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.     

Balancing Development Costs and Sales to Optimize the Development Time of Product Line Additions*

Development teams often use mental models to simplify development time decision making because a comprehensive empirical assessment of the trade‐offs across the metrics of development time, development costs, proficiency in market‐entry timing, and new product sales is simply not feasible. Surprisingly, these mental models have not been studied in prior research on the trade‐offs among the aforementioned metrics. These mental models are important to consider, however, because they define reality, specify what team members attend to, and guide their decision making. As such, these models influence how development teams make trade‐offs across the four metrics to try to optimize new product profitability. Teams with such an objective should manage to a development time that minimizes development costs and to a proficient market‐entry timing that maximizes new product sales. Yet many teams use mental models for development time decision making that focus either just on development costs or on proficiency in market‐entry timing. This survey‐based study uses data from 115 completed NPD projects, all product line additions from manufacturers in The Netherlands, to demonstrate that there is a cost to simplifying decision making. Making development time decisions without taking into account the contingency between development time and proficiency in market‐entry timing can be misleading, and using either a sales‐maximization or a cost‐minimization simplified decision‐making model may result in a cost penalty or a sales loss. The results from this study show that the development time that maximizes new product profitability is longer than the time that maximizes new product sales and is shorter than the development time that minimizes development costs. Furthermore, the results reveal that the cost penalty of sales maximization is smaller than the sales loss of development costs minimization. An important implication of the results is that, to determine the optimal development time, teams need to distinguish between cost and sales effects of development time reductions. To determine the relative impact of these effects this study also estimates the elasticities of development costs, new product sales, and new product profitability with regard to development time. Armed with this knowledge, development teams should be better equipped to make trade‐offs among the four metrics of development time, development costs, proficiency in market‐entry timing, and new product sales.     

Exploring the Nonlinear Impact of Organizational Integration on New Product Market Success

This article explores the nonlinear relationship between organizational integration and new product market success (NPMS). The concept of organizational integration was measured by assessing the degree of integration among various groups of people involved in the development of new products including new product development (NPD) teams that are typically the focal points of NPD efforts. New product market success was measured by examining four often‐used measures of NPD success. The mail survey research approach was used to gather empirical data from NPD managers in three major industries. The data gathered from this survey process were used as the basis from which to extract information to address this study's major research questions, which include: (1) How is the degree of new product market success related to the nonlinear degree to which groups of people (including NPD teams) integrate during NPD processes? and (2) How is the degree of new product market success related to the nonlinear degree to which separate groups of people (e.g., customers, suppliers, and functional departments) integrate during NPD processes? This study found that high levels of organizational integration (overall organizational integration and supplier organizational integration) during NPD processes are associated with high levels of new product market success. Additionally, this study found that the relationship between new product market success and organizational integration (customer organizational integration and functional organization integration) during NPD processes exhibit nonlinear, U‐shaped relationships. Therefore, the first important finding of this study confirms that various forms of organizational integration impact in a positive way the market success of new products. This suggests that management responsible for all NPD projects should consciously integrate important groups of people to support such developments. This study's findings also confirm and imply that new product developers in the studied industries should integrate marketing and research and development (R&D) over the duration of the NPD process. This suggests that new product managers must be proactive to assure that members of NPD teams are actively engaged with groups of supporting people within and outside new‐product–producing organizations. Unlike prior research, a major finding of this study suggests that the association between organizational integration and new product market success does not form inverted U‐shaped relationships. Data from this research imply that new product market success is linearly influenced by overall and supplier organizational integration. However, this study's data suggest that new product market success is nonlinearly influenced by customer and functional organizational integration. This study's data suggest that when customer organizational integration and/or functional organizational integration is increased, new product market success can be increased at a rate which is greater than a linear rate.     

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

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

Determinants of IT Usage and New Product Performance*

Explosive growth of information technologies (IT) has prompted interest in examining the role of IT in new product development (NPD). Through desktop software and Web‐based tools, IT has been used to aid idea generation and product testing as well as for NPD activities such as process and portfolio management. Recent research suggests, however, that a gap exists between IT availability and usage. Given the importance of IT in creating business value through the development of new products and services, the present study seeks to identify factors that affect IT usage. Further, anecdotal evidence and conceptual studies intimate that the usage of IT tools for NPD can shorten time to market, can improve product quality, and can increase productivity. However, empirical substantiation of this impact is mostly nonexistent. The current study investigates the relationship between IT usage and two measures of new product performance: speed to market and market performance. Employing a mail‐survey methodology, the study uses data from a sample of practitioner members from the Product Development & Management Association to examine the effect of project risk, existence of a champion, autonomy, innovative climate, IT infrastructure, and IT embeddedness on the extent of IT usage. These data are also used to explore the impact of IT usage on speed to market and market performance. The results indicate that project risk, existence of a champion, and IT embeddedness positively affect the extent of IT usage for NPD. Additionally, IT usage positively and significantly influences the performance of the new product in the marketplace. Surprisingly, and contrary to popular belief, IT usage does not have any impact on speed to market. An important implication of this study is that IT usage influences performance but not in the way managers expect. Specifically, IT usage does not seem to affect speed to market but rather positively impacts the performance of the new product in the marketplace. This result suggests that IT usage in NPD provides far more value to firms than previously thought and provides evidence to support greater investments in IT for product development efforts. Other implications of the study are that unless IT is embedded into the NPD process and champions for IT tools exist, chances are that IT will not be used and its benefits will not be realized.     

Integrating the R&D and Patent Functions: Implications for New Product Performance

This paper examines the impact of cross‐functional integration between the research and development (R&D) and the patent functions on new product development (NPD) performance. The attitudinal (collaboration) and the behavioral (contributions of the patent function to NPD) dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions are distinguished. It is also investigated if the level of innovativeness moderates the relationship between the attitudinal and the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. The four hypotheses are tested based on a multi‐informant sample of 101 NPD projects which are nested within 72 technology‐based firms or strategic business units from multiple industries in Germany. The results show that the attitudinal and the behavioral dimensions of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions have a significant and positive impact on NPD performance. This lends empirical support for the notion expressed in the literature that certain managerial capabilities are important for understanding the effect of patenting on appropriability outcomes such as value creation and performance. The level of cross‐functional integration between the patent and the R&D functions appears to be one of these critical patent management capabilities that affect the returns from investments into patents. There is support for the hypothesis that the context matters for the effect of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions on NPD performance. In line with the initial hypothesis, the level of innovativeness positively moderates the impact of the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department on NPD performance. In contrast to the initial hypothesis, the findings reveal no moderating effect of the level of innovativeness on the link between the attitudinal dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. This implies that joint objectives and an open and trustful working relationship between the R&D and the patent functions are not sufficient for achieving higher NPD performance if firms aim to develop very innovative products. In the case of highly innovative products, the actual behavior, that is, the specific contributions of the patent department to the NPD project, matters. Overall, these findings have important implications for improving performance by means of effectively integrating the patent and the R&D functions during NPD.     

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 Development: Impact of Project Characteristics and Development Practices on Performance

Concurrent product development process and integrated product development teams have emerged as the two dominant new product development (NPD) “best practices” in the literature. Yet empirical evidence of their impact on product development success remains inconclusive. This paper draws upon organizational information processing theory (OIPT) to explore how these two dominant NPD best practices and two key aspects of NPD project characteristics (i.e., project uncertainty and project complexity) directly and jointly affect the NPD performance. Contrary to the “best practice” literature, the analysis, based on 266 NPD projects from three industries (i.e., automotive, electronics, and machinery) across nine countries (i.e., Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United States), found no evidence of any direct impact of process concurrency or team integration on overall NPD performance. Instead, there is evidence of negative impact of the interaction between project uncertainty and concurrent NPD process and positive impact of the interaction between project complexity and team integration on overall NPD performance. Moreover, the study found no evidence of any direct negative impact of project uncertainty or complexity on overall NPD performance as suggested in the literature, but found evidence of a direct positive relationship between project complexity and overall NPD performance. The practical implications of these results are significant. First, neither process concurrency nor team integration should be embraced universally as best practice. Second, process concurrency should be avoided in projects with high uncertainty (i.e., when working with unfamiliar product, market, or technology). Finally, team integration should be encouraged for complex product development projects. For a simple product a loosely integrated team or a more centralized decision process may work well. However, as project complexity increases, team integration becomes essential for improved product development. There is no one‐size‐fits‐all solution for managing NPD projects. The choice of a product development practice should be determined by the project characteristics.     

Spurring Cross‐Functional Integration for Higher New Product Performance: A Group Effectiveness Perspective*

Spurring integration among functional specialists so they collectively create successful, or high‐performing, new products is a central interest of innovation practitioners and researchers. Firms are increasingly assembling cross‐functional new product development (NPD) teams for this purpose. However, integration of team members' divergent orientations and expertise is notoriously difficult to achieve. Individuals from distinct functions such as design, marketing, manufacturing, and research and development (R&D) are often assigned to NPD teams but have contrasting backgrounds, priorities, and thought worlds. If not well managed, this diversity can yield unproductive conflict and chaos rather than successful new products. Firms are thus looking for avenues of integrating the varied expertise and orientations within these cross‐functional teams. The aim of this study is to address two important and not fully resolved questions: (1) does cross‐functional integration in NPD teams actually improve new product performance; and if so, (2) what are ways to strengthen integration? The study began by developing a model of cross‐functional integration from the perspective of the group effectiveness theory. The theory has been used to explain the performance of a wide range of small, complex work groups; this study is the first application of the theory to NPD teams. The model developed from this theory was then tested by conducting a survey of dual informants in 206 NPD teams in an array of U.S. high‐technology companies. In answer to the first research question, the findings show that cross‐functional integration indeed contributes to new product performance as long conjectured. This finding is important in that it highlights that bringing together the skills, efforts, and knowledge of differing functions in an NPD team has a clear and coveted payoff: high‐performing new products. In answer to the second question, the findings indicate that both intra‐ (or internal) and extra‐ (or external) team factors contribute and codetermine cross‐functional integration. Specifically, social cohesion and superordinate identity as internal team factors and market‐oriented reward system, planning process formalization, and managerial encouragement to take risks as external team factors foster integration. These findings underscore that spurring integration requires addressing the conditions inside as well as outside NPD teams. These specialized work groups operate as organizations within organizations; recognition of this in situ arrangement is the first step toward better managing and ensuring rewards from team integration. Based on these findings, managerial and research implications were drawn for team integration and new product performance.     

Leveraging Social Network Sites in New Product Development: Opportunity or Hype?

Leveraging social network sites is high on the list of priorities for a lot of businesses that are eager to find more effective ways to reach, learn about, and engage customers in new product development (NPD). However, the rapidly changing landscape of social network sites can be difficult to navigate successfully and doubts remain about whether and how they can be used to good effect. In fact, empirical research confirming a positive relationship between the use of social network sites in NPD and business performance is scarce. This paper reports on research examining the use of social network sites for three purposes, namely for market research guiding the development of new products, for getting customers to collaborate in the NPD process, and for new product launch. The results of this research suggest that the benefits expected from using social network sites in NPD are largely not being realized by businesses. Using social network sites to conduct market research leading into the NPD process was not found to contribute to business performance, and in fact was found to have negative relationships with both profitability and market growth. Using social network sites to get customers to collaborate in the NPD process was found to be positively related with innovativeness but not with market growth or profitability. Finally, using social network sites for new product launch was where the most positive indications were seen, since this was found to be positively related with innovativeness, market growth, and profitability. Thus, it appears that while businesses may get good results from using social network sites for product launch, they still have a learning curve to traverse before they can successfully use them for market research or customer collaboration in NPD. While there is currently a great deal of enthusiasm—even hype—about the potential opportunities of using social network sites for NPD, this research suggests that businesses should move carefully and recognize that just jumping on the social network bandwagon will not insure success.     

New Product Development Practices and Early‐Stage Firms: Two In‐Depth Case Studies

New product development practices (NPD) have been well studied for decades in large, established companies. Implementation of best practices such as predevelopment market planning and cross‐functional teams have been positively correlated with product and project success over a variety of measures. However, for small new ventures, field research into ground‐level adoption of NPD practices is lacking. Because of the risks associated with missteps in new product development and the potential for firm failure, understanding NPD within the new venture context is critical. Through in‐depth case research, this paper investigates two successful physical product‐based early‐stage firms' development processes versus large established firm norms. The research focuses on the start‐up adoption of commonly prescribed management processes to improve NPD, such as cross‐functional teams, use of market planning during innovation development, and the use of structured processes to guide the development team. This research has several theoretical implications. The first finding is that in comparing the innovation processes of these firms to large, established firms, the study found several key differences from the large firm paradigm. These differences in development approach from what is prescribed for large, established firms are driven by necessity from a scarcity of resources. These new firms simply did not have the resources (financial or human) to create multi‐ or cross‐functional teams or organizations in the traditional sense for their first product. Use of virtual resources was pervasive. Founders also played multiple roles concurrently in the organization, as opposed to relying on functional departments so common in large firms. The NPD process used by both firms was informal—much more skeletal than commonly recommended structured processes. The data indicated that these firms put less focus on managing the process and more emphasis on managing their goals (the main driver being getting the first product to market). In addition to little or no written procedures being used, development meetings did not run to specific paper‐based deliverables or defined steps. In terms of market and user insight, these activities were primarily performed inside the core team—using methods that again were distinctive in their approach. What drove a project to completion was relying on team experience or a “learn as you go approach.” Again, the driver for this type of truncated market research approach was a lack of resources and need to increase the project's speed‐to‐market. Both firms in our study were highly successful, from not only an NPD efficiency standpoint but also effectiveness. The second broad finding we draw from this work is that there are lessons to be learned from start‐ups for large, established firms seeking ever‐increasing efficiency. We have found that small empowered teams leading projects substantial in scope can be extremely effective when roles are expanded, decision power is ground‐level, and there is little emphasis on defined processes. This exploratory research highlights the unique aspects of NPD within small early‐stage firms, and highlights areas of further research and management implications for both small new ventures and large established firms seeking to increase NPD efficiency and effectiveness.     

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.     

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.     

Antecedents of Team Intuition and Its Impact on the Success of New Product Development Projects

Research on new product development (NPD) team decision making has identified a number of cognitive mechanisms (e.g., team intelligence, teamwork quality, and charged behavior) that appear to guide NPD teams toward effective decisions. Despite an extensive body of literature on these aspects of NPD team decisions, team intuition has yet to be investigated in the context of NPD teams. Intuition is regarded as a form of information processing that differs from cognitive processes, and is associated with gut feelings, hunches, and mystical insights. Past research on intuition suggests that many managers and teams embrace intuition as an effective approach in response to situations in a turbulent environment where decisions need to be made immediately. Past research also revealed various benefits of intuition in decision making. These are: to speed up decision‐making process, to improve decision outcomes such as higher product quality, and to solve less structured problems (e.g., new product planning). This research examines the impact of team‐related antecedents (e.g., team member experience) and decision‐specific antecedents (e.g., decision importance) on intuition in NPD teams. The moderating impact of environmental turbulence between antecedent variables and intuition, as well as between intuition and team performance, is investigated. To test hypotheses, data were collected from 155 NPD projects in Turkey. The results showed that past team member experience, transactive memory systems (TMS), team empowerment, decision importance, and decision motives are significantly related to team intuition. The results also revealed that team intuition is significantly related to product success and speed‐to‐market, with both high and low levels of market turbulence. The findings of this study present some interesting practical implications to managers in order to improve intuitive skills of NPD teams. First, managers should make sure that team members have the relevant expertise to facilitate effective intuition. Second, managers should encourage and enhance TMS for effective intuition. If team members are not able to gain timely and unhindered access to others who have the needed experience and knowledge, past team member experience becomes idle in order to make effective intuitive judgments. Third, managers concerned with achieving successfully developed products and helping teams to make immediate but accurate decisions during NPD process should assign more power to team members so that they can rely on their intuitive skills.     

The Impact of Product Innovativeness on the Link between Development Speed and New Product Profitability*

A review of the literature reveals that the relationship between development speed and new product profitability is not as strong and straightforward as conventional wisdom suggests. A number of studies show positive results, others show mixed results, and some present no evidence of a relationship. In other words, the valence of the link between development speed and new product profitability is unclear at this time. Therefore, this study investigates whether or not speeding new products to market has positive or negative effects on new product profitability. Prior research shows that product innovativeness influences both development speed and new product profitability. This raises the question of whether increasing speed is equally successful in improving profitability across new products that differ in their degree of innovativeness. Therefore, this study also investigates the moderating effect of product innovativeness on the relationship between development speed and new product profitability. The results from a survey‐based study of 233 manufacturers of industrial products in the Netherlands reveal an inverted U‐shaped relationship between development speed and new product profitability. The findings also show that the optimal point is different for two new product types—product improvements and line additions—that vary in their innovativeness. These results provide an onset for the development of a decision tool that helps managers to determine how much to spend on accelerating the development of individual new products and how they should allocate that spending across products in their new product portfolio.     

Speed to Market for Innovative Products: Blessing or Curse?

The relationships among speed to market, quality, and costs are important to managers as they attempt to best establish incentives and set goals for new product development teams, allocate resources for new product development, or create positional advantage in the market. The existing literature suggests that the economic consequences of being late to the market are significant, including higher development and manufacturing costs, lower profit margins, and lessening of the firm's market value. Therefore, traditional logic has held that new product development managers need to manage the trade‐offs among speed to market, quality, and costs. While both scholars and managers have often acquiesced to performance trade‐offs among “faster, better, and cheaper,” this research attempts to improve understanding of the interrelationships between these objectives, and ultimately profit. Based on a survey of 197 managers, faster speed to market is shown to be related to better quality and lower costs; it is not necessary to sacrifice one of these outcomes. Further, the moderating roles of two dimensions of innovativeness (innovativeness to the firm and to the market) are examined on the relationships between speed and quality, as well as speed and profit. Both dimensions of innovativeness positively moderate the relationship between speed to market and quality. For more innovative products (both to the firm and the market), there is a stronger positive relationship between speed and quality than for less innovative products. Further, innovativeness to the firm negatively moderates the relationship between speed and profit. Thus, speed has a less positive impact on profit for highly innovative‐to‐the‐firm products compared with less innovative‐to‐the‐firm products. By being conscious of the projects’ levels of innovativeness (along with prioritizing various performance measures), managers can more rationally decide when to emphasize speed to market based on this study's findings.     

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.     

Industrial Companies' Evaluation Criteria in New Product Development Gates

This article presents the results of a study on the evaluation criteria that companies use at several gates in the NPD process. The findings from 166 managers suggest that companies use different criteria at different NPD evaluation gates. While such criteria as technical feasibility, intuition and market potential are stressed in the early‐screening gates of the NPD process, a focus on product performance, quality, and staying within the development budget are considered of paramount importance after the product has been developed. During and after commercialization, customer acceptance and satisfaction and unit sales are primary considerations. In addition, based on the performance dimensions developed by Griffin and Page (1993), we derive patterns of use of various evaluative dimensions at the NPD gates. Our results show that while the market acceptance dimension permeates evaluation at all the gates in the NPD process, the financial dimension is especially important during the business analysis gate and after‐market launch. The product performance dimension figures strongly in the product and market testing gates. The importance of our additional set of criteria (i.e., product uniqueness, market potential, market chance, technical feasibility, and intuition) decreases as the NPD process unfolds. Overall the above pattern of dimensions' usage holds true for both countries in which we collected our data, and across firms of different sizes, holding different market share positions, with different NPD drivers, following different innovation strategies, and developing different types of new products. The results also are stable for respondents that differ in terms of expertise and functional background. The results of this study provide useful guidelines for project selection and evaluation purposes and therefore can be helpful for effective investment decision‐making at gate‐meetings and for project portfolio management. We elaborate on these guidelines for product developers and marketers wishing to employ evaluation criteria in their NPD gates, and we discuss directions for further research.     

A Manager's Perspective on Virtual Customer Integration for New Product Development

Despite the high potential of virtual customer integration (VCI) methods for new product development (NPD) mentioned in the literature, practical use is still limited. This paper aims to provide a deeper understanding of managers’ perspectives on VCI and their intentions to use these methods for NPD. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) served as basis for developing a research model, which considers managers’ cognition, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control as important factors affecting their intention to apply VCI. Because more recent literature has expressed doubts about the explanatory potential of the rather simple TPB model, a more complex alternative model was proposed for comparison. The alternative model included the market orientation of the company, the hierarchical position of the innovation manager as well as the manager's level of innovativeness as additional explanatory variables. An empirical online study was conducted in the field of consumer goods and services. Based on a sample of 216 German‐speaking innovation managers, the results show that the model derived from the TPB explains 68% of the variance in the managers’ intention to apply VCI compared with 69% of variance explained by the model containing additional explanatory variables. An extension of the model does not significantly improve its explanatory power. Managers show high interest in virtually integrating customers in NPD processes. Managers consider identification of future customer needs, a broader decision basis, increased efficiency in gathering and use of customer information, and increased customer retention as major advantages of VCI. Disadvantages considered by managers in making their overall judgment are the lack of secrecy and only incremental innovations. The perceived potential contribution of VCI to NPD, the assessment of its general acceptance within the company, and the perceived ability of innovation managers to successfully implement VCI mainly influence the adoption decision. Managers’ attitudes toward VCI have no significant influence on their intention to use VCI. The results suggest that strong promotion of VCI through senior management would enforce the positive effect of subjective norms on applying VCI. Measures such as including VCI on innovation managers’ personal scorecard, trainings offered, and cross‐functional meetings could help speed up VCI in NPD processes by increasing innovation managers’ perceived behavioral control toward VCI.     

An Exploratory Model of Interpersonal Cohesiveness in New Product Development Teams

There has been a heavy emphasis in new product development (NPD) research on intrateam issues such as communication, trust, and conflict management. Interpersonal cohesiveness, however, has received scant attention. In addition, there are conflicting findings regarding the effects of close‐knit teams, which seem to have a beneficial effect up to a point, after which the tight bond becomes a detriment. This paper addresses these issues by introducing an exploratory model of interpersonal cohesiveness→NPD performance that includes antecedents, consequences, and moderating factors. Antecedents of interpersonal cohesiveness include clan culture, formalization, integration, and political dominance of one department, while consequences are groupthink, superordinate identity, and, ultimately, external/internal new product (NP) performance. The relationships among interpersonal cohesiveness, groupthink, and superordinate identity appear to be influenced by two moderating factors: team norms and goal support. Additionally, product type is identified as a moderator on the effects of both groupthink and superordinate identity on external NP performance. The model is built from two sources: a synthesis of the literature in small group dynamics and NPD, and qualitative research conducted across 12 NPD teams. Individual team leaders were interviewed first, followed by interviews with two additional members on each team, for a total of 36 interviews. In keeping with the goals of qualitative research, the interviews and analysis were used to identify and define aspects of interpersonal cohesiveness rather than to test a preconceived model. Representation of different industries and product types was sought intentionally, and variance in NP innovativeness as well as in NP market success/profitability became key criteria in sample selection. The exploratory model and propositions developed in this study provide a framework for understanding the role of interpersonal cohesiveness in NPD teams and its direct and indirect effects on NP performance. Although a significant amount of research on cohesiveness has been conducted in previous studies of small groups, the narrow laboratory settings of that research have limited the generalizability of the findings. This study therefore serves as a useful starting point for future theory development involving interpersonal cohesiveness in NPD. It also provides a guide for managers in dealing with team cohesiveness.