Analyses of U.S. and Japanese Management Processes Associated with New Product Success and Failure in High and Low Familiarity Markets

As detailed in the pages of JPIM and other publications, considerable research effort has been devoted to identifying the preconditions for new product success. Studies of Japanese and U.S. new product development (NPD) practices have shown that such factors as sales and marketing expertise, technical expertise, decentralized decision making, R&D/marketing integration, project manager competency, and support from senior management can play key roles in influencing new product success. As William Souder and X. Michael Song point out, however, previous studies have not examined Japanese management practices across a range of environments. They also suggest that the similarities and differences between U.S. and Japanese NPD practices require more in-depth exploration. To help address these issues, they describe the results of a study involving 15 U.S. firms and 15 Japanese firms. Each participating firm provided information about two successful products and two unsuccessful products. Their conceptual model groups the various factors that influence new product success into three general classes: NPD climate, expertise, and management functions. In this model, a firm's level of familiarity with its target market moderates these influences. For example, greater expertise may be necessary to succeed in an unfamiliar market. Each participating firm in the study provided information about one successful product and one failure targeted for high familiarity markets; the other two products from each firm were targeted for low familiarity markets. The U.S. and Japanese models developed in this study exhibit some marked differences from one another. In a familiar market, the U.S. model emphasizes sales and marketing expertise and competent project managers. Under conditions of low market familiarity, this basic model is supplemented with high degrees of R&D/marketing integration, senior management involvement, and decentralization. In this way, the U.S. models reflect a degree of flexibility in adapting the approach to match the prevailing market conditions. In contrast, the two Japanese models of new product success (under low and high familiarity) point to a more invariant system. In other words, the findings from this study reinforce the notion that successful management of NPD requires careful consideration of the firm's environment. Practices that have been proven successful in a particular culture and market environment may not be directly transferable to another setting.     

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

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

New Product Development in Rapidly Changing Markets: An Exploratory Study

Rapid technological change can be both a blessing and a curse. For example, investors and firms of all sizes hope to reap the rewards that may arise from the apparent convergence of the computer, telecommunications, and entertainment industries. With the high level of uncertainty inherent to such rapidly changing markets, however, those potentially dazzling returns are counterbalanced by a daunting level of risk. John Mullins and Daniel Sutherland suggest that firms operating in such markets require NPD practices that can mitigate risk, manage uncertainty, and, of course, increase the likelihood of new product success. To gain insight into the NPD practices that can meet those challenges, they conducted in-depth interviews with managers who were directly involved in NPD projects at US WEST, Inc., a large, multinational firm in the telecommunications industry. The study focused on identifying practices that help the firm bring new products into rapidly changing markets quickly, efficiently, and effectively. A key objective of their study was to go beyond the basics—for example, the use of cross-functional teams—to identify specific practices that allow the firm to address the various levels of uncertainty that characterize its markets. They identify three levels of uncertainty that confront firms operating in rapidly changing markets. First, potential customers cannot easily articulate needs that a new technology may fulfill. Consequently, NPD managers are uncertain about the market opportunities that a new technology offers. Second, NPD managers are uncertain about how to turn the new technologies into products that meet customer needs. This uncertainty arises, not only from customers' inability to articulate their needs, but also from managers' difficulties in translating technological advancements into product features and benefits. Finally, senior management faces uncertainty about how much capital to invest in pursuit of rapidly changing markets as well as when to invest. The study identifies six practices that help the firm address the uncertainty and risk inherent in its rapidly changing markets. For example, market research in this firm's NPD process focuses more on probing than it does on measuring. Involvement of prospective customers in idea generation and the use of prototypes early in the NPD process help the firm uncover customer needs and market opportunities. Large-scale, quantitative market research focuses primarily on determining market size and price points.     

Environmental Uncertainty, Organizational Integration, and New Product Development Effectiveness: A Test of Contingency Theory

R&D/marketing integration clearly improves new-product development (NPD) effectiveness. However, achieving this integration increases the costs of NPD efforts. If technical and market uncertainty moderate the effects of integration on NPD effectiveness, perhaps a firm can achieve NPD success in a more cost-effective manner by seeking the appropriate level of integration, based on the perceived level of uncertainty. In a study of 101 NPD projects at high-tech firms in the U.S. and the U.K., William E. Souder, J. Daniel Sherman, and Rachel Davies-Cooper explore the interplay between technical and market uncertainty, integration, and NPD effectiveness. Their study examines two types of integration: R&D/marketing integration and direct R&D/customer integration. The study measures NPD effectiveness in terms of such indicators as NPD cycle time, prototype development proficiency, design change frequency (a negative performance indicator), and product launch proficiency. The responses from both the U.S. and the U.K. firms provide balanced samples of high and low uncertainty projects, as well as successful and unsuccessful projects. The results of this study support previous research regarding the positive effects of both R&D/marketing integration and direct R&D/customer integration on NPD effectiveness. However, only one measure of NPD effectiveness—R&D comercialization effectiveness—was affected by both R&D/marketing integration and direct R&D/customer integration. This result suggests that the two types of integration are distinct from one another and that managers need to emphasize different types of integration, depending on which aspects of NPD effectiveness their firms need to improve. The results also suggest that technical and market uncertainty influence some aspects of NPD effectiveness. For example, the perceived level of technical uncertainty was found to influence prototype development proficiency and to moderate design change frequency. In other words, these results support the idea that a high level of technical uncertainty warrants paying extra attention to increasing prototype development proficiency in the interest of reducing design change frequency. However, the results also reinforce the idea that NPD activities generally involve high levels of technical and market uncertainty, which means that the high cost of integration may be a requirement for NPD success.     

Management Practices Influencing New Product Success and Failure in the United States and Scandinavia: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study

This comparative cross-cultural study of United States (U.S.) and Scandinavian telecommunications products found both similarities and differences in the successful new product development (NPD) management practices within the U.S. and Scandinavia. Proficiencies in conducting development, marketing, and customer service activities were identified as important to NPD success in both Scandinavia and the U.S. However, differences between the U.S. and Scandinavia were found with regard to the importance of research and development/marketing integration and project manager competency, with these aspects being more important to NPD success in the U.S. Additional differences between Scandinavia and the U.S. were found in the successful NPD strategies for entering familiar versus unfamiliar markets, with the Scandinavian systems being more oriented toward product design strategies. The overall results characterized U.S. NPD management systems as product-market oriented, task focused, and project management driven. By comparison, the Scandinavian NPD management systems were characterized as product-service oriented, driven by enduring interpersonal relationships and socially oriented to helping others. These characterizations were found to be consistent with dissimilarities in the national cultures of the U.S. and Scandinavia, suggesting that some core NPD management principles may be generally important to success, whereas others may be culturally dependent. The importance of recognizing these differences is pointed out in a discussion of their implications for NPD theory and practice in today's global economy. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.     

Cross‐Cultural Creativity: Conceptualization and Propositions for Global New Product Development

In today's global business environment, where multinational companies are pressed to increase revenues in order to survive, creativity may hold the key to ensuring their new product development (NPD) efforts lead to innovations with worldwide appeal, such as Apple's iPad and Gillette's Fusion Razor. To leverage creativity for effective global NPD, businesses want to know how cultures differ in their concepts of creativity and the impact of those differences on approaches to developing new products. Because global new products are increasingly developed in, by, and for multiple cultures, a particular need is for a culturally reflective understanding, or conceptualization, of creativity. While creativity is believed to be culturally tied, the dominant framework of creativity used in business and management assumes that creativity is culturally indifferent or insensitive. This knowledge gap is addressed by studying the role of creativity in NPD practices in a cross‐cultural or global context. The study begins by first developing a culturally anchored conceptualization of creativity. Called cross‐cultural creativity, the concept draws on creativity insights from the field of art and aesthetics. The concept specifies two modes of creativity, neither of which is superior to the other, called the spontaneous or S route and the divergent or D route. The S route emphasizes adaptiveness, processes, intuitiveness, and metamorphism, while the D route focuses on disruptiveness, results, rationality, and literalism. Next, this new concept is applied to NPD by positing how creativity in distinct cultures may shape NPD practices, as illustrated by Japanese and U.S. firms. Research propositions are formulated to capture these patterns, and thereafter, theoretical and practical implications of the framework and propositions are discussed. The implications center on global NPD, which is a complex enterprise involving typically more than one culture to design and develop new products for several geographic markets. The study is of interest to researchers needing a globally situated, culturally attached framework of creativity for international NPD studies, and managers seeking to exploit creativity in multinational and multicultural innovation projects.     

The Role of Sales in NPD: An Investigation of the U.S. Health‐Care Industry

The new product development (NPD) literature emphasizes that the success of new products strongly depends on a firm's capability to understand customer needs and translate them into new products. Because of their close relationships with customers, salespeople are in the ideal position to connect the firm's NPD efforts to its customers. The extant literature on the role of sales in NPD focuses on either sales’ contribution to generating new product ideas or the adoption of new products by salespeople, while a systematic study of sales’ contribution during all NPD stages is lacking. In addition, the role of sales is typically studied in isolation, while in practice, the role of sales depends on the relationship between sales and marketing. This article addresses these gaps in the literature by reporting on an empirical investigation of the role of sales during the entire NPD process in the U.S. health‐care industry, taking into account the complexities of the sales‐marketing dynamic. The article is based on interviews with 21 sales and 15 marketing informants from the U.S. health‐care industry, both pharmaceutical firms (selling drugs to physicians) and device manufacturing firms. Our findings highlight how salespeople are distant from NPD process during the discovery stage. Salespeople are focused on selling to customers, and marketing keeps sales distant from the NPD process. During the development stage, sales is still only indirectly involved in NPD through its relationship with marketing. During commercialization, however, marketing takes the driver's seat and strongly involves sales in the various (pre)launch activities. But while salespeople are mostly indirectly involved in NPD, sales managers have a closer relationship with sales and are more directly involved. The findings also show how the involvement of sales is influenced by characteristics of the health‐care industry. Thus, this article contributes to our understanding of the role of sales in NPD by integrating theoretical perspectives from the sales‐marketing interface literature into the NPD literature.     

Teamwork Barriers in Japanese High-Technology Firms: The Sociocultural Differences Between R&D and Marketing Managers

Building and maintaining internal harmony is a fundamental concern for managers in many Japanese firms. Discussions of Japanese management practices often point to the intense socialization of new recruits, the rotation of employees through different functions, and the significant role of seniority in determining salary levels and promotions. Considering this emphasis on harmony, can we reasonably assume that the orientations of Japanese R&D and marketing managers do not differ in any ways that may pose significant barriers to teamwork between their departments? X. Michael Song and Mark E. Parry test this assumption by examining the sociocultural differences between R&D and marketing managers in Japanese high-technology firms. Using responses from both R&D and marketing managers in 223 firms, their study groups the respondents’ employers as either low- or high-integration firms. They examine the sociocultural differences between the R&D and marketing managers in the study along five dimensions: time orientation, bureaucratic orientation, professional orientation, tolerance for ambiguity, and preferences for high-risk, high-return projects. Contrary to expectations, the responses reveal several significant differences between the R&D and marketing managers in this study. Compared to their colleagues in marketing, the Japanese R&D managers in this study generally have a stronger preference for high-risk, high-return investments. The R&D managers in the study also have a longer time orientation than the Japanese marketing managers. However, marketing managers from the high-integration firms in the study have a longer time orientation than their counterparts in low-integration firms. Compared to the R&D managers, Japanese marketing managers in the high-integration firms studied have a greater tolerance for ambiguity. And relative to managers in low-integration firms, marketing and R&D managers in the high-integration firms in this study typically have a more bureaucratic organization. Perhaps most important, a significant number of R&D managers in this study perceive the marketing managers in their firms to have higher organizational status. Specifically, responses from R&D managers indicate that they perceive their marketing colleagues to have higher salaries, more power, and brighter career prospects. Such perceptions may foster morale problems among R&D professionals in these Japanese firms, and thus require management intervention to ensure that R&D performance does not suffer.     

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.     

The Determinants of Seller‐Buyer Interactions during New Product Development in Technology‐Based Industrial Markets

A growing body of literature indicates that the new product development (NPD) process in technology‐based, industrial markets is characterized by collaborative seller‐buyer relationships. Unfortunately, the extant literature is deficient in some significant ways. For example, there is no theoretical framework that explicates the content of these relationships. Also, there is little empirical research on the antecedents or consequences of these relationships. Therefore, managers seeking guidance on how to manage their NPD relationships have lacked appropriate insights. Not surprisingly, ineffective relationship management is a major contributor to new product failure in such settings. Against this background, this study develops and tests a model of seller‐buyer interactions during NPD. The model is based on the relationship marketing literature and is rooted in Transaction Cost Analysis (TCA). It was tested using data from 296 small to mid‐sized firms in a variety of technology‐based, industrial markets. It specifies product co‐development, education, and post‐installation product knowledge generation as three key behavioral dimensions that characterize seller‐buyer interactions during NPD. Our results indicate that the intensity with which these dimensions are undertaken vary with buyer‐related (i.e., perceived buyer knowledge and prior relationship history) and innovation‐related (i.e., product customization and innovation discontinuity) characteristics. For example, perceived buyer knowledge has a positive impact on product co‐development while innovation discontinuity has a positive impact on education. Further, we find that a seller's satisfaction with undertaking these behaviors is moderated by the technological uncertainty in the seller's industry. As a case in point, satisfaction with undertaking product co‐development is reduced when technological uncertainty is high. Collectively, the overall support we find for our model can help NPD managers optimize their relationships with buyers during NPD.     

Industrial New Product Launch Strategies and Product Development Performance

Just as reporters must answer a few fundamental questions in every story they write, decision-makers in the new product development (NPD) process must address five key issues: what to launch, where to launch, when to launch, why to launch, and how to launch. These decisions involve significant commitments of time, money, and resources. They also go a long way toward determining the success or failure of any new product. Deeper insight into the tradeoffs these decisions involve may help to increase the likelihood of success for product launch efforts. Erik Jan Hultink, Abbie Griffin, Susan Hart, and Henry Robben present the results of a study that examines the interplay between these product launch decisions and NPD performance. Noting that previous launch studies focus primarily on the tactical decisions (that is, how to launch) rather than on the strategic decisions (what, where, when, and why to launch), they explore not only which decisions are important to success, but also the associations between the two sets of decisions. Because the strategic launch decisions made early in the NPD process affect the tactical decisions made later in the process, their study emphasizes the importance of launch consistency—that is, the alignment of the strategic and tactical decisions made throughout the process. The survey respondents—managers from marketing, product development, or general management in U.K. firms—provided information about 221 industrial new products launched during the previous five years. The responses identify associations between various sets of strategic and tactical decisions. That is, the responses suggest that the strategic decisions managers make regarding product innovativeness, market targeting, the number of competitors, and whether the product is marketing- or technology-driven are associated with subsequent tactical decisions regarding branding, distribution expenditure and intensity, and pricing. The study also suggests that different sets of launch decisions have differing effects on performance of industrial new products. In this study, the greatest success was enjoyed by a small group of respondents categorized as Niche Innovators. Their launch strategy involves a niche focus, targeting innovative products into markets with few competitors. Tactical decisions made by this group include exclusive distribution, a skimming pricing strategy, and a broad product assortment.     

Do New Product Development Managers in Large or High-Market-Share Firms Perceive Marketing-R&D Interface Principles Differently?

In the quest for successful innovation, the importance of the R&Dlmarketing interface is virtually unquestioned. For many organizations, however, effective integration of technical and marketing functions is difficult, if not impossible. Despite seemingly widespread understanding of fundamental new product principles, some companies still manage to gain a larger share of the market than their competitors. This raises the question of whether managers in more successful companies have special insights into R&D'/'marketing interface principles that give them an edge over their competitors. To gain a better understanding of managers' perceptions of new product principles defined in the academic literature, Ted Haggblom, Roger J. Calantone, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto conducted a survey of 687 nonacademic members of the Product Development and Management Association. The basis for the survey was a set of 78 product management principles compiled from a search of more than 500 books and articles from various disciplines. From this survey, 14 of the 78 principles were selected as relevant to the study reported in this article. The principles discussed in this article involve such issues as resistance to change, short-term orientation, communication and trust between marketing and technical people, the effect of centralized decision-making on innovation, the importance of open communication flows, senior management's role in the R&D I marketing interface, and the necessity of a product champion. The primary quesstion addressed in this study is whether managers from successful companies perceive these principles differently from managers of less successful firms. The study provides partial support for the proposition that managers' perceptions of these new product principles depend on their company's success. In other words, the survey results suggest that managers in companies with higher market shares tend to agree more strongly with these principles than their counterparts in less successful firms. The study also explores the relationship between firm size and agreement with these principles of new product success. Specifically, the study assesses whether the perceptions of managers from smaller, more entrepreneurial companies differ from those of managers in larger companies. Although managers from small and large firms may view these principles from different perspectives, there were no statistically significant differences in the perceptions of managers from small and large firms.     

New Product Development Practices of Industrial Marketers*

William L. Moore personally interviewed a number of senior managers employed in 25 large industrial marketing companies about new product development practices. These managers are familiar with all phases of the development of typical new products, from the time ideas are generated until market introduction. Most respondents were either division heads or those directly responsible for a division's new product development program. In agreement with a previous study, the use of formal new product strategies and sophisticated quantitative marketing research techniques was found to be lacking in most companies. However, many other elements of the new product development process were carried out more completely than previously reported. For example, respondents reflected sensitivity to informal understanding of new product strategies. A number of the less sophisticated, small scale qualitative research methods actually used may be more appropriate than more sophisticated methods. While several research areas are suggested, the general assessment of the new product practices of these firms is more positive than that of Feldman and Page.     

The Role of Departmental Thought Worlds in Shaping Escalation of Commitment in New Product Development Projects

The debate over whether and how thought worlds of different departments (especially marketing and research and development [R&D]) affect managers' decision-making behavior in new product development (NPD) is ongoing. A key challenge of these decisions is to deal with deteriorating NPD projects, which are often subject to escalation of commitment (EoC), with many firms wasting billions of dollars by throwing good money after bad NPD projects. However, understanding departmental thought worlds and their role for EoC in NPD could help firms stop this profusion. Thus, this research provides answers to the question of how thought worlds affect managers' tendency toward EoC in NPD decision-making—both in general and under certain project characteristics. To do so, we conducted four studies based on real-life scenarios with 460 highly experienced NPD managers from marketing and R&D, thus ensuring high validity and reliability. Our research is the first to explore the impact of thought worlds on EoC, thereby detecting that the importance of managers' thought worlds for shaping EoC varies with the NPD project's characteristics. Thus, depending on the specific project situation, different types of managers may be more or less capable of making proper NPD decisions. Moreover, results show that belief updating serves as a respective key mediator. Doing so enriches the theory by showing that managers' thought worlds can substantially influence a major mechanism (i.e., belief updating) of coping with cognitive dissonance. Finally, post hoc tests reveal departmental differences in EoC behavior between marketing and R&D that vary with a project's characteristics. These results imply that firms need to carefully consider who is in charge of making decisions on NPD project continuance in different project situations.     

Innovation strategy and sanctioned conflict: a new edge in innovation?

Teamwork and harmony are worthy objectives, but a healthy dose of conflict also plays an important role in fostering innovation. In their pursuit of teamwork and harmony, companies run the risk of suppressing the creative tension that brings vitality to new-product development (NPD) efforts. Furthermore, a firm's choice of innovation strategy may have a significant effect on the organization's capability for managing conflict. Using results from a survey of 290 marketing and R&D managers from U.S. firms in the electronics industries, Barbara Dyer and X. Michael Song explore the link between strategy and conflict, and the effect this link has on NPD success. Their study examines the following issues: the influence of business strategy on specific conflict-handling behaviors; the relationship between those conflict-handling behaviors and positive conflict outcomes; and the relationship between constructive conflict and new-product success. The study classifies firms predominantly pursuing a more aggressive NPD strategy as prospectors and less aggressive firms as defenders. Three conflict-handling mechanisms are identified: integrating behaviors, forcing behaviors, and avoiding behaviors. Compared to the prospector firms, the defender firms in this study perceived significantly higher levels of conflict in their organizations. In handling conflict, the prospector firms perceived a higher level of integrative behavior than the defender firms. The defenders perceived higher levels of forcing and avoiding conflict behaviors. The study identifies a strong, positive relationship between integrative behaviors and constructive conflict. Positive relationships are also identified between constructive conflict and the success of cross-functional relationships, as well as between constructive conflict and NPD business success. For the firms in this study, the results indicate that strategy is associated with the conflict-handling mechanisms the firm uses. For example, the results suggest that an NPD manager in a prospector firm will encounter high use of integrative behaviors, a high number of complex conflicts, a relatively low level of perceived conflict, a high level of formalization, and frequent exchanges of written and verbal communication among the firm's personnel. The results suggest that managers may help to create an environment conducive to NPD success by assessing their firms' strategies, emphasizing integrative conflict-handling behaviors, and employing formalization of organizational procedures.     

Corporate Culture and Commitment: Impact on Performance of International New Product Development Programs

To achieve success in today's competitive environment, firms increasingly must develop new products for international markets. To this end, they must leverage and must coordinate broad creative capabilities and resources, which often are diffused across geographical and cultural boundaries. Recent writings in the globalization and in the new product development (NPD) literatures suggest that certain “softer” dimensions that define the behavioral environment of the firm—that is, the firm's organizational culture and management commitment—can have an important impact on the outcome of these complex and risky endeavors. But what comprises these dimensions and what type of behavioral environment scenario is linked to high performance in the international NPD effort of firms has not been articulated clearly. This research focuses on these softer dimensions, with the objective of understanding and idengifying their specific makeup as well as their relationship to the outcome of international NPD programs. Based on an integration of three literatures—organizational, new product development, and globalization—the present study develops a research instrument, comprising 18 behavioral environment measurement items as well as several outcome measures, that is administered to a broad empirical sample of goods and services firms active in NPD for international markets. Using empirical results from 252 international NPD programs, three key dimensions are idengified: (1) the innovation/globalization culture of the firm; (2) the commitment of sufficient resources to the NPD program; and (3) top management involvement in the international NPD effort. These dimensions are used to derive four clusters of firms, where each grouping represents a distinctly different behavioral environment scenario. In a preliminary analysis, it is ascertained that other aspects of the firm such as “degree of internationalization,” location of the respondent to the NPD center, and other company parameters do not form the basis of cluster membership. By linking measures of performance to the four behavioral clusters, findings are developed that clearly support this study's hypothesis that international NPD outcomes are associated with the softer behavioral environment dimensions. Scenario performance ranges from “very high” to “very low” and appears to be linked clearly to the dimensions studied. The lower‐performing firms tended to emphasize positively only one, or sometimes two, of the three dimensions. The “best performers” were found to be firms with a “positive balanced” approach to international NPD, where all three behavioral environment dimensions are supported strongly. In other words, firms in this scenario have an open and innovative global NPD culture, they ensure that sufficient resources are committed to the NPD program, and their senior managers play an active and involved role in the international NPD effort. Given this evidence of a direct link between behavioral environment and international NPD performance, the present study's findings suggest some important messages for managers charged with the development of new products for international markets.     

Project Management Characteristics and New Product Survival

We develop a conceptual model of new product development (NPD) based on seminal and review articles in order to answer the question, “What project management characteristics will foster the development of new products that are more likely to survive in the marketplace?” Our model adopts Ruekert and Walker's theoretical framework of situational dimensions, structural/process dimensions, and outcome dimensions as an underlying structure. We conceptualize their situational dimensions more narrowly as project management dimensions, allowing us to examine more specifically how project management practices affect the NPD process. In our model, project management dimensions include project manager style, project manager skills, and senior management support. Structural/process dimensions include cross‐functional integration and planning proficiency. Outcome dimensions include process proficiency and new product survival. Our empirical analysis finds support for 20 hypotheses, a reversal of one hypothesis, and nonsignificant results for one hypothesis. These results show that projects are best led by managers with strong technical, marketing, and management skills, using a participative style and enjoying early and continuous support from senior management. These project management dimensions promote cross‐functional integration and planning, which are important to process proficiency and new product survival. Our study suggests two broad conclusions. First, it confirms the links in the extant literature between situational (project management) dimensions, structural/process dimensions, and outcome dimensions in NPD. Second, firms can improve cross‐functional integration and planning through various project management practices. Generally, we find that firms interested in improving both proficiency in their development process and the survival rate of new products should take steps to promote cross‐functional integration and to improve their planning processes. While the linkage between cross‐functional integration and NPD outcomes is well established in the literature, the impact of the planning process on NPD outcomes is a research area ripe with opportunity. Our study highlights three aspects of planning that contribute to NPD outcomes. Plans should be detailed, team members should participate actively in the planning process, and teams should be given flexibility and autonomy to respond to unanticipated issues as they appear.     

New Product Activities and Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Hostility

In the race to bring new products to market, a company may be tempted to cut corners in the new product development (NPD) process. And a hostile environment—that is, one marked by intense competition and rapid technological change—only heightens the pressure to reduce NPD cycle time. However, hasty completion of the NPD process may actually jeopardize a product's chances for success. In a study of Fortune 500 manufacturers of industrial products, Roger J. Calantone, Jeffrey B. Schmidt, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto explore the relationships among new product success rates, proficiency in the execution of NPD activities, and the perceived level of hostility in the competitve environment. Their study examines how proficiency in NPD activities affects the odds of success for industrial new products. Adding environmental hostility to the mix, they also investigate whether the perceived level of hostility in the competitive environment affects the relationship between NPD proficiency and success. In this way, they provide insight into the factors managers must consider when attempting to accelerate cycle time in a hostile competitive environment. The respondents to their survey—142 senior managers involved in NPD or product innovation rated environmental hostility in terms of the extent to which the firm perceives its industry as safe, rich in investment opportunity, and controllable. To assess NPD proficiency, respondents were asked about their firms' performance in predevelopment marketing and technical activities, development marketing and technical activities, and financial analysis. Respondents assessed new product performance in terms of product profitability. As expected, the responses indicate that proficiency in the performance of NPD activities increases the likelihood of new product success. Proficiency in development marketing activities produced the largest increase in likelihood of success—nearly 25 percent over that of projects in which respondents rated performance of these activities at any level below “most proficient.” More importantly, the responses indicate that a hostile competitive environment increases the impact of NPD proficiency. In other words, by improving performance of key NPD activities under hostile environmental conditions, a firm can greatly increase the likelihood of success for a new industrial product. Rather than simply cut corners in the NPD process, a firm faced with a hostile environment must strike a balance between speed and quality of execution.     

R&D Project Termination Decisions: Processes, Communication, and Personnel Changes

The decision to terminate a project can demoralize project managers and team members, and increase concerns about job security. For these reasons, managers tend to delay project termination decisions. However, delaying project termination diverts scarce R&D resources from higher potential projects. Ramaiya Balachandra, Klaus K. Brockhoff, and Alan W. Pearson describe the results of a study that explores the manner in which managers inform staff of the decision to terminate or continue a project. Survey respondents are the highest ranking R&D managers in 78 large German, British, and U.S. companies. Respondents were asked to describe the procedures they use for monitoring R&D projects and deciding whether to continue a project. Underlying this research is the belief that more effective management of these processes can improve project team effectiveness, employee relations, and morale. All survey respondents use project monitoring procedures. Most use formal procedures, often supplemented with informal procedures. More than one person usually monitors projects. Project managers, their immediate superiors, and project staff typically have these responsibilities, but respondents also indicate that marketing managers often monitor projects. Compared to U.S. companies, European firms typically involve fewer people in project monitoring. U.S. firms involve more non-R&D personnel in these tasks. Most firms focus on monitoring such variables as time, technical success, and probability of technical success. Staff motivation is the least used monitoring variable. Cost control was mentioned more frequently by German respondents than by respondents from other countries. Decisions regarding the fate of a project usually come from individuals not directly involved with the project. Termination decisions are typically communicated in writing; no respondents use staff meetings to relate such decisions. Following the decision to terminate a project, management faces the difficult task of finding suitable jobs for project team members. Rather than assign an entire team to a new project, management typically disbands a team and assigns its members to other teams. The inherently uneven progress of R&D projects complicates these scheduling problems, and thus compounds the career uncertainty caused by project termination decisions.