Speeding Up the Pace of New Product Development

This study empirically investigates a wide array of factors that have been argued to differentiate fast from slow innovation processes from the perspective of the research and development organization. We test the effects of strategic orientation (criteria- and scope-related variables) and organizational capability (staffing- and structuring-related variables) on the speed of 75 new product development projects from ten large firms in several industries. Backward-elimination regression analysis revealed that (a) clear time-goals, longer tenure among team members, and parallel development increased speed, whereas (b) design for manufacturability, frequent product testing, and computer-aided design systems decreased speed. However, when projects were sorted by magnitude of change, different factors were found to influence the speed of radical and incremental projects. Moreover, some factors that sped up radical innovation (e.g., concept clarity, champion presence, co-location) were found to slow down incremental innovation. Together, the radical and incremental models explain differences in speed better than the general model. This suggests a contingency approach to speeding up innovation. Implications for researchers and managers are discussed.     

The Role of Future‐Market Focus in the Early Stages of NPD across Varying Levels of Innovativeness

The concept of future‐market focus (FMF) arose out of the debate about firm size and incumbency in the face of radical or disruptive innovations, and has been demonstrated to have a positive correlation with radical innovation (RI) success. This study examines the relationship between FMF and the processes used in the early stages of NPD for four types of innovation projects: incremental innovations, technological breakthroughs, market breakthroughs, and radical innovations. We found that the future‐market focus of a project team can influence the early stage processes used in a new product innovation project, and does so differentially across levels of innovativeness. In particular, the concept generation process, understanding of market needs, and screening decision criteria are different for low‐ versus high‐FMF projects and there are differences based on the level of innovation. In addition, we found that radical innovation projects rated low in FMF are markedly different than the radical innovation projects described in prior studies.     

Consistency Matters in Formally Selecting Incremental and Radical New Product Ideas for Advancement

Several new product development (NPD) scholars have argued that formal processes should be used when selecting incremental new product ideas for advancement at the very beginning of the fuzzy front end (FFE), but that such formal processes may be less beneficial when selecting radical new product ideas. However, arguments also exist for using formal idea selection processes for both types of new product ideas. In practice, informal processes are used for selecting both idea types and more formal processes are used for selecting radical ideas. Unequivocal empirical evidence for either of the opposing views or practices is lacking. This study sheds light on this matter using data from 161 of the firms that participated in the Product Development and Management Association's latest (2012) Comparative Performance Assessment Study. The results reveal that the highest idea success rate (i.e., the proportion of selected ideas that are eventually launched as new products and are successful in the marketplace) is associated with firms’ use of formal processes to select the vast majority of both incremental and radical new product ideas for advancement. This finding supports earlier claims that even for (raw) idea selection processes that take place at the very beginning of the FFE, managers need to adopt a portfolio perspective and consistently use formal idea advancement selection processes to ensure attaining the right balance between radical and incremental projects in later stages of the NPD pipeline to enhance overall NPD success. Notably, this finding shows that common managerial practices of using inconsistent approaches for selecting radical and incremental ideas for advancement need to be reconsidered.     

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.     

Making Up Is Hard to Do: Knowledge Acquisition Strategies and the Nature of New Product Innovation

Innovation creates significant challenges for firms in high‐technology industries. This article examines how the use of external knowledge acquired from mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and joint ventures (JVs) influence the nature of innovative competence in the global pharmaceutical industry. We create a unique database on never‐before approved products that measure the scientific merit of new, exploratory product innovations, ranging from radical to incremental. We then follow their market success by recording the number of new exploitative product innovations that stem from these product innovations and that are later approved and subsequently marketed. Using a large data set spanning a 15‐year period, we find that firms were able to “make up” for their lack of exploitation or exploration innovative capabilities through the use of M&As and JVs. These external knowledge acquisition strategies were found to overcome internal processes that otherwise could cause firms to overemphasize exploitation over exploration and vice versa. Our findings suggest that acquiring external knowledge via M&As is associated with diminished exploratory product innovation, while assimilating external knowledge sourced from JVs is associated with a reduction in new exploitative product innovation.     

Contextual Innovation Management Using a Stage‐Gate Platform: The Case of Philips Shaving and Beauty

To improve its innovation process, Philips Shaving and Beauty (S&B) designed a blueprint for its innovation process. Although it has proved to be quite effective, it has experienced a lack of efficiency, in terms of frequent cost and time overruns, in the fuzzy front end of this process. We suggest a contextual innovation management approach to set up a stage‐gate‐based innovation process platform and thus improve the efficiency in the fuzzy front end, which means that, for different contexts, stage‐gate process variants will be designed from which unnecessary activities are removed and important activities are emphasized. The design is based on the identification of relevant contextual factors to develop variations of the common innovation process within Philips S&B. We distinguished different variants of the innovation processes within Philips S&B that can increase the efficiency in the fuzzy front end. Based on interviews within and outside Philips S&B, we identified problems and potential solutions with regard to efficiency in eight recently finished innovation processes. The results indicate that the most important contextual factors are the distinction between incremental and radical innovations, and between market and technology‐based innovations. We used these factors to design three variants on the basic platform of the stage‐gate process.     

Complements or Substitutes? Internal Technological Strength,Competitor Alliance Participation,and Innovation Development

While a firm can choose to develop an innovation internally or externally, the internal knowledge development and external knowledge acquisition tend to interact with each other in the innovation process. The present study examines whether internal technological strength and external competitor alliance participation serve as complements or substitutes in innovation development. Built on the knowledge‐based view, this study offers a contingency perspective on the nature of knowledge integration between internal technological strength and external alliance relationships, and how they jointly influence radical and incremental innovation differently. Adopting a random effect negative binomial model specification, a panel data set of 64 pharmaceutical firms over a 15‐year period were used to test the hypothesized effects. The findings indicate that internal technological knowledge strength has an inverted U‐shaped relationship with radical and incremental innovation. More importantly, the findings also demonstrate that the combined effect of internal and external sources of innovation can have differential effects on radical and incremental innovation development. Specifically, competitor alliance participation strengthens the effect of internal technological strength on incremental product innovation while it weakens the above effect on radical product innovation. This suggests that internal and external sources of innovation may complement each other for incremental innovation while they may represent trade‐offs for radical innovation development. The above findings provide empirical evidence for the complexity of pursuing organizational ambidexterity in innovation generation and highlight the importance of balancing the internal and external knowledge sources in pursuing innovation.     

Managing functional diversity, risk taking and incentives for teams to achieve radical innovations

In this study we analyse the effect of team diversity, encouragement to take risks and team incentives on the degree of radicalness of innovation. Empirical research has been conducted with a sample of 95 companies from four innovative industries according to their high number of patents. The results indicate that team diversity and the combined use of long- and short-term incentives are associated with incremental innovation, whereas the development of risk-taking attitudes within the team is associated with radical innovation.     

Radical Product Innovation Capability: Literature Review,Synthesis, and Illustrative Research Propositions

Product innovation is a key to organizational renewal and success. Relative to other forms of innovation, radical product innovations offer unprecedented customer benefits, substantial cost reductions, or the ability to create new businesses, any of which should lead to superior organizational performance. In other words, a radical product innovation capability is a dynamic capability, one that enables the organization to maintain alignment with rapidly evolving customer needs in high‐velocity environments. Extensive research has been conducted on the antecedents to an incremental/general product innovation capability, and meta‐analyses have been conducted to integrate the results from the various studies. However, whether and how a radical product innovation capability differs from an incremental product innovation capability is also critical. The purpose of this work is to develop a testable model of the antecedents to radical product innovation success. Based on an extensive literature review, a comprehensive set of organizational components that comprise a firm's radical product innovation capability is identified. These organizational components include senior leadership, organizational culture, organizational architecture, the radical product innovation development process, and the product launch strategy. Of course, each of these components has subcomponents that provide even more texture. This review highlights how the components of a radical innovation capability function differently from those for an incremental capability. In addition, this review strongly suggests that the direct effects models that dominate this literature underestimate the complexity of the interplay of components that comprise a radical product innovation capability. Thus, a model to demonstrate this interplay of these organizational components is provided. Illustrative research propositions are offered to provide guidance to researchers. Suggestions for executives and managers who are involved in the product development process and for scholars who seek to advance the state of knowledge in this area are offered in the conclusion.     

Submission quality in open innovation contests - an analysis of individual-level determinants of idea innovativeness

The digital age allows for integration of dispersed groups into the innovation process. These heterogeneous groups of individuals varying in size and knowledge distribution, also referred to as crowds, build the basis for open innovation contests (OIC), one of the most common forms of crowdsourcing innovation. Different from more focused forms of open innovation, at OIC innovation managers often do not identify or evaluate participants ex-ante. Instead, innovation managers often make use of open calls for participation and assume efficient self-selection of participants i.e., that only motivated and qualified participants will volunteer and engage in the innovation contest. This behavior reflects one of the key assumption of crowdsourcing in participatory innovation settings. However, not every self-selected member is in the position to solve the contest task appropriately. Hence, innovation contests often result in large numbers of submissions, covering a wide range of quality levels, causing decision biases and significant workloads for innovation managers to select ideas. This problem is referred to as “crowding”. In order to reduce “crowding”, open innovation researchers are interested in understanding which types of individuals make the “best” contributions and therefore should be preferably encouraged to participate in in OIC. In this paper, we are assessing what characterizes those participants who submit innovative ideas to OIC, in particular those who submit incremental ideas vs. those who have more radical ideas. Drawing on the componential model of creativity and data generated in innovation contest held by chocolate producer Ritter Sport, we analyze the effect of participants‘ creativity, domain knowledge, and several motivational factors on the innovativeness of their contributions. We find all of these factors to affect the innovativeness of an idea. However, regarding generating incremental or radical innovations, some factors have opposing roles. Our findings imply for practice that innovation managers must decide which type of innovations they intend to generate and then design contests to attract participants with the required characteristics, if they want to increase the number of appropriate ideas and reduce the problems of “crowding”.     

University‐industry collaboration and front‐end success: the moderating effects of innovativeness and parallel cross‐firm collaboration

Collaboration with science‐based and/or market‐based partners is a promising means for firms’ R&D groups to leverage complementary expertise and resources to generate innovative results. However, R&D managers face the dilemma which partner type to choose in different innovative contexts and whether to focus on one partner type or to integrate both types in early stage R&D. Using survey data from 166 heads of R&D groups, this study investigates university–industry collaboration’s impact on front‐end success depending on the degree of innovativeness and the interaction with other industry partners. The results confirm an overall positive relationship between university–industry collaboration and front‐end success. However, innovativeness increases complexity in this relationship. Parallel collaboration with firms and universities can have a mixed impact on front‐end success depending on the degree of innovativeness. This simultaneous collaboration with firms and universities strengthens front‐end success for more radical innovations, while parallel collaboration activities for more incremental innovations do not necessarily strengthen front‐end success. These findings imply that both collaboration types should be used simultaneously in the front end of radical innovation and that firms could reduce complexity by focusing on either firms or universities as partners for incremental innovations.     

A note on the relationship between managerial change values, innovative intentions and innovative technology outcomes in food sector firms

In this study three, two-part propositions were developed based on a general model of how organizational variables moderate the influence of individual change values on innovative intentions and how these same organizational factors moderate the impact of individual innovative intentions on organizational innovative outcomes. A total of 66 respondents, mostly top managers in food processing and food equipment and packaging firms, returned questionnaires. Results indicated that the absence of technical specialist concentration significantly (p <.05) increased the correlation between managerial change values and innovative intentions. Organization size and diversification into nonfood markets did not significantly moderate the correlation between managerial change values and innovative intentions although results were in the predicted direction. Managerial innovative intentions were significantly (p <.05) more likely to be correlated with the rate of new products introduction, and the rate of adoption of incremental process innovation when technical specialists were concentrated. Managerial innovative intentions were significantly (p <.05) more likely to be correlated with the rate of new production introduction and the adoption of radical (new to the industry) process innovation in firms that had diversified into nonfood markets. Critical incident accounts by respondents of creative or innovative episodes in their organizations are strongly correlated with indicators of slack resources for innovation, and the skills managers develop to identify and back innovators in their firms are discussed.     

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

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

A note on the relationship between managerial change values,innovative intentions and innovative technology outcomes in food sector firms

In this study three, two-part propositions were developed based on a general model of how organizational variables moderate the influence of individual change values on innovative intentions and how these same organizational factors moderate the impact of individual innovative intentions on organizational innovative outcomes. A total of 66 respondents, mostly top managers in food processing and food equipment and packaging firms, returned questionnaires. Results indicated that the absence of technical specialist concentration significantly (p <.05) increased the correlation between managerial change values and innovative intentions. Organization size and diversification into nonfood markets did not significantly moderate the correlation between managerial change values and innovative intentions although results were in the predicted direction. Managerial innovative intentions were significantly (p <.05) more likely to be correlated with the rate of new products introduction, and the rate of adoption of incremental process innovation when technical specialists were concentrated. Managerial innovative intentions were significantly (p <.05) more likely to be correlated with the rate of new production introduction and the adoption of radical (new to the industry) process innovation in firms that had diversified into nonfood markets. Critical incident accounts by respondents of creative or innovative episodes in their organizations are strongly correlated with indicators of slack resources for innovation, and the skills managers develop to identify and back innovators in their firms are discussed.     

Product Development as Core Competence: How Formal Product Development Practices Differ for Radical,More Innovative,and Incremental Product Innovations

Although universally recognized as an important consideration in building product development (PD) competency, the effect of a firm's ability to vary its PD practices to develop winning products has been given scant attention in large‐scale, multiorganizational, quantitative studies. This research explores differences in formal new PD practices among three project types—incremental, more innovative, and radical. Using a sample of 380 business units, this research investigates how development practices differ across these three classes of innovation with respect to the formal PD process, project organization, PD strategy, organizational culture, and senior management commitment. Our results diverge from several commonly held beliefs about formal PD processes and the management of radical versus incremental innovations. Our results indicate that radical projects are managed less flexibly than incremental projects. Instead of being an offshoot of less strategic planning, radical projects are just as strategically aligned as incremental projects. Instead of being informally introduced entrepreneurial adventures, radical projects are often the result of more formal ideation methods. While these results may be counterintuitive to suppositional models of how to radical innovation happens, it is the central theme of this research to show how radical innovation actually happens. Our findings also provide a foundation for reexamining the role of control in the management of innovation. As the level of innovativeness increased, so too did the amount of controls imposed—e.g., less flexibility in the development process, more professional, full‐time project leadership, centralized executive oversight for new products, and formal financial assessments of expected NP performance.     

A Study of the Performativity of the “Ambidextrous Organizations” Theory: Neither Lost in nor Lost before Translation

Ambidextrous organizations succeed both in incremental and discontinuous innovation. However, there is little direct empirical evidence on how managers implement the principles of the “ambidextrous organizations” theory to dynamically align the structure and culture of ambidextrous organizations. Our study does not focus on analyzing the factors that give rise to organizational ambidexterity but focuses on analyzing whether the factors suggested by prior theorizing on “ambidextrous organizations” are implemented by managers in their daily practice as suggested by prior theorizing. Accordingly, this study does not investigate the traditionally conceptualized gap between academic theorizing and managerial practice since “ambidextrous organizations” theory can be characterized as rigorous and relevant. We investigate whether the “ambidextrous organizations” theory is implemented as suggested by prior theorizing and whether successful implementation is subject to managing in the way that scholars' prior theorizing suggests. Based on qualitative and quantitative data from two longitudinal case studies, we find that managers overlooked the process dimension in evaluating the required degree of ambidexterity. Furthermore, the organizational structure and culture for incremental innovation did not differ from the structure and culture for discontinuous innovation alongside the expected dimensions. Finally, the discontinuous innovation business unit had to be reintegrated to ensure sustained growth. During the reintegration processes, organizational capabilities mutated. We linked our findings on the processes and performativity of ambidextrous organizing to extant theories and developed the rationale for the observed novel phenomena of innovation myopia, second‐order competency traps, and capability mutations.     

The Interplay of Customer and Product Innovation Dynamics: An Exploratory Study

The challenges of successfully developing radical or really new products have received considerable attention from a variety of marketing, strategic, and organizational perspectives. Previous research has stressed the importance of a market‐driven customer orientation, the resolution of market and technological uncertainty, and organizational processes such as cross‐functional teams and organizational learning. However, several fundamental issues have not been addressed. From a customer's perspective, a more innovative product tends to have uncertain benefits and requires customers to learn new behaviors. Customer preferences can, therefore, change as product experience and learning increase. From a firm's perspective, it is unclear how to be customer‐oriented under such dynamic preferences, and product strategies using evolving technologies will tend to interact with how customers learn about an innovation. This research focuses on identifying unresolved issues about these customer and product innovation dynamics. A conceptual framework and series of propositions are presented that relate both changing technology and customer learning to a firm's strategic decisions in developing and launching really new products. The framework is based on in‐depth interviews with high‐tech product managers across several sectors, focusing on the business‐to‐business context. The propositions resulting from the framework highlight the need to consider relevant customer dynamics as integral to a firm's product innovation process. Successful innovation strategies and future research challenges are discussed, and applications to better understanding customer needs and theories of disruptive innovation are examined. Several key insights for innovation success hinge on a broad, downstream orientation to customer needs and product innovation dynamics. To be effective innovators, firms must know their customers' customers and competitors as well as or better than their immediate customers do. Market research must extend downstream for a comprehensive understanding of customer needs dynamics. In the context of disruptive innovation, new dimensions of customer needs may become more valuable based on perceived downstream customer trends. Firms may also innovate on secondary needs because mainstream customers do not always give firms the design freedom to radically innovate on primary features. Understanding customer commitments and how they develop under evolving needs can help firms focus resources on innovative efforts more likely to be accepted by customers.     

Seeking the Ideal Level of Design Newness: Consumer Response to Radical and Incremental Product Design

To develop successful new products, new product development managers need to have a thorough understanding of the consumer adoption process, specifically in how consumers evaluate new products. This research examines the value of product design for consumers' evaluation of radical and incremental innovations. The primary goal was to empirically test how design newness affects consumer response to product innovations. Design newness (also referred to as novelty or atypicality) is defined as the deviation in a product design from the current design state of a certain product category. Although prior research has suggested that higher levels of design newness may have a positive effect on consumers' evaluations of new products, higher levels of design newness may also have negative consequences for consumer response to radical innovations. An experimental context (n = 130) using systematically designed products for three product categories was used to test how consumers respond to high and low levels of design newness for both radical and incremental innovations. The findings show that for radical innovations, embodying the product in a design with a low (versus high) level of design newness led to more positive evaluations and less learning‐cost inferences. Because the functional attributes of a radical innovation are incongruent to existing products, consumers find it difficult to access the relevant product category schema in order to transfer knowledge to the new product. Because of this poor knowledge transfer, consumers may feel that they lack the ability to make effective use of the radical innovation, resulting in greater learning costs. In this case, a product design with a low level of design newness can provide consumers with a frame of reference for understanding the radical innovation. Contrasting this result, no difference was found between a low and a high level of design newness for incremental innovations. For incremental innovations, by definition the functional attributes characteristic to the innovation are highly comparable with those products that are already stored in consumers' memory. Thus, there is no need for an additional reconfirmation of the preexisting schema through product design, and consumers are able to access the relevant schema regardless of the level of design newness inherent in the product. These findings are integrated into a discussion of the managerial implications and the potential avenues for future research.     

The Mediating Role of Strategic Orientations on the Relationship between Ambidexterity‐Oriented Decisions and Innovative Ambidexterity

Building on upper echelon theory and strategic process theory, this article analyzes the relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions embrace the capability of top management teams to manage contradictory strategic directions, namely adaptability and alignment, innovative ambidexterity captures the ability of firms to simultaneously develop discontinuous and incremental innovations. In addition to the direct relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity, it is argued that innovation orientation and cost orientation denote two cultural implementation mechanisms that mediate this effect. Using two top‐executive data sets collected in the United States (n = 83) and India (n = 78), the empirical analysis shows that innovation orientation and cost orientation partially mediate the direct influence of ambidexterity‐oriented decisions on innovative ambidexterity, thus further explaining how formulated decisions made by the top management team nurture ambidextrous innovation behavior. Hence, this article extends prior literature that emphasizes a positive influence of top managers on innovation through incorporating an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Second, this study contributes to ambidexterity literature through integrating strategic process theory. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions primarily relate to strategy formulation, innovation orientation and cost orientation are associated with strategy implementation. The results show that both strategic subprocesses are vital in enabling ambidextrous innovation behavior. Third, an operationalization for the ability of top management to balance adaptability‐ and alignment‐oriented decisions is provided based on prior literature.     

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.