Measuring New Product Success: The Difference that Time Perspective Makes

Management is often criticized for overemphasizing short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth. On the other hand, although numerous studies have explored the factors underlying new product success and failure, such studies rarely distinguish between short- and long-term success. In fact, little research has been conducted to explore the relationship between a company's time perspective and its choice of criteria for measuring new product success. For that matter, little consensus exists as to just what we mean by the term success. Expanding on work done by a PDMA task force on measurement of new product success and failure, Erik Jan Hultink and Henry S.J. Robben identify 16 core measures of new product success. In a survey of large Dutch companies, they explore managers' perceptions of new product success, hypothesizing that the importance attached to each of the 16 core measures depends on the company's time perspective. For example, they propose that criteria such as development cost and speed-to-market are more important in the short term, and return-on-investiment (ROI) is more important in the long term. The study also examines the type of market served, the innovation strategy, and the perceived innovativeness of the company's products. It is hypothesized that these factors will influence the importance the company attaches to the core measures of new product success. For example, it is expected that speed-to-market is probably more important for technological innovators than for fast imitators or cost minimizers. The findings support the hypothesis that the firm's time perspective influences the perceived importance of the core measures of success. For the short term, the respondents emphasize product-level measures such as speed-to-market and whether the product was launched on time. In the long term, the focus is on customer acceptance and financial performance, including attaining goals for profitability, margins, and ROI. Four factors are perceived as being equally important for short-term and long-term success: customer satisfaction, customer acceptance, meeting quality guidelines, and product performance level. Customer satisfaction was found to be the most important measure, regardless of a company's time perspective. Contrary to expectations, the perceived importance of the 16 core measures does not differ on the basis of the type of market, the innovation strategy, or the product's perceived innovativeness. In addition, the firm's functional orientation—technology push or market pull—does not affect the importance attached to the core measures of new product success.     

An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success and Failure

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

Product Development Time Performance: Investigating the Effect of Interactions between Drivers

Rapid and punctual new product development (NPD) has become a top priority in many organizations as competitors rush to commercialize emerging technologies and to satisfy customer needs. Despite the importance of this issue, conceptual models or systematic testing of specific drivers that could improve time performances in NPD are few and far between. There is, however, a lack of extensive empirical research into whether “interactions” between different drivers affect time performances. This article aims to investigate whether drivers can interact and can influence time performances with a “synergistic” effect. A survey was carried out in order to study the effects of two‐way driver interactions on “launch on time” and “launch against an accelerated schedule.” Three groups of drivers within the development‐process, organizational‐mechanisms, and strategic‐capabilities were considered. As this is an exploratory study, two‐way interactions between drivers of different groups were analyzed in order to detect which drivers had a synergistic effect on time performances. The study was based on a sample of 85 manufacturing firms producing mainly industrial goods. The NPD program within each company was considered, i.e., the new products developed and launched in the last three years. The statistical approach used is suitable for exploratory surveys. In the first phase, the G‐correlation test was used to verify the effects of single drivers in order to help interpret the results regarding two‐way driver interactions. In the second phase, regression models with two‐way driver interaction were performed with both linear and logistic regression in order to discover which significant models had a significant driver interaction. The resulting 13 models showed that interactions played an important role in determining time performances. The following are some of the most interesting results, as they have managerial implications. The NP Strategic Guide (clear definition and communication of new product goals) interacts with and enhances the influence of other drivers, such as predevelopment tasks, project manager use, and supplier and customer involvement. Technological and up‐front staff capabilities create important interactions with product definition and with customer involvement, which avoids development delays. Furthermore, the authors of this study discovered that the adoption of an overlapping approach without a high level of interfunctional team use may not be time efficient. Thus, if a firm has to work to a tight development schedule, it should seek and should integrate any possible synergistic effects between team use and overlapping development phases. The insights into interactions provide useful information that can be used when setting priorities and can help to attain higher performances by adopting a combination of selected drivers. In particular, the best practices, which many studies have highlighted, do influence time performances that depend mainly on the so‐called strategic‐capabilities drivers. These latter variables, unlike practices and activities, require a complex learning process. The path toward improvements within the development‐process requires both long periods of time and an integrated view of the process; hence, improvements cannot be achieved by simply applying common practices. Therefore, analysis of interactions within the NPD field looks promising and requires further study.     

Increasing Learning and Time Efficiency in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams*

Despite the growing popularity of new product development across organizational boundaries, the processes, mechanisms, or dynamics that leverage performance in interorganizational (I‐O) product development teams are not well understood. Such teams are staffed with individuals drawn from the partnering firms and are relied on to develop successful new products while at the same time enhancing mutual learning and reducing development time. However, these collaborations can encounter difficulties when partners from different corporate cultures and thought worlds must coordinate and depend on one another and often lead to disappointing performance. To facilitate collaboration, the creation of a safe, supportive, challenging, and engaging environment is particularly important for enabling productive collaborative I‐O teamwork and is essential for learning and time efficient product development. This research develops and tests a model of proposed factors to increase both learning and time efficiency on I‐O new product teams. It is argued that specific behaviors (caring), beliefs (psychological safety), task‐related processes (shared problem solving), and governance mechanisms (clear management direction) create a positive climate that increases learning and time efficiency on I‐O teams. Results of an empirical study of 50 collaborative new product development projects indicate that (1) shared problem solving and caring behavior support both learning and time efficiency on I‐O teams, (2) team psychological safety is positively related to learning, (3) management direction is positively associated with time efficiency, and (4) shared problem solving is more strongly related to both performance dimensions than are the other factors. The factors supporting time efficiency are slightly different from those that foster learning. The relative importance of these factors also differs considerably for both performance aspects. Overall, this study contributes to a better understanding of the factors that facilitate a favorable environment for productive collaboration on I‐O teams, which go beyond contracts or top‐management supervision. Establishing such an environment can help to balance management concerns and promote the success of I‐O teams. The significance of the results is elevated by the fragility of collaborative ventures and their potential for failure, when firms with different organizational cultures, thought worlds, objectives, and intentions increasingly decide to work across organizational boundaries for the development of new products.     

Product Development

This study investigates the prevalence of product-development courses at accredited educational institutions. The authors assess pedagogical approaches and instructional materials used in these courses. The analysis is based on a survey of 320 accredited business schools, supplemented by an archival review of other business schools' catalogs. The results suggest considerable growth in the number of product development/management courses compared to a decade ago. Four textbooks dominate the market, but other contenders for adoption are available. Cases are commonly used to facilitate understanding of presented issues. Geographic differences show that schools located in the Northeast, Midwest, and West are more likely to address product-related issues in their business curricula.     

Metrics for strategic alliance control

The paper develops a feedback control model of product development alliance management. The model allows us to place alliance review, and the metrics for this review, in the context of the control problems facing the alliance manager. We then specify a set of alliance review metrics, and outline the characteristics which they must have. Managers have a pressing need for such metrics, given the management challenges of alliances and the difficulties companies face in making them work effectively. The control model is then expanded to allow for changes in the nature of the alliance itself and inter-project learning. The development of the models and of the metrics is guided by the experiences of a large electronic systems manufacturer in alliances with a number of smaller strategic technology suppliers.     

The Moderating Effect of Environmental Uncertainty on New Product Development and Time Efficiency*

This empirical study examines the influence of environmental uncertainty on industrial product innovation. The present study addresses what is believed to be a shortcoming in the new product development literature and explores potential effects of environmental uncertainty on the development process, project organization, and on project timeliness with a sample of development projects in two countries, Canada and Australia. When looking at the combined sample of 182 completed projects, this study finds that the perceived market‐related project environment has a direct and positive impact on time efficiency. Further, this research finds that a higher degree of technological uncertainty moderates the relationship between development process, project organization and time efficiency. Consequently, innovating companies may benefit by adapting some of their development approaches to different environmental conditions and to varying degrees of uncertainty. However, when examining country‐specific effects, the results change quite significantly. In particular, the findings indicate that environmental uncertainty in the Canadian sample neither directly impacts time efficiency, nor does it have any moderating effect. Instead, technical proficiency in the development process, project team organization, and process compression appear to be viable strategies to increase time‐efficient development. In contrast, the results of the Australian study suggest that perceived market and technological uncertainty impact time efficiency. In particular, under conditions of technological unpredictability, project team organization increases time efficiency, whereas process compression appears to decrease time‐efficient product development. However, process compression seems to be a viable strategy in environments characterized by lower technological uncertainty. The results also point to the importance of disaggregating data when studying product development processes across countries.     

New Product Development Structures: The Effect of Customer Overload on Post-Concept Time to Market

In corporate policy statements, seminars, journal articles—even in television commercials—the message comes through loud and clear: To remain competitive, we must do a better job of listening to our customers. Through close contact with customers, designers can more accurately identify market requirements, quickly refine product specifications, and thus reduce time to market. However, too much customer input can create confusion and duplication of effort, which ultimately increases time to market. In other words, some firms run the risk of over-listening to their customers. In a study of three global players in the electronic component industry, Srikant Datar, Clark Jordan, Sunder Kekre, Surendra Rajiv, and Kannan Srinivasan explore the effects of having too much input from customers. Specifically, they examine the relationship between a company's new product development structure and the volume of customer input, which in turn can affect time to market. The high-tech, fast-cycle firms examined in this study employ two distinct new product development structures: concentrated and distributed. A concentrated structure locates all product designers in one facility. This facilitates cross-product learning among designers, but limits designers' contact with customers and process engineers. A distributed structure disperses new product development among numerous manufacturing sites, giving designers close contact with customers and process engineers. However, a distributed structure limits designers' opportunities for cross-product learning. Analysis of 220 new product efforts reveals that the distributed structure offered a time-to-market advantage as long as these firms efficiently managed the level of customer interaction. When designers received input on the product design from no more than 25 customers, the distributed structure provided shorter time to market than the concentrated structure. Beyond the 25-customer level, time-to-market performance of the distributed structure degraded quickly and at an increasing rate. In such cases, more effective management of customer interaction might allow firms employing a distributed structure to enjoy the benefits not only of customer input, but also of improved coordination between product designers and process engineers.     

Exploring Mediating and Moderating Influences on the Links among Cycle Time,Proficiency in Entry Timing,and New Product Profitability*

Development cycle time is the elapsed time from the beginning of idea generation to the moment that the new product is ready for market introduction. Market‐entry timing is contingent upon the new product's cycle time. Only when the product is completed can a firm decide whether and when to enter the market to exploit the new product's window of opportunity. To determine the right moment of entry a firm needs to correctly balance the risks of premature entry and the missed opportunity of late entry. Proficient market‐entry timing is therefore defined as the firm's ability to get the market‐entry timing right (i.e., neither too early nor too late). The literature has produced divergent evidence with regard to the effects of development cycle time and proficiency in market‐entry timing on new product profitability. To explain these disparities this study (1) explores the mediating roles of development costs and sales volume in the relationships among development cycle time, proficiency in market‐entry timing, and new product profitability, respectively; and it (2) explores the moderating influence of product newness on the relationship between development cycle time and development costs and that of new product advantage on the link between proficiency in market‐entry timing and sales volume. The results from a survey‐based study of 72 manufacturers of industrial products in the Netherlands suggest that development costs mediate the relationship between development cycle time and new product profitability and that sales volume mediates the link between proficiency in market‐entry timing and new product profitability. In addition, the findings indicate that new product advantage strengthens the positive relationship between proficiency in market‐entry timing and sales volume. The results provide no evidence for a moderating effect of product newness. These results have important implications because to maximize new product profitability managers need to distinguish between costs and demand side effects of development cycle time and market‐entry timing on new product profitability. Keeping this distinction in mind should help them to better determine the relative profit impact of investments in cycle time reduction or improved entry timing. Moreover, the findings suggest that highly advantaged products that enter the market at the right time may have a highly attenuated sales volume. It also implies that new products with lower advantage may have very little leeway in hitting the “sweet spot” in market. The message is that “doing the right thing” (i.e., to develop a highly advantaged new product) may be at least as important as correctly balancing the risks of premature entry and the missed opportunity of late entry.     

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.     

Changing Strategies and Tactics for New Product Development

There has been a considerable amount of effort and writing devoted to improving the new product development process during the last two decades. Although there have been some surprises in this literature and in reports from the field on how to manage this complex business process, we now have a good view of the state-of-the-art practices that work and do not work to accelerate commercial success of new ventures. We know much less about how firms change their strategies for new product development.
In this article, we report on a study to investigate how companies change the way they originate and develop new products in manufacturing. We made no prior assumptions about what best practices might be for changing the direction of the new product development process, but we reasonably were sure there would be trends in how companies were attempting to create this strategic change. Even though one size does not fit all, there were significant trends in our findings.
We studied eight manufacturing firms using in-depth, open-ended interviews and were surprised to find that most of these companies are beginning to develop products that are new to the firm, industry, and the world (nearly half, or 10 of 21 new product projects), where they had not been eager for radical change in the past. These newer products likely are to be driven by a combination of market and technology forces, with general requirements being directed by internal forces: middle and top management. Results also indicate significantly that being able to marshal resources and capabilities is easier if change is less demanding and less radical, but when middle managers are driving the conversion of general requirements into specifications, resource issues have yet to be resolved. Implications of these findings are discussed for companies aspiring to change the entire process of new product development in their firms based on these significant results.     

Faster New Product Development

Clearly today's business climate mandates the need for faster development of new products. Drawing upon his experience, Milton Rosenau describes several techniques that have not been mentioned explicitly in recent articles: short, focused development phases; management involvement and support; procurement and use of productivity improvements; multifunctional teamwork; distraction reduction; frozen specifications; and microcomputer-based project management software.     

Interfirm Modularity and Its Implications for Product Development*

Industries characterized by interfirm modularity, in which the component products of different firms work together to create a system, are becoming increasingly widespread. In such industries, the existence of a common architecture enables consumers to mix and match the products of different firms. Industries ranging from stereos, cameras, and bicycles to computers, printing, and wireless services are now characterized by interfirm modularity. While the increasing presence of this context has been documented, the implications for the product development process remain underdeveloped. For the present study, in‐depth field‐based case studies of seven firms experiencing an environment of interfirm modularity were conducted in order to deepen understanding of this important phenomenon. What unique challenges did this context pose and why? What solutions did firms experiment with, and which seemed to work? Based on an inductive process of data analysis from these case studies, three primary categories of challenges raised by this environment were identified. First, firms were frustrated at their lack of control over the definition of their own products. The set of features and functions in products were constrained to a great extent by an architecture that the firm did not control. Second, while an environment of interfirm modularity should in theory eliminate interdependencies among firms since interfaces between products are defined ex‐ante, the present study found, ironically, that interdependencies were ubiquitous. Interdependencies continually emerged throughout the product development process, despite efforts to limit them. Third, firms found that the quantity and variegated nature of external relationships made their management exceedingly difficult. The sheer complexity was daunting, given both the size of the external network as well as the number of ties per external collaborator. Partners with whom control over the architecture was shared often had divergent interests—or at least not fully convergent interests. The solutions to these challenges were creative and in many cases counter to established wisdom. For instance, research has suggested many ways for a firm to influence architectural standards. While the firms in the present sample followed some of this advice, they also focused on a more neglected aspect of architecture—the compliance and testing standards that accompany modules and interfaces. By concentrating their efforts in a different area, even smaller firms in this sample were able to have some influence. Instead of focusing on the elimination of interdependencies, it was found that firms benefited from concentrating on the management of interdependencies as they emerged. Finally, while layers of management and “bureaucracy” are often viewed as unproductive, these firms found that adding structure, through positions such as Relationship Manager, was highly beneficial in handling the coordination and control of a wide range of external relationships.     

面向可持续发展的企业产品服务系统研究

企业如何借助产品服务系统实现人类可持续发展是当今企业管理的重大议题。现有产品服务系统研究过于局限资源节约/生态效率,缺乏更全面的可持续发展视角。为此,本文在分析现有面向资源节约的狭义产品服务系统的研究局限基础上,结合更全面的生命周期思考和网络特征分析,研究面向可持续发展的广义产品服务系统和企业产品服务系统的内涵,结合共生启示,为立足企业产品服务系统管理发展面向可持续发展的商业生态学,提供清晰的研究思路与方向。     

New Product Development Process: A Perspective for Reexamination

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

Benchmarking New Product Development Funding

Among the key success factors involved in new product development, identifying, and perhaps more precisely, defending appropriate funding levels can be one of the most difficult. This is especially true if your new products organization is new or if substantial changes have occurred either within your organization or your marketplace. Kathleen Pierz offers a benchmarking methodology developed as one element of a successful redesign and redirection of the new products organization at Ameritech advertising services, the Yellow Pages publishing unit of Ameritech.     

产品质量检验信息管理系统的开发

胜利石油管理局质量监督检验所是下属于胜利石油管理局技术检测中心的质检机构 ,它的主要任务是对油田内部生产以及进入油田物资供应部门的各种产品进行质量检验 ,保证油田的安全生产。质检所日常检验所涉及的产品种类繁多 ,检测信息繁杂、松散 ,检测数据的保存、查询、汇总完全依靠人工完成 ,检测信息不能方便及时的共享 ,大大限制了质量监督对油田生产的作用。产品质量检验信息管理系统正是为适应质检所生产运行的管理以及检测信息的存储、汇总、查询、共享而开发的 ,可将质检所的各类检测报告及相关的数据纳入数据库管理 ,实现检验工作按…     

成功开发新产品的配置关系研究

如何进行有效的新产品开发与提升竞争力一直是困扰着企业的重大难题。原因是影响新产品成功开发的因素错综复杂,难以把握,多达几十甚至百个之多,是亟待研究的重要课题,目前尚缺乏较深层次的研究。本文通过对这些众多复杂因素的问卷调查研究和分析,发现要成功实现新产品开发,需要有效地处理6个配置关系。这个结果能将众多因素的复杂管理简化为6个配置关系的管理,大大地降低了新产品开发复杂性带来的困惑和难度。     

产品生命周期评价在钢铁行业的应用和前景

通过对绿色产品的介绍引出产品生命周期评价的基本原理和内涵，详尽地阐述和分析了目前产品生命周期在钢铁行业的应用情况，指出了生命周期评价在钢铁行业的发展前景。