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

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

Integrating Cross-Border Knowledge for Transnational New Product Development

Multi‐source knowledge integration, though widely regarded as fundamental for developing new products, remains obscurely understood and a significant challenge for organizations to accomplish. Prior research provides many insights on the approaches by which organizations transfer knowledge; however, how such transferred knowledge gets effectively embodied in products remains uncertain. Also unclear is whether different approaches for knowledge transfer differ in their effectiveness at realizing integration. This study analytically separates the transfer of cross‐border knowledge from its embodiment into products. It examines cross‐border knowledge transfer based on three different approaches: namely, the use of cross‐national teams, cross‐national communication, and cross‐national collaboration in the development of new transnational products. It examines cross‐border knowledge embodiment based on the extent to which new transnational products developed balance standardization with adaptation. The study uses a cross‐sectional survey administered to key members of transnational new product development teams in leading multinational companies across the world. The survey focuses on manufactured products that were developed across several industries: consumer products, consumer durables, and industrial products. Results from 90 new transnational product introductions surveyed reveal that knowledge integration is effective only when knowledge is transferred through cross‐national collaboration, and not when transferred through cross‐national teams and cross‐national communication. As integrating cross‐border knowledge in the development of transnational products involves making difficult trade‐offs for balancing standardization with adaptation, transferring knowledge through cross‐national collaboration stands out as being critical for successful outcomes. Although cross‐national teams and cross‐national communication enhance knowledge flows, they do not result in effective knowledge integration when developing new transnational products. These findings highlight an important point: All knowledge transfer approaches may not necessarily achieve knowledge integration. Hence, it is essential to systematically probe into the interrelationships between knowledge transfer and its effective integration and to identify an underlying set of contingencies that provide insights into when and why some knowledge transfer approaches are better than others at integrating knowledge.     

Merits of Task Advice during New Product Development: Network Centrality Antecedents and New Product Outcomes of Knowledge Richness and Knowledge Quality

Utilizing new product development (NPD) teams to accomplish complex tasks in firms has been an emergent issue in many industries throughout the last couple of decades. Despite numerous studies, formation and efficient management of NPD teams is still a developing research domain. Using the knowledge‐based view of the firm and social network theories complementarily, this paper contributes to literature by examining the intrafirm social relational structures of NPD teams. Focusing specifically on the network centrality of the NPD teams, this paper argues that network centrality types of closeness, betweenness, and degree centralities influence the quality and richness characteristics of knowledge received through task advice seeking. Subsequently, the knowledge gained with these characteristics enhances product innovativeness and new product success. Consequently, the second contribution of this paper is to conceptualize the effect of the task advice‐seeking activities of NPD teams on NPD outcomes. The paper concludes with a discussion of the empirical testing of the proposed model, including suggestions for focal construct operationalizations as well as other future research directions.     

What Separates Japanese New Product Winners from Losers

Operating in the upper echelons of highly competitive, global markets, numerous Japanese firms enjoy well-deserved reputations for excellence in new product development. Despite this success, however, almost no research has been conducted to explore the keys to successful new product development in Japanese companies. For the most part, research in this area has focused on North American and European firms. X. Michael Song and Mark E. Parry address this gap with a study of 404 Japanese firms and 788 new product introductions. Their research explores the links between new product success and 10 factors: product advantage; marketing synergy; technological synergy; market potential; market competitiveness; market and technical understanding; senior management support; proficiency in the predevelopment planning process and in concept development and evaluation; proficiency in market research, market pretesting, and market launch; and technical proficiency. To avoid any cultural bias, development of the survey was preceded by in-depth case studies and focus group interviews with Japanese and American new product development teams. Although time-consuming and expensive, these preliminary steps were necessary for ensuring the validity of the survey contents and procedures. Notwithstanding the obvious cultural differences, the findings from this study suggest that Japanese new products professionals view the keys to success in much the same way as their North American counterparts. For the survey respondents, the most important success factor is product advantage. Other important success factors include predevelopment proficiency (that is, proficiency in the predevelopment planning process as well as in concept definition and evaluation) and marketing and technological synergy. Consistent with previous research on North American firms, market competitiveness was found to be the least important success factor. For managers who are trying to predict whether a project will result in a product advantage, several survey items may be useful as a checklist for assessing potential product advantage. In particular, these managers should consider whether the product offers potential for reducing consumer costs and expanding consumer capabilities, as well as the likelihood that the product offers improved quality, superior technical performance, and a superior benefit-to-cost ratio.     

Business Performance and Strategic New Product Development Activities: An Empirical Investigation

Despite the ongoing search for the so-called silver bullet that provides the ultimate competitive advantage, there is no roadmap showing the “right” way to perform new product development (NPD). What's more, it is highly unlikely that such a formula could be developed. Given the diversity of firms and industries as well as the complexity of the NPD process, no single set of NPD activities or steps can be defined that will be appropriate for all firms. However, Roger J. Calantone, Shawnee K. Vickery, and Cornelia Droge propose that it is possible to develop such a framework within the confines of a specific industry. They suggest that successful companies within an industry are likely to focus on certain essential NPD activities that allow them to achieve the best possible results within the constraints of their market. Their research is directed toward identifying the relationship between the performance of specific innovation-related activities and overall business performance in the furniture industry. This study also assesses the relationship between a firm's performance on an NPD activity and the importance assigned to that activity by the firm's chief executive officer (CEO). With the current emphasis on cross-functional teams, the study also seeks to determine whether performance on a given NPD activity is related to the assignment of responsibility for that activity. The following NPD activities were evaluated for their effect on corporate performance: customization, new product introduction, design innovation, product development cycle time, product technological innovation, product improvement, new product development, and original product development. Compared to their competitors, top performers consistently put more strategic emphasis on each of these activities. All of these activities have a strong positive influence on return on investment (ROI) and ROI growth. What's more, most of the activities also clearly relate to stronger market share, market share growth, return on sales (ROS), and ROS growth. The vision and focus on these essential NPD activities must begin with CEOs who recognize their strategic value. Such leaders will direct appropriate staff and technical resources toward performance of the necessary activities. They will also ensure that the organization is sufficiently flexible to accept the changes in responsibilities for coordination and leadership that are necessary during different stages in the NPD process. To gain the product flexibility necessary for competing in numerous market segments, top performers require greater input and leadership from design, engineering, and manufacturing.     

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

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

From Experience: Japanese Product Development Process

Writing from his experiences as Monsanto's business development director for Asia, Robert Kennard shares some important insights into the complex relationships between culture, values and business practices. He notes the high priority assigned to innovation, along with a commitment to concentration of resources at critical early phases of the developmental effort. While some of these practices are being used by successful companies outside Japan, others represent challenges to the traditional ways in which business is practiced in Western economies.     

Accelerating New Product Development: A Preliminary Empirical Test of a Hierarchy of Implementation

Although time to market and a product's profitability are closely linked, simply speeding up new product development (NPD) is no guarantee of success. In fact, haphazardly adopting the numerous methods for accelerating NPD may jeopardize the potential success of the new product and the company. An article in a previous issue of The Journal of Product Innovation Management suggests that companies seeking to speed up their NPD process should take a hierarchical approach to implementing the various acceleration techniques. To improve the likelihood that efforts to accelerate NPD will pay off with shorter development time, greater market share, and improved profitability, it is recommended that a company start by focusing on simplification of the NPD process. From there, the company can proceed in sequence through techniques involving the elimination of unnecessary steps in the NPD process, parallel processing (i.e., performing two or more NPD steps at the same time), the elimination of delays, and speeding up of the NPD process. Ed J. Nijssen, Arthur R. L. Arbouw, and Harry R. Commandeur follow up on this earlier work by addressing several key questions regarding the proposed hierarchy of techniques for accelerating NPD. First, do companies that make extensive use of the proposed hierarchy develop new products faster than companies that do not? Second, do companies that make extensive use of the hierarchy enjoy better financial performance than those that do not? Third, regardless of the hierarchy, are products developed faster by companies that make more intensive use of acceleration methods than by companies that use fewer methods of acceleration? Finally, how does financial performance compare among companies that make more intensive use of acceleration methods without following the hierarchy and those that use fewer methods of acceleration? A survey of Dutch companies finds that the proposed hierarchy of techniques has a positive effect on NPD speed. The survey results also suggest that faster NPD is possible through the use of the various acceleration methods without regard for the order in which they are implemented. However, a strong positive relationship is evident between the hierarchy and the profitability of the product and the company. In other words, a random approach to NPD acceleration does not improve financial performance. By trying to accelerate NPD in accordance with the proposed hierarchy of methods, a company can avoid critical mistakes that might otherwise limit financial results.     

Selecting Influential Business-to-Business Customers in New Product Development: Relational Embeddedness and Knowledge Heterogeneity Considerations

This study examines how the most influential business‐to‐business (B2B) customers, both existing and potential, involved in providing input to a new product development (NPD) project influence new product advantage. As the relational literature suggests, involving customers who have had close and embedded relationships with a firm's new product organization, such as a firm's largest customers, and customers who have been involved in past collaborative activities, should lead to the development of superior products. To the contrary, the innovation literature suggests that a firm may become too close to its large, embedded customers resulting in less innovation and in lower performing products. Also, the relationship between the heterogeneity of the knowledge of the most influential customers and new product advantage is examined. A contingency perspective is hypothesized such that the degree of product newness sought in the project moderates the effects of both relational embeddedness and knowledge heterogeneity on new product advantage. Empirical findings from a sample of 137 NPD projects support this contingency view. For projects seeking to develop incremental products, where the product being developed is an extension or an enhancement to an existing product, new product advantage tended to be higher in projects using embedded or homogeneous customers. For incremental projects, projects using less‐embedded or heterogeneous customers tended to have lower product performance. For projects following a highly innovative product strategy, new product advantage tended to be higher in projects that involved heterogeneous customers. These heterogeneous customers provided NPD projects with a diversity of perspectives, competencies, and experiences that fostered significant product innovations. The study contributes to the literature by empirically testing relational and innovation theories in NPD projects and by providing evidence on the importance of relational embeddedness and knowledge heterogeneity in selecting influential customers in NPD projects.     

The Roles of Sustainability Orientation and Market Knowledge Competence in New Product Development Success

Firms’ sustainability orientation (SO) is widely understood as a strategic resource, which can lead to competitive advantage and superior (financial) performance. While recent empirical evidence suggests a moderate and positive relationship between SO and financial performance on a corporate level, little is understood about the influence of SO on new product development (NPD) success. Building on the natural‐resource‐based view (NRBV) of the firm, we hypothesize that firms’ SO positively influences NPD success, because of efficiency gains and differentiation advantages. However, scholars have also argued that the win–win paradigm postulated by NRBV might not always hold because NPD managers might find it difficult to balance sustainability objectives with the needs of their customer and the competitive dynamics in their markets. It is, therefore, proposed that market knowledge competence (MKC) is an important capability, which helps firms to balance social and ecological objectives with economic goals such as profitability and market share. Using data from 343 international firms from 24 countries that was collected by the Product Development and Management Association, structural equation modeling results suggest that (1) SO positively influences NPD and that (2) this relationship is partially mediated by firms’ market knowledge capabilities. The findings suggest that strategic‐level SO and MKC are complementary in that they help in balancing trade‐offs between sustainaility objectives and profitability goals. In this way, the study contributes to a better understanding of how critical NPD practices can help managers to translate firms’ SO into NPD success. The article concludes by highlighting implications for product innovation managers.     

Information Use in New Product Development: An Initial Exploratory Empirical Investigation in the Chemical Industry*

In‐depth interviews with product developers and product development software providers in a previous qualitative phase of research uncovered eight general types of information that are used across the new product development process (strategic, project management, financial, market and customer, wants and needs, technical, competitor, and regulatory information) and three general approaches to managing information in the process (project‐centric, functionally oriented, and fully distributed). This paper presents a second phase of research trying to understand the role that managing knowledge and information plays in developing new products and achieving NPD success. This research phase empirically investigates use of the eight types of information across three general phases of the NPD process in the chemical industry using 81 mail survey responses from marketing and new product development professionals. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which each of the eight information types was used in each of the following general phases of new product development: the fuzzy front end, development, and testing and launch. The respondents also provided information on new product development success, information management system sophistication, and innovation strategy. This research makes several contributions to new knowledge. First, this research suggests that information management in product development is even more complex than initially posited in Zahay et al. (2004) , with each of the eight types of information identified being used in each of the three phases of development. Unexpectedly, for all but one type of information use is higher in later stages of the NPD process, even though use of several kinds of information early in the project is associated with increased success. Thus, managers may need to encourage teams to start gathering information from outside the firm earlier than is currently the norm. Second, the results suggest that more sophisticated information management systems are indeed associated with increased use of various different types of information, as expected. Third, more sophisticated information management systems are more highly associated with success than less sophisticated information management systems. These results are important, as most new product development information management systems are limited in their ability to handle complex and non‐quantitative information such as customer wants and needs, as well as strategic, competitor, and regulatory information. However, being able to transmit information on these issues is associated with increased firm performance and project success from these data. Thus, firms need to figure out how to improve their ability to manage and use non‐quantitative information more effectively.     

New Product Development Performance and the Interaction of Cross-Functional Integration and Knowledge Management

Previous research on cross-functional integration between research and development (R&D) and marketing has focused on the development of appropriate structural modes and levels of integration and cooperation across the R&D–marketing interface. A gap in the previous research in this area has been the failure to investigate the integration of information from past related product development projects (i.e., knowledge management). In this investigation of R&D–marketing integration, variables from the emerging research literature on organizational learning and knowledge management are examined. By simultaneously investigating the effects of knowledge management variables and R&D–marketing integration, this gap in the literature is addressed. The results demonstrate that the combined effects of R&D–marketing integration and knowledge management in the form of recording, retrieving, and reviewing information from past projects results in interaction effects. In 8 of 18 tests interactions were found. In 6 of 18 tests these resulted in the form of amplification effects with dependent variables such as product prototype development proficiency, product launch proficiency, technological core competency fit, and design change frequency.     

Integrating Knowledge and Knowledge Processes: A Critical Incident Study of Product Development Projects

Various scholars have argued that knowledge processes in organizations are integrally linked in practice. The extant literature though treats them separately and thereby disregards the interactions and tensions between them. A result of this way of studying knowledge processes is that little is known about their relative importance and how they work together. This paper addresses this gap in the literature through a critical incident study of knowledge processes in product development projects of high‐tech small firms. The paper starts off with a conceptual framework comprised of four knowledge processes—knowledge creation, knowledge application, knowledge integration, and knowledge retention—and their interactions. From the framework, three hypotheses are derived concerning the importance of these types of knowledge processes and their interactions, which in turn guide the empirical research. The hypotheses were tested in a retrospective study of 58 critical incidents in product development projects of 16 high‐tech small firms in the Netherlands. Data were collected through semi‐structured interviews using the critical incident interviewing technique. Interviewees were asked to “relive” and describe particular successful and unsuccessful examples of product development projects in the past. The analysis of the interview data focused upon whether there are differences between successful and unsuccessful projects in the types of knowledge processes and interactions that are performed. After coding all data into the various types of knowledge processes and interactions of the framework, t‐tests were used to test for significance of differences. The findings indicate that the difference between success and failure in these projects lies primarily in the extent to which knowledge integration and integration between knowledge processes have taken place. These findings demonstrate that, of the four knowledge processes, knowledge integration had the most significant impact on product development project success. The study demonstrates furthermore that higher degrees of interactions between knowledge processes were also associated with project success. Despite the limitations of this study, these results provide empirical support for the claim that integration is a key factor in organizations in general and in innovation projects in particular. For academics, this suggests further research on knowledge integration, and integration between knowledge processes, is warranted. For practitioners, it means that integration is a key process to be considered when choosing and executing new product development projects.     

The Impact of Cross-Functional Joint Involvement Across Product Development Stages: An Exploratory Study

Cross-functional integration offers numerous, well-documented benefits for new-product development (NPD), but it also can carry significant costs. Joint involvement of R&D, manufacturing, and marketing personnel can increase the quality, the manufacturability, and the marketability of the final product. However, building consensus among these groups, with their differing perspectives and goals, may require time-consuming meetings as well as tremendous finesse from the managers who guide the NPD effort. Those managers require an approach to cross-functional integration that strikes a balance between efficiency and effectiveness. X. Michael Song, R. Jeffrey Thieme, and Jinhong Xie propose that the right mix of cross-functional involvement may differ depending on the stage in the NPD process. They also suggest that blindly promoting the involvement of all functional areas in all stages of the NPD process may actually decrease NPD performance. They test these propositions in a study that examines the relationships between new product performance and cross-functional joint involvement between R&D, manufacturing, and marketing in five major stages of the NPD process: market opportunity analysis, planning, development, pretesting, and launch. Their objective in this study is to identify patterns of effective cross-functional involvement in different NPD stages. The study uses data collected from 236 managers working in the R&D, manufacturing, and marketing departments of 16 Fortune 500 firms. Their findings suggest that new-product success may be more likely when a firm employs function-specific and stage-specific patterns of cross-functional integration than it is when the firm attempts to integrate all functions during all NPD stages. For example, during the market opportunity analysis stage, the findings suggest that joint involvement between R&D and marketing may be productive, but joint involvement between R&D and manufacturing and among all three functions may be counterproductive. The results also indicate that joint involvement among all three functions either does not have a significant effect on new product success or may be counterproductive in all stages of the NPD process. For the firms in this study, the three functions seem to take turns playing the central role in cross-functional activities. During the product planning, development, and testing phases, the role of the focal function, or communication hub, shifts from manufacturing to R&D and then to marketing. (c) 1998 Elsevier Science Inc.     

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.     

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.     

Launch Strategy and New Product Performance: An Empirical Examination in The Netherlands

Although previous research has investigated the concept and contents of new product performance, there is still no consensus about the managerial decisions that constitute a launch strategy and how such decisions impact new product performance. The research objective for the present investigation is to assess the impact of launch strategy and market characteristics on new product performance and to test the stability of this impact across consumer and industrial products. Data were collected on 272 consumer and industrial new products in The Netherlands through a mail questionnaire approach. We based our definition of a launch strategy on an extensive literature review and interviews with managers. Our conceptualization of new product performance represented two dimensions, namely, market acceptance and product performance. The market acceptance dimension reflects the new product's market position and sales levels. The product performance dimension refers to the quality and technical performance level of the new product. This richer specification of the dependent variable provides a better view on which launch decisions impact which dimensions of new product performance. The impact of launch strategy was higher for market acceptance than for product performance, overall and for both consumer and industrial subsamples separately. In line with results from recent studies, overall, market acceptance is influenced by the product's innovativeness, timing of market entry, breadth of assortment, branding, pricing, the objective of increasing market penetration, and competitor reactions. Product performance is influenced by the product's innovativeness, breadth of assortment, and by the objective of using an existing market. Analyzing the consumer and industrial products separately showed that the general picture of launch decisions and their impact on the dependent variables was comparable across the total sample and both subsamples, indicating that heterogeneous samples in new product launch research may not cause major interpretation problems. Second, the analyses revealed that some launch decisions are more important in attaining new product success for consumer products than for industrial products, and vice versa. While these decisions do not lead to contradicting results in the samples, they show that some decisions may be especially relevant for only consumer or industrial products. We discuss research and managerial implications of the results.     

产品化要从研发抓起——再论用科学发展观指导产品体系建设

一、现有航天器产品的不足 产品是企业的基础与根本,为用户和市场提供产品是企业的第一要务。以研制生产航天器为主业的航天企业为把自己铸造成世界一流的宇航公司,第一个条件就是能向用户和市场提供一流的航天器产品。