New Product Development Process: A Perspective for Reexamination

In spite of the increased sophistication of new product development processes, the percentage of successful new product introductions has not improved significantly in the last two decades. This calls for a reexamination of the new products development process. Yoram Wind and Vijay Mahajan suggest 13 strategic guidelines for the development of new or modified products. These guidelines, if followed, could improve a firm's chances of developing and introducing successful new products.     

Improving the New Product Development Process: A Fractal Paradigm for High-Technology Products

Those professionals who are charged with improving the new product development (NPD) process may well feel as though they have been asked to bring order out of chaos. For every level in the organization, and for every step in the NPD process, they must contend with myriad, often interdependent choices—of products and processes; of tools and technologies; of proven best practices and hypothesized solutions. In turn, each choice may cascade into several additional decisions. With so many issues to address and so many variables to consider, practioners and researchers alike need a clear, but complete, framework for exploring, understanding, and improving the NPD process. To help bring some order to the study and the practice of NPD management, W. Austin Spivey, J. Michael Munson, and John H. Wolcott introduce a new metaphor, or paradigm, for product development: a fractal paradigm. Like some fractal images, their framework for understanding the essence of NPD rests on the concept of self-similarity. In other words, the picture their framework provides for understanding and managing the NPD process consists of the same set of concerns, regardless of the level at which the process is viewed. They developed this fractal paradigm during an empirical study of technology transition in a highly successful federal laboratory organization. Whether the focus is on the organization, the division, the team, or the individual, the essence of the NPD process as viewed through their framework comes down to two sets of factors: management factors and resource factors. In turn, each of these factors cascades into several interrelated sets of concerns. For example, the management factors comprise concerns about leadership and the management system. The resource factors include concerns about information, infrastructure, time, and money. Regardless of the level of detail at which the framework is viewed, improving the NPD process requires attention to all of these factors, by all levels within the organization. For example, visionary leadership on the part of senior management will have little effect if middle management and line supervisors fail to provide the necessary leadership for their respective groups of subordinates. Notwithstanding the complexity of the NPD process, the fractal paradigm focuses attention on those few key factors that must be managed continually, throughout all levels of the organization, to ensure successful commercialization of new products.     

Time-Based Management of the New Product Development Process

This study explored the problem of compressing new product development by focusing on the specific phases of the innovation process. These phases manifest significant qualitative differences that require attention for understanding the complexities of accelerating new product development. Based on data from 35 high-technology companies, Necmi Karagozoglu and Warren Brown identified several different acceleration methods. Results revealed unexpected and at times inconsistent insights than those reflected in the case study and anecdotally based literature, and implied also that some of the well documented approaches to successful new product development need to be replaced with their time-based versions.     

Making Trade-Offs in the New Product Development Process: A German/US Comparison

Using a conjoint analysis experiment, Ashok Gupta, Klaus Brockhoff and Ursula Weisenfeld present how R&D, marketing, and manufacturing managers in Germany make trade-offs among three critical variables in the new product (NPD) process: development schedule, development costs, and product performance. The findings are compared with a similar study of US firms. This comparison underscores the basic problem: US managers do not emphasize product development speed to the same extent as do German managers.     

An Integrative Model of the New Product Development Process

Previous studies of new product development have identified a series of variables that are important determinants of new product success. The goal of this article is to demonstrate the nature of the complex interrelationships that exist among these variables. Roger Calantone and Anthony di Benedetto propose an integrative model of the new product decision process. They examine data gathered from a sample of industrial manufacturing companies and test their model empirically using three-stage least squares analysis. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for new product managers.     

The Role of Resource Access, Market Considerations, and the Nature of Innovation in Pursuit of Standards in the New Product Development Process

Standards influence new product development (NPD) in high‐technology markets. However, existing work on standards has focused exclusively on one aspect of standards—compatibility standards. This article has the following goals. First, we delineate the concept of customer interface standards as distinct from compatibility standards. This distinction is important from a product development and technology adoption perspective. Second, we propose and show that antecedent factors may motivate a firm differently about the emphasis that the firm should put on a type of standard (compatibility or customer interface) that it follows. For example, we propose that appropriability regime affects pursuit of customer interface standards and compatibility standards differently. Finally, we illustrate how resource access and the nature of the innovation also influence a firm's decision to pursue a standard type. Finally, we propose that pursuit of different standards (customer interface or compatibility) affects the NPD process in terms of (1) sourcing and dissemination of technology and (2) the customer utility for the product, which influences adoption. We collected perceptual data from a sample of marketing and technology managers in high‐tech industries in the UK using both formative and reflective scales to measure the constructs. Analysis of the data using LISREL supports our contention that compatibility standards and customer interface standards are distinct constructs and that appropriability regime influences compatibility standards and customer interface standards differently. We also find that pursuit of compatibility standards helps a firm to create direct externalities pursuit of customer interface standards helps firms to develop indirect network externalities and technological advantage in the market. Our findings have the following implications. First, managers need to account explicitly for the difference between compatibility and customer interface standards, as resource allocation decisions during the NPD process will determine where a firm puts more focus. The choices made by the firm—as to whether it pursues compatibility standards or customer interface standards—will determine the type of advantage that it can gain in the market. Given a firm's situation at a point in time, a greater focus on one standard type rather than the other may be the right approach. Such choices will influence resource allocation in the product development process.     

Lean Product and Process Development by Allen C. Ward

Books reviewed in this issue:

• ▪

  Lean Product and Process Development
• ▪

  Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape
• ▪

  Putting Hope to Work: Five Principles to Activate Your Organization's Most Powerful Resource
• ▪

  Catalyst Code: The Strategies behind the World's Most Dynamic Companies
• ▪

  Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries

     

From Experience: Japanese Product Development Process

Writing from his experiences as Monsanto's business development director for Asia, Robert Kennard shares some important insights into the complex relationships between culture, values and business practices. He notes the high priority assigned to innovation, along with a commitment to concentration of resources at critical early phases of the developmental effort. While some of these practices are being used by successful companies outside Japan, others represent challenges to the traditional ways in which business is practiced in Western economies.     

Web-Based Product Development Systems Integration and New Product Outcomes: A Conceptual Framework

In hopes of improving the effectiveness of their new product development (NPD) processes, many firms increasingly are eager to adopt integrated web‐based NPD systems for NPD. However, few would argue that the mere use of web‐based NPD systems substantially will improve the NPD process. But we know little about how and when these systems can be used for enhancing NPD. An organization desiring to employ the web in its NPD process can use it at varying levels of functionality and sophistication, ranging from a tool for automating manual tasks and exchanging data to a means of integrating various intra‐ and interorganizational NPD functions and processes. At higher levels of technology sophistication or integration, an organization's NPD processes will get more integrated internally, i.e., between different stages of the NPD process and with the processes of its suppliers, technology providers, etc. Such integration of both internal and external NPD processes is considered important for successful innovation. Thus, on the surface, higher levels of web‐based systems integration may seem universally desirable. However, each increasing level of integration brings with it higher costs—not only the costs of expensive technology but also costs of implementing a complicated system, redesigning intra‐ and interorganizational processes, disrupting the status quo, and spending management time and energy during implementation. Therefore, it may not be wise for firms to jump blindly on the web‐based NPD bandwagon. High levels of web‐based NPD systems integration may be created when low levels of integration may not deliver the desired results. Further, if such systems are installed without appropriate conditions within and outside the firm, it may not be possible to exploit their full potential. As such, it is important to know how much web‐based NPD systems integration is suitable for different conditions. In this article, we develop a conceptual framework that focuses on how web‐based NPD systems integration can influence the outcome of NPD and how the relationship between systems integration and outcomes can be affected by various contextual factors. For this purpose, we draw on research in areas such as NPD, web‐based information systems, and organization theory and on many discussions we had with professionals and software vendors who deal with NPD and web‐based NPD systems. The contextual factors of interest in this framework are strategic orientation of the firm, product‐related factors, business environment, organizational factors, information technology factors, and partner‐characteristics. Managerial and research implications of the framework are discussed.     

Organizational Influences on the New Product Development Process in Financial Services

The last decade has been notable for increasing levels of environmental turbulence brought about by technological advances, deregulation, consumer sophistication, and competition. Consequently a premium has been placed on the ability of managers to differentiate their products and maintain competitive advantages. This may be achieved by developing an organizational climate that is responsive to change and supportive of new product initiatives. In his article, Des Thwaites draws on the established literature and a panel of informed opinion from the financial services sector to identify 12 characteristics of an organization that influence the effectiveness of the new product development process. United Kingdom building societies are examined to determine the emphasis given to these critical aspects of innovation. Three underlying factors, communication, people and mission, explain much of the variance among building societies. Five discrete groupings of firms are identified, and significant differences between their orientations are determined across a range of variables supporting new product development. While the empirical section of the study relates to a specific industrial sector, several issues and the recommendations transcend industry boundaries.     

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.     

Faster New Product Development

Clearly today's business climate mandates the need for faster development of new products. Drawing upon his experience, Milton Rosenau describes several techniques that have not been mentioned explicitly in recent articles: short, focused development phases; management involvement and support; procurement and use of productivity improvements; multifunctional teamwork; distraction reduction; frozen specifications; and microcomputer-based project management software.     

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.     

新产品研制问题及改进建议

<正>新产品研制是将科技成果转变为现实可靠产品的重要阶段,对新技术的实现和应用具有至关重要的作用。新产品采用了较多具有创造性的新技术、新工艺、新材料、新工装等,在技术认识、工程实践方面存在一定的不确定性,因此在新产品研制生产过程中存在风险。笔者从新产品设计和制造等环节分析可能存在的问题并提出改进建议,为高效开展新产品研制、实现精细化管理提供参考。     

Top Management Involvement in New Product Development: A Review and Synthesis

Established literature on new product development (NPD) management recognizes top management involvement (TMI) as one of the most critical success factors. With increasing pressure to sustain competitive advantage and growth, NPD activities remain the focus of close interest from top management in many organizations. TMI in the NPD domain is receiving increasing academic attention. Despite its criticality, there is no systematic review of the existing literature to inform and stimulate researchers in the field for further investigation. This paper introduces the current state of literature on TMI in NPD, synthesizes important findings, and identifies the gaps and deficiencies in this research stream. The contents of the selected articles, which investigated TMI in NPD, are analyzed based on the type of the study, level of analysis, research methodology, operationalization of TMI, and main findings. Additionally, other studies, which did not directly investigate TMI and support in NPD, but were sufficiently related, are briefly summarized. As a result of this detailed literature review, it can be stated that both exploratory and relational studies provide rich evidence on the critical role of top management in NPD. However, the identified gaps and deficiencies in this research stream call for a better theoretical understanding and well‐defined constructs of TMI in the NPD domain for different levels of analysis for future studies.     

Benchmarking New Product Development Funding

Among the key success factors involved in new product development, identifying, and perhaps more precisely, defending appropriate funding levels can be one of the most difficult. This is especially true if your new products organization is new or if substantial changes have occurred either within your organization or your marketplace. Kathleen Pierz offers a benchmarking methodology developed as one element of a successful redesign and redirection of the new products organization at Ameritech advertising services, the Yellow Pages publishing unit of Ameritech.     

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.