Reducing Ongoing Product Design Decision‐Making Bias*

The objective of this exploratory study is to add to our understanding of ongoing product design decision‐making to reduce eventual decision‐making bias. Six research questions are formulated with the aim to establish if and how functional membership and informal patterns of communication within an organization influence whether and why employees are willing to engage in product design modifications. We selected as a field site for our study an industrial company that had an internal research and product development operations and where the employees were located on the same site. A three‐step approach within the manufacturing case company was designed: (1) In‐depth interviews were carried out with managers and employees; (2) a survey questionnaire was sent out to all employees involved with a specific product that is subject to potential design modifications; and (3) a post hoc group feedback session was organized to further discuss our findings with the management. First, analysis of the nine in‐depth interviews establishes a taxonomy of product design decisions involving four types of criteria; product‐related, service‐related, market‐related, and feasibility‐related criteria explain why employees would engage or not in product design modifications. Second, it is demonstrated that functional membership has a significant influence on the concern for these decision‐making criteria as well as on the decision to proceed or not with product design modifications. In other words, functional membership influences whether and why employees are more or less willing to make product design modifications. In this manufacturing company, a global industrial player, the differences in concern appear especially for service‐ and market‐related criteria and pertain particularly to the research and development (R&D) and service function. Overall, even though the perceived performance of the specific product under study did not differ significantly among the different departments, it is observed that R&D employees were significantly less in favor of proceeding with product design modifications than other employees were. Third, using UCINET VI software, we provide some explanations for this finding. It is shown that informal patterns of communication (i.e., employee degree centrality) operate a situational opportunity to make modifications to an existing product and a cognitive opportunity influencing the decision to modify product design following an inverted U‐shaped function. Ultimately, we derive practical guidelines for an ideal product–team composition to reduce product design decision‐making bias.     

Organizational Learning Ambidexterity,Strategic Flexibility,and New Product Development

Although organizational ambidexterity has gained momentum in recent innovation research, previous literature still offers a confusing and partial picture about how to leverage ambidexterity for new product development because of two limitations. First, previous research mainly focuses on static resource endowment and thus offers little insight about how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity. Second, conceptual confusion on the notion of the balance dimension of organization ambidexterity still exists. This study seeks to explore how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity for new product development and to bring greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. By extending the static resource assumption, which is central to the extant debate in organizational ambidexterity literature, this research unpacks ambidexterity into a relative exploratory dimension and an interactive dimension. We further investigated the moderating effect of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility on the impacts of the two dimensions on new product development performance. Based on the dynamic resource management view and organizational learning theory, we proposed six hypotheses and collected data from 213 firms through a survey to examine the hypotheses. Our results indicate that relative exploratory dimension and interactive dimension have different effects on new product development. Specifically, the relative exploratory dimension has an inverse U‐shaped effect on new product development while the interactive dimension has a positive effect. Furthermore, we find that resource flexibility and coordination flexibility have positive moderating effects on the relationships between the two dimensions of ambidexterity and new product development performance. Our study contributes to the ambidexterity research in three ways. First, from a dynamic resource management view, this study extends previous ambidexterity research from a static view to a dynamic view by exploring the moderating effects of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility. Second, we extend the understanding on ambidexterity by bringing greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. Third, this research provides new evidence on the effects of ambidextrous learning on new product development performance in transition economy such as China, where ambidextrous learning is crucial for firms to adapt to a dynamic environment.     

Exploring Portfolio Decision‐Making Processes*

Portfolio management is the set of activities that allows a firm to select, develop, and commercialize a pipeline of new products aligned with the firm's strategy that will enable it to continue to grow profitably over the long term. To appropriately manage the firm's new product portfolio, decisions must be made about which projects to fund, to what levels, at what point in time. Previous research has investigated portfolio management decisions as individually discrete decisions. Significant streams of research have investigated both project selection and project termination decisions. This research project shows, however, that portfolio decision making may be better understood if it is considered as an integrated system of processes that considers these decisions simultaneously, along with other decisions such as those to continue a project with reduced funding. Using in‐depth data from four diverse case studies, we use a grounded theory approach to develop a general model of how firms make new product portfolio decisions. According to the findings from these cases, effective portfolio decision‐making processes produce a portfolio mindset, focus effort on the right projects, and allow agile decision making across the portfolio's set of projects. Effective portfolio decision making is the result of the interaction between three types of decision‐making processes that managers use in making decisions: evidence‐, power‐, and opinion‐based. Being able to use each of these types of processes to make decisions depends upon having the data inputs that they require. Three domain‐based decision input‐generating processes (i.e., cross‐functional collaboration, practices of critical thinking, and practices of market immersion) are associated with making evidence‐based portfolio decisions. In addition, organizational politics produces the inputs that are associated with power‐based portfolio decision making, while managerial intuition is associated with opinion‐based portfolio decision making. Firm cultural factors, including trust, collective ambition, and leadership style, are associated with how these evidence‐, power‐ and opinion‐based processes are combined into an overall portfolio decision making process, and whether the firm's processes are more rational and objectively made, or more politically and intuitively made. The article presents propositions for how the decision‐making processes interact in their associations with decision‐making effectiveness.     

Flexibility, Structuration, and Simultaneity in New Product Development

A large body of research has pointed out the need for a contingent approach in the design of new product development processes, highlighting the risk of simply accepting a normative perspective that leads to the identification and diffusion of decontextualized “best practices.” In the literature there are contrasting views regarding the identification of the characteristics of product innovation processes in extremely uncertain and dynamic conditions. Some studies propose a fascinating dichotomy: the contraposition between flexible processes and Stage‐Gate^® processes. They maintain that Stage‐Gate^® processes are characterized by “early and sharp” product definition and clear separation between concept development and implementation (detail design and production ramp‐up), whereas flexible development models seek to delay the concept freeze point and overlap product development stages going beyond concurrent engineering. Other studies have arrived at seemingly conflicting results; the suitability of the early and sharp product definition approach in turbulent environments is debated without supporting the dichotomy between flexible processes and Stage‐Gate^® processes. Moreover, additional reasons for questioning the contraposition between Stage‐Gate^® and flexible processes come from a series of studies on the management of discontinuous innovation. The aim of the present study was to develop a conceptual framework that can overcome this widely accepted but controversial dichotomy. The framework is based on the recognition of the orthogonality among three analytical dimensions: organizational, informational, and temporal. The organizational dimension refers to the structuration of the process. The informational dimension deals with classifying the development activities and investigating the firm's product definition approach (early and sharp mode vs. late freeze mode). The temporal dimension relates to the execution strategies of development tasks. The three‐dimensional framework enables us to better understand the complex relationships between the degree of structuration in process design (organizational dimension), the degree of intersection between problem‐formulation and problem‐solving in product definition (informational dimension), and different types of execution strategies (temporal dimension).     

Using Intuition in Fuzzy Front‐End Decision‐Making: A Conceptual Framework

The goal of decision‐making during the execution of the fuzzy front end (FFE) is to develop a creative new product concept. Although intuitive decision‐making has been found to increase new product creativity, the theoretical knowledge base as to why and under which conditions intuition use during the process of generating a creative outcome is beneficial, is rather limited. Therefore, this study develops a conceptual framework theorizing why and under which conditions using intuition in FFE execution decision‐making may or may not be (as) beneficial for new product concept creativity. To develop this framework, the authors combine a creativity perspective of the FFE and a dual‐processing perspective of intuition. Interviews with eight FFE practitioners are used to support and illustrate the framework development. The theorizing leads the authors to postulate that intuition use may be beneficial to making generation and evaluation decisions during FFE execution because of the capabilities of the unconscious mind from which intuition results. However, the framework acknowledges that, due to the shortcomings of the unconscious mind, intuition may not be as beneficial to FFE decision‐making in some situations. The authors believe that this framework offers researchers a fertile area for further research and practitioners better insight into when intuition might be effective in FFE execution decision‐making.     

Antecedents to Decision‐Making Quality and Agility in Innovation Portfolio Management

Innovation portfolio management (IPM) is a dynamic decision‐making process, in which projects are evaluated and selected, and resources are allocated. Previous research has developed an understanding of IPM success and its influencing factors. However, little research investigated the quality of the decision‐making process and the ability to quickly adapt the portfolio. This study focuses on the antecedents of decision‐making quality and agility (i.e., responsiveness to changes in the environment). Based on a decision‐making framework, five structural and cultural IPM components are derived as important antecedents of decision‐making quality, which in turn influences agility. The structural components (1) clarity of strategic goals, (2) formality of the IPM processes, and (3) controlling intensity serve a coordinating function. The cultural components (4) innovation climate and (5) risk climate serve a motivating function in IPM. An analysis of a sample of 179 firms and their innovation portfolios through structural equation modeling using a double‐informant design documents that these five components all positively influence portfolio decision‐making quality, which in turn positively influences agility. Results further show that environmental turbulence moderates some of these relationships. While the positive effect of process formality is weakened under increasing turbulence, the effects of controlling intensity and climate for innovation are strengthened by environmental turbulence. The findings have theoretical implications for the understanding of IPM as a dynamic capability and practical implications for the management of portfolios in turbulent environments.     

How Formal Control Influences Decision‐Making Clarity and Innovation Performance

Implementing formal planning instruments such as the stage‐and‐gate‐type system (SGS) and project management (PM) have long been seen as the key to new product development (NPD) success. They create the structure needed for managing NPD activities, supporting coordination among functional groups, reducing uncertainty and error, and assuring time and cost efficiency. But recent research presents ambiguous results, suggesting that SGS and PM as formal controls can also have a negative effect. Integrating ideas from three literatures—i.e., NPD management, organization control theory, and technical control theory—the present study assesses NPD programs in terms of three perspectives: (1) the formal control mechanisms used for managing NPD programs—specifically SGS, which is mainly seen as a higher organizational level approach used for guiding and implementing a portfolio of NPD projects, and PM, which is a precise formal control mechanism relevant for managing specific problems at a single project level; (2) the immediate outcome of the application of formal controls, i.e. decision‐making clarity (DMC); and (3) degree of NPD innovativeness, a key contingency hypothesized to impact the efficacy of formal controls. For the empirical analysis, data are collected through a survey of 162 corporate NPD programs (Austria and Denmark, manufactured goods and services) where a total of 1274 respondents provide information relevant to their position. Hierarchical regression analysis is used to test the relationships. Results indicate that the performance effect of NPD formal control is fully mediated by DMC. Further, of the six hypothesized outcome relationships, four are fully supported. Both SGS and PM are effective systems for managing NPD when degree of innovativeness is not taken into account. PM, however, loses its efficacy at higher degrees of NPD program innovativeness while SGS continues to work at achieving positive DMC at the radical end of the innovativeness spectrum. Analysis of interaction effects indicates that for more innovative NPD programs, best results are achieved when companies implement an interactive system of both SGS and PM, where the two systems complement each other.     

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.     

Responsive and Proactive Market Orientation and New‐Product Success*

What is the relationship between market orientation and new‐product success? This important question has not been examined adequately to date because the concept of market orientation has been measured too narrowly. The concept of market orientation implies both responsive market orientation, which addresses the expressed needs of customers, and proactive market orientation, which addresses the latent needs of customers—that is, opportunities for customer value of which the customer is unaware. In the numerous market orientation–performance studies to date, the measure of market orientation has consisted virtually entirely of behaviors related to satisfying customers' expressed needs rather than satisfying their latent needs as well. The present study extends the measurement of market orientation to match the full scope of the concept—to measure both responsive market orientation and proactive market orientation. Using data from a sample of technologically diverse businesses, the present study develops a measure of proactive market orientation, refines the extant measure of responsive market orientation, and analyzes the relationship of a business's responsive and proactive market orientation to its new‐product success. The study findings imply that for any business to create and to sustain new‐product success, a responsive market orientation is not sufficient and, thus, that a proactive market orientation plays a very important positive role in a business's new‐product success. These findings make intuitive sense. For if in developing its new products a business relies solely on what customers state as their new product needs, the business is very vulnerable economically. Such a business is vulnerable not only for relying on customers' best guesses for new products, many or most of which may have little long‐term economic value for either party, but also to competitors' parallel new product responses and the inevitable resulting price competition. A business that relies solely on customers' expressed needs to develop its new products creates no new insights into value‐adding opportunities for the customer and thereby creates little or no customer dependence and foundation for customer loyalty. The important role for proactive market orientation in new‐product success is intuitively obvious—and is supported empirically in this study.     

Strategic Partnerships in New Product Development: an Italian Case Study

This article provides some revealing insights into what a leading Italian firm operating in markets where innovation is a focal point of competition has learned about partnering with suppliers in the new products development process. To succeed in a rapidly changing environment, the firm promoted and sustained tightly linked, integrated supplier relationships. This provided one key element of a shorter product cycle, led to better products, and increased the firm's ability to compete. Andrea Bonaccorsi and Andrea Lipparini explore why partnering is critical for new product success. Finally, they highlight the steps that should be taken to make this relationship a productive one.     

Strategic Alignment and New Product Development: Drivers and Performance Effects

Strategic alignment is widely accepted as a prerequisite for a firm's success, but insight into the role of alignment in, and its impact on, the new product development (NPD) process and its performance is less well developed. Most publications on this topic either focus on one form of alignment or on one or a limited set of NPD performance indicators. Furthermore, different and occasionally contradictory findings have been reported. NPD scholars have long argued for the importance of fit between context and NPD activities. However, this body of literature suffers from the same weakness: most publications have a limited scope and the findings are not always consistent with results reported previously. This study addresses these deficiencies by examining (1) the effects of various internal and external factors on different forms of alignment, and (2) the effects of these forms of alignment on a set of NPD performance indicators. Strategic planning and innovativeness appear to affect technological, market, and NPD‐marketing alignment positively. Environmental munificence is negatively associated with NPD‐marketing alignment, but has no effect on the two other forms of alignment. Technological change has a positive effect on technological alignment, a negative effect on NPD‐marketing alignment, but no effect on market alignment. These findings suggest that internal capabilities are more likely to be associated with the development of strategic alignment than environmental factors are. Furthermore, technological and NPD‐marketing alignment affect NPD performance positively, while market alignment does not have any significant performance effects.     

Critical Signals for Making Go/NoGo Decisions in New Product Development

One of the hardest steps for a manager to take is to terminate work on a new product project. Apart from the morale and motivation problems that get tied up in such decisions, the real uncertainty surrounding an unfinished project usually makes the decision extremely difficult. One alternative is to keep the project going until the prospects are more certain, for better or for worse. R. Balachandra proposes a better alternative: to watch for those critical signals that warn of danger ahead. The research he reports in this article identifies a set of these signals to help managers make the tough decisions about project continuation.     

Persuasion in Corporate Idea Contests: The Moderating Role of Content Scarcity on Decision‐Making

Organizations increasingly use corporate online ideation platforms to foster individual innovativeness. Recent research, however, has shown the downside of such contests—the selection of ideas is not entirely rational. Analyzing the impact of content scarcity, which occurs when ideators provide very little issue‐relevant information when submitting ideas, contributes to this new literature stream. The main argument is that evaluators increasingly rely on heuristics based on issue‐irrelevant information when content scarcity obstructs reflective decision‐making. The default‐interventionist model of decision‐making in combination with the Yale attitude change approach allows us to examine the mechanisms evaluators apply when content scarcity occurs. The hypotheses are tested on an extensive data set of 3025 ideas. The results show that content scarcity affects the evaluators' decision‐making process by preventing them from intervening their first intuitive decision. The scarcer the content of the submitted idea, the stronger the persuasiveness of issue‐irrelevant aspects that affect idea selection: aspects of the ideator, message, and community.     

Consequences of New Product Development Speed: A Meta‐Analysis

Five meta‐analyses previously have been published on the topic of new product development involving the concept of new product development speed. Three of these studies have investigated antecedents to new product development success, of which just one was new product development speed. The other two studies used new product development speed as the dependent variable, and analyzed antecedents to achieving speed. This article extends previous empirical generalizations in this domain by using a meta‐analytic methodology to understand the link between new product development speed and new product success at a more granular level. Specifically, it considers the relationship with different dimensions of success as measured overall or compositely, operationally (i.e., the process measures of decreasing development costs and proficiently managing market entry timing and the product measures of technical product performance and product competitive advantage), and relative to external success outcomes (i.e., customer based and financial success). While the results indicate that, in general, new product development speed is associated with improving success outcomes, those relationships may diminish or even disappear depending upon a number of methodological design decisions and research contexts. A subsequent meta‐analysis of the antecedents of development speed provides a more holistic picture of development speed. These results are broadly consistent with those produced by another recent meta‐analytic investigation of the issue. Together, these findings have important implications for academics pursuing further research in this domain, as well as for managers considering implementing a program to increase new product development speed.     

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

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

A Contingency‐Based Approach to the Use of Product Platforms and Modules in New Product Development

To face the challenges of increasing demand for variety, more specific customer demands and shortening product life cycles, firms increasingly adopt mass customization techniques. Two important such techniques are product modularization and product platform development, which allow firms to reach high levels of product variety, and at the same time, keep complexity and its related costs at a limited level. Often modularization and product platform development are treated as variants of the same basic idea. However, even if the concepts are closely related, they also have some fundamental differences, which influence their usefulness and applicability in different settings. One potential shortcoming of existing literature on modularization and product platforms is the present lack of research on their limitations and potential negative effects. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to identify and explore contingencies influencing the applicability of modularization and product platforms, respectively, taking their different economic effects as a starting point. Moreover, the paper addresses how different organizing solutions are interrelated with the use of modularization and product platform approaches. The empirical observations originate from studies of three Swedish manufacturing firms. The study reveals that important contingencies affecting the applicability of modularization and product platforms are demand side characteristics and the speed of environmental change. Furthermore, it is seen that firms need to organize themselves differently with respect to how they combine modularization and platforms, for example, in terms of degree of centralization, formalization, and allocation of decision‐making authority, and that this poses challenges to the combined use of the two approaches.     

Managing the Trade‐off between Ambiguity and Volatility in New Product Development

Uncertainty is widely recognized to be a key contingency influencing optimal new product development processes. However, extant new product research treats uncertainty in a largely unidimensional manner. Even in studies where multiple dimensions of uncertainty are measured, they are hypothesized to behave in a similar manner. This paper advances a theory describing how ambiguity and volatility place different and conflicting demands on new product development processes. Drawing on ideas from the organization theory and learning literatures, the theory suggests that more ambiguous environments favor slower development processes based on larger samples of data and interpretations whereas more volatile environments favor faster and more flexible development processes. Five hypotheses are advanced suggesting that as the level of ambiguity increases (decreases) relative to the level of volatility, firms should respond by decreasing (increasing) the role of top management in new product development, increasing (decreasing) front‐end and back‐end participation, allocating more (less) time and effort to ideation, and using more (less) aggressive screening processes. Some of these hypotheses are highly intuitive (participation and screening) while others are counterintuitive (top management involvement and screening aggressiveness). The theory is tested using primary data on the development of 120 new products and their subsequent performance collected from firms in U.S. manufacturing industries. The data largely confirm the hypotheses and provide strong evidence of a trade‐off between ambiguity and volatility that can be managed to improve new product performance. The exception is back‐end participation, which should be lower in relatively more ambiguous environments, in contrast to the hypothesis. A comparison with three alternative models shows that ambiguity generally has a larger impact on appropriate new product development processes and success than either the level of volatility or the overall level of environmental uncertainty. A detailed examination of the estimated relationships shows that for ideation and screening, the relative level of ambiguity and volatility determines optimal new product development processes, whereas for top management involvement and participation, processes can be designed based primarily on the level of ambiguity alone, with less concern over the degree of volatility. The study highlights the importance of considering the composition of uncertainty in addition to its overall level in contingent approaches to new product development. Real‐world examples of highly ambiguous and highly volatile new product development contexts are discussed.     

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

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