Improving the management of concurrent new product development using process modelling and analysis

This paper focuses on how process modelling and analysis using 'light weight' technology¹ supported by focused group discussions and workshops can improve the 'concurrence' and integration within the New Product Development process. This enables managers to improve the management of product design and development through a better understanding of the issues. The paper argues that the traditional changes in human resource management via introduction of multifunctional/collocated teams required by Concurrent New Product Development (CNPD) can be complemented by the introduction of process management, focused on the modelling and analysis of the 'softer' organisational issues. A case study of a domestic appliance manufacturer, developing a new product using a collocated product development team, is described to verify the research. The paper concludes by discussing the issues that emerge from this type of approach to performance improvement in NPD management, such as involvement of all team functions, senior management commitment, standardisation of processes, and training in the process management concept including modelling and analysis techniques. The approach proposed allows one to make both tangible benefits, in terms of cost, delivery (lead times) and quality, and intangible benefits, in terms of communication, people empowerment, motivation, and collaboration.     

Managing the Sources of Uncertainty: Matching Process and Context in Software Development

There is increasing interest in the literature about the notion of a contingent approach to product development process design. This interest stems from the realization that different types of projects carried out in different environments are likely to require quite different development processes if they are to be successful. Stated more formally, a contingent view implies that the performance impact of different development practices is likely to be mediated by the context in which those practices operate. This article provides evidence to support such a view. Our work examines whether projects in which the development process matches the context achieve superior performance. We focus on two sources of uncertainty that generate challenges for project teams: platform uncertainty, reflecting the uncertainty generated by the amount of new design work that must be undertaken in a project; and market uncertainty, reflecting the uncertainty faced in determining customer requirements for the product under development. We develop hypotheses for how these sources of uncertainty are likely to influence the relationships between a number of specific development practices and performance. We then test these hypotheses using data from a sample of 29 Internet software development projects. Our results provide evidence to support a contingent view of development process design. We show that in projects facing greater uncertainty, investments in architectural design, early technical feedback, and early market feedback have a stronger association with performance. The latter relationships are influenced by the specific sources from which this uncertainty stems: platform uncertainty mediating the impact of early technical feedback and market uncertainty mediating the impact of early market feedback. Our results also indicate that while greater uncertainty is associated with making later changes to a product's design, this practice is not associated with performance. Our findings suggest that managers carefully must evaluate both the levels and sources of uncertainty facing a project before designing the most appropriate process for its execution. In particular, they should explore the use of specific development practices based upon their usefulness in resolving the specific types of uncertainty faced. Importantly, these decisions must be made at the start of a project, with purposeful investments to create a process that best matches the context. Reacting to uncertainty ex‐post, without such investments in place, is unlikely to prove a successful strategy.     

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.     

Book Reviews

The first review describes the eighth book we have reviewed on the general topic of faster new product development. This book is distinguished by its emphasis on human issues, especially in the context of contracted development for an original equipment manufacturer. The second review covers a book that contrasts the Japanese and U.S. approach to product development. The book indicates that U.S. companies should put more emphasis on early predevelopment activities. The third review describes how Kodak's black and white film-making operation was overhauled by a team effort. Our reviewer suggests that many of the book's team-building lessons must be adopted for any company to change its culture and improve its product development performance. The fourth review describes a short book about quality function deployment (QFD). Although the book lacks specific product development examples, the reviewer recommends it as a helpful primer on this important product development tool. The fifth review reports on a technology management book. The book comprises a series of separately authored chapters on varied issues, some of which are directly pertinent to developers of technology-based new products. The reviews conclude with a brief note about a book on rapid prototyping.     

A model of value assessment in collaborative R&D programs

This study examines the tasks, processes, and frameworks central to performance assessment in collaborative research organizations. The domain of the study is the partnered learning approach to research and development (R&D) management. The empirical results highlight relationships between context (center scale) and performance (value perceived by industry sponsors) in such R&D collaborations. Insights from this research are broadly applicable to the maintenance of alliances among firms involved in collaborative R&D and are generalizable to that context. Data gathered from a national population of 58 National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored centers over a 3-year period reveal significant evolutionary patterns in the development of collaborative relationships. Successful industry university consortia leverage four core process relationships: (1) the creation of research capacity yielding advances in process and product knowledge; (2) technology transfer behaviors within the participants' organizations; (3) participant satisfaction with the outcomes; and (4) the continuity of industry sponsor support, i.e., commitment to the collaboration.     

Building Dynamic Capabilities in New Product Development through Intertemporal Integration

Although successful development of a given product may help explain the current success of a firm, creating longer‐term competitive advantage demands significantly more attention to developing and nurturing dynamic integration capabilities. These capabilities propel product development activities in ways that build on and develop technological and marketing capabilities for future product development efforts and create platforms for future product development. In this article, we develop a conceptual model of a dynamic integration process in product development, which we call intertemporal integration (ITI). In its most general form ITI is defined as the process of collecting, interpreting, and internalizing technological and marketing capabilities from past new product development projects and incorporating that knowledge in a systematic and purposeful manner into the development of future new products. Research propositions outlining the relationship of ITI to performance are presented. We provide specific examples of managerial mechanisms to be used in implementing ITI. We conclude with implications for research and practice. Effective management of ITI can increase new product development success and long‐term competitive advantage. This implies that management needs to engage in activities that gather and transform information and knowledge from prior development projects so that it can be used in future development projects. Project audits, design databases in computer‐aided design (CAD) systems, engineering notebooks, collections of test and experimental results, market research and test market results, project management databases, and other activities will all be important in the acquisition of knowledge from prior new product development (NPD) projects. Managers also should initiate the creation and maintenance of databases of technical and marketing information from prior projects, job performance reports, seminars and workshops related to technological issues and advances, and publication of technical journals to assist in the process of knowledge acquisition. Similarly, techniques such as assigning project managers from earlier development projects, reusing key components and technologies, and developing a company‐wide methodology for managing projects can be used to boost the application and use of knowledge.     

Product and Process Modularity's Effects on Manufacturing Agility and Firm Growth Performance

Modularity in product design has been hailed as a way to speed new product development (NPD), to reduce NPD cost, and to enhance customization possibilities for consumers. Modularity in process design may speed new product manufacturing setup times, reduce costs, and enhance the profitability of the lower volumes that customization often entails. However, empirical evidence is scarce that either product or process modularity—individually, jointly, or sequentially—actually produce these or other proposed benefits (e.g., performance growth). This study builds on general modular systems theory (GMST) by examining the theoretical relationship between product and process modularity and the effects of each on firm growth performance. Using structural equation modeling, partial versus complete mediation by manufacturing agility is also scrutinized. In one pair of models, product modularity and process modularity are separate direct antecedents to manufacturing agility, which is modeled to affect firm growth performance; in a second pair of models, product and process modularity are related antecedents to manufacturing agility, with product modularity preceding process modularity. Results from the best‐fitting model show that product modularity directly and positively affects process modularity, manufacturing agility, and firm growth performance. Process modularity was unrelated to manufacturing agility, and neither process modularity nor manufacturing agility predicted growth performance. Consistent with GMST, the study provides empirical evidence of the power of one element of a modular system to orchestrate a fit between a firm's product and manufacturing strategies and to directly drive system performance. Thus, modularity in product design is revealed as the key to understanding GMST effects concerning how changes in one system generate changes in other systems.     

An exploratory study of product development in emerging economies: evidence from medical device testing in India

Recent research has studied innovation in emerging economies. However, microlevel product development processes in these economies are relatively unexplored, and the mechanisms by which the emerging economy context might affect such processes are still unclear. In this paper, we explore the testing routines fundamental to product development in one emerging economy. Based on an exploratory field study of medical device development projects in India, we observe the frequent, iterative testing of prototypes in clinical settings and investigate the related learning process. The observed testing approach is distinctly different from the comparatively linear and sequential approach adopted by medical device development teams in developed countries like the United States. Further, we suggest that such testing is feasible in India because of the prevailing regulatory flexibility, the cognitive orientation of device development practitioners and the normative orientation of medical professionals.     

"Managing" Learning by Doing: An Empirical Study in Semiconductor Manufacturing

This article examines the contributions of human resource and organizational practices to the development and supply chain management interface. It addresses this issue in the context of the semiconductor industry by highlighting the importance of these practices for learning‐based improvement in manufacturing. One of the most important factors for competitiveness in the semiconductor industry is the ability to manufacture new process technologies with high yields and low cycle times. The more effective management of new process technologies within the manufacturing facility aids firms in managing production costs, volumes, and inventories. Efficient management of new process development and introduction translates into enhanced internal supply chain management performance by improving the design of internal workflows, manufacturing performance, and the acquisition and installation of new manufacturing processes. Because much of the knowledge that underpins semiconductor manufacturing is idiosyncratic, however, firm‐level differences in human resource and organizational practices are likely to have consequences for performance. The article derives learning curve models of the rate of improvement in manufacturing yield (i.e., the rate of learning) and cycle time (i.e., the speed of production) following the introduction of a new process technology in a manufacturing facility. It then tests the influence of the use by semiconductor manufacturers of teams for problem solving and intrafirm knowledge transfer, the level of internal adoption of information technology (IT), and more extensive and effective workflow and production scheduling systems on manufacturing performance. It finds that the manners in which semiconductor manufacturers allocate engineering resources to problem‐solving activities, utilize information technology in the manufacturing facility, schedule production, and control the “shop floor” influence the levels and rates of improvement in both manufacturing performance measures. The article makes several contributions to the literature on product and process development and, accordingly, to research on the product development/supply chain interface. In particular, the model of organizational‐based learning provides a better understanding of the determinants of learning‐based performance improvement. In particular, better manufacturing performance results not strictly from greater cumulative volume but also from the actions of managers that affect the organization of establishment‐level problem‐solving activities and information exchange. The article also demonstrates that human resource and organizational practices in both the development and the adoption of new process technologies improve manufacturing performance by accelerating new product introduction, improving workflow, and enhancing the efficiency of manufacturing processes.     

Structural and relational influences on the role of reward interdependence in product innovation

This study examines the relationship between reward interdependence, or the extent to which managers' rewards are tied to the performance of colleagues in other functions, and product innovation. It also considers how structural and relational features of the organizational context might moderate this relationship. Our analysis of a sample of Canadian‐based firms reveals a positive relationship between reward interdependence and product innovation that is invigorated at higher levels of job rotation, social interaction, and interactional fairness, but we find no evidence of a moderating effect of decision autonomy. Consistent with a systems approach to organizational contingencies, we also find that the reward interdependence–product innovation relationship is stronger when the organization's context comes closer to an ‘ideal’ holistic configuration that is most conducive to knowledge exchange within the organization, with a more prominent role played by the relational sub‐context (social interaction and interactional fairness) than the structural sub‐context (job rotation and decision autonomy). The findings have important implications for innovation research as they shed light on how the extent to which individual rewards are tied to collective performance can be channeled to enhance innovation pursuits.     

Design of Robust New Products under Variability: Marketing Meets Design*

In designing consumer durables such as appliances and power tools, it is important to account for variations in product performance across different usage situations and conditions. Since the specific usage of the product and the usage conditions can vary, the resultant variations in product performance also can impact consumer preferences for the product. Therefore, any new product that is designed should be robust to these variations—both in product performances and consumer preferences. This article refers to a robust product design as a design that has (1) the best possible (engineering and market) performance under the worst‐case variations and (2) the least possible sensitivity in its performance under the variations. Achieving these robustness criteria, however, implies consideration of a large number of design factors across multiple functions. This article's objectives are (1) to provide a tutorial on how variations in product performance and consumer preferences can be incorporated in the generation and comparison of design alternatives and (2) to apply a multi‐objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) that incorporates multifunction criteria in order to identify better designs while incorporating the robustness criteria in the selection process. Since the robustness criteria is based on variations in engineering performance as well as consumer preferences, the identified designs are robust and optimal from different functional perspectives, a significant advantage over extant approaches that do not consider robustness issues from multifunction perspectives. This study's approach is particularly useful for product managers and product development teams, who are charged with developing prototypes. They may find the approach helpful for obtaining customers' buy‐in as well as internal buy‐in early on in the product development cycle and thereby for reducing the cost and time involved in developing prototypes. This study's approach and its usefulness are illustrated using a case‐study application of prototype development for a handheld power tool.     

REAL OPTION MODELS FOR MANAGING MANUFACTURING SYSTEM CHANGES IN THE NEW ECONOMY

The manufacturing environment is becoming increasingly dynamic with upsurges in electronic-commerce, supply chain management, forecasting, and procurement and resource planning. It also includes trends toward more process data acquisition and analysis, shorter production runs, and more stringent quality requirements. These drivers lead to an opportunity for companies to collect and use information to identify changes that will affect their manufacturing systems. In conjunction with an industry partner who produces home fashion products, we developed a case-study that highlights four major manufacturing transitions: new product introduction; moving a product from research and development (R&D) to commercialization: new plant location; and starting or restarting production of existing products. These types of changes cross many levels of the operation - including the product level, plant level, and organizational level - and typically present significant operational challenges. We use this case-study to motivate the theoretical and applied research needed to support a real option framework for system changes in manufacturing. The key elements of our framework are to quantify manufacturing changes, develop a real option model for these activities, value the options to identify the best scenarios, and integrate these elements so that we can monitor and manage the overall process. The advantage of this approach is that it allows us to directly incorporate a market driven perspective, tying the manufacturing operations with the organizational economic goals.     

Whether to Integrate R&D and Marketing: The Effect of Firm Competence

Integration of research and development (R&D) with marketing remains a frequent topic in the new product development (NPD) literature, largely because it represents a critical antecedent of new product performance (NPP). Two divergent opinions about this integration exist, such that those who contend that firms should pursue high levels of integration in every case provoke criticisms from those who propose that various NPD processes require different levels of integration. This paper proposes that the two perspectives can be reconciled by taking into account the fact that R&D and marketing are integrated mainly to combine critical knowledge (technological and market) that otherwise would be separate to achieve market success. Following Danneels's approach, we investigate how the effect of R&D–marketing integration on performance change across four types of NPD processes: pure exploitation, pure exploration, technological competence exploitation, and market competence exploitation. Data derived from a deep study of 11 NPD projects by five firms, analyzed through qualitative methods, highlight the necessity to vary the level of integration according to the type of competence to be developed during the NPD process. Our analysis suggests two main conclusions. First, the effect of integration depends strictly on the type of competence that the firm uses to develop and launch a new product. Second, integration does not have a unique effect on performance, but it is necessary to distinguish between market performance (e.g., sales and market share) and process performance (e.g., meeting the planned budget and time to market). In some projects, the effect of integration on the two types of performance is diametrically opposite. In particular, we propose that (1) higher performance will be associated with lower integration in pure exploitative projects; (2) in projects that exploit existing market knowledge, higher market performance will be associated with a higher integration, although these projects tend to offer poor process performance regardless of integration level; (3) in projects that exploit technical knowledge, higher performance will be associated with higher integration; and (4) higher integration will be associated with higher market performance but poorer process performance in pure explorative projects.     

Measuring Development Performance in the Electronics Industry

Within a year or so, the computer you purchased last month will probably be obsolete. For a manufacturer faced with such short product life-cycles, the performance of the new product development (NPD) function can determine whether the firm itself is relegated to the scrap heap. With such a close link between NPD performance and a firm's overall success, we need to do more than simply ensure that individual projects are well managed; we need to assess NPD's overall contribution to the company's business performance. Christoph Loch, Lothar Stein, and Christian Terwiesch develop a two-step model for measuring the performance of the NPD function. In this model, development output performance is the direct driver of business success. In other words, the output and the productivity of the NPD function directly affect a company's profitability and sales growth. Development output performance is driven by development process performance—that is, the operational management of development projects. Using data from the “Excellence in Electronics” project (a joint research effort of Stanford University, the University of Augsburg, and McKinsey & Co.), the two-step model is applied to a sample of 95 business units operating in three international electronics industries: consumer/small products, computers/communications, and industrial measurement/large systems. This analysis has two main objectives: identifying the key measures of development output performance and their contribution to business success; and identifying the important measures of development process performance and their contributions to development output performance. Development productivity, measured by development expense intensity, is the clearest predictor of business success. In other words, you can't buy a competitive advantage by pouring more money into R&D. Success comes from more efficient NPD, not simply outspending the competition. In the computer industry, design-to-cost has a positive effect on profitability growth, and design quality has a positive influence on sales growth. The factors underlying development process performance are much more dependent on the nature of competition in each industry. For example, because competition in the large systems industry still focuses primarily on technical competence, design-to-cost efforts in this industry lag behind those of the computer industry. Important measures of development process performance for all industry segments examined in the study include supplier involvement in the design, early prototyping, a team-based development organization, the use of team rewards, and value engineering.     

Perspective: A Review of Marketing Research on Product Design with Directions for Future Research

The authors provide synthesized summaries of research on product design conducted over the 20‐year period from 1995 to 2014, as well as suggestions for future research. Building on the conceptual model of product design proposed by Luchs and Swan, the current project describes research findings based on a review of 252 articles drawn from eight of the academic journals most influential to marketing thought, and identified by their inclusion of the terms “product design” or “industrial design” within their abstracts, subject terms, and/or author supplied keywords. Specifically, the authors provide integrated summaries of 25 product design subtopics organized within Luchs and Swan's original 11 product design research topic categories, which, in turn, address the following three general product design research categories: context and strategy, product design process, and product design consequences. These summaries are followed by suggested future research opportunities to address gaps in the literature. In addition to seeking inspiration for future research based on a review of extant research, the authors illustrate an approach for exploring research opportunities based on current and emerging industry trends, such as sustainability, the sharing economy, and the emergence of consumer‐oriented health and performance management products. For each identified industry trend, the authors provide illustrative design implications with consequent illustrative research opportunities. This balanced approach to identifying near‐term research opportunities based on extant research and based on industry trends, i.e., looking forward and externally, may in turn improve the potential impact of future research on both knowledge development and on industry practice.     

Cross-functional integration in the sustainable new product development process: The role of the environmental specialist

Companies in the twenty-first century are exposed to a variety of pressures to respond to environmental issues, and responding to these pressures affects several aspects of business such as purchasing, marketing and logistics. Managers increasingly view sustainability as a complement to their corporate agendas, or even as an opportunity. It is important to understand how firms integrate environmental issues into their businesses and how these integration strategies affect performance. The process of sustainable new product development (SNPD) is a key strategic focus to achieve economic and environmental sustainability. This paper examines the integration of environmental specialists into new product development teams that are composed of other functional specialists including marketing, manufacturing, and R&D personnel, and its impact on SNPD project performance across three stages: concept development, product development, and product commercialization. We empirically test our theoretical model using a sample of 219 firms from a range of business-to-business industries. We present evidence that integrating an environmental specialist into a new product team has a positive influence on SNPD project performance beyond what the traditional members of such a team would accomplish. We analyze this relationship across the stages of SNPD to obtain a clearer picture of the effects of this integration. In particular, the integration of the environmental specialist was more effective on SNPD project performance in the final stage of the SNPD process when the product was being launched; this effect is even greater for high-innovative projects.     

Product radicalness and firm performance in B2B marketing: A moderated mediation model

There has been ambiguity and controversy in establishing the links between the introduction of radical innovations and firm performance. While radical innovations create customer value and grow product sales, they are also fraught with uncertainty due to customer resistance to innovative products and significant costs associated with commercialization. This research aims to explain the contrarian findings between radical innovations and firm performance in a business-to-business (B2B) context by examining two mediating variables – new product advantage and customer unfamiliarity. Using a multi-informant approach, the authors collected survey data from a sample of 170 Spanish B2B firms engaged in new product development, provided by 357 managers. The authors find that, while new product advantage positively mediates the relationship between product radicalness and firm performance, customer unfamiliarity has a negative mediation effect on this relationship. Furthermore, the authors examine the moderated mediation effect by industry type, manufacturing vs. service, and find that it moderates the mediation of customer unfamiliarity: The negative impact of product radicalness on customer unfamiliarity is greater for manufacturing firms than for service firms. With these findings, the authors discuss implications for development and marketing of radical innovations and how those implications facilitate firm performance in the B2B context.     

A Stage‐Wise Approach to Exploring Performance Effects of Cycle Time Reduction

Research on reducing new product development (NPD) cycle time has shown that firms tend to adopt different cycle time reduction mechanisms for different process stages. However, the vast majority of previous studies investigating the relationship between new product performance and NPD cycle time have adopted a monolithic process perspective rather than looking at cycle time for the distinct stages of the NPD process (i.e., fuzzy front end, development, and commercialization). As a result, little is known about the specific effect of the cycle times of the different stages on new product performance or how they interact to influence new product performance. This study uses a stage‐wise approach to NPD cycle time to test the main and interacting effects of fuzzy front end, development, and commercialization cycle times on new product performance using objective data for 399 NPD projects developed following a Stage‐Gate® type of process in one firm. The results reveal that at least in this firm, new product performance only increases if all three stages of the NPD process are consistently accelerated. This finding, combined with the previous research showing that firms use different mechanisms to accelerate different stages of the process, emphasizes the need to conduct performance effect studies of NPD cycle time at the stage level rather than at the monolithic process level.     

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

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

Modified Stage‐Gate® Regimes in New Product Development*

The purpose of this research was to explore the nature of the Stage‐Gate^®process in the context of innovative projects that not only vary in new product technology (i.e., radical versus incremental technology) but that also involve significant new product development technology (i.e., new virtual teaming hardware‐software systems). Results indicate that firms modify their formal development regimes to improve the efficiency of this process while not significantly sacrificing product novelty (i.e., the degree to which new technology is incorporated in the new offering). Four hypotheses were developed and probed using 72 automotive engineering managers involved in supervision of the new product development process. There was substantial evidence to creatively replicate results from previous benchmarking studies; for example, 48.6% of respondents say their companies used a traditional Stage‐Gate^®process, and 60% of these new products were considered to be a commercial success. About a third of respondents said their companies are now using a modified Stage‐Gate^®process for new product development. Auto companies that have modified their Stage‐Gate^®procedures are also significantly more likely to report (1) use of virtual teams; (2) adoption of collaborative and virtual new product development software supporting tools; (3) having formalized strategies in place specifically to guide the new product development process; and (4) having adopted structured processes used to guide the new product development process. It was found that the most significant difference in use of phases or gates in the new product development process with radical new technology occurs when informal and formal phasing processes are compared, with normal Stage‐Gate^®usage scoring highest for technology departures in new products. Modified Stage‐Gate^®had a significant, indirect impact on organizational effectiveness. These findings, taken together, suggest companies optimize trade‐offs between cost and quality after they graduate from more typical stage‐process management to modified regimes. Implications for future research and management of this challenging process are discussed. In general, it was found that the long‐standing goal of 50% reduction in product development time without sacrificing other development goals (e.g., quality, novelty) is finally within practical reach of many firms. Innovative firms are not just those with new products but also those that can modify their formal development process to accelerate change.