Attribution Biases in the Evaluation of New Product Development Team Members*

Managers are often concerned with the potential negative reputation impact of being assigned to a new product development project. Social psychology theories, and in particular the group attribution error theory, suggest that their worries might be justified, with individual team members being evaluated on the basis of the overall project performance, without regard for the processes by which the team outcome was reached. The objective of this paper is to empirically test for the existence of such biases in the evaluation of new product development team members. For this purpose, three independent experiments based on scenarios test the extent to which the group attribution error is at play in the evaluation of new product development team members and the extent to which it can be removed. Overall, this paper indicates that this bias does indeed affect the evaluation of new product development team members as well as decisions based on these evaluations. In the studies presented in this paper, analysis of variance showed that subjects inferred that team members' attitudes were consistent with the decision made and failed to adjust adequately for the decision rule used. Subjects then used these summary judgments as the basis for deciding on reward allocations and making competence attributions about the team members. In Study 1 , the decision rule used was either a vote or a team leader decision, and therefore the bias might have been explained by the lack of information available. Study 2 , however, provided unambiguous information about team members' positions, yet subjects did not adequately take this information into account. Study 3 replicated these results with experienced new product team managers, suggesting that theses biases are likely to be at play in the workplace. Moreover, subjects in Studies 2 and 3 felt quite confident that their judgments were being fair, even in the cases where these judgments truly were not, which suggests a lack of awareness of the bias on their part. The robustness of this bias should be cause for concerns for managers working in new product development teams or involved in the evaluation of the performance of such teams. The studies conducted in this paper suggest that team members can get unfairly rewarded or punished for decisions over which they have little or no control and that their reputation can also get affected by these decisions. Moreover, the fact that the group attribution error affected evaluations even in the case where experienced participants had specific information about team members' positions suggests that this bias will not be easy to remove.     

PERSPECTIVE: Empirical Generalization and the Role of Culture in New Product Development*

Empirical generalization continues to be a challenge in most applied fields that favor publication of original results. The purpose of this study was to report on a new product development exercise in one, controlled cultural setting, which replicates and extends Ettlie (2002) . Results from four recent graduate business classes in Portugal show that the background of students—technical versus other or mixed—is a nearly perfect predictor of the average or central estimates the class makes tendency (median) of new product success in the exercise. Country matters little. These results have now persisted over nearly seven years, and implications are discussed concerning theory, practice, and future research.     

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

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

Characterizing the Role of Design in New Product Development: An Empirically Derived Taxonomy*

This article empirically explores the nature of the role of design in the new product development process. The investigation adopts a multiple case study methodology. Data were collected through a six‐month interview program carried out with mid‐size to large U.K. manufacturing companies. The researchers articulate the scope and detailed nature of actions undertaken by design across all phases of the new product development process. Design functional, integration, and leadership actions are unraveled from the data. A taxonomy characterizing three roles for design in new product development is developed and explained. In the first role, design is explored as a functional specialism. The second categorization develops the role of design as part of a multifunctional team. The third role depicts the designer as process leader. Detailed actions and skills associated with each role are discussed and illustrated. Contextual factors explaining and influencing each design role are unraveled. These are articulated as speed of development process, innovativeness of the product development effort, and use of external design agencies. The implications of these findings for the development of design skills and capabilities are discussed in terms of recruitment, training, and educational policies.     

Strategies of Innovation and Imitation of Product Languages*

Nowadays, design is recognized as a strategic resource. Customers are increasingly paying attention to the aesthetic, symbolic, and emotional value of products, a value that is conveyed by the design language—that is, the combination of signs (e.g., form, colors, materials) that gives meaning to a product. As a consequence firms are devoting increasing efforts to define a proper strategy for the design language of their products. An empirical analysis was conducted on the product language strategies in the Italian furniture industry; in particular, the present article explores the relationship between innovation and variety of product languages. Companies are usually faced by two major strategic decisions. The first one concerns the innovation of product languages: To what extent should a firm proactively propose new design languages or, rather, should adopt a reactive strategy by rapidly adopting new languages as they emerge in the market? The second decision concerns the variety and heterogeneity of languages in their product range. Should a firm propose a single product language to communicate a precise identity, or should it explore different product languages? Of course, the two strategic decisions—innovativeness and variety of product languages—are closed connected. Analyzing more than 2.000 products launched by 210 firms, the present article explores how the variety of product languages is approached in the strategy of innovators and imitators. The empirical results illustrate an inverse relationship between innovativeness and heterogeneity of product signs and languages. Contrary to what is expected, innovators have lower heterogeneity of product languages. They tend to be strongly proactive and limit experimentations of new languages in the market. Imitators, instead—which would be expected to have low variety since they can invest only in languages that have been proven successful in the market—tend on the contrary to have higher product variety. Eventually, by having lower investments in research on trends of sociocultural models, they miss the capability to interpret the complex evolution of products signs and languages in the market. Strategic decisions on innovativeness and variety of product languages are therefore interrelated; counterintuitively companies should carefully analyze these decisions jointly.     

Successful Product Development after Firm Acquisitions: The Role of Research and Development

A major reason for carrying out a merger and acquisition (M&A) is to gain access to technological knowledge and to increase new product development (NPD) capabilities. To achieve the desired effect of improving a firm's capacity for innovation, this knowledge must be combined with the acquiring firm's existing resources. Previous research, however, has made it clear that M&A transactions tend to disrupt a company's innovation processes, resulting in reduced investment in research and development (R&D) activities as well as a lower innovative output in terms of patents and new products introduced to the market. In this regard, a successful postmerger integration of the firms' R&D units plays a decisive role. Conceptually, this exploratory article distinguishes between the strategic approach to integration and the integration instruments or measures to be employed within the approach. Whereas the former sets the general strategic direction of the integration or, in other words, establishes some kind of acquisition posture, the latter describe the relevant fields or dimensions to be addressed during integration. These integration strategies and instruments are subsequently investigated in a sample of 35 M&A transactions. It is shown that companies typically revert to three distinct integration strategies, depending on the need for strategic interdependence and organizational autonomy: symbiosis, absorption, and adjustment. Together with the integration instruments that relate to structural linking, process redesign, systems standardization, and culture building, the integration strategies are analyzed using seemingly unrelated regression models. It turns out that technological success and, hence, NPD capabilities benefit most from a symbiosis and an absorption strategy. Apparently, only wide‐ranging reorganization efforts in R&D focussing on common structures, processes, and systems can fully realize the benefits from a combination of resources. To achieve economic success or high integration quality, an adjustment strategy appears to be the best choice as reorganization efforts are rather limited. With respect to the integration instruments, the research shows that the structural linking exhibits a great impact on technological and economic success but no effect on integration quality. Obviously, common structural patterns and interlinked structures within the R&D units have a positive effect in that they facilitate better collaboration and research outcomes. A common organizational structure hence serves as a basis for realizing innovative resource combinations and streamlining the NPD process. A standardization of systems exhibits strong positive links with all success variables. Apparently, a consistent unification, offering orientation and comparability, is of high importance to achieve the best possible implementation of the integration and to foster innovative capabilities. Significant effects of culture building can be substantiated for economic success. Moreover, there tends to be a positive effect on integration quality. This underpins the importance of measures to encourage the build‐up of a common corporate culture. To sum up, the research provides a couple of insights on how to strengthen NPD capabilities following a merger.     

Innovation Performance in New Product Development Teams in China's Technology Ventures: The Role of Behavioral Integration Dimensions and Collective Efficacy

In emerging markets, technology ventures increasingly rely on new product development (NPD) teams to generate creative ideas and to mold these innovative ideas into streams of new products or services. However, little is known about how behavioral integration (a behavioral team process) and collective efficacy (a motivational team process) jointly facilitate or inhibit team innovation performance in emerging markets—especially in China, the world's largest emerging‐market setting with collectivist and high power distance cultures. Drawing on social cognitive theory and behavioral integration research, this article elucidates the relationships between behavioral integration dimensions (i.e., collaborative behavior, information exchange, and joint decision‐making) and innovation performance and also examines how collective efficacy moderates these relationships in China's NPD teams. Results from a sample of 96 NPD teams in China's technology ventures reveal that information exchange is positively associated with innovation performance. Collaborative behavior positively but marginally influences innovation performance, whereas joint decision‐making does not relate to innovation performance. Moreover, collective efficacy demonstrates an important moderating role. Specifically, both collaborative behavior and joint decision‐making are more positively associated with innovation performance when collective efficacy is higher. In contrast, information exchange is less positively associated with innovation performance when collective efficacy is higher. This study makes important theoretical contributions to the literature on team innovation and behavioral integration in emerging markets by offering a better understanding of how behavioral and motivational team processes jointly shape innovation performance in China's NPD teams. This study also extends social cognitive theory by identifying collective efficacy as a boundary condition for the overall effectiveness of behavioral integration dimensions. In particular, this study highlights the condition under which behavioral integration dimensions facilitate or inhibit NPD team innovation performance in China.     

Sustainability,Social Media Driven Open Innovation,and New Product Development Performance*

Sustainability and social media use in open innovation play important roles in a firm's new product development (NPD) process. This research examines, in conjunction, the roles of sustainability and social media driven inbound open innovation (SMOI) for a firm's NPD performance, and further, takes a more refined approach by differentiating between different types of SMOI activities. To this end, this research develops and tests a conceptual framework, which predicts that (1) a firm's sustainability orientation (SO) is positively associated with its NPD performance, (2) customer focus (CF) partially mediates the SO–NPD performance link, and (3) particular SMOI activities moderate the CF–NPD performance link. The empirical results, using data from the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA)'s comparative performance assessment study, provide support for most of the framework. Notably, this research documents a positive link between SO and NPD performance, as well as a partial mediating role of CF. The results further suggest that social media driven open innovation activities focused on gathering market insights enhance CF directly, while social media driven open innovation activities that garner technical expertise enhance the link between CF and NPD performance. This paper bridges the separate literatures on sustainability and open innovation, and contributes to the NPD research. The findings suggest that managers should take a strategic approach to sustainability and embed it in the NPD process. Furthermore, managers should manage social media based open innovation carefully to fully benefit the firm during the front end and back end of NPD.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

Continuity,Change, and New Product Performance: The Role of Stream Concentration*

Product development teams often face the challenge of designing radically new products that cater at the same time to the revealed tastes and expectations of existing customers. In new product development projects, this tension guides critical choices about continuity or change concerning product attributes and team composition. Research suggests these choices interact, but it is not clear whether they are complements or substitutes and if the level of change in one should match or not the level of change in the other. In this article, we examine the interaction between product attribute change, team change, and a new team-level factor, which we term stream concentration, as it captures differences among team members in terms of familiarity with the knowledge domain of the new product being developed. We measure stream concentration as team members’ prior NPD experience within a given set of products and assess its impacts on the management of change in new product development projects using longitudinal data from the music industry. We analyze 2621 new product development projects between 1962 and 2008 involving 34,265 distinct team members. Results show that stream concentration is a critical factor in new product development projects that, together with product attributes and team composition, affects new product performance. We discuss implications for research and practice.     

Product Development and Learning in Project Teams: The Challenges Are the Benefits*

The value of teams in new product development (NPD) is undeniable. Both the interdisciplinary nature of the work and industry trends necessitate that professionals from different functions work together on development projects to create the highest‐quality product in the shortest time. Understanding the conditions that facilitate teamwork has been a pursuit of researchers for nearly a half century. The present paper reviews existing literature on teams and team learning in organizational behavior and technology and innovation to offer insights for research on NPD teams. Building on prior work, the organizational benefits of NPD teams are summarized, and five attributes of these teams are identified that hinder attainment of their potential: (1) project complexity; (2) cross‐functionality; (3) temporary membership; (4) fluid team boundaries; and (5) embeddedness in organizational structures. It is argued here that effective management of these five attributes allows not only organization‐level benefits but also team‐level benefits in the form of new capabilities and team member resilience. The critical roles of leadership and of communication and conflict management training are then highlighted as strategies for overcoming the challenges to team effectiveness in NPD as well as for realizing five team benefits: (1) project management skills; (2) broad perspective; (3) teaming skills; (4) expanded social network; and (5) boundary‐spanning skills. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of these ideas for conducting future team research.     

First among Equals: The Effect of Team Leader Characteristics on the Internal Dynamics of Cross‐Functional Product Development Teams*

Drawing on the path‐goal theory of leadership, the present study examines the effect of team leader characteristics on an array of conflict resolution behavior, collaboration, and communication patterns of cross‐functional new product development (NPD) teams. A hierarchical linear model analysis based on a survey of 246 members from 64 NPD teams suggests that participative management style and initiation of goal structure by the team leader exert the strongest influence on internal team dynamics. Both these leadership characteristics had a positive effect on functional conflict resolution, collaboration, and communication quality within the NPD team while discouraging dysfunctional conflict resolution and formal communications. Comparatively, team leader's consideration, initiation of process structure, and position had a surprisingly weak effect on internal team dynamics. Further, the findings underscore the differential effects on various dimensions of team dynamics, the importance of controlling for project and team characteristics, and the use of multilevel modeling for studying nested phenomena related to NPD teams. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

The Valley of Death as Context for Role Theory in Product Innovation

The purpose of this paper is to define and explain the front end of product innovation as a discrete segment of development between research and product development. The Valley of Death is used as a metaphor to describe the relative lack of resources and expertise in this area of development. The metaphor suggests that there are relative more resources on one side of the valley in the form of research expertise and on the other side by commercialization expertise and resources. Within this valley a set of interlocking roles are examined that move projects from one side to the other. The empirical methodology used in this study gathered data from 272 Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) members with extensive experience in the front end of product development using a Web‐based survey instrument. Extensive pretests with experienced practitioners were conducted to develop the instrument. Results indicate that significant development takes place before projects enter into a firm's formal product development process. The data also support the roles of champion, sponsor, and gatekeeper as major actors that work together to develop and promote projects for introduction into the formal process. Champions make the organization aware of opportunities by conceptualizing the idea and preparing business cases. Sponsors support the development of promising ideas by providing resources to demonstrate the project's viability. Gatekeepers set criteria and make acceptance decisions. The data also reveal a dynamic interdependence between role players. It is concluded that the Valley of Death is a productive tool for identifying and understanding a critical area of development that has not been adequately addressed. This research finds a dynamic interplay between roles to accomplish tasks that are not well understood in practice or the literature. The implications of this research are far‐ranging. It suggests that companies must understand the challenges in the valley, must develop the skills, and must make resources available to master the front end of product innovation. Recognizing roles, providing resources, and establishing expectations and accountability in this area of development become manageable in light of these results. Theoretically, this research informs role theory of a dynamic set of relationships previously treated as static. It also empirically investigates an area of product development where there is limited data. This paper opens profitable inquiries by focusing on an area of development not adequately researched yet drives the activities and investment made in subsequent steps of product development.     

The Transformation of the Innovation Process: How Digital Tools are Changing Work,Collaboration, and Organizations in New Product Development*

Over the past several decades, digitization has invaded all areas of human activity, including innovation. The result of digitization of existing tools for design and collaboration, and the introduction of entirely new digital tools, is a far more substantive change of innovation than previous generations of tools enabled. It affects not only the quality of the output and speed of its generation, but it affects the innovation work itself, changes work content, collaboration patterns, decision authority, organizational set‐ups, governance structures, firm boundaries, and ultimately entire ecosystems. In this paper, the digitization of New Product Development (NPD), a subset of innovation, is studied to pursue two research questions: (1) How has the digital tool landscape in NPD changed over the past 15 years, and (2) how have these changes affected how firms innovate? This research uses a longitudinal multi‐method, qualitative approach to deep dive into actual use cases of digital design tools such as computer‐aided design CAD and new tools such as collaborative information technology (CIT). The changes in these tools and observations into how these tools are transforming the very nature of how things are designed is the research focus of this study. These tools have become increasingly more sophisticated while being easier to use and are integrated earlier in the design process. As a result, digital tools have a far broader reaching impact than previous generation of tools. Not only do they affect output and process efficiency, but they also increase depth and breadth of the work of individual innovators, they lead to rearrangement of the entire innovation processes, enable new configurations of people, teams, and firms, and rewrite the rules on how knowledge management acts as a critical competitive capability. The progression of digitization is laying the groundwork for changes to what firms are and do and points to different ways of organizing, specializing, and training for NPD professionals.     

Company Competencies as a Network: The Role of Product Development

Product development managers and academics like to assure themselves and each other that new product development is one of the most critical areas of company competence and contributes positively to company success. But does top management agree? Because if they do not, the consequences will heavily influence the resource allocation to product development and career possibilities of new product developments manager. This study examines how top managers view the importance of product development relative to other central competence areas. Although asking managers about their perception is one way of evaluating the importance, its contribution to company success is another important measure. In this study, the impact of product development, relative to other important competence areas, is measured to assess further how critical product development is for overall company success.The authors investigate these matters in a survey of top managers in 513 Danish production companies. Ten areas important for achieving company objectives are identified. These are product development, market intelligence, production management, strategy and vision, sales, market responsiveness, promotion, internal co-operation, image, and supply management. Product development is rated a fairly important competence as it ranks number four, with sales, market responsiveness, and production management ranking numbers one to three. Yet a distressing negative impact on overall company success is found for product development proficiency, whereas success is positively related to production management, image, and differentiation of products. Further analysis reveals that product development contributes positively to success by enabling product differentiation and enhancing promotion proficiency. Influenced by and influencing many other competencies, product development is found to be a central competence.Results support a nonfunctional and broad perspective of how bundles of competences interact and impact on success and establish a positive overall contribution to product development.