New Product Development Professionals Research Articles

Reward interdependence and project professionals' knowledge hiding: the moderating role of knowledge attributes

PurposeBased on interdependence theory, the authors investigated the effect of reward interdependence (RI) on project professionals' knowledge hiding and examined the moderating role of knowledge tacitness (KT) and complexity, in the context of new product development (NPD) teams.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted a time-lagged study in the context of NPD teams and collected data from a sample of 231 NPD professionals in China.FindingsThe study's findings indicate that RI was negatively associated with knowledge hiding. Knowledge tacitness negatively moderated the relation between RI and knowledge hiding. In contrast, the moderating effect of knowledge complexity (KC) was not significant.Practical implicationsTo reduce NPD professionals' knowledge hiding, organizations should not only design incentive plans that cultivate interpersonal relatedness but also address the drawbacks (decreased effectiveness of group rewards) resulting from KT.Originality/valueThe authors' paper provides novel insights into the inconsistent understanding of organizational rewards' effectiveness in managing knowledge withholding by demonstrating the differentiated effects of individual and group rewards on knowledge hiding as well as the differential contingent roles of knowledge attributes.

Factors influencing knowledge sharing in new product development in high-tech manufacturing firms

Knowledge sharing is considered an important promotor of new product development (NPD) performance. However, studies have shown that making experts share knowledge in new product development (NPD) projects is often a challenging task. Consequently, this topic has attracted substantial attention in academic research. However, although studies have produced valuable insights, more detailed accounts of the mechanisms shaping knowledge sharing processes in NPD projects are sparse. To add to the knowledge on this topic, this study conducts a series of interviews with NPD professionals at manufacturers of high-tech industrial products to identify ‘factors influencing knowledge sharing’ (FIKS). The identified FIKS are explained through the socio-physiological theory, the ‘reasoned action approach’ (RAA). This involves several contributions. First, the study provides a detailed explanation of the role of FIKS by describing how they affect the behaviour of knowledge providers and receivers in NPD processes. Second, by identifying 161 FIKS in NPD processes, organised under 18 categories, the study offers the so far most extensive account of FIKS in NPD processes. Third, the findings suggest a special characteristic of knowledge sharing in NPD contexts concerning the relatively high importance of knowledge receiver behaviour.

The Transformation of the Innovation Process: How Digital Tools are Changing Work, Collaboration, and Organizations in New Product Development*

Over the past several decades, digitization has invaded all areas of human activity, including innovation. The result of digitization of existing tools for design and collaboration, and the introduction of entirely new digital tools, is a far more substantive change of innovation than previous generations of tools enabled. It affects not only the quality of the output and speed of its generation, but it affects the innovation work itself, changes work content, collaboration patterns, decision authority, organizational set‐ups, governance structures, firm boundaries, and ultimately entire ecosystems.In this paper, the digitization of New Product Development (NPD), a subset of innovation, is studied to pursue two research questions: (1) How has the digital tool landscape in NPD changed over the past 15 years, and (2) how have these changes affected how firms innovate?This research uses a longitudinal multi‐method, qualitative approach to deep dive into actual use cases of digital design tools such as computer‐aided design CAD and new tools such as collaborative information technology (CIT). The changes in these tools and observations into how these tools are transforming the very nature of how things are designed is the research focus of this study.These tools have become increasingly more sophisticated while being easier to use and are integrated earlier in the design process. As a result, digital tools have a far broader reaching impact than previous generation of tools. Not only do they affect output and process efficiency, but they also increase depth and breadth of the work of individual innovators, they lead to rearrangement of the entire innovation processes, enable new configurations of people, teams, and firms, and rewrite the rules on how knowledge management acts as a critical competitive capability. The progression of digitization is laying the groundwork for changes to what firms are and do and points to different ways of organizing, specializing, and training for NPD professionals.

Effect of oxidative stress on haemoglobin oxygen-binding capacity

Escalation of commitment, defined as the continuation in a failing course of action, is a persistent problem for decision makers in business markets, especially those involved in new product development (NPD). To address this issue, we use Anticipated Regret Theory to develop a model and then empirically test it to demonstrate how forward-looking emotions can lead decision makers to continue failing NPD projects in business-to-business (B2B) markets. We recognize that there are two countervailing types of anticipated regret (i.e., keep regret and drop regret) and test both in our model by adopting a mixed-methods empirical approach. In a quantitative study, a total of 280 subjects completed a NPD decision-making exercise in which various antecedents of persistence with a losing new, business-to-business NPD project were examined. The results suggest that anticipated drop regret plays a significant role in commitment to a failing course of action, whereas anticipated keep regret actually reduces commitment. In a second, qualitative study, twenty experienced NPD professionals operating in high-technology, B2B markets were interviewed either in-person or by telephone. The results suggest that anticipated drop regret is a more serious problem than anticipated keep regret, supporting the quantitative study.

Improving the new product development using big data: a case study of a food company

Purpose Recently, the concept of big data (BD) has evolved and started to play an essential role in the advancement of new product development (NPD) in various sectors contributing to value creation, idea generation and competitive advantage. However, limited research has been done on how the food industry can exploit BD to improve the processes involved in NPD. The purpose of this paper is to understand the use of BD in new food product development. It helps to find relevant information and integrate sustainability to the early stages of the NPD process in the food industry. Design/methodology/approach This research illustrates a case study of a beverage company wherein they used BD analytics to support their NPD team to launch a two-litre lemonade drink in the market for their retailer with less than 5 g sugar per 100 ml in the shortest possible time. Findings The use of BD helps to reduce NPD costs and time without affecting the taste and on par with competitor’s products. Originality/value The research can support NPD professionals through the application of BD analytics to bring products at lower costs to the market as quickly as possible.

Anticipated regret and escalation of commitment to failing, new product development projects in business markets

Escalation of commitment, defined as the continuation in a failing course of action, is a persistent problem for decision makers in business markets, especially those involved in new product development (NPD). To address this issue, we use Anticipated Regret Theory to develop a model and then empirically test it to demonstrate how forward-looking emotions can lead decision makers to continue failing NPD projects in business-to-business (B2B) markets. We recognize that there are two countervailing types of anticipated regret (i.e., keep regret and drop regret) and test both in our model by adopting a mixed-methods empirical approach. In a quantitative study, a total of 280 subjects completed a NPD decision-making exercise in which various antecedents of persistence with a losing new, business-to-business NPD project were examined. The results suggest that anticipated drop regret plays a significant role in commitment to a failing course of action, whereas anticipated keep regret actually reduces commitment. In a second, qualitative study, twenty experienced NPD professionals operating in high-technology, B2B markets were interviewed either in-person or by telephone. The results suggest that anticipated drop regret is a more serious problem than anticipated keep regret, supporting the quantitative study.

An Examination of New Product Development Best Practice

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

Tacit Knowledge, Lessons Learnt, and New Product Development

New product development (NPD) is a complex activity that is dependent on knowledge and learning. Much of the knowledge generated in NPD is tacit; it is difficult to express, connected with problem solving, and dependent on the interactions within teams. Post‐project reviews (PPRs) are recognized as a highly effective mechanism for stimulating learning in NPD teams but, surprisingly, neither the typical “lessons learnt” that emerge from PPRs nor the role of tacit knowledge in NPD learning have previously been studied. To address this gap, five in‐depth case studies were conducted at leading German companies. Three main sources of data were used: interviews with experienced NPD personnel using repertory grid technique, inspection of company process and project documentation, and observations of PPR discussions. Systematic coding of the qualitative data was conducted by two researchers working in parallel and verified through checks involving independent researchers. The coding process identified the lessons learnt and also the usage of metaphors and stories (which signifies tacit knowledge generation).The lessons that NPD personnel perceive to be the most important were identified from the repertory grid data. These included: knowing how to deal with project budgets, solving technical problems, meeting schedules, resource management, and managing organizational complexity. Four lessons learnt appear to be particularly closely linked to tacit knowledge: dealing with project budgets, problem solving, coping with time schedules, and coping with changes in product specifications. Data triangulation showed that the five companies did not capture many lessons in their reports on PPRs. In addition, it appears that the learning that was related to tacit knowledge was not captured for dissemination.Although the results from our exploratory sample cannot be generalized, there are some important implications. The results indicate that R&D managers should capitalize on the tacit knowledge within their organizations through mentoring (to transfer the lessons that are most closely linked to tacit knowledge), and encouraging the use of metaphors and stories to transfer key NPD knowledge. Future research needs to verify the results using a larger sample, focus on how NPD professionals learn, and identify the mechanisms that facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge and project‐to‐project learning.Tacit knowledge is a popular management concept but one that is poorly understood, as empirical evidence to demonstrate the validity of the theoretical concepts is sadly lacking. This provides a unique opportunity for NPD scholars—they have the ideal arena in which a deeper understanding of tacit knowledge can be generated.

Learning from Postproject Reviews: A Cross‐Case Analysis*

Every new product development (NPD) project should not only deliver a successful new product but also should generate learning for the organization. Postproject reviews (PPRs) are recognized by both practitioners and academics as an appropriate mechanism to stimulate and capture learning in NPD teams. However, relatively few companies use PPRs, and those that do use them often fail to do so effectively. Although they are widely perceived to be a useful tool, empirical research on how PPRs are typically organized and the learning that results is limited. The present article addresses this gap in the extant knowledge and describes five in‐depth case studies, which were conducted at leading companies in Germany. A detailed investigation was made of how PPRs are conducted and of the type of learning that can result. Three main sources of data were used for each case: company documentation, in‐depth interviews with managers responsible for NPD, and observation of an actual PPR. The different data sources enabled extensive triangulation of data to be conducted and a high degree of reliability and validity to be achieved. The analysis enabled a number of key characteristics of the way PPRs are managed to be identified. Various characteristics of PPRs influence their utility, such as the time at which they take place and the way discussions are moderated. In addition, the data show that participants in the discussions at PPRs often use metaphors and stories, which indicates that PPRs have the potential to generate tacit knowledge. Interestingly, the data also show that there are various different ways in which metaphors and stories appear to stimulate discussions on NPD projects. Based on the cross‐case analysis, a wide range of implications are identified. Researchers need to investigate PPRs further to identify how they can generate tacit and explicit knowledge and support project‐to‐project learning. The generation of tacit knowledge in NPD is a topic that particularly needs further investigation. The research also led to a range of recommendations for practitioners. Companies need to strongly communicate the purpose and value of PPRs, to run them effectively to stimulate the maximum possible learning, and to disseminate the findings widely. PPRs have the potential to create and transfer knowledge amongst NPD professionals, but, as they are seldom currently used, many companies are missing an important opportunity.

Managers' perceptions of learning in new product development

PurposePost‐project reviews (PPRs) are widely recommended as an appropriate mechanism to stimulate project‐to‐project learning in new product development (NPD) teams. However, empirical research on their potential is limited and so this study aims to answer two questions: how do NPD professionals perceive PPRs? and is tacit knowledge created during PPRs?Design/methodology/approachFive in‐depth case studies were conducted in German companies. The main sources of data were: company documentation; in‐depth interviews with managers; and observation of PPRs. The different data sources enabled extensive data triangulation and a high degree of reliability and validity to be achieved.FindingsThe results indicate that NPD personnel perceive PPRs to be a very useful mechanism. They also show that social interactions and tacit knowledge play key roles in NPD learning.Research limitations/implicationsTacit knowledge was investigated using a proxy measure – the usage of metaphors and stories in NPD discussions and documents. More robust ways of studying the generation and transfer of tacit knowledge are needed. The whole area of knowledge and learning in NPD requires significant further study.Practical implicationsManagement needs to drive the dissemination of the results of PPRs more effectively, in order to make more use of the tacit knowledge generated.Originality/valueThe main contributions of this study are the insights it provides on how PPRs are perceived and the exploratory investigation it makes of tacit knowledge – a complex topic that has previously only been discussed at a theoretical level.

Perspective—Riding the Wind: Managing New Product Development in an Age of Change

New product development (NPD) has never been more challenging or rewarding than it is today. With the dawning of the new millennium, new product developers now find themselves in an “age of change,” the likes of which the world has never known. The rate of change is numbing, if not stupefying for many business people. With the winds of change blowing at near gale force intensity levels, this is clearly a time for NPD professionals to pursue new product and market strategies that are anchored on sound business fundamentals.This article begins with a brief review of the Product Development & Management Association's 1998 International Research Conference held in Atlanta. The theme for the conference was “Achieving Excellence in New Product Development and Management.” The article then offers a reflective look at seven NPD themes that could dominate new millennium business thinking and offer guidance to those seeking new product success.The article's first theme discusses why NPD is increasing in importance. The second theme outlines key NPD building blocks which NPD champions must bolster for new product success. The third theme explores the value in conceptualizing NPD output in items of “turns per decade.” The fourth theme champions the notion that continuous quality improvement is an integral part of NPD's contribution to a firm. The fifth theme explains why product elimination is an essential element in the innovation process. Theme number six reminds readers that fun and optimism are essential and commonly overlooked ingredients for sustaining NPD achievement. The seventh theme states that product development professionals build credibility and successful careers by delivering on promises made. Innovation opportunities embedded within each theme are explored from both firm‐level and individual developer‐level perspectives.In building the case for their themes, the authors initially provide a rationale for NPD's growing stature and importance. Then they suggest NPD strategies that firms can implement with high likelihood of success. The article concludes with suggested actions that individual developers can undertake to bolster their own careers while simultaneously strengthening the NPD profession.

Perspective—riding the wind: managing new product development in an age of change

New product development (NPD) has never been more challenging or rewarding than it is today. With the dawning of the new millennium, new product developers now find themselves in an “age of change,” the likes of which the world has never known. The rate of change is numbing, if not stupefying for many business people. With the winds of change blowing at near gale force intensity levels, this is clearly a time for NPD professionals to pursue new product and market strategies that are anchored on sound business fundamentals. This article begins with a brief review of the Product Development & Management Association’s 1998 International Research Conference held in Atlanta. The theme for the conference was “Achieving Excellence in New Product Development and Management.” The article then offers a reflective look at seven NPD themes that could dominate new millennium business thinking and offer guidance to those seeking new product success. The article’s first theme discusses why NPD is increasing in importance. The second theme outlines key NPD building blocks which NPD champions must bolster for new product success. The third theme explores the value in conceptualizing NPD output in items of “turns per decade.” The fourth theme champions the notion that continuous quality improvement is an integral part of NPD’s contribution to a firm. The fifth theme explains why product elimination is an essential element in the innovation process. Theme number six reminds readers that fun and optimism are essential and commonly overlooked ingredients for sustaining NPD achievement. The seventh theme states that product development professionals build credibility and successful careers by delivering on promises made. Innovation opportunities embedded within each theme are explored from both firm-level and individual developer-level perspectives. In building the case for their themes, the authors initially provide a rationale for NPD’s growing stature and importance. Then they suggest NPD strategies that firms can implement with high likelihood of success. The article concludes with suggested actions that individual developers can undertake to bolster their own careers while simultaneously strengthening the NPD profession .

Enhancing new product development performance: an organizational learning perspective

Several years ago, an editorial in a software industry journal asked readers, “Why aren’t they using all those marvelous methods?” The focus of the editorial was on software engineering methods, but the question also applies to the broader realm of new product development (NPD). Proven tools exist for gathering, disseminating, and using market information. But despite widespread recognition of the important role that market knowledge plays in NPD, most firms fail to employ these tools in a consistent manner. Marjorie E. Adams, George S. Day, and Deborah Dougherty contend that the tools for successful NPD cannot be implemented successfully until we understand the barriers that hinder an organization’s capabilities for learning about markets. To foster that understanding, they describe the results of a study that explores the organizational barriers to learning about markets for new products. The study examines 40 NPD efforts in 15 large firms, and it has the following goals: identifying the processes through which organizational barriers impede market learning, developing specific ideas for how NPD professionals can cope more effectively with these barriers, and offering suggestions for improving market tools and techniques to help overcome these barriers. The study identifies three organizational learning barriers: avoiding ambiguity, compartmentalized thinking, and inertia. For the participants in this study, these barriers persistently act in specific ways to inhibit market learning. In acquiring market information, people typically focus on less ambiguous, more easily understood technologies and business truisms. Dissemination of market information is hindered because people focus on their own goals, which are often defined within their department’s role instead of the overall goals of the project. Inertia acts as a barrier to the effective use of market information. That is, people tend to proceed as they always have, maintaining the status quo rather than adjusting actions to capitalize on market learning. By encouraging broad functional participation in the acquisition and interpretation of data, NPD organizations can reduce the perceived ambiguity of market information. However, cross-functional approaches are only one step in overcoming organizational barriers. Managers must enable teams to develop rich, vivid market data, help people extend established routines into new practices, and promote trust. Specific market research tools and methods that promote market learning are also suggested.

Enhancing New Product Development Performance: An Organizational Learning Perspective

Several years ago, an editorial in a software industry journal asked readers, “Why aren't they using all those marvelous methods?” The focus of the editorial was on software engineering methods, but the question also applies to the broader realm of new product development (NPD). Proven tools exist for gathering, disseminating, and using market information. But despite widespread recognition of the important role that market knowledge plays in NPD, most firms fail to employ these tools in a consistent manner.Marjorie E. Adams, George S. Day, and Deborah Dougherty contend that the tools for successful NPD cannot be implemented successfully until we understand the barriers that hinder an organization's capabilities for learning about markets. To foster that understanding, they describe the results of a study that explores the organizational barriers to learning about markets for new products. The study examines 40 NPD efforts in 15 large firms, and it has the following goals: identifying the processes through which organizational barriers impede market learning, developing specific ideas for how NPD professionals can cope more effectively with these barriers, and offering suggestions for improving market tools and techniques to help overcome these barriers.The study identifies three organizational learning barriers: avoiding ambiguity, compartmentalized thinking, and inertia. For the participants in this study, these barriers persistently act in specific ways to inhibit market learning. In acquiring market information, people typically focus on less ambiguous, more easily understood technologies and business truisms. Dissemination of market information is hindered because people focus on their own goals, which are often defined within their department's role instead of the overall goals of the project. Inertia acts as a barrier to the effective use of market information. That is, people tend to proceed as they always have, maintaining the status quo rather than adjusting actions to capitalize on market learning.By encouraging broad functional participation in the acquisition and interpretation of data, NPD organizations can reduce the perceived ambiguity of market information. However, cross‐functional approaches are only one step in overcoming organizational barriers. Managers must enable teams to develop rich, vivid market data, help people extend established routines into new practices, and promote trust. Specific market research tools and methods that promote market learning are also suggested.

From experience: Securing sponsors and funding for new product development projects—The human side of enterprise

Gaining approval for a project requires playing a role that may be unfamiliar for many new-product development (NPD) professionals—that of salesperson. The NPD professional must sell management on the market potential of the product concept, and persuade management to commit the resources needed for transforming the concept into a marketable product. Finding a well-placed sponsor within the company's management ranks can improve the chances of obtaining approval for a project, but securing sponsorship is, in many respects, yet another sales job. Gary Tighe offers guidance for NPD professionals who must sell their projects to potential sponsors. He describes the key steps in the process of securing a sponsor, he gives guidelines for choosing the right sponsor based on the nature of the project, and he provides practical advice for developing a presentation that will gain the support of a prospective sponsor and company management. He then presents a vignette that illustrates the principles he discusses. He identifies three elements that are necessary for securing a sponsor and obtaining funding for a proposed project: clearly defining the project, its scope, and its objective; specifying how the proposed project affects the prospective sponsor and that person's organization; and detailing the project's effects on revenue, profits, cost, or output. These elements forge a strong link between project outcomes and the interests of the sponsor, the sponsor's organization, and the company as a whole. Choosing the right sponsor requires careful consideration of the project's expected effects on specific functional areas and the entire organization, the resources required, the project objectives, and time constraints. For example, senior management sponsorship is essential for projects that cut across existing organizational boundaries. After helping to ensure that projects receive adequate funding, sponsors may serve as advisers to project teams, and they may provide additional resources if a team encounters unexpected problems. Through regular progress reports and sponsor participation in team meetings, the project team can ensure the active, ongoing support of the sponsor.

From Experience: Securing Sponsors and Funding for New Product Development Projects—The Human Side of Enterprise

Gaining approval for a project requires playing a role that may be unfamiliar for many new‐product development (NPD) professionals—that of salesperson. The NPD professional must sell management on the market potential of the product concept, and persuade management to commit the resources needed for transforming the concept into a marketable product. Finding a well‐placed sponsor within the company's management ranks can improve the chances of obtaining approval for a project, but securing sponsorship is, in many respects, yet another sales job.Gary Tighe offers guidance for NPD professionals who must sell their projects to potential sponsors. He describes the key steps in the process of securing a sponsor, he gives guidelines for choosing the right sponsor based on the nature of the project, and he provides practical advice for developing a presentation that will gain the support of a prospective sponsor and company management. He then presents a vignette that illustrates the principles he discusses.He identifies three elements that are necessary for securing a sponsor and obtaining funding for a proposed project: clearly defining the project, its scope, and its objective; specifying how the proposed project affects the prospective sponsor and that person's organization; and detailing the project's effects on revenue, profits, cost, or output. These elements forge a strong link between project outcomes and the interests of the sponsor, the sponsor's organization, and the company as a whole.Choosing the right sponsor requires careful consideration of the project's expected effects on specific functional areas and the entire organization, the resources required, the project objectives, and time constraints. For example, senior management sponsorship is essential for projects that cut across existing organizational boundaries. After helping to ensure that projects receive adequate funding, sponsors may serve as advisers to project teams, and they may provide additional resources if a team encounters unexpected problems. Through regular progress reports and sponsor participation in team meetings, the project team can ensure the active, ongoing support of the sponsor.