successfactorsofnew productdevelopment:a ...cin.ufpe.br/~hsf/referencial teorico/success factors of...

March 2002

Holger Ernst is from theOtto BeisheimGraduateSchool ofManagement(WissenschaftlicheHochschule fÏrUnternehmensfÏhrungWHU), Burgplatz 2, D-56179Vallendar,Germany.

ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd 2002,108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX41JF, UK and 350 Main Street,Malden, MA 02148, USA

Success factors of newproduct development: areview of the empiricalliteratureHolger Ernst

The continuous development andmarket introduction of new products can be an importantdeterminantof sustained companyperformance. For approximately 30 years, conceptual andempirical researchhasbeenundertakento identify thecritical success factorsofnewproducts.This paper reviews the findings of empirical work into the success factors of new productdevelopment (NPD). It is the prime objective of this work to summarize the most importantfindings in a compact and structured way. In addition, shortcomings of previous empiricalwork on NPD success factors will be discussed and suggestions for improvement in futureempirical NPD studieswill bemade.

Introduction

The continuous development and marketintroduction of new products is an importantde terminant o f sus ta ined companyperformance (Blundellet al. 1999; Brockhoff1999b; Caponet al. 1990; Chaney andDevinney 1992; Urban and Hauser 1993).Although new products open up newopportunities for companies, the substantialrisk associated with these new products shouldnot be neglected. Empirical studies thus pointto high failure rates of new products,especially in consumer markets (Brockhoff1999b; Crawford 1987; Urban and Hauser1993). It is therefore obvious that managementis highly interested in learning about those

factors which impact the success of newproducts. The identification of these factorsbased on empirical research is the objective ofsuccess factor studies in new productdevelopment (NPD). These works will bereferred to as NPD research or NPD studiesthroughout this paper. Management can usethe results of NPD research, e.g. by means ofbenchmarking, in order to improve NPDactivities in their respective firms. Becauseof its direct practical relevance as well as itsinherent appeal to researchers, it is notsurprising that NPD research has retained ahigh level of popularity over the last 30 years.Figure 1 shows that empirical NPD researchstill receives great attention in the scientificcommunity today.

International Journal of Management Reviews Volume 4 Issue 1 pp. 1–40 1

It is the prime objective of this work topresenta compactsummaryof the resultstodate of empirical studies into the successfactors of new products.1 Becauseof thenumerousworksavailableon this topic, a factexpressedin the manypublicationsof reviewarticlesandmeta-analyses(Alberset al. 2001;BalachandraandFriar 1997;Hauschildt1993;Johne and Snelson1988; Lilien and Yoon1989; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone1994;Mowery andRosenberg1979),it is advisableto limit and structureour presentation.Thiscannot be accomplishedby referring to atheoreti cal model of determinants ofinnovationsuccess,asthis is not yet availablein the field of innovationresearch.Hauschildtaccuratelyobserves:

It has already been demonstrated during thedevelopment of our organizational framework,that a universallyvalid theoretical frameworkforthenetworkof correlations[betweenvariablesandsuccessfulinnovation,addedby the author] doesnot exist. Two consequencesarise: on the onehand,onecannotbecertainthatall relevantfactorshavebeenconsidered;on theotherhand,oneis notin a positionto dismissdefinitively thosevariables

which have repeatedlyproved to be meaninglessandnot worthyof consideration.(Hauschildt1993,320)

We limit our analysesto thoseworks whichhave empirically analysed the relationshipbetween potential success factors and thesuccessof new products on the basis ofrelatively large samplesand which containexplicit information about the statisticalsignificance of the empirical results. Thus,we shall excludestudieswhich simply askforsuccessfactors(e.g.Booz et al. 1982;Edgettet al. 1992), casestudies(e.g. de Cotiis andDyer 1979) and work undertakenwithout anexplicit focuson the successof new products(e.g. Womack et al. 1990). Furthermore,results of empirical NPD research whichmay be relevantat the programmelevel willbepresentedhereasthesearemoregeneralinnature (Cooper and Kleinschmidt 1995a;Montoya-Weiss and Calantone 1994).Consequently, project or product-specificsuccessfactors such as a relative productadvantageor the competitivesituationat thetime of the introductionof the productto themarketwill not be discussedhere.2 A further

Success factors ofnew productdevelopment: areview of theempirical literature

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Source: Business Source Premier

Figure 1. Annual development of publications in referred international journals on success factors ofnew products (1994^1999).

2

selectioncriterion is the extent to which thesuccess factors under examination can beinf luenced by management. Hauschi ldt(1993) differentiates betweenexternal back-grounddata(suchassocio-political continuityor the legal system)which mustbe viewedbythe organization as given, and internalbackgrounddata (such as the legal form orthe size of the organization), which cannotdirectly be changed by management. Bothaspectswill be excluded from the followingundertaking, and we shall focus entirely onthosefactorswhich canbeinstantlyinfluencedby management.The meta-studiesaddressedearlier verify that management can influencethesuccessof a newproductthrougha numberof internalactivities.Thecompanyis typicallytied up in a network of potential competitorsand/or partners (Hauschildt 1997; Walter1998). In addition to internal organizationalelementswhich shapenew product develop-ment, certain external relationships can alsoexert a considerable influenceon the successof new products. However, with the exceptionof customerintegration into NPD, all otherexternal factors are disregarded. Thus, itbecomes very clear that the fol lowingdiscussionof the findings of previous NPDresearch to date cannot claim to be all-encompassing.

Thereremainsconsiderablemethodologicaldivergenceamong the individual works, inparticular with regard to the sample, themethodsof data analysesand the measure-ment of new product success (Hauschildt1991).3 Becauseof its central importance,the latter aspectis takeninto considerationtothe extent that we will report the successmeasuresused in each empirical study andthatwe discussdeviationsof thefindingswithrespectto the specific successmeasures.It isfurther problematic that the ‘ degree ofnewness’of an innovationis either not at allor not consistently defined in the variousempirical studiesand that consequently,thecomparability of the findings is somewhatlimited. In particular,onecannotdisregardthepossibil i ty that the ‘degree of newness’

especiallyat the project level exercisessomei nf l uence on the organi zat i on andmanagementof NPD (HauschildtandSchlaak2001;Schlaak1999).

In order to structureour presentation,weuse f ive broad categories (Cooper andKleinschmidt 1995a),where we will look atfurther variables in each of the individualcategories: (1) NPD process (includingcustomerintegration);4 (2) organization;(3)culture; (4) role and commitment of seniormanagementand(5) strategy.The findings ofthe selected NPD-studies are categorizedaccordingly and are subsequentlypresentedin the secondsection.The relevantworks byCooper and Kleinschmidt are addressedseparatelywithin eachcategory.5 This makesit easierfor the readerto acquirean overviewof thenumerousworksof theseauthors,whichareoften basedon the samedata.In addition,both authorshave had a profound effect onNPD researchand are amongthe most citedresearchersin the area of NPD. Importantinformation concerning the NPD studies,especial l y about the sample and themeasurementof NP success,as well as asummary of the essential f indings, aresummarizedin the tables. Thus, we do notrepeatthe findings in detail againin the text.Ratherwe limit ourselvesto commentingonthe respectivetables.

Success Factors of New ProductDevelopment

NPD Process

Table 1 summarizesthe resultsof Cooper’sandKleinschmidt’swork concerningtheNPDprocess.From the early work at the projectlevel (New ProdI) until the endof the 1970s,we canclearlyseethat two aspectshavehadasignificantpositiveinfluenceon thesuccessofnewproducts.Theseare(1) theproficiencyofactivities carriedout in the individual phasesof new product development,especially indevelopment, test marketing and marketintroduction, and (2) the use of market

March 2002


3

Success

factors

of

new

produ

ctdevelop

men

t:areview

ofthe

empiricalliterature

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 1. Empirical results: NPD process (Cooper and Kleinschmidt)

Publication Success measure Main results

NewProd I: 103 companies; 195 projects (102 successes/93 failures); written questionnaire about 77 characteristics of NPD projects; industrial products; Canada

Cooper, 1979a, 1980a Analysis of variance between successful andunsuccessful projects

1. Proficiency of NPD process activities (+), esp. regarding the following aspects:● Market launch● prototype test with customer● test marketing-trial sell

2. Information acquired (+), esp. regarding the following aspects:● Knowledge of customers' price sensitivity● understanding of buyer behaviour● knowledge of customers' needs, wants and specifications for the product

Cooper, 1979b, 1980b Reduction of independent variables to 18factors; discriminant analysis betweensuccessful and unsuccessful projects

1. Market knowledge and marketing proficiency (+)2. Proficiency of development activities (+)3. Proficiency of market launch (+)

Intermediate studies: 122 companies; NPD programme; written questionnaire about 66 characteristics of NPD programme; industrial products; Canada

Cooper, 1983 Reduction of 8 success variables to 3 successdimensions:1. Overall performance2. Success rate3. ImpactCorrelation analyses between the successdimensions and 66 variables

1. Extensive use of market research studies (+; 1, 2)2. Strong market orientation of the NPD process (+; 1)

Cooper, 1984b, c, d,1986

Cluster analysis based on 3 success dimensions(Cooper, 1983):1. Top performer2. High impact firms3. High success (low impact firms)4. Low success (low impact firms)5. Worst performer19 strategy dimensions out of 66 variables;analyses of variance between 5 clusters

Significant characteristics of `top performer':1. Strong market orientation (+), esp. regarding the following aspects:

● very strong market research efforts● proactive in identifying customer needs

2. Customness (ÿ). Firms that develop custom products, which are aimed at a fewcustomers, have an inferior relative performance

4

March

2002

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

NewProd II: 125 companies; 203 projects (123 successes/80 failures); written questionnaire about 40 characteristics of NPD projects; industrial products; Canada

Cooper andKleinschmidt, 1986;Cooper, 1988, 1990

4 success variables:1. Overall success rate (profitability)2. Payback period3. Domestic market share4. Foreign market shareCorrelation analyses between 13 NPD processactivities and success

Positive impact on profitability (+, 1):1. Initial screening2. Preliminary market/technical assessment3. Detailed market study/marketing research4. Business/financial analysis5. Product development6. In-house product testing7. Formal market launch stage8. A complete new product process

Cooper andKleinschmidt, 1987a;Cooper, 1990

10 success measures:1. Profitability level2. Payback period3. Domestic market share4. Foreign market share5. Relative sales6. Relative profits7. Sales objectives8. Profit objectives9. Opportunity window on new categories10. Opportunity window on newmarkets13 constructs out of 40 variables; correlationanalyses between constructs and successmeasures

Positive impact on profitability (+, 1):1. Proficiency of pre-development activities, esp. regarding the following aspects:

● initial screening● preliminary market/technical assessment● detailed market study/marketing research● business or financial analysis

2. Protocol, esp. regarding the following aspects:● well-defined target market● customer's needs, wants and preferences well defined● product concept well defined● product specifications and requirements well defined

3. Proficiency of market-related activities, esp. regarding the following aspects:● preliminary market assessment● detailed market study/marketing research● customer test of prototype or sample● trial selling/test market● market launch

4. Proficiency of technological activities, esp. regarding the following aspects:● preliminary technical assessment● product development● in-house product testing● trial pilot production● production start up

Cooper andKleinschmidt, 1987b, c

Reduction of 8 success variables to 3 successdimensions:1. Financial performance2. Opportunity window3. Market shareCorrelation analyses between NPDcharacteristics and 3 success dimensions:

1. Protocol or project definition prior to product development (+, 1), esp. regardingthe following aspects:● clearly defined target market● customer's needs, wants and preferences well defined● product concept well defined● product specifications and requirements well defined

5

Success

factors

of

new

produ

ctdevelop

men

t:areview

ofthe

empiricalliterature

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 1. Continued


Studies in the international chemical industry: 21 companies; 103 projects (68 successes/35 failures); written questionnaire about 298 characteristics of NPDprojects; chemical industry; Canada, USA and Great Britain

Cooper andKleinschmidt, 1993b

Successful and unsuccessful projects; overallsuccess measure (OS; 0ÿ10 scale); correlationanalyses

1. Quality of execution of the activities that comprise the innovation process (+),esp. regarding the following aspects:● initial screening● preliminary market assessment● detailed market study● test market/trial sell● pilot or trial production● pre-commercialization business analysis

2. Product definition prior to development (+), esp. regarding the followingaspects:● target market defined● product concept/features defined● benefits of products to customer clear● positioning strategy defined

Cooper andKleinschmidt, 1993c

Reduction of 8 success variables into 2 successdimensions:1. Financial index (FT)2. Cycle time (CT)Correlation analyses with 95 NPD projectcharacteristics

Positive impact on financial index (+, 1):1. Sharp, early product definition (e.g. target market, product concept etc.)2. Quality of executing pivotal activities (e.g. initial screening, preliminary market

and technical assessment, business and financial analysis)3. Strong market orientation of NPD process4. Overall quality of activities along the entire NPD process

Cooper, 1994 Reduction of variables into 13 constructs; splitof projects into 3 groups (top/mid/bottom)according to the 13 constructs; analyses ofvariance between the 3 groups with respect to8 single success measures

Positive impact on profitability (+):1. Quality of marketing actions2. Quality of pre-development activities3. Sharp and early product definition4. Market launch effectiveness

Cooper andKleinschmidt, 1994

Reduction of independent variables into 10constructs; 2 success dimensions for measuringspeed:1. Staying on schedule2. Time efficiencyVarious multivariate analyses (correlations,analysis of variance)

Positive impact on speed (+):1. Up-front homework (initial screening, preliminary technical and market

assessment, full-fledged market research, market research to understandcustomers' needs, competitive analysis, test of market acceptance, detailedbusiness and financial analysis)

2. Strong market orientation (early customer involvement, market research forproduct design, work closely with the customer, well-planned customer tests andfield trials)

3. Product definition before `go to development' (define target market, productconcept, benefits to customer, positioning strategy, product specifications)

6

March

2002

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002


Reduction of success variables into 2 successdimensions:1. Financial performance2. Time performanceCluster analysis based on the successdimensions:1. Stars2. Technical success3. Fast hits4. Fast dogs5. Big losers13 constructs measuring the characteristics ofthe NPD projects; analyses of variance betweenthe 5 clusters

Significant characteristics of `stars':1. Quality of execution of the homework activities (+), esp. regarding the following

aspects:● initial screening of product idea● preliminary market assessment● business and financial analysis prior to development

2. Quality of execution of the marketing task (+), esp. regarding the followingaspects:● preliminary market assessment● detailed market study or market research● customer test/field trial of the product● market launch

3. Early sharp project definition (+), esp. regarding the following aspects: (clearlydefined prior to development):● target market, project concept, benefits to customer, positioning, productfeatures


Success measures:1. Success rate2. Profitability rating3. Technical success rating4. Domestic market share5. Impact on company6. Time efficiency7. On time project12 constructs measuring the characteristics ofthe NPD projects; correlation analyses

1. Quality of execution (+), esp. regarding the following aspects:● quality of execution of marketing activities (1ÿ7)● quality of execution of technical activities (1, 2, 3, 6, 7)● quality of execution of market launch (1, 2, 3, 5)

2. Pre-development homework (+, 1ÿ7)3. Sharp and early product definition (+, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7)

Latest international study: 135 companies; NPD programme; written questionnaire about 48 characteristics of NPD programme; industrial products; Canada, USAand Europe

Cooper andKleinschmidt, 1995a,1996

2 success dimensions out of 10 single successvariables:1. Programme impact (sales)2. Programme profitabilityCluster analysis based on the 2 successdimensions:1. Solid performer2. High-impact technical winners3. Low-impact performer4. DogsReduction of independent variables into 9constructs; analysis of variance (t-tests)

Significant characteristics of `solid-performer' (+):1. High-quality product process (construct), esp. regarding the following aspects:

● quality of process execution● completeness and thoroughness● emphasis on up-front work (pre-development)● sharp, early product definition (prior to development work)● tough go-kill decisions points where projects really get killed● flexibility of process● strong market orientation

7

information along the entire NPD process(marketorientation).The latter aspectis con-firmed in a follow-up study at the companylevel. It is interestingto mentionthat intenseconcentrationof newproductdevelopmentona few customers(‘customness’)hasa negativeinfluence on success. Obviously, ‘marketorientationof theNPDprocess’and‘customerintegrationinto newproductdevelopment’aretwo distinctively different aspects.The latterneednot alwayshavea positive influenceonthe successof newproducts(Brockhoff 1997,1998).

In laterwork at theprojectlevel (New ProdII), the contentsof the NPD processare sub-divided into moredetailedphases.It is shownthat,in particular,thepreparatorywork for theprojectin theearlyphasesof theNPD process(‘initial screening’, ‘preliminary market andtechnical assessment’)are decisive for thesuccessof new products. Furthermore,thecommercialevaluationof the intendedNPDproject before the actual development isundertakenis also necessary.The successfactors identified in previous papers areconfirmed. The orientation along phasesinCooper’s and Kleinschmidt’s ‘Stage GateModel’ is noteworthy. In this regard, it isimportant to emphasizethat the phasemodelcannotbeunderstoodfrom today’sperspectivein a stringent, sequential form. Rather,overlapping and parallel activities in NPD,e.g. in concurrentengineering,do occur inNPD (Brockhoff 1999a,b).Nonetheless,thenasnow,theideaof phasesretainsa conceptualmeaning by structuring actions and theircontentin the courseof NPD.6

Thefindingsdiscussedaboveareconfirmedby the study in the international chemicalindustry. In one of the works of CooperandKleinschmidt (1993c), the essenceof theirfindings becomesclear. Four aspectshave apositiveinfluenceon thefinancialsuccessof anew product: (1) clear definition of theproductbefore developmentbegins– amongother things, the product concept and thetargetmarketneedto be clearly defined; (2)high-quality preparatorywork on the project,

in which the ideais initially broadlydefined–subsequently, more detailed technical andmarket-orientedfeasibility studies,alongwitha commercialevaluationof the NPD projectmustbeconducted;(3) clearorientationof theNPD processto marketdemands,principallyin the form of market researchactivity andobservationof the competition; and (4) theexistenceof a high-qualityNPDprocess.Withreferenceto the third point, the differencebetween market orientation of the NPDprocessandexplicit customerintegrationintoproduct developmentbecomesblurred. Theindividual variablesand the summarizingofthese variables into groups leads to theassumption that, basical ly, the marketorientationof the NPD processis measured.By definition, this serves the purpose ofconsultation with the customer leading toher/his inclusion into the NPD process.Atthis point, it becomesapparent,that the formof customerintegrationinto the NPD processneedsto be definedbetter.Hence,it is worthdifferentiating between different types ofcustomers (Brockhoff 1998) in order todeveloptheappropriateframeworkto measurecustomerintegrationinto NPD adequately.

In themostrecentinternationalstudyat thecompany level, the aforementionedsuccessfactorsreappear.To thesetheflexibility of theNPD processand the decisionto terminateaproject during the NPD process must beadded. In this study, market orientation oftheNPDprocessandcustomerintegrationintothe NPD processare explicitly differentiated,where the latter variable does not influencesuccess.7

Table2 summarizesthefindingsof all otherauthorswith respectto the NPD process.Onthe whole, one can see that these findingsbarely differ from those of Cooper andKleinschmidt. A partial explanationfor thismay be traced to the fact that many of theauthorsreliedonCooper’sandKleinschmidt’spreliminaryconceptualwork (e.g.deBrentani1989; Calantone et al. 1997; Dwyer andMellor 1991a,b;Kotzbauer1992; Mishra etal. 1996; Parry and Song 1994; Song and



8

Parry1996,1997).8 Basically,theresultsshowthat the existenceof a formal NPD process,which is comprehensiveandcharacterizedbyprofessional ism throughout the process,especiallyin termsof evaluationandselectionof new ideas (e.g. Kotzbauer 1992),development(e.g. Parry and Song1994) andmarket introduction (e.g. Schmalen andWiedemann1999), has a positive effect onthe successof new products(e.g.de Brentani1989; Griffin 1997; Song and Parry 1996).9

Within the NPD process, the fol lowingactivities and/or contents are of specificimportancefor the successof new products:

(1) The quality of planningbeforeentry intothe development phase: the necessarypreparationsfor the project include, inparticular, the first broad evaluation ofideas, the execution of technical andmarket-directedfeasibility studiesand acommercial evaluation of the NPDproject. Beyond this, the product con-cept, the target market and the relativeutility gain for the customerby usingthenew product as opposed to the com-peting product all need to be clearlydescribed.(e.g. Barczak1995; Calantoneet al. 1997; Dwyer and Mellor 1991a,b;Maidique and Zirger 1984; Mishra et al.1996; Kotzbauer1992; Parry and Song1994; Rothwell et al. 1974; Song andParry 1996, 1997; Souder andChakrabarti1978).

(2) The continuous commercial assessmentof the NPD project during all phasesofthe NPD process (Dwyer and Mellor1991b; Parry and Song 1994; Song andParry 1996): this can, in the senseof aprocess-oriented controlling approach,serve as the basis for the decisionwhether to terminatea project at certainmilestones. The timely and consequenttermination of unprofitable NPD projectswas earlier identified as an importantsuccessfactor (Cooperand Kleinschmidt1995a). The initial selection decisionmade before entering the development

stage is of decisiveimportance (Rothwellet al. 1974;SongandParry1996).

(3) The orientationof the NPD processto theneeds of the market (Atuahene-Gima1995; Souderet al. 1997). This refers tothe quality of market research with refer-enceto the understanding and evaluationof customer needs (e.g. Mishra et al.1995; Parry and Song 1994; Schmalenand Wiedemann 1999), the accurateprognosis of the market potential (e.g.Balbontin et al. 1999; Maidique andZirger 1984), the observationof the com-petition (e.g. Calantoneand di Benedetto1988; Mishra et al. 1996), the executionof test markets (e.g. Dwyer and Mellor1991a,b) etc. Ideally, this informationshould be updatedduring the course ofthe entire NPD process(Rothwell et al.1974).

(4) One must distinguish between marketorientation and customerintegration intoNPD. The guidelines for measuringcustomerorientation lead one to assumethat, as in the work of Cooper andKleinschmidt, it is in principle intendedto capture whether the NPD processisaligned with the needsof the customerand/or the market. Thus, it can beassumed that the consistently positivefindings reflect the previously discussedimportance of market orientation forNPD success (e.g. de Brentani 1989;Maidique and Zirger 1984; Rothwell etal. 1974; Utterback et al. 1976). In thesenseof Brockhoff’s (1998) framework,in which customersare classifiedaccord-ing to their variouscontributionsto NPD,customers in the aforementionedstudiesare understoodas ‘demanders’, who, inthe classical sense of market research,make their needsknown and thus offerideas for product development. Theexplicit integration of pilot customersintothe NPD process as active figures orsolution-providers in the senseof ‘LeadUsers’ (Hippel 1986) is not considered.

March 2002


9

Success

factors

of

new

produ

ctdevelop

men

t:areview

ofthe

empiricalliterature

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 2. Empirical results: NPD process (other authors)

Publication Level of analyses, n Success measure Main results

Atuahene-Gima,1995

Programme, n� 275 Building of 2 success dimensions frommultiplesuccess variables:1. Market performance2. Project performance

1. Market orientation (+), esp. regarding the following aspects:● collection and use of market information● development of market-oriented strategy● implementation of market-oriented strategy

Balbontin et al.,1999

Project, n� 208 Selection of successful and unsuccessful projectsby respondents

1. Good proficiency of marketing and design activities (+)2. Accurate market forecasts and predictions about customer

requirements (+)

Barczak, 1995 Programme, n� 140 Reduction of 6 success variables into one successdimension: performance index

1. A professional NPD process, esp. regarding the followingaspect (+):● screening ideas

De Brentani,1989

Project, n� 276 Reduction of 16 success variables into 4 successdimension:1. Sales and market share performance2. Competitive performance3. `Other booster'4. Cost performance

1. Strong market/customer orientation (+, 1, 3)2. Existence of a NPD process (+, 1, 2, 4)

Calantone anddi Benedetto,1988

Project, n� 189 Selection of successful and unsuccessful projects(from a profitability standpoint) by respondents

1. Marketing activities (+), esp. regarding the followingaspects:● marketing resources and skills● competitive and market intelligence

2. Technical activities (+), esp. regarding the following aspects:● technical resources and skills● competitive and market intelligence

Calantone et al.,1997

Project, n� 142 Selection of successful and unsuccessful projects(from a profitability standpoint) by respondents

1. Predevelopment marketing activities (+)2. Predevelopment technical activities (+)3. Marketing activities (+)4. Technical activities (+)

Dwyer andMellor, 1991a

Project, n� 95 Selection of successful and unsuccessful projectsby respondents; 3 success measures:1. Profitability level2. Sales3. Opportunity window

1. Initial screening (+, 1ÿ3)2. Preliminary market and technical assessment (+, 1ÿ3)3. Product development (+, 1ÿ3)4. Trial production (+, 1)5. Test market/trial sell/market launch (+, 2)

10

March

2002

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Dwyer andMellor, 1991b

Project, n� 114 Selection of successful and unsuccessful projectsby respondents; 3 success measures:1. Profitability level2. Sales3. Opportunity window

1. Initial screening (+, 1, 2)2. Preliminary market and technical assessment (+, 1, 2)3. Product development (+, 1, 2, 3)4. Production start up (+, 1, 2)5. Pre-commercialization business analysis (+, 1, 2)6. Customer tests, test market/trial sell, market launch (+, 2)

Griffin, 1997 Programme, n� 383 4 success dimensions out of 7 single economicsuccess variables:1. Overall success2. Relative success3. Market success4. Financial successClassification of firms in `Best' and `Rest' based onthe 4 success dimensions

Significant differences between `Best' (+) and `Rest' (ÿ):1. Existence of a formal NPD process where the `Best' include

any particular step in the NPD process

Gruner andHomburg, 1999

Project, n� 310 4 success dimensions out of 16 single economicsuccess variables:1. New product quality2. Economic success with new product3. Quality of NPD process4. Cost advantages derived from new productCluster analysis based on the 4 successdimensions; `Big hits' and `flops' form the basisfor further analyses

Significant differences between `Big hits' (+) and `Flops' (ÿ) are:1. Intensity of customer involvement in:

● idea generation● concept development● assessment and selection of prototypes● market launch

2. Characteristics of customers involved in NPD:● high economic attractiveness● lead-user characteristics● scope of business relationship with customer

Kotzbauer, 1992 Project, n� 120 Selection of successful and unsuccessful projectsby respondents; 3 success measures:1. Market success2. Financial success3. Strategic success

1. Marketing impact (Degree and efficiency of marketingactivities) (+, 1, 2, 3)

2. Planning quality (planning prior to development: earlydefinition of target market, analysis of customerrequirements, development of product concept, assessmentof technical specifications) (+, 1, 2)

Maidique andZirger, 1984

Project, n� 158 (118) Selection of successful and unsuccessful projectsby respondents (achievement of financialbreakeven)

1. Successful innovations were planned more effectively andefficiently (+), esp. regarding the following aspects:● formalized on paper soon● forecast more accurately (market)● developed with a clearer market strategy

2. Better matched with user needs (+)

11

Success

factors

of

new

produ

ctdevelop

men

t:areview

ofthe

empiricalliterature

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 2. Continued


Mishra and Kimand Lee, 1996

Project, n� 288 Selection of successful and unsuccessful projectsby marketing managers

1. Impact of proficiency of the formal NPD activities (+), esp.regarding the following aspects:● initial screening● detailed market study or market research● prototype testing in-house

2. Intelligence acquired about the market (+), esp. regardingthe following aspects:● knew customers needs, wants, and specifications for theproduct

● knew customer price sensitivity● knew competitor products strategies

Parry and Song,1994

Project, n� 258 Selection of successful and unsuccessful projectsby NPD managers

1. Proficiency of process activities (+), esp. regarding thefollowing aspects:● product development● market research● preliminary market assessment● initial screening● financial analysis

2. Information acquired during the new product process (+),esp. regarding the following aspects:● knew customers needs, wants and specifications● knew the market size

Rothwell et al.,1974

Project, n� 86 Selection of successful (commercial standpoint)and unsuccessful projects by respondents

1. Strong customer orientation (+), esp. regarding thefollowing aspects:● better understanding of customer needs● early identification of customer dissatisfaction● intensive customer training● update of customer information during the NPD process

2. Careful project selection (+)

Rubenstein etal., 1976

Project, n� 103 3 success measures:1. Technical success2. Overall economic success3. Both technical and economic success

1. Project structure and process (+), esp. regarding the followingaspects:● level of project planning (2)● clarity of performance requirements (3)

2. Availability of technical information (+, 1)3. Availability of information about characteristics of potential

market (+, 2)

12

March

2002

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Schmalen andWiedemann,1999


1. Proficiency of market launch2. Market research capabilities

Song and Parry,1997

Project, n� 1.400 3 success dimensions (see 1996):1. Relative profitability2. Relative sales3. Relative market share

1. Proficiency of activities in business/market opportunitystage (+)

Song and Parry,1996

Project, n� 788 4 success dimensions out of 12 single economicsuccess variables:1. Product profitability2. Relative sales performance3. Relative market share performance4. Window of opportunity

1. Proficiency of the predevelopment planning process (+, 1ÿ4)2. Concept development and evaluation proficiency (+, 1ÿ4)3. Market information (+, 1ÿ4)4. Technological information (+, 1ÿ4)5. Marketing research proficiency (+, 1ÿ4)

Souder andChakrabarti,1978

Project, n� 114 2 success variables:1. Commercial success2. Technical success

1. Clarity of problem definition (+, 1, 2)2. Clarity of understanding user needs (+, 1, 2)

Souder et al.,1997

Product, n� 150 Consensus of multiple respondents on the successor failure (commercial standpoint) of the project

1. Proficiency of marketing activities during the NPD process (+)2. Proficiency of technical activities during the NPD process (+)3. Marketing skills (knowledge about the market) (+)

Utterback et al.,1976


1. Market-oriented factors (+), esp. regarding the followingaspect:● project intended for specific user or end product

13

In this respect,only thework by Grunerand Homburg (1999) goes substantiallyfurther methodologically and substan-tively. In their work, the integration ofcustomers is analysed on the basis ofconstructs that measure the interactionbetween customer and manufacturer inthe different phasesof the NPD process.Furthermore, differences between cus-tomers are made according to variouscriteria. It can be seen(seeTable 2) thatthe integrationof customersinto the earlyandthe later phasesof NPD hasa positiveeffect on success.While in the earlyphasesit is a question of aligning theproduct concept with market require-ments, in the later phases, prototypetesting and support during market intro-duction gain in importance. It becomesclear that the contribution of customersduring the total NPD processcan turn outdifferently and that these contributionscan be provided by one or more cus-tomers(Brockhoff 1998). Customerswhohave participated in successful NPDprojects set themselves apart in threeways (Gruner and Homburg 1999). Theyhave(a) a high commercialattractiveness,(b) the characteristicsof a ‘Lead User’,and (c) maintained a close businessrelationshipwith the manufacturer.Thesefindings make it clear that no sweepingstatementabout the effect of customerintegration in the NPD processcan bemade(Brockhoff 1998; Hauschildt1993).As such,the conclusionsreachedin other,lesspreciseNPD works about the effectsof customerintegrationon the successofnewproductsarelessmeaningful.

Organization

From Table 3, it becomesclear that CooperandKleinschmidtdid not concernthemselveswith questionsregardingthe organizationofnew product developmentuntil their laterwork. The findings of the studiesprovide aconsistentpicture of five essentialorganiz-

ational success factors for new products.Theseare: (1) a cross-functionalNPD team;(2) a strongandresponsibleprojectleader;(3)anNPD teamwith responsibilityfor theentireproject; (4) the commitment of the projectleader and the team membersto the NPDproject; and (5) intensive communicationamong team membersduring the courseofthe NPD process.

Table 4 summarizesthe findings from allotherauthorson the organizationof the NPDprocess.Generally, one can see that thesefindings hardly differ from thoseof CooperandKleinschmidt.In principal, the successofnewproductsdependsonthetypeandstrengthof a project organization for NPD in acompany.10 The following individual aspectsshouldbe highlighted:

(1) A number of works verify that the pro-ject teamshouldcomprisemembersfromseveralareasof expertisewho can makesubstantial contributions to the develop-ment of a new product (Griffin 1997;Pinto and Pinto 1990; Song et al. 1997;Song and Parry 1997). This teamincludes,aboveall, membersfrom R&D,Marketing and Production (Song et al.1997). The formation of a cross-functional project teamcanbe seenasaninstrument to overcome organizationalinterfaces (Brockhoff 1994). Cross-func-tional project teamsfoster interfunctionalcommunication and co-operation which,in turn, promotesuccess(Balbontin et al.1999; Maidique and Zirger 1984; Yapand Souder 1994). As a result, cross-functional teamshave both a direct andan indirect effect on the success of newproducts.11

(2) The project leader has an obviouslyimportant role. S/he must demonstratethe necessaryqualifications(Balbontinetal. 1999), commandsufficient authority(SchmalenandWiedemann1999)andbeable to devotesufficient attentionto theproject (Cooper and Kleinschmidt1995a). The authority of the project



14

leader is reflected especially in thesuccess with which s/he commandsindividuals from the various areas ofexpertiseand in the mannerin which theresponsibility for decision-making isdelegatedto the project level.12

(3) Closely related to this last aspectis theautonomyor areaof responsibilitygivento the NPD team, including the projectleader. Some studies have shown thatautonomy for the NPD team has apositive effect on team performanceandthe successof the NPD project (Gerwinand Moffat 1997; Thamhain1990). Theteam should bear responsibility for theentire NPD process and not only forparts of it (Cooper and Kleinschmidt1995a).

(4) Commitment of the project leader andthe team membersto the NPD projectinfluence its success(Balachandra1984;Thamhain1990). One must assumethatthis aspectis not to be viewed indepen-dently of the aforementionedorganiz-ationalsuccessfactors.13

(5) Successful NPD projects are charac-terized through intensivecommunicationand interactive relationships (e.g. thesharing of information and projectmeetings) among the members of theNPD team (Balachandraet al. 1996;Ebadi and Utterback 1984; Rothwell etal. 1974; Souderand Chakrabarti1978;Thamhain1990).Again, one may expectthat theseaspectsare not independentofthe previously mentionedorganizationalsuccessfactors.14

(6) Finally, one must ask what form ofproject organizationought to be chosenin order to enable the aforementionedsuccessfactors to come into effect. Inthe work of Larson and Gobeli (1988),both matrix and task force models aresuitable for project organizations,whilein Barczak’s(1995)work, the latter formof projectorganizationis the only one tohave a positive effect on the successofthe new product. Decisive in Barczak’s

(1995) findings could be that in thetelecommunicationindustry, which shestudies, time to market is of centralimportance.In this case,the task forcemodel emergesas the superior form ofproject organization for new productdevelopment(Hauschildt1997).15

Culture

Tables5 and6 illustratetheempiricalfindingsof NPD studies with respect to culturalaspects.A few NPD studies show that theexistence of a systematic scheme forsuggestingnew products,separatefrom othercompany-basedsuggestionschemes,canhavea positive influence on the successof newproducts (Barczak 1995; Cooper 1984b,c,d,1986;CooperandKleinschmidt1995a).16 Aninnovation-friendly climate in the organi-zation together with risk-taking behaviourhave occasionally been identified as beingrelevantto success(Voss 1985). In the mostrecent work by Cooper and Kleinschmidt(1995a), the construct ‘ entrepreneurialclimate’ is measuredthrough four variables.In addition to the aforementionedschemeforsuggestingideas, the following aspectsareexamined:(1) the possibility for employees,particularlythosein R&D, to usea setportionof their work day for independent workdeveloping their own ideas; (2) support forwork on unofficial projectswhich may havealreadybeenstoppedby management;and(3)the availability of internal ‘venturecapital’ toassistthe realizationof creativeideas.

3M Corporation is a prominentexampleofthe first two aspects.In an interview on thefi rm’s strategy the ‘Chairman’ of 3M, deSimone, stressed, among other things:‘‘Researchersare allowed to devote 15% oftheir time to projectsthat pique their interest,eventhoseon which managementhasalreadypulled the plug . . . If you want to encourageinnovation,you haveto closeyour eyeswhenpeopleareso excitedabouta project that theyrefuseto stop,’’ hesaid, noting thatThinsulate,a big-selling clothing insulation material,

March 2002


15

Success

factors

of

new

produ

ctdevelop

men

t:areview

ofthe

empiricalliterature

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 3. Empirical results: organizational aspects of NPD (Cooper and Kleinschmidt)



Cooper andKleinschmidt,1993b

Successful and unsuccessful projects; overall successmeasure (OS; 0–10 scale); correlation analyses

1. Existence of a strong and accountable project leader (+)2. Existence of a multidisciplinary (Marketing, R&D, Production) NPD team (+)3. Team carried project from beginning to end no hands off (+)

Cooper andKleinschmidt,1993c

Reduction of 8 success variables into 2 successdimensions:1. Financial index (FT)2. Cycle time (CT)Correlation analyses with 95 NPD project characteristics

1. Organization around a cross-functional new product team (+, 1, 2)2. Teamwas accountable for project from beginning to end (+, 1, 2)

Cooper, 1994 Reduction of variables into 13 constructs; split ofprojects into 3 groups (top/mid/bottom) according tothe 13 constructs; analyses of variance between the 3groups with respect to 8 single success measures

Positive impact on profitability (+):1. Cross-functional team approach, esp. regarding the following aspects:

● dedicated and focused cross-functional team● accountability for the entire project● strong project champion● (top management commitment and support)

Cooper andKleinschmidt,1994

Reduction of independent variables into 10 constructs;2 success dimensions for measuring speed:1. Staying on schedule2. Time efficiencyVarious multivariate analyses (correlations, analysis ofvariance)

Positive impact on speed (+):1. Project organization (cross-functional and accountable team, strong leader,

dedicated team)

Cooper andKleinschmidt,1995c

Reduction of success variables into 2 success dimensions:1. Financial performance2. Time performanceCluster analysis based on the success dimensions:1. Stars2. Technical success3. Fast hits4. Fast dogs5. Big losers13 constructs measuring the characteristics of the NPDprojects; analyses of variance between the 5 clusters

Significant characteristics of `Fast hits':1. Project organization, esp. regarding the following aspects:

● project undertaken by cross-functional team● strong champion drove the project● same team for entire project● dedicated teams

16

March

2002

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Cooper andKleinschmidt,1995b

Success measures:1. Success rate2. Profitability rating3. Technical success rating4. Domestic market share5. Impact on company6. Time efficiency7. On time project12 constructs measuring the characteristics of the NPDprojects; correlation analyses

1. Cross-functional new product team (+, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7)


Cooper andKleinschmidt,1995a, 1996

2 success dimensions out of 10 single success variables:1. Programme impact (sales)2. Programme profitabilityCluster analysis based on the 2 success dimensions:1. Solid performer2. High-impact technical winners3. Low-impact performer4. DogsReduction of independent variables into 9 constructs;analysis of variance (t-tests)

Significant characteristics of `solid-performer' (+):1. High quality development teams (construct), esp. regarding the following

aspects:● dedicated project leader (project leaders did not have a multitude of projectsunderway at once)

● frequent communication and teammeetings● efficient decisions (decisions from outside the teamwere handled efficientlywith a minimum of bureaucracy)

2. Cross-functional teams (construct), esp. regarding the following aspects:● every project had an assigned team of players● team was multifunctional, i.e. players from different functions in the company● all projects had an identifiable and accountable team leader● project leader and teamwere accountable for all facets of the project

17

Success

factors

of

new

produ

ctdevelop

men

t:areview

ofthe

empiricalliterature

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 4. Empirical results: organizational aspects of NPD (other authors)




1. High level of information flow/contact between technicaland commercial entities (+)

2. Project manager with necessary (management, marketing,technical) skills (+)

Balachandra,1984

Project, n� 114 Selection of successful and unsuccessful(termination) projects by respondents

1. Commitment of teammembers to the project (+, notermination)

Balachandra etal., 1996


1. Frequency of use of different methods of communicatingproject decisions (+, no termination), esp. regarding thefollowing aspects:● meetings with project members● information of project managers


1. Project team (Task Force) (+)

Ebadi andUtterback, 1984

Project, n� 117 Selection of successful (technical, commercial) andunsuccessful projects by respondents

1. Frequency of communication within the project team

Gerwin andMoffat, 1997

Project, n� 53 3 success dimensions out of 7 single economicsuccess variables:1. Task measures2. Task oriented process measures3. Psychosocial process measures

1. Withdrawing autonomy from a team is negatively (ÿ)associated with the team`s performance

Griffin, 1997 Programme, n� 383 4 success dimensions out of 7 single economicsuccess variables:1. Overall success2. Relative success3. Market success4. Financial successClassification of firms in `best' and `rest' based onthe 4 success dimensions

Significant differences between `Best' (+) and `Rest' (ÿ):1. Use of multi-functional teams

18

March

2002

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Johne, 1984 Programme, n� 16 Selection of 8 innovative (successful new productintroductions) and 8 non-innovative firms byexperts

Significant differences between innovative (+) and non-innovative (ÿ) firms are:1. Temporary project teams2. Loose infra-structural arrangements are functional for

initiation3. Tight infra-structural arrangements are functional for

implementation

Larson andGobeli, 1988

Project, n� 540 4 success measures:1. Meeting schedule2. Controlling cost3. Technical performance4. Overall results

1. Project teams (a project manager is put in charge of a projectteam, assigned on a full-time basis) (+, 1ÿ4)

2. Project matrix (a project manager is assigned to oversee theproject and has primary responsibility and authority forcompleting the project) (+, 1ÿ4)



1. More experienced project team (+)2. Developed by better-coupled functional areas (+)

Pinto and Pinto,1990

Project, n� 262 2 success dimensions out of multiple economicsuccess variables (project implementationsuccess):1. Perceived task outcomes2. Psychosocial outcomes

1. Cross-functional co-operation (+, 1ÿ2)

Rothwell et al.,1974


1. Internal communication



1. Organizational structure (+), esp. regarding the followingaspects:● level of interdepartmental communication (3)● level of project team communication (3)● clarity in communication of project demands andresponsibilities (3)

● effectiveness of communication among organizationallyindependent groups (3)



1. Sufficient project resources (responsibilities of project leader)

19

Success

factors

of

new

produ

ctdevelop

men

t:areview

ofthe

empiricalliterature

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 4. Continued


Song et al., 1997 Project, n� 291 1 success dimension (new product performance)combining 4 success variables:1. Relative product quality2. Relative NPD cycle time3. NPD objectives met4. NPD programme was successful

1. Cross-functional co-operation (+, 1ÿ4)

Song and Parry,1997

Project, n� 1.400 3 success dimensions:1. Relative profitability2. Relative sales3. Relative market share

1. Cross-functional integration (+)

Souder andChakrabarti,1978

Project, n� 114 2 success variables:1. Commercial success2. Technical success

1. Completeness of information exchanged during project work(+, 1, 2)

Thamhain, 1990 Firm, n� 52 5 success measures:1. No. of innovative ideas2. Meeting goals3. Change orientation4. Commitment5. Senior management perception of innovativeperformance

1. Team autonomy (+, 5)2. Experienced and qualified project team (+, 5)3. High team involvement and visibility (+, 5)4. Good communication (+, 5)

Yap and Souder,1994

Project, n� 48 Selection of successful (financial standpoint) andunsuccessful projects by respondents

1. Ensuring high quality interdepartmental communication (+)

20

March

2002

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 5. Empirical results: cultural aspects of NPD (Cooper and Kleinschmidt)



Cooper, 1984b, c, d,1986

Cluster analysis based on 3 success dimensions(Cooper 1983):1. Top performer2. High impact firms3. High success (low impact firms)4. Low success (low impact firms)5. Worst performer19 strategy dimensions out of 66 variables;analyses of variance between 5 clusters

Significant characteristics of `top performer' (+):1. Firm's orientation and commitment towards new products, esp. regarding the

following aspects:● active new product idea search● NPD programme a leading edge of corporate strategy● venturesome projects and programme



Successful and unsuccessful projects; overallsuccess measure (OS; 0^10 scale); correlationanalyses

1. Existence of a strong project champion driving the project (+)


Reduction of 8 success variables into 2 successdimensions:1. Financial index (FT)2. Cycle time (CT)Correlation analyses with 95 NPD projectcharacteristics

1. A strong champion as project leader driving the project (+)




Significant characteristics of `solid-performer' (+):1. Entrepreneurial climate (construct), esp. regarding the following aspects:

● idea generation, where a new product idea suggestion scheme solicited ideasfrom employees

● free time, where technical employees were provided `free time' `scouting time'(up to 10ÿ20% of their work week) to do creative things or to work on their petprojects

● bootstrapping, where resources or `seed money' were made available forcreative work or pet projects

● skunk works, where the formation of `skunk works' was encouraged

21

Success

factors

of

new

produ

ctdevelop

men

t:areview

ofthe

empiricalliterature

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 6. Empirical results: cultural aspects of NPD (other authors)



1. Idea generating (+)2. Product champions (+)

Chakrabarti,1974


1. Existence of a product champion (+)



1. A clearly identifiable product champion (+)

Rothwell et al.,1974; Jervis,1975


1. Strength of management and characteristics of managers(+), esp. regarding the following aspects:● the business innovator responsible for success has morepower, responsibility, divers experience, enthusiasm and ahigher status than his counterpart in the unsuccessful firm

● there is someone who plays the role of `product champion'

Song and Parry,1997


1. Internal commitment (existence of individuals in the firmwho were dedicated to the success of the project), esp.regarding the following aspect:● existence of a project champion (+, 1)

Voss, 1985 Project, n� 18 3 success variables:1. Installation success2. Commercial success3. Composite measure of success

2. Good management practice, esp. regarding the followingaspect:● risk taking climate (+, 1ÿ3)

Yap and Souder,1994


1. Recruiting influential product champions (+)

22

resulted from a project he had officiallyscuttled(Deutsch1999,16).The establishmentof venture capital funds can be seen in anumber of general ly larger companiesincluding,for example,T-Novafrom DeutscheTelekom AG, Vodafone Pilot Developmentand SVC at SiemensAG. Mixed empiricalfindings on the prospectsfor the successofsuch programmeshave been submitted.It isclear that the successof internal ‘corporateventure capital ’ or ‘ corporate venturing’dependson the mannerin which it is carriedout.Recommendationsfor this havebeenmadein the literature(e.g.Chesbrough2000;Garudand v.d. Ven 1992; Siegelet al. 1988; SimonandHoughton1999;Sykes1990).Thus,it maynot be advisableto ask for the existenceofthose activities and analysetheir impact onsuccesson this aggregatelevel asproposedbyCooperandKleinschmidt(1995a).

In theclassicEnglish-languageliteraturebyChakrabarti(1974),Rothwellet al. (1974)andJervis(1975),theexistenceandtheeffectof aso-calledproductchampionis identified as asuccessfactor for new products.This findingwas subsequentlyverified by a number ofstudies (e.g. Barczak 1995; Cooper andKleinschmidt 1993b,c; Maidique and Zirger1984;SongandParry 1997;Yap and Souder1994). Accordingly, the success of newproducts depends on the commitment ofindividuals within the organization whobelieve in the new idea and who advanceitthrough the organizationwith great personalcommitment. Song and Parry describe the‘‘product champion’’ as ‘‘individuals in thefirm who werededicatedto thesuccessof theproject’’ (SongandParry1997,7).

In the German-language literature, the‘promoter model’ wasdevelopedat the sametime (HauschildtandChakrabarti1988;Witte1973).Promotersmakepersonalcontributionsto overcome internal barriers which areblocking new products.Thesestudiesdemon-strate that, in general,a team madeup of askilled (champion)and a powerful promoter(power promoter) wi l l have a posi tiveinfluence on the successof a new product

(Kirchmann 1994; Witte 1973). Whi lechampions bring project-specific, usuallytechnicalknowledgeto the project,the powerpromoter, who normally comesfrom seniormanagement,securesthe necessaryresourcesfor the project. The result is an efficientdivision of labourbetweendifferent peopleinthe processof NPD.17

Recognizably,culturalaspectsarenot in theforegroundin the ideaof ‘productchampions’or ‘promoters’.18 In the framework chosenhere,for example,theroleof managementasapower promoterwith reference,amongotherthings,to its materialandnon-materialsupportfor NPDactivities,is examinedseparately(seethe next section).Furthermore,in the articlesmentioned, it is often unclear whether theproduct championis a different personfromthe project leader.If this is not the case,ourdiscussionaboutproject organizationand therole of the project leader is relevant at thispoint (seetheprevioussection).Certainly,onecan assume that interaction between theimpact of project championsor promotersoninnovationsuccessandfirm cultureoccurs.Itis hypotheticallyconceivablethat, becauseofthe theoretical grounding of the promoterconcept, postulated on the notion ofovercomingbarriers,an innovation-enhancingculture and the person-centred promotermodelcouldactassubstitutesfor oneanother.In this sense, the personal activi ty ofpromotersto championnew productswouldonly be necessaryin organizationswhich arecharacterizedby anorganizationalculturethatis lesssupportiveto innovation.19 In contrast,Cooperand Kleinschmidt (1995a)arguethatthe successof productchampionsdependsonthe culture within the company which willallow them to flourish and to find support(Cooper and Kleinschmidt 1995a). Anempirical study on the relationshipbetweenthe successfulwork of product championscontingenton companyculture is missing todate.

The work of CooperandKleinschmidt(seeTable5), aswell asthatof all theotherauthors(seeTable 6), showsthat the influenceof an

March 2002


23

innovation-enhancingcultureor the influenceof elementswhich theauthorsconceiveaspartof that culture, has, to date, hardly beenanalysedfor its influence on the successofnewproducts.A correspondingneedto pursueresearch in this area is expressed in thel i terature (Hauschi ldt 1993; Wind andMahajan1997).The broadneglectof culturalaspectshaspresumablycontributedto the factthat the conceptof culture is ill-defined inexistingNPDresearchandthata valid methodfor measuring innovation-enhancingculturehas not, to this point, been developedandutilized.20 Against the backgroundof knowndefinitions of the term culture, one must askwhetherthe variablesmentionedin Tables5and 6 include cultural aspects.According toSchein,organizationalculture can be definedin the follow way: ‘‘Organizationalculture:apattern of basic assumptions invented,discoveredor developedby a given groupasit learnsto copewith its problemsof externaladaptationand internal integration that hasworked well enoughto be consideredvalidand, therefore,to be taughtto new membersasthe correctway to perceive,think andfeelin relation to thoseproblems’’ (Schein1985,9).

The defini tion clearly demonstrates thatculture embraces‘values’, ‘perceptions’ and‘ assumptions’ of the members of anorganizationand influencestheir decisionsorbehaviour.NPD literatureto dateis primarilyconcernedwith actionsthat could be viewedas the result of a specific culture. Thepossibility for workers in R&D to use a setportion of their work day for work on theirown ideasmay thusbeviewedastheresultofan organizational culture in which thisfreedom is considered important and isfosteredaccordingly.NPD studiesto datedonot include guidelinesfor measuringculturalinf luences which l ie behind observableactions.Furthermore,it is crucial to recognizethat the componentsof innovation-enhancingculturesummarizedhere(seeTables5 and6)arenot derivedfrom a theoreticalconcept,butrepresent a loose collection of individual

variables. Typologies grounded in organiz-ation theory offer good startingpoints for animprovedassessmentof companyculture(e.g.Cameron and Freeman 1991; Quinn andRohrbaugh1983). These typologies couldbe used to analysethe impact of organiz-ational culture on the success of newproducts.

Role and Commitment of SeniorManagement

Thefindingsof CooperandKleinschmidt(seeTable7) alreadymakeit clearthat thesupportof seniormanagementand adequateresourceallocationaresuccessfactorsin NPD. It is notclear whetherit is reasonableto differentiatebetween management’s material and non-material supportfor new products.After all,support for NPD projects must be reflectedthrough the appropriateness of resources,otherwisenon-materialsupportmay soon benothing more than lip-service. With this inmind, Cooper and Kleinschmidt’s (1995a)constructbuilding may be criticized. In theirwork, both theseaspectsare unconvincinglyseparated,andthis,amongotherthings,servesto demonstrate that the key variable formeasuring the al location of resources(‘sufficient resources to achieve the NPDprogrammeobjectives’) is containedin bothconstructs:‘senior managementcommitment’and ‘resourcesupportfor new products’ (seethe sectionon ‘Methodology’ below).

In the work of Cooper and Kleinschmidtwork (seeTable 7) aswell as in the work ofother authors (see Table 8), it becomesapparent that the analysis of resourceallocation needs to go beyond a simpleanalysisof the R&D budget.As such,Cooper(1982,1984a),Balbontinet al. (1999)aswellas Maidique and Zirger (1984) show thatexpenditures for market research and theintroduction of new products to the marketare meaningful for the success of newproducts.This again underlinesthe fact that‘marketorientationof theNPDprocess’whichhas previously been identified as a success



24

Table 7. Empirical results: role and commitment of senior management (Cooper and Kleinschmidt)


NewProd I: 103 companies; 195 projects (102 successes/93 failures); written questionnaire about 77 characteristics of NPD projects; industrial products; Canada

Cooper, 1981 Successful and unsuccessful projects; reduction ofindependent variables into 13 factors; discriminant analysis

1. Overall project/company resource (R&D, marketing, sales,production) compatibility (+)

Cooper, 1982 Effectiveness of NPD programme; effectiveness is acombined measure of success rate, termination rate, failurerate and a subjective assessment of overall success and salesimpact of new products; correlation analyses

1. Company resources (+), esp. regarding the following aspects(marketing resources):● marketing research skills and resources● advertising and promotion strength● sales force and distribution prowess


Cooper, 1984a 3 success dimensions out of 8 single success variables:1. High-impact programme strategy2. High success rate strategy3. High relative performance19 strategy dimensions out of 66 variables; correlationanalyses

1. Market research spending (+, 1)2. R&D spending (+, 1)



Reduction of 8 success variables into 2 success dimensions:1. Financial index (FT)2. Cycle time (CT)Correlation analyses with 95 NPD project characteristics

1. Top-management support (+, 2)



2 success dimensions out of 10 single success variables:1. Programme impact (sales)2. Programme profitabilityCluster analysis based on the 2 success dimensions:1. Solid performer2. High-impact technical winners3. Low-impact performer4. DogsReduction of independent variables into 9 constructs;analysis of variance (t-tests)

Significant characteristics of `solid-performer' (+):1. Senior management commitment (construct), esp. regarding the

following aspects:● senior management strongly committed to new products● senior management intimately involved in go/kill and spendingdecisions

● senior management devoted the necessary resources to NPD2. Senior management accountability (construct), esp. regarding the

following aspects:● new product performance measures were an explicit part ofsenior managers' annual objectives

● performance measures became criteria for senior managementcompensation

● new product results were measured regularly3. Resource support (construct), esp. regarding the following aspects:

● sufficient resources to achieve the NPD programme's objectives● adequate R&D budgets● adequate personnel resources and time freed up for newproducts

25

Success

factors

of

new

produ

ctdevelop

men

t:areview

ofthe

empiricalliterature

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 8. Empirical results: role and commitment of senior management (other authors)


Baker and Greenand Bean, 1986

Project, n� 211 Selection of successful and unsuccessful (technicaland commercial) projects by respondents

1. Involvement of general management (+)



1. Adequate market research skills/resources (+)2. Adequate sales and marketing skills/resources (+)

Bronnenbergand v. Engelen,988


1. Company resource compatibility (+)

Balachandra,1984


1. Increase in top management support (+, no termination)

Chakrabarti,1974


1. Degree of top management support for the innovation (+)2. Availability of personnel to implement the technology (+)

Gerstenfeld,1976

Project, n� 22 Selection of successful and unsuccessful(commercial) projects by respondents

1. High degree of top management activity (+)

Johne andSnelson, 1988

Programme, n� 40 Comparison between firms according to thefollowing criteria: `currently growing successfullythrough active product innovation and tocompare . . . with . . . firms which are lesssuccessful'.

1. Top-management support (+), esp. regarding the followingaspects:● top management sets broad objectives for organic growth● top management fosters understanding of the need forreally new products

● top management is intimately involved in the NPD process

Kotzbauer, 1992 Project, n� 120 Selection of successful and unsuccessful projectsby respondents; 3 success measures:1. Market success2. Financial success3. Strategic success

1. Management involvement and management support (+, 2, 3)



1. Successful innovations were more actively marketed and sold(+), esp. regarding the following aspects:● more actively publicized and advertised● promoted by a larger sales force● coupled with a marketing effort to educate users

2. Support from senior management (+)

26

March

2002

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002



1. Level of resources available (+, 2)2. Sufficiency of resources (+, 1)3. Level of top management support (+, 3)



1. Sufficient project resources (resources)

Song and Parry,1997


1. Internal commitment (existence of individuals in the firmwho were dedicated to the success of the project), esp.regarding the following aspect:● senior management support (+, 1)

2. Marketing and technical skills and resources (+, 1)

Song and Parry,1996

Project, n� 788 4 success dimensions out of 12 single economicsuccess variables:1. Product profitability2. Relative sales performance3. Relative market share performance4. Window of opportunity

1. Top management support (+, 1ÿ4)

Thamhain, 1990 Firms, n� 52 5 success measures:1. No. of innovative ideas2. Meeting goals3. Change orientation4. Commitment5. Senior management perception of innovative

performance

1. Involved, interested, supportive management (+, 5)2. Sufficient resources (+, 5)

Voss, 1985 Project, n� 18 3 success variables:1. Installation success2. Commercial success3. Composite measure of success

1. Availability of resources (+), esp. regarding the followingaspect:● resources committed to NP-projects

Yap and Souder,1994


1. Encouraging early top management involvement (+)2. Applying high quality resources (+)

27

factor (seeabove),canonly be professionallyaccomplishedwhen the necessaryresourcesareat hand.

At this point, it is worth mentioning thefindings of Balachandra(1984), who statesthat wi th increased support of seniormanagement,the probability that the projectwill be terminated decreases.This can beinterpreted,for one thing, as ‘positive’, sincesenior managementhas a guiding hand indisputedNPD projectsand may, as a powerpromoter,overcomeinternal resistance.Thisperspectivepresumesthat the projects willeventually lead to a commercialsuccess.Atthesametime, thefindingsmaybeinterpretedas senior managementholding on to theirfavouriteprojectsat all economiccosts,lend-ing themthenecessarysupportandprotectingthemfrom beingstopped,evenwhenit mightbe to theeconomicadvantageof thecompanyto terminate the project. This would be anundesirablemisinvestmentof scarceresourceswhich, in light of opportunitycost,might belacking elsewhere. Balachandra’ s (1984)findings do not offer an answer to thisquestion, nor do the general ly positivefindingsof otherNPD worksmakeit possible– partly becauseof methodological short-comings– to drawdefinitive conclusions(seethe sectionon ‘Methodology’ below).

Finally, CooperandKleinschmidt’s(1995a)conclusion that accountabi l i ty of seniormanagement has a positi ve effect on thesuccessof a newproductshouldbediscussed.This at least substantivelyconvincing con-struct measureswhether senior managementdefines goals for the NPD programme,regularly monitors the attainment of thesegoals and ties monetary incentives to theirattainment (see Table 7). Incentives formanagementplay an important guiding role,since senior managementcan make strategicdecisions regarding correspondingresourceallocation which may exerciseconsiderableinfluenceon the supportfor the developmentof new products,particularly in conflict withthe existing core business.If incentives formanagementare linked to the attainmentof

short-term sales or profit goals, the dangerarises that substantial innovations will beneglectedin favour of incrementaldevelop-ments(Brockhoff 1999a).21

Strategy

First, we must define which findings will bepresentedin this section. Only those NPDstudiesthat haveexaminedthe existenceof along-term NPD strategy, rather than itsspecific content, will be summarizedhere.With respectto the latter aspectof strategy,we shouldlike to draw the readers’attentionto those studies which have analysed theimpact of certain technologyor new productstrategies on innovation success (e.g.GatignonandXuereb1997).22

FromTables9 and10, it becomesclearthatthe aspectof NPD strategyin empirical NPDstudiesto this point hasbarelybeenexamined.In the most recent work by Cooper andKleinschmidt (1995a), the strategy of theNPD programmeis measuredas a constructconsisting of four variables (see Table 9).First, the objectivesof the NPD programmeneedto be definedand the meaningof theirattainment for the overall goals of theorganizationmust be clearly communicated.Furthermore, the NPD programme shouldhave a strategic focus which gives overalldirection to the individual NPD projects.Finally, the NPD programmehasa long-termthrustasexpressedby a substantialnumberoflong-termprojectsin the entire NP portfolio.In Cooperand Kleinschmidt’s(1995a)study,the construct ‘new product strategy’ is thesecondmost importantsuccessfactor for theNPD programme. A si mi l ar f i ndi ngestablishing the importance of a strategicframework relating the sum of individualNPDprojectscanbefoundin Cooper(1984a).

It is apparentthat only a few otherauthorshave analysed the strategiesof NPD (seeTable10). Griffin (1997),Meyer andRoberts(1986) and Thamhain (1990) support theconclusionalreadydiscussedthat thepresenceof a clear NPD strategy has a positive



28

March

2002

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 9. Empirical results: NPD strategy (Cooper and Kleinschmidt)



Cooper, 1983 Reduction of 8 success variables to 3 successdimensions:1. Overall performance2. Success rate3. ImpactCorrelation analyses between the successdimensions and 66 variables

1. Product strategy (+, 2), esp. regarding the following aspects:● set of products closely related to each other● products with a similar end-use (function) as firm`s existing products● products that fit well into the firm`s current product line

2. Nature and orientation of the programme (+, 1), esp. regarding the followingaspects:● offensive product programme coupled with an active idea search effort● technology orientation and firms which are proactive in acquiring newtechnologies

Cooper, 1984a 3 success dimensions out of 8 single successvariables:1. High-impact programme strategy2. High success rate strategy3. High relative performance19 strategy dimensions out of 66 variables;correlation analyses

1. High degree of programme focus/relatedness to other projects in the firm (+, 1, 2)




Significant characteristics of `solid-performer' (+):1. New product strategy (construct), esp. regarding the following aspects:

● goals or objectives defined for NPD programme● role of new products in achieving company goals clear and communicated to all● clearly defined arenas, areas of strategic focus to give direction to the NPDprogramme

● long-term thrust and focus of NPD programme, including long-term projects

29

Success

factors

of

new

produ

ctdevelop

men

t:areview

ofthe

empiricalliterature

ßBlackw

ellPublishersLtd

2002

Table 10. Empirical results: NPD strategy (other authors)


Griffin, 1997 Programme, n� 383 4 success dimensions out of 7 single economicsuccess variables:1. Overall success2. Relative success3. Market success4. Financial successClassification of firms in `best' and `rest' based onthe 4 success dimensions

Significant differences between `Best' (+) and `Rest' (ÿ):1. Having a clear strategy for the NPD programme2. Measuring the commercial performance (reaching of

objectives) of the NPD programme constantly



1. Successful innovations were planned more effectively andefficiently (+), esp. regarding the following aspect:● developed with a clearer market strategy

Meyer andRoberts, 1986

Product, n� 79 Sales growth rate: `calculated by dividing annualsales by the age of the firm at each respectiveyear of sales'

1. NPD programme with a strategic focus (+)

Perillieux, 1987 Project, n� 231 Selection of successful and unsuccessful projects(commercial) by respondents

1. Close relationship of new product to existing product range(+)

Thamhain, 1990 Firm, n� 52 5 success measures:1. No. of innovative ideas2. Meeting goals3. Change orientation4. Commitment5. Senior management perception of innovative

performance

1. Setting strategic goals and priorities (+, 5)

30

influenceon the successof new products.Atthe sametime, it should be noted that thisaspectobviouslyrequiresmoreresearch.

Assessment of Previous Empirical NPDResearch

Content

The most essential conclusions of almostthirty years of empirical NPD researchcanbe summarizedas follows: The presenceof aformal or informal NPD processin the firmestablishes the basis for success of newproducts.Within this process,the quality ofplanning before the beginning of the actualdevelopmentstageis decisivefor the successof theNPDproject.Thenecessarypreparatorywork for the project comprisesespeciallytheinitial, rough evaluation of ideas, the exe-cution of technical and market-orientedfeasibility studiesanda thoroughcommercialevaluationof the NPD project. Furthermore,the projectconcept,the targetmarketandtherelativeincreasein benefitsof thenewproductfor the customer in comparison with acompetitor’ s product must all be clearlydescribed.Theselectionof themostpromisingprojects before entering the developmentphaseis especially important. NPD projectsare continually evaluated throughout thecourse of the process using an ‘on-goingcontrol’ such that the projectswhich do notmeet the previously def ined goals areconsequentlyterminated. In the successfulNPD project, all processsteps are alignedwi th the market requi rements. Marketinformation is up-datedthroughoutthe NPDprocessand may be usedas a basis for thedecisionto continueor terminatethe project.One cannot def ini tively determine theadvantages of customer integration intoproduct development.This aspect must beclearly separatedconceptuallyfrom the ideaof the ‘customer as a demander’which isexpressedin the market orientationof NPD.There are hints which imply that theadvantageof customerintegration increases

when it is used in the early and the laterphasesof the NPD processand when thecustomerspossessspecificcharacteristicssuchas those of a ‘Lead User’ and have a higheconomicattractiveness.

An organizational requirement for thesuccessof new product developmentis thecreation of a dedicatedproject organizationwhich ought to have certain genericcharac-teristics. Generally, the project organizationmust ensure that the progressof the NPDprojectwill notbenegativelyeffectedby dailyroutinesand/ordepartmentalinfluences.Thisimplies thatpeoplebespecificallyassignedtotheNPD teamwho haveenoughtime to workon the project and that the project leaderhasaccess to team members f rom otherdepartments.The NPD teamshouldbe cross-functional. Cross-functional project teamsencourage interfunctional communicationandco-operationandasa resultcancontributeto the resolution of possible interfaceproblems. Consequently, cross-functionalteams have both an indirect and a directinfluenceon thesuccessof newproducts.Theprojectleaderhasan importantrole to play.S/he must have the necessaryqualificationsand sufficient know-how, and be able todevoteher/himselfsufficiently to the project.Substantialautonomyfor theNPD teamhasapositive influence on team performanceandon the success of the NPD project.Furthermore, the team ought to haveresponsibil ity for the whole NPD processrather that just for parts of it. This fostersmotivation and commitment of the teammembers, which, in turn, has a positiveinfluence on the successof a new product.This can possibly be fostered by theimplementation of project-specific materialor non-materialperformanceincentives.

Senior management’srecognition of thevalue of new products,reflectedin adequatematerial support of the NPD programme,seemsto havea positiveeffect on the successof newproducts.Theresourceallocationmustgo beyond the R& D budget, si nceexpendituresfor market researchand market

March 2002


31

launch of the new product are important forthe successof new products.This reinforcesthe notion that marketorientationof the NPDprocess,an aspect already identified as asuccessfactor, can only be attainedprofes-sionally if sufficient resourcesare availablefor theseactivities. It was observedthat topmanagementsupport preventsNPD projectsfrom beingterminated.Bouldinget al. (1997)showin a theoreticalmodelanda subsequentexperiment that senior managementis notlikely to terminateanNPD projectevenwhenobjective information is available that theNPD project will be a commercial failure.This lendssupportto the hypothesesthat topmanagementcommitmentwith correspondingresourceallocationmayhavea negativeeffecton NPD success.This questionhasto remainunansweredand shouldbe subjectto furtherempirical testing.

The impact of organizationalculture andNPD strategyon the successof new productshas not been adequatelyresearchedto date.Obviously, the personal engagement ofspecific people has an important influenceon success. However, it remains unclearwhether the championing or promotingactivities comefrom the officially designatedproject leader or from other people in theorganization.It appearsto be helpful for theorganizationto undertakeactivitiesto encour-age the emergence of individuality andcreativity. In this context, the establishmentof supportingand motivating elements,suchas an active suggestion scheme for newproducts or the availability of corporateventure capital, seems to have a positiveeffect on the successof new products.Asmentioned earlier, the impact of organiz-ationalcultureon innovationsuccessrequiresmoresoundempiricalresearchbasedon validmeasuresof culture.

Somefindings point to the importanceofstrategy.TheNPDprogrammeoughtto haveastrategicframework which offers orientationto the sumof singleNPD projects.The NPDprogrammeshould have a long-term thrust.This includes, in particular, the pursuit of

long-termNPD projectswhich go beyondthecompletionof short- and medium-termNPDprojects.Seniormanagementshouldregularlyreview whether the aims of the entire NPDprogrammeare being reached.Linking theattainment of these goals with monetaryincentivesfor seniormanagementcan haveapositiveeffect on success.

It is noteworthythat,overa periodof nearlythirty years, the results of empirical NPDresearchhave remainedfairly constant.Onecanonly speculateon thereasonsfor this. It isconceivablethat the findings of researchintothe successfactors of NPD have not beencompletelyput into practice.Furthermore,itcould be presumedthat the randomselectionof companies for empirical investigationcontainsa normal distribution of ‘good’ and‘bad’ companieswhich will constantly bedifferent with respect to those fundamentalsuccessfactors.This observationmay alsobeinterpretedas a sign of a certain stability ofresults.The extent to which this stability iscausedby themethodologicalshortcomingsofempirical NPD studies producing statisticalartefactswill be discussedbelow.

Methodology

The NPD works cited here, with a fewexceptions of the more recent works, aremethodologically well below the level ofempirical work which characterizes otherdisciplines in the social sciences.A typicalexampleof this is the work of Cooper andKleinschmidtwho, in the courseof almost30years,havenot changedthe essenceof theirmethodology.This point of criticism applies,however,to the vastmajority of NPD studies.NPD studies have hardly made use of themethodological advancements in datacollection and evaluation which have beenachievedin the past severalyears. Often abattery of single items are used as eitherindependentor dependentvariablesandtestedfor significant relationshipswith the help ofbivariatetestingprocedures.This oftenresultsin a flood of confusingfindings,dependingon



32

themanyvariablesusedin thestudies.Only inthepastfew yearshavesomeauthorsbeguntoconductempirical researchof successfactorson the basisof reliable measurementfor thedependent and the independent variables.Unfortunately,constructsareoftennotderivedfrom theoreticalconsiderationsand the tech-nical implementation of construct devel-opment does not fol low the standardprocedures suggested in the literature. Inaddition, studies frequently do not givereliabilit y coefficients. Because these dataare missing, it is not possible to make ajudgementon the reliability of the constructs.Here one must encouragescholarsto applymore rigorous statistical techniques inempirical studies and one should introduceminimum reportingstandardsin publications.Further, as a rule, linear relationshipsaretested, although non-linear effects (e.g. theeffect of customer integration or seniormanagementsupporton NPD success)are –from a theoreticalstandpoint– alsoplausible.Groups of successful and unsuccessfulprojectsarefrequentlycomparedto determinesuccessfactors. The focus on project leveldata has the major drawbackthat company-specific factors, which are constant overindividual projects, cannot be analysed.Asmentionedbeforeandillustratedin the tables,new productsuccesshasbeenmeasuredin avariety of ways. In order to increase thecomparability of results, researchersshoulduse the same success measures. Amongdifferent success dimensions, one shouldstressthe aspectof profitability becausethisis the ul timate dependent variable inmanagement science. Finally, situationalinfluenceson thesuccessimpactof individualvariablesin a contingencymodel are seldomincorporated in the empirical studies. Animportant contingent factor may be the‘degree of newness’ of the new product,especiallyfor studiesconductedat the projectlevel, becauseit canbeassumedthat it affectsthe new productdevelopmentprocessandtherelevance of a speci f ic success factor.Measuresfor the ‘degree of newness’have

beendevelopedand shouldbe usedin futureempirical studies(Schlaak1999).

Against the backgroundof these criticalconsiderations,it is not surprisingthat NPDresearchhasbeenthesubjectof, in part,harshcri ticism. The fol lowing quotation fromBrown and Eisenhardt is a prominentexample:

To use a colloquialism, it is often difficult toobserve the ‘new product development’ forestamid myriad ‘results’ trees.The findings of many[NPD] studiesread like ‘fishing expedition’ toomany variables and too much factor analysisfurther, extensivebivariate analysis is common-place, and this blurs possible multivariaterelationships.Second,the researchstreamreliesheavily on retrospectivesensemakingof complexpast processes, usual ly single informants.Individuals often are askedto quantify subjectivejudgementssurroundinglong lists of successandfai lure factors. The frequent use of singleinformants simply exacerbates these method-ological problems.Thus, the researchresultsarelikely to suffer from a host of attributional andotherbiases. . . Most important,theresearchin thisstreamoften presentsresults without relying onwell-defined constructs.(Brown and Eisenhardt1995,353)

Although this declarationturns out to be toogeneral,23 whenoneconsidersthe NPD workand its methodologicalweaknesseswhich wehavesummarizedabove,onecannothelp butagreein principle with this criticism. At thesametime, thefindingsof NPD researchseemto be plausibl e so that, despi te themethodologicallimitations, one finds it hardto question the practical relevance of thefindings. We have already mentioned thestability of empirical results over time andnumerousstudieswhich canalsobeviewedasan indicator of relevanceof previous NPDresearch.

In the abovequote,a further fundamentalcriticism of NPD researchbecomesevident.The questioning of single respondentspercompany,so-called‘key informants’, in thevastmajority of NPD studiescalls thevalidity

March 2002


33

of the findings of NPD studiesin principleinto question(Ernst2001).This holdstruenotonly for NPD research,but for a largepart oftheempiricalresearchin thesocialsciences.Itis well knownthatorganizationalresearchhasits seriouslimitations, if empiricalstudiesarebasedon the perceptionof single informantswithin the organization only. It has beenshown that this can lead to a systematicmeasurementerror, a so-calledmethoderroror informantbias,which hampersthe validityof results(Bagozziet al. 1991;CampbellandFiske 1959; Kumar et al. 1993). A meta-analysis conducted by Cote and Buckley(1987) showsthat methoderror can accounton averagefor up to 25% of total variance.

In the field of NPD, it has beenassumedthat the informant’s organizationalrole, i.e.his/her functional backgroundor hierarchicalstatus,canleadto aninformantbias(ErnstandTeichert 1998). Whereas this work onlyrepresentspreliminary evidencefrom a casestudy,latestlarge-scaleempirical researchonfirms’ NPD activities based on multiplei nf ormants and appl yi ng mul t i t rai t -multimethod analysis shows that differentorganizationalpositionsof respondentslead,in fact, to a serious informant bias. Theinformant bias accountson averagefor morethan 30% of the total varianceand lies forsome constructs even above the trai t(construct)variance(Ernst 2001). Thus, theassessment of organizational propertiesdependsto a large extenton the interviewedrespondent.If this effect is not taken intoaccount, the validity of empirical results ishighly questionable. It appears that someconstructs cannot be measured wi th asufficient degreeof validity at all, making itimpossiblesubsequentlyto test many of thehypotheses(Ernst 2001). The findings andconclusionsdrawnfrom previousNPDstudieshaveto beviewedin the light of theseresults.In fact,a carefullook at theresultsof previousNPD studies which include suf f i cientinformationabouttheorganizationalpositionsof therespondentsrevealsthatthefindingsarevery likely to be systematicallybiased(Ernst

2001; Ernst and Teichert 1998). For futureNPD studies,the use of multiple informantsand the application of adequateevaluationproceduresfor this type of datais requiredifinformant ef fects on measurement areexpected.

Notes

1 With a few exceptions,this paper summarizeswork on product innovations in manufacturingindustries with a significant amount of R&Dactivities.

2 For a summaryof resultson theseaspects,seee.g. Hauschildt (1993), Montoya-Weiss andCalantone(1994). For resultsof the ‘NewProd’studies,seee.g.Cooper(1979a,b,1980a,b,1981,1988, 1990, 1992) or Cooperand Kleinschmidt(1986,1987a,b,c).

3 For a critical discussionof the comparabilityofempiricalNPD work, seee.g.Hauschildt(1993),Montoya-Weissand Calantone(1994) or Peri-llieux (1987).

4 The NPD processincludes the stepsfrom ideagenerationthrough to its market introduction.According to Brockhoff (1999a),one can there-fore refer to an innovationprocessin the narrowsenseexcluding the diffusion of the innovation.Accordingly,only thoseNPDactivitieswhicharepart of this NPD processarerecordedhere.

5 All NP-relatedworks by Cooperand Kleinsch-midt are combined in our discussionas theirworks must be understoodin relation to oneanother,very often also becausethey are basedon the samedata.

6 The conceptionof phasescanbe found in manyhandbookson NPD in many organizations.Athoroughdiscussionof the existenceof phasescanbe found in Hauschildt(1997).

7 The findings of this and other studies mustalwaysbe interpretedin the light of methodolo-gical shortcomings.The authorsusea construct,but offer no proof of its reliability (CooperandKleinschmidt 1995a, 1996). For a generaldiscussionof methodologicalshortcomingsofNPD studies,seethe sectionon ‘Methodology’.

8 This fact alone demonstrates the substantialinfluence of Cooperand Kleinschmidt on NPDresearch.

9 Controversialfindings (e.g. Albers and Eggers1991;Johne1984)surroundtheso-called‘Loose-



34

Tight Hypothesis’ in which one must choosebetweena less formalized processin the earlystagesanda formalizedprocessoncethe projectis defined.This aspectis not to be placedin theforegroundof this paper.For a comprehensivediscussionof the ‘Loose-Tight Hypothesis’see,e.g.Brockhoff (1999b)andHauschildt(1997).

10 Beyond a project organization,other organiza-tional solutionsfor managinginnovationswithinandoutsidethe firm exist (Hauschildt1997).

11 It can be presumed that the extent of thecontribution of individual functions varies inthe different phasesof the NPD project. Thisaspecthasnot yet beenstudied.

12 For more information on the characteristicsofsuccessfulproject leaders,consultKeim (1997).

13 In this context,it is notable,thattheinfluencesofproject-relatedincentivesystemson the successof new productshasnot beenstudiedyet. Theseincentivescouldhavean effect on teamcommit-mentandhenceNPD success.

14 The intensity of communicationand interactionmaydependon thegeographicalproximity of theNPD team members (e.g. Allen and Fusfeld1975). However, this variable doesnot have asignificant effect on NP success(Cooper andKleinschmidt1995a).For this reason,it wouldbeinterestingto analysewhether the influence ofgeographicalproximity is reducedin its signifi-cance as a result of better communicationtechnologies.Here, one has to take the type ofknowledgeto be transferredinto account(Rudi-ger andVanini 1998).

15 Fora completecomparisonof theadvantagesanddisadvantagesof the different forms of projectorganization for the development of a newproduct,seee.g.Hauschildt(1997).

16 This is ameasurewhichmanyorganizationshaverecently implemented (e.g. the ‘Olympics ofInnovation’ at BSH Bosch and SiemensHaus-gerate GmbH.This showsvery clearly that somesuccessfactors may be subjectto changesovertime.

17 The promoter model has steadily expandedinrecentyears,leadingto the identificationof newpromoterroles(e.g.theprocesspromoterandtherelationshippromoter).For more on this topic,see especially the work of Hauschildt andChakabarti (1988), Hauschildt and Gemunden(1999)or Walter (1998).

18 Nonetheless,in the NPD literature,this aspectisoften discussed in connection with cultural

aspectsof innovation(JohneandSnelson1988).19 One can directly expandon this thought in that

the existenceof measureswhich supportinnova-tion (see sectionson ‘NPD Process’,‘Metho-dolgy’ and ‘Role and Commitment of SeniorManagement’ ) also reduce the necessity ofpersonal intervention of promotersand cham-pions.

20 The definition and measurementof organiza-tional culture present complex tasks and arecontroversially discussedin the literature (seee.g.Deshpande´ andWebster1989;Dufler 1991;Smircich1983).

21 A comprehensivediscussionof various incen-tives in the area of industrial R&D and anempiricalanalysison their effectscanbefoundinLeptien (1996). See also Gedenk (1994) on asimilar issue.

22 The small numberof empirical NPD studiesonthis aspectmay alsobe attributedto the fact thatvalid measurement scales still remain to bedeveloped.Somepreliminarywork canbefound,e.g. in the work of Brockhoff (1989) andWeisenfeld-Schenk(1995). Since thesestudiesdo not relatestrategicissuesto NP success,theirresultsarenot presentedhere.

23 In more recent NPD studies, methodologicaladvancescan be found. This is particularly truefor using well-defined constructsfor measure-ment (e.g. Song and Parry 1997) and thequestioning of multiple informants in eachorganization(e.g. Song et al. 1997; Souderetal. 1997). However, if multiple informants arequestioned,this typeof datahasnot beenusedtoanalyse informant effects on the empiricalfindings. Often, answersare simply averaged,which is highly problematic; for a detaileddiscussionseeErnst (2001).

References

Albers, S. and Eggers,S. (1991). OrganisatorischeGestaltungenvon Produktinnovationsprozessen–Fuhrt der Wechsel des OrganisationsgradeszuInnovationserfolg? Zei tschr i ft fur Betr iebs-wirtschaft, 1/89, 44–64.

Albers, S., Brockhoff, K. and Hauschildt,J. (2001).Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement.Leistungsbilanz des Kieler Graduiertenkollegs.Wiesbaden:Gabler.

Allen, T.J. and Fusfeld, A.R. (1975). Researchlaboratory architecture and the structuring of

March 2002


35

communications.R&D Management, 5, 153–164.Atuahene-Gima,K. (1995). An exploratoryanalysis

of the input of marketorientationon new productperformance.a contingencyapproach.Journal ofProduct InnovationManagement, 12, 275–293.

Bagozzi,R., Yi, Y. andPhillips, L. (1991).Assessingconstruct validity in organizational research.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly, 36, 421–458.

Baker,N.R.,Green,S.G.andBean,A.S. (1986).WhyR& D projects succeed or fai l . ResearchTechnology Management, November/December,29–34.

Balachandra,R. (1984). Critical signals for makinggo/nogo decisionsin new product development.Journalof ProductInnovationManagement, 1, 92–100.

Balachandra,R. and Friar, J.H. (1997). Factorsforsuccess in R& D projects and new productinnovation: a contextual f ramework. IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, 44,276–287.

Balachandra,R., Brockhoff, K. and Pearson,A.W.(1996). R& D project termination decisions:processes,communication,andpersonnelchanges.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13,245–256.

Balbontin, A., Yazdani,B., Cooper,R. and Souder,W.E. (1999). New product developmentsuccessfactorsin AmericanandBritish firms. InternationalJournal of TechnologyManagement, 17, 259–279.

Barczak,G. (1995).New productstrategy,structure,process, and perf ormance i n the tel e-communications industry. Journal of ProductInnovationManagement, 12, 224–234.

Blundell, R., Griffith, R. and v. Reenen,J. (1999).Market share,market value and innovation in apanel of British manufacturingfirms. Review ofEconomicStudies, 66, 529–554.

Booz, Allen and Hamilton (1982). New ProductsManagementfor the 1980s. New York.

Boulding, W., Morgan, R. and Staelin, R. (1997).Pulling the plug to stop the new product drain.Journal of MarketingResearch, 34, 164–176.

Brentani de, U. (1989). Successand failure in newindustrial services.Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 6, 239–258.

Brentanide,U. andDroge,C. (1988).Determinantsofthe new product screeningdecision. a structuralmodelanalysis.International Journal of Researchin Marketing, 5, 91–106.

Brockhoff, K. (1989). Schnittstell en-Management.Abstimmungsprobleme zwischen Forschung und

Entwicklung und Marketing. Stuttgart: Schaffer-Poeschel.

Brockhoff, K. (1994).ManagementorganisatorischerSchnittstellen– unterbesondererBerucksichtigungder Koordination von Marketingbereichen mitForschung und Entwicklung, Berichte aus denSitzungen der Joachim Jungius-GesellschaftderWissenschaftene.V., 12(2),Hamburg.

Brockhoff, K. (1997). Wenn der Kunde stort –Differenzierungsnotwendigkeiten bei der Ein-beziehungvon Kundenin die Produktentwicklung.In Bruhn, M. and Stef fenhagen, H. (eds),Marktorientierte Unternehmensfuhrung. Wies-baden:Gabler,pp. 183–202.

B r ock hof f , K . ( 1998) . D er K unde i mInnovationsprozeß. Berichte aus den Sitzungender Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissen-schaftene.V., 16(3),Hamburg.

Brockhoff, K. (1999a).Forschungund Entwicklung.Planung und Kontrolle, 5th edition. Munchen:Oldenbourg.

Brockhoff, K. (1999b). Produktpolitik, 4th edition.Stuttgart:Lucius & Lucius.

Bronnenberg,J.J.A.M. and v. Engelen,M.L. (1988).A Dutch test of the NewProd model. R&DManagement, 18, 321–332.

Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt,K.M. (1995). Productdevelopment:past research,presentfindings, andfuturedirections.Academyof ManagementReview,20, 343–378.

Calantone,R.J. and di Benedetto,C.A (1988). Anintegrativemodelof the new productdevelopmentprocess.Journal of Product Innovation Manage-ment, 5, 201–215.

Calantone,R.J.,Schmidt,J.B.anddi Benedetto,C.A.(1997). New product activities and performance:the moderating role of environmental hostility.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14,179–189.

Cameron, K. and Freeman, S.J. (1991). Culturalcongruence,strength and type: relationships toeffectiveness.In Woodman,R.W. and Passmore,W.A. (eds), Researchin Organizational ChangeandDevelopment, Vol. 5. Greenwich,London:JAIPress,pp. 23–58.

Campbell,D.T. and Fiske,D.W. (1959).Convergentand discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56,81–105.

Capon, N., Farley, J.U. and Hoenig, S. (1990).Determinantsof financial performance:a meta-analysis.ManagementScience, 36, 1143–1159.



36

Chakrabarti,A.K. (1974). The role of championsinnewproductdevelopment.California ManagementReview, 16, 58–62.

Chaney, P.K. and Devinney, T.M. (1992). Newproduct innovationsand stock price performance.Journal of Business,Financeand Accounting, 19,677–695.

Chesbrough,H. (2000).Designingcorporateventuresin theshadowof privateventurecapital.CaliforniaManagementReview, 42, 31–49.

Cooper, R.G. (1979a). Identifying industrial newproduct success. I ndust r i al Mar ket i ngManagement, 8, 124–135.

Cooper,R.G. (1979b).The dimensionsof industrialnew product success and failure. Journal ofMarketing, 43, 93–103.

Cooper,R.G. (1980a).How to identify potentialnewproduct winners. ResearchManagement, 23, 10–19.

Cooper,R.G. (1980b). Project NewProd: factors innew product success. European Journal ofMarketing, 14, 277–292.

Cooper, R.G. (1981). An empirical derived newproduct proj ect sel ect i on model . I EEETransactionson Engineering Management, EM-28, 54–61.

Cooper, R.G. (1982). New product success inindustrialfirms. IndustrialMarketingManagement,11, 215–223.

Cooper, R.G. (1983). The impact of new productstrategies.Industrial Marketing Management, 12,243–256.

Cooper,R.G. (1984a).How new product strategiesimpact on performance. Journal of ProductInnovationManagement, 1, 5–18.

Cooper,R.G. (1984b).New productstrategies:whatdistinguishes the top-performers. Journal ofProduct InnovationManagement, 2, 151–164.

Cooper, R.G. (1984c). The performanceimpact ofproductinnovationstrategies.EuropeanJournalofMarketing, 18, 1–54.

Cooper,R.G. (1984d).Thestrategy–performancelinkin productinnovation.R&D Management, 14, 247–259.

Cooper,R.G. (1986).New productperformanceandproduct i nnovat i on strategi es. Resear chManagement, May/June,17–25.

Cooper, R.G. (1988). Predevelopment activitiesdetermine new product success. Industr ialMarketingManagement, 17, 237–247.

Cooper, R.G. (1990). New products: whatdistinguishesthe winners. ResearchTechnology

Management, November/December,27–31.Cooper, R.G. (1992). The NewProd system. the

industryexperience.Journalof ProductInnovationManagement, 9, 113–127.

Cooper,R.G. (1994). Debunking the myths of newproduct development. Research TechnologyManagement, July/August,40–50.

Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1986). Aninvestigationinto the new productprocess:steps,deficiencies and impact. Journal of ProductInnovationManagement, 3, 71–85.

Cooper,R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987a).Newproducts: what separates winners from losers.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4,169–184.

Cooper,R.G.andKleinschmidt,E.J.(1987b).Successfactorsin productinnovation.Industrial MarketingManagement, 16, 215–223.

Cooper,R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987c).Whatmakesa new producta winner: successfactorsatthe project level. R&D Management, 17, 75–189.

Cooper,R.G. and Kleinschmidt,E.J. (1993a).Majornewproducts:whatdistinguishesthewinnersin thechemicalindustry?Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 10, 90–111.

Cooper,R.G. and Kleinschmidt,E.J. (1993b).New-productsuccessin thechemicalindustry.IndustrialMarketingManagement, 22, 85–99.

Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1993c).Uncovering the keys to new product success.EngineeringManagementReview, 11, 5–18.

Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1994).Determi nants of t i mel i ness i n productdevelopment. Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 11, 381–396.

Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995a).Benchmarkingthe firm’s critical successfactorsin new product development.Journal of ProductInnovationManagement, 12, 374–391.

Cooper,R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995b). Newproductperformance:keysto success,profitability& cycle time reduction. Journal of MarketingManagement, 24, 315–337.

Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995c).Performancetypologies of new product projects.Industrial MarketingManagement, 24, 439–456.

Cooper,R.G.andKleinschmidt,E.J.(1996).Winningbusinessesin product development.the criticalsuccessfactors. Research Technology Manage-ment, 39, 18–29.

Cote,J.A. andBuckley,M.R. (1987).Estimatingtrait,method,anderror variance:generalizingacross70

March 2002


37

constructvalidation studies.Journal of MarketingResearch, 14, 315–318.

Cotiis de, T.A. and Dyer, L. (1979). Defining andmeasuring project performance. ResearchManagement, January,17–22.

Crawford,C.M. (1987).New productfailure rates:areprise.ResearchManagement, 30, 20–24.

Deshpande, R. and Webster F.E. Jr (1989).Organizational culture and marketing: definingthe researchagenda.Journal of Marketing, 53, 3–15.

Deutsch, C.H. (1999). Post-i t heyday is over.InternationalHerald Tribune, 7 July, 16.

Dufler, E. (1991).Organisationskultur:Phanomen–Philosophie – Technologie. Stuttgart: Schaffer-Poeschel.

Dwyer, L. and Mellor, R. (1991a). Organizationalenvironment,new product processactivities, andproject outcomes.Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 8, 39–48.

Dwyer, L. and Mellor, R. (1991b). New productprocess activities and project outcomes. R&DManagement, 21, 31–42.

Ebadi,Y.M. and Utterback,J.M. (1984).The effectsof communication on technological innovation.ManagementScience, 30, 572–585.

Edgett, S., Shipley, D. and Forbes, G. (1992).Japanese and Bri tish companies compared:contributing factors to success and failure inNPD. Journalof ProductInnovationManagement,9, 3–10.

Ernst, H. (2001). Erfolgsfaktoren neuer Produkte.Grundlagenfur einevalide empirischeForschung.Wiesbaden:Gabler.

Ernst, H. and Teichert, T. (1998). The R&D/Marketing interface and single informant bias inNPD research:an illustration of a benchmarkingcasestudy.Technovation, 18, 721–739.

Garud,R. and v.d. Ven, A.H. (1992). An empiricalevaluation of the internal corporate venturingprocess.Strategic ManagementJournal, 13, 93–109.

Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.-M. (1997). Strategicorientation of the f i rm and new productperformance.Journal of Marketing, 34, 77–90.

Gedenk, K. (1994). Strategie-orientierteSteuerungvon Gescha¨ftsfuhrern. Wiesbaden:Gabler.

Gerstenfeld,A. (1976).A studyof successfulprojects,unsuccessfulprojects, and projects in processinWestGermany.IEEE Transactionson EngineeringManagement, EM-23, 116–123.

Gerwin, D. and Moffat, L. (1997). Withdrawal of

team autonomy during concurrent engineering.ManagementScience, 43, 1275–1287.

Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA researchon new productdevelopment practices: updating trends andbenchmarkingbest practices.Journal of ProductInnovationManagement, 14, 429–458.

Gr uner , K . and H ombur g, C. ( 1999) .Innovationserfolgdurch Kundeneinbindung.Eineempi ri sche Untersuchung. Zei tschr i f t furBetriebswirtschaft, 1, 119–142.

Hauschi l dt , J. (1991). Zur M essung desInnovationserfolges. Zeitschri ft fur Betriebs-wirtschaft, 61, 451–476.

Hauschildt, J. (1993). Innovationsmanagement –Determinanten des Innovationserfolges. InHauschildt, J. and Grun, O. (eds), Ergebnisseempirischer betriebswirtschaftlicher Forschung:Zu einer Realtheorieder Unternehmung. Stuttgart:Schaffer-Poeschel,pp. 295–326.

Hauschildt, J. (1997). Innovationsmanagement, 2ndedition. Munchen:Vahlen.

Hauschi ldt, J. and Chakrabarti , A.K. (1988).Arbei tstei lung im Innovationsmanagement –Forschungsergebnisse, Kriterien und Modelle.Zeitschrift fur Organisation, 57, 378–388.

Hauschi ldt, J. and Gemunden, H.G. (1999).Pr omotor en: Champi ons der I nnovati on.Wiesbaden:Gabler.

Hauschildt,J. and Schlaak,T. (2001). Zur Messungdes Innovationsgrades neuartiger Produkte.Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtschaft, 71, 161–182.

Hippel, E. v. (1986). Lead users: source of novelproduct concepts.ManagementScience, 32, 791–805.

Jervis,P.(1975).Innovationandtechnologytransfer–the roles and characteristicsof individuals. IEEETransactionson Engineering Management, EM-22, 19–26.

Johne, F.A. (1984). How experienced productinnovatorsorganize.Journalof ProductInnovationManagement, 4, 210–223.

Johne,F.A. andSnelson,P. (1988).Auditing productinnovationactivities in manufacturingfirms. R&DManagement, 18, 227–233.

Keim, G. (1997). Projektleiter in der industriellenForschungund Entwicklung: AnforderungenundErfolg. Wiesbaden:Gabler.

Kirchmann, E. (1994). InnovationskooperationenzwischenHerstellernund Anwendern. Wiesbaden:Gabler.

Kleinschmidt, E.J. and Cooper, R.G. (1991). Theimpact of productinnovativenesson performance.



38

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8,240–251.

Kotzbauer (1992). Erfolgsfaktorenneuer Produkte:der Einfluss der Innovationsho¨he auf den ErfolgtechnischerProdukte. Frankfurt:Lang.

Kumar, N., Stern, L. and Anderson, J. (1993).Conductinginterorganizationalresearchusing keyinformants.Academyof ManagementJournal, 36,1633–1651.

Larson,E.W. andGobeli,D.H. (1988).Organizingforproductdevelopmentprojects.Journal of ProductInnovationManagement, 5, 180–190.

Leptien, C. (1996). Anreizsystemeim Bereich derindustr iel l en Forschung und Entwicklung.Wiesbaden:Gabler.

Lilien, G.L. and Yoon, E. (1989). Determinantsofnew industrialproductperformance:a strategicre-examination of the empirical literature. IEEETransactionson EngineeringManagement, 36, 3–10.

Maidique, M.O. and Zirger, B.J. (1984). A study ofsuccessandfailure in productinnovation:the caseof theU.S.electronicsindustry.IEEE Transactionson EngineeringManagement, EM-31, 192–203.

Meyer, M.H. andRoberts,E.B. (1986).New productstrategyin small technology-basedfirms: a pilotstudy.ManagementScience, 32, 806–821.

Mishra, S., Kim, D. and Lee, D.H. (1996). Factorsaffecting new product success: cross-countrycomparisons. Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 13, 530–550.

Montoya-Weiss, M. and Calantone, R. (1994).Determinants of new product performance: areview and meta-analysis. Journal of ProductInnovationManagement, 11, 397–417.

Mowery, D. andRosenberg,N. (1979).The influenceof market demand upon innovation: a criticalreview of somerecentempirical studies.ResearchPolicy, 8, 102–155.

Parry,M.E. andSong,X.M. (1994). Identifying newproduct successesin China. Journal of ProductInnovationManagement, 11, 15–30.

Perillieux, R. (1987).Der Zeitfaktor im strategischenTechnologiemanagement: Fruher oder spaterEinstiegbei technologischenProduktinnovationen.Berlin: Schmidt.

Pinto, M.B. and Pinto, J.K. (1990). Project teamcommunicationandcross-functionalcooperationinnew program development.Journal of ProductInnovationManagement, 7, 200–212.

Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh,J. (1983). A spatialmodelof effectivenesscriteria: towarda competing

values approach to organizational analysis.ManagementScience, 29, 363–377.

Rothwell,R.,Freeman,C.,Horlsey,A., Jervis,V.T.P.,Roberston, A.B. and Townsend, J. (1974).SAPPHO updated– project SAPPHO phase II.ResearchPolicy, 3, 258–291.

Rubenstein,A.H., Chakrabarti,A.K., O’Keefe, R.D.,Souder, W.E. and Young, H.C. (1976). Factorsinfluencinginnovationsuccessat the project level.ResearchManagement, May, 15–20.

Rudiger, M. and Vanini, S. (1998). Das Tacitknowledge-Pha¨nomenund seineImplikationenfurdas Innovationsmanagement. Die Betriebswirt-schaft, 58, 467–480.

Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational Culture andLeadership. SanFrancisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schlaak, T. (1999). Der Innovationsgrad alsSchlusselvariable– Perspektivenfur dasManage-ment von Produktentwicklungen. Wiesbaden:Gabler.

Schmalen, H. and Wiedemann, C. (1999).Erfolgsdeterminantenvon NeuproduktendeutscherHochtechnologieunternehmen. Zeitschri ft furBetriebswirtschaft, 1, 69–89.

Siegel, R., Siegel, E. and MacMillan, I.C. (1988).Corporateventurecapitalists:autonomy,obstaclesandperformance.Journalof BusinessVenturing, 3,233–247.

Simon,M. andHoughton,S.M. (1999).Succeedingatinternal corporate venturing: roles needed tobalanceautonomyandcontrol. Journal of AppliedManagementStudies, 8, 145–159.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture andorganizational analysis. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 28, 339–358.

Song, X.M. and Parry, M.E. (1992). The R&D–marketing interface in Japanesehigh-technologyfirms. Journalof ProductInnovationManagement,9, 91–112.

Song,X.M. andParry,M.E. (1997).A cross-nationalcomparativestudy of new product developmentprocesses:Japanandthe United States.Journal ofMarketing, 61, 1–18.

Song,X.M., Montoya-Weiss,M.M. andSchmidt,J.B.(1997). Antecedentsand consequencesof cross-functional cooperation: a comparison of R&D,manufacturing, and marketing perspectives.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14,35–47.

Souder, W.E. and Chakrabarti, A.K. (1978). TheR& D/Marketing interface: resul ts f rom anempirical study of innovation projects. IEEE

March 2002


39

Transactionson Engineering Management, EM-25, 88–93.

Souder,W.E., Buisson, D. and Garrett, T. (1997).Success through customer-driven new productdevelopment: a comparison of U.S. and NewZealand small entrepreneurial high technologyfirms. Journalof ProductInnovationManagement,14, 459–472.

Sykes, H.B. (1990). Corporate venture capital:strategies for success. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 5, 37–47.

Thamhain, H.J. (1990). Managing technologicallyinnovative team efforts toward new productsuccess. Jour nal of Pr oduct I nnovat i onManagement, 7, 5–18.

Urban, G.L. and Hauser, J.R. (1993). Design andMarketing of New Products, 2nd edition. UpperSaddleRiver, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Utterback,J.M., Allen, T., Hollomon,J.H. andSirbu,M.A. (1976). The processof innovation in fiveindustriesin EuropeandJapan.IEEE Transactionson EngineeringManagement, EM-23, 3–9.

Voss, C.A. (1985). Determinantsof successin the

developmentof application software. Journal ofProduct InnovationManagement, 2, 122–129.

Walter, A. (1998). Der Beziehungspromotor: einpersonaler Gestaltungsansatz fur erfolgreichesRelationship-Marketing. Wiesbaden:Gabler.

Weisenfeld-Schenk, U. (1995). Marketing- undTechnologiestrategien:Unternehmender Biotech-nologie im internationalen Vergleich. Stuttgart:Schaffer-Poeschel.

Wind, J. and Mahajan, V. (1997). Issues andopportunities in new product development: anintroduction to the special Issue. Journal ofMarketingResearch, 34, 1–12.

Witte, E. (1973). Organisation von Innovations-entscheidungen. Gottingen:Schwartz.

Womack,J.P.,Jones,D.T. andRoos,D. (1990).TheMachine that Changed the World. New York:HarperPerennial.

Yap, C.M. and Souder, W.E. (1994). Factorsinfluencing new product successand failure insmall entrepreneurialhigh-technology electronicfirms. Journalof ProductInnovationManagement,11, 418–432.



40

successfactorsofnew productdevelopment:a ...cin.ufpe.br/~hsf/referencial teorico/success factors of...

Documents