new product development research paper

Performance in new product development: a comprehensive framework, current trends, and research directions

• Original Paper
• Published: 07 January 2017
• Volume 28 , pages 157–201, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Benedikt Müller-Stewens 1 &
• Klaus Möller 1  

2431 Accesses

12 Citations

Explore all metrics

New product development (NPD) is critical for a firm’s competitive advantage. Since the early 1980s, NPD research has steadily increased and has defined successful practices. However, owing to this research field’s fragmentedness, there is ambiguity about what successful NPD looks like. Evidence of the effective design of management control systems (MCS) concerning NPD performance is inconclusive and calls for comprehensive analysis. Yet, there is no holistic framework that covers promising practices and structures. Drawing on a body of 284 article publications, we inductively develop a framework with nine clusters that, taken together, make up NPD performance. These are grouped addressing firm-external and firm-internal phenomena, for instance, cooperation, expertise, and the NPD process. We populate each cluster with variables that are proposed to drive performance, and derive current research trends and paths for future research on NPD. The review makes two contributions to the literature and one to practice. First, the comprehensive framework of NPD performance drivers supports the adjustment of prior general MCS design implications to specific NPD settings. Second, the inductive approach sets this review apart from prior reviews of NPD performance by proposing a holistic framework that is neither biased in a domain, nor in a pre-defined structure. Third, firms will benefit from the framework, because it helps to customize the MCS such that firms can comprehensively evaluate their NPD activities and can enhance performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Research Methodology: An Introduction

The theory contribution of case study research designs

The use of Net Promoter Score (NPS) to predict sales growth: insights from an empirical investigation

We define new product development (NPD) as the process from a conceptualized idea to market launch of novel or updated goods (see Neely et al. 1995 ). We delineate NPD from research projects that involve basic research activities that eventually provide input to subsequent NPD (see Chiesa and Frattini 2007 ). In contrast to NPD, which refers to the development process, innovation also refers to NPD’s output—the commercialized novel or updated good (for taxonomies of innovation, see de Jong and Marsili ( 2006 )). Yet, some studies refer to innovation as a process (see Garcia and Calantone 2002 ).

The search algorithm reads: (“NPD” OR “New Product Development”) AND (Project* OR Process* OR Performance OR Success OR Efficiency OR Effectiveness OR Productivity OR Evaluati*). The asterisk in the search algorithm allows for flexible endings.

Screening publications’ abstracts for the defined search algorithm generated 6,830 hits.

The ABDC ranking comprises 2,767 journals that are divided into four categories of quality (A*, A, B, and C) based on qualitative and quantitative assessments.

The JQ3 ranking considers 889 journals evaluated along multiple dimensions by the association’s members, who are academic business researchers. The highest reputed journals are ranked A+ and decrease via A, B, C, to D.

For instance, we allocated a conceptual paper that develops a model on personality’s role in NPD teams (see Reilly et al. 2002 ) to the management of teams and team characteristics . In contrast, a best practice study on general drivers of success in NPD could not be allocated clearly (see Barczak et al. 2009 ). Thus, we excluded the latter from analysis.

Two articles referred to identically named journals that were not considered in the ranking. One article was included twice in the output with very similar labelling.

Excluded owing to a meta-perspective that could not be allocated to a single cluster: Barczak et al. ( 2009 ), Cooper ( 1983 ), Ernst ( 2002 ), Kandemir et al. ( 2006 ), Lester ( 1998 ), Page ( 1993 ), Rao ( 1997 ), Storey and Easingwood ( 1993 ), Wind and Mahajan ( 1988 ).

For examples of management control studies with innovation in the title, see Davila et al. ( 2009 ), Bisbe and Malagueño ( 2009 , 2015 ), Haustein et al. ( 2014 ), Bedford ( 2015 ).

Fan et al. ( 2009 ) evaluated approaches to operationalize collaboration satisfaction, which is related to cohesiveness.

Procedural justice, distributive justice, and transformational leadership are antecedents of trust (Dayan et al. 2009 ).

Tighe ( 1998 ) developed a framework to gain managerial approval for NPD projects in autonomous settings: defining the project, impacts on the organization, and effects on the organization’s financials.

Market orientation is dichotomized as responsive and proactive. A responsive market orientation serves current customer needs, while a proactive market orientation discovers and satisfies latent and emerging customer needs. (Chen 2015 , p. 36).

Process-based rewards are tied to procedures, behaviors, or other means of achieving desired outcomes. Outcomes-based rewards are tied to the actual results. (Chen 2015 , p. 39).

For eight propositions of good R&D-marketing cooperation, see Souder ( 1988 ).

For conceptual frameworks of antecedents and outcomes of knowledge acquisition, see Murray and Chao ( 2005 ); for organizational learning, see Bartezzaghi et al. ( 1997 ), Ruy and Alliprandini ( 2008 ), and Akbar and Tzokas ( 2013 ).

For knowledge transfer models in NPD teams, see Frank and Ribeiro ( 2014 ); among actors in the firm, see Jepsen ( 2013 ); across firm boundaries, see Corallo et al. ( 2012 ).

Team intuition depends on past team member experience, transactive memory systems (knowledge possessed by each member and awareness of who knows what), team empowerment, decision importance, and decision motives (opportunity or crisis; Dayan and Elbanna 2011 ).

A selection of decision-making support tools are: narrowing down alternatives by applying multiple-criteria decision-making techniques as the analytic hierarchy process (Ayag 2005a , b ; Akomode 1999 ), developing a structuring matrix, for instance uncertainty vs. R&D option value (Lint and Pennings 2001 ), risk-scenario decision tool (Marmier et al. 2013 ), applying neural network decision support (Thieme et al. 2000 ), monetary quantification of differences among alternatives (Wouters et al. 2009 ), process model for resource scheduling and allocation (Abrantes and Figueiredo 2015 ), sensitizing for role of internal politics (Jones and Stevens 1999 ), operationalization to reduce escalation of commitment (Donthu and Unal 2014 ), grouping actors in collaborative decisions (Jaber et al. 2015 ), applying portfolio thinking (Kester et al. 2014 ), and integrative model of the NPD decision process (Calantone and di Benedetto 1988 ).

Speed-to-market facilitates NPD project success (Jayaram and Narasimhan 2007 ; Ranjbar 2013 ), product profitability (McNally et al. 2011 ), and timeliness of product rollout (Chryssochoidis and Wong 2000 ).

For case studies of accelerated NPD processes, see Karagozoglu and Brown ( 1993 ) and Bernasco et al. ( 1999 ).

Further antecedents to speed-to-market were referred to in other clusters: work experience in the firm (McDonough 1993 ), perceived stress in combination with management support (Akgün et al. 2007a ), technological competence (Acur et al. 2010 ), telework (Coenen and Kok 2014 ), and co-location (Lakemond and Berggren 2006 ).

For research that models concurrent NPD processes, see Haque and Pawar ( 2001 ), Juan et al. ( 2009 ), Wang and Lin ( 2009 ), and Koyuncu and Erol ( 2015 ).

For NPD process models and their assessment, see: a sphenomorph model for complex settings (Barclay et al. 1995 ); core characteristics of NPD process (Calantone et al. 1995 ); an NPD process for financial services (Edgett 1996 ); a fractal model of the NPD process (Spivey et al. 1997 ); revamping a NPD process (McDonough and Barczak 1999 ); NPD process with a focus on design and manufacturing (Bajaj et al. 2004 ); an NPD process in the toy industry (Sun and Wing 2005 ); cognitive maps to analyze processes (Carbonara and Scozzi 2006 ); the technology acquisition process (Cáñez et al. 2007 ); agile NPD process design (Fekri et al. 2009 ); fuzzy linear programming to maximize customer satisfaction (Chen and Ko 2010 ); NPD proficiency (Sandvik et al. 2011 ).

A selection of success factors encompasses formalized planning and coordination (Malhotra et al. 1996 ); the project evaluation process; the existence of new product managers (Reidenbach and Moak 1986 ); a strategic market focus in the NPD process (Balbontin et al. 1999 ); resource and skills availability (Huang et al. 2002 ); a lead user process to generate ideas (Lilien et al. 2002 ); actor networks during idea generation (Simon and Tellier 2011 ); a value proposition process to assess ideas (Hughes and Chafin 1996 ); customer support process during product design (Goffin 1998 ); compatibility and customer interface standards (Sahay and Riley 2003 ); proficiency in idea development, market opportunity analysis, technological development, product testing, and commercialization (Song and Perry 1997 ). For NPD process best practice studies, see Barclay ( 1992a , b ).

Other contingency factors are industry competitiveness, cycle time, senior management involvement, process formality, customer inputs, cross-functional integration (Harmancioglu et al. 2007 ), extent of centralization, and experience in new product development (Varela and Benito 2005 ).

For a description of a promising NPD process for discontinuous innovations, see Veryzer ( 1998 ).

A selection of tools, methods, and techniques covers: output controls, non-technical outside assistance (LaBahn et al. 1996 ), target costing (Afonso et al. 2008 ), portfolio assessment tied to program profitability and impact (Cooper and Kleinschmidt 1995 ), a Lagrangian decomposition heuristic (Varma et al. 2007 ), predictive models (Watkins 1984 ), risk management practices (Oehmen et al. 2014 ), design for excellence, failure mode and effects analysis, conjoint analysis (Yeh et al. 2010 ), focus groups, partnering customers and lead users, prototyping for highly innovative projects, and cross-functional development teams (Tidd and Bodley 2002 ). For compilations of management tools for NPD projects, see Maylor ( 2001 , p. 95) and González and Palacios ( 2002 , p. 263).

A selection of performance management systems covers: total cost analysis (Chen et al. 2006 ), dynamic multi-project management (de Maio et al. 1994 ), Six Sigma quality improvement (Jou et al. 2010 ), governance stage-gate controls (Baker and Bourne 2014 ), a risk management framework (Mu et al. 2009 ), and procedural guidelines to a performance management system (Rogers et al. 2005 ).

A successful cooperation depends on variables such as communication management, commitment to the collaboration (Lam and Chin 2005 ), the intensity and media richness of communication (Badir et al. 2008 , 2009 ; Oke and Idiagbon-Oke 2010 ; Thomas 2013 ), openness to change, willingness to cooperate, high trust level (Tomes et al. 1996 ; Jassawalla and Sashittal 1998 ; Schleimer and Shulman 2011 ), individual-level innovative work behavior and expertise and team-level innovation norms, cohesion, and decision-making autonomy (Stock 2014 ), informal social systems (Cui et al. 2013 ), comprehensiveness in contractual governance (Parker and Brey 2015 ), an alliance governance structure, partner technological capability, the competitiveness of market environments (Fang et al. 2015 ), lifecycle stage (Eng and Wong 2006 ; Pujari 2006 ), explorative vs. exploitative strategy (Lambe et al. 2009 ), shared problem-solving, psychological safety, management direction (Bstieler and Hemmert 2010 ), goal congruence, complementary capabilities, and inter-firm coordination efforts (Yan and Dooley 2014 ). For a framework for successful collaborative NPD, see Zolghadri et al. ( 2011b ).

Classification patterns of coordination: (1) innovation intermediaries as brokers, mediators, collectors, and connectors (Colombo et al. 2015 ), (2) buyer as mediator, buyer-designer partnership, designer as integrator, and team design activities (Ateş et al. 2015 ), (3) single participation vs. dual participation, separate work vs. integrated work, project manager vs. team consensus (Gerwin and Ferris 2004 ).

Sicotte and Bourgault ( 2008 ) illustrate four uncertainty types: technical and project uncertainty, market uncertainty, fuzziness and complexity. Kim and Wilemon ( 2003 ) break complexity down further, i.e. technological, market, development, marketing, organizational, and intra-organizational complexity. Siu et al. ( 2006 ) add governmental intervention.

More recently, Racela ( 2015 ) found that combining strategic orientations (i.e. customer, entrepreneurial, and IT orientations) is the most promising regarding performance. Pujari et al. ( 2003 ) propose that an additional ecological orientation can result in partial synergies of being simultaneously ecologically friendly and economically competitive.

Innovation culture is “involving entrepreneurship, risk taking, and openness to new ideas for new product development” (de Brentani and Kleinschmidt 2004 , p. 312).

Globalization culture is an “international mindset and a global readiness [...] to deal effectively with the complexities and opportunities that result from different national cultures, geographic dispersion of markets and participants, building trust and cooperation among dispersed affliates, and cross-locational/-cultural idea generation and resource utilization” (de Brentani and Kleinschmidt 2004 , p. 313).

References to articles that are included in the systematic review are marked with an asterisk (*)

Abrantes*, R., & Figueiredo, J. (2014). Feature based process framework to manage scope in dynamic NPD portfolios. International Journal of Project Management , 32 (5), 874–884.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrantes*, R., & Figueiredo, J. (2015). Resource management process framework for dynamic NPD portfolios. International Journal of Project Management , 33 (6), 1274–1288.

Acur*, N., Kandemir, D., & Boer, H. (2012). Strategic alignment and new product development: Drivers and performance effects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 29 (2), 304–318.

Acur*, N., Kandemir, D., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., & Song, M. (2010). Exploring the impact of technological competence development on speed and NPD program performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 27 (6), 915–929.

Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews , 8 (1), 21–47.

Adams*, M. E., Day, G. S., & Dougherty, D. (1998). Enhancing new product development performance: An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (5), 403–422.

Afonso*, P., Nunes, M., Paisana, A., & Braga, A. (2008). The influence of time-to-market and target costing in the new product development success. International Journal of Production Economics , 115 (2), 559–568.

Ahmada*, S., Mallick, D. N., & Schroeder, R. G. (2013). New product development: Impact of project characteristics and development practices on performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 30 (2), 331–348.

Ahn*, J. H., Lee, D. J., & Lee, S. Y. (2006). Balancing business performance and knowledge performance of new product development. Long Range Planning , 39 (5), 525–542.

Akbar*, H., & Tzokas, N. (2013). An exploration of new product development’s front-end knowledge conceptualization process in discontinuous innovations. British Journal of Management , 24 (2), 245–263.

Akgün*, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management , 42 (8), 1105–1120.

Akgün*, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S., & Keskin, H. (2007a). Team stressors, management support, and project and process outcomes in new product development projects. Technovation , 27 (10), 628–639.

Akgün*, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S., & Keskin, H. (2007b). New product development in turbulent environments: Impact of improvisation and unlearning on new product performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 24 (3), 203–230.

Akgün*, A. E., & Lynn, G. S. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of team stability on new product development performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 19 (3–4), 263–286.

Akgün*, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Yılmaz, C. (2006). Learning process in new product development teams and effects on product success: A socio-cognitive perspective. Industrial Marketing Management , 35 (2), 210–224.

Akomode*, O. J. (1999). Evaluating risks in new product development and the satisfaction of customers through technology. Production Planning & Control , 10 (1), 35–47.

Aronsona*, Z. H., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2006). The impact of leader personality on new product development teamwork and performance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 23 (3), 221–247.

Aronson*, Z. H., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2008). The role of leader personality in new product development success: An examination of teams developing radical and incremental innovations. International Journal of Technology Management , 44 (1–2), 5–27.

Ateş*, M. A., Van den Ende, J., & Ianniello, G. (2015). Inter-organizational coordination patterns in buyer-supplier-design agency triads in NPD projects. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 35 (11), 1512–1545.

Atuahene-Gima, K., & Li, H. (2006). The effects of formal controls on supervisee trust in the manager in new product selling: Evidence from young and inexperienced salespeople in China. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 23 (4), 342–358.

Ayag*, Z. (2005a). A fuzzy AHP-based simulation approach to concept evaluation in a NPD environment. IIE Transactions , 37 (9), 827–842.

Ayag*, Z. (2005b). An integrated approach to evaluating conceptual design alternatives in a new product development environment. International Journal of Production Research , 43 (4), 687–713.

Badir*, Y. F., Büchel, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2008). The role of communication and coordination between ‘network lead companies’ and their strategic partners in determining NPD project performance. International Journal of Technology Management , 44 (1–2), 269–291.

Badir*, Y. F., Büchel, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2009). The performance impact of intra-firm organizational design on an alliance’s NPD projects. Research Policy , 38 (8), 1350–1364.

Badir*, Y. F., Büchel, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). A conceptual framework of the impact of NPD project team and leader empowerment on communication and performance: An alliance case context. International Journal of Project Management , 30 (8), 914–926.

Badir*, Y. F., & O’Connor, G. C. (2015). The formation of tie strength in a strategic alliance’s first new product development project: The influence of project and partners’ characteristics. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 32 (1), 154–169.

Bajaj*, A., Kekre, S., & Srinivasan, K. (2004). Managing NPD: Cost and schedule performance in design and manufacturing. Management Science , 50 (4), 527–536.

Baker*, M., & Bourne, M. (2014). A governance framework for the idea-to-launch process: Development and application of a governance framework for new product development. Research-Technology Management , 57 (1), 42–48.

Balaji*, S., Ranganathan, C., & Coleman, T. (2011). IT-led process reengineering: How Sloan Valve redesigned its new product development process. MIS Quarterly Executive , 10 (2), 81–92.

Google Scholar  

Balbontin*, A., Yazdani, B., Cooper, R., & Souder, W. E. (1999). New product development success factors in American and British firms. International Journal of Technology Management , 17 (3), 259–280.

Barclay*, I. (1992a). The new product development process: Past evidence and future practical application, Part 1. R&D Management , 22 (3), 255–264.

Barclay, I. (1992b). The new product development process: Part 2. Improving the process of new product development. R&D Management , 22 (4), 307–318.

Barclay*, I., Holroyd, P., & Poolton, J. (1995). The new product development process: A sphenomorphic management model. International Journal of Vehicle Design , 16 (4–5), 356–374.

Barczak, G., Griffin, A., & Kahn, K. B. (2009). Perspective: Trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study*. Journal of product innovation management , 26 (1), 3–23.

Bartezzaghi*, E., Corso, M., & Verganti, R. (1997). Continuous improvement and inter-project learning in new product development. International Journal of Technology Management , 14 (1), 116–138.

Bassett*, M. H., Gardner, L. L., & Steele, K. (2004). Dow AgroSciences uses simulation-based optimization to schedule the new-product development process. Interfaces , 34 (6), 426–437.

Bedford, D. S. (2015). Management control systems across different modes of innovation: Implications for firm performance. Management Accounting Research , 28 (9), 12–30.

Bendoly*, E., Bharadwaj, A., & Bharadwaj, S. (2012). Complementary drivers of new product development performance: Cross-functional coordination, information system capability, and intelligence quality. Production and Operations Management , 21 (4), 653–667.

Bernasco*, W., Weerd-Nederhof, D., Petra, C., Tillema, H., & Boer, H. (1999). Balanced matrix structure and new product development process at Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Division. R&D Management , 29 (2), 121–132.

Bessant*, J., & Francis, D. (1997). Implementing the new product development process. Technovation , 17 (4), 189–222.

Bhuiyan*, N., Gerwin, D., & Thomson, V. (2004). Simulation of the new product development process for performance improvement. Management Science , 50 (12), 1690–1703.

Bisbe, J., & Malagueño, R. (2009). The choice of interactive control systems under different innovation management modes. European Accounting Review , 18 (2), 371–405.

Bisbe, J., & Malagueño, R. (2015). How control systems influence product innovation processes: Examining the role of entrepreneurial orientation. Accounting and Business Research , 45 (3), 356–386.

Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 29 (8), 709–737.

Bonner*, J., Ruekert, R. W., & Walker, O. C. (2002). Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 19 (3), 233–245.

Bradfield*, D. J., & Gao, J. X. (2007). A methodology to facilitate knowledge sharing in the new product development process. International Journal of Production Research , 45 (7), 1489–1504.

Bstieler*, L. (2005). The moderating effect of environmental uncertainty on new product development and time efficiency. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 22 (3), 267–284.

Bstieler*, L., & Hemmert, M. (2010). Increasing learning and time efficiency in inter-organizational new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 27 (4), 485–499.

Bstieler*, L., & Hemmert, M. (2015). The effectiveness of relational and contractual governance in new product development collaborations: Evidence from Korea. Technovation , 45 , 29–39.

Büyüközkan*, G., Baykasoğlu, A., & Dereli, T. (2007). Integration of internet and web-based tools in new product development process. Production Planning and Control , 18 (1), 44–53.

Caffyn*, S. (1997). Extending continuous improvement to the new product development process. R&D Management , 27 (3), 253–267.

Caffyn*, S., & Grantham, A. (2003). Fostering continuous improvement within new product development processes. International Journal of Technology Management , 27 (8), 843–856.

Calantone*, R. J., & di Benedetto, C. A. (1988). An integrative model of the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 5 (3), 201–215.

Calantone*, R. J., Vickery, S. K., & Dröge, C. (1995). Business performance and strategic new product development activities: An empirical investigation. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 12 (3), 214–223.

Cáñez*, L., Puig, L., Quintero, R., & Garfias, M. (2007). Linking technology acquisition to a gated NPD process. Research-Technology Management , 50 (4), 49–55.

Carbonara*, N., & Scozzi, B. (2006). Cognitive maps to analyze new product development processes: A case study. Technovation , 26 (11), 1233–1243.

Chang*, S. L., Chen, C. Y., & Wey, S. C. (2007). Conceptualizing, assessing, and managing front-end fuzziness in innovation/NPD projects. R&D Management , 37 (5), 469–478.

Chen*, C. C., Yeh, T. M., & Yang, C. C. (2006). Performance measurement for new product development: A model based on total costs. International Journal of Production Research , 44 (21), 4631–4648.

Chen*, C. H., & Lin, M. J. J. (2011). An assessment of post-M&A integration influences on new product development performance: An empirical analysis from China, Taiwan, and HK. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 28 (4), 807–831.

Chen*, J., Guo, Y., & Zhu, H. (2012). Can me-too products prevail? Performance of new product development and sources of idea generation in China-an emerging market. R&D Management , 42 (3), 273–288.

Chen*, J., Neubaum, D. O., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2015). The relationship between team autonomy and new product development performance under different levels of technological turbulence. Journal of Operations Management , 33 (January), 83–96.

Chen*, L. H., & Ko, W. C. (2010). Fuzzy linear programming models for NPD using a four-phase QFD activity process based on the means-end chain concept. European Journal of Operational Research , 201 (2), 619–632.

Chen*, Y. J. (2015). The role of reward systems in product innovations: An examination of new product development projects. Project Management Journal , 46 (3), 36–48.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in a new innovation landscape . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Chiang*, Y. H., & Shih, H. A. (2011). Knowledge-oriented human resource configurations, the new product development learning process, and perceived new product performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 22 (15), 3202–3221.

Chien*, S. H., & Chen, J. J. (2010). Supplier involvement and customer involvement effect on new product development success in the financial service industry. The Service Industries Journal , 30 (2), 185–201.

Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2007). Exploring the differences in performance measurement between research and development: Evidence from a multiple case study. R&D Management , 37 (4), 283–301.

Chryssochoidis*, G. M., & Wong, V. (2000). Customization of product technology and international new product success: Mediating effects of new product development and rollout timeliness. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 17 (4), 268–285.

Chu*, C. P., Li, C. R., & Lin, C. J. (2011). The joint effect of project-level exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development. European Journal of Marketing , 45 (4), 531–550.

Chung*, S., & Kim, G. M. (2003). Performance effects of partnership between manufacturers and suppliers for new product development: The supplier’s standpoint. Research Policy , 32 (4), 587–603.

Coenen*, M., & Kok, R. A. (2014). Workplace flexibility and new product development performance: The role of telework and flexible work schedules. European Management Journal , 32 (4), 564–576.

Cohen*, M. A., Eliasberg, J., & Ho, T. H. (1996). New product development: The performance and time-to-market tradeoff. Management Science , 42 (2), 173–186.

Colombo*, G., Dell’Era, C., & Frattini, F. (2015). Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: A typology and an empirical study. R&D Management , 45 (2), 126–146.

Cook*, D. J., Greengold, N. L., Ellrodt, A. G., & Weingarten, S. R. (1997). The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Annals of Internal Medicine , 127 (3), 210–216.

Cooper, R. G. (1981). The components of risk in new product development: Project new prod. R&D Management , 2 (11), 47–54.

Cooper, R. G. (1983). A process model for industrial new product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 1 , 2–11.

Cooper*, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1995). Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 12 (5), 374–391.

Corallo*, A., Lazoi, M., & Secundo, G. (2012). Inter-organizational knowledge integration in Collaborative NPD projects: Evidence from the aerospace industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice , 10 (4), 354–367.

Cordón-Pozo*, E., Garcia-Morales, V. J., & Aragón-Correa, J. A. (2006). Inter-departmental collaboration and new product development success: A study on the collaboration between marketing and R&D in Spanish high-technology firms. International Journal of Technology Management , 35 , 52–79.

Cousins*, P. D., & Lawson, B. (2007). The effect of socialization mechanisms and performance measurement on supplier integration in new product development. British Journal of Management , 18 (3), 311–326.

Cousins*, P. D., Lawson, B., Petersen, K. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2011). Breakthrough scanning, supplier knowledge exchange, and new product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (6), 930–942.

Cruz-Cázares, C., Bayona-Sáez, C., & García-Marco, T. (2013). You can’t manage right what you can’t measure well: Technological innovation efficiency. Research Policy , 42 (6–7), 1239–1250.

Cui*, N., Wen, N., Xu, L., & Qin, Y. (2013). Contingent effects of managerial guanxi on new product development success. Journal of Business Research , 66 (12), 2522–2528.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal , 34 (3), 555–590.

Danese*, P., & Filippini, R. (2010). Modularity and the impact on new product development time performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 30 (11), 1191–1209.

Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review , 23 (3), 491–512.

Davila, A. (2000). An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems’ design in new product development. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 25 (4–5), 383–409.

Davila, A., Foster, G., & Oyon, D. (2009). Accounting and control, entrepreneurship and innovation: Venturing into new research opportunities. European Accounting Review , 18 (2), 281–311.

Dayan*, M. (2010). Managerial trust and NPD team performance: Team commitment and longevity as mediators. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 25 (2), 94–105.

Dayan*, M., & Basarir, A. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of team reflexivity in new product development projects. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 25 (1), 18–29.

Dayan*, M., di Benedetto, C. A., & Colak, M. (2009). Managerial trust in new product development projects: Its antecedents and consequences. R&D Management , 39 (1), 21–37.

Dayan*, M., & Elbanna, S. (2011). Antecedents of team intuition and its impact on the success of new product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (1), 159–174.

de Brentani*, U., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Corporate culture and commitment: Impact on performance of international new product development programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 21 (5), 309–333.

de Brentani*, U., Kleinschmidt, E. J., & Salomo, S. (2010). Success in global new product development: Impact of strategy and the behavioral environment of the firm. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 27 (2), 143–160.

de Jong, J. P. J., & Marsili, O. (2006). The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms. Research Policy , 35 (2), 213–229.

de Maio*, A., Verganti, R., & Corso, M. (1994). A multi-project management framework for new product development. European Journal of Operational Research , 78 (2), 178–191.

den Hond*, F. (1998). On the structuring of variation in innovation processes: A case of new product development in the crop protection industry. Research Policy , 27 (4), 349–367.

de Visser*, M., de Weerd-Nederhof, P., Faems, D., Song, M., Van Looy, B., & Visscher, K. (2010). Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance. Technovation , 30 (5), 291–299.

de Visser*, M., Faems, D., Visscher, K., & de Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2014). The impact of team cognitive styles on performance of radical and incremental NPD projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 31 (6), 1167–1180.

de Weerd-Nederhof*, P. C., Visscher, K., Altena, J., & Fisscher, O. A. (2008). Operational effectiveness and strategic flexibility: Scales for performance assessment of new product development systems. International Journal of Technology Management , 44 (3–4), 354–372.

Donthu*, N., & Unal, B. (2014). Identifying escalation of commitment in B2B new product development projects using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 29 (3), 209–214.

Durmuşoğlu*, S. S., & Barczak, G. (2011). The use of information technology tools in new product development phases: Analysis of effects on new product innovativeness, quality, and market performance. Industrial Marketing Management , 40 (2), 321–330.

Durmuşoğlu*, S. S., Calantone, R. J., & McNally, R. C. (2013). Ordered to innovate: A longitudinal examination of the early periods of a new product development process implementation in a manufacturing firm. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 30 (4), 712–731.

Edgett*, S. J., Shipley, D., & Forbes, G. (1992). Japanese and British companies compared: Contributing factors to success and failure in NPD. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 9 (1), 3–10.

Edgett*, S. J. (1996). The new product development process for commercial financial services. Industrial Marketing Management , 25 (6), 507–515.

Eng*, T. Y., & Wong, V. (2006). Governance mechanisms and relationship productivity in vertical coordination for new product development. Technovation , 26 (7), 761–769.

Ernst, H. (2002). Success factors of new product development: A review of the empirical literature. International Journal of Management Reviews , 4 (1), 1–40.

Ernst*, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Rübsaamen, C. (2010). Sales, marketing, and research-and-development cooperation across new product development stages: Implications for success. Journal of Marketing , 74 (5), 80–92.

Fain*, N., Schoormans, J., & Duhovnik, J. (2011). The effect of R&D-Marketing integration on NPD success â the case of SMEs in the growing economy of Slovenia. International Journal of Technology Management , 56 (1), 92–107.

Fan*, Z. P., Feng, B., & Suo, W. L. (2009). A fuzzy linguistic method for evaluating collaboration satisfaction of NPD team using mutual evaluation information. International Journal of Production Economics , 122 (2), 547–557.

Fang*, E., Lee, J., & Yang, Z. (2015). The timing of codevelopment alliances in new product development processes: Returns for upstream and downstream partners. Journal of Marketing , 79 (1), 64–82.

Faure*, C. (2009). Attribution biases in the evaluation of new product development team members. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (4), 407–423.

Fekri*, R., Aliahmadi, A., & Fathian, M. (2009). Identifying the cause and effect factors of agile NPD process with fuzzy DEMATEL method: The case of Iranian companies. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , 20 (6), 637–648.

Felekoglu*, B., Maier, A. M., & Moultrie, J. (2013). Interactions in new product development: How the nature of the NPD process influences interaction between teams and management. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 30 (4), 384–401.

Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research , 20 (4), 263–282.

Frank*, A. G., & Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2014). An integrative model for knowledge transfer between new product development project teams. Knowledge Management Research & Practice , 12 (2), 215–225.

Frishammar*, J., & Hörte, S. A. (2007). The role of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation for new product development performance in manufacturing firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management , 19 (6), 765–788.

Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. J. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 19 (2), 110–132.

Gemser*, G., & Leenders, M. A. (2011). Managing cross-functional cooperation for new product development success. Long Range Planning , 44 (1), 26–41.

Genç*, E., & di Benedetto, C. A. (2015). Cross-functional integration in the sustainable new product development process: The role of the environmental specialist. Industrial Marketing Management , 50 , 150–161.

Gerwin*, D., & Ferris, J. S. (2004). Organizing new product development projects in strategic alliances. Organization Science , 15 (1), 22–37.

Gerwin*, D., & Moffat, L. (1997). Authorizing processes changing team autonomy during new product development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 14 (3), 291–313.

Godener*, A., & Söderquist, K. E. (2004). Use and impact of performance measurement results in R&D and NPD: An exploratory study. R&D Management , 34 (2), 191–219.

Goffin*, K. (1998). Evaluating customer support during new product development-an exploratory study. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (1), 42–56.

Gomes*, J. F., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., Pearson, A. W., & Cunha, M. P. (2003). Is more always better? An exploration of the differential effects of functional integration on performance in new product development. Technovation , 23 (3), 185–191.

González*, F. J. M., & Palacios, T. M. B. (2002). The effect of new product development techniques on new product success in Spanish firms. Industrial Marketing Management , 31 (3), 261–271.

Gopalakrishnan*, M., Libby, T., Samuels, J. A., & Swenson, D. (2015). The effect of cost goal specificity and new product development process on cost reduction performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 42 (April), 1–11.

Green*, S. G., Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. (2003). Advocacy, performance, and threshold influence on decisions to terminate new product development. Academy of Management Journal , 46 (4), 419–434.

Grönlund*, J., Sjödin, D. R., & Frishammar, J. (2010). Open innovation and the stage-gate process: A revised model for new product development. California Management Review , 52 (3), 106–131.

Gupta*, A. K., Brockhoff, K., & Weisenfeld, U. (1992). Making trade-offs in the new product development process: A German/US comparison. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 9 (1), 11–18.

Haon*, C., Gotteland, D., & Fornerino, M. (2009). Familiarity and competence diversity in new product development teams: Effects on new product performance. Marketing Letters , 20 (1), 75–89.

Hameri*, A. P., & Nihtilä, J. (1997). Distributed new product development project based on Internet and World-Wide Web: A case study. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 14 (2), 77–87.

Haque*, B., & Pawar, K. S. (2001). Improving the management of concurrent new product development using process modelling and analysis. R&D Management , 31 (1), 27–40.

Harmancioglu*, N., Dröge, C., & Calantone, R. J. (2009). Strategic fit to resources versus NPD execution proficiencies: What are their roles in determining success? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 37 (3), 266–282.

Harmancioglu*, N., McNally, R. C., Calantone, R. J., & Durmuşoğlu, S. S. (2007). Your new product development (NPD) is only as good as your process: An exploratory analysis of new NPD process design and implementation. R&D Management , 37 (5), 399–424.

Hart*, S., Hultink, E. J., Tzokas, N., & Commandeur, H. R. (2003). Industrial companies’ evaluation criteria in new product development gates. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 20 (1), 22–36.

Haustein, E., Luther, R., & Schuster, P. (2014). Management control systems in innovation companies: A literature based framework. Journal of Management Control , 24 (4), 343–382.

Hempelmann*, F., & Engelen, A. (2014). Integration of finance with marketing and R&D in new product development: The role of project stage. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 32 (4), 636–654.

Hise*, R. T., O’Neal, L., Parasuraman, A., & McNeal, J. U. (1990). Marketing/R&D interaction in new product development: Implications for new product success rates. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 7 (2), 142–155.

Hsu*, Y. H., & Fang, W. (2009). Intellectual capital and new product development performance: The mediating role of organizational learning capability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 76 (5), 664–677.

Huang*, X., Soutar, G. N., & Brown, A. (2002). New product development processes in small and medium-sized enterprises: Some Australian evidence. Journal of Small Business Management , 40 (1), 27–42.

Hughes*, G. D., & Chafin, D. C. (1996). Turning new product development into a continuous learning process. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 13 (2), 89–104.

Hultink*, E. J., Talke, K., Griffin, A., & Veldhuizen, E. (2011). Market information processing in new product development: The importance of process interdependency and data quality. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 58 (2), 199–211.

Huynh*, V. N., & Nakamori, Y. (2011). A linguistic screening evaluation model in new product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 58 (1), 165–175.

Ignatius*, J., Leen, J. Y. A., Ramayah, T., Hin, C. K., & Jantan, M. (2012). The impact of technological learning on NPD outcomes: The moderating effect of project complexity. Technovation , 32 (7), 452–463.

Jaber*, H., Marle, F., & Jankovic, M. (2015). Improving collaborative decision making in new product development projects using clustering algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 62 (4), 475–483.

Jassawalla*, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (1998). An examination of collaboration in high-technology new product development processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (3), 237–254.

Jayaram*, J. (2008). Supplier involvement in new product development projects: Dimensionality and contingency effects. International Journal of Production Research , 46 (13), 3717–3735.

Jayaram*, J., & Malhotra, M. K. (2010). The differential and contingent impact of concurrency on new product development project performance: A holistic examination. Decision Sciences , 41 (1), 147–196.

Jayaram*, J., & Narasimhan, R. (2007). The influence of new product development competitive capabilities on project performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 54 (2), 241–256.

Jepsen*, L. B. (2013). Complex new product development projects: How the project manager’s information sharing with core actors changes over time. Project Management Journal , 44 (6), 20–35.

Jespersen*, K. R. (2012). Stage-to-Stage information dependency in the NPD process: Effective learning or a potential entrapment of NPD gates? Journal of Product Innovation Management , 29 (2), 257–274.

Jones*, O., & Stevens, G. (1999). Evaluating failure in the innovation process: The micropolitics of new product development. R&D Management , 29 (2), 167–178.

Jou*, Y., Chen, C., Hwang, C., Lin, W., & Huang, S. (2010). A study on the improvements of new product development procedure performance: An application of design for Six Sigma in a semi-conductor equipment manufacturer. International Journal of Production Research , 48 (19), 5573–5591.

Juan*, Y. C., Ou-Yang, C., & Lin, J. S. (2009). A process-oriented multi-agent system development approach to support the cooperation-activities of concurrent new product development. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 57 (4), 1363–1376.

Kandemir, D., Calantone, R., & Garcia, R. (2006). An exploration of organizational factors in new product development success. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 21 (5), 300–310.

Karagozoglu*, N., & Brown, W. B. (1993). Time-based management of the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 10 (3), 204–215.

Karakaya*, F., & Kobu, B. (1994). New product development process: An investigation of success and failure in high-technology and non-high-technology firms. Journal of Business Venturing , 9 (1), 49–66.

Keupp, M. M., Palmié, M., & Gassmann, O. (2012). The strategic management of innovation: A systematic review and paths for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews , 14 (4), 367–390.

Keller*, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal , 44 (3), 547–555.

Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C., Nixon, W., & Pearson, A. (2000). Performance measurement in industrial R&D. International Journal of Management Reviews , 2 (2), 111–143.

Kester*, L., Hultink, E. J., & Griffin, A. (2014). An empirical investigation of the antecedents and outcomes of NPD portfolio success. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 31 (6), 1199–1213.

Kim*, J., & Wilemon, D. (2003). Sources and assessment of complexity in NPD projects. R&D Management , 33 (1), 15–30.

Kleinschmidt*, E. J., de Brentani, U., & Salomo, S. (2007). Performance of global new product development programs: A resource-based view. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 24 (5), 419–441.

Knudsen*, M. P. (2007). The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge transfer for new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 24 (2), 117–138.

Kong*, T., Li, G., Feng, T., & Sun, L. (2015). Effects of marketing-manufacturing integration across stages of new product development on performance. International Journal of Production Research , 53 (8), 2269–2284.

Koyuncu*, E., & Erol, R. (2015). PSO based approach for scheduling NPD projects including overlapping process. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 85 (July), 316–327.

Kyriazis*, E., Couchman, P., & Johnson, L. W. (2012). Psychosocial antecedents of communication, trust, and relationship effectiveness in new product development projects: A functional manager perspective. R&D Management , 42 (3), 207–224.

LaBahn*, D. W., Ali, A., & Krapfel, R. (1996). New product development cycle time: The influence of project and process factors in small manufacturing companies. Journal of Business Research , 36 (2), 179–188.

Lakemond*, N., & Berggren, C. (2006). Co-locating NPD? The need for combining project focus and organizational integration. Technovation , 26 (7), 807–819.

Lam*, P. K., & Chin, K. S. (2005). Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for conflict management in collaborative new product development. Industrial Marketing Management , 34 (8), 761–772.

Lambe*, C. J., Morgan, R. E., Sheng, S., & Kutwaroo, G. (2009). Alliance-based new product development success: The role of formalization in exploration and exploitation contexts. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing , 16 (3), 242–275.

Lawson*, B., Krause, D., & Potter, A. (2015). Improving supplier new product development performance: The role of supplier development. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 32 (5), 777–792.

Lawson*, B., & Potter, A. (2012). Determinants of knowledge transfer in inter-firm new product development projects. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 32 (10), 1228–1247.

Lechler*, T. G., & Thomas, J. L. (2015). Examining new product development project termination decision quality at the portfolio level: Consequences of dysfunctional executive advocacy. International Journal of Project Management , 33 (7), 1452–1463.

Ledwith*, A., & O’Dwyer, M. (2009). Market orientation, NPD performance, and organizational performance in small firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (6), 652–661.

Lee*, K. B., & Wong, V. (2011). Identifying the moderating influences of external environments on new product development process. Technovation , 31 (10), 598–612.

Lester, D. H. (1998). Critical success factors for new product development. Research Technology Management , 41 (1), 36–43.

Lewis*, M. A. (2001). Success, failure and organisational competence: A case study of the new product development process. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 18 (2), 185–206.

Li*, C. R., Chu, C. P., & Lin, C. J. (2010). The contingent value of exploratory and exploitative learning for new product development performance. Industrial Marketing Management , 39 (7), 1186–1197.

Lilien*, G. L., Morrison, P. D., Searls, K., Sonnack, M., & von Hippel, E. (2002). Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development. Management Science , 48 (8), 1042–1059.

Lin*, M. J. J., & Huang, C. H. (2013). The impact of customer participation on NPD performance: The mediating role of inter-organisation relationship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 28 (1), 3–15.

Lint*, O., & Pennings, E. (2001). An option approach to the new product development process: A case study at Philips Electronics. R&D Management , 31 (2), 163–172.

Liu*, J., Chen, J., & Tao, Y. (2015). Innovation performance in new product development teams in China’s technology ventures: The role of behavioral integration dimensions and collective efficacy. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 32 (1), 29–44.

Liu*, P. L., Chen, W. C., & Tsai, C. H. (2005). An empirical study on the correlation between the knowledge management method and new product development strategy on product performance in Taiwan’s industries. Technovation , 25 (6), 637–644.

MacCormack*, A., Crandall, W., Henderson, P., & Toft, P. (2012). Do you need a new product-development strategy? Research-Technology Management , 55 (1), 34–43.

Magni*, M., Maruping, L. M., Hoegl, M., & Proserpio, L. (2013). Managing the unexpected across space: Improvisation, dispersion, and performance in NPD teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 30 (5), 1009–1026.

Malhotra*, M. K., Grover, V., & DeSilvio, M. (1996). Reengineering the new product development process: A framework for innovation and flexibility in high technology firms. Omega , 24 (4), 425–441.

Marion*, T. J., Eddleston, K. A., Friar, J. H., & Deeds, D. (2015). The evolution of inter-organizational relationships in emerging ventures: An ethnographic study within the new product development process. Journal of Business Venturing , 30 (1), 167–184.

Markham*, S. K., & Lee, H. (2014). Marriage and family therapy in NPD teams: Effects of we-ness on knowledge sharing and product performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 31 (6), 1291–1311.

Marmier*, F., Gourc, D., & Laarz, F. (2013). A risk oriented model to assess strategic decisions in new product development projects. Decision Support Systems , 56 , 74–82.

Martínez León*, H. C., Farris, J. A., Letens, G., & Hernandez, A. (2013). An analytical management framework for new product development processes featuring uncertain iterations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 30 (1), 45–71.

Massey*, G. R., & Kyriazis, E. (2007). Interpersonal trust between marketing and R&D during new product development projects. European Journal of Marketing , 41 (9–10), 1146–1172.

Maylor*, H. (2001). Assessing the relationship between practice changes and process improvement in new product development. Omega , 29 (1), 85–96.

McDonough*, E. F. (1993). Faster new product development: Investigating the effects of technology and characteristics of the project leader and team. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 10 (3), 241–250.

McDonough*, E. F., & Barczak, G. (1999). How ‘EPC Co’. Revamped its NPD process. Research Technology Management , 42 (3), 9–12.

McDonough*, E. F., & Kinnunen, R. M. (1984). Management control of new product development projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 1 , 18–21.

McNally*, R. C., Akdeniz, M. B., & Calantone, R. J. (2011). New product development processes and new product profitability: Exploring the mediating role of speed to market and product quality. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (1), 63–77.

Melander*, L., & Lakemond, N. (2015). Governance of supplier collaboration in technologically uncertain NPD projects. Industrial Marketing Management , 49 , 116–127.

Mihm*, J. (2010). Incentives in new product development projects and the role of target costing. Management Science , 56 (8), 1324–1344.

Mishra*, A. A., & Shah, R. (2009). In union lies strength: Collaborative competence in new product development and its performance effects. Journal of Operations Management , 27 (4), 324–338.

Moenaert*, R. K., & Souder, W. E. (1990). An information transfer model for integrating marketing and R&D personnel in new product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 7 (2), 91–107.

Montoya-Weiss*, M. M., & Calantone, R. J. (1994). Determinants of new product performance: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 11 (5), 397–417.

Mu*, J. (2014). Networking capability, network structure, and new product development performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 61 (4), 599–609.

Mu*, J. (2015). Marketing capability, organizational adaptation and new product development performance. Industrial Marketing Management , 49 , 151–166.

Mu*, J., Peng, G., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2009). Effect of risk management strategy on NPD performance. Technovation , 29 (3), 170–180.

Mu*, J., Zhang, G., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2011). Social competency and new product development performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 58 (2), 363–376.

Murray*, J. Y., & Chao, M. C. (2005). A cross-team framework of international knowledge acquisition on new product development capabilities and new product market performance. Journal of International Marketing , 13 (3), 54–78.

Natter*, M., Mild, A., Feurstein, M., Dorffner, G., & Taudes, A. (2001). The effect of incentive schemes and organizational arrangements on the new product development process. Management Science , 47 (8), 1029–1045.

Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 15 (4), 80–116.

Newey*, L., & Verreynne, M. L. (2011). Multilevel absorptive capacity and interorganizational new product development: A process study. Journal of Management & Organization , 17 (1), 39–55.

Nihtilä*, J. (1999). R&D-Production integration in the early phases of new product development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 16 (1), 55–81.

Oehmen*, J., Olechowski, A., Kenley, C. R., & Ben-Daya, M. (2014). Analysis of the effect of risk management practices on the performance of new product development programs. Technovation , 34 (8), 441–453.

Oke*, A., & Idiagbon-Oke, M. (2010). Communication channels, innovation tasks and NPD project outcomes in innovation-driven horizontal networks. Journal of Operations Management , 28 (5), 442–453.

Olin*, T., & Shani, A. B. (2003). NPD as a sustainable work process in a dynamic business environment. R&D Management , 33 (1), 1–13.

Olson*, E. M., Walker, O. C., Ruekert, R. W., & Bonner, J. M. (2001). Patterns of cooperation during new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: Implications for project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 18 (4), 258–271.

Owens*, J. D. (2007). Why do some UK SMEs still find the implementation of a new product development process problematical? Management Decision , 45 (2), 235–251.

Ozer*, M. (2003). Process implications of the use of the Internet in new product development: A conceptual analysis. Industrial Marketing Management , 32 (6), 517–530.

Page, A. L. (1993). Assessing new product development practices and performance: Establishing crucial norms. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 10 (4), 273–290.

Pappas, R. A., & Remer, D. S. (1985). Measuring R and D productivity. Research-Technology Management , 28 (3), 15–22.

Park*, H., Lim, W. J., & Birnbaum-More, P. H. (2009). The effect of multi-knowledge individuals on performance in cross-functional new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (1), 86–96.

Parker*, H., & Brey, Z. (2015). Collaboration costs and new product development performance. Journal of Business Research , 68 (7), 1653–1656.

Parry*, M. E., Song, M., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., & Visscher, K. (2009). The impact of NPD strategy, product strategy, and NPD processes on perceived cycle time. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (6), 627–639.

Pasche*, M., Persson, M., & Löfsten, H. (2011). Effects of platforms on new product development projects. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 31 (11), 1144–1163.

Patanakul*, P., Shenhar, A. J., & Milosevic, D. Z. (2012). How project strategy is used in project management: Cases of new product development and software development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 29 (3), 391–414.

Peng*, D. X., Heim, G. R., & Mallick, D. N. (2014). Collaborative product development: The effect of project complexity on the use of information technology tools and new product development practices. Production and Operations Management , 23 (8), 1421–1438.

Perks*, H., Kahn, K., & Zhang, C. (2009). An empirical evaluation of R&D-Marketing NPD integration in Chinese firms: The guanxi effect. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (6), 640–651.

Petersen*, K. J., Handfield, R. B., & Ragatz, G. L. (2005). Supplier integration into new product development: Coordinating product, process and supply chain design. Journal of Operations Management , 23 (3–4), 371–388.

Pons*, D. (2008). Project management for new product development. Project Management Journal , 39 (2), 82–97.

Prašnikar*, J., & Škerlj, T. (2006). New product development process and time-to-market in the generic pharmaceutical industry. Industrial Marketing Management , 35 (6), 690–702.

Pujari*, D. (2006). Eco-innovation and new product development: Understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation , 26 (1), 76–85.

Pujari*, D., Wright, G., & Peattie, K. (2003). Green and competitive. Journal of Business Research , 56 (8), 657–671.

Pullen*, A. J. J., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., Groen, A. J., & Fisscher, O. A. M. (2012). Open innovation in practice: Goal complementarity and closed NPD networks to explain differences in innovation performance for SMEs in the medical devices sector. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 29 (6), 917–934.

Racela*, O. C. (2015). Viable strategy configurations and new product development capability and performance: Evidence from Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , 27 (2), 249–266.

Ragatz*, G. L., Handfield, R. B., & Scannell, T. V. (1997). Success factors for integrating suppliers into new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 14 (3), 190–202.

Ramesh*, B., & Tiwana, A. (1999). Supporting collaborative process knowledge management in new product development teams. Decision Support Systems , 27 (1), 213–235.

Ranjbar*, M. (2013). A branch-and-bound algorithm for scheduling of new product development projects. International Transactions in Operational Research , 20 (2), 251–266.

Rao, V. R. (1997). Resources for research and pedagogy on new product development processes. Journal of Marketing Research , 34 (1), 185–192.

Reidenbach*, R. E., & Moak, D. L. (1986). Exploring retail bank performance and new product development: A profile of industry practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 3 (3), 187–194.

Reilly*, R. R., Lynn, G. S., & Aronson, Z. H. (2002). The role of personality in new product development team performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 19 (1), 39–58.

Rijsdijk*, S. A., & van den Ende, J. (2011). Control Combinations in New Product Development Projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (6), 868–880.

Rochford*, L., & Rudelius, W. (1997). New product development process: Stages and successes in the medical products industry. Industrial Marketing Management , 26 (1), 67–84.

Rogers*, H., Ghauri, P., & Pawar, K. S. (2005). Measuring international NPD projects: An evaluation process. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 20 (2), 79–87.

Roper*, S., Micheli, P., Love, J. H., & Vahter, P. (2015). The roles and effectiveness of design in new product development: A study of Irish manufacturers. Research Policy , 45 (1), 319–329.

Ruy*, M., & Alliprandini, D. H. (2008). Organisational learning in the new product development process: Findings from three case studies in Brazilian manufacturing companies. International Journal of Technology Management , 44 (3–4), 461–479.

Sahay*, A., & Riley, D. (2003). The role of resource access, market considerations, and the nature of innovation in pursuit of standards in the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 20 (5), 338–355.

Salomo*, S., Steinhoff, F., & Trommsdorff, V. (2003). Customer orientation in innovation projects and new product development success-the moderating effect of product innovativeness. International Journal of Technology Management , 26 (5–6), 442–463.

Salomo*, S., Weise, J., & Gemünden, H. G. (2007). NPD planning activities and innovation performance: The mediating role of process management and the moderating effect of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 24 (4), 285–302.

Sandvik*, I. L., Arnett, D. B., & Sandvik, K. (2011). The effects of new product development proficiency on product advantage and tourism business performance evidence from the Norwegian hotel industry. Journal of Travel Research , 50 (6), 641–653.

Sarin*, S., & McDermott, C. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross-functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences , 34 (4), 707–739.

Schleimer*, S. C., & Shulman, A. D. (2011). A comparison of new service versus new product development: Configurations of collaborative intensity as predictors of performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (4), 521–535.

Schmidt*, J. B., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). Are really new product development projects harder to shut down? Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (2), 111–123.

Schmidt*, J. B., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Massey, A. P. (2001). New product development decision-making effectiveness: Comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual teams. Decision Sciences , 32 (4), 575–600.

Schmidt*, J. B., Sarangee, K. R., & Montoya, M. M. (2009). Exploring new product development project review practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (5), 520–535.

Schoenherr*, T., Griffith, D. A., & Chandra, A. (2014). Intangible capital, knowledge and new product development competence in supply chains: Process, interaction and contingency effects among SMEs. International Journal of Production Research , 52 (16), 4916–4929.

Schulze*, A., & Hoegl, M. (2006). Knowledge creation in new product development projects. Journal of Management , 32 (2), 210–236.

Sherman*, D. J., Berkowitz, D., & Souder, W. E. (2005). New product development performance and the interaction of cross-functional integration and knowledge management. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 22 (5), 399–411.

Sicotte*, H., & Bourgault, M. (2008). Dimensions of uncertainty and their moderating effect on new product development project performance. R&D Management , 38 (5), 468–479.

Sicotte*, H., Prefontaine, L., Ricard, L., & Bourgault, M. (2004). New product development: Customers’ and suppliers’ assessment of the same project. International Journal of Technology Management , 27 (2–3), 176–192.

Simon*, F., & Tellier, A. (2011). How do actors shape social networks during the process of new product development? European Management Journal , 29 (5), 414–430.

Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Siu*, W., Lin, T., Fang, W., & Liu, Z. C. (2006). An institutional analysis of the new product development process of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Industrial Marketing Management , 35 (3), 323–335.

Sivasubramaniam*, N., Liebowitz, S. J., & Lackman, C. L. (2012). Determinants of new product development team performance: A meta-analytic Review. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 29 (5), 803–820.

Smeds*, R., Haho, P., & Alvesalo, J. (2003). Bottom-up or top-down? Evolutionary change management in NPD processes. International Journal of Technology Management , 26 (8), 887–902.

Smits*, A., & Kok, R. (2012). The interplay between outbound team strategy and market information processing in the course of ‘really new’ NPD projects. Industrial Marketing Management , 41 (5), 759–769.

Song*, M., & di Benedetto, C. A. (2008). Supplier’s involvement and success of radical new product development in new ventures. Journal of Operations Management , 26 (1), 1–22.

Song*, M., & Swink, M. (2009). Marketing-manufacturing integration across stages of new product development: Effects on the success of high-and low-innovativeness products. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 56 (1), 31–44.

Song*, W., Ming, X., & Xu, Z. (2013). Risk evaluation of customer integration in new product development under uncertainty. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 65 (3), 402–412.

Song*, X. M., Neeley, S. M., & Zhao, Y. (1996). Managing R&D-marketing integration in the new product development process. Industrial Marketing Management , 25 (6), 545–553.

Song*, X. M., & Perry, M. E. (1997). A cross-national comparative study of new product development processes: Japan and the United States. The Journal of Marketing , 61 (2), 1–18.

Sosa*, M. E., Gargiulo, M., & Rowles, C. (2015). Can informal communication networks disrupt coordination in new product development projects? Organization Science , 26 (4), 1059–1078.

Souder*, W. E. (1988). Managing relations between R&D and marketing in new product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 1 (5), 6–19.

Souder*, W. E., Buisson, D., & Garrett, T. (1997). Success through customer-driven new product development: A comparison of US and New Zealand small entrepreneurial high technology firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 14 (6), 459–472.

Souder*, W. E., Sherman, J. D., & Davies-Cooper, R. (1998). Environmental uncertainty, organizational integration, and new product development effectiveness: A test of contingency theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (6), 520–533.

Spivey*, W. A., Munson, J. M., & Wolcott, J. H. (1997). Improving the new product development process: A fractal paradigm for high-technology products. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 14 (3), 203–218.

Stock*, R. M. (2014). How should customers be integrated for effective interorganizational NPD teams? An input-process-output perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 31 (3), 535–551.

Storey, C., & Easingwood, C. (1993). The impact of the new product development project on the success of financial services. Service Industries Journal , 13 (3), 40–54.

Strang*, D. K. (2011). Leadership substitutes and personality impact on time and quality in virtual new product development projects. Project Management Journal , 42 (1), 73–90.

Subramaniam*, M., Rosenthal, S. R., & Hatten, K. J. (1998). Global new product development processes: Preliminary findings and research propositions. Journal of Management Studies , 35 (6), 773–796.

Sun*, H., & Wing, W. C. (2005). Critical success factors for new product development in the Hong Kong toy industry. Technovation , 25 (3), 293–303.

Sun*, W., Xu, A., & Shang, Y. (2014). Transformational leadership, team climate, and team performance within the NPD team: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 31 (1), 127–147.

Swink*, M. (2003). Completing projects on-time: How project acceleration affects new product development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 20 (4), 319–344.

Swink*, M., Talluri, S., & Pandejpong, T. (2006). Faster, better, cheaper: A study of NPD project efficiency and performance tradeoffs. Journal of Operations Management , 24 (5), 542–562.

Takayama*, M., Watanabe, C., & Griffy-Brown, C. (2002). Alliance strategy as a competitive strategy for successively creative new product development: The proof of the co-evolution of creativity and efficiency in the Japanese pharmaceutical industry. Technovation , 22 (10), 607–614.

Tavani*, S. N., Sharifi, H., Soleimanof, S., & Najmi, M. (2013). An empirical study of firm’s absorptive capacity dimensions, supplier involvement and new product development performance. International Journal of Production Research , 51 (11), 3385–3403.

Taylor*, P., & Lowe, J. (1997). Are functional assets or knowledge assets the basis of new product development performance? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management , 9 (4), 473–488.

Thieme*, R. J., Song, M., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). Artificial neural network decision support systems for new product development project selection. Journal of Marketing Research , 37 (4), 499–507.

Thomas*, E. (2013). Supplier integration in new product development: Computer mediated communication, knowledge exchange and buyer performance. Industrial Marketing Management , 42 (6), 890–899.

Thwaites*, D. (1992). Organizational influences on the new product development process in financial services. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 9 (4), 303–313.

Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing innovation; integrating technological, market and organizational change . Chichester, GB: Wiley.

Tidd*, J., & Bodley, K. (2002). The influence of project novelty on the new product development process. R&D Management , 32 (2), 127–138.

Tighe*, G. (1998). From experience: Securing sponsors and funding for new product development projects - The human side of enterprise. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (1), 75–81.

Tomes*, A., Armstrong, P., & Clark, M. (1996). User groups in action: The management of user inputs in the NPD process. Technovation , 16 (10), 541–551.

Tranekjer*, T. L., & Søndergaard, H. A. (2013). Sources of innovation, their combinations and strengths-benefits at the NPD project level. International Journal of Technology Management , 61 (3–4), 205–236.

Tranfield, D. R., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management , 14 (3), 207–222.

Tsai*, F. S., Baugh, G. S., Fang, S. C., & Lin, J. L. (2014). Contingent contingency: Knowledge heterogeneity and new product development performance revisited. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 31 (1), 149–169.

Tzokas*, N., Hultink, E. J., & Hart, S. (2004). Navigating the new product development process. Industrial Marketing Management , 33 (7), 619–626.

van der Panne, G., van Beers, C., & Kleinknecht, A. (2003). Success and failure of innovation: A literature review. International Journal of Innovation Management , 7 (3), 1–30.

van Oorschot*, K. E., Akkermans, H., Sengupta, K., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (2013). Anatomy of a decision trap in complex new product development projects. Academy of Management Journal , 56 (1), 285–307.

van Oorschot*, K. E., Langerak, F., & Sengupta, K. (2011). Escalation, de-escalation, or reformulation: Effective interventions in delayed NPD projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (6), 848–867.

Varela*, J., & Benito, L. (2005). New product development process in Spanish firms: Typology, antecedents and technical/marketing activities. Technovation , 25 (4), 395–405.

Varma*, V. A., Uzsoy, R., Pekny, J., & Blau, G. (2007). Lagrangian heuristics for scheduling new product development projects in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Heuristics , 13 (5), 403–433.

Veldhuizen*, E., Hultink, E. J., & Griffin, A. (2006). Modeling market information processing in new product development: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 23 (4), 353–373.

Verworn*, B. (2009). A structural equation model of the impact of the fuzzy front end on the success of new product development. Research Policy , 38 (10), 1571–1581.

Verworn*, B., Herstatt, C., & Nagahira, A. (2008). The fuzzy front end of Japanese new product development projects: Impact on success and differences between incremental and radical projects. R&D Management , 38 (1), 1–19.

Veryzer*, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (4), 304–321.

vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In Paper presented at the 17th European Conference on Information Systems, Verona (pp. 2206–2217).

Wang*, J., & Lin, Y. I. (2009). An overlapping process model to assess schedule risk for new product development. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 57 (2), 460–474.

Wang*, Y., & Li-Ying, J. (2014). When does inward technology licensing facilitate firms’ NPD performance? A contingency perspective. Technovation , 34 (1), 44–53.

Watkins*, T. (1984). The practice of product testing in the new product development process: The role of model-based approaches. European Journal of Marketing , 18 (6–7), 14–29.

Wind, Y., & Mahajan, V. (1988). New product development process: A perspective for reexamination. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 5 (4), 304–310.

Wouters*, M., Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., & Wynstra, F. (2009). Improving sourcing decisions in NPD projects: Monetary quantification of points of difference. Journal of Operations Management , 27 (1), 64–77.

Wynstra*, F., Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., & Wouters, M. (2012). Supplier development responsibility and NPD project outcomes: The roles of monetary quantification of differences and supporting-detail gathering. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 29 (S1), 103–123.

Yan*, T., & Dooley, K. (2014). Buyer-supplier collaboration quality in new product development projects. Journal of Supply Chain Management , 50 (2), 59–83.

Yang*, L. R. (2012). Implementation of project strategy to improve new product development performance. International Journal of Project Management , 30 (7), 760–770.

Yeh*, T. M., Pai, F. Y., & Yang, C. C. (2010). Performance improvement in new product development with effective tools and techniques adoption for high-tech industries. Quality & Quantity , 44 (1), 131–152.

Yeniyurt*, S., Henke, J. W., & Yalcinkaya, G. (2014). A longitudinal analysis of supplier involvement in buyers’ new product development: Working relations, inter-dependence, co-innovation, and performance outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 42 (3), 291–308.

Yu*, B., Hao, S., Ahlstrom, D., Si, S., & Liang, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial firms’ network competence, technological capability, and new product development performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 31 (3), 687–704.

Zahay*, D., Griffin, A., & Fredericks, E. (2004). Sources, uses, and forms of data in the new product development process. Industrial Marketing Management , 33 (7), 657–666.

Zolghadri*, M., Amrani, A., Zouggar, S., & Girard, P. (2011a). Power assessment as a high-level partner selection criterion for new product development projects. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing , 24 (4), 312–327.

Zolghadri*, M., Girard, P., Baron, C., & Aldanondo, M. (2011b). A general framework for new product development projects. International Journal of Technology Management , 55 (3–4), 250–262.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Further, we thank Florian Müller for his strong support during data collection. This research is part of the first author’s dissertation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Accounting, Control and Auditing, University of St. Gallen, Tigerbergstrasse 9, 9000, St. Gallen, Switzerland

Benedikt Müller-Stewens & Klaus Möller

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benedikt Müller-Stewens .

See Table  2 .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Müller-Stewens, B., Möller, K. Performance in new product development: a comprehensive framework, current trends, and research directions. J Manag Control 28 , 157–201 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-016-0243-4

Download citation

Published : 07 January 2017

Issue Date : May 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-016-0243-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• New product development
• Management control systems
• Systematic review

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Improving new product development (NPD) process by analyzing failure cases

Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship

ISSN : 2398-7812

Article publication date: 5 December 2016

The purpose of this study is to develop an appropriate new product development (NPD) process of Company “T”, a medium-sized firm, by analyzing the existing NPD process and failure cases of the Company.

Design/methodology/approach

The proposed research framework is as follows: first, prospective studies of the NPD process are performed using the existing literature and preliminary references; second, comparative analysis between the current processes and a NPD process is performed; third, phase-based evaluations upon failed product cases are conducted with a NPD process so as to identify the abridged steps and root-causes of failures; finally, renewed priorities are set forth by utilizing the analytic hierarchy process analysis and questionnaire analysis upon the above identified causes of failures.

The resulting accomplishments include the establishment of NPD processes that resonates with the current states of Company “T”, which, in turn, ensures the increase of efficiency, the decrease in development duration and the strategy of capacity-concentration and priority-selection.

Originality/value

As Company “T”’s development process is outdated and products are developed without adequate market information research and feasibility analysis, the percentage of failed development project is as high as 87 per cent. Thus, this study aims to develop an appropriate NPD process of Company “T” by analyzing the existing NPD process and failure cases of the Company.

• Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
• New product
• New product development (NPD) process

Kim, Y.-H. , Park, S.-W. and Sawng, Y.-W. (2016), "Improving new product development (NPD) process by analyzing failure cases", Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 134-150. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-12-2016-002

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2016, Yeon-Hak Kim, Sun-Woong Park and Yeong-Wha Sawng.

Published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

This is a case study that aims to develop an appropriate new product development (NPD) process of Company “T” by analyzing the existing NPD process and failure cases of the Company.

Company “T” is a medium-sized radio-frequency (RF) business firm which develops, manufactures and sells various equipment and components for both domestic and international base stations of mobile communications. Established in 1999, its main engine of growth has come from the areas of RF connectors and coaxial cable assembly within the scope of mobile communication services.

Mobile communication markets can be divided, according to the level of integration and roles, into system operation (SO) carriers, system integration (SI) and equipment and components. The markets can be also divided by usage into filers, antenna, unit materials for construction work, measurements, national defense and terminal equipment. Company “T”’s business accounts range from SO firms to equipment firms, and the most active transactions come from the components in the fields of filers and antenna for remote radio head (RRH) equipment. Most systems that integrate equipment and components do go through the process of integration, and the time and scope required for the review on each integral production tend to increase. Considering the characteristics of connector components which play critical and basic roles for the telecommunication systems, completion of connector components alone can allow for the next phase reviews to begin. Because of these reasons, development time for connector component is much shorter, and its application potentials are much greater than those of other equipment and systems. Base stations, previously called as BTS, used various connectors and cables in large quantity. But, recent transformation into RRH systems drastically reduced the necessity of connectors and cables. Hence, the inevitable process of evolution was brought in to meet the requirements of increasingly complicated system environments to make the assembly much easier and make the breadth of movement much wider and easier to control. Such system changes necessitated much more vigorous reviews and certification and development. This creates situations where tasks go beyond the capacity of the all staff members and employees. This caused the situation where all these tasks require more than the existing human resources and their capacities. It may explain why the reviews and examination process of product development were repeating the simplistic specification verifications only. Although the lead time for development projects became shorter, Company “T” showed patterns of having to manage increasingly large number of projects.

Managing too many projects caused many challenges for the product development process of the Company “T”; cases of discontinued projects or development failures kept increasing. Even after the completion of product developments, the sales figures, more often than not, did not yield much increase. Overburdening assignments of development projects have caused the processes to overlook the principal check points for marketability, profitability and technological feasibility, and, in some extreme cases, products were not even launched in the market after the completion of development.

It is quite common that a great number of small- to medium-sized firms attempt to launch new products without preliminary planning or market research. Against this background, well aware of such circumstantial connotation, this study aims to establish an appropriate NPD process that fits the current status of the Company “T” by focusing on analyzing failure cases.

2. Literature and practice review

2.1 concept of new product.

There are many contending arguments with regard to the variegated definitions and boundaries of the term “new product”. Crawford (1991) defines that it is “a product for which the company needs a new marketing, and in which the substantial changes are conveyed but excludes any changes that may require simple promotions”.

Booze, Allen and Hamilton set out to make a new standard in 1982 for new product classification according to the newness to the market and the newness to the firm, with six different categories. Also, calculations for relative frequencies at each category were schematized into the diagrams ( Figure 1 ). The diagram is schematized according to each classification of a new product.

2.2 Significance of new product development process and the meaning of process phase

In general, an NPD process is defined as the process of formalized planning or thoughts from the beginning stage of ideas down to market launching. Most of the previous studies on impacts and ramifications of the NPD process have their starting point where the definition of NPD phases is made. Despite the varying degrees of contenting theories, one can safely classify the whole process of NPD into 13 different phases. brain-storming of ideas; early stage idea screening; preliminary market evaluation; preliminary technology evaluation; preliminary production evaluation; preliminary financial evaluation; market survey and research; product development; in-house product evaluation; customer focus group test for new product; market test; financial evaluation before the product launch; and market launch. Studies in the past have proposed that the decision to go through each and every phase of the NPD process itself without any omission would guarantee a significant improvement of new product launch.

Capacity that can perform well at each phase of the product development process has a close causal relationship with profitability. Previous studies show the positive (+) relationship between the level of excellence for the NPD process and the degree of resulting success of NPD. However, the relative importance of capacity in each developmental phase all defers. For instance, Cooper’s (1979) analysis came to conclusion that the most important phase of NPD is the market launch phase and product evaluation by consumers, whereas Mishra et al. (1996) contended that it is the detailed market evaluation/analysis and preliminary idea screening that are the most important phases of the development process.

2.3 Studies on new product development process

This study thus far examined which phases of the previous NPD processes were considered most valuable for the purpose of analyzing the full contents of the current product development process. Second, the study also examined the difference between Company “T”’s product development process and those of the other models chosen from the various product development processes. The following excerpt shows which phases are omitted in the case of Company “T”’s NPD process.

Phase 1 : It is idea discovery.

Phase 2 : It is idea screening.

Phase 3 : It is concept development and test.

Phase 4 : It is business analysis.

Phase 5 : It is the development of the mix between product and marketing.

Phase 6 : It is market test.

Phase 7 : It is product launch.

Dividing rules and standards might vary according to the choices of researchers and companies. But what remains rather identical is the overall flows of each development phases. It should be noted here that different analytic models may cause different changes in total length of process or the contents of each phase, which will eventually integrate into the development processes. Figure 2 shows the role of each gate to demonstrate that products face higher probability of failure if the NPD process proceeds to the next phase without proper assessments and evaluations, thus emphasizing that the gates necessitate preceding examinations and preparation.

A general NPD process goes through each phase from idea management to product concept development and test, to business analysis and marketing plan, to product development and to market launch. This process can be either subdivided or simultaneously preceded according to the company size and particular business characteristics.

However, in the case of Company “T”, the firm is concentrating on the “product development phase in comparison to other NPD cases”. Nevertheless, one shall not disregard the evaluation process of pre-developmental processes such as the possibility of whether the product can be developed with current level of technology and the possibility of whether the product can expand to the main stream items by adding various similar product lines. Such consideration can unwittingly bring out the outcome which disregards the basic processes that could yield practical and tangible results.

2.4 New product development practices among small- and medium-sized Korean companies

A typical medium-sized company such as “T” comes up with the “new product idea” based on clients’ demands or direct order from the company owner, and the product development is launched without much selection processes. Once the prototype is completed, the company would begin to prepare for the commercialization and large-scale manufacturing plans ( Figure 3 ). The figure shows that the CEO is occupying the largest percentage of where the idea of new product and product developments are initiated from. If the product development processes are repeated without adequate studies on profitability and marketability, a series of internal problems tend to rise from within. Sales department will request more and more projects to the research department for the purpose of sales increase. The development department will lose efficiency during the course of variegated product developments without full considerations on priority and strategic importance. The final outcome of such processes would include products with low level of perfection, reduced ratio of development completion AND rise of the employment separation rate for newly recruited researchers, resulting rise of workload upon senior researchers and the failures and discontinuation of projects, which go beyond the scope of product development issues.

3. Analysis and results

3.1 outline of the analysis.

The purpose of this study is to establish an improved NPD process which can substantially increase the efficiency of the product development. To this end, this paper chose to use the research methodology as the following.

First, existing references and prospective research materials are reviewed to recognize and define the concept of new product, the importance and concept of an NPD process and the significance of phased evaluation of performances. Second, the appropriate models and phases of the NPD process are selected for the Company “T”, and the comparative analysis is performed between the current development process and the newly selected development process to identify the omissions and shortcomings. Third, each project was divided into two categories of “success” and “failure” based upon the new definition of “failure” at the stage of each case analysis. It is followed by the performance analysis on each phase of the NPD process based upon the research models that are derived from the selected cases of actual failures that took place, thus being able to categorize the causes of failures. Finally, surveys and questionnaires are conducted to ask for the causes of the categorized failures. These results are reexamined under the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method, and the conclusions are drawn for the evaluation of the different levels of significance.

3.2 Analysis methodology of failure cases

3.2.1 definition of failure..

The objective of this study is to establish an appropriate NPD process that fits the Company “T”’s needs. To that end, the failed project cases in the past have been analyzed with particular attention paid to phase-based actions and the following results of the process. Hence, the categories of failures among the development projects are divided into two. First category is projects that were suspended or those proved to be failed at the end of the development. Second category is when no sales were generated after the completion of development or no profits were earned after the sales.

3.2.2 Classification and selection of the project.

Projects for analysis were selected among the ones that had been processed during the one year term of year 2014. Total number of registered projects was 877 cases, of which completed ones were 209 cases Table I . Of these 209 cases, ones that generated sales were 119 cases (14 per cent), and the ones without sales generation were 90 cases (10 per cent). Also, uncompleted cases were 668 cases, of which sale-generating cases were 73 cases (8 per cent) and no sale cases were 595 (68 per cent). Sales results from the uncompleted projects are by sample supply, not by finished product production.

In 2014, the failure rate reached 87 per cent. With too many failure cases to analyze, the study reduced the total target numbers by way of verifying the ones to be excluded. First, a total of 119 cases that generated sales were excluded. The number of projects that were processed progressively for the purpose of measurement or JIG, review projects, one-time projects, preliminary projects and projects whose details cannot be determined because of the retirement of researchers and the likes were 476 cases in total. Analysis was processed with 80 cases in the sequence of initiation date, out of remaining 407 cases. The guiding principles include, first, the ones that were completed, but did not generate any sales, and second, the ones that did not complete. More than half of the projects excluded from the analysis were originally executed by the retired researchers. They are usually low performers and/or involved in declining product departments. Hence their projects were regarded as less important and by the time they leave the company, the projects were dropped and classified as failed projects. But, as those projects were dropped by the company’s decision, they were excluded from the analysis.

3.2.3 Analysis of failure cases.

As it seems evident during the NPD process, the role of the gate is meaningful at the time of evaluation between the two phases. It cannot be processed to the next phase unless there is no result or the contents are inadequate. It is because the idea at the evaluation can be considered to be a failure. This study made the comparison among each failed case at the corresponding phase levels to see whether each criteria of the gate was performed.

3.2.4 Analytic hierarchy process analysis.

AHP is one of the supporting techniques to help make decisions by providing a structured evaluation scheme for alternatives when objectives and evaluation standards of the decision-making are multiple and mutually conflicting. Widely used for the decision-making with multi-criteria including qualitative factors. AHP methodology was invented by Thomas L. Saaty in the early 1970s for the purpose of assisting a rational decision-making process. Information necessary for the decision-making is collected by disassembling the stratum of evaluation index and alternatives. To determine relative importance of possible alternatives, weighted values of alternatives should be calculated using the pairwise comparison so as to clarify the priorities. It should be noted that qualitative standards are also accommodated for the sake of objectivity. That is, once the instrumentation was completed for the specific issue of decision-making, a pairwise comparison was performed upon the factors that belong to the sub-measurement categories, selected from the perspectives of the upper measurement categories, and such comparison will allegedly yield relative importance and weighted values, thus enabling us to attain priorities of the alternatives at the sub-measurement categories ( Choi et al. , 2008 ). If there are multiple choices of alternatives for the comparison of evaluation index, it normally requires highly complex calculations, for which computation programs can be used for the accuracy and the ease of use. AHP applications encompass most of the establishment activities that relate to the priority-setting such as strategic planning, calculation of weighted value for performance measurement index, location allocation, resource allocation, establishment of enterprise/policy and program allocation. This study segmented and formalized the causes of failures as collected from the case analysis. These formalized causes were put into pairwise comparison by the method of questionnaire so as to identify the key factors for the establishment of process.

3.3 Analysis of failure cases

3.3.1 selection of new product development process model..

Currently available references and preliminary research materials were used to select an analytic research model that can fit the case of Company “T”’s NPD process. These models were adopted from seven-phase model of Booze, Allen and Hamilton. The model was used as a preliminary working pattern for the analysis of Company “T”’s NPD process. The reasoning for selecting this particular model is that it could run the risk of oversimplification if the phases were fewer than seven, which makes it very difficult to review the contents and issues in detail at each phase. On the hand, it could run the risk of unrealistic pursuit away from the original objectives of the research if the phases were too many or too much segmented. It is certain that neither too few phases nor too much segmentation can bring the research outcomes that are expected. If the analysis is conducted according to the size of the company or the available resources, it might also cause difficulties in formulating an efficient NPD process. These are the main considerations for selecting the seven-phase model as proposed by Booze, Allen and Hamilton. Booze, Allen and Hamilton model comprises the following phases: idea creation and selection; establishment of product concept and test; establishment of marketing strategy; analysis of profitability; product development; market test; and commercialization.

3.3.2 Analysis of current new product development process.

Idea discovery or selection phase was missing. But, in-house development evaluations were conducted if there were requests from the sales department or direct orders from the CEO. Most of the projects, however, proceeded to the next developmental phase of designing and development without proper examination and evaluation.

Development process items and contents could not be found in the phase of establishment of product concept and testing.

Phase of establishing marketing strategy did not include any contents and items of development process. In reality, the only evaluation that was done was basic information analysis. In most cases, any concrete target objectives other than the development did not exist. There were, of course, understandings of the target markets, but the competition analysis and exterior environment analysis were not conducted.

Phase of business profitability analysis was substituted with the letters or request with specific details and contents. Evaluation of technological feasibility was analyzed, but, in most cases, any attempts to collect the information about market potential and demand estimation and to analyze the possible financial contribution were not found.

The product development phase was usually included within the development process through reception of development requests, and the detailed contents were identified including the review, verification, validity examination and development completion.

Phase of market test was included in the development process, but mostly within the scope of technological aspects. The review was performed upon standards of client’s request for development and upon the level of satisfaction about product specification. At this phase, some pilot manufacturing was performed to make sure that the large-scale production was ready.

Phases of commercialization and product launch were considered completed by transferring technology-related materials, thus closing up the whole development process. Analysis of defection risk during the product manufacturing and consequential revision was performed, yet any strategies for competition or product life cycle could not be found.

These significant flaws in the Company “T”’s NPD process came from the management style of current CEO and founder. As a developer, he recorded huge success until few years ago, based not on well-developed NPD process, but on his own instinct and discretion when choosing new products to develop. But, as the market matures and the environment changes unfriendly, his decision-making based on intuition does not work anymore. So, it was the right time to assess current process and develop more adequate process of NPD for the company.

During the course of the comparative analysis of the processes, a few considerable discoveries were made that might work very well for the reality of the Company “T”, which has been trying to establish the NPD process. First, the internal consensus must be reached within the firm upon whether a revision of the current downstream development process is necessary and whether establishment of upper stream NPD process is appropriate. The reason that the company’s practice for the past 10 years has become the habit and fixation, and the necessity of discerning the two different processes was never recognized. Second, full mandate and responsibility for evaluating processes at each phase must be ensured so that the supervisors must be separately designated. Third, a rational separation is necessary, because it is impossible to evaluate every process which varies because of the different product particularities and different levels of development difficulties. It becomes much critical that the newness of the product in the market and the newness of the product in the company must be the guiding principles to classify each product development process and to evaluate separately. Especially, it has been noted that in the case of Company “T”, design and performance of the connectors for the base station do not vary too much. Also, the equipment, systems, base stations and the related environments used for the products of Company “T” do not differ much, either. These products can omit some of the NPD processes such as idea discovery, idea screening, establishment of product concepts, test of product and the product developments. These findings are summarized in Figure 4 .

3.3.3 Analysis of failure cases.

Sequence of case analysis is as follows; first, classification of failed projects; second, selection of the failed project; third, identification of the causes and reasons for failure and formalize the pattern of causes; last, conducting surveys and questionnaires to select the categories necessary for the consideration with priority. At this phase, AHP analysis is conducted to confirm the reliability and consistency of the result.

First, this study went through the validation and matching task on the contents of the management register book of year 2014 and on the accumulated sales list on each product of year 2014 for the purpose of establishing a proper classification of failed projects, as seen in Table II . Second, failed projects were selected with two categories; the failure Category © is the ones that are completed but did not yield any sales, and the failure Category ® is the ones that are interrupted in the middle or never made to completion. The total cases were 407 projects, excluding the ones caused by the retirement of researchers and the ones developed not for the direct purpose of product sales. A total of 40 cases were selected according to the failure categories and in the sequential order of initiation date. Third, the reasons and causes of project failures were identified according to the prepared categories.

Main causes for the failure Category © is the most frequent cases (40 per cent) where development was proceeded without much market information and where product development did not produce any sales. It is confirmed that these failed projects proceeded without estimation of expected market size, target price range, practical possibility of large scale manufacturing and the very minimum information necessary for the development process. One particularly interesting finding indicates that the strong capacity of the long-time client can unwittingly work against product sales. The lesson of this revelation is that one must examine and comprehend the market environment and exterior situation of both first-tier client companies and the second-tier client companies. Main causes of the failure Category ® are the cases where the price competitiveness is very weak, followed by the cases where profitability evaluation was either omitted or poorly performed. Detailed reasons why the price competitiveness was weak were because of the poor information on competition companies, which caused the loss of competitive bidding and market dissatisfaction against product price. Lack of research capacities also contributed to the failures. In case where there was no evaluation for the business profitability and feasibility, the level of market information and intelligence was also weak. Also, some products with no potentials for the feasibility were also preceded for the development process.

This study continued with the analysis of the seven-phase gate evaluation for the NPD process, using the above-mentioned failed projects. The main findings are as follows: first, it is possible to calculate the failure costs for both expenditure and time at each phase if the concept of NPD process was properly comprehended or if the project management was properly executed; second, it is possible to calculate the additional failure costs for the cases of product completion without sales if the failure costs of the previous projects can be assessed. This is the direct consequence of the negligence toward the obviously expected failures. If those projects improperly executed at the very first phase could be decisively stopped in the middle of the development process, the additional costs could have been saved and the focus could have been rendered for the projects with higher probability for success.

3.3.4 Findings through analytic hierarchy process analysis.

Causes of the project failures have been identified based upon the case analysis. Of the cases in the Category ©, the prominent reasons included the failures in market analysis, price competitiveness, bidding failures for the first-tier clients, developmental capacities, disruption of the project earmarked for the first-tier clients and poor managements of the projects. Of the failure Category ®, the major causes included the failures in price competitiveness, commercialization feasibilities, market analysis, developmental capacities, bidding failures for the first-tier clients and disruption of the project. As for the bidding failures for the first-tier clients, the causes included many probabilities involving the price competitiveness of either Company “T” or the clients. If there were clear responsibilities for the failure on the part of Company “T”, the reason for such result was price competitiveness issue. Also, if the reason or price competitiveness of the client company was unclear, then the responsibilities belonged to the first-tier client. Figure 5 shows the summary of the findings.

AHP analysis using questionnaires and surveys was conducted for the purpose of determining the priorities among the important items that are worthy of careful attention while dealing with the NPD process of the categorized failure causes. Survey was conducted for 26 persons from five different departments (sales department, R&D department, technology department, quality control department and production department) Respondents’ average work experience was 13 years and 2 months. Those eight people who misunderstood the questionnaire were asked again to receive the answers. Table III shows survey items to determine priorities among the important items using the AHP methodology.

The results of questionnaires with weighted values are seen in Figure 6 , and the consistency ratio was 0.00896, which is deemed trustworthy based upon the examination of the weighted values of each factor and the criticality and consistency.

4.1 Establishment of N new product development PD process

The NPD process for Company “T” is seen in Figure 7 . It was simplified into a six-phase model by integrating the first and second phases that were used for the research model of seven phases. The biggest reason for such simplification is that the origin of the idea about business-to-business (B2B) products was the needs from the first-tier and second-tier clients.

Evaluation contents at each phase led to the decision of choosing the major projects that must be executed based upon the research contents this far. Each corresponding phase allocated both responsibilities and performance supervision appropriately so as to not overburden the research department to avoid the findings of previous development processes. For instance, at the phase of business profitability analysis, sales department shall share the overall information deriving from client preferences with other relevant internal departments, as it has been the cases. In the future, the task force organization will be formed and will be responsible for conducting marketing or profitability reviews.

At Gate 1, what needs to be identified includes which idea shall be adopted based on customers’ needs and, subsequently, what the customer values should be and what requirements need to be met for the purpose of commercialization potentials from the technological points of view. At Gate 2, product concepts must be defined, and the analysis for client purchase intention must be evaluated. At Gate 3, further considerations must be articulated about future market demands, possible boundaries and scopes for the target markets apart from the existing clients. For the purpose of evaluating the targeted market potential, the timeline of review has to be set at least for a three-year-long period. At Gate 4, as the product development is completed, preliminary financial evaluation is in order based upon the materials from the preceding phases. Preliminary trouble shooting also has to be done in the preparation for the large-scale manufacturing. Accordingly, pilot product needs to be produced and product test has to be evaluated. Last, at Gate 5, post-production evaluation needs to be done from the large-scale manufacturing or from the already launched products. Such information as client satisfaction (possibly including that of the competitions) and other relevant issues must be collected. Also, further evaluation is necessary for examining the shortcomings at the preceding phases or the modifications so as to identify the future amendments for the next product development and for the extended applications.

4.2 Process verification

Performance evaluation for each phase of the failed projects was done to verify the validity of the NPD process. The projects for evaluations were seven in total, which were all completed but never generated the sales, as seen in Table IV . Verification methodology is such that performances of each project and evaluation phases were substituted into the NPD process so as to confirm whether the assigned task at each phase was properly executed and the corresponding results were achieved.

Commercialization of potentials needs to be evaluated first with the technological feasibility as requested by the clients. Most of the products were technologically feasible. To judge whether there are purchase intentions from clients, the information previously collected from that client must be examined and further consideration must be given to future volume of manufacturing, production timing and target price for the clarification. If clients suggest such detailed requests, the client’s purchase intension might be verified. Estimated demands can also be verified with the same methodology as the purchase intention, and the profitability verification must review preliminary production costs based upon the design-related materials. The results of the product test did not contribute at all for sorting out the project evaluation. Marketing strategy, too, did not contribute in a meaningful way under the B2B purchase conditions. However, each corresponding phase will certainly contribute meaningfully if the preceding phase proceeds with substantial integrity, and simultaneous marketing strategy is executed at the same time. Last, validity evaluation was executed persistently at the development process level, but it was evident that the failures at Gates 2 and 3 were not recognized, and further unnecessary resources were invested without interruption.

The results of process verification clearly demonstrated that the projects that are highly unlikely to succeed can be discontinued at Phases 2 and 3 instead of Phase 1. As the purpose of this process is to increase the odds for the project success and make sure the unpromising projects are stopped with substantial evaluation standards, this practice was deemed worthy of efforts.

4.3 Expected effects

The following effects can be obtained from establishing a proper NPD process.

First, the rate of projects failed or suspended will be drastically reduced than the current level. Accordingly, the projects with no possibility to succeed after the launch will be more likely to be stopped in advance, and important projects will ensure much more time and costs. Second, there will be reduction of the incidents adding up the failure costs by continuing the projects without a proper evaluation phase. The fact is that there were frequent occasions where the completion and mass production of the products did not generate the sales, or occasions where fully developed products were not forwarded to the sales department. By establishing the process, sales department staff members will share as much responsibility as the development department members. Third, efforts will increase to secure the references and frameworks of objective and adequate decision-making for the proposition of project priority and its importance factors.

5. Conclusion

As Company “T”’s development process is outdated and products are developed without adequate market information research and feasibility analysis, the percentage of failed development project is as high as 87 per cent. Thus, study aims to develop an appropriate NPD process of Company “T” by analyzing the existing NPD process and failure cases of the Company.

To this end, We conduct our research as follows; first, prospective researches of the NPD process are conducted using existing literature and preliminary references; second, comparative analysis between current processes and an NPD process is conducted; third, phase-based evaluations upon failed product cases are conducted with an NPD process so as to identify the abridged steps and root-causes of failures; finally, renewed priorities are set forth by utilizing the AHP analysis and questionnaire analysis upon the above identified causes of failures. The resulting accomplishments include the establishment of NPD processes that resonate with the current states of Company “T”, which, in turn, ensures the increase of efficiency, the decrease in development duration and the strategy of capacity-concentration and priority-selection

However, this study has some limitations. First, it must be self-evident that the NPD process shall not be limited only to the R&D departments. Rather, it is a company-wide process, by definition, with this limited analysis falling short of cross-departmental examinations, which will bring out much valuable outcomes for the purpose of efficiency improvements. Second, there has been an omission of verification results for the new NPD process that was deduced for the research purpose of this paper on analysis and outcomes. It should be noted that the above-mentioned choices are indeed the superior directions for the market competition, given the limitation of resources and capacities which could optimize the efficiency of the process through verifying the feasibility evaluations upon NPD progress.

The future plans for establishing an NPD process appropriate for the overall environment of the Company “T” revolve around overcoming numerous challenges that have been identified.

First, it must be closely examined whether the evaluation results of each gate were meaningful, as it was verified through the validity tests of the NPD process. It must also be carefully examined whether data of the preliminary market analysis did contribute, with certain acceptable degree of accuracy, to the forecast and the analysis that were performed. Next, the level of perfection and refinement has to be further improved by periodically analyzing the projects within the two failure categories, as it has been done throughout this study.

Classification standard for new product

Role of gate (evaluation) in NPD phases

Leaders of NPD in small- and medium-sized businesses

“T”’s NPD process compared to a standard process

Categorized causes of failure

Evaluation results with weighted value and verification using AHP analysis

Suggested NPD process for company “T”

Classification of success and failure of development projects at “T” (unit: case)

Evaluation of completion ratios for failure Categories <1> and <2>

AHP survey items for determining priorities among important items

Results of verification for the NPD process

Booz, Allen, & Hamilton ( 1982 ), New Products Management for the 1980s , Booz, Allen, Hamilton , New York, NY .

Choi , S.M. , Lim , J.K. , Oh , S.G. and Seo , C.H. ( 2008 ), “ A research for weight decision of waterproofing methods selection evaluation item using the AHP ”, Proceedings of 2008 Autumn Conference Korea Institute of Building Construction , Seoul, Korea .

Cooper , R.G. ( 1979 ), “ The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure ”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 43 , pp. 93 - 103 .

Crawford , C.M. ( 1991 ), New Products Management , 3rd ed. , Richard D. Irwin , Homewood, IL .

Kim , J.Y. and Hahn , J.H. ( 2009 ), “ The impact of NPD (New Product Development) process planning proficiencies on NPD performance ”, Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society , Vol. 10 No. 9 , pp. 2440 - 2450 .

Mishra , S. , Kim , D. and Lee , D. ( 1996 ), “ Factors affecting new product success: cross-country comparisons ”, Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol. 13 No. 6 , pp. 530 - 550 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT An Empirical Study of the Effects of Innovation Strategy, Organization Learning, and Market Conditions

Related Papers

Janet Fritzmont

British Food Journal

Mark Speece

ABSTRACT New product development,(NPD) in food processing industries is often one element,which determines,whether companies,are able to remain competitive in rapidly changing ,consumer ,markets. Current research suggests that well managed,NPD should be organized as a continuous learning process. It should have strong ,information linkage across functions and outside the company ,to suppliers ,and customers. We examine,NPD in Thailand’s food processing industry

Peter J Mellalieu

Use of New Product Development Methods (NPD) may benefit New Zealand SMEs and entrepreneurial firms in gaining greater market share. In this paper we review the literature on New Product Development, NPD theory, and methods for early stage product design and development. Our reading suggests that product design has greater success when the customer is involved in the design effort. It also recommends methods of approach to new markets in the (NPD) life cycle. The literature further elucidates methods for identification of product design criteria based on customer needs identification. In essence, customer-product interaction in the early stages of product development is important to product success in new markets for entrepreneurial firms and SMEs. Of particular interest are early-stage NPD research methods and their influence on the company's marketing strategy. Citation: Coleman, E. B., Frederick, H., & Mellalieu, P. J. (2006). Customer-Product Interaction - A Model for New Product Development in Entrepreneurial Firms. In Third AGSE International Entrepreneurship Research Exchange (AIREX-2006). Auckland: Unitec Institute of Technology. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1513318/Customer-Product_Interaction_-_A_Model_for_New_Product_Development_in_Entrepreneurial_Firms Related: Coleman, E. B. (2004). Water & Food Safety Testing Products for New Zealand Mollusc Aquaculture Organisations: A Case Study in New Product Development (Industry-Based Research Project Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Innovation and Entrepreneurship). Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland. Retrieved from http://fgcu.academia.edu/ElizabethBColeman/Papers/1629049/

International Journal of Technology Management

Patricia Sandmeier

TJPRC Publication

The New Product Development (NPD) is one of the emerging trends among the leading apparel industries to gain and maintain the competitive advantage. The consumers are demanding for value-added innovative products at competitive prices. Hence, the apparel producers are faced with immense pressure to produce new products with unique features at competitive prices. Therefore, apparel industrialists are insisted to follow systematic NPD process models and with shorter cycle times. In the study, various NPD process models from a verity of diversified industries were critically evaluated, to examine the appropriateness using relevant Performance Indicators (PI) and characteristics. Such evaluation criteria were characterized to screen the most effective NPD models to reflect the unique features of the product design and development operations of the apparel industry. As concluding remarks, the study shows directions for academics and practitioners to develop result oriented NPD models specifically adoptable for apparel industry.

John Nicholas

Efforts continue to identify new product development (NPD) best practices. Examples of recognized studies include those by the Product Development and Management Association's Comparative Performance Assessment Study and the American Productivity Quality Center NPD best practices study. While these studies designate practices that distinguish top-performing companies, it is unclear whether NPD practitioners as a group (not just researchers) are knowledgeable about what represents a NPD best practice. The importance of this is that it offers insight into how NPD practitioners are translating potential NPD knowledge into actual NPD practice. In other words, are practitioners aware of and able to implement NPD best practices designated by noteworthy studies? The answer to this question ascertains a current state of the field toward understanding NPD best practice and the maturity level of various practices. Answering this question further contributes to our understanding of the diffusion of NPD best practices knowledge by NPD professionals, possibly identifying gaps between prescribed and actual practice. Beginning the empirical examination by conducting a Delphi methodology with 20 leading innovation researchers, the study examined the likely dimensions of NPD and corresponding definitions to validate the NPD practices framework originally proposed by Kahn, Barczak, and Moss. A survey was then conducted with practitioners from the United States, United Kingdom, and Ireland to gauge opinions about perceptions of the importance of different NPD dimensions, specific characteristics reflected by each of these dimensions, and the level of NPD practice maturity that these characteristics would represent. The study is therefore unique in that it relies on the opinions of NPD practitioners to see what they perceive as best practice versus prior studies where the researcher has identified and prescribed best practices. Results of the present study find that seven NPD dimensions are recommended, whereas the Kahn, Barczak, and Moss framework had suggested six dimensions. Among practitioners across the three country contexts, there is consensus on which dimensions are more important, providing evidence that NPD dimensions may be generalizable across Western contexts. Strategy was rated higher than any of the other dimensions followed by research, commercialization, and process. Project climate and metrics were perceived as the lowest in importance. The high weighting on strategy and low weighting on metrics and project climate reinforce previous best practice findings. Regarding the characteristics of each best practice dimension, practitioners appear able to distinguish what constitutes poor versus best practice, but consensus on distinguishing middle range practices are not as clear. The suggested implications of these findings are that managers should emphasize strategy when undertaking NPD efforts and consider the fit of their projects with this strategy. The results further imply that there are clearly some poor practices that managers should avoid and best practices to which managers should ascribe. For academics, the results strongly suggest a need to do a better job of diffusing NPD knowledge and research on best practices. Particular attention by academics to the issues of metrics, project climate, and company culture appears warranted.

European Journal of Business and Management

mohammad ghanbari

Journal of business market management

International Journal of Production Economics

Roberto Filippini

Tanika Sofianti

Open innovation offers the prospect of innovation with lower cost, faster times to market and sharing risks with others. The key points of knowledge-based NPD is the idea and the process of leveraging external knowledge, and the process of new knowledge co-creation with other entities in the business ecosystem. There are three key points being concerned in this research. First, knowledge can be identified as the critical success factor in NPD. Second, much of the required knowledge in NPD is tacit and resides with entities outside the boundary of the firm, mainly is with customers, but also with other stakeholders such as competitors, suppliers and business partners and. Third, the required knowledge is not simply ‘out there’, ready to be collected and processed by the firm, but actually needs to be created at least in part. This paper promotes a model that integrates and connects these key points. The model details several success factors of knowledge co-creation in NPD, focused on the involvement of customers. The result of this paper is the detailed model that can be used to design the metric of the customer knowledge co-creation performance in NPD process. This paper is a preparatory step of a wider research.

RELATED PAPERS

Eleni Papagianni

Daniel Pradilla Rincon

Physical Review B

Reghu Menon

Jurnal Teknik Informatika dan Sistem Informasi

Meliana Christianti Johan

Journal of Molecular Biology

Emmanuel Ortiz

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Jose N. Franco-Riquelme

RUDN Journal of Agronomy and Animal Industries

Alcio Manoel de Sousa Figueiredo

Roald Verhoeff

Mutation Research Letters

Amine Mohamed

egehukukofisi egehukukofisi

IEEE Communications Letters

Oren Somekh

Vektora : Jurnal Vektor dan Reservoir Penyakit

Ahi Evran International Conference on Scientific Research 30 November-1-2 December, 2021

Dr. Osman ORAL

The Proceedings of the Materials and processing conference

Mitsuhiko Asakawa

Esther Hartman

Shawn Goh Goh

arXiv (Cornell University)

Seana Coulson

R. Perricone, Imaginis tempora currunt

Lorenzo Verderame

ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR

Michael Adeniyi

MIX: JURNAL ILMIAH MANAJEMEN

Damar Setiawan

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

File(s) under embargo

until file(s) become available

Development of Innovative Hardwood Products

In response to the growing significance of wood as a sustainable resource and the challenges within the wood products industry, there is a pressing need for innovation and collaboration across sectors. This study underscores the importance of mapping the wood products industry to gain a comprehensive understanding of material flows, which is essential for educational and research endeavors. The findings aim to uncover new economic opportunities and advocate for sustainable resource management. To address the complexities of the wood products industry, we developed a Generic Map, including a version tailored for the U.S. hardwood sector. Moreover, Dive-in Chain Maps were introduced to elaborate on the main production chains: Sawmill (I), Veneer Mill (II), Reconstituted Wood Manufacturing (III), and Pulp and Paper Mill (IV).

The study suggests four strategies to augment the value of hardwood through production, design, material modification, and by-products management. We showcased some strategies through two case studies.

The first focuses on Cross-laminated Timber (CLT), demonstrating value addition to hardwood. We conducted a literature review on the availability of raw materials in the US region and evaluated their performance across various stages of laboratory testing. This was followed by evaluating the feasibility and environmental effects of utilizing yellow poplar for CLT production. Additionally, we compared the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) outcomes of yellow poplar CLT with those of traditional softwood CLT. This comparison aims to provide further insights for developing future by-product management or end-of-life strategies.

The second case study examines thermal modification, proposing an innovative method for efficient thermal treatment and employing an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model to analyze the correlation between temperature, duration, and color change. We also compared the physical and mechanical properties of surface thermally treated samples to those of traditionally treated ones, discussing how different thermal treatments affect material properties.

Our findings illuminate the path for effective material flow and utilization, unveiling avenues for innovation and the creation of high-value products. Furthermore, the study provides strategies for waste minimization and informed end-of-life decision-making, thereby enhancing circularity and sustainability in the wood products industry.

Degree Type

• Doctor of Philosophy
• Forestry and Natural Resources

Campus location

• West Lafayette

Advisor/Supervisor/Committee Chair

Additional committee member 2, additional committee member 3, additional committee member 4, usage metrics.

• Forestry sciences not elsewhere classified