Ambidextrous Idea Generation—Antecedents and Outcomes*

Ambidexterity, defined as the capability to develop both incremental and radical innovations, is an important driver of firm success. Idea generation is an essential starting point for both types of innovation. Therefore, this study investigates whether ambidextrous idea generation, defined as the capability to actively generate both incremental and radical ideas, affects new product development (NPD) success. Analyses on the Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS) data, which includes data from 453 companies distributed over 24 countries, demonstrate that ambidextrous idea generation does indeed affect NPD program success. Consequently, this study also investigates which antecedents foster ambidextrous idea generation. The innovation paradox concept predicts that achieving ambidexterity requires overcoming paradoxical antecedents. Therefore, we tested whether combinations of financial and breakthrough orientations (the paradox of strategic emphasis), a formal innovation process and an innovation culture (the paradox of innovation drivers), tight and loose customer coupling (the paradox of customer orientation), and internal development and external collaboration (the paradox of openness) affects ambidextrous idea generation. The results show that only customer orientation and openness have the expected inverted u‐shaped effect. These finding are in line with construal level theory, which predicts that the organizational characteristics that influence idea‐generation activity must be at the same construal level to have the desired effect. The contribution of this study is twofold. First, the analyses indicate that ambidextrous idea generation has significant repercussions for the entire NPD program. Second, the results show that resolving innovation paradoxes only has an effect if the construal level of the paradox and the activity match. This finding indicates an important boundary condition for the innovation paradox concept.     

PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study*

Since 1990, the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) has sponsored best practice research projects to identify trends in new product development (NPD) management practices and to discern which practices are associated with higher degrees of success. The objective of this ongoing research is to assist managers in determining how to improve their own product development methods and practices. This paper presents results, recommendations, and implications for NPD practice stemming from PDMA's third best practices study, which was conducted in 2003. In the eight years since the previous best practices study was conducted, firms have become slightly more conservative in the portfolio of projects, with lower percentages of the total number of projects in the new‐to‐the‐world and new‐to‐the‐firm categories. Although success rates and development efficiencies have remained stable, this more conservative approach to NPD seems to have negatively impacted the sales and profits impact of the new products that have been commercialized. As formal processes for NPD are now the norm, attention is moving to managing the multiple projects across the portfolio in a more orchestrated manner. Finally, firms are implementing a wide variety of software support tools for various aspects of NPD. NPD areas still seriously in need of improved management include idea management, project leadership and training, cross‐functional training and team communication support, and innovation support and leadership by management. In terms of aspects of NPD management that differentiate the “best from the rest,” the findings indicate that the best firms emphasize and integrate their innovation strategy across all the levels of the firm, better support their people and team communications, conduct extensive experimentation, and use numerous kinds of new methods and techniques to support NPD. All companies appear to continue to struggle with the recording of ideas and making them readily available to others in the organization, even the best. What remains unclear is whether there is a preferable approach for organizing the NPD endeavor, as no one organizational approach distinguished top NPD performers.     

Managing strategic intellectual property assets in the fuzzy front end of new product development process

The strategic use of intellectual property (IP) is crucial for technology-based companies to gain competitive advantage. The recent transformation of the US patent system brings new challenges and opportunities in this arena. In this regard, this study attempts to identify techniques which can help with IP evaluation and selection in the fuzzy front end (FFE) of new product development (NPD) process. This study combines data collection methods such as mining the literature, conducting in-depth interviews, surveying questionnaires, and analyzing cases. This research serves as an analysis of modern literature and identifies a multicriteria weighted scoring model that can be employed to help with the patent decision process. The criterion to discern patent eligibility is a contended discussion. For this survey administration, 300 companies, as the targeted sample, were randomly selected to be reached from LexisNexis database. Consequently, this paper identifies the key decision criteria to incorporate into this model and obtains weights gathered from surveying IP professionals and R&D managers in US-based electronics manufacturing firms (SIC code: 36). This study proposes a structured approach to identify ideas that should be patented in the FFE of NPD process by way of an analysis of pertaining literature and case studies. The technique we present in this paper could be essential for many firms to achieve IP success as their strategic means. Moreover, this tool can help R&D managers not only speed up the FFE of NPD process but also make more informed and target-worthy decisions for IP filing.     

PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices

Product development professionals may have the feeling that yet another buzzword or magic bullet always lurks just around the corner. However, researchers have devoted considerable effort to helping practioners determine which tools, techniques, and methods really do offer a competitive edge. Starting 30 years ago, research efforts have aimed at understanding NPD practices and identifying those which are deemed “best practices.” During the past five years, pursuit of this goal has produced numerous privately available reports and two research efforts sponsored by the PDMA. Abbie Griffin summarizes the results of research efforts undertaken during the past five years and presents findings from the most recent PDMA survey on NPD best practices. This survey, conducted slightly more than five years after PDMA's first best-practices survey, updates trends in processes, organizations, and outcomes for NPD in the U.S., and determines which practices are more commonly associated with firms that are more successsful in developing new products. The survey has the following objectives: determining the current status of NPD practices and performance; understanding how product development has changed from five years ago; determining whether NPD practice and performance differ across industry segments; and, investigating process and product development tools that differentiate product development success. The survey findings indicate that NPD processes continue to evolve and become more sophisticated. NPD changes continually on multiple fronts, and firms that fail to keep their NPD practices up to date will suffer an increasingly marked competitive disadvantage. Interestingly, although more than half of the respondents use a cross-functional stage-gate process for NPD, more than one-third of all firms in the study still use no formal process for managing NPD. The findings suggest that firms are not adequately handling the issue of team-based rewards. Project-completion dinners are for the most frequently used NPD reward; they are also the only reward used more by best-practice firms than by the rest of the respondents. The best-practice firms participating in the study do not use financial rewards for NPD. Compared to the other firms in the study, best-practice firms use more multifunctional teams, are more likely to measure NPD processes and outcomes, and expect more from their NPD programs.     

Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues

Despite differences in definitions, researchers understand that radical innovation within an organization is very different from incremental innovation , and and that it is critical to the long-term success of firms. Unfortunately, research has also shown that it is often difficult to get support for radical projects in large firms [14], where internal cultures and pressures often push efforts toward more low risk, immediate reward, incremental projects. Interestingly, we know considerably less about the effective management of the product development process in the radical than in an incremental context. The purpose of this study is to explore the process of radical new product development from a strategic perspective, and to outline key observations and challenges that managers face as they move these projects to market. The findings presented here represent the results of a longitudinal (since 1995), multidisciplinary study of radical innovation projects. A multiple case study design was used to explore the similarities and differences in management practices applied to twelve radical innovation projects in ten large, established North American firms. The findings are grouped into three high-level strategic themes. The first theme, market scope, discusses the challenges associated with the pursuit of familiar versus unfamiliar markets for radical innovation. The second theme of competency management identifies and discusses strategic challenges that emerge as firms stretch themselves into new and unfamiliar territory. The final theme relates to the people issues that emerge as both individuals and the project teams themselves try to move radical projects forward in organizations that are not necessarily designed to support such uncertainty.A breadth of subtopics emerge within and across this framework relating to such ideas as risk management, product cannibalization, team composition, and the search for a divisional home. Taken together, our observations reinforce the emerging literature that shows that project teams engaging in radical innovation encounter a much different set of challenges than those typically faced by NPD teams engaged in incremental innovation.     

Serial Innovators' processes: How they overcome barriers to creating radical innovations

Formal new product development processes typically are depicted in the literature as linear processes having some number of stages, each of which is completed by a cross-functional team. At the end of each stage a management committee makes a decision as to whether the project will proceed to the next stage, be stopped, or recycle through the previous stage to better complete some of the tasks or steps in the stage. Teams proceed stage by stage, until the product is launched into the market.However, this formal process typically is positioned as occurring after the “fuzzy front end” (FFE), the chaotic, messy up-front part of new product development before there is a solidified concept. Because incremental, evolutionary innovations go through an abbreviated FFE, or even have none at all, these formal processes work quite well for them. However, radical innovations typically have very messy, chaotic and fuzzy front ends, which are not helped by these formal processes. Formal product development processes may actually act as a barrier to radical innovation. Very little research to date has investigated processes that overcome the barriers to radical innovation and allow firms to successfully bring radical innovations to market.This research investigates the product development processes used by 19 Serial Innovators—individuals in large, mature firms who have been associated with one after another radical innovation success. We find that Serial Innovators' processes have four specific features that enable them to overcome organizational barriers and allow them to create and successfully commercialize radical innovations. Serial Innovators' processes:

• •are not at all linear in nature;
• •focus significant time and effort on the fuzzy front end;
• •explicitly manage the transition from the fuzzy front end tasks and outputs (a proposed solution to a problem) to the more formal and institutionalized development process; and
• •proactively work to create market acceptance.

     

The Breakfast of Champions: Associations Between Champions and Product Development Environments, Practices and Performance

According to conventional wisdom, if an innovative new product development (NPD) effort is to stand any chance for success, the project must have a champion. The role of the champion has taken on almost mythic proportions, through oft-told tales of the development of such disparate products as instant cameras, automobiles, and microprocessors. Notwithstanding the purportedly essential role that champions play, however, we have only anecdotal evidence of the manner in which effective champions operate and the benefits that they offer. Stephen K. Markham and Abbie Griffin suggest that before we can explore questions about how champions affect product development performance, we must address an even more fundamental issue: whether champions actually influence performance. Using data from the 1995 PDMA study of best practices in product development, they test various widely held assumptions about champions and NDP performance. Specifically, they investigate the association between championing and the following variables: NPD performance at the program, firm, and project levels; industry characteristics; and project- and firm-related NPD characteristics. In several respects, the results of their study run counter to current beliefs about product development champions. For example, the study suggests that champions are just as likely to be found in large firms as they are in small firms. Similarly, the results indicate that the likelihood of finding a champion does not differ significantly between technology-driven firms and marketing-driven firms. For the firms in this study, champions are no more likely to support radical innovations than they are to back incremental innovations or product line extensions. The results of the study suggest that champions do not directly affect firm-level NPD performance. Instead, the results of this study associate increased championing with higher levels of NPD program performance, which positively affects firm-level performance. The results of this study also do not support the notion that a champion can directly improve the market success of a particular project.     

Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products

Does the development of really new products require a different approach from that of incremental new products? Current research and management practice seem to suggest that any successful new product development (NPD) process comprises a set of key activities, regardless of a product's innovativeness. It seems almost foolhardy to suggest that NPD could proceed without proficiency in all of the following tasks: strategic planning, idea development and screening, business and market opportunity analysis, technical development, product testing, and product commercialization. Suggesting that the difference may be in the details, X. Michael Song and Mitzi Montoya-Weiss present the results of a study that examines the development of 163 really new products and 169 incremental new products. The study's objective is to compare the NPD processes and performance outcomes of really new and incremental products. In other words, the study examines the interplay between a product's innovativeness, the NPD process, and the product's performance in the marketplace. For the firms in the study, four sets of NPD activities—strategic planning, market analysis, technical development, and product commercialization—are key determinants of new product success for both really new products and incremental products. However, strategic planning and business and market opportunity analysis activities play contrasting roles for the two types of products. Working to improve proficiency in business and market opportunity analysis may be counterproductive for really new products, but it can increase the profitability of incremental products. Conversely, improving the proficiency of strategic planning activities has a positive effect on the profitability of the really new products, but it has a negative effect for the incremental products. Overall, the really new products in the study surpass the incremental products in meeting profit objectives. Comparing current practice to best practice, the firms in the study have room for improvement. For both really new and incremental products, the firms in the study do not place sufficient emphasis on product commercialization activities. The participants also need to reassess the relative emphasis they place on strategic planning activities. The projects involving really new products do not place sufficient emphasis on strategic planning, while the incremental projects exhibit a relatively high level of proficiency in this area—exactly the opposite of the order that this study recommends.     

New Product Development Practices and Early‐Stage Firms: Two In‐Depth Case Studies

New product development practices (NPD) have been well studied for decades in large, established companies. Implementation of best practices such as predevelopment market planning and cross‐functional teams have been positively correlated with product and project success over a variety of measures. However, for small new ventures, field research into ground‐level adoption of NPD practices is lacking. Because of the risks associated with missteps in new product development and the potential for firm failure, understanding NPD within the new venture context is critical. Through in‐depth case research, this paper investigates two successful physical product‐based early‐stage firms' development processes versus large established firm norms. The research focuses on the start‐up adoption of commonly prescribed management processes to improve NPD, such as cross‐functional teams, use of market planning during innovation development, and the use of structured processes to guide the development team. This research has several theoretical implications. The first finding is that in comparing the innovation processes of these firms to large, established firms, the study found several key differences from the large firm paradigm. These differences in development approach from what is prescribed for large, established firms are driven by necessity from a scarcity of resources. These new firms simply did not have the resources (financial or human) to create multi‐ or cross‐functional teams or organizations in the traditional sense for their first product. Use of virtual resources was pervasive. Founders also played multiple roles concurrently in the organization, as opposed to relying on functional departments so common in large firms. The NPD process used by both firms was informal—much more skeletal than commonly recommended structured processes. The data indicated that these firms put less focus on managing the process and more emphasis on managing their goals (the main driver being getting the first product to market). In addition to little or no written procedures being used, development meetings did not run to specific paper‐based deliverables or defined steps. In terms of market and user insight, these activities were primarily performed inside the core team—using methods that again were distinctive in their approach. What drove a project to completion was relying on team experience or a “learn as you go approach.” Again, the driver for this type of truncated market research approach was a lack of resources and need to increase the project's speed‐to‐market. Both firms in our study were highly successful, from not only an NPD efficiency standpoint but also effectiveness. The second broad finding we draw from this work is that there are lessons to be learned from start‐ups for large, established firms seeking ever‐increasing efficiency. We have found that small empowered teams leading projects substantial in scope can be extremely effective when roles are expanded, decision power is ground‐level, and there is little emphasis on defined processes. This exploratory research highlights the unique aspects of NPD within small early‐stage firms, and highlights areas of further research and management implications for both small new ventures and large established firms seeking to increase NPD efficiency and effectiveness.     

Connecting Interfirm and Intrafirm Collaboration in NPD Projects: Does Innovation Context Matter?

Interfirm collaboration is an important strategy for firms to generate new products and services. Whereas existing research emphasizes the importance of interfirm collaboration engagement to realize synergistic benefits in interfirm NPD projects, it remains surprisingly silent on the potential impact of intrafirm relational processes and how they can impact the interfirm setting. In this article, we therefore explore the impact of intrafirm collaboration engagement on the relationship between interfirm collaboration engagement and new product development (NPD) performance in interfirm NPD projects. Relying on insights from information processing theory, the authors hypothesize that intrafirm collaboration engagement increases firms' capacity to process complex information flows in the case of extensive interfirm collaboration engagement. Moreover, it is expect that the added value of extensive intrafirm collaboration engagement depends on the innovation objective (i.e., incremental versus radical new product development) of the interfirm NPD project. In particular, we hypothesize that the positive moderating impact of intrafirm collaboration engagement on the relationship between interfirm collaboration engagement and NPD performance is stronger for radical interfirm projects than incremental interfirm projects. Analyzing 195 interfirm NPD projects, a negative interaction effect between interfirm and intrafirm collaboration engagement is observed in radical interfirm NPD projects, whereas significant interactions between them remain absent in incremental interfirm NPD projects. Jointly, these findings provide first evidence that intrafirm relational processes can substantially impact partners' ability to realize relational rents in interfirm settings. Moreover, the negative interaction effect between interfirm and intrafirm collaboration engagement points to potential trade‐offs between inward‐looking and outward‐looking absorptive capacity.     

The eye of the beholder: The influence of intuition,rationality, and leeway on the assessment of an Idea's market-creation potential

Paradoxically, mature firms facing competition in mature markets attempt to enter new markets, yet often pursue incremental ideas in their new product development process (NPD), abandoning ideas with market-creating potential in the idea evaluation phase at the fuzzy front end of NPD. We assume that idea evaluators' information-processing style (rational or intuitive) plays a dominant role in this context. Previous research has shown that the holistic information-processing style of intuitive individuals helps them with tasks that involve generating creative ideas, and we expect it to also be beneficial during idea evaluation for sensing an idea's potential to create new markets. In addition, we predict that the systematic procedure to be followed in formalized NPD idea evaluation will stifle this ability. Drawing on data from 138 corporate idea evaluators, we show that evaluators with an intuitive cognitive style are more likely to emphasize new market creation than those with a rational style, and that leeway serves as a moderator. By linking information-processing style and leeway we provide a potential explanation for why highly formalized organizations find it difficult to develop innovations with a high market-creation potential, and we discuss the practical implications of this.     

Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining Entrepreneurial Effectuation and Managerial Causation

This article reports a multimethod study of product innovation processes in small manufacturing firms. Prior studies found that small firms do not deploy the formalized processes identified as best practice for the management of new product development (NPD) in large firms. To explicate small firms' product innovation, this study uses effectuation theory, which emerged from entrepreneurship research. Effectuation theory discerns two logics of decision‐making: causation, assuming that means are selected to attain goals; and effectuation, assuming that goals are created based upon available means. The study used a process research approach, investigating product innovation trajectories in five small firms across 352 total events. Quantitative analyses revealed early effectuation logic, which increasingly turned toward causation logic over time. Further qualitative analyses confirmed the use of both logics, with effectual logic rendering product innovation resource‐driven, stepwise, and open‐ended, and with causal logic used especially in later stages to set objectives and to plan activities and invest resources to attain objectives. Because the application of effectuation logic differentiates the small firm approaches from mainstream NPD best practices, this study examined how small firms' product innovation processes deployed effectuation logic in further detail. The small firms: (1) made creative use of existing resources; (2) scoped innovations to be realizable with available resources; (3) used external resources whenever and wherever these became available; (4) prioritized existing business over product innovation projects; (5) used loose project planning; (6) worked in steps toward tangible outcomes; (7) iterated the generation, selection, and modification of goals and ideas; and (8) relied on their own customer knowledge and market probing, rather than early market research. Using effectuation theory thus helps us understand how small firm product innovation both resembles and differs from NPD best practices observed in larger firms. Because the combination of effectual and causal principles leverages small firm characteristics and resources, this article concludes that product innovation research should more explicitly differentiate between firms of different sizes, rather than prescribing large firm best practices to small firms.     

The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success*

The relationship and network literature has primarily focused on particular partner types, for example, buyer–supplier relationships or competitor interaction. This article explores the nature and relative importance of different types of interfirm relationships for new product development (NPD) success. The underlying premise of the study is that not only the type of interfirm relationships but also the combination of relationships are important for NPD performance. The interaction with a specific type of partner is expected to influence innovative performance by means of appropriate knowledge transfer. Varying needs for external knowledge, and thus types of relationships, are observed depending on the particular stages in the NPD process, the character of the knowledge base of the firm, and the industrial conditions. The absorption of external knowledge is discussed using the degree of redundancy in knowledge, which is defined as the degree of overlap in the knowledge base of the sender and the recipient of knowledge. Hence, the degree of redundancy has direct implications for the ease and, hence, use of knowledge shared with an external partner. The article is based on data from the Know for Innovation survey on innovative activities among European firms, which was carried out in 2000 in seven European countries covering five industries. The article explores the extent of use of external relationships in collaborative product development and finds that customers are involved more frequently in joint development efforts. Second, the industry association of the most important relationship is studied, and the results show that firms tend to partner with firms from their own industry. The danger in this approach is that firms from their own industry tend to contribute similar knowledge, which ultimately may endanger the creation of new knowledge and therefore more radical product developments. The analyses combine the finding that relationships with customers are used most frequently at both early and late stages of the product development process, with a second and more contradictory finding that at the same time customer relationships have a negative impact on innovative success. Moreover, the combination of customers, with both universities and competitors, has a significant negative effect on innovative performance. The potential causes of this apparent paradox can be narrowed down to two: (1) the average customer may be unable to articulate needs for advanced technology‐based products; and (2) the average customer may be unable to conceptualize ideas beyond the realm of his or her own experience. Based on this evidence the article cautions product development managers to think explicitly about what certain customers can contribute with and, more importantly, to match this contribution directly with their own sense of what direction product development should go in the future. Finally, the role of complementary as well as supplementary knowledge is investigated for innovative success finding that sharing of supplementary knowledge with external partners in NPD leads to a positive effect on innovative performance. The article is concluded by a discussion of the implication of this finding for building knowledge within the firm and for selecting external partners for NPD.     

Factors Affecting New Product Success: Cross-Country Comparisons

Although considerable effort has been devoted to identifying the factors that contribute to new product success and failure, plenty of work remains to be done in this area. For example, many studies of this subject focus on companies in specific parts of the world (in particular, North America, Europe, and Japan). It remains to be seen whether the findings from these studies apply to the new product development (NPD) efforts of companies in other regions, let alone on a global basis. Sanjay Mishra, Dongwook Kim, and Dae Hoon Lee address this issue in a study of the factors that contribute to the success or failure of NPD efforts in South Korean firms. To explore the question of whether a global set of success factors can be identified, they compare their findings with those of similar studies conducted in Canada and China. Classifying these countries in terms of stages of economic development (with China and Canada at opposite extremes and Korea in the middle), they expect to find the greatest dissimilarities in their comparisons of China and Canada. Marketing managers from 144 Korean firms provided in formation about 288 successful and unsuccessful products. Their responses indicate that the factors most closely related to new product outcomes in Korea are market intelligence, product-firm compatibility, the nature of the new product idea (for example, whether the product idea was market derived, whether the product specifications were clearly defined by the marketplace), launch effort, and general characteristics of the new product venture (such as the product's innovativeness to the market and its technical complexity). Several of these factors were emphasized in studies of Canadian and Chinese NPD success, though respondents to those studies also highlighted the importance of the product offering and proficiency of formal NPD activities. Contrary to expectations, China and Canada show the greatest similarity among the three countries studied, in terms of the relative importance of the various NPD success factors. On the other hand, China and Korea are more similar in terms of the effects of the variables studied. In other words, if a variable is related to new product failure in Korea, that variable is most likely also related to failure in China. Although some similarities are evident among all three countries, the findings in this study do not point toward a single, global formula for NPD success.     

Exploring New Product Development Project Review Practices*

Most organizations use new product development (NPD) processes that consist of activities and review points. Activities basically solve problems and gather and produce information about the viability of successfully completing the project. Interspersed between the development activities are review points where project information is reviewed and a decision is made to either go on to the next stage of the process, stop it prior to completion, or hold it until more information is gathered and a better decision can be made. The review points are for controlling risk, prioritizing projects, and allocating resources, and the review team typically is cross‐disciplinary, comprising senior managers from marketing, finance, research and development (R&D), or manufacturing. Over the past four decades, research has greatly advanced knowledge with respect to NPD activities; however, much less is known about review practices. For this reason, the present paper reports findings of a study on NPD project review practices from 425 Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) members. The focus is on three decision points in the NPD process common across organizations (i.e., initial screen, prior to development and testing, and prior to commercialization). In this paper, the number of (1) review points used, (2) review criteria, (3) decision makers on review committees and the proficiency with which various evaluation criteria are used are compared across incremental and radical projects and across functional areas (i.e., marketing, technical, financial). Furthermore, the associations between these NPD review practices and new product performance are examined. Selected results show that more review points are used for radical NPD projects than incremental ones, and this is related to a relatively lower rate of survival for radical projects. The findings also show that the number of criteria used to evaluate NPD projects increases as NPD projects progress and that the number of review team members grows over the stages, too. Surprisingly, the results reveal that more criteria are used to evaluate incremental NPD projects than radical ones. As expected, managers appear to more proficiently use evaluation criteria when making project continuation/termination decisions for incremental projects; they use these criteria less proficiently during the development of radical projects, precisely when proficiency is most critical. At each review point, technical criteria were found to be the most frequently used type for incremental projects, and financial criteria were the most commonly used type for radical ones. Importantly, only review proficiency is significantly associated with performance; the number of review points, review team size, and number of review criteria are not associated with new product performance. Furthermore, only the coefficient for proficiently using marketing criteria was significantly related to new product program performance; the proficiency of using financial and technical information has no association with performance. Finally, across the three focal review points of the NPD process in this study, only the coefficient for proficiency at the first review point, (i.e., the initial screen) is significantly greater than zero. The results are discussed with respect to research and managerial practice, and future research directions are offered.     

Commercial Innovations from Consulting Engineering Firms: An Empirical Exploration of a Novel Source of New Product Ideas

Industrial firms interact with many outside organizations such as the customers, suppliers, competitors, and universities to obtain input for their new product development (NPD) programs. The importance of interfirm interactions is reflected in a large number of interdisciplinary studies reported in a wide variety of literature bases. As a result, several sources of new product ideas have been investigated in the extant literature. Yet given the growing complexity and risks in new product development, there seems to be a need for managers to obtain input from new and unutilized sources. Apparently, one source that industry has not tapped adequately for its NPD efforts is the consulting engineering firms (CEFs). To fill the aforementioned gap in the literature, this article explores the roles and suitability of CEFs in new product development by conducting a rigorous in‐depth case research of new product idea generation in a large Australian firm manufacturing a variety of industrial products. To generate ideas for the sponsoring firm, longitudinal field interviews with 64 managers and engineers from 32 large CEFs were conducted over a one‐and‐one‐half year period. The findings of the field interviews were combined with the documentary evidences and the archival data. This longitudinal data collection enabled the author to generate new product ideas over real time and to gain access to the information that otherwise might have been difficult to obtain. The results suggest that CEFs are a rich source of new product ideas of potential commercial value. However, industry is making little use of CEFs, which underscores the need for industrial firms to collaborate and to establish an effective idea transfer relationship with them. Moreover, the services of CEFs are not restricted to idea generation but can stretch across the entire NPD process. These findings of the study encourage product managers to conceptualize NPD as a highly synergistic mutually interdependent process between CEFs and industrial firms rather than simply an arm's‐length consulting transactions. Given the dearth of research on idea generation with CEFs, this study highlights the findings that are novel and that go beyond the techniques of new product idea generation established in the extant literature.     

Differentiating Major and Incremental New Product Development: The Effects of Functional and Numerical Workforce Flexibility*

This study seeks to explain the differential effects of workforce flexibility on incremental and major new product development (NPD). Drawing on the resource‐based theory of the firm, human resource management research, and innovation management literature, the authors distinguish two types of workforce flexibility, functional and numerical, and hypothesize differential effects on NPD outcomes. A large‐scale sample of 284 Dutch firms across various manufacturing goods and business services industries serves to test these hypotheses. The results suggest that functional flexibility positively influences incremental NPD only, internal numerical flexibility negatively influences incremental NPD only, and external numerical flexibility positively influences major NPD only. Thus, differences between major and incremental NPD are grounded in the human resource flexibility of the firm. This complements research that found that such differences lie in critical development activities, learning processes, and capabilities. It also complements product innovation research on flexibility in NPD processes and on flexibility in organizational structures and routines. It extends the resource‐based theory of the firm suggesting that human resource flexibility is part of the dynamic capabilities that allow firms to reconfigure existing competencies. The conclusions imply that managers of manufacturing and service firms may use training and education and create a functional flexible workforce that can progressively enhance incremental NPD outcomes. They may want to avoid paying overtime, because such internal numerical flexibility hampers incremental NPD, but use fixed‐term contracts to expand external numerical flexibility to enhance major NPD.     

New Product Strategy, Structure, Process, and Performance in the Telecommunications Industry

A continuous flow of new products is the lifeblood for firms that hope to remain competitive in high-technology industries such as telecommunications. Faced with rapidly shrinking product life cycles, these firms must aggressively pursue the quest for more effective new product development (NPD). Ongoing success in such industries is dependent on choosing the right mix of new product strategy, organizational structure, and NPD processes. Rather than considering the interrelationships among these success factors, however, most previous studies of NPD have examined these issues individually. This shortcoming is compounded by the fact that past studies of NPD have typically cut across industry lines. Gloria Barczak addresses these problems by proposing that a firm's choice of new product strategy, structure, and process are interrelated, as are the effects of those choices on NPD performance. Because these choices and their effects also may be dependent on the unique characteristics of the industry in which a firm competes, her study focuses exclusively on firms in a specific, high-technology industry, telecommunications. The study finds that no single NPD strategy, in and of itself, stands out as being better than any other for the telecommunications industry. Instead, it appears that a company's focus should be on ensuring the best possible fit between its chosen NPD strategy and its corporate goals and capabilities. In keeping with the current focus on cross-functional teams, the study results indicate that project teams and R&D teams are the most effective means for organizing NPD efforts in the telecommunications industry. Perhaps not surprisingly, R&D teams are more important for first-to-market firms than they are for fast followers and late entrants. An R&D team provides the technical skills necessary for playing the role of pioneer. Regardless of the firm's NPD strategy and structure, the presence of a product champion is an important element in the success of new product efforts. In an era of rapid, technological advances, idea generation and screening efforts are essential to the success of telecommunications firms. To ensure that they do not fall into the trap of introducing technology for technology's sake, pioneering and fast-follower firms in particular must recognize the importance of staying in touch with their markets. Such market-oriented activities as customer prototype testing and concept definition and testing can help these firms ensure that their technological developments are in line with customer needs and requirements.     

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.