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.     

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.     

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 Design Innovation and Customer Value: Cross‐Cultural Research in the United States and Korea

Innovation is one of the key drivers of success that a firm must utilize to develop a competitive advantage. The ability to innovate is especially important for a firm's survival in dynamic, changing environments. Customer demands are constantly changing, and more purchases are made when a firm's product design incorporates what customers perceive as cutting‐edge innovations. Satisfying customer demands is a distinct challenge for product designers because firms must develop a clear understanding of what aspects of design the customer wants. Although the importance of design has increased, very little research has been done to explain the relationship between product innovation and product design. Studies indicate that design innovation may create greater customer value through improvements in design value. Previous research has been limited and has not provided a clear concept of design innovation or defined the relationship between design innovation and marketing competencies. This paper seeks to offer a conceptual definition of design innovation, and to define the link between design innovation and marketing competencies. This paper utilizes cross‐cultural research to discover how these concepts differ due to cultural differences between the United States and Korea. This research contributes substantially to our understanding of the relationship between design innovation and customer value.     

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.     

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.     

Exploring the Appeal of Product Design: A Grounded,Value‐Based Model of Key Design Elements and Relationships*

Product design is increasingly being recognized as an important source of sustainable competitive advantage. Until recently, the domain of design has been loosely categorized as “form and function” issues. However, as this paper will explore, product design deals with a much richer range of issues, many of which have not been considered in the marketing literature. To explore the domain and elements of design, the paper begins with two major goals: (1) to elicit the key dimensions of design and to develop an enriched language for the understanding and study of design; and (2) to integrate the design dimensions within a broader model that ties initial design goals to eventual psychological and behavioral responses from consumers. To achieve these ends, grounded theory development is used by conducting an extensive literature review, in‐depth interviews, and an interactive object elicitation technique. Drawing from this rich source of qualitative information as well as diverse literature fields, a framework is proposed for the creation of design value in consumer products. This framework not only explores the domain of design but also highlights the important elements of design that go well beyond the clichéd form and function issues. The resulting model reflects specific marketplace and organizational constraints that may help or impede the conversion of designer goals to so‐called design levers. These levers are used to convey three types of values to consumers: rational, kinesthetic, and emotional. The framework then explains how and when these different values may be perceived by the consumer. Within this framework, testable research propositions and specific directions for future design‐based research are also offered. Beyond its potential to spur marketing and new product development (NPD) management thought, the framework offered here represents a significant contribution to the field of design, which has historically been represented as a highly fragmented body of knowledge. Formalizing this framework should help overcome perhaps the largest obstacle to date to marketing‐related and NPD‐related research in this area—the lack of a detailed and consistent nomological view of the scope of design dimensions including testable linkages. Design has become an important tool that can be used by managers to develop dominant brands with lasting advantages. This research lends the NPD manager and the marketing manager better insights in into how this increasingly popular focus can be used to influence consumer behavior and firm success. “Design may be our top unexploited competitive edge.” Tom Peters, 2004 (cover review of Norman, 2004 ) “We don't have a good language to talk about [design]. In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer.… But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a man‐made creation.” Steve Jobs, Apple Computers     

Robust Testing of the Utility‐based High‐technology Product Sales Forecasting Models Proposed by Decker and Gnibba‐Yukawa (2010)

Decker and Gnibba‐Yukawa (2010) propose an elegant utility‐based model for forecasting the sales of high‐technology products and suggest that the model yields forecasts that are highly accurate. However, this finding is based on forecasts for a total of only six holdout observations shared across three products. This number of observations is insufficient for reliable inferences to be drawn about the accuracy of a method and the use of such a small data set runs counter to an accepted principle of forecast evaluation. The authors’ proposed model was tested on more extensive data and sensitivity analysis applied to the results. No evidence was found that the utility‐based model could outperform a relatively simple extrapolative model despite the much greater effort involved in applying the proposed model. In addition, the utility‐based model is only applicable for forecasting sales during a narrow interval in a product's life cycle and requires several periods of historic sales data before it can be implemented. It also depends heavily on the accurate estimates of parameters that are determined outside the model (and which may depend on difficult judgments by managers) and assumes that consumers or households will only purchase the product once between the launch date and the forecast horizon. In light of this, it is argued that the utility‐based model is likely to have limited usefulness as a sales forecasting tool.     

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.     

High‐Performance Product Management: The Impact of Structure,Process, Competencies,and Role Definition*

Product management is one of the most important functions in marketing. Yet the product management literature has focused largely on creating successful products and has relatively little to say about creating effective product management organizations. This paper focuses on the organizational determinants of high‐performance product management at three levels: (1) the product manager as an individual; (2) the marketing processes related to product management; and (3) the organization structure and role definition. The paper identifies several key factors that potentially impact product management performance. A set of qualitative interviews is conducted to develop hypotheses related to constructs that may drive product management performance. These hypotheses are used to develop a causal model for product management performance that includes constructs related to roles and responsibilities, organization structure, and marketing processes related to product management. An empirical survey of 198 product managers from a variety of industries is conducted to test the causal model. The results of the causal model suggest that performance of a product management organization is driven by structural barriers in the organization, the quality of marketing processes, roles and responsibilities, and knowledge and competencies. The findings suggest that structural boundaries and interfaces are the biggest impediment to effective product management, followed by clarity of roles and responsibilities. The research highlights the importance of organization structure and effective human resource practices in improving product management performance.     

Exploring the Relationship Between Aesthetic Design as an Element of New Service Development and Performance*

The purpose of this research is to investigate the conditions under which the use of aesthetic design as an element of new service development is likely to improve performance—more specifically, to empirically examine how aesthetic design can contribute to competitive advantage, resistance to imitation, and profitability, and how these contributions are moderated by the process of commoditization. Based on analysis of three rounds of longitudinal data collected one year apart in a population of new technology‐based firms, the findings are that aesthetic design as an element of new service development can contribute positively to competitive advantage, resistance to imitation, and profitability, but that the effectiveness of using aesthetic design to achieve these outcomes differs depending on the level of commoditization. Positive relationships are found between the use of aesthetic design and competitive advantage and profitability, respectively, when the level of commoditization is high. Furthermore, the positive relationship between aesthetic design and resistance to service imitation is stronger when the relative importance of aesthetic design in a firms' sector is low, that is, conditions under which aesthetic design is not already expected. This research suggests that practitioners should consider using aesthetic design to counteract commoditization when the markets in which they compete are characterized by ready access to services that meet customers' needs and expectations for features, performance, and reliability, and expectations for aesthetic design have not already become established. Furthermore, they should be aware that the use of aesthetic design may turn into a baseline customer requirement, implying that while attention to aesthetic design is necessary to compete it may cease to constitute a potential source of competitive advantage.     

Back‐loading: A Potential Side Effect of Employing Digital Design Tools in New Product Development

Over the past 20 years, the use of digital design tools such as Computer‐Aided‐Design (CAD) has increased dramatically. Today, almost no product development project is conducted without the use of CAD models. Major advantages typically ascribed to using CAD include better solutions through broader exploration of the solution space as well as faster and less expensive projects through faster and earlier iterations. This latter effect, the shifting of simulation and testing traditionally accomplished with the help of physical prototypes late in the process—a slow and expensive activity—to doing similar activities with virtual prototypes faster and earlier in the process, has been identified as a key aspect of front‐loading, an activity shift promising to enable superior product development (PD) performance. Given CAD's recent pervasive use, the research questions for this paper became “how has CAD use actually changed the way in which product development is conducted, and through which mechanisms and pathways can CAD impact PD performance, especially with respect to the idea of front‐loading?” This paper addresses these questions by studying in a longitudinal comparison in detail two similar product development projects, one conducted in 2001, the other in 2009. The projects were carefully selected to isolate the substantially higher levels of CAD use of the second project while controlling for most other input factors that influence project performance. The project with substantially higher use of CAD exhibited significant improvements in prototyping costs but only marginal changes in project time and project engineering labor cost relative to the project with lower CAD use. In‐depth intra‐project analysis on the phase level reveals that the use of CAD affected how the product development was executed, with both positive and negative consequences. In addition to, and separate from positive aspects of front‐loading, unintended consequences in the form of back‐loading work are also observed. Back‐loading can occur in two places in the product development process: First, the availability of CAD systems can cause an early jump into detail design, effectively shortcutting concept development. Second, the ability to relatively quickly conduct small changes virtually to the design can erode process discipline; late changes are made simply because they are possible. Both of these effects back‐load work in the opposite direction of the positive front‐loading. The theoretical implications of our observations are discussed, and a simple framework to convert our findings into managerial advice is proposed.     

The Impact of User‐Oriented Design on New Product Development: An Examination of Fundamental Relationships*

Design offers a potent way to position and to differentiate products and can play a significant role in their success. In many ways it is the focus on deep understanding of the customer or user—what may be termed user‐oriented design (UOD)—that transforms a bundle of technology with the ability to provide functionality into a “product” that people desire to interact with and from which they derive benefits. Even though the importance of this type of design is gaining recognition, several fundamental relationships between user‐oriented design contributions and the new product development (NPD) process and outcomes (i.e., product) remain unresearched, although they are assumed. This article examines the fundamental relationships underlying the incorporation of a user orientation into the NPD process. The discussion is organized around UOD's impact in terms of enhancing collaborative new product development (process oriented), improving idea generation (process oriented), producing superior product or service solutions (product oriented), and facilitating product appropriateness and adoption (product oriented). Each of these is developed and presented in the form of a research proposition relating to the impact of user‐oriented design on product development. The fundamental relationships articulated concerning UOD's impact on NPD form a conceptual framework for this approach to product design and development. For practitioners, the article suggests how user‐oriented design can improve NPD through its more grounded and comprehensive approach, along with the elevated appreciation of design challenges and heightened sense of possibilities for a product being developed. For scholars, the article identifies four important areas for UOD research. In addition to the rich avenues offered for research by each of these, the framework presented provides a foundation for further study as well as the development of new measures and tools for enhancing NPD efforts.     

A Causal Model of the Impact of Skills, Synergy, and Design Sensitivity on New Product Performance

Notwithstanding the best efforts of outstanding managers, project team members, researchers, and consultants, no product development plan can guarantee success. Every new products organization will experience its fair share of failures, but a firm can take steps to ensure that its failures do not outweigh its successes. By benchmarking the competition, a firm can gain insight into best practices–the factors that lead most directly to new product success. To help identify these best practices, X. Michael Song, William E. Souder, and Barbara Dyer develop and test a causal model of the relationships among the key variables leading to new product performance. The proposed model identifies five factors that lead to marketing and technical proficiency: process skills, project management skills, alignment of skills with needs, team skills, and design sensitivity. According to the model, marketing and technical proficiency directly determine product quality, and ultimately lead to new product success or failure. The causal model was tested using information on 65 completed projects–34 successes and 31 failures–from 17 large, multi-divisional Japanese firms. The study participants develop, manufacture, and market high-technology consumer and industrial products. These firms judged the success or failure of the projects in this study by using seven criteria: return on investment, profit, market share, sales, opportunities for technical leadership, market dominance, and customer satisfaction. These firms generally assigned the greatest importance to customer satisfaction, opportunity creation, and long-term growth. For the most part, the responses from these firms support the relationships presented in the causal model. According to the respondents, marketing proficiency and product quality have a strong, positive influence on their new product performance, as do process skills, project management skills, and alignment of skills and needs. The responses highlight the importance to these firms of responsiveness to customer wants and needs, as well as ensuring a close fit between project needs and the firm's skills in marketing, R&D, engineering, and manufacturing. Somewhat surprisingly, the responses do not support the model's suggested relationships between skills/needs alignment and technical proficiency or between technical proficiency and product quality.     

简述时尚在设计中的重要性和表现形式

时尚与设计是时下最流行的话题,大到国家的未来发展道路是经过设计的,小到一颗铆钉的罗圈也是经过设计的,象征大众趣味的时尚则蕴含着巨大的商业潜力和消费市场。本文从时尚与设计的概念出发,介绍时尚与设计的关系,进一步分析、简述时尚在设计中的重要性,指出时尚在设计中的表现形式。     

Collective Bargaining,Inter‐Sectoral Heterogeneity and Competitiveness: A Cross‐National Comparison of Macroeconomic Performance

Research on the performance effects of bargaining remains inconclusive. One reason for this is neglect of heterogeneity of the bargainers, namely differences in exposure to world markets and their implications for international competitiveness. Since the effects of bargaining on competitiveness depend on coping with productivity differentials between the exposed and sheltered sector, we discuss how distinct bargaining structures interact with these differentials. Exposed‐sector pattern setting is predicted to be the only bargaining structure that is sensitive to productivity differentials. The findings from time series cross‐sectional analysis corroborate the expected impact on labour costs and the current balance, whereas no employment effects are discernible.     

Why Customers Value Self‐Designed Products: The Importance of Process Effort and Enjoyment*

This study analyzes which factors prompt customers to attribute value to products they design themselves using mass‐customization (MC) toolkits. The assumption that self‐design delivers superior customer value is fundamental to the concept of MC toolkits and can be found in almost any conceptual work in this field. However, spectacular failures reinforce the practical relevance of developing a deeper understanding of why and when MC toolkits generate value for customers—and when they do not. Research to date has assumed that the closer fit between the self‐designed product's characteristics and the preferences of the customer is the dominant source of value. In this research, it is asked whether the enjoyment and perceived effort of the self‐design process have an additional impact on the perceived value of self‐designed products. This question is interesting because one could argue that a rational actor would hardly be willing to pay ex post for an economic good already consumed. The hypotheses are tested on 186 participants designing their own scarves with an MC toolkit. After completing the process, they submitted binding bids for “their” products in Vickrey auctions. Therefore, real buying behavior, not merely stated intentions, is observed. The present study finds that the subjective value of a self‐designed product (i.e., one's bid in the course of the auction) is indeed impacted not only by the preference fit the customer expects it to deliver but also by (1) the process enjoyment the customer reports, (2) the interaction of preference fit and process enjoyment, and (3) the interaction of preference fit and perceived process effort. In addition to its main effect, preference fit can be interpreted as a moderator of the value‐generating effect of process evaluation: in cases where the outcome of the process is perceived as positive (high preference fit), the customer also interprets process effort as a positive accomplishment, and this positive effect adds (further) value to the product. It appears that the perception of the self‐design process as a good or bad experience is partly constructed on the basis of the outcome of the process. In the opposite case (low preference fit), effort creates a negative effect that further reduces the subjective value of the product. Likewise, process enjoyment is amplified by preference fit, although enjoyment also has a significant main effect, which means that regardless of the outcome, customers attribute higher value to a self‐designed product if they enjoy the process. In a way, this effect resembles of the classic story of Tom Sawyer and the fence, in which Tom manages to “frame” the tedious chore of whitewashing a fence as a rare opportunity—thus persuading his friends to pay him for letting them work. Manufacturers designing an MC system therefore are advised to designing MC toolkits in a way that they elicit positive affective reactions that make their customers value their work.     

Systematic Design Methods and the Creative Performance of New Product Teams: Do They Contradict or Complement Each Other?

Can organizations exert control and provide structure for NPD activities while at the same time encouraging and managing creative performance? Any new product development (NPD) project requires some level of creative effort. In new product development, creative performance is of preeminent importance. Most NPD projects are executed with the NPD team as the organizational nucleus. As a result, managing creativity in NPD thus implies managing the creativity of NPD teams. Besides having to manage creative performance, companies are generally also concerned with improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the NPD process. Modern NPD projects therefore have the need for an approach that can be planned, optimized, and verified. As a consequence, systematic design methods have become widely used in NPD. In this article conceptual model is developed of the effect of modern design methodology on the creative performance of NPD teams. First, it is argued that the effect of systematic design methodology on NPD team creativity is mediated by the communication patterns of the NPD team. It is then proposed that four principles underlie modern design methodology: hierarchical decomposition, systematic variation, satisficing, and discursiveness. These principles affect NPD communication by, respectively, influencing the establishment of subgroups, the frequency of communication, the level of agreement or disagreement in the team, and the level of centralization of communication. Next, arguments are presented of how each of these four communicational characteristics shapes the creative performance of NPD teams. This second part of the conceptual model is tested empirically. This is done by studying the communication patterns in 44 NPD teams, employing social network analysis tools. These patterns of communication are then related to team‐level creative performance through a set of regression analyses. The main conclusion of the article is that the design principles work together and need to be considered as an integrated whole: the creative performance of NPD teams can only effectively be managed by using and aligning all four of them.     

Product Change Intensity, Product Advantage, and Market Performance: An Empirical Investigation of the PC Industry

Product change decisions, such as the frequency of new product introductions, can impact product performance characteristics, sales, and market share of several generations of products and, therefore, a firm's long‐term survival and growth. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of a firm's product change frequency, also referred to as product change intensity. A conceptual model linking a firm's product change intensity to its product advantage—and, in turn, to its market performance—with strategic product change orientation and technology competence as moderating effects, was used as a foundation for the study's hypotheses. These were tested using hierarchical and linear regressions, based on survey data collected from 55 U.S. companies in the personal computer (PC) industry. The analysis confirmed that a PC firm's product rate of change is positively associated with its product advantage and that its product advantage, in turn, is positively associated with its market share and growth performance. However, the hypothesized moderating effects were not confirmed. Rather, a firm's product change orientation and its level of technology competence are more likely to have a direct impact on product advantage. The implications of these findings are that, in general, firms that release new products frequently will have them viewed more favorably by the market than products with lower change intensities. Also, firms with higher levels of competence in the product technology domain tend to create products with greater market attraction. Finally, more radical changes to PC product architectures may pay off better than relatively minor changes. These results may not apply to other industries due to the specific design of personal computers and the nature of this fast‐paced market. Neither do the findings necessarily apply to all firms regardless of those firms' specific product and market strategies. More research is necessary to understand how a firm's adopted strategy, and the industry in which it operates, affect the relationships demonstrated in this study.     

Comments on the Model Testing by Goodwin and Meeran (2012): Comparison of the Utility‐based and the Gompertz Curve Approach for High‐technology Product Sales Forecasting

Starting from a comprehensive examination of recent empirical studies focusing on consumer behavior in high‐technology markets and the resulting identification of factors probably affecting individual buying decisions as well as aggregate product sales, Decker and Gnibba‐Yukawa developed and empirically verified a utility‐based sales forecasting approach in their earlier work. Based on data for 14 consumer electronic products and using the Gompertz curve as a benchmark, Goodwin and Meeran carried out a “more extensive testing” of this proposal. However, at least from a practical point of view, the plausibility of their testing framework regarding the market potential m is not unquestionable. This paper, therefore, first discusses some theoretical aspects of both approaches by addressing issues challenged by Goodwin and Meeran, especially regarding the use of short time series and the consideration of replacement purchases. Then, the quasi‐endogenous estimation method for m favored by Goodwin and Meeran for the Gompertz curve is examined in terms of sensitivity to better understand its influence on sales forecasts, and the adequacy of the suggested range for m in the case of the approach by Decker and Gnibba‐Yukawa is investigated. In addition, the results presented in Goodwin and Meeran are considered from a more distant perspective, and possible causes of the variations in forecasting accuracy are discussed, which finally reveals that the forecasting performance of the utility‐based approach is not that “disappointing” as claimed. It provides more accurate (or at least equivalent) forecasts than the Gompertz curve approach in 64% of the cases considered. Furthermore, if product 14 (portable MP3 players) is excluded from the analysis because of the nonconsideration of probably existing product improvement effects, then the utility‐based approach, on average, outperforms the benchmark in all forecasting years. Altogether, this suggests that the approach by Decker and Gnibba‐Yukawa could achieve more accurate forecasts when applying a more reasonable range for m, rather than varying it between 2 and 15 times the cumulative sales by the end of year 7 as proposed by Goodwin and Meeran. It turns out that the Gompertz curve approach can perform on a par with the utility‐based approach in high‐technology product sales forecasting based on short time series if the market potential m is estimated exogenously. A combination of the outcomes of both approaches can even lead to more accurate forecasts as when being used individually insofar as composite forecasting seems to be a practicable approach to the problem of shorter time series compelled by the accelerated diffusion speed in high‐technology markets, rather than relying on one presumably “best” model.