The Role of Globalization, Time Acceleration, and Virtual Global Teams in Fostering Successful Global Product Launches

The present article presents a conceptualization of how firms can respond to the issues of globalization and time‐based competition through the use of virtual global teams to foster successful global product launches. It is argued that by combining input, managerial, and transformation‐based competencies effectively, the firm can configure a repertoire of strategic choices (e.g., marketing plans throughout the product development process) based on the national competitive environment, while at the same time being mindful of the need to maintain consistency within the firm's intermediaries operations—both in product development and global product launch. It is further argued that the linkages between globalization and time‐based competition necessitate managerial adjustments in decision frameworks to incorporate accelerated timescapes to maximize effectiveness in global product launch. In an effort to capture the varying impact of time on global decision makers a timescapes perspective is employed, where timescapes are analogous to landscapes because they include the temporal features of socioeconomic events in a variety of socially constructed contexts inclusive of timeframe, tempo, degree of path dependency, synchronization of events, sequence, anticipation, and ubiquity. The recognition of timescapes accentuates the contextual complexity of competition and creates the interface among events, environments, and individuals beyond the traditional numeric concept of clock time, thus requiring modification of a manager's decision‐making perspective. Further, it is argued that due to the rapid pace of globalization, many multinationals in their global product launches require that products, services, technical support, and prices throughout the world need to be coordinated. To effectively accomplish this goal of coordination as an accommodation, firms and their networks can form global virtual teams (i.e., culturally diverse, geographically dispersed, electronically communicating work group of members, who think and act in concert with the diversity of the global environment and intermediary needs–expectations) to enhance global product launch success. Lastly, it is argued that the hypercompetitive global marketplace cannot be managed ex post due to the level of cognitive complexity but must be managed ex ante by developing strategies capable of maintaining flexibility. To accomplish the task of competing in a hypercompetitive landscape, management must understand and incorporate a timescape of events that integrates the various perspectives of those involved in the global product development and launch decision‐making processes. Without a well‐articulated perspective of social time, managers will limit their ability to effectively coordinate global product development and launch across markets, thus hindering the firm's ability to maximize returns.     

The Impact of Market Orientation, Product Advantage, and Launch Proficiency on New Product Performance and Organizational Performance

Some scholars have suggested recently that a market‐oriented culture leads to superior performance, at least in part, because of the new products that are developed and are brought to market. Others have reinforced this wisdom by revealing that a market‐oriented culture enhances organizational innovativeness and new product success, both of which in turn improve organizational performance. These scholars do not reveal, however, through which new product development (NPD) activities a market‐oriented culture is converted into superior performance. To determine how critical NPD activities are for a market‐oriented firm to achieve superior performance, our study uses data from 126 firms in The Netherlands to investigate the structural relationships among market orientation, new product advantage, the proficiency in new product launch activities, new product performance, and organizational performance. We focus on product advantage—because product benefits typically form the compelling reasons for customers to buy the new product—and on the launch proficiency—as the launch stage represents the most costly and risky part of the NPD process. Focusing on the launch stage also is relevant because it is only during the launch that it will become evident whether a market orientation has crystallized into a superior product in the eyes of the customer. The results provide evidence that a market orientation is related positively to product advantage and to the proficiency in market testing, launch budgeting, launch strategy, and launch tactics. Product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics are related positively to new product performance, which itself is related positively to organizational performance. Market orientation has no direct relationship to new product performance and to organizational performance. An important implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on organizational performance is channeled through the effects of a market orientation on product advantage and launch proficiency; subsequently through the effects of product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics on new product performance; and finally through the effect of new product performance on organizational performance. These channeling effects are much more subtle and complex than the direct relationship of market orientation on organizational performance previously assumed. Another implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on performance occurs through the launch activities rather than being pervasive to all organizational processes and activities. A reason for this finding may be that NPD is the one element of the marketing mix that predominantly is the responsibility of the firm, whereas promotion and distribution often are in control of organizations outside the firm (e.g., advertising agencies, major retailers) and whereas the channel or the market often dictates the price. Both implications provide ample opportunities for further research on market orientation and NPD.     

Understanding and Managing International Product Launch: A Comparison between Developed and Emerging Markets

With the developed market becoming increasingly saturated, companies have turned to the rapidly growing emerging market. To compete effectively in the global marketplace, firms need to develop global market competences, such as effective product launch. Although considerable efforts have been devoted to identifying principles of effective new product launch, most of the literature focuses on a single country (i.e., the domestic market) and provides little direct cross‐national comparison. The objective of this study is to provide a better understanding of the patterns of effective product launch in the developed and emerging markets. Drawing from the contingency perceptive, the authors propose a conceptual model that emphasizes the central role of tactical launch decisions and the need to cope with the internal and external constraints for maximum new product performance. The research model is tested on 284 new products launched in the United States and 97 in Taiwan. Although prior literature suggested certain elements of global product launch may be standardized for purposes of efficiencies, the empirical data from this study suggests that global launch requires some degree of customization. The insights of the findings reveal that while some tactical launch decisions are effective for both emerging and mature markets, some are detrimental to each other. For example, customer education preannouncement and promotion discount pricing strategy enhance new product performance and preemption preannouncement strategy upset consumers for both the Taiwan and U.S. market. However, there are some cross‐national differences. Emotional advertising strategy is generally appreciated in the U.S. market but not in the Taiwan market. For management practice, the findings suggest the distinct patterns of effective product launch for the emerging and mature market using the United States and Taiwan as examples.     

Performance of Global New Product Development Programs: A Resource-Based View

Gaining a competitive edge in today's turbulent business environment calls for a commitment by firms to two highly interrelated strategies: globalization and new product development (NPD). Although much research has focused on how companies achieve NPD success, little of this deals with NPD in the global setting. The authors use resource‐based theory (RBT)—a model emphasizing the resources and capabilities of the firm as primary determinants of competitive advantage—to explain how companies involved in international NPD realize superior performance. The capabilities RBT model is used to test how firms achieve superior performance by deploying organizational capabilities to take advantage of key organizational resources relevant for developing new products for global markets. Specifically, the study evaluates (1) organizational NPD resources (i.e., the firm's global innovation culture, attitude to resource commitment, top‐management involvement, and NPD process formality); (2) NPD process capabilities or routines for identifying and exploiting new product opportunities (i.e., global knowledge integration, NPD homework activities, and launch preparation); and (3) global NPD program performance. Based on data from 387 global NPD programs (North America and Europe, business‐to‐business), a structural model testing for the hypothesized mediation effects of NPD process capabilities on organizational NPD resources was largely supported. The findings indicate that all four resources considered relevant for effective deployment of global NPD process capabilities play a significant role. Specifically, a positive attitude toward resource commitment as well as NPD process formality is essential for the effective deployment of the three NPD process routines linked to achieving superior global NPD program performance; a strong global innovation culture is needed for ensuring effective global knowledge integration; and top‐management involvement plays a key role in deploying both knowledge integration and launch preparation. Of the three NPD process capabilities, global knowledge integration is the most important, whereas homework and launch preparation also play a significant role in bringing about global NPD program success. Tests for partial mediation suggest that too much process formality may be negative and that top‐management involvement requires careful focus.     

First Product Success: A Mediated Moderating Model of Resources,Founding Team Startup Experience,and Product‐Positioning Strategy

The success of the first product is of paramount importance for the future development of the new venture. Developing and launching a first product in the Chinese market is even more challenging than in a well‐developed market economy because of weak enforcement of intellectual property laws, a general consumer distrust of new products developed by Chinese firms, and the immediate threat of copycat. This article develops a mediated moderating model to examine first product success in Chinese new ventures, in which product‐positioning strategy (conceptualized as the degree of product differentiation) mediates the impacts of marketing resources, technical resources, and founding team startup experience on product success (conceptualized as timing of product launch and product market and financial performance). Furthermore, we argue that founding team startup experience moderates the impact of marketing and technical resources on building strong product‐positioning strategy. We test our conceptual model using a sample of 909 new products developed by 909 Chinese new ventures in a two‐step selection model. The empirical results provide important insight for new ventures' first product development. Product differentiation does not mediate the impact of marketing resource on product success; but it fully mediates the impact of technical resources on timing of product launch and partially mediates the impact of technical resources on product performance. Marketing resources have significant direct positive effects on both product performance and timing of product launch. Surprisingly, the impacts of marketing resources on product differentiation and product performance are negatively, not positively, moderated by founding team experience. When the founding team has nine years or less startup experience, an increase in marketing resources leads to a significant increase in product differentiation; and when the founding team has more than nine years of startup experience, an increase in marketing resources will not lead to an increase in product differentiation. The impact of marketing resources on product performance is smaller for founding teams with more prior startup experience than those with less prior startup experience. The impacts of technical resources are not moderated by founding team startup experience. Technical resources positively affect product market and financial performance directly as well as through its positive impacts on product differentiation. However, technical resources can negatively affect timing of the product launch because developing a highly differentiated produce can potentially delay the launch of the product. Therefore, new ventures have to be mindful in managing the available resources to succeed in the first product development.     

Seller–Buyer Interactions During the Commercialization of Technological Process Innovations

For buyers and sellers alike, high-tech process innovations can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, technological process innovations (e.g., computer hardware and software, factory automation equipment) offer buyers the potential for reduced production costs and enhanced product quality. However, early adoption of such innovations is often a risky proposition. For the seller, successful commercialization requires stimulating not only adoption, but also successful implementation of the innovation. In other words, effective management of seller—buyer relations during the development and commercialization process go a long way toward determining the success of a high-tech process innovation. Gerard A. Athaide, Patricia W. Meyers, and David L. Wilemon examine the relationship marketing activities employed by successful sellers of high-tech process innovations. They identify eight strategic marketing objectives that underlie these relationship marketing activities: product customization, information gathering on product performance, product education and training, ongoing product support, proactive political involvement (to encourage support for the innovation from the various affected parties in the buyer's organization), product demonstration and trial, real-time problem-solving assistance, and clarification of the product's relative advantage. Their findings suggest that successful sellers engage in relationship marketing activities throughout all phases of the commercialization process. Rather than simply trying to close a deal, these firms seek active involvement from potential customers, ranging from codesigning of products to seeking feedback on product-related problems or desired modifications. This broader scope of customer involvement necessitates cooperation among various groups in the seller's organization. Product development and engineering work closely with the customer during product customization. Those groups must communicate effectively with the salespeople who demonstrate the product and with the customer support people who obtain feedback and provide real-time problem-solving support. In other words, these relationship marketing activities cut across functional barriers. Consequently, a clear understanding of the buyer's needs and environment is essential throughout the seller's organization, not just in the sales and marketing departments.     

Effective implementation of relationship orientation in new product launches

The critical role of relationships in business performance is widely recognized in the business marketing literature. However, to date, the prevailing new product launch research has concentrated on firms' general customer and competitor focus on predicting launch performance, and mainly applied a product centered or marketing mix perspective on considering effective strategic and tactical launch activities. Consequently, there is only scant knowledge on the relevance of a relational perspective when launching new products. The study contributes to this gap by examining the impact of firms' relationship orientation on launch performance and the key activities through which it is transformed into performance in the new product launch context. A set of hypotheses is developed and tested with data collected from 109 new product launches in pharmaceutical companies. The results show that sales force management and relationship leveraging mediate relationship orientation's impact on launch performance through complexly intertwined relationships. From a theoretical perspective, this study highlights the role of the relational perspective in new product launch and fosters our understanding on how relationship-focused culture is effectively implemented in practice. From a managerial perspective, the results offer insights on how firms can effectively enhance the successful commercialization of new products through relationship-oriented sales and marketing activities.     

Interaction Orientation and Product Development Performance for Taiwanese Electronics Firms: The Mediating Role of Market‐Relating Capabilities

While academics and practitioners are increasingly aware of the value of including the customer in new product development (NPD), processes for doing so effectively remain unclear. Therefore, this study explores the process through which a firm's interaction orientation (the ability to effectively interact with customers) influences product development performance. Drawing on the resource‐based view, this study develops a research model in which two market‐relating capabilities—market‐linking and marketing capabilities—mediate the effect of interaction orientation on product development performance. The validity of this model is examined by analyzing primary data gathered from 167 Taiwanese electronics companies. The model results provide support for a process link between interaction orientation, market‐relating capabilities, and product development performance, such that a firm's capabilities enable the conversion of customer‐based resources into productive new product outcomes. More specifically, the interaction orientation–product development speed relationship is mediated by both marketing and market‐linking capabilities, while the interaction orientation–product innovativeness relationship is partially mediated by marketing capability. That is, interaction orientation has indirect effects on product innovativeness and product development speed by strengthening both marketing and market‐linking capabilities that in turn improve product development performance. In addition, the results suggest that a firm's interactive rationality moderates the relationship between interaction orientation and marketing capability. Overall, this study enhances our understanding of how firms achieve superior product development performance by developing effective customer interaction. The findings of this study provide important strategic insights into NPD.     

Mass or Only “Niche Customization”? Why We Should Interpret Configuration Toolkits as Learning Instruments

In order to configure individual products according to their own preferences, customers are required to know what they want. While most research simply assumes that consumers have sufficient preference insight to do so, a number of psychologically oriented scholars have recently voiced serious concerns about this assumption. They argue that decades of consumer behavior research have shown that most consumers in most product categories lack this knowledge. Not knowing what one wants means being unable to specify what one wants—and therefore, they conclude, the majority of customers are unable to use configuration toolkits in a meaningful way. In essence, this would mean that mass customization should rather be termed “niche customization” as it will be doomed to remain a concept for a very small minority of customers only. This pessimism stands in sharp contrast to the optimism of those who herald the new possibilities enabled by advances in communication and production technologies as the dawn of a new era in new product development and business in general. Which position is right? In order to answer this question, this research investigates the role of the configuration toolkit. Implicitly, the skeptic position assumes that the individual customers' knowledge (or absence of knowledge) of what they want is an exogenous and constant term that does not change during the interaction with the toolkit. However, learning theories suggest that the customers' trial‐and‐error interaction with the configuration toolkit and the feedback information they receive should increase their preference insight. If this was true and the effect size strong, it would mean that low a priori preference insight does not impede customers to derive value from mass customization. Three experiments show that configuration toolkits should be interpreted as learning instruments that allow consumers to understand their preferences more clearly. Even short trial‐and‐error self‐design processes with conventional toolkits bring about substantial and time‐stable enhancements of preference insight. The value of this knowledge is remarkable. In the product category of self‐designed watches, the 10‐minute design process resulted in additional preference insight worth 43.13 euros on average or +66%, measured by incentive‐compatible auctions. A moderator analysis in a representative sample shows that the learning effect is particularly strong among customers who initially exhibit low levels of preference insight. These findings entail three contributions. First, it becomes evident that the interaction with mass customization toolkits not only triggers affective reactions among customers but also has cognitive effects—a response category not investigated before. Second, it suggests that the pessimism regarding the mass appeal of these toolkits is not justified—mass customization has the potential to truly deserve its name. The prerequisite for this, and this normative conclusion is the final contribution, is that the toolkit should not be interpreted as a mere interface for conveying preexisting preferences to the producer. Rather, it should be treated as a learning instrument. Several suggestions are made for how firms employing this innovative business model could design their toolkits towards this end.     

Sourcing practices and boundaries of the firm in the financial services industry

We investigate sourcing decisions related to the back‐office operations of 108 processes used by financial services companies. Guided by the arguments of transaction cost economics and the resource‐based and knowledge‐based view of organizations, we hypothesize that service customization and volume represent two key drivers of a service company's sourcing decisions. The inherent uncertainty of service customization gives rise to the transaction cost risks of opportunism and holdups and thus favors insourcing. Moreover, the competency gained from performing high‐volume back‐office operations aligns with the tenets of the resource‐based view, which also favors insourcing. The empirical results corroborate these theoretical expectations. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Product and Process Modularity's Effects on Manufacturing Agility and Firm Growth Performance

Modularity in product design has been hailed as a way to speed new product development (NPD), to reduce NPD cost, and to enhance customization possibilities for consumers. Modularity in process design may speed new product manufacturing setup times, reduce costs, and enhance the profitability of the lower volumes that customization often entails. However, empirical evidence is scarce that either product or process modularity—individually, jointly, or sequentially—actually produce these or other proposed benefits (e.g., performance growth). This study builds on general modular systems theory (GMST) by examining the theoretical relationship between product and process modularity and the effects of each on firm growth performance. Using structural equation modeling, partial versus complete mediation by manufacturing agility is also scrutinized. In one pair of models, product modularity and process modularity are separate direct antecedents to manufacturing agility, which is modeled to affect firm growth performance; in a second pair of models, product and process modularity are related antecedents to manufacturing agility, with product modularity preceding process modularity. Results from the best‐fitting model show that product modularity directly and positively affects process modularity, manufacturing agility, and firm growth performance. Process modularity was unrelated to manufacturing agility, and neither process modularity nor manufacturing agility predicted growth performance. Consistent with GMST, the study provides empirical evidence of the power of one element of a modular system to orchestrate a fit between a firm's product and manufacturing strategies and to directly drive system performance. Thus, modularity in product design is revealed as the key to understanding GMST effects concerning how changes in one system generate changes in other systems.     

Rolling Out New Products Across Country Markets: An Empirical Study of Causes of Delays

Faced with the challenge of launching a new product into numerous countries, managers may view a sequential rollout as the prudent course of action. Rather than launching the product simultaneously in diverse countries, they may believe they can reduce risk by launching first in one or two countries, and then in others. However, this strategy overlooks the interplay between timeliness in international new product rollouts (INPR) and product success. George M. Chryssochoidis and Veronica Wong explore these issues in a study of 30 high-tech products launched into multiple European markets. Their study has three objectives: examining the incidence of timeliness and delays in simultaneous and sequential INPR; exploring the causes of delays in INPR; and assessing the effects that INPR timeliness and delays have on new product outcomes. They define timeliness in INPR as the availability of the new product to the firm's multiple target markets within the time frame planned by the company's managers. In other words, timeliness in this study reflects a company's capability for adhering to the schedule that management has established. Contrary to expectations, the results of this study do not reveal direct effects on timeliness in INPR from such sources as diversity of target markets or the firm's external environment. These results suggest that firms can achieve on-time, multicountry rollout of new products notwithstanding the legal, technological, and competitive environment. For the firms in this study, timeliness in INPR depends on such factors as sufficiency of marketing and technological resources (for example, to train sales staff, provide after-sales service, and adapt the product for multiple markets), proficiency in executing new product development activities, and effective communication between a company's headquarters and its business units and customers in different countries. Among the 22 product launches categorized as sequential rollouts in this study, 15 experienced delays. All eight of the simultaneous launches were timely. The results of this study indicate a positive relationship between timeliness in INPR and new-product success. Conversely, for the firms in this study, delays in INPR resulted in lower-than-expected product sales and profitability. In other words, the seemingly less risky sequential launch strategy may actually increase the risk of new product failure by delaying product rollout in multiple markets.     

Exploring the Appeal of Product Design: A Grounded,Value‐Based Model of Key Design Elements and Relationships*

Product design is increasingly being recognized as an important source of sustainable competitive advantage. Until recently, the domain of design has been loosely categorized as “form and function” issues. However, as this paper will explore, product design deals with a much richer range of issues, many of which have not been considered in the marketing literature. To explore the domain and elements of design, the paper begins with two major goals: (1) to elicit the key dimensions of design and to develop an enriched language for the understanding and study of design; and (2) to integrate the design dimensions within a broader model that ties initial design goals to eventual psychological and behavioral responses from consumers. To achieve these ends, grounded theory development is used by conducting an extensive literature review, in‐depth interviews, and an interactive object elicitation technique. Drawing from this rich source of qualitative information as well as diverse literature fields, a framework is proposed for the creation of design value in consumer products. This framework not only explores the domain of design but also highlights the important elements of design that go well beyond the clichéd form and function issues. The resulting model reflects specific marketplace and organizational constraints that may help or impede the conversion of designer goals to so‐called design levers. These levers are used to convey three types of values to consumers: rational, kinesthetic, and emotional. The framework then explains how and when these different values may be perceived by the consumer. Within this framework, testable research propositions and specific directions for future design‐based research are also offered. Beyond its potential to spur marketing and new product development (NPD) management thought, the framework offered here represents a significant contribution to the field of design, which has historically been represented as a highly fragmented body of knowledge. Formalizing this framework should help overcome perhaps the largest obstacle to date to marketing‐related and NPD‐related research in this area—the lack of a detailed and consistent nomological view of the scope of design dimensions including testable linkages. Design has become an important tool that can be used by managers to develop dominant brands with lasting advantages. This research lends the NPD manager and the marketing manager better insights in into how this increasingly popular focus can be used to influence consumer behavior and firm success. “Design may be our top unexploited competitive edge.” Tom Peters, 2004 (cover review of Norman, 2004 ) “We don't have a good language to talk about [design]. In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer.… But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a man‐made creation.” Steve Jobs, Apple Computers     

Cooperation and the Ability to Minimize the Time and Cost of New Product Development within the Spanish Automotive Supplier Industry

New product development (NPD) cycle time has become a strategic competitive weapon for corporations and a focus for research on product development management. Reducing NPD cycle time may create relative advantages in market share, profit, and long‐term competitiveness. This article follows recent research that already has moved beyond anecdotes and case studies to test factors empirically and variables that are associated with the company's NPD time and cost minimization abilities. One emerging research area is the impact of comprehensive lists or sets of firm variables (not project variables) on the ability to speed up NPD. At the same time, several authors' findings suggest a contingency approach to speeding up innovation. Contingency theory argues that there is not one “best answer” to a particular problem: Instead, the appropriateness of managerial interventions is dependent on the prevailing conditions that surround that problem. On the issue of NPD, several scholars point out that cooperation accelerates learning and product development: Firms that combine resources can gain a competitive advantage over firms that are unable to do so, and this is viewed as one of the key benefits of interfirm cooperation. A firm's network of cooperations represent a valuable resource that can yield differential returns in the same way as other tangible and intangible assets such as product brands or R&D capabilities. Combining both lines of research, this study seeks to add to the growing literature and further to inform practicing managers in speeding up NPD by analyzing the relationship between cooperation and the use of some NPD firm practices. This article shows the results of a survey of 63 Spanish automotive suppliers to test the moderation effect of cooperation in the relationship between the use of NPD firm practices and the company's NPD time and cost minimization abilities. Factor and regression analyses were used to test the article's hypotheses. It was found that high‐cooperation companies used more intensively sets of firm practices than low‐cooperation companies. It also was found that two out of four identified factors of NPD firm practices—Design‐Manufacturing Interface and Cross‐Functional Design—were related positively to the company's NPD time and cost minimization abilities in the subsample of high‐cooperation companies but not in the low‐cooperation companies. These results support late research in the area of speeding up NPD. The article discusses some implications for managers.     

The Role of Marketing Resources in Radical Innovation Activity: Antecedents and Payoffs

While radical product innovations represent significant engines of firm growth, questions remain over whether marketing helps or hurts (1) a firm's radical product innovation activity and (2) its rewards from radical product innovation activity. By attaching an attention‐based view of the firm to a market‐based assets view of marketing, this paper examines the role of three marketing resources—market knowledge, reputation, and relational resources—on radical innovation activity. Our conceptual framework posits differentiated effects among marketing resources as antecedents of radical innovation activity and as moderators of its impact on firms' financial performance. Using a survey of a broad set of high‐tech business‐to‐business (B2B) firms to test hypotheses, it is found that firms with strong relational resources enjoy a higher propensity for, and stronger financial rewards from, radical innovation activity. Reputational resources come with a trade‐off as they hurt the incidence of radical innovation but enhance its financial rewards. However, market knowledge resources appear to hurt both radical innovation activity and its financial rewards. Our results point to the multifaceted role of marketing in radical innovation activity, which is unlikely to come with a single benefit or liability as prior work often posits. Rather, our research heightens the alertness of managers to assess their firms' marketing strength as a bundle of stocks of several marketing resources. Managers must understand the distinct benefits and drawbacks of each resource in developing and launching radical innovations. Our research underscores the differentiated value of marketing in radical innovation activity in B2B high‐tech contrary to the entrenched idea of a limited or even stifling role of marketing in this context.     

Launching new product features: a multiple case examination

The present study investigates the strategies that eight companies employed in launching new product features in a variety of markets. A literature review shows that launching new product features is an under‐researched area. This lack of attention may be detrimental to companies, as in many mature markets—such as those for durable consumer goods like television sets, coffee machines or videocassette recorders—the launch of new product features is perhaps the single most important product development activity that companies employ. We sought to address three research questions, namely what are the current strategies used by managers for launching new product features, how do these strategies differ, and what are the opportunities and pitfalls of these strategies? A multiple case study involving 38 managers from different functional backgrounds was used, thereby investigating the feature introductions of eight companies in‐depth. The study first identifies six feature launch decisions: the feature's position in the feature life cycle, the core technology concerned, the focus on feature or product, the differentiation practices used by the firm, feature diffusion in the product line, and the make‐or‐buy decision. Based on these decisions, four distinct feature launch strategies were distinguished: dictatorship, pioneering, establishing, and following. Dictatorship companies launch feature innovations that are based on fundamentally new technologies. Pioneers are not as powerful as dictators and focus on features that are based on applied and proven rather than on fundamentally new technologies. Establishes copy and improve successful features and launch them quickly and broadly as a standard in mass markets. Followers launch standard features that already existed in the mass market. These four strategies describe how the firms in our sample launched new features in the marketplace. As such, they describe when and where in the product line what feature was introduced. Such a typology of feature launch strategies helps to proactively understand the strategies firms have for launching new product features. The article discusses for each strategy the relevant feature launch decisions, possible applications, and opportunities and pitfalls. We conclude with the implications of our study for research and managerial practice.     

The Role of Market Information in New Product Success/Failure

Although no single variable holds the key to new product performance, many of the widely recognized success factors share a common thread: the processing of market information. Understanding customer wants and needs ultimately comes down to a company's capabilities for gathering and using market information. And another well-acknowledged success factor the integration of marketing, R&D, and manufacturing focuses on the sharing of information. In other words, a firm's effectiveness in market information processing—the gathering, sharing, and use of market information—plays a pivotal role in determining the success or failure of its new products. Brian D. Ottum and William L. Moore describe the results of a study that examines the relationship between market information processing and new product success. They also explore the organizational factors that facilitate successful processing of market information, and thus offer ideas for better managing the development of new products. The respondents—marketing, R&D, and manufacturing managers from Utah-based computer and medical device manufacturers—provided information about 58 new products, including equal numbers of successes and failures. The survey responses reveal strong relationships between product success and market information processing, with success most closely linked to information use. In other words, the gathering and sharing of information are important, but only if the information is used effectively. In 80 percent of the product successes studied, the respondents ultimately possessed and used a greater than average amount of market information. And in 75 percent of the failures, the respondents knew less than average about the market at project inception, and gathered or used less than the average amount of market information during the project. For the projects in this study, the integration of marketing, R&D, and manufacturing contributed not only to the sharing and use of information, but also to overall project success. However, the results of the study suggest that the way in which a project is organized plays only an indirect role in determining new product success—most likely by improving the processing of market information. From a managerial perspective, the most important variables identified in the study are market information shared, market information used, and financial success.     

Applying Industrial Design and Cost Engineering to New Product Development in Early‐Stage Firms

For early‐stage firms, successful commercialization of each new product is critically important, given the shortage of financial resources, the limited product portfolio, and small staffs typical of such firms. This paper investigates two key contributing factors for new product success in entrepreneurial firms: designing products that are appealing to target users in both form and function and designing products that can be manufactured at an attractive margin so that the new enterprise can generate much needed positive cash flow. These two practices—industrial design and cost engineering—are well studied in the context of larger, established corporations but have not been explored in the context of new ventures. This study focuses on the intensity of individual and combined adoption of design and cost engineering as measured by product development efficiency and effectiveness. The study was conducted on a homogeneous sample of early‐stage firms that develop physical, assembled products where design plays a role. The data collection focused only on the first product developed by each firm respectively. The results show that when implemented together, industrial design and cost engineering enhance both the effectiveness and efficiency of new product development in early‐stage firms, to greater effect than each does individually. Intensive individual adoption of practices had a negative impact on development efficiency measures such as development cost and duration. Only cost engineering individually had a beneficial impact on development effectiveness as measured by product margins. When combined, these two practices had a beneficial impact on both development duration and cost for the company's first commercial product, thereby reducing time‐to‐market and precious cash expenditures while maximizing project breakeven timing. The most successful firms in the study achieved a balance between creative innovation and cost discipline in the NPD process with third‐party design and manufacturing resources. It was found that integrating third‐party design firms into the development process can challenge, simplify, and add additional creative resources to the core entrepreneurial team, maximizing the ability to catalyze beneficial tension between creativity and cost discipline.     

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

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

FROM EXPERIENCE: Creating Synergy between Marketing and Research and Development*

The tensions between marketing and research and development (R&D) are so common that we have come to accept them as the way organizations are. If we remain resigned like this, how will we ever reap some of the benefits that can accrue from these groups working better together? If we can improve the working relationships between marketing and R&D, researchers promise a variety of desirable organizational outcomes, such as cycle‐time reduction and new product success. This article describes in detail the changes that a Fortune 500 company made to its product development process to foster synergy between marketing and R&D. The modified process formalized the roles of marketing and R&D at both the front and back ends of the product development process, increasing productive interaction between the groups. The company found that at the front end, marketing and R&D needed to work together (1) to clarify the market requirements implicit in the market attack plan and (2) to develop a technical strategy that responded to the market requirements and that consequently implemented the market attack plan. At the back end, the groups needed to work together (3) to formulate the value messages used to market the company's products. The synergy created between marketing and R&D through the new process is credited for enabling the company to compete successfully in a market it never before had entered.