Performance typologies of new product projects

New product success is a vital but elusive goal for many firms. The last two decades have witnessed numerous studies into new product successes and failures in an attempt to uncover what makes a winner. Indeed, myriad characteristics, factors, and practices have been found that appear to discriminate between successful and unsuccessful new products.With few exceptions, much of this research has tended to view new product performance on a unidimensional continuum, usually financial performance (e.g., profitability). Whereas immediate profitability is no doubt an admirable goal, there are other ways of looking at a new product's performance—for example, degree of technical success, time-to-market, and its overall impact on the company.The current investigation takes a broader view of new product success. A number of measures of new product performance were captured, rather than just the single measure continuum; this resulted in a performance map with two major and quite independent underlying dimensions of performance. A typology of performance was then developed—a classification of new product projects by how well they performed: five scenarios or clusters of projects are identified on this map, each with its unique performance characteristics. We then investigate in detail each project type and probe what drives the performances of these five different clusters of projects: that is, what makes for new product success of these five project types, when success is measured in different ways. The study was undertaken in world class multinationals in the chemical industry in four countries, but its results appear to have validity across a broad spectrum of industry.     

The Moderating Effect of Environmental Uncertainty on New Product Development and Time Efficiency*

This empirical study examines the influence of environmental uncertainty on industrial product innovation. The present study addresses what is believed to be a shortcoming in the new product development literature and explores potential effects of environmental uncertainty on the development process, project organization, and on project timeliness with a sample of development projects in two countries, Canada and Australia. When looking at the combined sample of 182 completed projects, this study finds that the perceived market‐related project environment has a direct and positive impact on time efficiency. Further, this research finds that a higher degree of technological uncertainty moderates the relationship between development process, project organization and time efficiency. Consequently, innovating companies may benefit by adapting some of their development approaches to different environmental conditions and to varying degrees of uncertainty. However, when examining country‐specific effects, the results change quite significantly. In particular, the findings indicate that environmental uncertainty in the Canadian sample neither directly impacts time efficiency, nor does it have any moderating effect. Instead, technical proficiency in the development process, project team organization, and process compression appear to be viable strategies to increase time‐efficient development. In contrast, the results of the Australian study suggest that perceived market and technological uncertainty impact time efficiency. In particular, under conditions of technological unpredictability, project team organization increases time efficiency, whereas process compression appears to decrease time‐efficient product development. However, process compression seems to be a viable strategy in environments characterized by lower technological uncertainty. The results also point to the importance of disaggregating data when studying product development processes across countries.     

New Product Development Processes and New Product Profitability: Exploring the Mediating Role of Speed to Market and Product Quality

In new product development, faster is not always better. Conceptually, being faster to market should improve financial performance by improving product quality and reducing development expenses. Empirical support is mixed, however, demonstrating that higher speed to market exhibits an inverted U‐shaped relationship with product profitability. Conventional wisdom and empirical research suggest managers make speed to market–product quality–development expense trade‐offs. A particular concern regarding speed to market is that extreme speed may jeopardize product quality. Some researchers suggest that speed to market improves product quality while others suggest firms must balance both speed to market and product quality. Also, shorter lead times may be associated with reduced development expenses, but empirical evidence is conflicting. This research attempts to reconcile conflicting results regarding the speed to market–product quality relationship, their joint impact on product profitability, and their mediation role in the effects of development expenses and cross‐functional integration on product profitability. Partial least squares (PLS) is used to analyze multiplexed archival and survey data collected from NPD managers for 1115 different NPD projects in several firms. The results support the hypothesized equations, explaining 27% of speed to market variance, 35% of product quality variance, and 45% of product profitability variance. This study makes two contributions. First, because speed to market and product quality are related, simultaneous consideration of both factors enhances insight into their joint effect. Second, it provides evidence that speed to market and product quality jointly mediate development expense by NPD phase and cross‐functional integration effects on product profitability. Key results from the large sample data analysis include the following. Speed to market and product quality both enhance product profitability, but the impact of speed to market is larger than that of product quality. Speed to market and product quality partially mediate the impact of fuzzy front end phase expenses on product profitability, while expenses in the latter phases exhibit no impact on the mediators or profitability. Thus, the results suggest that trade‐offs are made not only between time, quality, and expense (i.e., if additional expenses are incurred at all), but also that trade‐offs relate to when (i.e., in which NPD phase) additional development expenses are incurred. Finally, cross‐functional integration (both internal and external) substantially impacts product profitability through a mix of direct and mediated effects.     

Supplier traits for better customer firm innovation performance

Previous research on embedded ties with suppliers in an innovation context has ignored the need for customer firms to assess and select suppliers on the basis of market orientation strategies and relationship marketing attributes. To address this void, this study investigates the effects of suppliers' downstream customer orientation and supplier-customer homophily (i.e., similarity of the supplier and the customer) on the customers' innovation performance. Data pertaining to new product development projects with contributions from supplier firms was collected on both sides of the supplier-customer dyad. The analysis shows that downstream customer orientation and supplier-customer homophily have a significant impact on the customer firms' new product efficiency (i.e., project cost and project speed) and new product effectiveness (i.e., innovativeness), which in turn positively influence new product performance in terms of profitability, market share, and growth.     

Breakeven Time on New Product Launches: An Investigation of the Drivers and Impact on Firm Performance

The ability to break even faster on new product projects is becoming increasingly critical for firms in fast‐moving industries where continually reinvesting in research and development efforts matters greatly for survival. However, most research to date has focused on studying the impact of two primary innovation outcomes: sales and profits. The exclusive emphasis on sales and profit may be warranted for certain types of goods such as durable goods, but when examining the effects of new products in fast‐moving consumer goods or in the entrepreneurial sphere, where cash to cash matters greatly for survival, it is critical for both researchers and practitioners to not only consider the profits and sales generated by the new product but also the time to breakeven. This paper develops a theoretical framework using the competency‐based literature to examine the effects of innovation drivers (customer idea source, speed to market, product quality, and product newness) on breakeven time (BET) and project profits, and their subsequent impact on firm performance. A three‐stage least square estimation method was employed using longitudinal data on 945 new product development projects and launches in the morning (breakfast) foods category. The results clearly pinpoint that for successful product innovation, managers need to consider the time taken to breakeven on new product development. Specifically, the results demonstrate that speed to market and product quality shorten BET, but customer idea source extends BET. Second, the analysis also empirically demonstrates that BET is an equally effective predictor of firm performance as project profits in the short run, but significantly a stronger predictor of firm performance in the long run (t + four years), suggesting that BET should be regarded as a superior leading indicator of firm performance versus product profitability for fast‐moving consumer goods segment. This is an important finding that suggests firms that recoup their cash investments more quickly experience greater short‐term and significantly more long‐term success.     

Customization of Product Technology and International New Product Success: Mediating Effects of New Product Development and Rollout Timeliness

Offering a standardized product for different country markets may enable companies to accomplish fast product development and multicountry rollout, whereas also enjoying substantial cost benefits. However, not all manufacturers serving multicountry markets can adopt a standardized product strategy. Where technological requirements, standards, and approval procedures vary substantially across countries, manufacturers invariably must adapt the product's technology to fit individual country requirements. Extensive customization may lead to longer new product development and rollout times and increase the likelihood of delays in the entire project, hence adversely affecting overall new product outcome. This study examines the relationships between product technology customization, the timeliness in completion of both the new product development effort and international market launches, and new product success. The study that reports on new product launches across European markets, is based on personal interviews with senior managers in 30 multinational companies. The authors show that timeliness in new product development and timeliness in rolling out the new product into different country markets mediate the link between product technology customization and overall new product success. Customization of product technology increases the likelihood of delays in the completion of new product development projects and multicountry rollout. Additionally, the timeliness in new product development mediates the relationship between product technology customization and timeliness in international new product rollout. This means that if the NPD project runs behind schedule, a fault‐free multicountry rollout program becomes increasingly unlikely, as problems encountered during product development spillover into the rollout program. The results imply that international product managers must assign greater priority to assessing the relative advantages of customizing new product technology and to consider the timing implications for both the NPD effort and subsequent rollout. Managers must set realistic schedules and allocate sufficient resources to ensure both tasks can be accomplished within planned time scales. Finally, managers should not underestimate the complexities and time involved in customizing new product technologies, including the completion of disparate country technical approval procedures.     

Benchmarking the Firm's Critical Success Factors in New Product Development

Managing new product development (NPD) is, to a great extent, a process of separating the winners from the losers. At the project level, tough go/no-go decisions must be made throughout each development effort to ensure that resources are being allocated appropriately. At the company level, benchmarking is helpful for identifying the critical success factors that set the most successful firms apart from their competitors. This company- or macro-level analysis also has the potential for uncovering success factors that are not readily apparent through examination of specific projects. To improve our understanding of the company-level drivers of NPD success, Robert Cooper and Elko Kleinschmidt describe the results of a multi-firm benchmarking study. They propose that a company's overall new product performance depends on the following elements: the NPD process and the specific activities within this process; the organization of the NPD program; the firm's NPD strategy; the firm's culture and climate for innovation; and senior management commitment to NPD. Given the multidimensional nature of NPD performance, the study involves 10 performance measures of a company's new product program: success rate, percent of sales, profitability relative to spending, technical success rating, sales impact, profit impact, success in meeting sales objectives, success in meeting profit objectives, profitability relative to competitors, and overall success. The 10 performance metrics are reduced to two underlying dimensions: program profitability and program impact. These performance factors become theX-and Y-ax.es of a performance map, a visual summary of the relative performance of the 135 companies responding to the survey. The performance map further breaks down the respondents into four groups: solid performers, high-impact technical winners, low-impact performers, and dogs. Again, the objective of this analysis is to determine what separates the solid performers from the companies in the other groups. The analysis identifies nine constructs that drive performance. In rank order of their impact on performance, the main performance drivers that separate the solid performers from the dogs are: a high-quality new product process; a clear, well-communicated new product strategy for the company; adequate resources for new products; senior management commitment to new products; an entrepreneurial climate for product innovation; senior management accountability; strategic focus and synergy (i.e., new products close to the firm's existing markets and leveraging existing technologies); high-quality development teams; and cross-functional teams.     

Rolling Out New Products Across Country Markets: An Empirical Study of Causes of Delays

Faced with the challenge of launching a new product into numerous countries, managers may view a sequential rollout as the prudent course of action. Rather than launching the product simultaneously in diverse countries, they may believe they can reduce risk by launching first in one or two countries, and then in others. However, this strategy overlooks the interplay between timeliness in international new product rollouts (INPR) and product success. George M. Chryssochoidis and Veronica Wong explore these issues in a study of 30 high-tech products launched into multiple European markets. Their study has three objectives: examining the incidence of timeliness and delays in simultaneous and sequential INPR; exploring the causes of delays in INPR; and assessing the effects that INPR timeliness and delays have on new product outcomes. They define timeliness in INPR as the availability of the new product to the firm's multiple target markets within the time frame planned by the company's managers. In other words, timeliness in this study reflects a company's capability for adhering to the schedule that management has established. Contrary to expectations, the results of this study do not reveal direct effects on timeliness in INPR from such sources as diversity of target markets or the firm's external environment. These results suggest that firms can achieve on-time, multicountry rollout of new products notwithstanding the legal, technological, and competitive environment. For the firms in this study, timeliness in INPR depends on such factors as sufficiency of marketing and technological resources (for example, to train sales staff, provide after-sales service, and adapt the product for multiple markets), proficiency in executing new product development activities, and effective communication between a company's headquarters and its business units and customers in different countries. Among the 22 product launches categorized as sequential rollouts in this study, 15 experienced delays. All eight of the simultaneous launches were timely. The results of this study indicate a positive relationship between timeliness in INPR and new-product success. Conversely, for the firms in this study, delays in INPR resulted in lower-than-expected product sales and profitability. In other words, the seemingly less risky sequential launch strategy may actually increase the risk of new product failure by delaying product rollout in multiple markets.     

Impact of Strategic Type on Success Measures for Product Development Projects*

Does the strategic type of firm affect which success measures should be used for product development (PD) projects? This paper theorizes that it should and finds that it does because the PD projects undertaken are usually an expression of the strategic type of the firm. The purpose of this research is to affirm a 1996 survey of members of the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) that proposes that firms' PD performance measures should vary by their strategic type. Thus, for example, prospectors, the strategic type most likely to introduce new products to new markets, should place greater importance on PD success measures consistent with their characteristic strategies of changing product lines and early market entry. In contrast, defenders, the strategic type most likely to maintain stable product lines for existing markets, should place greater importance on PD success measures consistent with their characteristic strategies of stable product lines and market penetration. Analyzers, a hybrid type between prospectors and defenders, should prefer measures consistent with their characteristic strategies for improving products and being early followers in newer markets. To relate strategic types to specific success measures for PD projects, this paper proposes a model of the relationship based on the degree of project newness to the firm and then catalogs measures of PD project success and groups them according to degree of project newness. The research findings are based on survey responses from 222 individuals who are employed by financial service providers, who identified their firms by strategic type and rated the importance of PD success measures to their firms. The importance of 21 performance measures is compared by strategic type to find significant differences among prospectors, analyzers, and defenders. This research finds several significant relationships. prospectors, for example, attach greater importance to customer satisfaction, launch timeliness, and product return on investment, all of which may be characterized as relating to a higher degree of project newness to the firm. defenders and analyzers, on the other hand, attach more importance than prospectors to measures of unit volume, cost reduction, and margin goals, all of which relate to a lower degree of project newness to the firm. In short, because prospectors seek to introduce new products to new markets, they consider important those measures, which accord with greater product and market newness. The major conclusion of this paper is that strategic type affects the importance of project performance measures and that all firms should not use the same success measures. Firms should contextualize their success in PD projects based on their strategic type. This conclusion resonates with previous findings that strategy is a key determinant of PD success, though it is infrequently included in PD success studies. This paper, therefore, challenges the implicit assumption in the mainstream of PD success literature that success can be determined without regard to firm strategy.     

Market Learning and Radical Innovation: A Cross Case Comparison of Eight Radical Innovation Projects

Does customer input play the same key role in every successful new-product development (NPD) project? For incremental NPD projects, market information keeps the project team focused on customer wants and needs. Well-documented methods exist for obtaining and using market information throughout the stages of an incremental NPD project. However, the role of market learning seems less apparent if the NPD project involves a really new product—that is, a radical innovation that creates a line of business that is new not only for the firm but also for the marketplace. In all likelihood, customers will not be able to describe their requirements for a product that opens up entirely new markets and applications. To provide insight into the role that market learning plays in NPD projects involving really new products, Gina Colarelli O'Connor describes findings from case studies of eight radical innovation projects. Participants in the study come from member companies of the Industrial Research Institute, a consortium of large company R&D managers. With a focus on exploring how market learning for radical innovations differs from that of incremental NPD projects, the case studies examine the following issues: the nature and the timing of market-related inquiry; market learning methods and processes; and the scope of responsibility for market learning, and confidence in the results. Observations from the case studies suggest that the market-related questions that are asked during a radical innovation project differ by stage of development, and they differ from the questions that project teams typically ask during an incremental NPD effort. For example, assessments of market potential, size, and growth were not at issue during the early stages of the projects in this study. Such issues came into play after the innovations were proven to work under controlled conditions and attention turned to finding applications for the technology. For several projects in the study, internal data and informal networks of people throughout relevant business units provide the means for learning about the hurdles the innovation faces and about markets that are unfamiliar to the development group. The projects in this study employ various techniques for reducing market uncertainty, including offering the product to the most familiar market and using a strategic ally who is familiar with the market to act as an intermediary between the project team and the marketplace.     

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.     

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.     

The drivers of success in new-product development

Why are some new products so successful and some companies outstanding performers in new-product development? The article identifies success factors from numerous research studies into NPD (new-product development) performance in industry. Three categories of success drivers have been defined. First, success drivers, that explain the success of individual new-product projects, are more tactical: They capture the characteristics of new product projects, such as certain executional best practices (building in voice-of-customer; doing the front-end homework; and adopting a global orientation for the project), and well as the nature of the product itself (a compelling value proposition, for example). A second category is drivers of success at the business level: They include organizational and strategic factors, such as the business's innovation strategy and how the firm makes its R&D investment decisions; how it organizes for NPD; climate and culture; and leadership The third category of success divers identified is the systems and methods the firm has in place for managing NPD, for example gating systems, Agile development approaches, and ideation methods. The details of each of these 20 success drivers, along with their managerial implications, are outlined in the article.     

A Causal Model of the Impact of Skills, Synergy, and Design Sensitivity on New Product Performance

Notwithstanding the best efforts of outstanding managers, project team members, researchers, and consultants, no product development plan can guarantee success. Every new products organization will experience its fair share of failures, but a firm can take steps to ensure that its failures do not outweigh its successes. By benchmarking the competition, a firm can gain insight into best practices–the factors that lead most directly to new product success. To help identify these best practices, X. Michael Song, William E. Souder, and Barbara Dyer develop and test a causal model of the relationships among the key variables leading to new product performance. The proposed model identifies five factors that lead to marketing and technical proficiency: process skills, project management skills, alignment of skills with needs, team skills, and design sensitivity. According to the model, marketing and technical proficiency directly determine product quality, and ultimately lead to new product success or failure. The causal model was tested using information on 65 completed projects–34 successes and 31 failures–from 17 large, multi-divisional Japanese firms. The study participants develop, manufacture, and market high-technology consumer and industrial products. These firms judged the success or failure of the projects in this study by using seven criteria: return on investment, profit, market share, sales, opportunities for technical leadership, market dominance, and customer satisfaction. These firms generally assigned the greatest importance to customer satisfaction, opportunity creation, and long-term growth. For the most part, the responses from these firms support the relationships presented in the causal model. According to the respondents, marketing proficiency and product quality have a strong, positive influence on their new product performance, as do process skills, project management skills, and alignment of skills and needs. The responses highlight the importance to these firms of responsiveness to customer wants and needs, as well as ensuring a close fit between project needs and the firm's skills in marketing, R&D, engineering, and manufacturing. Somewhat surprisingly, the responses do not support the model's suggested relationships between skills/needs alignment and technical proficiency or between technical proficiency and product quality.     

The functions of project evaluation

In trying to explain the difficulties of implementing evaluation models it can be useful to study how evaluations of product development proposals are carried out in practice when they are not influenced by normative models. In this article some results are reported from an in-depth study of how project proposals were evaluated in two Swedish companies operating in the same industry. One was among the most innovative in the industry, its product development activities had led it into a series of new products and had resulted in a very high profitability and an extremely high rate of growth. The product development of the other company had resulted much more in variations in existing products than in major innovations. Growth was very slow and profitability was approaching a critically low level. The way project proposals were evaluated in the companies proved to differ substantially. In one company the dominating evaluation mode was one where the task is considered to be to estimate what effect an acceptance of the project proposal will have on overall goals, such as profitability and growth. This is called the rationalistic approach. In the other company an evaluation mode with the opposite characteristics was used. The evaluators consider a few conspicuous or at least easily visible characteristics of the project proposal. On the basis of these a picture of the project is created which is perceived as good or bad. This picture is the basis for the decision. This is called the impressionistic approach. In the case reported here the rationalistic mode was used by the least successful and least innovative company while the impressionistic mode was used by the most successful and most innovative company. The paper presents arguments for interpreting the relationship between evaluation mode and performance not as coincidental but as causal. It is argued that even if the impressionistic mode may seem irrational from a traditional point of view, it is superior to the rationalistic one in some important respects.     

Building Dynamic Capabilities in New Product Development through Intertemporal Integration

Although successful development of a given product may help explain the current success of a firm, creating longer‐term competitive advantage demands significantly more attention to developing and nurturing dynamic integration capabilities. These capabilities propel product development activities in ways that build on and develop technological and marketing capabilities for future product development efforts and create platforms for future product development. In this article, we develop a conceptual model of a dynamic integration process in product development, which we call intertemporal integration (ITI). In its most general form ITI is defined as the process of collecting, interpreting, and internalizing technological and marketing capabilities from past new product development projects and incorporating that knowledge in a systematic and purposeful manner into the development of future new products. Research propositions outlining the relationship of ITI to performance are presented. We provide specific examples of managerial mechanisms to be used in implementing ITI. We conclude with implications for research and practice. Effective management of ITI can increase new product development success and long‐term competitive advantage. This implies that management needs to engage in activities that gather and transform information and knowledge from prior development projects so that it can be used in future development projects. Project audits, design databases in computer‐aided design (CAD) systems, engineering notebooks, collections of test and experimental results, market research and test market results, project management databases, and other activities will all be important in the acquisition of knowledge from prior new product development (NPD) projects. Managers also should initiate the creation and maintenance of databases of technical and marketing information from prior projects, job performance reports, seminars and workshops related to technological issues and advances, and publication of technical journals to assist in the process of knowledge acquisition. Similarly, techniques such as assigning project managers from earlier development projects, reusing key components and technologies, and developing a company‐wide methodology for managing projects can be used to boost the application and use of knowledge.     

Major New Products: What Distinguishes the Winners in the Chemical Industry?

What makes a new product a winner? This empirical study looks at success factors in product development in the chemical industry of four countries. The 103 projects studied in both North America and Europe were substantial ones and all were undertaken by large firms; about two-thirds of these projects succeeded. Robert Cooper and Elko Kleinschmidt identified the key project success factors by comparing the winners to the losers. Product differentiation was the most importance influence on success. Synergies had only moderate influence on project outcomes, as did order of enter (innovator versus follower) and stage of product life cycle. Surprisingly, important aspects of the external environment, including both market attractiveness and competitive situation, were not strong determinants of success. Although focused on one industry, the results of this study likely have broader applicability to wide variety of industries.     

Power and firm profitability in supply chains: french manufacturing industry in 1993

The paper examines the relationships between the power of suppliers and buyers and the profitability of sellers who are situated in supply chains between both sets of firms. A review of the literature on power in exchange relations shows there are several power concepts which may have a different impact on seller profitability and whose impact possibly can offset each other. This may be the source of the conflicting evidence on this topic. A failure to distinguish among the concepts may also lead to an underestimation of industry effects relative to resource effects as drivers of firm profitability. The paper uses a new data base of the Banque de France on French manufacturing industry. The anlayses examine whether different power concepts may be empirically identified and what their relationships are with seller profitability. The findings point to the existence of multiple power concepts and indicate that, in the sample, industry effects are more important than firm effects (as measured by relative market share) in explaining seller profitability. The findings also suggest that buyer power explains a much larger percentage of the variance in seller profitability than supplier power. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An Empirical Study of Platform and Derivative Product Development Projects

Many firms now realize the importance of planning product families and product platforms. However, little research addresses planning and execution of different types of projects within a product family platform series. This study investigates project characteristics, development challenges, typical outcomes, and success factors for product development projects at different locations in the product family spectrum. “Platform” projects result in products that initiate a new product family platform for a company. “Derivative” projects result in products consisting of extensions to an existing product family platform. Data on 108 new product development projects from a variety of assembled products industries were collected via a detailed survey and analyzed. Findings indicate that: (1) platform and derivative projects differ in project task characteristics (including the amount of new technology development undertaken and project complexity) and market newness; (2) platform and derivative projects generally do not differ in terms of project success (achievement of project objectives, level of company satisfaction, and perceived customer satisfaction) or smoothness of project execution; (3) both platform and derivative projects generally are executed in similar ways; (4) certain managerial approaches (including contingency planning, project-based evaluation of personnel, and overlap of design and manufacturing engineering) are associated with higher project execution success for both platform and derivative projects; and (5) use of interdependent technologies and novel project objectives are associated with project execution failure for platform projects. The results suggest that firms can continue to employ a single product development management process for both platform and derivative projects, as long as modest customization of the process is made for the given project type. Completely different management processes are not required. In all, the results presented in this article suggest specific managerial actions companies can take to significantly improve product development success. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.     

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.