firms show that the positive effects of transformational leadership and procedural rationality on the effectiveness and efficiency of screening decision making are largely mediated by reflexivity at the team level. This suggests that screening teams can improve their decision making in the following ways: committee chairs are advised to stimulate openness, develop a stop‐and‐think attitude among screening committee members, and support argument‐based discussion in order to adapt available decision tools, models, and checklists whenever needed. The paper concludes with implications, limitations of the study, and suggestions for further research.     

How New Product Strategies Impact on Performance

What is involved in a successful new product program? Is it high spending on risky R&D? Is it close contact with customers? Is it the overall competitive strength of the firm? Well, it might be any of these things, and more, according to Robert G. Cooper, depending on your definition of success. In an exhaustive examination of the new product strategies and performances of 122 industrial products firms, Cooper found that the strategy that a firm elects for its new product program is closely linked to the performance results that firm achieves. But what's performance? Cooper's analysis uncovered three different and independent ways of viewing new product performance. He brings some clarity to the meaning of a “high-performance” product innovation program, but there's a catch—the strategies leading to high performance in one direction are quite different from the strategies leading to positive results by other measures. In his summing up, Professor Cooper proposes sets of generalized strategies—guides to action—that product innovation managers should consider.     

Assessing introduction factors for a new industrial product

The present research involves determinant component analysis [3]. Specifically, the study assesses which components—price, product or environmental—are most important in the design of new entry strategy. Under conditions of abundance, industrial firms primarily analyzed price and product characteristics when making new product decisions. In choosing one supplier over another the stalwart buying motives have been quality, service and price [4]. However, these decision components were conceptualized in a period of abundance. Under conditions of scarcity, are price and product characteristics still important? Are environmental dimensions perhaps more important under shortage conditions when making new product decisions? Besides describing the key components that may be considered in new product programming, the article also outlines an approach that may be used to find determinant decision components.     

The Early Stages of New Product Development in Entrepreneurial High-Tech Firms

This study examines the most valuable sources of new product ideas and the criteria used to screen potential new products in entrepreneurial, high-tech firms. Teresa Pavia explored the practices of 118 small, young, high-tech firms. Her findings complement a variety of existing studies of the new product process in large firms and the few existing studies of the process in entrepreneurial, high-tech firms. The firms participating in this study rely on informal techniques to generate new product ideas. They place heavy reliance on input from their customers and often develop new products in response to problems articulated by these customers. Although the annual strategic plan is not used by most firms as a new product identification tool, it is highly rated by the most successful firms. Successful firms also actively engage in environmental scanning. The majority of the respondents do not use financial measures as a screening criterion, preferring to evaluate new products by "gut feel." However, the firms that have experienced the fastest growth in sales employ financial hurdles for project selection. The educational background of the key GO/NO GO decision-makers was also evaluated. Two thirds of the firms reported having a key decision-maker with an educational background in business. The educational background of the key decision-makers had little impact on the aspects of the new product process studied here.     

Retailers' Adoption Decision of New Consumer Durables

In today's competitive environment, members of the market chain, such as retailers and suppliers, are becoming increasingly powerful. It has been established in the packaged goods area that the ability to get new products on the shelves' is an essential factor in the success of a new product. However, no research exists to date that relates variables investigated in packaged goods contexts to retailers' adoption decision of new consumer durables. The present study focused on the dimensions that influenced the new product adoption decision by 291 retailers of consumer durables by exploring the relative importance of 26 adoption criteria across seven product categories. The results largely supported previous findings but simultaneously extended that body of knowledge. For example, six dimensions characterized the new product adoption decision in our sample of Dutch retailers. We discuss implications of this study and provide directions for future research in this area.     

Applying financial portfolio and multiple criteria approaches to product line decisions

This article describes the application of decision rules from financial portfolio theory to the evaluation of product lines. The focus is on the risk/return implications of an “add” decision to the total portfolio versus the individual product. Multiple criteria approaches that aid product line evaluations are also presented.     

Criteria employed for go/no-go decisions when developing successful highly innovative products

Based on a sample of 77 highly innovative products, this study examines the usage and the relative importance of a set of go/no-go decision criteria at four major gates of the new product development (NPD) process. The findings reveal that go/no-go criteria can be grouped into five dimensions: strategic fit, technical feasibility, customer acceptance, market opportunity, and financial performance. Strategic fit dimension is mainly applied in approving the new product concept. Technical feasibility dimension is crucial in approving the new product concept and the product prototype. The usage of customer acceptance dimension is notably high throughout the entire development process, particularly after product launch. Market opportunity dimension is mostly employed to approve the new product concept and the maintenance of the product on the market. Financial performance dimension stands out near the end of the development process.     

Using the Weapons You Have: The Role of Resources and Competitor Orientation as Enablers and Inhibitors of Competitive Reaction to New Products*

It is a well‐accepted notion that to respond to competitive attacks firms need the necessary resources to do so. However, the presence of resources may not be a sufficient condition to enhance competitive responsiveness. Following a managerial decision‐making approach, the present paper investigates how the availability of resources affects decision makers' assessment of a competitor's new product and their subsequent reaction to it. This study posits that competitive reaction follows from a decision maker's assessment of a competitive action. This assessment contains a motivation dimension and an ability dimension. The effect of three types of resources—financial, marketing, and technological—are examined. A quasi‐experiment with the Markstrat business game as an empirical setting provided 339 questionnaires containing information on 29 different new product introductions. The motivation and ability dimensions are confirmed as important antecedents explaining reaction behavior. The results show that resources possess a dual, and opposing, role in influencing competitive reaction to new products. On the one hand, resources enhance decision makers' belief that they are able to react effectively to competitive attacks, but the presence of resources also makes them less motivated to react. The paper introduces two explanations for this: the liability‐of‐wealth hypothesis and the strong‐competitor hypothesis. The addition of competitor orientation as a moderator allows us to discern between the two competing rationales for the existence of a negative effect of resources on the expected likelihood of success of a competitive new product introduction, supporting the liability‐of‐wealth hypothesis. The paper demonstrates the key role of competitor orientation and formulates implications from that.     

Behavioral Reasons for New Product Failure: Does Overconfidence Induce Overforecasts?

Efforts to organize and integrate research findings on new product performance determinants have lagged since the last significant overview paper appeared over a decade ago. Importantly, this literature has not considered entire categories of factors that are known to affect managerial decisions and behavior, namely those that pertain to decision‐makers' cognitive limitations and incentive structures. This research empirically investigates one specific cognitive distortion heretofore neglected in studies of new product commercialization—overconfidence, commonly defined in the literature as excessive belief in one's own abilities to generate superior performance. To lay the groundwork for subsequent exploration, the paper first introduces a behavioral model that both organizes well‐understood new product performance determinants and illuminates others heretofore not studied, namely incentive alignment and cognitive limitations and biases. The model summarizes extant research and allows development of research hypotheses related to overconfidence. The hypotheses and empirical investigation motivated by the model address two questions about the impact of overconfidence on new product commercialization activities. First, the study explores whether overconfidence is associated with overforecasting new product demand. Second, it evaluates two complementary mechanisms that may account for overconfidence‐induced overforecasts. The empirical findings are based on data generated in the course of management simulation workshops conducted among graduate students at three leading business schools in India. Three hundred thirty participants played individually four rounds of a computer‐based simulation game that involved decisions pertaining to new product development (including product formulation) and commercialization strategies. The decisions were captured and analyzed using statistical techniques. The results reveal that decision‐makers' overconfidence is associated with a higher likelihood of overforecasting new product sales. The observed effect is fully mediated by flawed tactical decisions that dampen demand, namely elevated product pricing. Sensitivity analyses show that these results are robust to a number of alternative explanations. However, the study finds no evidence implicating overconfident individuals as poor “innovators”—overconfident and nonoverconfident decision‐makers experienced comparable market demand for their new products. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results and provides specific recommendations for practice.     

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.     

Information Distribution,Utilization, and Decisions by New Product Development Teams

Typically, organizations use new product development processes composed of activities followed by decision points, where projects are continued or abandoned. A decision maker likely possesses some common information also held by other decision makers and some unique information (that only she/he possesses). If a team relies mainly on overlapping, or common, information, decisions may suffer, but if they share and utilize information originally possessed by a subset of individual members, better decisions can be made. In this paper, the authors designed and conducted four studies to examine the effects of information distribution and utilization on new product team decision‐making. In study 1, the findings show that team members tend to use information possessed by everyone (i.e., common information) but neglect critical information possessed only by one of them (i.e., unique information). This common information bias results in suboptimal new product continuation decisions. In study 2, the interplay between the common information bias and team commitment to the NPD project favored by unique information is examined. The results show that although commitment influences new product development team decisions, the common information bias is stronger. Study 3 was conducted to rule out an alternative explanation for the effect of information distribution—the perception of information importance. In study 4, the focal hypotheses were re‐tested using a different sample to add confidence in the findings.     

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.     

A systems approach for developing high technology products

Product development for high technology products is comprised of the three stages of assessment, development, and execution. In addition, all three stages consist of information and decisions involving technological, product, and market dimensions. This article presents a systematic approach for integrating these three dimensions by which a go—no-go decision can be reached prior to the expenditure of large amounts of funds for research and development.     

Strategies of Innovation and Imitation of Product Languages*

Nowadays, design is recognized as a strategic resource. Customers are increasingly paying attention to the aesthetic, symbolic, and emotional value of products, a value that is conveyed by the design language—that is, the combination of signs (e.g., form, colors, materials) that gives meaning to a product. As a consequence firms are devoting increasing efforts to define a proper strategy for the design language of their products. An empirical analysis was conducted on the product language strategies in the Italian furniture industry; in particular, the present article explores the relationship between innovation and variety of product languages. Companies are usually faced by two major strategic decisions. The first one concerns the innovation of product languages: To what extent should a firm proactively propose new design languages or, rather, should adopt a reactive strategy by rapidly adopting new languages as they emerge in the market? The second decision concerns the variety and heterogeneity of languages in their product range. Should a firm propose a single product language to communicate a precise identity, or should it explore different product languages? Of course, the two strategic decisions—innovativeness and variety of product languages—are closed connected. Analyzing more than 2.000 products launched by 210 firms, the present article explores how the variety of product languages is approached in the strategy of innovators and imitators. The empirical results illustrate an inverse relationship between innovativeness and heterogeneity of product signs and languages. Contrary to what is expected, innovators have lower heterogeneity of product languages. They tend to be strongly proactive and limit experimentations of new languages in the market. Imitators, instead—which would be expected to have low variety since they can invest only in languages that have been proven successful in the market—tend on the contrary to have higher product variety. Eventually, by having lower investments in research on trends of sociocultural models, they miss the capability to interpret the complex evolution of products signs and languages in the market. Strategic decisions on innovativeness and variety of product languages are therefore interrelated; counterintuitively companies should carefully analyze these decisions jointly.     

Passion for Work,Nonwork‐Related Excitement,and Innovation Managers’ Decision to Exploit New Product Opportunities

This article investigates the role of affect in innovation managers’ decision to exploit new product opportunities—a decision central to the innovation process. The model proposes that different types of passion can trigger managers’ exploitation decisions but that this effect is contingent on experiencing excitement from events outside their work environment. A field experiment with 90 owner–managers of young firms located in an innovation context (business incubators) shows that passion for work and nonwork‐related excitement levels interdependently impact innovation managers’ decision to exploit new product opportunities. Specifically, harmonious passion has a general positive effect on managers’ propensity to exploit. In contrast, the effect of obsessive passion is more complex and contingent on the additional excitement managers experience such that the positive relationship between obsessive passion and the decision to exploit is more positive with higher levels of excitement. These findings extend the product innovation management literature by acknowledging that decision‐makers’ affective experiences influence innovation decisions and provide a first step toward understanding the role of affect and passion in the product innovation context. Second, the finding that obsessive passion and nonwork‐related excitement interact in explaining opportunity exploitation decisions highlights the need to incorporate contingency relationships in models of innovation decision‐making. Third, in drawing on a field experiment and the experimental manipulation of managerial affect during the decision‐making task, this article answers a recent call in the project management literature to pursue less common methodological approaches and develop “broader theoretical schema” in order to enhance our understanding of innovation management. Finally, this study also has implications for practitioners because it can help innovation managers understand their own decision policies. To the extent that innovation managers are able to regulate their affective experiences, this improved understanding might prevent them from premature and faulty decision‐making.     

The product-elimination decision and strategies

This study identified the elimination strategies used by companies to implement the elimination decision, which includes the following options: (1) phase out immediately; (2) phase out slowly; (3) drop the product from the standard range and reintriduce it as a “special” sell out. The study also determined that the “phase out slowly” strategy is generally preferred and that “stock on hand” and “replacement product development” are two of the main factors influencing the formulation of phase out plans. A systematized model for the implementation of the product elimination decision based on the findings of the study is described.     

Reducing Ongoing Product Design Decision‐Making Bias*

The objective of this exploratory study is to add to our understanding of ongoing product design decision‐making to reduce eventual decision‐making bias. Six research questions are formulated with the aim to establish if and how functional membership and informal patterns of communication within an organization influence whether and why employees are willing to engage in product design modifications. We selected as a field site for our study an industrial company that had an internal research and product development operations and where the employees were located on the same site. A three‐step approach within the manufacturing case company was designed: (1) In‐depth interviews were carried out with managers and employees; (2) a survey questionnaire was sent out to all employees involved with a specific product that is subject to potential design modifications; and (3) a post hoc group feedback session was organized to further discuss our findings with the management. First, analysis of the nine in‐depth interviews establishes a taxonomy of product design decisions involving four types of criteria; product‐related, service‐related, market‐related, and feasibility‐related criteria explain why employees would engage or not in product design modifications. Second, it is demonstrated that functional membership has a significant influence on the concern for these decision‐making criteria as well as on the decision to proceed or not with product design modifications. In other words, functional membership influences whether and why employees are more or less willing to make product design modifications. In this manufacturing company, a global industrial player, the differences in concern appear especially for service‐ and market‐related criteria and pertain particularly to the research and development (R&D) and service function. Overall, even though the perceived performance of the specific product under study did not differ significantly among the different departments, it is observed that R&D employees were significantly less in favor of proceeding with product design modifications than other employees were. Third, using UCINET VI software, we provide some explanations for this finding. It is shown that informal patterns of communication (i.e., employee degree centrality) operate a situational opportunity to make modifications to an existing product and a cognitive opportunity influencing the decision to modify product design following an inverted U‐shaped function. Ultimately, we derive practical guidelines for an ideal product–team composition to reduce product design decision‐making bias.     

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.     

Evaluating Product Plans Using Real Options

Product planning helps a company to strategically plan its current and future product platforms and offer product variants in the marketplace. Product platforming is widely touted as a successful strategy for mass customization. However, due diligence should be exercised before implementing any product platform strategy. The product planning exercise should account for future uncertainties. Traditional financial tools such as the net present value (NPV) are static since they do not compensate for any exogenous and endogenous uncertainties during the course of the project. The crux of the problem lies in the evaluation model that is used for evaluating the product planning projects. While many view uncertainties in a product planning project as problematic, it can also be viewed as a source of new opportunities. We argue that uncertainties should be an integral part of the evaluation model. If the future possibilities (or strategic options) are not considered in the evaluation model, a corporation may face a “myopic syndrome”.

In this article, we consider two important product planning decisions—platform decisions and product variant decisions. The platform decision involves strategic selection of a concept product platform from various possible alternative concept product platforms. The product variant decision involves deciding how long a company should continue to offer its current product variant in the marketplace and whether the existing product variant should be discontinued, scaled down, or scaled up with additional product features. To address the two aforementioned decisions, we developed a real options–based methodology that considers technical, project implementation, and market-related uncertainties. The proposed methodology uses a binomial and quadranomial lattice approach to build a decision tree. Product planning decisions at various decision tree nodes are evaluated using a risk-neutral option valuation methodology. We demonstrate the working of the proposed methodology using an illustrative example.