An Illustration of Potential Sources of Concept‐Test Error*

A critical step in prelaunch market analysis needing improvement is concept testing. This article reviews the literature on the three basic design decisions inherent to concept testing: (1) stimuli design; (2) respondent selection; and (3) response measurement. By incorporating findings from diffusion theory, the current review identifies a number of potential sources of concept‐test error (e.g., failing to account for adoption orientation could unintentionally mask the response of earlier adopters). Through an exploratory study that replicates in many ways a typical concept test, the present study illustrates how results of conventional concept testing can be sensitive to respondents' adoption orientation and the response measure used. This study offers implications for NPD practice that include accounting for the adoption orientation of respondents, using appropriate response measures such as affective questions for later adopters, and incorporating more product‐related information and repeat exposure for later adopters.     

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.     

Spurring Cross‐Functional Integration for Higher New Product Performance: A Group Effectiveness Perspective*

Spurring integration among functional specialists so they collectively create successful, or high‐performing, new products is a central interest of innovation practitioners and researchers. Firms are increasingly assembling cross‐functional new product development (NPD) teams for this purpose. However, integration of team members' divergent orientations and expertise is notoriously difficult to achieve. Individuals from distinct functions such as design, marketing, manufacturing, and research and development (R&D) are often assigned to NPD teams but have contrasting backgrounds, priorities, and thought worlds. If not well managed, this diversity can yield unproductive conflict and chaos rather than successful new products. Firms are thus looking for avenues of integrating the varied expertise and orientations within these cross‐functional teams. The aim of this study is to address two important and not fully resolved questions: (1) does cross‐functional integration in NPD teams actually improve new product performance; and if so, (2) what are ways to strengthen integration? The study began by developing a model of cross‐functional integration from the perspective of the group effectiveness theory. The theory has been used to explain the performance of a wide range of small, complex work groups; this study is the first application of the theory to NPD teams. The model developed from this theory was then tested by conducting a survey of dual informants in 206 NPD teams in an array of U.S. high‐technology companies. In answer to the first research question, the findings show that cross‐functional integration indeed contributes to new product performance as long conjectured. This finding is important in that it highlights that bringing together the skills, efforts, and knowledge of differing functions in an NPD team has a clear and coveted payoff: high‐performing new products. In answer to the second question, the findings indicate that both intra‐ (or internal) and extra‐ (or external) team factors contribute and codetermine cross‐functional integration. Specifically, social cohesion and superordinate identity as internal team factors and market‐oriented reward system, planning process formalization, and managerial encouragement to take risks as external team factors foster integration. These findings underscore that spurring integration requires addressing the conditions inside as well as outside NPD teams. These specialized work groups operate as organizations within organizations; recognition of this in situ arrangement is the first step toward better managing and ensuring rewards from team integration. Based on these findings, managerial and research implications were drawn for team integration and new product performance.     

The Vital Role of Problem‐Solving Competence in New Product Success*

Problem solving, a process of seeking, defining, evaluating, and implementing the solutions, is considered a converter that can translate organizational inputs into valuable product and service outputs. A key challenge for the product innovation community is to answer questions about how knowledge competence and problem‐solving competence develop and sustain competitive advantage. The objective of this study is to theoretically examine and empirically test an existing assumption that problem‐solving competence is an important variable connecting market knowledge competence with new product performance. New product projects from 396 firms in the high‐technology zones in China were used to test the study's theoretical model. The results first indicate that problem‐solving speed and creativity matter in new product innovation performance by playing mediator roles between market knowledge competence and positional advantage, which in turn sustains superior performance. This new insight suggest that mere generation of market knowledge and having a marketing–research and development (R&D) interface will not affect new product performance unless project members have the ability to use the information and to interact to identify and solve complex problems speedily and creatively. Second, these results suggest that different market knowledge competences (customers, competitors, and interactions between marketing and R&D) have distinct impacts on problem‐solving speed and creativity (positive, negative, or none), which underscore the need to embrace a more fine‐grained notion of market knowledge competence. The results also reveal that the relative importance of some of these relationships depends on the perceived level of turbulence in the environment. First, competitor knowledge competence decreases problem‐solving speed when perceived environmental turbulence is low but enhances problem‐solving speed when perceived turbulence is high. Second, competitor knowledge competence has a positive relationship with new product performance when the environmental turbulence is high but no relationship when the environmental turbulence is low. Third, the positive relationship between problem‐solving speed and product advantage is stronger when the perceived environmental turbulence is high than when it is low, which implies that problem solving is more important for creating product advantage when environmental turbulence is high and change is fast and unpredictable. Fourth, the negative relationship between problem‐solving speed and new product performance is stronger when the perceived environmental turbulence is high than when it is low, which means that problem‐solving speed is more harmful for new product performance when change is fast and unpredictable. And fifth, the positive relationship between product quality and new product performance is stronger when perceived environmental turbulence is low than when it is high, which implies that product quality may more likely lead to new product performance when the environment is stable and changes are easy to predict, analyze, and comprehend.     

Uses of Agent‐Based Modeling in Innovation/New Product Development Research*

Little has been written in the new product development literature about the simulation technique agent‐based modeling, which is a by‐product of recent explorations into complex adaptive systems in other disciplines. Agent‐based models (ABM) are commonly used in other social sciences to represent individual actors (or groups) in a dynamic adaptive system. The social system may be a marketplace, an organization, or any type of system that acts as a collective of individuals. Agents represent autonomous decision‐making entities that interact with each other and/or with their environment based on a set of rules. These rules dictate the behavioral choices of the agents. In these simulation models, heterogeneous agents interact with each other in a repetitive process. It is from the interactions between agents that aggregate macroscale behaviors or trends emerge. The simulated environment can be thought of as a “virtual” society in which actions taken by one agent may have an effect on the resulting actions of another agent. This article is an introduction to the ABM methodology and its possible uses for innovation and new product development researchers. It explores the benefits and issues with modeling dynamic systems using this methodology. Benefits of ABMs found in sociology and management studies have found that as the heterogeneity of individuals increase in a system or as network effects become more important in a system, the effectiveness of ABMs as a methodology increases. Additionally, the more adaptive a system or the more the system evolves over time, the greater the opportunity to learn more about the adaptive system using ABMs. Limitations to using this methodology include some knowledge of computer‐programming techniques. Three potential areas of research are introduced: diffusion of innovations, organizational strategy, and knowledge and information flows. A common use of ABMs in the extant literature has been the modeling of the diffusion process between networked heterogeneous agents. ABMs easily allow the modeling of different types of networks and the impact of these networks on the diffusion process. A demonstrative example of an agent‐based model to address the research question of how should manufacturers allocate resources to research (exploration) and development (exploitation) projects is provided. Future courses of study using ABMs also are explored.     

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.     

Consequences of New Product Development Speed: A Meta‐Analysis

Five meta‐analyses previously have been published on the topic of new product development involving the concept of new product development speed. Three of these studies have investigated antecedents to new product development success, of which just one was new product development speed. The other two studies used new product development speed as the dependent variable, and analyzed antecedents to achieving speed. This article extends previous empirical generalizations in this domain by using a meta‐analytic methodology to understand the link between new product development speed and new product success at a more granular level. Specifically, it considers the relationship with different dimensions of success as measured overall or compositely, operationally (i.e., the process measures of decreasing development costs and proficiently managing market entry timing and the product measures of technical product performance and product competitive advantage), and relative to external success outcomes (i.e., customer based and financial success). While the results indicate that, in general, new product development speed is associated with improving success outcomes, those relationships may diminish or even disappear depending upon a number of methodological design decisions and research contexts. A subsequent meta‐analysis of the antecedents of development speed provides a more holistic picture of development speed. These results are broadly consistent with those produced by another recent meta‐analytic investigation of the issue. Together, these findings have important implications for academics pursuing further research in this domain, as well as for managers considering implementing a program to increase new product development speed.     

Responsive and Proactive Market Orientation and New‐Product Success*

What is the relationship between market orientation and new‐product success? This important question has not been examined adequately to date because the concept of market orientation has been measured too narrowly. The concept of market orientation implies both responsive market orientation, which addresses the expressed needs of customers, and proactive market orientation, which addresses the latent needs of customers—that is, opportunities for customer value of which the customer is unaware. In the numerous market orientation–performance studies to date, the measure of market orientation has consisted virtually entirely of behaviors related to satisfying customers' expressed needs rather than satisfying their latent needs as well. The present study extends the measurement of market orientation to match the full scope of the concept—to measure both responsive market orientation and proactive market orientation. Using data from a sample of technologically diverse businesses, the present study develops a measure of proactive market orientation, refines the extant measure of responsive market orientation, and analyzes the relationship of a business's responsive and proactive market orientation to its new‐product success. The study findings imply that for any business to create and to sustain new‐product success, a responsive market orientation is not sufficient and, thus, that a proactive market orientation plays a very important positive role in a business's new‐product success. These findings make intuitive sense. For if in developing its new products a business relies solely on what customers state as their new product needs, the business is very vulnerable economically. Such a business is vulnerable not only for relying on customers' best guesses for new products, many or most of which may have little long‐term economic value for either party, but also to competitors' parallel new product responses and the inevitable resulting price competition. A business that relies solely on customers' expressed needs to develop its new products creates no new insights into value‐adding opportunities for the customer and thereby creates little or no customer dependence and foundation for customer loyalty. The important role for proactive market orientation in new‐product success is intuitively obvious—and is supported empirically in this study.     

The Role of Value‐Informed Pricing in Market‐Oriented Product Innovation Management*

Although the positive effect of a market orientation on new product success is widely accepted and the market orientation literature has increased its understanding of how a market orientation leads to performance, the extant literature has overlooked the role of value‐informed pricing in the relationship. Value‐informed pricing is a pricing practice in which the decision makers base the price of the new product on the customers' perceptions of the benefits that the product offers and how these benefits are traded by customers against the price (that has yet to be determined). Considering that pricing mistakes may hit hard on the profitability of product innovations, it is important to firms to have a good understanding of its role. This study develops a framework in which value‐informed pricing is integrated in the relationship between market orientation and new product performance. A distinction is made between customer and competitor orientations, and relative product advantage is also included in the conceptual model. The model is tested on data obtained from managers based on a cross sectional sample of 144 firms. The respondents were involved in a decision‐making process of the pricing of a new product. The model is tested using structural equations modeling. The results show that value‐informed pricing has a strong effect on new product performance. It also reveals that each component of a market orientation fulfills a specific role in a market‐oriented organization. Value‐informed pricing is found to have important mediating effects in the market orientation–new product performance relationship. Results show that firms with a strong customer orientation engage in value‐informed pricing and develop superior benefits to customers in an advantageous product. In turn, both value‐informed pricing and relative product advantage positively affect new product market performance. However, no significant effect of competitor orientation on value‐informed pricing is found. Combined with the finding that competitor orientation negatively affects relative product advantage, this suggests that competitor orientation may hurt new product performance when this orientation is not balanced with a strong customer orientation. The results also portray that value‐informed pricing leads to higher product advantage. Interestingly, this relation is contingent on the degree of interfunctional coordination within the firm. This suggests that the relationship between market orientation and new product performance is strongest if firms integrate value‐informed pricing in the new product development process. In this sense, a market‐oriented firm mirrors the customer value perception that makes a trade‐off between benefits and price.     

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.     

Perspective: Economic Conditions,Entrepreneurship, First‐Product Development,and New Venture Success*

Entrepreneurial ventures have a significant impact on new job creation and economic growth, but existing evidence indicates that most entrepreneurial ventures fail. This paper reports key insights from VENSURV, a new database that tracks the success and failure of ventures founded since 1998. Based on an analysis of 539 new ventures founded during the years 1991–2001, the following conclusions are reached. First, consistent with prior research, less than half of the 539 ventures survived more than two years. Second, economic downturns lead to higher failure rates for new ventures. Third, new venture success is highly correlated with first‐product success. Fourth, first‐product success is enhanced when those products are introduced into markets with emerging market needs but with established industry standards. Finally, first‐product and venture performance are significantly higher for products based on ideas that came from the founders. In addition, the most successful first products are based on ideas that reflect both technology development and an analysis of customer needs.     

Resource Dedication and New Product Performance: A Resource‐Based View

Corporate investments in new product development (NPD) initiatives are strategically effective activities that are instrumental in contributing to new product performance. Given that a fundamental nature of product development is the ability to exploit new product opportunities, the authors investigate the firm‐level impact that corporate investments in knowledge workers and financial NPD resources have on new product performance. They track the resource dedication and new product financial performance of 41 firms over a seven‐year period. Our results provide evidence that financial investments have a contemporaneous return on investment while knowledge worker investments provide companies with both contemporaneous and carryover returns. When formulating strategy and making NPD resource allocation decisions, managers must remain cognizant of the time‐dependent nature of resource investments, the need for persistent investment, and the resulting performance impact.     

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.     

The Impact of User‐Oriented Design on New Product Development: An Examination of Fundamental Relationships*

Design offers a potent way to position and to differentiate products and can play a significant role in their success. In many ways it is the focus on deep understanding of the customer or user—what may be termed user‐oriented design (UOD)—that transforms a bundle of technology with the ability to provide functionality into a “product” that people desire to interact with and from which they derive benefits. Even though the importance of this type of design is gaining recognition, several fundamental relationships between user‐oriented design contributions and the new product development (NPD) process and outcomes (i.e., product) remain unresearched, although they are assumed. This article examines the fundamental relationships underlying the incorporation of a user orientation into the NPD process. The discussion is organized around UOD's impact in terms of enhancing collaborative new product development (process oriented), improving idea generation (process oriented), producing superior product or service solutions (product oriented), and facilitating product appropriateness and adoption (product oriented). Each of these is developed and presented in the form of a research proposition relating to the impact of user‐oriented design on product development. The fundamental relationships articulated concerning UOD's impact on NPD form a conceptual framework for this approach to product design and development. For practitioners, the article suggests how user‐oriented design can improve NPD through its more grounded and comprehensive approach, along with the elevated appreciation of design challenges and heightened sense of possibilities for a product being developed. For scholars, the article identifies four important areas for UOD research. In addition to the rich avenues offered for research by each of these, the framework presented provides a foundation for further study as well as the development of new measures and tools for enhancing NPD efforts.     

Determinants of New Product Development Team Performance: A Meta‐analytic Review

New product development (NPD) has become a critical determinant of firm performance. There is a considerable body of research examining the factors that influence a firm's ability to successfully develop and introduce new products. Vital to this success is the creation and management of NPD teams. While the evidence for the use of NPD teams and the factors that determine their success is accumulating, there is still a lack of clarity on the team‐level variables that are most impactful on NPD success. This meta‐analytic study examines the effects of NPD team characteristics on three different measures of success: effectiveness (market success), efficiency (meeting budgets and schedules), and speed‐to‐market, requiring incorporation of a broader set of team variables than previous studies in order to capture more factors explaining NPD outcomes. Unlike a typical empirical study that considered no more than two team variables to predict NPD performance, this study combines research spanning eight team variables including team input variables (team tenure, functional diversity, team ability, and team leadership) and team process variables (internal and external team communication, group cohesiveness, and goal clarity). Results from 38 studies were aggregated to estimate the meta‐analytic effect sizes for each of the variables. Using the meta‐analytic results, a path analytic model of NPD success was estimated to isolate the unique effects of team characteristics on NPD effectiveness and efficiency. Results indicate that team leadership, team ability, external communication, goal clarity, and group cohesiveness are the critical determinants of NPD team performance. NPD teams with considerable experience and led by a transformational leader are more successful at developing new products. Effective boundary spanning within and outside the organization and a shared understanding of project objectives are paramount to success. Group cohesiveness is also an important predictor of NPD outcomes confirming the importance of esprit de corps within the team. The findings provide product development managers with a blueprint for creating high‐performance NPD teams.     

Cross‐Cultural Creativity: Conceptualization and Propositions for Global New Product Development

In today's global business environment, where multinational companies are pressed to increase revenues in order to survive, creativity may hold the key to ensuring their new product development (NPD) efforts lead to innovations with worldwide appeal, such as Apple's iPad and Gillette's Fusion Razor. To leverage creativity for effective global NPD, businesses want to know how cultures differ in their concepts of creativity and the impact of those differences on approaches to developing new products. Because global new products are increasingly developed in, by, and for multiple cultures, a particular need is for a culturally reflective understanding, or conceptualization, of creativity. While creativity is believed to be culturally tied, the dominant framework of creativity used in business and management assumes that creativity is culturally indifferent or insensitive. This knowledge gap is addressed by studying the role of creativity in NPD practices in a cross‐cultural or global context. The study begins by first developing a culturally anchored conceptualization of creativity. Called cross‐cultural creativity, the concept draws on creativity insights from the field of art and aesthetics. The concept specifies two modes of creativity, neither of which is superior to the other, called the spontaneous or S route and the divergent or D route. The S route emphasizes adaptiveness, processes, intuitiveness, and metamorphism, while the D route focuses on disruptiveness, results, rationality, and literalism. Next, this new concept is applied to NPD by positing how creativity in distinct cultures may shape NPD practices, as illustrated by Japanese and U.S. firms. Research propositions are formulated to capture these patterns, and thereafter, theoretical and practical implications of the framework and propositions are discussed. The implications center on global NPD, which is a complex enterprise involving typically more than one culture to design and develop new products for several geographic markets. The study is of interest to researchers needing a globally situated, culturally attached framework of creativity for international NPD studies, and managers seeking to exploit creativity in multinational and multicultural innovation projects.     

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.     

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.