The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for Discontinuous Innovations: A Theoretical Model

The fuzzy front end of the new product development (NPD) process, the time and activity prior to an organization's first screen of a new product idea, is the root of success for firms involved with discontinuous new product innovation. Yet understanding the fuzzy front‐end process has been a challenge for academics and organizations alike. While approaches to handling the fuzzy front end have been suggested in the literature, these tend to be relevant largely for incremental new product situations where organizations are aware of and are involved in the NPD process from the project's beginning. For incremental new products, structured problems or opportunities typically are laid out at the organizational level and are directed to individuals for information gathering. In the case of discontinuous innovations, however, we propose that the process works in the opposite direction—that is, that the timing and likelihood of organizational‐level involvement is more likely to be at the discretion of individuals. Such individuals perform a boundary‐spanning function by identifying and by understanding emerging patterns in the environment, with little or no direction from the organization. Often, these same individuals also act as gatekeepers by deciding on the value to the organization of externally derived information, as well as whether such information will be shared. Consequently for discontinuous innovations, information search and related problems/opportunities are unstructured and are at the individual level during the fuzzy front end. As such, the direction of initial decisions about new environmental information tends to be inward, toward the corporate decision‐making level, rather than the other way around. In order to cope with the special and complex nature of decisions made at the fuzzy front end of NPD for discontinuous innovations, this process is detailed as a series of decisions occurring over three proposed interfaces: boundary, gatekeeping, and project. The difference between each interface lies in the nature of the decisions made: At the boundary and gatekeeping interfaces, the primary impetus is individual‐level decision‐making; at the project interface, decisions occur at the organizational level. By articulating these processes in the form of a model, we achieve two objectives: (1) We outline a more detailed and comprehensive approach to understanding the nature of the front‐end decision making process for discontinuous innovations; and (2) we detail specific propositions for future research on each stage of the process.     

Whom Should We Talk to? Investigating the Varying Roles of Internal and External Relationship Quality on Radical and Incremental Innovation Performance

Research suggests that close relationships with internal and external partners are likely to have a significant impact on new product development (NPD). What is unclear is how the effects of internal and external relationships influence development paths for different types of innovations. Prior literature indicates that the pathways for developing incremental innovations differ considerably from those for radical innovations. Thus it is plausible that the effects of external versus internal relationships vary across these two innovation types. This paper uses the 2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS) data set to investigate the roles of internal and external relationship quality on the development of both incremental and radical innovations. The results find that internal and not external relationship quality is beneficial for the development of incremental innovations. When driven by internal relationships, a flexible NPD process is advantageous for the financial performance of incremental innovations. Meanwhile external and not internal relationship quality is valuable for developing radical innovations. External relationship quality results in process flexibility, leading to project execution success and subsequent financial performance for radical innovations. As expected, project execution success consistently leads to increased financial performance. These findings indicate the critical differences in types of relationship quality required when developing new products based on radical versus incremental innovations.     

The Roles of Marketing and Industrial Design in Discontinuous New Product Development*

Radical or “discontinuous” products based on new technological breakthroughs are playing an ever‐increasing role in the success of firms. However, little research has been conducted that investigates the roles of marketing and industrial design (ID) in the development of these types of products. Further, past research has tended to overlook the role that industrial design, and the impact of the marketing‐industrial design interaction, can have on the development of discontinuous new products. Frequently, the term design is used broadly or is equated with engineering; thus, while the marketing–research and development (R&D) interaction is studied, the marketing–ID as well as the industrial design–R&D relationships are not considered. This article examines the roles of marketing and industrial design in the product development process for discontinuous innovations. Specifically, questions concerning how and the degree to which marketing and industrial design are integrated into the development process are investigated. The investigation employs multiple methods, or triangulation, in order to secure an in‐depth understanding of the roles of these disciplines. In the course of examining these questions, key factors influencing industrial design and marketing involvement are identified and preliminary models are examined. The research, which was conducted in two phases, employed a mixed‐method, multiple sample design. The methods used included a survey, field observation study, and depth‐interviewing. Data were collected from three different samples: R&D managers, project team members (including personnel from various disciplines—marketing, R&D, industrial design, engineering, etc.), and industrial design managers. The use of the different data sources and sampling of various groups of managers was employed in order to provide a rich context for investigating the research questions of interest. In addition, a preliminary analysis of factors (e.g., degree of product discontinuity, product innovation objectives, process discontinuity, process formality) identified in the first phase was conducted, and these relationships were explored further in the second phase of the research. Findings across the two phases of this research suggest that the development of discontinuous new products involves a process that is different from more conventional new product development—particularly as it concerns the roles of marketing and industrial design. The high degree of discontinuity inherent in such projects, along with the strong R&D orientation often surrounding them, results in delayed involvement of marketing and ID, as well as altering their roles in the new product development (NPD) process. Factors such as the degree of product discontinuity (DPD), process discontinuity (PCD), and process formality (PF) seemed to exert a differential influence on the involvement of marketing and ID. Although their roles and involvement are altered in discontinuous new product development, this research suggests that marketing and ID roles in this context involve increased challenges with respect to validation of key assumptions and product application directions. Additionally, managers operating in this development context need to explicitly consider the influence of factors such as discontinuity level in undertaking NPD projects with respect to how it affects the execution of industrial design and marketing activities.     

Market Learning and Radical Innovation: A Cross Case Comparison of Eight Radical Innovation Projects

Does customer input play the same key role in every successful new-product development (NPD) project? For incremental NPD projects, market information keeps the project team focused on customer wants and needs. Well-documented methods exist for obtaining and using market information throughout the stages of an incremental NPD project. However, the role of market learning seems less apparent if the NPD project involves a really new product—that is, a radical innovation that creates a line of business that is new not only for the firm but also for the marketplace. In all likelihood, customers will not be able to describe their requirements for a product that opens up entirely new markets and applications. To provide insight into the role that market learning plays in NPD projects involving really new products, Gina Colarelli O'Connor describes findings from case studies of eight radical innovation projects. Participants in the study come from member companies of the Industrial Research Institute, a consortium of large company R&D managers. With a focus on exploring how market learning for radical innovations differs from that of incremental NPD projects, the case studies examine the following issues: the nature and the timing of market-related inquiry; market learning methods and processes; and the scope of responsibility for market learning, and confidence in the results. Observations from the case studies suggest that the market-related questions that are asked during a radical innovation project differ by stage of development, and they differ from the questions that project teams typically ask during an incremental NPD effort. For example, assessments of market potential, size, and growth were not at issue during the early stages of the projects in this study. Such issues came into play after the innovations were proven to work under controlled conditions and attention turned to finding applications for the technology. For several projects in the study, internal data and informal networks of people throughout relevant business units provide the means for learning about the hurdles the innovation faces and about markets that are unfamiliar to the development group. The projects in this study employ various techniques for reducing market uncertainty, including offering the product to the most familiar market and using a strategic ally who is familiar with the market to act as an intermediary between the project team and the marketplace.     

Determinants of New Product Development Team Performance: A Meta‐analytic Review

New product development (NPD) has become a critical determinant of firm performance. There is a considerable body of research examining the factors that influence a firm's ability to successfully develop and introduce new products. Vital to this success is the creation and management of NPD teams. While the evidence for the use of NPD teams and the factors that determine their success is accumulating, there is still a lack of clarity on the team‐level variables that are most impactful on NPD success. This meta‐analytic study examines the effects of NPD team characteristics on three different measures of success: effectiveness (market success), efficiency (meeting budgets and schedules), and speed‐to‐market, requiring incorporation of a broader set of team variables than previous studies in order to capture more factors explaining NPD outcomes. Unlike a typical empirical study that considered no more than two team variables to predict NPD performance, this study combines research spanning eight team variables including team input variables (team tenure, functional diversity, team ability, and team leadership) and team process variables (internal and external team communication, group cohesiveness, and goal clarity). Results from 38 studies were aggregated to estimate the meta‐analytic effect sizes for each of the variables. Using the meta‐analytic results, a path analytic model of NPD success was estimated to isolate the unique effects of team characteristics on NPD effectiveness and efficiency. Results indicate that team leadership, team ability, external communication, goal clarity, and group cohesiveness are the critical determinants of NPD team performance. NPD teams with considerable experience and led by a transformational leader are more successful at developing new products. Effective boundary spanning within and outside the organization and a shared understanding of project objectives are paramount to success. Group cohesiveness is also an important predictor of NPD outcomes confirming the importance of esprit de corps within the team. The findings provide product development managers with a blueprint for creating high‐performance NPD teams.     

Key Factors Affecting Customer Evaluation of Discontinuous New Products

Common sense, as well as plenty of research, tells us that customer feedback can play an important role in successful product development efforts. By understanding the key factors that affect customers' evaluations of a new product, a project team improves its chances of making the right decisions throughout the design and development effort. However, customers typically lack a useful frame of reference for evaluating discontinuous, or really new products. In all likelihood, the key factors that affect customers' evaluations of radically new products differ from those for incremental innovations. Robert Veryzer describes the results of a study that examines the customer research efforts and findings of seven firms involved in the development of discontinuous new products. This study has the following objectives: gaining insight into the customer research inputs such companies use during the development of discontinuous new products, and exploring the critical factors that influence customers' evaluations of these really new products. The subjects in this study conducted relatively little formal customer research during the early stages of the NPD projects. The methods used for obtaining customer input during the concept generation and exploration stages were primarily qualitative. Although the companies in the study still did not focus consistently on customer issues during the technical development and design stage, the less discontinuous projects did use such traditional quantitative techniques as concept tests, clinics, and experiments during this phase of NPD. Throughout the projects in this study, the real opportunities for obtaining customer input came during the prototype testing and commercialization phases of the NPD projects. Several key factors appeared to influence customer evaluations of the products that were being developed by the NPD teams in this study. Lack of familiarity was manifested in customers' resistance to the new products in the study. Similarly, unfamiliarity with these new products often seemed to lead customers to focus on product attributes that development team members viewed as relatively unimportant. Other factors that affected customer evaluation of the products in this study included customer uncertainty about the benefits and risks associated with the product, customers' ability to understand how the product operates, perceptions of the product's safety, and product aesthetics.     

The use of information technology tools in new product development phases: Analysis of effects on new product innovativeness, quality, and market performance

Extant research has largely ignored empirically examining how information technology (IT) affects new product effectiveness. Using the knowledge-based theory as a foundation, this study examines if, and how, particular IT tools used in the discovery, development, and commercialization phases of the new product development (NPD) process influence NPD effectiveness dimensions, namely, market performance, innovativeness, and quality of a new product. Based on data collected from NPD managers in the US and Canada, the findings indicate that specific IT tools contribute to various measures of new product effectiveness differently. Moreover, the results show the positive effect of these IT tools in different phases of the NPD process. This suggests that with regard to NPD, a decompositional approach that examines the role of IT within each phase of the NPD process is best. Based on these findings, the authors discuss theoretical and managerial implications of the study and suggest paths for future research. Managerially, some interesting results of our study are that decision support systems, file transfer protocols, and concept testing tools would significantly improve NPD effectiveness regardless of the phase they are used.     

Product Development and Learning in Project Teams: The Challenges Are the Benefits*

The value of teams in new product development (NPD) is undeniable. Both the interdisciplinary nature of the work and industry trends necessitate that professionals from different functions work together on development projects to create the highest‐quality product in the shortest time. Understanding the conditions that facilitate teamwork has been a pursuit of researchers for nearly a half century. The present paper reviews existing literature on teams and team learning in organizational behavior and technology and innovation to offer insights for research on NPD teams. Building on prior work, the organizational benefits of NPD teams are summarized, and five attributes of these teams are identified that hinder attainment of their potential: (1) project complexity; (2) cross‐functionality; (3) temporary membership; (4) fluid team boundaries; and (5) embeddedness in organizational structures. It is argued here that effective management of these five attributes allows not only organization‐level benefits but also team‐level benefits in the form of new capabilities and team member resilience. The critical roles of leadership and of communication and conflict management training are then highlighted as strategies for overcoming the challenges to team effectiveness in NPD as well as for realizing five team benefits: (1) project management skills; (2) broad perspective; (3) teaming skills; (4) expanded social network; and (5) boundary‐spanning skills. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of these ideas for conducting future team research.     

Stage‐to‐Stage Information Dependency in the NPD Process: Effective Learning or a Potential Entrapment of NPD Gates?

The new product development (NPD) process is a sequence of stages and gates. Each stage consists of NPD activities that provide NPD managers with information input about the new product project progression. Information input is used for review decisions at gates. Over the course of an NPD process, managers learn about a new product project as to ensure successful launch. The view is that a new product project is shaped by the path of NPD activities it has traveled. Because learning is assumed to take place over the course of the NPD process, stage‐to‐stage information dependency is an assumption of NPD research. A concern raised is that development activities for each NPD stage are rigorously followed by NPD managers. In other words, stage‐to‐stage information dependency may potentially trap NPD managers rather than create effective learning from end to end of the development process. The purpose of this paper is to explore the assumption of stage‐to‐stage information dependency in NPD. The investigated research questions are whether the selection of NPD activities is linked between stages and whether these information dependencies strengthen NPD gate decisions. For the information dependencies identified in the study, the innovation experience characteristics of NPD managers pursuing them and the influence of information dependencies on NPD gate decisions are analyzed so as to provide insights for a discussion of information dependency versus information independency in the NPD process. The applied research method is an experiential simulation of NPD gate decision‐making—NPDGATES. One hundred thirty‐one NPD managers from international product development strategic business units (SBUs) situated in Denmark participated in the study. Logistic regressions were conducted as the basis for the calculation of stage‐to‐stage information dependency probabilities. Based on the study findings, the assumption about information dependency in the NPD process held by NPD research is found to be flawed. End‐to‐end information paths in the NPD process are rare. Further, market condition changes are found to significantly influence the stage‐to‐stage information dependencies demonstrated by NPD managers. It seems that competition becomes a reassurance of NPD efforts. Also, the results show that NPD experience creates inflexibility in relation to the selection of NPD activities. The need for strict process management is strong among experienced NPD managers. In relation to NPD gates, the results show that information dependencies increase priority given to financial decision criteria at gates and lower priority given to customer and market decision criteria. Overall, stage‐to‐stage information dependency seems to create inflexibility that hinders successful NPD process implementation.     

The Breakfast of Champions: Associations Between Champions and Product Development Environments, Practices and Performance

According to conventional wisdom, if an innovative new product development (NPD) effort is to stand any chance for success, the project must have a champion. The role of the champion has taken on almost mythic proportions, through oft-told tales of the development of such disparate products as instant cameras, automobiles, and microprocessors. Notwithstanding the purportedly essential role that champions play, however, we have only anecdotal evidence of the manner in which effective champions operate and the benefits that they offer. Stephen K. Markham and Abbie Griffin suggest that before we can explore questions about how champions affect product development performance, we must address an even more fundamental issue: whether champions actually influence performance. Using data from the 1995 PDMA study of best practices in product development, they test various widely held assumptions about champions and NDP performance. Specifically, they investigate the association between championing and the following variables: NPD performance at the program, firm, and project levels; industry characteristics; and project- and firm-related NPD characteristics. In several respects, the results of their study run counter to current beliefs about product development champions. For example, the study suggests that champions are just as likely to be found in large firms as they are in small firms. Similarly, the results indicate that the likelihood of finding a champion does not differ significantly between technology-driven firms and marketing-driven firms. For the firms in this study, champions are no more likely to support radical innovations than they are to back incremental innovations or product line extensions. The results of the study suggest that champions do not directly affect firm-level NPD performance. Instead, the results of this study associate increased championing with higher levels of NPD program performance, which positively affects firm-level performance. The results of this study also do not support the notion that a champion can directly improve the market success of a particular project.     

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

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

Managing strategic intellectual property assets in the fuzzy front end of new product development process

The strategic use of intellectual property (IP) is crucial for technology-based companies to gain competitive advantage. The recent transformation of the US patent system brings new challenges and opportunities in this arena. In this regard, this study attempts to identify techniques which can help with IP evaluation and selection in the fuzzy front end (FFE) of new product development (NPD) process. This study combines data collection methods such as mining the literature, conducting in-depth interviews, surveying questionnaires, and analyzing cases. This research serves as an analysis of modern literature and identifies a multicriteria weighted scoring model that can be employed to help with the patent decision process. The criterion to discern patent eligibility is a contended discussion. For this survey administration, 300 companies, as the targeted sample, were randomly selected to be reached from LexisNexis database. Consequently, this paper identifies the key decision criteria to incorporate into this model and obtains weights gathered from surveying IP professionals and R&D managers in US-based electronics manufacturing firms (SIC code: 36). This study proposes a structured approach to identify ideas that should be patented in the FFE of NPD process by way of an analysis of pertaining literature and case studies. The technique we present in this paper could be essential for many firms to achieve IP success as their strategic means. Moreover, this tool can help R&D managers not only speed up the FFE of NPD process but also make more informed and target-worthy decisions for IP filing.     

Exploring New Product Development Project Review Practices*

Most organizations use new product development (NPD) processes that consist of activities and review points. Activities basically solve problems and gather and produce information about the viability of successfully completing the project. Interspersed between the development activities are review points where project information is reviewed and a decision is made to either go on to the next stage of the process, stop it prior to completion, or hold it until more information is gathered and a better decision can be made. The review points are for controlling risk, prioritizing projects, and allocating resources, and the review team typically is cross‐disciplinary, comprising senior managers from marketing, finance, research and development (R&D), or manufacturing. Over the past four decades, research has greatly advanced knowledge with respect to NPD activities; however, much less is known about review practices. For this reason, the present paper reports findings of a study on NPD project review practices from 425 Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) members. The focus is on three decision points in the NPD process common across organizations (i.e., initial screen, prior to development and testing, and prior to commercialization). In this paper, the number of (1) review points used, (2) review criteria, (3) decision makers on review committees and the proficiency with which various evaluation criteria are used are compared across incremental and radical projects and across functional areas (i.e., marketing, technical, financial). Furthermore, the associations between these NPD review practices and new product performance are examined. Selected results show that more review points are used for radical NPD projects than incremental ones, and this is related to a relatively lower rate of survival for radical projects. The findings also show that the number of criteria used to evaluate NPD projects increases as NPD projects progress and that the number of review team members grows over the stages, too. Surprisingly, the results reveal that more criteria are used to evaluate incremental NPD projects than radical ones. As expected, managers appear to more proficiently use evaluation criteria when making project continuation/termination decisions for incremental projects; they use these criteria less proficiently during the development of radical projects, precisely when proficiency is most critical. At each review point, technical criteria were found to be the most frequently used type for incremental projects, and financial criteria were the most commonly used type for radical ones. Importantly, only review proficiency is significantly associated with performance; the number of review points, review team size, and number of review criteria are not associated with new product performance. Furthermore, only the coefficient for proficiently using marketing criteria was significantly related to new product program performance; the proficiency of using financial and technical information has no association with performance. Finally, across the three focal review points of the NPD process in this study, only the coefficient for proficiency at the first review point, (i.e., the initial screen) is significantly greater than zero. The results are discussed with respect to research and managerial practice, and future research directions are offered.     

Autonomous Teams and New Product Development

An autonomous team is an emerging tool for new product development (NPD). With its high degree of autonomy, independence, leadership, dedication, and collocation, the team has more freedom and stronger capabilities to be innovative and entrepreneurial. Several anecdotal cases suggest that autonomous teams are best when applied to highly uncertain, complex, and innovative projects. However, there is no empirical study to test such a notion. Moreover, autonomous teams are not a panacea, and implementing them can be costly and disruptive to their parent organization. When should this powerful, yet costly tool, be pulled out of the new product professional's toolbox? This paper attempts to answer this question. The objective of this study is to explore under which circumstances an autonomous team is the best choice for NPD. Based on contingency and information‐processing theories, autonomous teams are hypothesized to be more effective to address projects with: (1) high technology novelty and (2) radical innovation. To test these hypotheses, the relative effectiveness of four types of team structures: autonomous, functional, lightweight, and heavyweight are compared. The effectiveness measures include development cost, development speed, and overall product success. Vision clarity, resource availability, and team experience are the controlled variables. The empirical results based on the data from 555 NPD projects generally support the research hypotheses. Relative to other team structures, autonomous teams are more effective in addressing projects with high technology novelty or radical innovation. The results also suggest that heavyweight teams perform better than other teams in developing incremental innovation. These results provide some evidence to support contingency and information‐processing theories at the project level. Given the importance of the development of novel technology and radical innovation in establishing new businesses and other strategic initiatives, the findings of this study may not only have some important implications for NPD practices but may also shed some light on other important topics such as disruptive innovation, strategic innovation, new venture, corporate entrepreneurship, and ambidextrous organization.     

New product development in Asia: An introduction to the special issue

Given the increasing importance of Asia, the purpose of this special issue is to broaden the scope of our understanding of New Product Development (NPD) by going beyond the traditional Western research settings and looking at how new products are developed in Asia. This paper introduces the special issue on NPD in Asia and identifies key patterns of similarities and differences between Asian and Western NPD practices. The paper highlights key similarities and differences in the areas of organizational/top management support; technological proficiency; customer/market orientation; information sharing; cross-functional interface; entrepreneurship orientation; NPD strategies; innovation orientation; contingencies of innovation orientation; innovative marketing strategies; NPD process; appointment of project managers; rewarding team members; success rate; and cycle time.     

New Product Development: Impact of Project Characteristics and Development Practices on Performance

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

Does Strategic Planning Enhance or Impede Innovation and Firm Performance?*

Does strategic planning enhance or impede innovation and firm performance? The current literature provides contradictory views. This study extends the resource‐advantage theory to examine the conditions in which strategic planning increases or decreases the number of new product development projects and firm performance. The authors test the theoretical model by collecting data from 227 firms. The empirical evidence suggests that more strategic planning and more new product development (NPD) projects lead to better firm performance. Firms with organizational redundancy benefit more from strategic planning than firms with less organizational redundancy. Increasing R&D intensity boosts both the number of NPD projects and firm performance. Strategic planning is more effective in larger firms with higher R&D intensity for increasing the number of NPD projects. The results reported in this study also consist of several findings that challenge the traditional views of strategic planning. The evidence suggests that strategic planning impedes, not enhances, the number of NPD projects. Larger firms benefit less, not more, from strategic planning for improving firm performance. Larger firms do not necessarily create more NPD projects. Increasing organizational redundancy has no effect on the number of NPD projects. These empirical results provide important strategic implications. First, managers should be aware that, in general, formal strategic planning decreases the number of NPD projects for innovation management. Improvised rather than planned activities are more conducive to creating NPD project ideas. Moreover, innovations tend to emerge from improvisational processes, during which the impromptu execution of NPD activities without planning spurs “thinking outside the box,” which enhances the process of creating NPD project ideas. Therefore, more flexible strategic plans that accommodate potential improvisation may be needed in NPD management since innovation‐related activities cannot be planned precisely due to the unexpected jolts and contingencies of the NPD process. Second, large firms with high levels of R&D intensity can overcome the negative effect of strategic planning on the number of NPD projects. Specifically, a firm's abundant resources, when allocated and deployed for NPD activities, signal the high priority and importance of the NPD activities and thus motivate employees to acquire, collect, and gather customer and technical knowledge, which leads to creating more NPD projects. Finally, managers must understand that managing strategic planning and generating NPD project ideas are beneficial to the ultimate outcome of firm performance despite the adverse relationship between strategic planning and the number of NPD projects.     

From experience: Capturing hard-won NPD lessons in checklists

The application of a good New Product Development (NPD) process is frequently limited by the experience of the user. Avoiding relatively minor errors and omissions that can lead to seriously flawed project results is still an art. Checklists for each stage of a development project can capture this art and their disciplined use can avoid many potentially critical omissions and errors. Development of checklists frequently comes from the hard experiences many of us have had in bringing new products to market. Consequently, benchmarking "trials and tribulations" rather than success stories can be more appropriate to developing a thoughtful checklist.
This article is a partial accumulation of one practitioner's experiences of over three decades of executing, managing, directing and observing these projects. Fifteen NPD case histories are examined to develop learnings from these experiences. These cases are organized around three basic product development issues: managing technical risks, managing commercial risks, and managing NPD personnel. In these examples, NPD project problems have a common theme of poor technical or commercial risk management, as opposed to technical failure. Improved planning and a more disciplined management interface would have avoided many of the problems discussed in these case histories.
Analysis of each of the case histories and learnings is provided from which suggested checklist items are derived. These checklist additions are presented by development stage to allow use by other NPD teams, with the intention of avoiding the repetition of similar problems.