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 Informational Role of Product Trade‐Ins for Pricing Durable Goods

This research theorizes that sellers of durable goods can utilize inferences about the buyer's willingness to pay based not only on her decision to trade in the old good but also on its characteristics. We find empirical support for this theory using transaction data for new car purchases. The results support the notion that dealers infer a higher willingness to pay and charge higher prices to consumers who trade in a used vehicle than to those who do not. We also find that dealers charge even higher prices to those consumers who trade in used cars that are similar to the new one.     

The Contribution of In‐house and External Design Activities to Product Market Performance

Design may be seen as one of several key factors contributing to new product development, along with research and development, marketing, manufacturing, purchasing, etc. More and more, creative design comes to the fore, and many companies believe that superior design will be the key to winning customers. It has the ability to create corporate distinctiveness and also possesses the potential to give a product an individual or new look. Furthermore, the model of open innovation suggests that firms can and should use external and internal knowledge flows in order to create valuable ideas, and also internal and external paths to the market. Also, in the design process, a common trend toward external design skills has emerged in recent years. Due to cost and control factors, firms are increasingly outsourcing design activities. By using a sample of Belgian companies, this paper explores the contribution of design activities to product market performance. While there is mounting evidence that design can be seen as a strategic tool to successfully spur sales of new product developments at the firm level, the topic of design innovation has not yet been linked to the open innovation concept. In this paper, it is empirically tested whether design activities conducted in house differ in their contribution to new product sales from externally acquired design. So, do design activities that have been developed only with internal resources lead to a greater success than those that have been carried out with external sources of knowledge? Using a large cross‐section of manufacturing and service firms, the effects on sales of products new to the market and of imitations or significantly improved products of the firm are investigated. At first glance, the findings indicate that externally acquired design is not superior to in‐house design activities: the results show that only design activities that are mainly conducted with internal knowledge sources play a crucial role regarding the product innovation's success with market novelties. Design conducted in collaboration with external partners, however, has no significant influence. This is not the case for imitations, that is, products only new to the firm. Their success is also influenced by design activities developed with external collaborators. This effect is robust for several modifications of the model specification. In contrast to earlier literature on new technological developments, this paper argues that external design may not affect the sales of market novelties as the “market news” may spill over quickly to rivals through common suppliers including external designers.     

The Form of Relationship between Firm‐Level Product Innovativeness and New Product Performance in Developed and Emerging Markets

This study compares the new product performance outcomes of firm‐level product innovativeness across a developed and emerging market context. In so doing, a model is constructed in which the relationship between firm‐level product innovativeness and new product performance is anticipated to be curvilinear, and in which the nature of this relationship is argued to be dependent on organizational and environmental factors. The model is tested using primary data obtained from chief executive officers and finance managers in 319 firms operating in the United Kingdom, an advanced Western market, and 221 firms from Ghana, an emerging Sub‐Saharan African market. The model is assessed using a structural equation model multigroup analysis approach with LISREL 8.5. In the United Kingdom and Ghana, the basic form of the relationship between firm‐level product innovativeness and business success is inverted U‐shaped, but the strength and/or form of this relationship changes under differing levels of market orientation, access to financial resources, and environmental dynamism. While commonalities are identified across the two countries (market orientation helps firms leverage their product innovativeness), differences are also observed across the samples. In Ghana, access to financial resources enhances the relationship between product innovativeness and new product performance, unlike in the United Kingdom where no moderation is observed. Furthermore, while U.K. firms leverage product innovativeness to their advantage in more dynamic environments, Ghanaian firms do not benefit in this way: here, high levels of innovation activity are less useful when markets are more dynamic. If the study's findings generalize, there are a number of implications for managers of both emerging and developed market businesses. First, managers in both developed and developing market firms should focus on determining and managing an optimal balance of novel and intensive product innovativeness within the context of their unique institutional environments. Second, for emerging market firms, a market orientation capability helps businesses leverage local market intelligence, enabling them to compete with multinational giants flocking to emerging markets, but typical developed market learning approaches may be insufficient for multinational firms when seeking to compete in emerging markets. Third, for emerging market firms, access to finances helps deliver product innovation success (although this is not the case for developed market firms, possibly due to strong financial institutions). Finally, unlike developed market firms, burdened by institutional voids at home, emerging market firms appear to be less capable of competing on an innovation front in more dynamic market conditions. Accordingly, policymakers in emerging markets should consider identifying ways to help businesses raise market orientation levels, and seek to create conditions that enhance access to financial capital (e.g., direct financing, matching grants, tax rebates, or rewarding firms that innovate creatively and intensely). Likewise, since environmental dynamism is likely to be a growing issue for emerging markets, efforts to help firms become more adept at keeping up with more agile developed market counterparts are needed.     

The Wage–Health Insurance Trade‐off and Worker Selection: Evidence From the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 1997 to 2006

Key provisions within healthcare reform will likely further increase the cost of employer‐sponsored insurance. Theory suggests that workers pay for their health insurance through a wage offset. We investigate this issue using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. GMM estimates aimed at correcting for endogenous worker mobility reveal evidence of a trade‐off for workers who are offered health insurance as the only fringe benefit. On the other hand, employees in establishments with a more comprehensive set of benefits enjoy higher wages relative to employees in establishments that offer no benefits. Health also affects the wage–health insurance trade‐off.     

The Effect of Multiknowledge Individuals on Performance in Cross‐Functional New Product Development Teams*

This study examines the effect of multiknowledge individuals (especially those possessing both marketing and technological knowledge) on performance in cross‐functional new product development teams. A survey of 62 cross‐functional teams shows that the proportion of multiknowledge individuals has an indirect positive effect through information sharing on product innovativeness and a direct positive effect on time efficiency of new product development teams.     

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

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

The Effect of Interactional Fairness on the Performance of Cross‐Functional Product Development Teams: A Multilevel Mediated Model*

Cross‐functional product development teams (CFPDTs) are receiving increasing attention as a fundamental mechanism for achieving greater interfunctional integration in the product development process. However, little is known about how team members' interactional fairness perception—fairness perception based on the quality of interpersonal treatment received from the project manager during the new product development process—affects cross‐functional communication and the performance of CFPDTs. This study examines the effects of interactional fairness on both team members' performance and team performance as a whole. It was predicted that interactional fairness in CFPDTs would significantly affect team members' task performance, both task‐ and person‐focused interpersonal citizenship behaviors, as well as team performance. Additionally, commitment would partially mediate the effects of interactional fairness on these performance outcomes. Analyzing survey responses from two student samples of CFPDTs with hierarchical linear modeling techniques, it was demonstrated that team members' task performance, interpersonal citizenship behavior, and team performance are enhanced when team members are dedicated to both the team and the project, and such dedication is fostered when project managers are fair to team members in an interpersonal way.     

An individual‐level assessment of the relationship between spin‐off activities and research performance in universities

One of the most problematic aspects in the creation of spin‐offs by university personnel concerns the relationship between entrepreneurial activity and research activity by researcher‐entrepreneurs. The literature has expressed varying and opposing views as to the nature of the relationship, but very little has been produced to empirically legitimate one position or another. The present work proposes to address this shortcoming by exploring the relationship existing between academic spin‐off generation and the research performance of enterprise founders. The study investigates whether, and to what extent, scientific performance by academic entrepreneurs is different than that of their colleagues, and if the involvement in entrepreneurial activity has an influence on the individual's research activity. The research questions are answered by considering all spin‐offs generated by Italian universities over the period 2001–2008 and evaluating, through a bibliometric approach, the scientific performance of founders relative to that of their colleagues who carry out research in the same field. The data show better scientific performance by the researcher‐entrepreneurs than that of their colleagues, and in addition, although there are some variations across fields, the creation of a spin‐off does not seem, on average, to have negative effects on the scientific performance of the founders.     

Performance implications of outsourcing for technological innovations: managing the efficiency and adaptability trade‐off

We explore how increasing efficiency compromises adaptability when a firm outsources during the emergent stages of a technological innovation. Since efficiency ‐related problems differ in complexity and structure from those associated with adaptability, their optimal governance differs. While the former benefits from outsourcing, the latter is better off managed within organizational boundaries. In addition, a firm's ability to engage in complex problem solving buffers the efficiency‐adaptability trade‐off that occurs with increasing levels of outsourcing. In this study, we find support for our theses. Although outsourcing yields efficiency gains up to a certain point, it hurts adaptability. However, a firm's absorptive capacity mitigates this trade‐off. Our data on outsourcing for Internet banking is both archival and based on two surveys conducted with 100 U.S. banks. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Impact of Front‐End Innovation Activities on Product Performance

This paper describes and tests a model of the impact of front‐end innovation activities on product performance. Data were collected from 272 companies to test the hypothesis that front‐end performance impacts new product performance in the marketplace while controlling for new product development (NPD) processes and strategy. The data support the hypothesis that front‐end performance favorably and independently impacts overall product success, time to market, market penetration, and financial performance. Front‐end performance is predicted by a set of activities, including: the actual amount of front‐end work done in various areas, specifically marketing, R&D, and concept development; the existence of a front‐end process; the existence of a champion; and agreement on the order of developmental steps in the front end. Front‐end activities are related to front‐end performance, and front‐end performance is related to NPD performance. This relationship highlights the distinction between front‐end activities and standard product development practices and the importance of building competency in the front end. This is the first study that quantifies both the nature and amount of work done in the front end and relates that work to commercial performance. This research empirically demonstrates the distinction between the front‐end and formal stages and gates types of systems. This suggests that the concept of the front end needs it own set of theoretical constructs to adequately describe and predict this categorically different set of activities. While this study demonstrates the difference between front‐end and stage‐gate systems, it does not establish the limits of those activities. From a managerial point of view recognizing that formal development and front‐end activities are different mandates that these activities must be managed differently. In particular, the skills, structures, processes, governance, leadership, performance metrics, and resources must be assessed separately and differently. These findings suggest that firms should actively manage the flow of ideas from the front end into the more formal development programs.     

Resource Dedication and New Product Performance: A Resource‐Based View

Corporate investments in new product development (NPD) initiatives are strategically effective activities that are instrumental in contributing to new product performance. Given that a fundamental nature of product development is the ability to exploit new product opportunities, the authors investigate the firm‐level impact that corporate investments in knowledge workers and financial NPD resources have on new product performance. They track the resource dedication and new product financial performance of 41 firms over a seven‐year period. Our results provide evidence that financial investments have a contemporaneous return on investment while knowledge worker investments provide companies with both contemporaneous and carryover returns. When formulating strategy and making NPD resource allocation decisions, managers must remain cognizant of the time‐dependent nature of resource investments, the need for persistent investment, and the resulting performance impact.     

Beyond the High‐Performance Paradigm: Exploring the Curvilinear Relationship between High‐Performance Work Systems and Organizational Performance in Taiwanese Manufacturing Firms

In this study, we explore the potential downside of the ‘high‐performance’ paradigm by examining the curvilinear relationship between high‐performance work systems (HPWS) and organizational performance and the moderating effects of the industry type. Using data from Taiwanese manufacturing firms, we find an inverted‐U pattern between HPWS and organizational performance in high‐technology firms (N = 74), and a linear relationship in traditional manufacturing firms (N = 86). These findings are consistent with the viewpoint of diminishing returns of HPWS and the contingency perspective. Theoretical and practical implications of our findings are also discussed.     

The Impact of the Corporate Mind‐set on New Product Launch Strategy and Market Performance

In the last decade, there has been an increasing interest in the link between new product launch strategy and market performance. So far, new product launch research has focused on this performance relationship without giving much attention to background factors that can facilitate or inhibit successful launch strategies. However, investigating such antecedents that set the framework in which different strategic launch decisions enable or prevent the market performance of new products is useful for enhancing the current state of knowledge. Drawing on the concept of a firm's orientation, the present study discusses the influence of the corporate mind‐set on new product launch strategy and market performance. It is hypothesized that the capability to successfully launch new products is based on the interplay between a firm's mind‐set (i.e., an analytical, risk‐taking, and aggressive posture) and its strategic launch decisions on setting launch objectives, selecting target markets, and positioning the new product. A research model with mediating effects is proposed, where the corporate mind‐set determines the launch strategy decisions, which in turn impact market performance. The model is tested with data on 113 industrial new products launched in business‐to‐business markets in Germany using a multiple informant approach. The results support the mediated model as the dimensions of the corporate mind‐set have a significant impact on most strategic launch decisions, which in turn significantly contribute to market performance. It is found that while an analytical posture relates to all three strategic launch decisions, risk taking and an aggressive posture have a significant impact on two, respectively one, launch strategy elements. These findings confirm the importance of investigating antecedents for a successful new product launch, as the corporate mind‐set serves as a background resource that sets the framework for successful new product launch decisions. In the final section implications for research and managerial practice as well as limitations of this research are provided.     

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.     

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

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

Heterogeneous Firm‐Level Effects of Knowledge Exchanges on Product Innovation: Differences between Dynamic and Lagging Product Innovators*

Product innovation is the result of a constant interaction between the in‐house research and development (R&D) department and knowledge exchanges with the firm's environment. Knowledge exchanges come in different forms. They break down into information gathering applied in new product development, research cooperation on particular innovation projects, and managing information outflows allowing the consequent appropriation of the results of product innovation through specific methods. The way firms handle knowledge exchanges affects their performance. This paper looks at three related indicators of performance: (1) research intensity (a measure of innovative input); (2) the share of revenue realized through innovative product sales (a measure of innovative output); and (3) their impact on the growth in total revenue. The bulk of the econometric literature looking into these matters only allows general statistical statements on the behavior of an “average” firm. This paper takes on another view by using the quantile regression method to stress the heterogeneity of innovative firms in their dealing with knowledge exchange and the effect this has on their performance. A first key finding is that research intensity is positively influenced by knowledge externalities, research cooperation, and appropriability, and it is through this that these variables affect innovative revenue and also the growth in total revenue. By using quantile regression these relationships are further refined to screen for differences in behavior between dynamic and lagging innovators. This refinement indicates that, in the case of research intensity, the knowledge externalities gain in importance in the higher quantiles and are insignificant in the lower ones. Next, research cooperation remains important in all quantiles, but a higher significance is observed in the higher quantiles as well. Finally, appropriability is extremely important for the lower quantiles, but it becomes insignificant in the highest. These findings corroborate the assumptions made in the literature on open innovation: knowledge externalities and research collaboration are vital for those opening up their firm for new ideas and who are, at the same time, reluctant to protect their findings through specific appropriation measures. In the case of innovative revenue all variables on knowledge exchange operate through the research intensity irrespective of the quantile, although the impact of research intensity on this type of revenue is higher in the upper quantiles. As for the growth in revenue, the effect of the innovative revenue is, again, higher in the higher quantiles. This suggests that dynamic product innovators have the most efficient R&D process and the strongest growers are so, especially, because they are successful product innovators.     

Getting More from Cross‐Functional Fairness and Product Innovativeness: Contingency Effects of Internal Resource and Conflict Management

This research investigates how organizations' internal resource and conflict management influence the relationship between cross‐functional fairness and product innovativeness. It considers two contextual dimensions of both internal resource management (job rotation and internal rivalry) and conflict‐handling mechanisms (integrating and avoiding) as key components of the firm's ability to convert fair interactions, across departments, into product innovativeness. The tests of the study's hypotheses, based on a sample of more than 200 Canadian‐based firms, confirm that the cross‐functional fairness–product innovativeness relationship is amplified at higher levels of job rotation and integrative conflict handling but suppressed at higher levels of internal rivalry and avoidance of conflict handling. The authors discuss the study's implications and future research directions.     

A Closer Look at Cross‐Functional Collaboration and Product Innovativeness: Contingency Effects of Structural and Relational Context

This study applies a contingency perspective to examine how the intra‐organizational context influences the relationship between cross‐functional collaboration and product innovativeness. It focuses on the role of (1) formal, structural factors directly controllable by top management decisions and (2) more intangible, relational factors as potential enhancements of the firm's ability to convert cross‐functional collaboration into product innovativeness. A study of 232 firms confirms the hypotheses, finding that the relationship between cross‐functional collaboration and product innovativeness is stronger for higher levels of decision autonomy and shared responsibility (structural context) and social interaction, trust, and goal congruence (relational context). In addition, a post‐hoc analysis using a configurational approach to organizational contingencies reveals that organizations' relational context is more potent than their structural context for converting cross‐functional collaboration into product innovativeness. The study's implications and future research directions are discussed.