Are really new product development projects harder to shut down?

Just as a good houseguest knows when it's time to say good-bye, effective managers must recognize when it's time to terminate a new product development (NPD) project. As a product progresses toward commercialization, a manager's reluctance to terminate a failing project becomes increasingly expensive. Despite this growing expense, however, many managers are reluctant to shut down failing NPD projects. Jeffrey Schmidt and Roger Calantone hypothesize that this reluctance may be even more pronounced for innovative new products than for incremental NPD efforts. They suggest that perhaps the excitement that really new products engender within a company makes managers more reluctant to shut down the NPD project, even in the face of clear-cut evidence that the project is not a winner. To test these assumptions, they conducted a decision-making experiment in which managers were asked to make go/no-go decisions at each stage in a hypothetical NPD project. One project involved an innovative new product; the other project involved an incremental development—that is, a line extension that offered only marginal size and cost reductions compared to current models. At the outset of the experiment, participants were given market share and profit objectives for assessing the new product's performance. At each stage in the hypothetical NPD project, the participants then received updated performance data. The performance data provided to participants was identical for the two hypothetical projects, and fell increasingly farther below the performance objectives as the project progressed. The results of the experiment support the hypothesized relationship between product innovativeness and managers' reluctance to terminate a failing NPD project. Given identical, poor, performance forecasts, the managers who participated in this experiment were more optimistic about the likelihood of success, were more committed to the project, and were more likely to opt for continuing the project when it involved the more innovative product. In fact, the participants were more likely to allow the highly innovative NPD project to proceed all the way through commercialization, notwithstanding the progressively ominous performance feedback.     

A NEW APPROACH TO DEPRECIATION MEASUREMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES: COMMENT

This paper examines the use of a simple heuristic for evaluating projects. We posit that ranking projects by IRR and rejecting marginal projects can be superior to a NPV rule if 1) project managers have incentives to overstate cash flow forecasts that occur late in a project's life, 2) project rankings determine project acceptance because not all positive NPV project's are accepted, and 3) a project's IRR is greater than the WACC. In these instances, the IRR heuristic undervalues distant cash flows and thus, reduces project managers' incentives to positively bias forecasts.     

The Decision to Exploit an R&D Project: Divergent Thinking across Middle and Senior Managers

Research and development (R&D) generates projects, but the question often remains: which projects should be exploited? Building on the innovation, strategy, and managerial cognition literatures, we use a conjoint field experiment to collect data on 4032 decisions made by 126 R&D managers to test how project attributes, strategic context, and managers' characteristics influence innovation exploitation decisions. Using hierarchical linear modeling, we find that (1) experience impacts project exploitation decision policies of middle managers more than senior managers, (2) divergent thinking across middle and senior managers increases with experience, and (3) experienced middle managers diverge from experienced senior managers in their decisions to exploit opportunities by placing greater emphasis on strategic context (relative to competitors and fit within the portfolio) and lesser emphasis on uncertainty (technological and demand). These findings have implications for the strategy and innovation literature.     

Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance

While some degree of freedom and flexibility is an essential ingredient to productive cross‐functional NPD teams, upper‐managers are faced with the challenge of instituting effective control mechanisms which head projects in the right strategic direction, monitor progress toward organizational and project goals, and allow for adjustments in the project if necessary. But too much or the wrong type of control may constrain the team's creativity, impede their progress, and injure their ultimate performance. Therefore, this study examines formal and interactive control mechanisms available to upper‐managers in controlling new product development (NPD) projects, and the relationship between these mechanisms and NPD project performance. Formal output and process controls are examined which consist of the setting and monitoring of outcomes, such as goals, schedule and budgets, and of processes and procedures, respectively. This study also looks at how the effectiveness of these control mechanisms may be contingent upon the degree of innovativeness in the project and the degree to which the project is part of a broad product program. In addition, the use of formal rewards for achieving team performance as opposed to rewards for individual achievement is investigated. Lastly, interactive controls are examined which consist of upper‐managers interacting directly with project members in the development of strategy and operational goals and procedures prior to the start of the project, and upper‐managers intervening in project decision‐making. Questionnaire data are collected on 95 projects across a variety of industries. The findings suggest that while NPD projects teams need some level of strategic direction concerning the objectives to be accomplished and the procedures to be followed, upper‐level managers can exert too much control. In particular, the findings showed a negative association between the use of upper manager‐imposed process controls and project performance. The findings also indicated that the degree to which upper‐managers intervened in project‐level decisions during the project was negatively related to project performance. However, the results showed support for the notion that early and interactive decision‐making on control mechanisms is important for effective projects. In particular, early team member and upper‐management involvement in the setting of operational controls, such as goals and procedures for monitoring and evaluating the project, was positively associated with project performance. This study provides additional insight into our understanding of upper‐management support in new product development. The study suggests that upper‐managers can over control with the wrong type of controls, and suggests effective ways of implementing participative and interactive control mechanisms.     

Individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing, and champion behavior: key predictors of project performance

Although increasing evidence points to the importance of champions for keeping product innovation ideas alive and thriving, little is known about how champions identify potential product innovation ideas, how they present these ideas to gain much needed support from key stakeholders, and their impact on innovation project performance over time. Jane M. Howell and Christine M. Shea address this knowledge gap by using measures of individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing and champion behavior to predict the performance of 47 product innovation projects. Champion behavior was defined as expressing confidence in the innovation, involving and motivating others to support the innovation, and persisting under adversity. Interviews with 47 champions were conducted to collect information about the innovation projects and the champions' tendency to frame the innovation as an opportunity or threat. Survey data were obtained from three sources: 47 champions provided information on their personal characteristics (locus of control and breadth of interest) and activities (environmental scanning), 47 division managers subjectively assessed project performance at two points in time, and 237 innovation team members rated the frequency of champion behavior. The results revealed that an internal locus of control orientation was positively related to framing the innovation as an opportunity, and breadth of interest was positively related to environmental scanning. Environmental scanning of documents and framing the innovation as a threat was negatively related to champion behavior, while environmental scanning through people was positively related to champion behavior. Champion behavior positively predicted project performance over a one‐year interval. Overall, the findings suggest that in scanning the environment for new ideas, the most effective source of information is the champion's personal network of people inside and outside the organization. Also, the simple labeling of an idea as a threat appears to diminish a champion's perceived influence and erode credibility in promoting an innovation. From the perspective of division managers, champions make a positive contribution to project performance over time, reinforcing the crucial role that champions play in new product development process.     

Perceptions of Material Resources in Innovation Projects: What Shapes Them and How Do They Matter?

Studies on the role of material resources for team performance in innovation projects have provided inconclusive results. This paper focuses on team members' perceptions of the provided material resources' adequacy to address this gap. Understanding what drives perceptions of material resource adequacy may not only reconcile conflicting results in the literature, but may also provide much‐needed guidance for project funding, so as to maximize innovation project performance. Further, the analyses in this paper differentiate between two outcome dimensions of innovation project performance, namely, the degree of new product quality and new product novelty, and thus offer a more fine‐grained analysis of the relationship between perceptions of material resource adequacy and innovation project teams' performance. The posited hypotheses are tested using a sample consisting of survey data from 121 innovation projects in the electronics industry. To avoid common source bias, data from different respondent groups, that is, team leaders, team members, and team external managers of the examined innovation projects, were used. The results of the regression analyses identify team potency and workload as socio‐cognitive drivers of innovation project teams' perceptions of material resource adequacy. Moreover, it is found that perceived material resource adequacy relates positively to new product quality, while it relates negatively to new product novelty. This paper thus provides an important step toward disentangling the ambiguity surrounding the relationship between material resource adequacy and innovation project teams' performance, showing that a key finding of cognitive psychology seems to hold also on the team level of inquiry: the significant influence of socio‐cognitive factors on perceptions. This finding paves the way for putting more attention in research on innovation and project management on cognitive aspects, in particular considering mechanisms behind the formation of team perceptions. Further, the results provide evidence for differential effects of perceived material resource adequacy on innovation project performance, depending on the indicators used for measuring the outcomes of an innovation project. This contributes necessary detail to studying the relationship between material resource adequacy and innovation project performance, which so far has produced inconclusive results, suggesting that these contradictions might result to a large degree from different operationalizations of innovation project performance. On a practical level, the findings of this paper suggest that material resource adequacy seems not to be a catch‐all variable, influencing innovation project outcomes in a uniform way. It appears to be a useful lever for influencing team outcomes depending on the desired result, which may be manipulated by shaping team variables that exert a systematic influence on perceptions of material resource adequacy.     

Innovation and Product Development Strategies in the Italian Motorcycle Industry

The motorcycle industry in Italy offers fertile ground for anyone interested in developing a better understanding of the role innovation plays in enhancing a firm's competitive position. This industry includes both domestic and Japanese firms, with companies ranging from high-volume manufacturers to specialty or niche producers. Firms trying to gain a competitive edge in this crowded field must contend with not only advances in product and process technology, but also the whims of fashion. In a survey of top-level marketing and product development managers from eight leading firms in the Italian motorcycle industry, Moreno Muffatto and Roberto Panizzolo explore the innovation models these firms employ to enhance their competitive position. Their study has the following objectives: categorizing the various competitors in terms of their product and market strategies and their product development and innovation strategies; highlighting differences between the methods of Italian and Japanese firms competing in this market; analyzing the relationships between firms, as well as the roles suppliers play in the various innovation strategies; and identifying the various organizational models employed by the firms in this industry. Different product and market strategies are identified on the basis of three variables: total production volume, the number of different products offered, and the number of different engine capacities offered. Using these variables, the companies in the study are categorized as volume producers, specialists, or niche specialists. The firms are further differentiated on the basis of the relative emphasis each places on product technology and design, product innovation, product variety, and time-based competition. In the firms studied, partnerships play a key role in new product development. Nearly every firm participates in joint projects, most often involving development of either an entire vehicle or an engine. Other partnerships involve firms in countries that offer emerging markets for the motorcycle industry. Organizational structures and strategies employed by the volume producers in this study include: the large product leader, who oversees concept definition and product planning; the project leaders group, which coordinates all phases of development, including activities assigned to external groups; the project managers matrix, a matrix organizational structure with a strong product orientation; and the business unit program manager, who oversees all projects within an independent business unit.     

Managing Innovation Champions: The Impact of Project Characteristics on the Direct Manager Role*

A key challenge for organizations seeking to improve the management of innovation lies in determining when to lend direct managerial support, and how much support, to those championing such projects. This research provides insights into the connection between project characteristics and the type and frequency of direct manager involvement. As such, it addresses the following research question: how does the level of project innovativeness, strategic relatedness, and resource requirements impact the level of empowerment of innovation champions and the sponsor or supervisor role played by managers? The research method involves a survey of 89 project champions from four divisions of large, multinational Korean companies. The results show that when innovativeness was high but projects were strategically related, there was greater project champion empowerment but also a more frequent managerial sponsor role. This suggests it may be best to allow innovators, who are close to the project's markets, technologies, and industry conditions, to have greater freedom over objectives and decisions. Yet they may also need the advice and support of their managers to function optimally under the highly uncertain conditions that characterize innovative projects. This combination of empowerment and a sponsor role, though appropriate for highly innovative projects, may also require high strategic relatedness, however. On the other hand, when projects are less strategically related and when resource requirements are high, the analysis suggests managers are more likely to exert control. Managers may therefore need to become more closely involved in decision making for costly ventures representing new strategic directions for their organizations. Overall, this research suggests that both empowerment and manager roles are relevant to the management of innovation. These results offer academic value in recognizing the nature of the direct manager role under different innovation project conditions. It further reveals a need for academics to recognize both the supervisor and sponsor roles in the management of innovation. For managers, the findings suggest that for organizations to effectively develop and commercialize innovations managers need to recognize when certain projects call for different levels and types of involvement.     

Managers' compassionate goals,innovation, and firm performance: an examination of mediating processes,and boundary conditions in small- and medium-sized enterprises

This study aims to examine the relationships of managers' compassionate goals with innovation and performance in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). By integrating social exchange theory with social information processing theory, we hypothesize a serial mediation model in which organizational cooperation and firm innovation sequentially mediate a positive relationship between managers' compassionate goals and firm performance. However, we predict that this positive indirect effect would occur only when managers have low self-image goals and there is a high innovation-supportive work environment. Based on survey data from a sample of 116 SMEs in France, our results provide support for our predictions. This study contributes to the literature by disclosing the mechanisms and boundary conditions of the relationship of managers' compassionate goals with SMEs' innovation and performance. Theoretical and managerial implications of this study are discussed.     

The Role of Departmental Thought Worlds in Shaping Escalation of Commitment in New Product Development Projects

The debate over whether and how thought worlds of different departments (especially marketing and research and development [R&D]) affect managers' decision-making behavior in new product development (NPD) is ongoing. A key challenge of these decisions is to deal with deteriorating NPD projects, which are often subject to escalation of commitment (EoC), with many firms wasting billions of dollars by throwing good money after bad NPD projects. However, understanding departmental thought worlds and their role for EoC in NPD could help firms stop this profusion. Thus, this research provides answers to the question of how thought worlds affect managers' tendency toward EoC in NPD decision-making—both in general and under certain project characteristics. To do so, we conducted four studies based on real-life scenarios with 460 highly experienced NPD managers from marketing and R&D, thus ensuring high validity and reliability. Our research is the first to explore the impact of thought worlds on EoC, thereby detecting that the importance of managers' thought worlds for shaping EoC varies with the NPD project's characteristics. Thus, depending on the specific project situation, different types of managers may be more or less capable of making proper NPD decisions. Moreover, results show that belief updating serves as a respective key mediator. Doing so enriches the theory by showing that managers' thought worlds can substantially influence a major mechanism (i.e., belief updating) of coping with cognitive dissonance. Finally, post hoc tests reveal departmental differences in EoC behavior between marketing and R&D that vary with a project's characteristics. These results imply that firms need to carefully consider who is in charge of making decisions on NPD project continuance in different project situations.     

Export experience counts: exploring its effect on product design change

In this paper, we explore how managers' export experience can affect the change in product design following changes in perceived past performance. Using data from 519 Portuguese exporters, we find that performance improvement will encourage safe decision making in which firms either will not change the product design or will change it in a way that makes it more similar across the product range. However, when managers' export experience is greater, they encourage change in ways that could support product differentiation. The abilities of experienced managers to read the market, i.e. to interpret changes in performance and translate them into product specifications, help explain these findings. We contribute to the literature in two ways. First, we explore the relationship among past export performance change, product design, and managers' export experience. Second, we identify specific kinds of design changes that firms adopt in response to changes in different dimensions of organizational performance. Based on our findings, we would recommend to new product development managers to consider both managers' export experience and the dimension used to measure performance when evaluating calls for standardizing the design by export managers. Our findings suggest that such calls could be driven by short‐term gains in export performance. Furthermore, we would also emphasize the need to routinely capture information from experienced export managers to ensure that it is considered in future decisions about design changes.     

Making Virtue of Necessity: The Role of Team Climate for Innovation in Resource‐Constrained Innovation Projects

The effect of financial resource constraints on innovation team performance is ambiguous. On the one hand, the majority of scholars have argued that financial resource constraints have an inhibiting effect on innovation, whereas budgetary slack supports creativity and innovation. Consistent with this notion, in most conceptual models on the management of innovation projects, the availability of slack, or at least adequate (rather than constrained) resources represents an important success factor supporting innovation. On the other hand, popular parlance has it that sometimes “necessity is the mother of innovation,” and literature in cognitive psychology suggests that resource constraints stimulate creativity and innovative behavior. Recent innovation literature indeed provides evidence that remarkable innovation outcomes can be achieved with constrained financial resources. Despite the rapidly growing research on success factors of innovation projects, and the high managerial relevance of budget questions, the influence of financial resource constraints has only very recently started to attract interest. The objective of the present study is to contribute to that research by investigating under what conditions financial resource constraints lead to innovation outcomes. Specifically, team climate for innovation is examined as a potentially important contingency variable of the relationship between financial resource constraints and innovation project performance. By explicitly focusing on team climate for innovation, factors of the work environment in innovation projects are addressed as influential boundary conditions for successfully innovating under financial resource constraints. The hypotheses are tested on a sample of 94 innovation project teams from a variety of industries. To ensure content validity and to avoid a possible common source bias, data from different respondents, i.e., team leaders, team members, and team external managers of the innovation projects, are used. Results of regression analyses show that there is no significant relationship between financial resource constraints and innovation project outcomes in terms of product quality and project efficiency. However, results show a significant interaction term of financial resource constraints and team climate for innovation in that team climate for innovation positively moderates the relationship between financial resource constraints and product quality as well as project efficiency. Thus, the findings of the present study contradict the widespread notion in innovation literature that financial resource constraints have a wholesale inhibiting effect on innovation, thereby providing a differentiated perspective on the relationship between financial resource constraints and innovation. On a practical level, the results of this study highlight a specific condition under which product developers can come up with more innovative solutions despite, or even because of, financial resource constraints.     

When Does Search Openness Really Matter? A Contingency Study of Health‐Care Innovation Projects

Given the growing popularity of the open innovation model, it is increasingly common to source knowledge for new product ideas from a wide range of actors located outside of organizational boundaries. Such open search strategies, however, might not always be superior to their closed counterparts. Indeed, widening the scope of knowledge sourcing at the ideation stage typically comes at a price given the substantial monetary and nonmonetary costs often incurred in the process of identifying, assimilating, and utilizing external knowledge inputs. Considering both the benefits and costs of search openness, the authors develop a project‐level contingency model of open innovation. This model suggests that search openness is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U‐shape) related to new product creativity and success. They hence assume that too little as well as too much search openness at the ideation stage will be detrimental to new product outcomes. Moreover, they argue that the effectiveness of open search strategies is contingent upon the new product development (NPD) project type (typological contingency), the NPD project leader (managerial contingency), and the NPD project environment (contextual contingency). To test these propositions empirically, multi‐informant data from 62 NPD projects initiated in the English National Health Service (NHS) were collected. The econometric analyses conducted provide considerable support for a curvilinear relationship between search openness and NPD outcomes as well as for the hypothesized contingency effects. More specifically, they reveal that explorative NPD projects have more to gain from search openness at the ideation stage than their exploitative counterparts. Moreover, the project‐level payoff from search openness tends to be greater, when the project leader has substantial prior innovation and management experience, and when the immediate work environment actively supports creative endeavors. These findings are valuable for NPD practice, as they demonstrate that effective knowledge sourcing has much to contribute to NPD success. In particular, pursuing an open search strategy might not always be the best choice. Rather, each NPD project is in need of a carefully tailored search strategy, effective leadership, and a supportive climate, if the full value of external knowledge sourcing is to be captured.     

Mapping managers' market orientations regarding new product success

Research shows that managers' cognitive structures influence their decisions and firm outcomes, and that managers' shared understanding is critical to new product success. Yet, little is known about the content and structure of managers' knowledge regarding their business's market orientation (MO) and how such orientation relates to new product development. By drawing from research on managerial cognition, we suggest that an examination of managers' cognitive maps of their business's MO can provide valuable insights. First, cognitive maps provide information regarding the relative ranking of concepts that managers consider important to new product success. Second, they offer insights about the relationship among concepts by illustrating the causal logic flow, centrality, and strength of the association between concepts. Finally, cognitive maps reveal a gestalt or pattern of managers' understandings. This pattern provides an overall view of their perceptions of their firms' MO. Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to begin developing theory to explain the nature and extent of the sharing of managers' understanding of their business's MO across a company within the context of new product development. We develop several theoretical propositions using established research on market orientation and an exploratory investigation of the cognitive maps of a stratified sample of thirty managers of a highly successful frozen food division of a multinational company. We argue that managers of innovative companies with a history of successful new products in moderately dynamic industries will have established market orientations, as reflected in cognitive maps, which emphasize customer orientations more than competitor or technological orientations. Moreover, we suggest that managers will consistently recognize the importance of interfunctional coordination because it influences the firm's orientations towards customers, competitors, and technology by facilitating sharing of important market information necessary for successful new product development. Furthermore, we propose that the division of labor and functional specialization in a company will result in predictable differences across cognitive maps of managers in different functions and levels of the organization. For example, senior managers are likely to have a more balanced and integrated MO than junior managers, due to their knowledge of organization wide issues. The article also proposes an agenda for scholars interested in investigating the relationship between managers' cognitive maps of their company's market orientation and new product success. We note the importance of studying managers' cognitive structures in different types of industries over time, and how managers' cognitive structures may relate to their company's ability to learn. Managers could use cognitive mapping to recognize and evaluate beliefs that inhibit the sharing and interpretation of information between managers, departments, and levels and could design appropriate interventions.     

Does Strategic Planning Enhance or Impede Innovation and Firm Performance?*

Does strategic planning enhance or impede innovation and firm performance? The current literature provides contradictory views. This study extends the resource‐advantage theory to examine the conditions in which strategic planning increases or decreases the number of new product development projects and firm performance. The authors test the theoretical model by collecting data from 227 firms. The empirical evidence suggests that more strategic planning and more new product development (NPD) projects lead to better firm performance. Firms with organizational redundancy benefit more from strategic planning than firms with less organizational redundancy. Increasing R&D intensity boosts both the number of NPD projects and firm performance. Strategic planning is more effective in larger firms with higher R&D intensity for increasing the number of NPD projects. The results reported in this study also consist of several findings that challenge the traditional views of strategic planning. The evidence suggests that strategic planning impedes, not enhances, the number of NPD projects. Larger firms benefit less, not more, from strategic planning for improving firm performance. Larger firms do not necessarily create more NPD projects. Increasing organizational redundancy has no effect on the number of NPD projects. These empirical results provide important strategic implications. First, managers should be aware that, in general, formal strategic planning decreases the number of NPD projects for innovation management. Improvised rather than planned activities are more conducive to creating NPD project ideas. Moreover, innovations tend to emerge from improvisational processes, during which the impromptu execution of NPD activities without planning spurs “thinking outside the box,” which enhances the process of creating NPD project ideas. Therefore, more flexible strategic plans that accommodate potential improvisation may be needed in NPD management since innovation‐related activities cannot be planned precisely due to the unexpected jolts and contingencies of the NPD process. Second, large firms with high levels of R&D intensity can overcome the negative effect of strategic planning on the number of NPD projects. Specifically, a firm's abundant resources, when allocated and deployed for NPD activities, signal the high priority and importance of the NPD activities and thus motivate employees to acquire, collect, and gather customer and technical knowledge, which leads to creating more NPD projects. Finally, managers must understand that managing strategic planning and generating NPD project ideas are beneficial to the ultimate outcome of firm performance despite the adverse relationship between strategic planning and the number of NPD projects.     

Structural vs. relational embeddedness: social capital and managerial performance

This paper examines the impact of managers' social capital on managerial performance. Two dimensions of social capital are compared—the structural embeddedness (i.e., configuration) of a manager's network of work relations and the relational embeddedness (i.e., quality) of those relations. Based on a sample of 120 product and sales managers in a Fortune 100 pharmaceutical firm, this paper presents evidence indicating that both elements of social capital influence managerial performance, although in distinct ways: structural embeddedness plays a stronger role in explaining more routine, execution‐oriented tasks (managerial sales performance), whereas relational embeddedness plays a stronger role in explaining new, innovation‐oriented tasks (managerial performance in product and process innovation). This research considers resource exchanges within firms as key to value creating behaviors and contributes a deeper understanding of how social capital influences productive resource exchanges. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do New Product Development Managers in Large or High-Market-Share Firms Perceive Marketing-R&D Interface Principles Differently?

In the quest for successful innovation, the importance of the R&Dlmarketing interface is virtually unquestioned. For many organizations, however, effective integration of technical and marketing functions is difficult, if not impossible. Despite seemingly widespread understanding of fundamental new product principles, some companies still manage to gain a larger share of the market than their competitors. This raises the question of whether managers in more successful companies have special insights into R&D'/'marketing interface principles that give them an edge over their competitors. To gain a better understanding of managers' perceptions of new product principles defined in the academic literature, Ted Haggblom, Roger J. Calantone, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto conducted a survey of 687 nonacademic members of the Product Development and Management Association. The basis for the survey was a set of 78 product management principles compiled from a search of more than 500 books and articles from various disciplines. From this survey, 14 of the 78 principles were selected as relevant to the study reported in this article. The principles discussed in this article involve such issues as resistance to change, short-term orientation, communication and trust between marketing and technical people, the effect of centralized decision-making on innovation, the importance of open communication flows, senior management's role in the R&D I marketing interface, and the necessity of a product champion. The primary quesstion addressed in this study is whether managers from successful companies perceive these principles differently from managers of less successful firms. The study provides partial support for the proposition that managers' perceptions of these new product principles depend on their company's success. In other words, the survey results suggest that managers in companies with higher market shares tend to agree more strongly with these principles than their counterparts in less successful firms. The study also explores the relationship between firm size and agreement with these principles of new product success. Specifically, the study assesses whether the perceptions of managers from smaller, more entrepreneurial companies differ from those of managers in larger companies. Although managers from small and large firms may view these principles from different perspectives, there were no statistically significant differences in the perceptions of managers from small and large firms.     

The Effect of Interactional Fairness on the Performance of Cross‐Functional Product Development Teams: A Multilevel Mediated Model*

Cross‐functional product development teams (CFPDTs) are receiving increasing attention as a fundamental mechanism for achieving greater interfunctional integration in the product development process. However, little is known about how team members' interactional fairness perception—fairness perception based on the quality of interpersonal treatment received from the project manager during the new product development process—affects cross‐functional communication and the performance of CFPDTs. This study examines the effects of interactional fairness on both team members' performance and team performance as a whole. It was predicted that interactional fairness in CFPDTs would significantly affect team members' task performance, both task‐ and person‐focused interpersonal citizenship behaviors, as well as team performance. Additionally, commitment would partially mediate the effects of interactional fairness on these performance outcomes. Analyzing survey responses from two student samples of CFPDTs with hierarchical linear modeling techniques, it was demonstrated that team members' task performance, interpersonal citizenship behavior, and team performance are enhanced when team members are dedicated to both the team and the project, and such dedication is fostered when project managers are fair to team members in an interpersonal way.     

创新项目组合管理绩效关键影响因素的实证研究

为了维持长期的竞争优势,企业需要不断进行技术创新和产品创新。如何在有限的研发资源下使创新项目组合的绩效最大化是企业进行创新管理中面临的主要问题。本文从创新项目组合的战略一致性、平均项目绩效和业务协同3个指标来度量创新项目组合管理绩效,并从流程和管理者的视角研究其关键影响因素。通过实证研究发现,高管参与和项目组合管理流程的设计与实施对项目组合的战略一致性有显著的正向影响;高管参与、项目经理胜任力和项目终止质量对平均项目绩效有显著正向影响;项目经理胜任力、项目组合管理流程的设计与实施和项目中止质量对业务协同有显著正向影响。     

Remodularization of a Product Line: Adding Complexity to Project Management

Faced with ever-tighter schedules, product development professionals employ various methods for staying at least one step ahead of the competition. In particular, an autonomous, cross-functional team offers an effective structure for meeting the sometimes conflicting objectives of timely delivery of a high-quality, easily manufactured product. To complicate matters, however, companies must manage not only individual projects, but also entire product lines. Changes in product and process technology eventually necessitate revamping of the product architecture—that is, the remodularization of a product line. Can an autonomous project team provide the long-term perspective necessary for such efforts? Or, does remodularization of a product line require centralized oversight by functional management? Mats Lundqvist, Niklas Sundgren, and Lars Trygg explore this issue by examining product development efforts at two Swedish manufacturing companies. Specifically, their study explores this research question: Does a high degree of project autonomy limit the possibility for effective remodularization of product architecture? Both companies were involved in remodularization projects with stringent requirements for project cost and duration, but the companies employed markedly different managerial models in these efforts. One company took a centralized approach, except that two design engineers worked full time on the project. The other company used the autonomous model, with two exceptions: functional managers worked closely with some project members during the task specification phase of the project; and the project leader, though a heavyweight in many respects, did not have formal decision-making power. The latter project demonstrated that an autonomous project team can maintain a long-term perspective during development of a product. In other words, this project team was able to meet challenging time and cost objectives while developing a product consisting of highly compatible modules and subsystems. Although a centralized management approach might be expected to offer greater efficiency, the company using that approach failed to meet project goals for development time, product cost, and long-term product line effectiveness. However, the shortcomings of that effort are more directly attributable to the management style of the project leader than to the management structure employed.