Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
New Product Success (new + product_success)
Selected AbstractsDecomposing Product Innovativeness and Its Effects on New Product SuccessTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 5 2006Roger J. Calantone Does product innovativeness affect new product success? The current research proposes that the ambiguity in findings may be due to an overly holistic conceptualization of product innovativeness that has erroneously included the concepts of product advantage and customer familiarity. This article illustrates how the same measures have often been used to assess product advantage with product innovativeness and product innovativeness with customer familiarity. These paired overlaps in measurement use are clarified in this research, which decomposes dimensions of product innovativeness along conceptual lines into distinct product innovativeness, product advantage, and customer familiarity constructs. To further support this decomposition, structural equation modeling is used to empirically test the distinctions. The measurement model supports the conceptual separation, and the path model reveals contingent effects of product innovativeness. Although product innovativeness enhances product advantage, a high level of innovativeness reduces customer familiarity, indicating that product innovativeness can be detrimental to new product success if customers are not sufficiently familiar with the nature of the new product and if innovativeness fails to improve product advantage. This exercise in metric development also reveals that after controlling for product advantage and customer familiarity, product innovativeness has no direct effect on new product profitability. This finding has strong implications for firms that mistakenly pursue innovation for its own sake. Consideration of both distribution and technical synergy as driving antecedents demonstrates how firms can still enhance new product success even if an inappropriate level of innovativeness is present. This leads to a simple but powerful two-step approach to bringing highly innovative products to market. First, firms should only emphasize product innovativeness when it relates to the market relevant concepts of product advantage and customer familiarity. Second, existing technical and distribution abilities can be used to enhance product quality and customer understanding. Distribution channels in particular should be exploited to counter customer uncertainty toward newly introduced products. [source] Customization of Product Technology and International New Product Success: Mediating Effects of New Product Development and Rollout TimelinessTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2000George M. Chryssochoidis Offering a standardized product for different country markets may enable companies to accomplish fast product development and multicountry rollout, whereas also enjoying substantial cost benefits. However, not all manufacturers serving multicountry markets can adopt a standardized product strategy. Where technological requirements, standards, and approval procedures vary substantially across countries, manufacturers invariably must adapt the product's technology to fit individual country requirements. Extensive customization may lead to longer new product development and rollout times and increase the likelihood of delays in the entire project, hence adversely affecting overall new product outcome. This study examines the relationships between product technology customization, the timeliness in completion of both the new product development effort and international market launches, and new product success. The study that reports on new product launches across European markets, is based on personal interviews with senior managers in 30 multinational companies. The authors show that timeliness in new product development and timeliness in rolling out the new product into different country markets mediate the link between product technology customization and overall new product success. Customization of product technology increases the likelihood of delays in the completion of new product development projects and multicountry rollout. Additionally, the timeliness in new product development mediates the relationship between product technology customization and timeliness in international new product rollout. This means that if the NPD project runs behind schedule, a fault-free multicountry rollout program becomes increasingly unlikely, as problems encountered during product development spillover into the rollout program. The results imply that international product managers must assign greater priority to assessing the relative advantages of customizing new product technology and to consider the timing implications for both the NPD effort and subsequent rollout. Managers must set realistic schedules and allocate sufficient resources to ensure both tasks can be accomplished within planned time scales. Finally, managers should not underestimate the complexities and time involved in customizing new product technologies, including the completion of disparate country technical approval procedures. [source] Launch Decisions and New Product Success: An Empirical Comparison of Consumer and Industrial ProductsTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 1 2000Erik Jan Hultink Many articles have investigated new product development success and failure. However, most of them have used the vantage point of characteristics of the product and development process in this research. In this article we extend this extensive stream of research, looking at factors affecting success; however, we look at the product in the context of the launch support program. We empirically answer the question of whether successful launch decisions differ for consumer and industrial products and identify how they differ. From data collected on over 1,000 product introductions, we first contrast consumer product launches with industrial product launches to identify key differences and similarities in launch decisions between market types. For consumer products, strategic launch decisions appear more defensive in nature, as they focus on defending current market positions. Industrial product strategic launch decisions seem more offensive, using technology and innovation to push the firm to operate outside their current realm of operations and move into new markets. The tactical marketing mix launch decisions (product, place, promotion and price) also differ markedly across the products launched for the two market types. Successful products were contrasted with failed products to identify those launch decisions that discriminate between both outcomes. Here the differences are more of degree rather than principle. Some launch decisions were associated with success for consumer and industrial products alike. Launch successes are more likely to be broader assortments of more innovative product improvements that are advertised with print advertising, independent of market. Other launch decisions uniquely related to success per product type, especially at the marketing mix level (pricing, distribution, and promotion in particular). The launch decisions most frequently made by firms are not well aligned with factors associated with higher success. Additionally, comparing the decisions associated with success to the recommendations for launches from the normative literature suggests that a number of conventional heuristics about how to launch products of each type will actually lead to failure rather than success. [source] Technology-Based New Product Development Partnerships,DECISION SCIENCES, Issue 2 2006John E. Ettlie ABSTRACT Hypotheses were developed to capture the dynamic capabilities that result from interfirm partnerships during the joint new product development (NPD) process,the ability to build, integrate, and reconfigure existing resources to adapt to rapidly changing environments. These capabilities, in turn, were proposed to have a positive impact on NPD performance outcomes: (a) proportion of new product success and (b) superior new product commercialization. In contexts where the locus of innovation is rapidly changing, the impact of interfirm NPD dynamic capabilities was hypothesized to be diminished in high-technology contexts, especially for buyers (original equipment manufacturers) and to a lesser extent for suppliers. Still, technology-based interfirm NPD partnerships were predicted to ultimately outperform low-technology ones in both NPD performance outcomes. Finally, information technology (IT) support for NPD was hypothesized to influence the interfirm NPD partnership's dynamic capabilities. Using survey data from 72 auto company managers and their suppliers, the proposed model in which IT support for NPD influences the success of interfirm NPD partnerships through the mediating role of interfirm NPD partnership dynamic capabilities in high- and low-technology contexts was generally supported. The results shed light on the nature of technology-based interfirm NPD partnerships and have implications for their success. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed. [source] Critical success factors for cross-functional teamwork in new product developmentINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, Issue 3 2000Sarah Holland There is consensus that the effective implementation of cross-functional teams is critical to new product success. However, such teams face particular challenges because of well-documented barriers between functions. Furthermore, there is little evidence-based guidance for practitioners on how to achieve effective cross-functional teamwork. In order to address this gap, the literature on cross-functional teamwork was analysed to identify critical success factors. Using a heuristic team effectiveness model, these were categorized into six groups: task design, group composition, organizational context, internal processes, external processes and group psychosocial traits. Recent theory on group effectiveness has increasingly recognized the significance of a supportive organizational context, and this is particularly pertinent for cross-functional teams. Key success factors include strategic alignment between functions, a climate supportive of teamwork and team-based accountability. The findings are integrated into a diagnostic model which is intended to be of practical benefit to people designing, leading and facilitating cross-functional new product development teams. [source] Decomposing Product Innovativeness and Its Effects on New Product SuccessTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 5 2006Roger J. Calantone Does product innovativeness affect new product success? The current research proposes that the ambiguity in findings may be due to an overly holistic conceptualization of product innovativeness that has erroneously included the concepts of product advantage and customer familiarity. This article illustrates how the same measures have often been used to assess product advantage with product innovativeness and product innovativeness with customer familiarity. These paired overlaps in measurement use are clarified in this research, which decomposes dimensions of product innovativeness along conceptual lines into distinct product innovativeness, product advantage, and customer familiarity constructs. To further support this decomposition, structural equation modeling is used to empirically test the distinctions. The measurement model supports the conceptual separation, and the path model reveals contingent effects of product innovativeness. Although product innovativeness enhances product advantage, a high level of innovativeness reduces customer familiarity, indicating that product innovativeness can be detrimental to new product success if customers are not sufficiently familiar with the nature of the new product and if innovativeness fails to improve product advantage. This exercise in metric development also reveals that after controlling for product advantage and customer familiarity, product innovativeness has no direct effect on new product profitability. This finding has strong implications for firms that mistakenly pursue innovation for its own sake. Consideration of both distribution and technical synergy as driving antecedents demonstrates how firms can still enhance new product success even if an inappropriate level of innovativeness is present. This leads to a simple but powerful two-step approach to bringing highly innovative products to market. First, firms should only emphasize product innovativeness when it relates to the market relevant concepts of product advantage and customer familiarity. Second, existing technical and distribution abilities can be used to enhance product quality and customer understanding. Distribution channels in particular should be exploited to counter customer uncertainty toward newly introduced products. [source] FROM EXPERIENCE: Creating Synergy between Marketing and Research and Development,THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 1 2004Gail L. Rein The tensions between marketing and research and development (R&D) are so common that we have come to accept them as the way organizations are. If we remain resigned like this, how will we ever reap some of the benefits that can accrue from these groups working better together? If we can improve the working relationships between marketing and R&D, researchers promise a variety of desirable organizational outcomes, such as cycle-time reduction and new product success. This article describes in detail the changes that a Fortune 500 company made to its product development process to foster synergy between marketing and R&D. The modified process formalized the roles of marketing and R&D at both the front and back ends of the product development process, increasing productive interaction between the groups. The company found that at the front end, marketing and R&D needed to work together (1) to clarify the market requirements implicit in the market attack plan and (2) to develop a technical strategy that responded to the market requirements and that consequently implemented the market attack plan. At the back end, the groups needed to work together (3) to formulate the value messages used to market the company's products. The synergy created between marketing and R&D through the new process is credited for enabling the company to compete successfully in a market it never before had entered. [source] Project visioning: Its components and impact on new product successTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 6 2001Gary S. Lynna The concept of corporate vision has been receiving considerable attention in the strategy scholarship. A clear and lofty organizational vision can provide direction to a company and can positively impact its ability to succeed. Yet research on vision at the project level has been curiously lacking. The purpose of this research is to define project vision, discuss its components and explore its impact on successful new product development. After studying the vision on a series of 13 innovations at three companies (Apple, IBM and HP), we identified several components of an effective project vision that include vision clarity, vision agreement/support and vision stability and assessed their impact on new product success. To confirm the validity and generalizability of our observations, we then tested these insights on 509 new product teams from a wide variety of firms. We found that an effective vision varies depending on the innovation type - incremental, evolutionary and radical. Our results demonstrate that vision clarity is positively associated with success in evolutionary (market or technical), and radical innovations, but not for incremental projects. Vision stability is positively associated with success in incremental and evolutionary market innovations; and vision support is positively associated with success in incremental, and evolutionary technical innovations. [source] The Effect of Sales Force Adoption on New Product Selling PerformanceTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 6 2000Erik Jan Hultink Although several studies have suggested that the sales force is a major contributing factor to new product success, few studies have focused on new product adoption by the sales force, particularly with respect to its relationship with selling performance. The present article presents empirical evidence on the impact of sales force adoption on selling performance. We defined sales force adoption as the combination of the degree to which salespeople accept and internalize the goals of the new product (i.e., commitment) and the extent to which they work hard to achieve those goals (i.e., effort). It was hypothesized that the impact of sales force adoption on selling performance will be contingent on supervisory factors (sales controls, internal marketing of the new product, training, trust, and supervisor's field attention), and market volatility. Therefore, this article also provides evidence of the conditions under which sales force adoption of a new product is more or less effective in engendering successful selling performance. The hypothesized relationships were tested with data provided by 97 high technology firms from The Netherlands. The results show that sales force adoption is positively related to selling performance. This finding suggests that salespeople who simultaneously exhibit commitment and effort will achieve higher levels of new product selling performance. Outcome based control, internal marketing and market volatility are also positively related to new product selling performance. The effect of sales force adoption on selling performance is stronger where outcome based control is used and where the firm provides information on the background of the new product to salespeople through internal marketing. Training and field attention weaken the adoption-performance linkage. These findings may indicate that salespeople in The Netherlands interpret training as "micromanaging" and field attention as "looking over their shoulder." We conclude with implications of our study for research and managerial practice. [source] Customization of Product Technology and International New Product Success: Mediating Effects of New Product Development and Rollout TimelinessTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2000George M. Chryssochoidis Offering a standardized product for different country markets may enable companies to accomplish fast product development and multicountry rollout, whereas also enjoying substantial cost benefits. However, not all manufacturers serving multicountry markets can adopt a standardized product strategy. Where technological requirements, standards, and approval procedures vary substantially across countries, manufacturers invariably must adapt the product's technology to fit individual country requirements. Extensive customization may lead to longer new product development and rollout times and increase the likelihood of delays in the entire project, hence adversely affecting overall new product outcome. This study examines the relationships between product technology customization, the timeliness in completion of both the new product development effort and international market launches, and new product success. The study that reports on new product launches across European markets, is based on personal interviews with senior managers in 30 multinational companies. The authors show that timeliness in new product development and timeliness in rolling out the new product into different country markets mediate the link between product technology customization and overall new product success. Customization of product technology increases the likelihood of delays in the completion of new product development projects and multicountry rollout. Additionally, the timeliness in new product development mediates the relationship between product technology customization and timeliness in international new product rollout. This means that if the NPD project runs behind schedule, a fault-free multicountry rollout program becomes increasingly unlikely, as problems encountered during product development spillover into the rollout program. The results imply that international product managers must assign greater priority to assessing the relative advantages of customizing new product technology and to consider the timing implications for both the NPD effort and subsequent rollout. Managers must set realistic schedules and allocate sufficient resources to ensure both tasks can be accomplished within planned time scales. Finally, managers should not underestimate the complexities and time involved in customizing new product technologies, including the completion of disparate country technical approval procedures. [source] Technological Innovativeness as a Moderator of New Product Design Integration and Top Management SupportTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 3 2000Morgan Swink Many war stories, as well as a number of empirical research studies, point to the value of design integration and top management support in new product development (NPD) efforts, where design integration is conceptualized as the coordination of product and process design activities performed by various organizational groups. However, some emerging evidence suggests that these aspects of program management are not equally valuable in all NPD contexts. Furthermore, the benefits of these approaches may not extend to all dimensions of NPD performance. This article addresses these issues as they relate to technological innovativeness. The author reports the results of a research study designed to (1) assess the direct contributions of design integration and top management support to several dimensions of NPD performance, and (2) identify potential moderating influences of technological innovativeness on these direct effects. A survey of 136 NPD projects drawn from firms representing most of the major U.S. manufacturing industries provides data for the study. The overall goals of the study were to amplify our understanding of management's role in NPD and to further the development of contingency theory explaining new product success. The results indicate that design integration is positively associated with higher design quality in NPD, but it is not significantly linked with better financial performance. In addition, design integration appears to be an important influence on achieving NPD time goals, but only in cases of high technological innovativeness. This result suggests that increased design integration produces its greatest impacts when development processes are full of uncertainty. Top management support is positively associated with better time-based performance, design quality, and financial performance on the whole. However, a significant interaction effect suggests that high levels of top management support are ineffective in securing good financial performance in high technologically innovative environments. Other forces appear to be at work in these circumstances, making top management support less important. The article discusses the implications of these findings for management practice, a contingency-oriented view of NPD processes, and future research. [source] | ||||||||||