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.     

Experiential Education In New Product Design And Business Development

We describe an experiential approach to teaching new product design and business development in a year‐long course that combines intensive project work with classroom education. Our course puts together up to six teams of graduate students from management and engineering who work on projects sponsored by individual companies. Student teams work with faculty from multiple disciplines and personnel from the sponsoring companies. The year‐long format and involvement with company personnel provide opportunities for students to gain hands‐on experience in a real product development project. Time constraints, coupled with students' determination to demonstrate what they can accomplish, stimulate teams to learn how to compress the design and development cycle. To help students generalize from their own projects to a wider universe of product design and business development phenomena, students participate continuously in constructive critiques of others' projects; and in presentations, case discussions and workshops that help them learn about the product and business development process itself. This article describes course objectives, syllabus, projects, sponsors, faculty, students and our course administration. In an effort to move towards a “paperless” course, we have put as much of the course material as possible on the World Wide Web; relevant websites are referred to in the article. At the end of the course each team presents a prototype and a protoplan to the sponsoring company in a final report, which in many cases includes suggestions for the sponsor on how to improve its design and development process. Students' positive evaluations, along with their comments, indicate that they are attaining their educational goals. Course projects have resulted in commercialized products, patents, continuing development projects in sponsoring companies, and placements for students. The course has generated public relations value for the units involved and for the university as a whole. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.     

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.     

Business Performance and Strategic New Product Development Activities: An Empirical Investigation

Despite the ongoing search for the so-called silver bullet that provides the ultimate competitive advantage, there is no roadmap showing the “right” way to perform new product development (NPD). What's more, it is highly unlikely that such a formula could be developed. Given the diversity of firms and industries as well as the complexity of the NPD process, no single set of NPD activities or steps can be defined that will be appropriate for all firms. However, Roger J. Calantone, Shawnee K. Vickery, and Cornelia Droge propose that it is possible to develop such a framework within the confines of a specific industry. They suggest that successful companies within an industry are likely to focus on certain essential NPD activities that allow them to achieve the best possible results within the constraints of their market. Their research is directed toward identifying the relationship between the performance of specific innovation-related activities and overall business performance in the furniture industry. This study also assesses the relationship between a firm's performance on an NPD activity and the importance assigned to that activity by the firm's chief executive officer (CEO). With the current emphasis on cross-functional teams, the study also seeks to determine whether performance on a given NPD activity is related to the assignment of responsibility for that activity. The following NPD activities were evaluated for their effect on corporate performance: customization, new product introduction, design innovation, product development cycle time, product technological innovation, product improvement, new product development, and original product development. Compared to their competitors, top performers consistently put more strategic emphasis on each of these activities. All of these activities have a strong positive influence on return on investment (ROI) and ROI growth. What's more, most of the activities also clearly relate to stronger market share, market share growth, return on sales (ROS), and ROS growth. The vision and focus on these essential NPD activities must begin with CEOs who recognize their strategic value. Such leaders will direct appropriate staff and technical resources toward performance of the necessary activities. They will also ensure that the organization is sufficiently flexible to accept the changes in responsibilities for coordination and leadership that are necessary during different stages in the NPD process. To gain the product flexibility necessary for competing in numerous market segments, top performers require greater input and leadership from design, engineering, and manufacturing.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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

     

Turning New Product Development into a Continuous Learning Process

Product developers understand the difficulties of trying to hit a moving target from atop a runaway train. Competitors come and go, technological change occurs at an ever-increasing rate, customer wants and needs are constantly shifting, and a product's life cycle may be shorter than its development time. We can't meet these challenges with a methodical, step-by-step approach to product development. In such a fast-paced environment, product development must be transformed into a continuous, iterative, learning process focused on customer value. G. David Hughes and Don C. Chafin describe one means for making this transformation: the value proposition process (VPP). The objectives of this development approach are continuous learning, identifying the certainty of knowledge used for decision-making, building consensus, and focusing on adding value. The VPP consists of a framework of continuous planning cycles, called the value proposition cycle (VPC), and an integrated screening methodology, called the value proposition readiness assessment (VPRA). The VPC comprises four iterative loops, addressing the following activities: Capturing the market value of the proposition (Does the customer care?); Developing the business value (Do we care?); Delivering a winning solution (Can we beat the competition?); and, Applying project and process planning (Can we do it?). Somewhat akin to stage-gate methods (but with the added dimension of continuous cycling), the VPRA involves screens along each loop in the VPC. This screening methodology summarizes the company's critical success factors, allowing the project team to assess the success potential of a new product idea. Each screen involves a structured set of questions. For each question, respondents provide three measures: their evaluation of that success factor's favorability to the company's position, the certainty of their evaluation, and their estimate of the relative importance of that success factor. Rather than building a model that computes a weighted-sum score for predicting the success of a new idea, the VPRA serves as a consensus facilitator, allowing team members to see how closely they agree. The certainty measures help the team identify knowledge gaps, and the importance measures help the team set priorities for successive iterations of the VPRA.     

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.     

Improving Supplier New Product Development Performance: The Role of Supplier Development

Suppliers play an increasingly central role in helping firms achieve their new product development (NPD) goals. The literature implicitly assumes that suppliers are able to meet or exceed the quality standards and technological expectations of the firm, and yet, in practice, suppliers often lack the technological capabilities needed to undertake collaborative NPD. In such situations, a firm may choose to intervene and actively develop the supplier's technological and product development capabilities. We develop a theoretical framework that conceptualizes supplier development activities within interorganizational NPD projects as part of a bilateral knowledge‐sharing process: design recommendations, technical specifications, and new technology flow from supplier to the firm, and in turn, the firm can implement supplier development activities to upgrade the supplier's technological capabilities. Antecedents (supplier responsibility, skills similarity, single sourcing strategy) and consequences of supplier development activities (on supplier, product, and project performance) are examined using a sample of 153 interorganizational NPD projects within UK manufacturers. We find broad support for our hypotheses. In particular, we show that the relational rents (in the form of improved product and project performance) attained from supplier development activities in new product development are not achieved directly, but rather indirectly, via improvements in the supplier's creative and technological capabilities. Our results emphasize the importance of adopting a strategic view of the potential returns available from investing in the NPD capabilities of key suppliers, and provide clues about underlying reasons for the suboptimal experiences of many companies' collaborative NPD projects.     

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.     

The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for Discontinuous Innovations: A Theoretical Model

The fuzzy front end of the new product development (NPD) process, the time and activity prior to an organization's first screen of a new product idea, is the root of success for firms involved with discontinuous new product innovation. Yet understanding the fuzzy front‐end process has been a challenge for academics and organizations alike. While approaches to handling the fuzzy front end have been suggested in the literature, these tend to be relevant largely for incremental new product situations where organizations are aware of and are involved in the NPD process from the project's beginning. For incremental new products, structured problems or opportunities typically are laid out at the organizational level and are directed to individuals for information gathering. In the case of discontinuous innovations, however, we propose that the process works in the opposite direction—that is, that the timing and likelihood of organizational‐level involvement is more likely to be at the discretion of individuals. Such individuals perform a boundary‐spanning function by identifying and by understanding emerging patterns in the environment, with little or no direction from the organization. Often, these same individuals also act as gatekeepers by deciding on the value to the organization of externally derived information, as well as whether such information will be shared. Consequently for discontinuous innovations, information search and related problems/opportunities are unstructured and are at the individual level during the fuzzy front end. As such, the direction of initial decisions about new environmental information tends to be inward, toward the corporate decision‐making level, rather than the other way around. In order to cope with the special and complex nature of decisions made at the fuzzy front end of NPD for discontinuous innovations, this process is detailed as a series of decisions occurring over three proposed interfaces: boundary, gatekeeping, and project. The difference between each interface lies in the nature of the decisions made: At the boundary and gatekeeping interfaces, the primary impetus is individual‐level decision‐making; at the project interface, decisions occur at the organizational level. By articulating these processes in the form of a model, we achieve two objectives: (1) We outline a more detailed and comprehensive approach to understanding the nature of the front‐end decision making process for discontinuous innovations; and (2) we detail specific propositions for future research on each stage of the process.