The knowledge intensive nature of NPD makes cognitive processes such as knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, codification and learning very critical. In particular, interpretive barriers can emerge among actors that are involved in the NPD process.
Semi-structured interviews and case study observations.
(View full citation)

Three different sources of unpredictability which adversely impact time to market and/or product quality: 1) Usual uncertainty about the duration of a design process; 2) Unexpected technological challenges; 3) Changes in product specifications particularly those that cascade across multiple components.
Three exploratory field studies.
(View full citation)

Unplanned Product Requirements
Survey of manufacturers (n=80). Forty percent of unplanned requirements surface after the core development phase is completed. Unplanned requirements create time to market slippage, decreased productivity, and costly design changes.
(View full citation)

Complications in use and unintended impacts on the user impede adaptation and use of new technologies. 
case study findings
(View full citation)

Cognitive maps are graphic tools used to represent concepts and ideas that individuals associate with some specific issues and the relationships among them. The analysis of cognitive maps is a means to identify different perspectives and interpretive differences that emerge during the NPD process. The cognitive maps provide a common basis for establishing a shared understanding among NPD team members.
Semi-structured interviews and cast study observations.
(View full citation)

Technology Road Mapping facilitates the NPD process in many ways: — It helps the NPD team identify the members and ensure that the right capabilities are in place at the right time to achieve the objective. — It helps the NPD team generate a common view among members, and to communicate that view and plan to customers, suppliers, partners and other groups. — As a strategic management tool it enables companies to link their technological capabilities to their product and business plans, so that strategy and technology development go hand in hand.
Authors experience and as applied within a case study.
(View full citation)

Consider adopting the NexGen Stage-Gate process, where the NPD process has been streamlined by removing all the non-value added activities. This NexGen process is also more flexible and adaptable, where steps and stages overlap.
Authors' research experience. This new process has been borrowed from lean manufacturing.
(View full citation)

Keep the formal structured NPD process for effective new products while adding improvisation within stages, in order to avoid chaos.
Survey. Conclusion of the study
(View full citation)

Reduce NPD cycle time by overlapping activities performed in different stages
Survey. Conclusion of the study
(View full citation)

Stage/Gate Model - Authors substantiate the value of a Stage/Gate model for conducting NDP processes.
Survey. Authors conclusions drawn from analysis of Project Manager self-reports (n = 392)
(View full citation)

Based on manufacturer's policy, the CORE instrument can be applied at different stages including design, fabrication or product assembly.
Conceptual model, instrument creation and application in case study settings.
(View full citation)

Benchmarking involves reviewing the practices of other firms because of their known reputation for good performance. Firms that establish their industry benchmarks based on NPD practices, rather than based on NPD performance, were more likely to apply design-manufacturing integration (e.g., train personnel in new design methods, have manufacturing sign-off on design reviews, or restructure into cross-functional teams). The focus here is on product-process development integration — that set of focused, disciplined, rigorous practices designed to concentrate efforts on evolving from concepts to market introduction.
Survey of 43 U.S. firms.
(View full citation)

Cross-Functional Teamwork — At the Production Stage (Launch), the R&D and Manufacturing teams require close contact between product and process technologies, to ensure a smooth progression from trial runs to full scale output. They can also respond rapidly to any required troubleshooting. Teamwork between Manufacturing and Marketing is considered counterproductive at this stage.
Survey of 236 managers at 16 firms.
(View full citation)

ExxonMobil evaluates in detail nine elements at each successive stage of the NPD process: 1) Strategic fit of the project with the company's objectives and strengths; 2) Market attractiveness; 3) Technical feasibility; 4) Supply and entry point (there must be an idea of how to supply this new product); 5) Sources of competitive advantage; 6) Legal/public policy/safety, health and environmental aspects; 7) Financial attractiveness; 8) Killer variables — which are those events or changes in market conditions or new technologies that could dramatically alter the situation for the project; 9) Plan to proceed, at least to the next Stage/Gate.
Industry experience.
(View full citation)

Implementing concurrent activities within a Lean Product Development process, can increase project flexibility, but at the same time will decrease project cost certainty.
Cast study observations.
(View full citation)

NPD Project Team and Functional Group — information disseminating, engendering ownership, creating discipline, information seeking, facilitating cross-functional planning — This communication is a combination of the uncertainty reduction activities as well as the engagement capabilities. When the members of the functional groups have a sense of ownership, they are proactive in seeking information they require, and providing information that will be necessary in advanced stages.
Case study analysis.
(View full citation)

Survey of 236 managers at 16 firms. Cross-Functional Teamwork in NPF — The study considers the relative value of various combinations of three organizational groups: 1) R&D; 2) manufacturing; 3) marketing, in cross-functional teamwork. Results show success depends on function-specific and stage-specific patterns of teamwork in five ways: 1) Different NPD stages suggest different combinations of teams; 2) The importance of a given function in integration depends on the stage; 3) Joint involvement between pairs of groups is generally more beneficial than among all three; 4) Effective cross- functional integration requires attention to paired communication between hub and non-hub functions; 5) The integration patterns suggested here do not generate conflicts across objectives or between groups.
Survey of 236 managers at 16 firms.
(View full citation)

Technology Road Mapping — a powerful technique for supporting technology management and planning. These are especially important attributes for exploring and communicating the dynamic linkages between technological resources, organizational objectives and the changing market environment (e.g., customer needs). The results of the Road Mapping process is a 'road map' showing the stakeholders how to get where they want to go. Generically speaking, a road map is a time-based chart consisting of a number of layers that typically include both commercial and technological perspectives. The road map enables the evolution of markets, products and technologies to be explored together, along with the linkages and discontinuities among the various perspectives.
Author experience and as applied in a case study.
(View full citation)

Ten methods used in various Stages of the NPD Process are listed in the Appendix and discussed in the paper: 1) Brainstorming; 2) Morphological analysis; 3) Synetics; 4) Delphi Method; 5) Focus Group; 6) Product Life Cycle; 7) Concept Test; 8) In-home Use Test; 9) Quality Function Deployment; 10) Limited Roll-Out. While most manufacturers are familiar with many of these methods, they report using them in various and sometimes wrong stages — so they are not applying them properly and in a focused manner.
Literature review and survey of forty-five manufacturers.
(View full citation)

To ensure compliance with the FDA's Quality System Regulation, medical device manufacturers should use a structured product development process to instill discipline in the product life cycle. A hierarchical approach arranges activity from Stages (phases) to Steps to Activities and finally to Tasks. Each Stage has a unique theme and set of deliverables. For example: Stage 3 — Verification & Validation. Demonstrate that the entire product offering and its supporting processes are robust and comply with the design requirement specifications and the customer's specifications prior to market introduction. All regulation, code, standards and product safety approvals must be obtained by the end of this stage. Demand building activities may be initiated in anticipation of commercial release.
Summary of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's regulations for the research and development process underlying Medical Device manufacturing.
(View full citation)

To ensure compliance with the FDA's Quality System Regulation, medical device manufacturers should use a structured product development process to instill discipline in the product life cycle. A hierarchical approach arranges activity from Stages (phases) to Steps to Activities and finally to Tasks. Each Stage has a unique theme and set of deliverables. For example: Stage 4 — Commercialization. Delivering the product to customers in a controlled manner and gathering feedback on the product's performance. Includes full-scale product launch, release of evaluation tools and mass communication with customers. Manufacturing operations are ramped up to full-scale production. In addition, a post-launch evaluation is conducted to assess the actual results in comparison to projected performance and sales. The NPD team hands the product ownership and control over to the supporting organization for the duration of the product's life cycle.
Summary of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's regulations for the research and development process underlying Medical Device manufacturing.
(View full citation)

Knowledge about the NPD process can be captured in a range of tools including: 1) Project audits; 2) Design databases in CAD systems; 3) Engineering notebooks; 4) Collections of tests and experimental results; 5) Market research and test market results.
Conceptual model creation based on literature review.
(View full citation)

Marketing-Mix Optimization in NPD applies five tools: Simulated Test Marketing; Mini-Market; Limited Roll-Out; Scanner Market; Test Marketing.
Literature review and survey of forty-five manufacturers.
(View full citation)

Table 2 (page 146) lists five categories of intertemporal integration activities, and three levels of NPD performance. Table 2 goes on to list sets of measures appropriate for each.
Conceptual model creation based on literature review.
(View full citation)

The Prediction stage in NPD uses three different tools: Computer Prediction Models; Diffusion Models; Economic Models (ROI/BE - analysis/pay-back time).
Literature review and survey of forty-five manufacturers.
(View full citation)

Most of the methods have been developed to deal with specific problems of NPD and thus are meant to be used in specific Stages of the NPD process. Out of ten methods reviewed, all one (Limited Roll-Out) are used in stages for which they are not intended.
Literature review and survey of forty-five manufacturers.
(View full citation)

Technology Road Mapping has been widely adopted in industry, taking forms that range from the two extremes of technology-push (divergent and looking for opportunities), and market-pull (aiming for customer defined product).
Authors experience and as applied within a case study.
(View full citation)

When operating under an accelerated cycle time, implement cross-functional teams and design tools such as quality function deployment, design of experiments, and failure mode and effects analysis. This will increase financial and overall organizational performance.
Survey. Significant correlations were found for interactions between these variables for both industries, automobile and computer.
(View full citation)

Unstable product specs and project scope creep can increase the time to market and possible product failure.
Source: Cooper, R. G., 2001. In: Cooper, R. G. & Edgett, S. J. (2008)

A Technology Road Map presents the desired objective and how to achieve it.
Source: Probert & Radnor (2003). In: Mulebeke, J.A.W., & Li, Z. (2006)

A formal new product development process necessary for product success with five key stages (initial screening, business analysis, development, pre-testing, and launch) or 13 equivalent key activities. 
Source: NASA (no specific citation); Cooper, 2001; Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1986; Song et al, 1998. In: Samra, Y.M., Lynn, G.S. & Reilly, R.R. (2008)

A literature review found two differences between studies of the early R&D Stages (3,4,5) and the later NPD Stages (6,7,8): First the R&D project studies cited a larger number of factors listed as critical to success, than did the NPD projects. Second, studies with a marketing orientation put more emphasis on internal organizational factors (e.g., launch & marketing) as critical, while studies with a technical orientation put more emphasis on external environmental and market factors as critical.
Source: Calantone & di Benedetto (1988). In: Balachandra, R., Friar, J.H. (1997)

An NPD Model shows that technical and marketing activities complement each other at each stage of the NPD process, which takes place within an environment defined by the firm, the marketplace, and the nature of the project itself.
Source: Cooper (1980). In: Calantone, R.J., diBenedetto, C.A. (1988)

Consider increasing speed to market as a way to increase product success
Source: Cooper, 1994; Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1994; Ridderstrale & Nordstrom, 2000. In: Samra, Y.M., Lynn, G.S. & Reilly, R.R. (2008)

Consider increasing new product development proficiency level as a way to increase new product success
Source: Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1987a. In: Samra, Y.M., Lynn, G.S. & Reilly, R.R. (2008)

Improvise as you go along with no formal and structured new product development process(improvisation school of thought) 
Source: Moorman & Miner (1998). In: Samra, Y.M., Lynn, G.S. & Reilly, R.R. (2008)

Knowledge sharing in a collaborative environment has been found to positively affect innovation performance, as it facilitates problem solving and reduces the inefficiency of re-inventing already existing solutions.
Source: Nonaka (1991), Leonard-Barton (1992). In: Swink, M., Talluri, S., & Pandejpong, T. (2006)

Use a structured new product development process to ensure new product success (structured school of thought) 
Source: Cooper & Kleinschmidt (1986, 1987a & b, 1991); Mllson & Wilemon, 2002; Shepherd & Ahmed, 2000). In: Samra, Y.M., Lynn, G.S. & Reilly, R.R. (2008)

Using a flexible and structured new product development process (with fuzzy gates) skipping or combining stages (flexible school of thought) 
Source: Cooper & Kleinschmidt (1995). In: Samra, Y.M., Lynn, G.S. & Reilly, R.R. (2008)

As might be expected, product performance is significantly enhanced if those responsible for manufacturing are included in the product design process.
Source: Bergen & McLaughlin (1992). In: Ettlie, J.E. (1995)

Close integration between product planning and manufacturing process decisions helps control the product offerings, stabilize process requirements, improve process technology choices, and increase net cash flows over time.
Source: Kim et al (1992). In: Ettlie, J.E. (1995)

Literature on knowledge management points out that knowledge transfer efficiency is mainly related to the uncertainty level in the process, whereas knowledge transfer effectiveness is mainly related to the ambiguity level in the process. Since uncertainty is related to the information transfer process, it can be reduced by increasing the amount of information exchanged. However, since ambiguity relates to the interpretation of the transferred knowledge it must be addressed through effective communication based on shared understanding.
Source: Daft & Lengel (1986). In: Carbonara, N., & Scozzi, B. (2006)

A universal success curve shows that the odds of commercial success for substantially new products averages 1 in 300 at the idea submission stage (or at patent disclosure stage), and 1 in 125 at the small project stage (or after a patent is granted). After the detailed analysis of Stage 4, the odds of success are 1 in 9 (11%). Even when the project reaches the stage of major development, the odds of success are typically no greater than 1 in 4 (25%). At the commercial launch stage the odds of success are still only 1 in 1.7 (60%). This success rate curve has remained essentially unchanged in the last 40 years.
Source: Stevens & Burley (1997). In: Stevens, G., Burley, J., & Divine, R. (1999)

Improvisation at the collective or organizational level (vs. individual level) can be achieved by coalescing individuals’ activities by groups, departments, etc.
Source: Chelariu et al, 2002; Moorman & Miner, 1998. In: Samra, Y.M., Lynn, G.S. & Reilly, R.R. (2008)

There are many tools and techniques which can be applied in new product development process. These include Quality function deployment (QFD), Computer-aided Tools, Customer involvement, Design Coding, Design of Manufacture, Multi-functional Teams, Involving Key Suppliers, Project Management, Four field mapping (Maylor and Gosling, 1998; Maylor, 1997).
Source: Maylor & Gosling (1998), Maylor (1997). In: Liepe, Z. & Sakalas, A. (2008)

Use failure mode and effects analysis to improve the probability of new product success.
Source: Griffin (1992); Hockman& Jenkins (1994); Wasserman (1993). In: Ittner, C. D. & Larcker, D. F. (1997)