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.     

Metrics for Measuring Product Development Cycle Time

As global competitive pressure increases and product life cycles compress, many companies are trying to shorten their product development cycles. Firms are implementing a wide variety of different techniques, management processes and development strategies in their quest for shorter development cycles. We read anecdotal accounts of some efforts that herald great success stories but seldom hear about any failures. Unfortunately, some of the companies changing their development processes do so without any a priori basis for determining whether the process change will have helped or hindered them. The firm implements the new process without having a cycle time performance baseline against which to compare results from the new process. In this article, Abbie Griffin presents a method for obtaining product development cycle time performance baselines. She also demonstrates how to use them to either forecast expected project duration, given that you have not changed your development process, or determine whether a process change has actually decreased development cycle times.     

When Product Development Performance Makes a Difference: A Statistical Analysis in the Electronics Industry

Throughout the pages of JPIM and other publications, researchers and practitioners devote considerable effort to identifying the dimensions of new-product development (NPD) performance that relate most closely to business success. Although we may hope to unveil a set of universal truths about the relationship between NPD performance and business success, the relevant NPD performance measures appear to depend on the industry in which a firm competes. In fact, Christian Terwiesch, Christoph Loch, and Martin Niederkofler suggest that the overall relevance of NPD performance to business success depends on the firm's competitive market environment. In a study of 86 business units operating in 12 different electronics industries worldwide, they develop a market contingency framework for understanding the impact of NPD performance on a firm's profitability. Their study uses data from the “Excellence in Electronics” project, a joint research effort by Stanford University, the University of Augsburg, and McKinsey & Co. They describe market context in terms of three dimensions: market share, market growth, and external stability—that is, the average product life cycle duration in the market. Looking at all 86 business units in the study, they find that industry membership accounts for 23% of the variance in profits, with 18 percent of the variance determined by industry profitability and 5% by the three dimensions of market context. For the firms in the study, development performance has the most significant effect in slow-growth markets and in markets with long product life cycles. In these stable industries, low development intensity, product line freshness, and technical product performance increase profitability. The results indicate that NPD performance plays a much more important role for explaining the profitability of dominant firms than that of the low-market-share firms in the study. NPD performance explains 30% of the profitability variance among the high-market-share business units in the study, but none of the variance for the low-market-share business units. Although the profitability of the smaller firms in the study is driven primarily by the industry environment, these firms can compete on the basis of superior technical performance.     

An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success and Failure

This article represents findings of a PDMA task force studying measures of product development success and failure. This investigation sought to identify all currently used measures, organize them into categories of similar measures that perform roughly the same function, and contrast the measures used by academics and companies to evaluate new product development performance. The authors compared the measures used in over seventy-five published studies of new product development to those surveyed companies say they use. The concept of product development success has many dimensions and each may be measured in a variety of ways. Firms generally use about four measures from two different categories in determining product development success. Academics and managers tend to focus on rather different sets of product development success/failure measures. Academics tend to investigate product development performance at the firm level, whereas managers currently measure, and indicate that they want to understand more completely, individual product success.     

Decomposing Product Innovativeness and Its Effects on New Product Success

Does product innovativeness affect new product success? The current research proposes that the ambiguity in findings may be due to an overly holistic conceptualization of product innovativeness that has erroneously included the concepts of product advantage and customer familiarity. This article illustrates how the same measures have often been used to assess product advantage with product innovativeness and product innovativeness with customer familiarity. These paired overlaps in measurement use are clarified in this research, which decomposes dimensions of product innovativeness along conceptual lines into distinct product innovativeness, product advantage, and customer familiarity constructs. To further support this decomposition, structural equation modeling is used to empirically test the distinctions. The measurement model supports the conceptual separation, and the path model reveals contingent effects of product innovativeness. Although product innovativeness enhances product advantage, a high level of innovativeness reduces customer familiarity, indicating that product innovativeness can be detrimental to new product success if customers are not sufficiently familiar with the nature of the new product and if innovativeness fails to improve product advantage. This exercise in metric development also reveals that after controlling for product advantage and customer familiarity, product innovativeness has no direct effect on new product profitability. This finding has strong implications for firms that mistakenly pursue innovation for its own sake. Consideration of both distribution and technical synergy as driving antecedents demonstrates how firms can still enhance new product success even if an inappropriate level of innovativeness is present. This leads to a simple but powerful two‐step approach to bringing highly innovative products to market. First, firms should only emphasize product innovativeness when it relates to the market relevant concepts of product advantage and customer familiarity. Second, existing technical and distribution abilities can be used to enhance product quality and customer understanding. Distribution channels in particular should be exploited to counter customer uncertainty toward newly introduced products.     

Perspective: Economic Conditions,Entrepreneurship, First‐Product Development,and New Venture Success*

Entrepreneurial ventures have a significant impact on new job creation and economic growth, but existing evidence indicates that most entrepreneurial ventures fail. This paper reports key insights from VENSURV, a new database that tracks the success and failure of ventures founded since 1998. Based on an analysis of 539 new ventures founded during the years 1991–2001, the following conclusions are reached. First, consistent with prior research, less than half of the 539 ventures survived more than two years. Second, economic downturns lead to higher failure rates for new ventures. Third, new venture success is highly correlated with first‐product success. Fourth, first‐product success is enhanced when those products are introduced into markets with emerging market needs but with established industry standards. Finally, first‐product and venture performance are significantly higher for products based on ideas that came from the founders. In addition, the most successful first products are based on ideas that reflect both technology development and an analysis of customer needs.     

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.     

The Role of Market Information in New Product Success/Failure

Although no single variable holds the key to new product performance, many of the widely recognized success factors share a common thread: the processing of market information. Understanding customer wants and needs ultimately comes down to a company's capabilities for gathering and using market information. And another well-acknowledged success factor the integration of marketing, R&D, and manufacturing focuses on the sharing of information. In other words, a firm's effectiveness in market information processing—the gathering, sharing, and use of market information—plays a pivotal role in determining the success or failure of its new products. Brian D. Ottum and William L. Moore describe the results of a study that examines the relationship between market information processing and new product success. They also explore the organizational factors that facilitate successful processing of market information, and thus offer ideas for better managing the development of new products. The respondents—marketing, R&D, and manufacturing managers from Utah-based computer and medical device manufacturers—provided information about 58 new products, including equal numbers of successes and failures. The survey responses reveal strong relationships between product success and market information processing, with success most closely linked to information use. In other words, the gathering and sharing of information are important, but only if the information is used effectively. In 80 percent of the product successes studied, the respondents ultimately possessed and used a greater than average amount of market information. And in 75 percent of the failures, the respondents knew less than average about the market at project inception, and gathered or used less than the average amount of market information during the project. For the projects in this study, the integration of marketing, R&D, and manufacturing contributed not only to the sharing and use of information, but also to overall project success. However, the results of the study suggest that the way in which a project is organized plays only an indirect role in determining new product success—most likely by improving the processing of market information. From a managerial perspective, the most important variables identified in the study are market information shared, market information used, and financial success.     

Marketing/R&D Interaction in New Product Development: Implications for New Product Success Rates

A growing body of literature has evolved which deals with the interaction between marketing and R&D in new product development. Much of this research, unfortunately, fails to associate various variables with new product success levels. Thus, it cannot suggest consensus guidelines for marketing's involvement to increase the performance levels of new products in the market place. Richard Hise, Larry O'Neal, A. Parasuraman and James McNeal report results of their analysis of the new product development procedures of 252 large manufacturing companies. The authors conclude that collaborative efforts between marketing and R&D during the actual designing of new products appear to be a key factor in explaining the success levels of new products, that management effort should focus on the design stage of the new product development process rather than on the earlier and later stages and that R&D's contributions cannot be ignored while decisions are made about marketing's role in developing new consumer and industrial products.     

Practices that Support Team Learning and Their Impact on Speed to Market and New Product Success

Competition is fierce today. Businesses are feeling extreme pressure to innovate and do so quickly. If they take too long in bringing a product to market or make a mistake along the way, they can be preempted by a faster moving competitor. One technique gaining popularity to help companies compete is establishing learning teams—teams that create and use knowledge rapidly and effectively. But how do teams learn? By studying the learning practices of 95 new product teams, we have uncovered several factors that improve a new product team’s ability to learn, innovate faster, and be more successful. These factors include thoroughly reviewing project information, having stable project goals, and following a rigorous new product development process.     

Success Factors for Integrating Suppliers into New Product Development

Faster, better, cheaper—these marching orders summarize the challenge facing new product development (NPD). In other words, NPD teams must find the means for speeding time to market while also improving product quality and reducing product costs. Cross-functional teams have proved effective for meeting these challenges, and such teams may extend beyond company boundaries to include key materials suppliers. Effective integration of suppliers into NPD can yield such benefits as reduced cost and improved quality of purchased materials, reduced product development time, and improved access to and application of technology. As Gary Ragatz, Robert Handfield, and Thomas Scannell point out, however, those benefits do not automatically accrue to any NPD team that includes representatives from a supplier's company. In a study of 60 member companies from the Michigan State University Global Procurement and Supply Chain Electronic Benchmarking Network, they explore the management practices and the environmental factors that relate most closely to successful integration of suppliers into the NPD process. The study identifies supplier membership on the NPD project team as the greatest differentiator between most and least successful integration efforts. Although the respondents reported only moderate use of shared education and training, the study cites this management factor as another significant differentiator between most and least successful efforts. Respondents listed direct, cross-functional, intercompany communication as the most widely used technique for integrating suppliers into NPD. To integrate suppliers into NPD, a company must overcome such barriers as resistance to sharing proprietary information, and the not-invented-here syndrome. The results of this study suggest that overcoming such barriers depends on relationship structuring—that is, shared education and training, formal trust development processes, formalized risk/reward sharing agreements, joint agreement on performance measurements, top management commitment from both companies, and confidence in the supplier's capabilities. Overcoming these barriers also depends on assett sharing, including intellectual assets such as customer requirements, technology information, and cross-functional communication; physical assets such as linked information systems, technology, and shared plant and equipment; and human assets such as supplier participation on the project team and co-location of personnel.     

程序公平对新产品开发成功的影响——跨职能整合的中介作用

本文通过对中外汽车合资企业的实地调研,提出将程序公平引入现有关于跨职能整合与新产品开发成功的模型中,并进一步提出跨职能整合在合资企业程序公平与新产品开发成功关系中的中介作用。通过对获取数据的分析,发现合资企业程序公平不仅可以直接影响合资企业的新产品开发成功,而且也可以通过跨职能整合间接影响新产品开发成功,而跨职能整合在程序公平与新产品开发成功关系中起中介作用。     

Managing Technologically Innovative Team Efforts Toward New Product Success

Based on his two-year field study of 360 new product managers in 52 high technology companies, Hans Thamhain reports on the characteristics of innovative product teams. He identifies both drivers and barriers to innovative performance. Further, he presents a simple input-output framework for organizing and analyzing the variables that influence team performance, and provides specific guidelines to help new products managers become more effective.     

Identifying the Key Success Factors in New Product Launch

Effective product launch is a key driver of top performance, and launch is often the single costliest step in new product development. Despite its importance, costs, and risks, product launch has been relatively underresearched in the product literature. We reviewed the extant literature on product launch to identify the most critical strategic, tactical, and information-gathering activities influencing the launch success. We then used a retrospective methodology to gather managerial perceptions regarding launch activities pertaining to a recent new product launch, and the product's performance in terms of profitability, market share, and relative sales. A mail survey of PDMA practitioners elicited data on nearly 200 recent product launches. Successful launches were found to be related to perceived superior skills in marketing research, sales force, distribution, promotion, R&D, and engineering. Having cross-functional teams making key marketing and manufacturing decisions, and getting logistics involved early in planning, were strategic activities that were strongly related to successful launches. Several tactical activities were related to successful launches: high quality of selling effort, advertising, and technical support; good launch management and good management of support programs; and excellent launch timing relative to customers and competitors. Furthermore, information-gathering activities of all kinds (market testing, customer feedback, advertising testing, etc.) were very important to successful launches. We conclude with observations about current product launch practice and with recommendations to management. Logistics plays a key role in successful strategy development and should receive the requisite amount of managerial attention. In particular, activities involving logistics personnel in strategy development showed much room for improvement. We also find that the timing of the launch (i.e., when the launch is conducted from the point of view of the company, the competition, and the customer) is just as important as whether the activities are performed. More managerial attention should be devoted to launch timing with respect to all of these viewpoints in order to improve the chances of success.     

New Product Development Process: A Perspective for Reexamination

In spite of the increased sophistication of new product development processes, the percentage of successful new product introductions has not improved significantly in the last two decades. This calls for a reexamination of the new products development process. Yoram Wind and Vijay Mahajan suggest 13 strategic guidelines for the development of new or modified products. These guidelines, if followed, could improve a firm's chances of developing and introducing successful new products.     

An Ecological Perspective on New Product Failure: The Effects of Competitive Overcrowding

Practitioners and researchers have carefully explored the causes of new product failures. Studies have been conducted, results analyzed, and recommendations offered. Yet despite these efforts, new product failure rates have not decreased. In fact, they appear to be increasing in some product categories. Are we missing something? Noting that most research on new product failures has focused on a firm's activities in specific projects, William H. Redmond proposes that new product outcomes might also be influenced by macro-level or environmental factors. By focusing on environmental factors rather than a firm's activities in specific projects, we might better understand why competent firms in one industry consistently experience higher failure rates than those of firms that are no more competent, but operate in a different industry. For example, failure rates for new food products are consistently higher than those for new industrial products. With no evidence that product development professionals in industrial firms are simply superior to their counterparts in the food industry, Dr. Redmond suggests that we need to look beyond specific product development projects and consider the effects of the market in which these products are introduced. Encouraged by past successes, many firms in the food manufacturing business seek sales growth through the development and introduction of additional new products. Over time, this creates a market in which customer demand is fragmented into increasingly small niches and distribution channels are flooded with product choices. As a result, the failure of a new product is more likely than it might have been under less crowded conditions. In much the same way that the population of deer on an island is limited by the available food and physical space, food products are apparently faced with the market equivalent of natural selection. In the absence of available market niches and a clear competitive advantage, a new product's chances for success are meager. In a market that is overcrowded by existing products and new product introductions, it becomes increasingly difficult and uneconomical to identify opportunities for meaningful differentiation. On the other hand, industrial products face a much different set of environmental conditions. Compared to the food manufacturing business, relatively few new industrial products are introduced, and those introductions are typically successful. In most cases, the new products are simply replacements for inefficient or obsolete products. In such an environment, failed introductions are probably the result of errors in the product development process.     

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.     

Marketing Hype: A New Perspective for New Product Research and Introduction

Marketing research procedures typically used to support new product development activities often emphasize the collection of data from potential customers, even when the product success depends on the decisions of a number of key stakeholders such as distributors, media, etc. Consequently, most conventional product introduction efforts focus on a target customer segment and ignore the needs of other stakeholders. These narrowly concentrated research efforts can lead to unfounded expectations regarding the product performance. Similarly, the lopsided focus on consumers can lead to reduced marketing effectiveness. Jerry Wind and Vijay Mahajan argue for the recognition of the process of "marketing hype," a set of prelaunch activities leading to the creation of a supportive market environment. This can lead to the creation of broader strategies that focus on the key stakeholders as subjects for new product research, and targets for the introductory marketing programs. This could lead to a richer understanding of the intergroup influences on the adoption of the new product and increase the chances of a successful new product launch.     

Enhancing New Product Development Performance: An Organizational Learning Perspective

Several years ago, an editorial in a software industry journal asked readers, “Why aren’t they using all those marvelous methods?” The focus of the editorial was on software engineering methods, but the question also applies to the broader realm of new product development (NPD). Proven tools exist for gathering, disseminating, and using market information. But despite widespread recognition of the important role that market knowledge plays in NPD, most firms fail to employ these tools in a consistent manner.Marjorie E. Adams, George S. Day, and Deborah Dougherty contend that the tools for successful NPD cannot be implemented successfully until we understand the barriers that hinder an organization’s capabilities for learning about markets. To foster that understanding, they describe the results of a study that explores the organizational barriers to learning about markets for new products. The study examines 40 NPD efforts in 15 large firms, and it has the following goals: identifying the processes through which organizational barriers impede market learning, developing specific ideas for how NPD professionals can cope more effectively with these barriers, and offering suggestions for improving market tools and techniques to help overcome these barriers.The study identifies three organizational learning barriers: avoiding ambiguity, compartmentalized thinking, and inertia. For the participants in this study, these barriers persistently act in specific ways to inhibit market learning. In acquiring market information, people typically focus on less ambiguous, more easily understood technologies and business truisms. Dissemination of market information is hindered because people focus on their own goals, which are often defined within their department’s role instead of the overall goals of the project. Inertia acts as a barrier to the effective use of market information. That is, people tend to proceed as they always have, maintaining the status quo rather than adjusting actions to capitalize on market learning.By encouraging broad functional participation in the acquisition and interpretation of data, NPD organizations can reduce the perceived ambiguity of market information. However, cross-functional approaches are only one step in overcoming organizational barriers. Managers must enable teams to develop rich, vivid market data, help people extend established routines into new practices, and promote trust. Specific market research tools and methods that promote market learning are also suggested.