Accelerated product development--getting new products to market in record speed and ahead of competition--as become key to success and profitability, according to many pundits. The dilemma faced by managers is that, while cycle time reduction may be an admirable goal, there is very little hard evidence or prescriptions based on fact on how to achieve this. We are bombarded with techniques, approaches and concepts that promise accelerated product development (1-9), but fact is that most ape based on speculation, opinion, anecdotal evidence and a handful of case studies--hardly what one would call scientific evidence. In short, real evidence of cycle time reduction based on solid research studies is surprisingly lacking. (Some exceptions, namely studies on cycle time reduction in product development, are found in 10-13). One reason for this lack of hard data is that field of accelerated product development is relatively new. A second and more serious reason is that research into cycle time reduction is difficult research: Measuring project times--for example, when does a project start?--and comparing times of different types of projects is much easier to do conceptually than in practice. Research into measuring and comparing cycle times is fraught with operational problems. This article reports on a large sample size investigation into new products and time-to-market: Here particular emphasis is on project timeliness; that is, on those factors that drive both fast-paced product development, and on-time, on-schedule launches (see also 14). Drivers of New Product Timeliness The overall goal of investigation was to uncover some of critical factors that impact on project timeliness. More specifically, its purpose was to undertake an extensive and rigorous study involving an analysis of a large sample of actual new product projects to find out what really makes difference between fast-paced, on-schedule projects and those that limped along, and were launched way behind schedule. The results of investigation are both provocative and sobering. For example, there is no one-to-one link between financial performance and timeliness; while there is a connection, it is not nearly as strong as some would have us believe. Some of study's results support previous speculation; for example, vital role of cross-functional teams and need for sharp, early product definition in fast-paced development projects were confirmed. But there were surprises as well; for example, some of steps where people cut corners in interest of saving time actually had opposite effect. The role of the voice of customer in cycle-time reduction yielded provocative results as well. Also highlighted are some good practices (and poor practices) that were uncovered as part of data collection phase. The study's results are based on 103 major new product projects from leading firms in four countries in chemical industry. Two-thirds of projects were rated as commercial successes. Although undertaken in one industry, conclusions are likely to have applicability to moderate-to-high technology firms in other industries as well. Before we get into study's results and implications, however, here is some background on rationale for study. Additionally, a description of research method--what was measured and how--is summarized in How Research Was Done, below. Speed at All Costs? The topics of time-to-market and cycle-time reduction have been popular in recent years, as witnessed by number of books, trade press articles and consul reports on subject. Indeed, Crawford notes that talk around subject verges on hype (2). There are several underlying beliefs which lead to this emphasis on speed--some based on myth, others on fact: 1. First into market wins.--This is a popular view, but there is conflicting evidence on this; as Crawford points out, there exist no hard data to show that first in wins, except those that assume that second and third entries have comparable products (2). …
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 2002
Andres Almazan 
Open Access