research paper on new product development

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

ProductDevelopment →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, recent trends in agile new product development: a systematic review and agenda for future research.

Benchmarking: An International Journal

ISSN : 1463-5771

Article publication date: 8 September 2022

Issue publication date: 1 December 2023

The market's intense competition, the unpredictability of customer demands and technological advancements are compelling organizations to adopt new approaches, such as agile new product development (ANPD), which enables the introduction of new products to the market in a short span. The existing ANPD literature review articles are lacking in portraying recent developments, potential fields of adoption and the significance of ANPD in organizational development. The primary goal of this article is to investigate emerging aspects, current trends and conduct a meta-analysis using a systematic review of 177 ANPD articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 1998 and 2020.

Design/methodology/approach

The articles were categorized based on their year of publication, publishers, journals, authors, countries, universities, most cited articles, etc. The authors attempted to identify top journals, authors, most cited articles, enablers, barriers, performance metrics, etc. in the ANPD domain through the presented study.

The major themes of research articles, gaps and future trends are identified to assist academicians and ANPD practitioners. This study will benefit ANPD professionals by providing them with information on available literature and current ANPD trends.

Originality/value

Through meta-analysis, this study is one of the unique attempt to categorize ANPD articles to identify research gaps and highlight future research trends. A distinguishing feature of the presented study is the identification of active journals, publishers and authors, as well as enablers, barriers and performance metrics.

• Agile new product development
• New product development
• Systematic literature review
• Meta-analysis
• Categorised review

Palsodkar, M. , Yadav, G. and Nagare, M.R. (2023), "Recent trends in agile new product development: a systematic review and agenda for future research", Benchmarking: An International Journal , Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 3194-3224. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2021-0247

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Performance in new product development: a comprehensive framework, current trends, and research directions

• Original Paper
• Published: 07 January 2017
• Volume 28 , pages 157–201, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Benedikt Müller-Stewens 1 &
• Klaus Möller 1  

2393 Accesses

12 Citations

Explore all metrics

New product development (NPD) is critical for a firm’s competitive advantage. Since the early 1980s, NPD research has steadily increased and has defined successful practices. However, owing to this research field’s fragmentedness, there is ambiguity about what successful NPD looks like. Evidence of the effective design of management control systems (MCS) concerning NPD performance is inconclusive and calls for comprehensive analysis. Yet, there is no holistic framework that covers promising practices and structures. Drawing on a body of 284 article publications, we inductively develop a framework with nine clusters that, taken together, make up NPD performance. These are grouped addressing firm-external and firm-internal phenomena, for instance, cooperation, expertise, and the NPD process. We populate each cluster with variables that are proposed to drive performance, and derive current research trends and paths for future research on NPD. The review makes two contributions to the literature and one to practice. First, the comprehensive framework of NPD performance drivers supports the adjustment of prior general MCS design implications to specific NPD settings. Second, the inductive approach sets this review apart from prior reviews of NPD performance by proposing a holistic framework that is neither biased in a domain, nor in a pre-defined structure. Third, firms will benefit from the framework, because it helps to customize the MCS such that firms can comprehensively evaluate their NPD activities and can enhance performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Management accounting and new product development: a systematic literature review and future research directions

New Product Development: Trade-offs, Metrics, and Successes

The Drivers and Implications of Fast Track New Product Development

We define new product development (NPD) as the process from a conceptualized idea to market launch of novel or updated goods (see Neely et al. 1995 ). We delineate NPD from research projects that involve basic research activities that eventually provide input to subsequent NPD (see Chiesa and Frattini 2007 ). In contrast to NPD, which refers to the development process, innovation also refers to NPD’s output—the commercialized novel or updated good (for taxonomies of innovation, see de Jong and Marsili ( 2006 )). Yet, some studies refer to innovation as a process (see Garcia and Calantone 2002 ).

The search algorithm reads: (“NPD” OR “New Product Development”) AND (Project* OR Process* OR Performance OR Success OR Efficiency OR Effectiveness OR Productivity OR Evaluati*). The asterisk in the search algorithm allows for flexible endings.

Screening publications’ abstracts for the defined search algorithm generated 6,830 hits.

The ABDC ranking comprises 2,767 journals that are divided into four categories of quality (A*, A, B, and C) based on qualitative and quantitative assessments.

The JQ3 ranking considers 889 journals evaluated along multiple dimensions by the association’s members, who are academic business researchers. The highest reputed journals are ranked A+ and decrease via A, B, C, to D.

For instance, we allocated a conceptual paper that develops a model on personality’s role in NPD teams (see Reilly et al. 2002 ) to the management of teams and team characteristics . In contrast, a best practice study on general drivers of success in NPD could not be allocated clearly (see Barczak et al. 2009 ). Thus, we excluded the latter from analysis.

Two articles referred to identically named journals that were not considered in the ranking. One article was included twice in the output with very similar labelling.

Excluded owing to a meta-perspective that could not be allocated to a single cluster: Barczak et al. ( 2009 ), Cooper ( 1983 ), Ernst ( 2002 ), Kandemir et al. ( 2006 ), Lester ( 1998 ), Page ( 1993 ), Rao ( 1997 ), Storey and Easingwood ( 1993 ), Wind and Mahajan ( 1988 ).

For examples of management control studies with innovation in the title, see Davila et al. ( 2009 ), Bisbe and Malagueño ( 2009 , 2015 ), Haustein et al. ( 2014 ), Bedford ( 2015 ).

Fan et al. ( 2009 ) evaluated approaches to operationalize collaboration satisfaction, which is related to cohesiveness.

Procedural justice, distributive justice, and transformational leadership are antecedents of trust (Dayan et al. 2009 ).

Tighe ( 1998 ) developed a framework to gain managerial approval for NPD projects in autonomous settings: defining the project, impacts on the organization, and effects on the organization’s financials.

Market orientation is dichotomized as responsive and proactive. A responsive market orientation serves current customer needs, while a proactive market orientation discovers and satisfies latent and emerging customer needs. (Chen 2015 , p. 36).

Process-based rewards are tied to procedures, behaviors, or other means of achieving desired outcomes. Outcomes-based rewards are tied to the actual results. (Chen 2015 , p. 39).

For eight propositions of good R&D-marketing cooperation, see Souder ( 1988 ).

For conceptual frameworks of antecedents and outcomes of knowledge acquisition, see Murray and Chao ( 2005 ); for organizational learning, see Bartezzaghi et al. ( 1997 ), Ruy and Alliprandini ( 2008 ), and Akbar and Tzokas ( 2013 ).

For knowledge transfer models in NPD teams, see Frank and Ribeiro ( 2014 ); among actors in the firm, see Jepsen ( 2013 ); across firm boundaries, see Corallo et al. ( 2012 ).

Team intuition depends on past team member experience, transactive memory systems (knowledge possessed by each member and awareness of who knows what), team empowerment, decision importance, and decision motives (opportunity or crisis; Dayan and Elbanna 2011 ).

A selection of decision-making support tools are: narrowing down alternatives by applying multiple-criteria decision-making techniques as the analytic hierarchy process (Ayag 2005a , b ; Akomode 1999 ), developing a structuring matrix, for instance uncertainty vs. R&D option value (Lint and Pennings 2001 ), risk-scenario decision tool (Marmier et al. 2013 ), applying neural network decision support (Thieme et al. 2000 ), monetary quantification of differences among alternatives (Wouters et al. 2009 ), process model for resource scheduling and allocation (Abrantes and Figueiredo 2015 ), sensitizing for role of internal politics (Jones and Stevens 1999 ), operationalization to reduce escalation of commitment (Donthu and Unal 2014 ), grouping actors in collaborative decisions (Jaber et al. 2015 ), applying portfolio thinking (Kester et al. 2014 ), and integrative model of the NPD decision process (Calantone and di Benedetto 1988 ).

Speed-to-market facilitates NPD project success (Jayaram and Narasimhan 2007 ; Ranjbar 2013 ), product profitability (McNally et al. 2011 ), and timeliness of product rollout (Chryssochoidis and Wong 2000 ).

For case studies of accelerated NPD processes, see Karagozoglu and Brown ( 1993 ) and Bernasco et al. ( 1999 ).

Further antecedents to speed-to-market were referred to in other clusters: work experience in the firm (McDonough 1993 ), perceived stress in combination with management support (Akgün et al. 2007a ), technological competence (Acur et al. 2010 ), telework (Coenen and Kok 2014 ), and co-location (Lakemond and Berggren 2006 ).

For research that models concurrent NPD processes, see Haque and Pawar ( 2001 ), Juan et al. ( 2009 ), Wang and Lin ( 2009 ), and Koyuncu and Erol ( 2015 ).

For NPD process models and their assessment, see: a sphenomorph model for complex settings (Barclay et al. 1995 ); core characteristics of NPD process (Calantone et al. 1995 ); an NPD process for financial services (Edgett 1996 ); a fractal model of the NPD process (Spivey et al. 1997 ); revamping a NPD process (McDonough and Barczak 1999 ); NPD process with a focus on design and manufacturing (Bajaj et al. 2004 ); an NPD process in the toy industry (Sun and Wing 2005 ); cognitive maps to analyze processes (Carbonara and Scozzi 2006 ); the technology acquisition process (Cáñez et al. 2007 ); agile NPD process design (Fekri et al. 2009 ); fuzzy linear programming to maximize customer satisfaction (Chen and Ko 2010 ); NPD proficiency (Sandvik et al. 2011 ).

A selection of success factors encompasses formalized planning and coordination (Malhotra et al. 1996 ); the project evaluation process; the existence of new product managers (Reidenbach and Moak 1986 ); a strategic market focus in the NPD process (Balbontin et al. 1999 ); resource and skills availability (Huang et al. 2002 ); a lead user process to generate ideas (Lilien et al. 2002 ); actor networks during idea generation (Simon and Tellier 2011 ); a value proposition process to assess ideas (Hughes and Chafin 1996 ); customer support process during product design (Goffin 1998 ); compatibility and customer interface standards (Sahay and Riley 2003 ); proficiency in idea development, market opportunity analysis, technological development, product testing, and commercialization (Song and Perry 1997 ). For NPD process best practice studies, see Barclay ( 1992a , b ).

Other contingency factors are industry competitiveness, cycle time, senior management involvement, process formality, customer inputs, cross-functional integration (Harmancioglu et al. 2007 ), extent of centralization, and experience in new product development (Varela and Benito 2005 ).

For a description of a promising NPD process for discontinuous innovations, see Veryzer ( 1998 ).

A selection of tools, methods, and techniques covers: output controls, non-technical outside assistance (LaBahn et al. 1996 ), target costing (Afonso et al. 2008 ), portfolio assessment tied to program profitability and impact (Cooper and Kleinschmidt 1995 ), a Lagrangian decomposition heuristic (Varma et al. 2007 ), predictive models (Watkins 1984 ), risk management practices (Oehmen et al. 2014 ), design for excellence, failure mode and effects analysis, conjoint analysis (Yeh et al. 2010 ), focus groups, partnering customers and lead users, prototyping for highly innovative projects, and cross-functional development teams (Tidd and Bodley 2002 ). For compilations of management tools for NPD projects, see Maylor ( 2001 , p. 95) and González and Palacios ( 2002 , p. 263).

A selection of performance management systems covers: total cost analysis (Chen et al. 2006 ), dynamic multi-project management (de Maio et al. 1994 ), Six Sigma quality improvement (Jou et al. 2010 ), governance stage-gate controls (Baker and Bourne 2014 ), a risk management framework (Mu et al. 2009 ), and procedural guidelines to a performance management system (Rogers et al. 2005 ).

A successful cooperation depends on variables such as communication management, commitment to the collaboration (Lam and Chin 2005 ), the intensity and media richness of communication (Badir et al. 2008 , 2009 ; Oke and Idiagbon-Oke 2010 ; Thomas 2013 ), openness to change, willingness to cooperate, high trust level (Tomes et al. 1996 ; Jassawalla and Sashittal 1998 ; Schleimer and Shulman 2011 ), individual-level innovative work behavior and expertise and team-level innovation norms, cohesion, and decision-making autonomy (Stock 2014 ), informal social systems (Cui et al. 2013 ), comprehensiveness in contractual governance (Parker and Brey 2015 ), an alliance governance structure, partner technological capability, the competitiveness of market environments (Fang et al. 2015 ), lifecycle stage (Eng and Wong 2006 ; Pujari 2006 ), explorative vs. exploitative strategy (Lambe et al. 2009 ), shared problem-solving, psychological safety, management direction (Bstieler and Hemmert 2010 ), goal congruence, complementary capabilities, and inter-firm coordination efforts (Yan and Dooley 2014 ). For a framework for successful collaborative NPD, see Zolghadri et al. ( 2011b ).

Classification patterns of coordination: (1) innovation intermediaries as brokers, mediators, collectors, and connectors (Colombo et al. 2015 ), (2) buyer as mediator, buyer-designer partnership, designer as integrator, and team design activities (Ateş et al. 2015 ), (3) single participation vs. dual participation, separate work vs. integrated work, project manager vs. team consensus (Gerwin and Ferris 2004 ).

Sicotte and Bourgault ( 2008 ) illustrate four uncertainty types: technical and project uncertainty, market uncertainty, fuzziness and complexity. Kim and Wilemon ( 2003 ) break complexity down further, i.e. technological, market, development, marketing, organizational, and intra-organizational complexity. Siu et al. ( 2006 ) add governmental intervention.

More recently, Racela ( 2015 ) found that combining strategic orientations (i.e. customer, entrepreneurial, and IT orientations) is the most promising regarding performance. Pujari et al. ( 2003 ) propose that an additional ecological orientation can result in partial synergies of being simultaneously ecologically friendly and economically competitive.

Innovation culture is “involving entrepreneurship, risk taking, and openness to new ideas for new product development” (de Brentani and Kleinschmidt 2004 , p. 312).

Globalization culture is an “international mindset and a global readiness [...] to deal effectively with the complexities and opportunities that result from different national cultures, geographic dispersion of markets and participants, building trust and cooperation among dispersed affliates, and cross-locational/-cultural idea generation and resource utilization” (de Brentani and Kleinschmidt 2004 , p. 313).

References to articles that are included in the systematic review are marked with an asterisk (*)

Abrantes*, R., & Figueiredo, J. (2014). Feature based process framework to manage scope in dynamic NPD portfolios. International Journal of Project Management , 32 (5), 874–884.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrantes*, R., & Figueiredo, J. (2015). Resource management process framework for dynamic NPD portfolios. International Journal of Project Management , 33 (6), 1274–1288.

Acur*, N., Kandemir, D., & Boer, H. (2012). Strategic alignment and new product development: Drivers and performance effects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 29 (2), 304–318.

Acur*, N., Kandemir, D., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., & Song, M. (2010). Exploring the impact of technological competence development on speed and NPD program performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 27 (6), 915–929.

Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews , 8 (1), 21–47.

Adams*, M. E., Day, G. S., & Dougherty, D. (1998). Enhancing new product development performance: An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (5), 403–422.

Afonso*, P., Nunes, M., Paisana, A., & Braga, A. (2008). The influence of time-to-market and target costing in the new product development success. International Journal of Production Economics , 115 (2), 559–568.

Ahmada*, S., Mallick, D. N., & Schroeder, R. G. (2013). New product development: Impact of project characteristics and development practices on performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 30 (2), 331–348.

Ahn*, J. H., Lee, D. J., & Lee, S. Y. (2006). Balancing business performance and knowledge performance of new product development. Long Range Planning , 39 (5), 525–542.

Akbar*, H., & Tzokas, N. (2013). An exploration of new product development’s front-end knowledge conceptualization process in discontinuous innovations. British Journal of Management , 24 (2), 245–263.

Akgün*, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management , 42 (8), 1105–1120.

Akgün*, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S., & Keskin, H. (2007a). Team stressors, management support, and project and process outcomes in new product development projects. Technovation , 27 (10), 628–639.

Akgün*, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S., & Keskin, H. (2007b). New product development in turbulent environments: Impact of improvisation and unlearning on new product performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 24 (3), 203–230.

Akgün*, A. E., & Lynn, G. S. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of team stability on new product development performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 19 (3–4), 263–286.

Akgün*, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Yılmaz, C. (2006). Learning process in new product development teams and effects on product success: A socio-cognitive perspective. Industrial Marketing Management , 35 (2), 210–224.

Akomode*, O. J. (1999). Evaluating risks in new product development and the satisfaction of customers through technology. Production Planning & Control , 10 (1), 35–47.

Aronsona*, Z. H., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2006). The impact of leader personality on new product development teamwork and performance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 23 (3), 221–247.

Aronson*, Z. H., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2008). The role of leader personality in new product development success: An examination of teams developing radical and incremental innovations. International Journal of Technology Management , 44 (1–2), 5–27.

Ateş*, M. A., Van den Ende, J., & Ianniello, G. (2015). Inter-organizational coordination patterns in buyer-supplier-design agency triads in NPD projects. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 35 (11), 1512–1545.

Atuahene-Gima, K., & Li, H. (2006). The effects of formal controls on supervisee trust in the manager in new product selling: Evidence from young and inexperienced salespeople in China. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 23 (4), 342–358.

Ayag*, Z. (2005a). A fuzzy AHP-based simulation approach to concept evaluation in a NPD environment. IIE Transactions , 37 (9), 827–842.

Ayag*, Z. (2005b). An integrated approach to evaluating conceptual design alternatives in a new product development environment. International Journal of Production Research , 43 (4), 687–713.

Badir*, Y. F., Büchel, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2008). The role of communication and coordination between ‘network lead companies’ and their strategic partners in determining NPD project performance. International Journal of Technology Management , 44 (1–2), 269–291.

Badir*, Y. F., Büchel, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2009). The performance impact of intra-firm organizational design on an alliance’s NPD projects. Research Policy , 38 (8), 1350–1364.

Badir*, Y. F., Büchel, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). A conceptual framework of the impact of NPD project team and leader empowerment on communication and performance: An alliance case context. International Journal of Project Management , 30 (8), 914–926.

Badir*, Y. F., & O’Connor, G. C. (2015). The formation of tie strength in a strategic alliance’s first new product development project: The influence of project and partners’ characteristics. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 32 (1), 154–169.

Bajaj*, A., Kekre, S., & Srinivasan, K. (2004). Managing NPD: Cost and schedule performance in design and manufacturing. Management Science , 50 (4), 527–536.

Baker*, M., & Bourne, M. (2014). A governance framework for the idea-to-launch process: Development and application of a governance framework for new product development. Research-Technology Management , 57 (1), 42–48.

Balaji*, S., Ranganathan, C., & Coleman, T. (2011). IT-led process reengineering: How Sloan Valve redesigned its new product development process. MIS Quarterly Executive , 10 (2), 81–92.

Google Scholar  

Balbontin*, A., Yazdani, B., Cooper, R., & Souder, W. E. (1999). New product development success factors in American and British firms. International Journal of Technology Management , 17 (3), 259–280.

Barclay*, I. (1992a). The new product development process: Past evidence and future practical application, Part 1. R&D Management , 22 (3), 255–264.

Barclay, I. (1992b). The new product development process: Part 2. Improving the process of new product development. R&D Management , 22 (4), 307–318.

Barclay*, I., Holroyd, P., & Poolton, J. (1995). The new product development process: A sphenomorphic management model. International Journal of Vehicle Design , 16 (4–5), 356–374.

Barczak, G., Griffin, A., & Kahn, K. B. (2009). Perspective: Trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study*. Journal of product innovation management , 26 (1), 3–23.

Bartezzaghi*, E., Corso, M., & Verganti, R. (1997). Continuous improvement and inter-project learning in new product development. International Journal of Technology Management , 14 (1), 116–138.

Bassett*, M. H., Gardner, L. L., & Steele, K. (2004). Dow AgroSciences uses simulation-based optimization to schedule the new-product development process. Interfaces , 34 (6), 426–437.

Bedford, D. S. (2015). Management control systems across different modes of innovation: Implications for firm performance. Management Accounting Research , 28 (9), 12–30.

Bendoly*, E., Bharadwaj, A., & Bharadwaj, S. (2012). Complementary drivers of new product development performance: Cross-functional coordination, information system capability, and intelligence quality. Production and Operations Management , 21 (4), 653–667.

Bernasco*, W., Weerd-Nederhof, D., Petra, C., Tillema, H., & Boer, H. (1999). Balanced matrix structure and new product development process at Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Division. R&D Management , 29 (2), 121–132.

Bessant*, J., & Francis, D. (1997). Implementing the new product development process. Technovation , 17 (4), 189–222.

Bhuiyan*, N., Gerwin, D., & Thomson, V. (2004). Simulation of the new product development process for performance improvement. Management Science , 50 (12), 1690–1703.

Bisbe, J., & Malagueño, R. (2009). The choice of interactive control systems under different innovation management modes. European Accounting Review , 18 (2), 371–405.

Bisbe, J., & Malagueño, R. (2015). How control systems influence product innovation processes: Examining the role of entrepreneurial orientation. Accounting and Business Research , 45 (3), 356–386.

Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 29 (8), 709–737.

Bonner*, J., Ruekert, R. W., & Walker, O. C. (2002). Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 19 (3), 233–245.

Bradfield*, D. J., & Gao, J. X. (2007). A methodology to facilitate knowledge sharing in the new product development process. International Journal of Production Research , 45 (7), 1489–1504.

Bstieler*, L. (2005). The moderating effect of environmental uncertainty on new product development and time efficiency. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 22 (3), 267–284.

Bstieler*, L., & Hemmert, M. (2010). Increasing learning and time efficiency in inter-organizational new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 27 (4), 485–499.

Bstieler*, L., & Hemmert, M. (2015). The effectiveness of relational and contractual governance in new product development collaborations: Evidence from Korea. Technovation , 45 , 29–39.

Büyüközkan*, G., Baykasoğlu, A., & Dereli, T. (2007). Integration of internet and web-based tools in new product development process. Production Planning and Control , 18 (1), 44–53.

Caffyn*, S. (1997). Extending continuous improvement to the new product development process. R&D Management , 27 (3), 253–267.

Caffyn*, S., & Grantham, A. (2003). Fostering continuous improvement within new product development processes. International Journal of Technology Management , 27 (8), 843–856.

Calantone*, R. J., & di Benedetto, C. A. (1988). An integrative model of the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 5 (3), 201–215.

Calantone*, R. J., Vickery, S. K., & Dröge, C. (1995). Business performance and strategic new product development activities: An empirical investigation. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 12 (3), 214–223.

Cáñez*, L., Puig, L., Quintero, R., & Garfias, M. (2007). Linking technology acquisition to a gated NPD process. Research-Technology Management , 50 (4), 49–55.

Carbonara*, N., & Scozzi, B. (2006). Cognitive maps to analyze new product development processes: A case study. Technovation , 26 (11), 1233–1243.

Chang*, S. L., Chen, C. Y., & Wey, S. C. (2007). Conceptualizing, assessing, and managing front-end fuzziness in innovation/NPD projects. R&D Management , 37 (5), 469–478.

Chen*, C. C., Yeh, T. M., & Yang, C. C. (2006). Performance measurement for new product development: A model based on total costs. International Journal of Production Research , 44 (21), 4631–4648.

Chen*, C. H., & Lin, M. J. J. (2011). An assessment of post-M&A integration influences on new product development performance: An empirical analysis from China, Taiwan, and HK. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 28 (4), 807–831.

Chen*, J., Guo, Y., & Zhu, H. (2012). Can me-too products prevail? Performance of new product development and sources of idea generation in China-an emerging market. R&D Management , 42 (3), 273–288.

Chen*, J., Neubaum, D. O., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2015). The relationship between team autonomy and new product development performance under different levels of technological turbulence. Journal of Operations Management , 33 (January), 83–96.

Chen*, L. H., & Ko, W. C. (2010). Fuzzy linear programming models for NPD using a four-phase QFD activity process based on the means-end chain concept. European Journal of Operational Research , 201 (2), 619–632.

Chen*, Y. J. (2015). The role of reward systems in product innovations: An examination of new product development projects. Project Management Journal , 46 (3), 36–48.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in a new innovation landscape . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Chiang*, Y. H., & Shih, H. A. (2011). Knowledge-oriented human resource configurations, the new product development learning process, and perceived new product performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 22 (15), 3202–3221.

Chien*, S. H., & Chen, J. J. (2010). Supplier involvement and customer involvement effect on new product development success in the financial service industry. The Service Industries Journal , 30 (2), 185–201.

Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2007). Exploring the differences in performance measurement between research and development: Evidence from a multiple case study. R&D Management , 37 (4), 283–301.

Chryssochoidis*, G. M., & Wong, V. (2000). Customization of product technology and international new product success: Mediating effects of new product development and rollout timeliness. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 17 (4), 268–285.

Chu*, C. P., Li, C. R., & Lin, C. J. (2011). The joint effect of project-level exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development. European Journal of Marketing , 45 (4), 531–550.

Chung*, S., & Kim, G. M. (2003). Performance effects of partnership between manufacturers and suppliers for new product development: The supplier’s standpoint. Research Policy , 32 (4), 587–603.

Coenen*, M., & Kok, R. A. (2014). Workplace flexibility and new product development performance: The role of telework and flexible work schedules. European Management Journal , 32 (4), 564–576.

Cohen*, M. A., Eliasberg, J., & Ho, T. H. (1996). New product development: The performance and time-to-market tradeoff. Management Science , 42 (2), 173–186.

Colombo*, G., Dell’Era, C., & Frattini, F. (2015). Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: A typology and an empirical study. R&D Management , 45 (2), 126–146.

Cook*, D. J., Greengold, N. L., Ellrodt, A. G., & Weingarten, S. R. (1997). The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Annals of Internal Medicine , 127 (3), 210–216.

Cooper, R. G. (1981). The components of risk in new product development: Project new prod. R&D Management , 2 (11), 47–54.

Cooper, R. G. (1983). A process model for industrial new product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 1 , 2–11.

Cooper*, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1995). Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 12 (5), 374–391.

Corallo*, A., Lazoi, M., & Secundo, G. (2012). Inter-organizational knowledge integration in Collaborative NPD projects: Evidence from the aerospace industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice , 10 (4), 354–367.

Cordón-Pozo*, E., Garcia-Morales, V. J., & Aragón-Correa, J. A. (2006). Inter-departmental collaboration and new product development success: A study on the collaboration between marketing and R&D in Spanish high-technology firms. International Journal of Technology Management , 35 , 52–79.

Cousins*, P. D., & Lawson, B. (2007). The effect of socialization mechanisms and performance measurement on supplier integration in new product development. British Journal of Management , 18 (3), 311–326.

Cousins*, P. D., Lawson, B., Petersen, K. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2011). Breakthrough scanning, supplier knowledge exchange, and new product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (6), 930–942.

Cruz-Cázares, C., Bayona-Sáez, C., & García-Marco, T. (2013). You can’t manage right what you can’t measure well: Technological innovation efficiency. Research Policy , 42 (6–7), 1239–1250.

Cui*, N., Wen, N., Xu, L., & Qin, Y. (2013). Contingent effects of managerial guanxi on new product development success. Journal of Business Research , 66 (12), 2522–2528.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal , 34 (3), 555–590.

Danese*, P., & Filippini, R. (2010). Modularity and the impact on new product development time performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 30 (11), 1191–1209.

Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review , 23 (3), 491–512.

Davila, A. (2000). An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems’ design in new product development. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 25 (4–5), 383–409.

Davila, A., Foster, G., & Oyon, D. (2009). Accounting and control, entrepreneurship and innovation: Venturing into new research opportunities. European Accounting Review , 18 (2), 281–311.

Dayan*, M. (2010). Managerial trust and NPD team performance: Team commitment and longevity as mediators. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 25 (2), 94–105.

Dayan*, M., & Basarir, A. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of team reflexivity in new product development projects. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 25 (1), 18–29.

Dayan*, M., di Benedetto, C. A., & Colak, M. (2009). Managerial trust in new product development projects: Its antecedents and consequences. R&D Management , 39 (1), 21–37.

Dayan*, M., & Elbanna, S. (2011). Antecedents of team intuition and its impact on the success of new product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (1), 159–174.

de Brentani*, U., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Corporate culture and commitment: Impact on performance of international new product development programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 21 (5), 309–333.

de Brentani*, U., Kleinschmidt, E. J., & Salomo, S. (2010). Success in global new product development: Impact of strategy and the behavioral environment of the firm. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 27 (2), 143–160.

de Jong, J. P. J., & Marsili, O. (2006). The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms. Research Policy , 35 (2), 213–229.

de Maio*, A., Verganti, R., & Corso, M. (1994). A multi-project management framework for new product development. European Journal of Operational Research , 78 (2), 178–191.

den Hond*, F. (1998). On the structuring of variation in innovation processes: A case of new product development in the crop protection industry. Research Policy , 27 (4), 349–367.

de Visser*, M., de Weerd-Nederhof, P., Faems, D., Song, M., Van Looy, B., & Visscher, K. (2010). Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance. Technovation , 30 (5), 291–299.

de Visser*, M., Faems, D., Visscher, K., & de Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2014). The impact of team cognitive styles on performance of radical and incremental NPD projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 31 (6), 1167–1180.

de Weerd-Nederhof*, P. C., Visscher, K., Altena, J., & Fisscher, O. A. (2008). Operational effectiveness and strategic flexibility: Scales for performance assessment of new product development systems. International Journal of Technology Management , 44 (3–4), 354–372.

Donthu*, N., & Unal, B. (2014). Identifying escalation of commitment in B2B new product development projects using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 29 (3), 209–214.

Durmuşoğlu*, S. S., & Barczak, G. (2011). The use of information technology tools in new product development phases: Analysis of effects on new product innovativeness, quality, and market performance. Industrial Marketing Management , 40 (2), 321–330.

Durmuşoğlu*, S. S., Calantone, R. J., & McNally, R. C. (2013). Ordered to innovate: A longitudinal examination of the early periods of a new product development process implementation in a manufacturing firm. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 30 (4), 712–731.

Edgett*, S. J., Shipley, D., & Forbes, G. (1992). Japanese and British companies compared: Contributing factors to success and failure in NPD. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 9 (1), 3–10.

Edgett*, S. J. (1996). The new product development process for commercial financial services. Industrial Marketing Management , 25 (6), 507–515.

Eng*, T. Y., & Wong, V. (2006). Governance mechanisms and relationship productivity in vertical coordination for new product development. Technovation , 26 (7), 761–769.

Ernst, H. (2002). Success factors of new product development: A review of the empirical literature. International Journal of Management Reviews , 4 (1), 1–40.

Ernst*, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Rübsaamen, C. (2010). Sales, marketing, and research-and-development cooperation across new product development stages: Implications for success. Journal of Marketing , 74 (5), 80–92.

Fain*, N., Schoormans, J., & Duhovnik, J. (2011). The effect of R&D-Marketing integration on NPD success â the case of SMEs in the growing economy of Slovenia. International Journal of Technology Management , 56 (1), 92–107.

Fan*, Z. P., Feng, B., & Suo, W. L. (2009). A fuzzy linguistic method for evaluating collaboration satisfaction of NPD team using mutual evaluation information. International Journal of Production Economics , 122 (2), 547–557.

Fang*, E., Lee, J., & Yang, Z. (2015). The timing of codevelopment alliances in new product development processes: Returns for upstream and downstream partners. Journal of Marketing , 79 (1), 64–82.

Faure*, C. (2009). Attribution biases in the evaluation of new product development team members. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (4), 407–423.

Fekri*, R., Aliahmadi, A., & Fathian, M. (2009). Identifying the cause and effect factors of agile NPD process with fuzzy DEMATEL method: The case of Iranian companies. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , 20 (6), 637–648.

Felekoglu*, B., Maier, A. M., & Moultrie, J. (2013). Interactions in new product development: How the nature of the NPD process influences interaction between teams and management. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 30 (4), 384–401.

Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research , 20 (4), 263–282.

Frank*, A. G., & Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2014). An integrative model for knowledge transfer between new product development project teams. Knowledge Management Research & Practice , 12 (2), 215–225.

Frishammar*, J., & Hörte, S. A. (2007). The role of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation for new product development performance in manufacturing firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management , 19 (6), 765–788.

Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. J. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 19 (2), 110–132.

Gemser*, G., & Leenders, M. A. (2011). Managing cross-functional cooperation for new product development success. Long Range Planning , 44 (1), 26–41.

Genç*, E., & di Benedetto, C. A. (2015). Cross-functional integration in the sustainable new product development process: The role of the environmental specialist. Industrial Marketing Management , 50 , 150–161.

Gerwin*, D., & Ferris, J. S. (2004). Organizing new product development projects in strategic alliances. Organization Science , 15 (1), 22–37.

Gerwin*, D., & Moffat, L. (1997). Authorizing processes changing team autonomy during new product development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 14 (3), 291–313.

Godener*, A., & Söderquist, K. E. (2004). Use and impact of performance measurement results in R&D and NPD: An exploratory study. R&D Management , 34 (2), 191–219.

Goffin*, K. (1998). Evaluating customer support during new product development-an exploratory study. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (1), 42–56.

Gomes*, J. F., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., Pearson, A. W., & Cunha, M. P. (2003). Is more always better? An exploration of the differential effects of functional integration on performance in new product development. Technovation , 23 (3), 185–191.

González*, F. J. M., & Palacios, T. M. B. (2002). The effect of new product development techniques on new product success in Spanish firms. Industrial Marketing Management , 31 (3), 261–271.

Gopalakrishnan*, M., Libby, T., Samuels, J. A., & Swenson, D. (2015). The effect of cost goal specificity and new product development process on cost reduction performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 42 (April), 1–11.

Green*, S. G., Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. (2003). Advocacy, performance, and threshold influence on decisions to terminate new product development. Academy of Management Journal , 46 (4), 419–434.

Grönlund*, J., Sjödin, D. R., & Frishammar, J. (2010). Open innovation and the stage-gate process: A revised model for new product development. California Management Review , 52 (3), 106–131.

Gupta*, A. K., Brockhoff, K., & Weisenfeld, U. (1992). Making trade-offs in the new product development process: A German/US comparison. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 9 (1), 11–18.

Haon*, C., Gotteland, D., & Fornerino, M. (2009). Familiarity and competence diversity in new product development teams: Effects on new product performance. Marketing Letters , 20 (1), 75–89.

Hameri*, A. P., & Nihtilä, J. (1997). Distributed new product development project based on Internet and World-Wide Web: A case study. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 14 (2), 77–87.

Haque*, B., & Pawar, K. S. (2001). Improving the management of concurrent new product development using process modelling and analysis. R&D Management , 31 (1), 27–40.

Harmancioglu*, N., Dröge, C., & Calantone, R. J. (2009). Strategic fit to resources versus NPD execution proficiencies: What are their roles in determining success? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 37 (3), 266–282.

Harmancioglu*, N., McNally, R. C., Calantone, R. J., & Durmuşoğlu, S. S. (2007). Your new product development (NPD) is only as good as your process: An exploratory analysis of new NPD process design and implementation. R&D Management , 37 (5), 399–424.

Hart*, S., Hultink, E. J., Tzokas, N., & Commandeur, H. R. (2003). Industrial companies’ evaluation criteria in new product development gates. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 20 (1), 22–36.

Haustein, E., Luther, R., & Schuster, P. (2014). Management control systems in innovation companies: A literature based framework. Journal of Management Control , 24 (4), 343–382.

Hempelmann*, F., & Engelen, A. (2014). Integration of finance with marketing and R&D in new product development: The role of project stage. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 32 (4), 636–654.

Hise*, R. T., O’Neal, L., Parasuraman, A., & McNeal, J. U. (1990). Marketing/R&D interaction in new product development: Implications for new product success rates. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 7 (2), 142–155.

Hsu*, Y. H., & Fang, W. (2009). Intellectual capital and new product development performance: The mediating role of organizational learning capability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 76 (5), 664–677.

Huang*, X., Soutar, G. N., & Brown, A. (2002). New product development processes in small and medium-sized enterprises: Some Australian evidence. Journal of Small Business Management , 40 (1), 27–42.

Hughes*, G. D., & Chafin, D. C. (1996). Turning new product development into a continuous learning process. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 13 (2), 89–104.

Hultink*, E. J., Talke, K., Griffin, A., & Veldhuizen, E. (2011). Market information processing in new product development: The importance of process interdependency and data quality. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 58 (2), 199–211.

Huynh*, V. N., & Nakamori, Y. (2011). A linguistic screening evaluation model in new product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 58 (1), 165–175.

Ignatius*, J., Leen, J. Y. A., Ramayah, T., Hin, C. K., & Jantan, M. (2012). The impact of technological learning on NPD outcomes: The moderating effect of project complexity. Technovation , 32 (7), 452–463.

Jaber*, H., Marle, F., & Jankovic, M. (2015). Improving collaborative decision making in new product development projects using clustering algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 62 (4), 475–483.

Jassawalla*, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (1998). An examination of collaboration in high-technology new product development processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (3), 237–254.

Jayaram*, J. (2008). Supplier involvement in new product development projects: Dimensionality and contingency effects. International Journal of Production Research , 46 (13), 3717–3735.

Jayaram*, J., & Malhotra, M. K. (2010). The differential and contingent impact of concurrency on new product development project performance: A holistic examination. Decision Sciences , 41 (1), 147–196.

Jayaram*, J., & Narasimhan, R. (2007). The influence of new product development competitive capabilities on project performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 54 (2), 241–256.

Jepsen*, L. B. (2013). Complex new product development projects: How the project manager’s information sharing with core actors changes over time. Project Management Journal , 44 (6), 20–35.

Jespersen*, K. R. (2012). Stage-to-Stage information dependency in the NPD process: Effective learning or a potential entrapment of NPD gates? Journal of Product Innovation Management , 29 (2), 257–274.

Jones*, O., & Stevens, G. (1999). Evaluating failure in the innovation process: The micropolitics of new product development. R&D Management , 29 (2), 167–178.

Jou*, Y., Chen, C., Hwang, C., Lin, W., & Huang, S. (2010). A study on the improvements of new product development procedure performance: An application of design for Six Sigma in a semi-conductor equipment manufacturer. International Journal of Production Research , 48 (19), 5573–5591.

Juan*, Y. C., Ou-Yang, C., & Lin, J. S. (2009). A process-oriented multi-agent system development approach to support the cooperation-activities of concurrent new product development. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 57 (4), 1363–1376.

Kandemir, D., Calantone, R., & Garcia, R. (2006). An exploration of organizational factors in new product development success. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 21 (5), 300–310.

Karagozoglu*, N., & Brown, W. B. (1993). Time-based management of the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 10 (3), 204–215.

Karakaya*, F., & Kobu, B. (1994). New product development process: An investigation of success and failure in high-technology and non-high-technology firms. Journal of Business Venturing , 9 (1), 49–66.

Keupp, M. M., Palmié, M., & Gassmann, O. (2012). The strategic management of innovation: A systematic review and paths for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews , 14 (4), 367–390.

Keller*, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal , 44 (3), 547–555.

Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C., Nixon, W., & Pearson, A. (2000). Performance measurement in industrial R&D. International Journal of Management Reviews , 2 (2), 111–143.

Kester*, L., Hultink, E. J., & Griffin, A. (2014). An empirical investigation of the antecedents and outcomes of NPD portfolio success. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 31 (6), 1199–1213.

Kim*, J., & Wilemon, D. (2003). Sources and assessment of complexity in NPD projects. R&D Management , 33 (1), 15–30.

Kleinschmidt*, E. J., de Brentani, U., & Salomo, S. (2007). Performance of global new product development programs: A resource-based view. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 24 (5), 419–441.

Knudsen*, M. P. (2007). The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge transfer for new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 24 (2), 117–138.

Kong*, T., Li, G., Feng, T., & Sun, L. (2015). Effects of marketing-manufacturing integration across stages of new product development on performance. International Journal of Production Research , 53 (8), 2269–2284.

Koyuncu*, E., & Erol, R. (2015). PSO based approach for scheduling NPD projects including overlapping process. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 85 (July), 316–327.

Kyriazis*, E., Couchman, P., & Johnson, L. W. (2012). Psychosocial antecedents of communication, trust, and relationship effectiveness in new product development projects: A functional manager perspective. R&D Management , 42 (3), 207–224.

LaBahn*, D. W., Ali, A., & Krapfel, R. (1996). New product development cycle time: The influence of project and process factors in small manufacturing companies. Journal of Business Research , 36 (2), 179–188.

Lakemond*, N., & Berggren, C. (2006). Co-locating NPD? The need for combining project focus and organizational integration. Technovation , 26 (7), 807–819.

Lam*, P. K., & Chin, K. S. (2005). Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for conflict management in collaborative new product development. Industrial Marketing Management , 34 (8), 761–772.

Lambe*, C. J., Morgan, R. E., Sheng, S., & Kutwaroo, G. (2009). Alliance-based new product development success: The role of formalization in exploration and exploitation contexts. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing , 16 (3), 242–275.

Lawson*, B., Krause, D., & Potter, A. (2015). Improving supplier new product development performance: The role of supplier development. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 32 (5), 777–792.

Lawson*, B., & Potter, A. (2012). Determinants of knowledge transfer in inter-firm new product development projects. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 32 (10), 1228–1247.

Lechler*, T. G., & Thomas, J. L. (2015). Examining new product development project termination decision quality at the portfolio level: Consequences of dysfunctional executive advocacy. International Journal of Project Management , 33 (7), 1452–1463.

Ledwith*, A., & O’Dwyer, M. (2009). Market orientation, NPD performance, and organizational performance in small firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (6), 652–661.

Lee*, K. B., & Wong, V. (2011). Identifying the moderating influences of external environments on new product development process. Technovation , 31 (10), 598–612.

Lester, D. H. (1998). Critical success factors for new product development. Research Technology Management , 41 (1), 36–43.

Lewis*, M. A. (2001). Success, failure and organisational competence: A case study of the new product development process. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 18 (2), 185–206.

Li*, C. R., Chu, C. P., & Lin, C. J. (2010). The contingent value of exploratory and exploitative learning for new product development performance. Industrial Marketing Management , 39 (7), 1186–1197.

Lilien*, G. L., Morrison, P. D., Searls, K., Sonnack, M., & von Hippel, E. (2002). Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development. Management Science , 48 (8), 1042–1059.

Lin*, M. J. J., & Huang, C. H. (2013). The impact of customer participation on NPD performance: The mediating role of inter-organisation relationship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 28 (1), 3–15.

Lint*, O., & Pennings, E. (2001). An option approach to the new product development process: A case study at Philips Electronics. R&D Management , 31 (2), 163–172.

Liu*, J., Chen, J., & Tao, Y. (2015). Innovation performance in new product development teams in China’s technology ventures: The role of behavioral integration dimensions and collective efficacy. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 32 (1), 29–44.

Liu*, P. L., Chen, W. C., & Tsai, C. H. (2005). An empirical study on the correlation between the knowledge management method and new product development strategy on product performance in Taiwan’s industries. Technovation , 25 (6), 637–644.

MacCormack*, A., Crandall, W., Henderson, P., & Toft, P. (2012). Do you need a new product-development strategy? Research-Technology Management , 55 (1), 34–43.

Magni*, M., Maruping, L. M., Hoegl, M., & Proserpio, L. (2013). Managing the unexpected across space: Improvisation, dispersion, and performance in NPD teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 30 (5), 1009–1026.

Malhotra*, M. K., Grover, V., & DeSilvio, M. (1996). Reengineering the new product development process: A framework for innovation and flexibility in high technology firms. Omega , 24 (4), 425–441.

Marion*, T. J., Eddleston, K. A., Friar, J. H., & Deeds, D. (2015). The evolution of inter-organizational relationships in emerging ventures: An ethnographic study within the new product development process. Journal of Business Venturing , 30 (1), 167–184.

Markham*, S. K., & Lee, H. (2014). Marriage and family therapy in NPD teams: Effects of we-ness on knowledge sharing and product performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 31 (6), 1291–1311.

Marmier*, F., Gourc, D., & Laarz, F. (2013). A risk oriented model to assess strategic decisions in new product development projects. Decision Support Systems , 56 , 74–82.

Martínez León*, H. C., Farris, J. A., Letens, G., & Hernandez, A. (2013). An analytical management framework for new product development processes featuring uncertain iterations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 30 (1), 45–71.

Massey*, G. R., & Kyriazis, E. (2007). Interpersonal trust between marketing and R&D during new product development projects. European Journal of Marketing , 41 (9–10), 1146–1172.

Maylor*, H. (2001). Assessing the relationship between practice changes and process improvement in new product development. Omega , 29 (1), 85–96.

McDonough*, E. F. (1993). Faster new product development: Investigating the effects of technology and characteristics of the project leader and team. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 10 (3), 241–250.

McDonough*, E. F., & Barczak, G. (1999). How ‘EPC Co’. Revamped its NPD process. Research Technology Management , 42 (3), 9–12.

McDonough*, E. F., & Kinnunen, R. M. (1984). Management control of new product development projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 1 , 18–21.

McNally*, R. C., Akdeniz, M. B., & Calantone, R. J. (2011). New product development processes and new product profitability: Exploring the mediating role of speed to market and product quality. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (1), 63–77.

Melander*, L., & Lakemond, N. (2015). Governance of supplier collaboration in technologically uncertain NPD projects. Industrial Marketing Management , 49 , 116–127.

Mihm*, J. (2010). Incentives in new product development projects and the role of target costing. Management Science , 56 (8), 1324–1344.

Mishra*, A. A., & Shah, R. (2009). In union lies strength: Collaborative competence in new product development and its performance effects. Journal of Operations Management , 27 (4), 324–338.

Moenaert*, R. K., & Souder, W. E. (1990). An information transfer model for integrating marketing and R&D personnel in new product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 7 (2), 91–107.

Montoya-Weiss*, M. M., & Calantone, R. J. (1994). Determinants of new product performance: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 11 (5), 397–417.

Mu*, J. (2014). Networking capability, network structure, and new product development performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 61 (4), 599–609.

Mu*, J. (2015). Marketing capability, organizational adaptation and new product development performance. Industrial Marketing Management , 49 , 151–166.

Mu*, J., Peng, G., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2009). Effect of risk management strategy on NPD performance. Technovation , 29 (3), 170–180.

Mu*, J., Zhang, G., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2011). Social competency and new product development performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 58 (2), 363–376.

Murray*, J. Y., & Chao, M. C. (2005). A cross-team framework of international knowledge acquisition on new product development capabilities and new product market performance. Journal of International Marketing , 13 (3), 54–78.

Natter*, M., Mild, A., Feurstein, M., Dorffner, G., & Taudes, A. (2001). The effect of incentive schemes and organizational arrangements on the new product development process. Management Science , 47 (8), 1029–1045.

Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 15 (4), 80–116.

Newey*, L., & Verreynne, M. L. (2011). Multilevel absorptive capacity and interorganizational new product development: A process study. Journal of Management & Organization , 17 (1), 39–55.

Nihtilä*, J. (1999). R&D-Production integration in the early phases of new product development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 16 (1), 55–81.

Oehmen*, J., Olechowski, A., Kenley, C. R., & Ben-Daya, M. (2014). Analysis of the effect of risk management practices on the performance of new product development programs. Technovation , 34 (8), 441–453.

Oke*, A., & Idiagbon-Oke, M. (2010). Communication channels, innovation tasks and NPD project outcomes in innovation-driven horizontal networks. Journal of Operations Management , 28 (5), 442–453.

Olin*, T., & Shani, A. B. (2003). NPD as a sustainable work process in a dynamic business environment. R&D Management , 33 (1), 1–13.

Olson*, E. M., Walker, O. C., Ruekert, R. W., & Bonner, J. M. (2001). Patterns of cooperation during new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: Implications for project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 18 (4), 258–271.

Owens*, J. D. (2007). Why do some UK SMEs still find the implementation of a new product development process problematical? Management Decision , 45 (2), 235–251.

Ozer*, M. (2003). Process implications of the use of the Internet in new product development: A conceptual analysis. Industrial Marketing Management , 32 (6), 517–530.

Page, A. L. (1993). Assessing new product development practices and performance: Establishing crucial norms. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 10 (4), 273–290.

Pappas, R. A., & Remer, D. S. (1985). Measuring R and D productivity. Research-Technology Management , 28 (3), 15–22.

Park*, H., Lim, W. J., & Birnbaum-More, P. H. (2009). The effect of multi-knowledge individuals on performance in cross-functional new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (1), 86–96.

Parker*, H., & Brey, Z. (2015). Collaboration costs and new product development performance. Journal of Business Research , 68 (7), 1653–1656.

Parry*, M. E., Song, M., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., & Visscher, K. (2009). The impact of NPD strategy, product strategy, and NPD processes on perceived cycle time. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (6), 627–639.

Pasche*, M., Persson, M., & Löfsten, H. (2011). Effects of platforms on new product development projects. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 31 (11), 1144–1163.

Patanakul*, P., Shenhar, A. J., & Milosevic, D. Z. (2012). How project strategy is used in project management: Cases of new product development and software development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 29 (3), 391–414.

Peng*, D. X., Heim, G. R., & Mallick, D. N. (2014). Collaborative product development: The effect of project complexity on the use of information technology tools and new product development practices. Production and Operations Management , 23 (8), 1421–1438.

Perks*, H., Kahn, K., & Zhang, C. (2009). An empirical evaluation of R&D-Marketing NPD integration in Chinese firms: The guanxi effect. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (6), 640–651.

Petersen*, K. J., Handfield, R. B., & Ragatz, G. L. (2005). Supplier integration into new product development: Coordinating product, process and supply chain design. Journal of Operations Management , 23 (3–4), 371–388.

Pons*, D. (2008). Project management for new product development. Project Management Journal , 39 (2), 82–97.

Prašnikar*, J., & Škerlj, T. (2006). New product development process and time-to-market in the generic pharmaceutical industry. Industrial Marketing Management , 35 (6), 690–702.

Pujari*, D. (2006). Eco-innovation and new product development: Understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation , 26 (1), 76–85.

Pujari*, D., Wright, G., & Peattie, K. (2003). Green and competitive. Journal of Business Research , 56 (8), 657–671.

Pullen*, A. J. J., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., Groen, A. J., & Fisscher, O. A. M. (2012). Open innovation in practice: Goal complementarity and closed NPD networks to explain differences in innovation performance for SMEs in the medical devices sector. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 29 (6), 917–934.

Racela*, O. C. (2015). Viable strategy configurations and new product development capability and performance: Evidence from Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , 27 (2), 249–266.

Ragatz*, G. L., Handfield, R. B., & Scannell, T. V. (1997). Success factors for integrating suppliers into new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 14 (3), 190–202.

Ramesh*, B., & Tiwana, A. (1999). Supporting collaborative process knowledge management in new product development teams. Decision Support Systems , 27 (1), 213–235.

Ranjbar*, M. (2013). A branch-and-bound algorithm for scheduling of new product development projects. International Transactions in Operational Research , 20 (2), 251–266.

Rao, V. R. (1997). Resources for research and pedagogy on new product development processes. Journal of Marketing Research , 34 (1), 185–192.

Reidenbach*, R. E., & Moak, D. L. (1986). Exploring retail bank performance and new product development: A profile of industry practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 3 (3), 187–194.

Reilly*, R. R., Lynn, G. S., & Aronson, Z. H. (2002). The role of personality in new product development team performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 19 (1), 39–58.

Rijsdijk*, S. A., & van den Ende, J. (2011). Control Combinations in New Product Development Projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (6), 868–880.

Rochford*, L., & Rudelius, W. (1997). New product development process: Stages and successes in the medical products industry. Industrial Marketing Management , 26 (1), 67–84.

Rogers*, H., Ghauri, P., & Pawar, K. S. (2005). Measuring international NPD projects: An evaluation process. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 20 (2), 79–87.

Roper*, S., Micheli, P., Love, J. H., & Vahter, P. (2015). The roles and effectiveness of design in new product development: A study of Irish manufacturers. Research Policy , 45 (1), 319–329.

Ruy*, M., & Alliprandini, D. H. (2008). Organisational learning in the new product development process: Findings from three case studies in Brazilian manufacturing companies. International Journal of Technology Management , 44 (3–4), 461–479.

Sahay*, A., & Riley, D. (2003). The role of resource access, market considerations, and the nature of innovation in pursuit of standards in the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 20 (5), 338–355.

Salomo*, S., Steinhoff, F., & Trommsdorff, V. (2003). Customer orientation in innovation projects and new product development success-the moderating effect of product innovativeness. International Journal of Technology Management , 26 (5–6), 442–463.

Salomo*, S., Weise, J., & Gemünden, H. G. (2007). NPD planning activities and innovation performance: The mediating role of process management and the moderating effect of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 24 (4), 285–302.

Sandvik*, I. L., Arnett, D. B., & Sandvik, K. (2011). The effects of new product development proficiency on product advantage and tourism business performance evidence from the Norwegian hotel industry. Journal of Travel Research , 50 (6), 641–653.

Sarin*, S., & McDermott, C. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross-functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences , 34 (4), 707–739.

Schleimer*, S. C., & Shulman, A. D. (2011). A comparison of new service versus new product development: Configurations of collaborative intensity as predictors of performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (4), 521–535.

Schmidt*, J. B., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). Are really new product development projects harder to shut down? Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (2), 111–123.

Schmidt*, J. B., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Massey, A. P. (2001). New product development decision-making effectiveness: Comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual teams. Decision Sciences , 32 (4), 575–600.

Schmidt*, J. B., Sarangee, K. R., & Montoya, M. M. (2009). Exploring new product development project review practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26 (5), 520–535.

Schoenherr*, T., Griffith, D. A., & Chandra, A. (2014). Intangible capital, knowledge and new product development competence in supply chains: Process, interaction and contingency effects among SMEs. International Journal of Production Research , 52 (16), 4916–4929.

Schulze*, A., & Hoegl, M. (2006). Knowledge creation in new product development projects. Journal of Management , 32 (2), 210–236.

Sherman*, D. J., Berkowitz, D., & Souder, W. E. (2005). New product development performance and the interaction of cross-functional integration and knowledge management. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 22 (5), 399–411.

Sicotte*, H., & Bourgault, M. (2008). Dimensions of uncertainty and their moderating effect on new product development project performance. R&D Management , 38 (5), 468–479.

Sicotte*, H., Prefontaine, L., Ricard, L., & Bourgault, M. (2004). New product development: Customers’ and suppliers’ assessment of the same project. International Journal of Technology Management , 27 (2–3), 176–192.

Simon*, F., & Tellier, A. (2011). How do actors shape social networks during the process of new product development? European Management Journal , 29 (5), 414–430.

Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Siu*, W., Lin, T., Fang, W., & Liu, Z. C. (2006). An institutional analysis of the new product development process of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Industrial Marketing Management , 35 (3), 323–335.

Sivasubramaniam*, N., Liebowitz, S. J., & Lackman, C. L. (2012). Determinants of new product development team performance: A meta-analytic Review. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 29 (5), 803–820.

Smeds*, R., Haho, P., & Alvesalo, J. (2003). Bottom-up or top-down? Evolutionary change management in NPD processes. International Journal of Technology Management , 26 (8), 887–902.

Smits*, A., & Kok, R. (2012). The interplay between outbound team strategy and market information processing in the course of ‘really new’ NPD projects. Industrial Marketing Management , 41 (5), 759–769.

Song*, M., & di Benedetto, C. A. (2008). Supplier’s involvement and success of radical new product development in new ventures. Journal of Operations Management , 26 (1), 1–22.

Song*, M., & Swink, M. (2009). Marketing-manufacturing integration across stages of new product development: Effects on the success of high-and low-innovativeness products. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 56 (1), 31–44.

Song*, W., Ming, X., & Xu, Z. (2013). Risk evaluation of customer integration in new product development under uncertainty. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 65 (3), 402–412.

Song*, X. M., Neeley, S. M., & Zhao, Y. (1996). Managing R&D-marketing integration in the new product development process. Industrial Marketing Management , 25 (6), 545–553.

Song*, X. M., & Perry, M. E. (1997). A cross-national comparative study of new product development processes: Japan and the United States. The Journal of Marketing , 61 (2), 1–18.

Sosa*, M. E., Gargiulo, M., & Rowles, C. (2015). Can informal communication networks disrupt coordination in new product development projects? Organization Science , 26 (4), 1059–1078.

Souder*, W. E. (1988). Managing relations between R&D and marketing in new product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 1 (5), 6–19.

Souder*, W. E., Buisson, D., & Garrett, T. (1997). Success through customer-driven new product development: A comparison of US and New Zealand small entrepreneurial high technology firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 14 (6), 459–472.

Souder*, W. E., Sherman, J. D., & Davies-Cooper, R. (1998). Environmental uncertainty, organizational integration, and new product development effectiveness: A test of contingency theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (6), 520–533.

Spivey*, W. A., Munson, J. M., & Wolcott, J. H. (1997). Improving the new product development process: A fractal paradigm for high-technology products. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 14 (3), 203–218.

Stock*, R. M. (2014). How should customers be integrated for effective interorganizational NPD teams? An input-process-output perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 31 (3), 535–551.

Storey, C., & Easingwood, C. (1993). The impact of the new product development project on the success of financial services. Service Industries Journal , 13 (3), 40–54.

Strang*, D. K. (2011). Leadership substitutes and personality impact on time and quality in virtual new product development projects. Project Management Journal , 42 (1), 73–90.

Subramaniam*, M., Rosenthal, S. R., & Hatten, K. J. (1998). Global new product development processes: Preliminary findings and research propositions. Journal of Management Studies , 35 (6), 773–796.

Sun*, H., & Wing, W. C. (2005). Critical success factors for new product development in the Hong Kong toy industry. Technovation , 25 (3), 293–303.

Sun*, W., Xu, A., & Shang, Y. (2014). Transformational leadership, team climate, and team performance within the NPD team: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 31 (1), 127–147.

Swink*, M. (2003). Completing projects on-time: How project acceleration affects new product development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 20 (4), 319–344.

Swink*, M., Talluri, S., & Pandejpong, T. (2006). Faster, better, cheaper: A study of NPD project efficiency and performance tradeoffs. Journal of Operations Management , 24 (5), 542–562.

Takayama*, M., Watanabe, C., & Griffy-Brown, C. (2002). Alliance strategy as a competitive strategy for successively creative new product development: The proof of the co-evolution of creativity and efficiency in the Japanese pharmaceutical industry. Technovation , 22 (10), 607–614.

Tavani*, S. N., Sharifi, H., Soleimanof, S., & Najmi, M. (2013). An empirical study of firm’s absorptive capacity dimensions, supplier involvement and new product development performance. International Journal of Production Research , 51 (11), 3385–3403.

Taylor*, P., & Lowe, J. (1997). Are functional assets or knowledge assets the basis of new product development performance? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management , 9 (4), 473–488.

Thieme*, R. J., Song, M., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). Artificial neural network decision support systems for new product development project selection. Journal of Marketing Research , 37 (4), 499–507.

Thomas*, E. (2013). Supplier integration in new product development: Computer mediated communication, knowledge exchange and buyer performance. Industrial Marketing Management , 42 (6), 890–899.

Thwaites*, D. (1992). Organizational influences on the new product development process in financial services. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 9 (4), 303–313.

Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing innovation; integrating technological, market and organizational change . Chichester, GB: Wiley.

Tidd*, J., & Bodley, K. (2002). The influence of project novelty on the new product development process. R&D Management , 32 (2), 127–138.

Tighe*, G. (1998). From experience: Securing sponsors and funding for new product development projects - The human side of enterprise. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (1), 75–81.

Tomes*, A., Armstrong, P., & Clark, M. (1996). User groups in action: The management of user inputs in the NPD process. Technovation , 16 (10), 541–551.

Tranekjer*, T. L., & Søndergaard, H. A. (2013). Sources of innovation, their combinations and strengths-benefits at the NPD project level. International Journal of Technology Management , 61 (3–4), 205–236.

Tranfield, D. R., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management , 14 (3), 207–222.

Tsai*, F. S., Baugh, G. S., Fang, S. C., & Lin, J. L. (2014). Contingent contingency: Knowledge heterogeneity and new product development performance revisited. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 31 (1), 149–169.

Tzokas*, N., Hultink, E. J., & Hart, S. (2004). Navigating the new product development process. Industrial Marketing Management , 33 (7), 619–626.

van der Panne, G., van Beers, C., & Kleinknecht, A. (2003). Success and failure of innovation: A literature review. International Journal of Innovation Management , 7 (3), 1–30.

van Oorschot*, K. E., Akkermans, H., Sengupta, K., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (2013). Anatomy of a decision trap in complex new product development projects. Academy of Management Journal , 56 (1), 285–307.

van Oorschot*, K. E., Langerak, F., & Sengupta, K. (2011). Escalation, de-escalation, or reformulation: Effective interventions in delayed NPD projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 28 (6), 848–867.

Varela*, J., & Benito, L. (2005). New product development process in Spanish firms: Typology, antecedents and technical/marketing activities. Technovation , 25 (4), 395–405.

Varma*, V. A., Uzsoy, R., Pekny, J., & Blau, G. (2007). Lagrangian heuristics for scheduling new product development projects in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Heuristics , 13 (5), 403–433.

Veldhuizen*, E., Hultink, E. J., & Griffin, A. (2006). Modeling market information processing in new product development: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 23 (4), 353–373.

Verworn*, B. (2009). A structural equation model of the impact of the fuzzy front end on the success of new product development. Research Policy , 38 (10), 1571–1581.

Verworn*, B., Herstatt, C., & Nagahira, A. (2008). The fuzzy front end of Japanese new product development projects: Impact on success and differences between incremental and radical projects. R&D Management , 38 (1), 1–19.

Veryzer*, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15 (4), 304–321.

vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In Paper presented at the 17th European Conference on Information Systems, Verona (pp. 2206–2217).

Wang*, J., & Lin, Y. I. (2009). An overlapping process model to assess schedule risk for new product development. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 57 (2), 460–474.

Wang*, Y., & Li-Ying, J. (2014). When does inward technology licensing facilitate firms’ NPD performance? A contingency perspective. Technovation , 34 (1), 44–53.

Watkins*, T. (1984). The practice of product testing in the new product development process: The role of model-based approaches. European Journal of Marketing , 18 (6–7), 14–29.

Wind, Y., & Mahajan, V. (1988). New product development process: A perspective for reexamination. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 5 (4), 304–310.

Wouters*, M., Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., & Wynstra, F. (2009). Improving sourcing decisions in NPD projects: Monetary quantification of points of difference. Journal of Operations Management , 27 (1), 64–77.

Wynstra*, F., Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., & Wouters, M. (2012). Supplier development responsibility and NPD project outcomes: The roles of monetary quantification of differences and supporting-detail gathering. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 29 (S1), 103–123.

Yan*, T., & Dooley, K. (2014). Buyer-supplier collaboration quality in new product development projects. Journal of Supply Chain Management , 50 (2), 59–83.

Yang*, L. R. (2012). Implementation of project strategy to improve new product development performance. International Journal of Project Management , 30 (7), 760–770.

Yeh*, T. M., Pai, F. Y., & Yang, C. C. (2010). Performance improvement in new product development with effective tools and techniques adoption for high-tech industries. Quality & Quantity , 44 (1), 131–152.

Yeniyurt*, S., Henke, J. W., & Yalcinkaya, G. (2014). A longitudinal analysis of supplier involvement in buyers’ new product development: Working relations, inter-dependence, co-innovation, and performance outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 42 (3), 291–308.

Yu*, B., Hao, S., Ahlstrom, D., Si, S., & Liang, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial firms’ network competence, technological capability, and new product development performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 31 (3), 687–704.

Zahay*, D., Griffin, A., & Fredericks, E. (2004). Sources, uses, and forms of data in the new product development process. Industrial Marketing Management , 33 (7), 657–666.

Zolghadri*, M., Amrani, A., Zouggar, S., & Girard, P. (2011a). Power assessment as a high-level partner selection criterion for new product development projects. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing , 24 (4), 312–327.

Zolghadri*, M., Girard, P., Baron, C., & Aldanondo, M. (2011b). A general framework for new product development projects. International Journal of Technology Management , 55 (3–4), 250–262.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Further, we thank Florian Müller for his strong support during data collection. This research is part of the first author’s dissertation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Accounting, Control and Auditing, University of St. Gallen, Tigerbergstrasse 9, 9000, St. Gallen, Switzerland

Benedikt Müller-Stewens & Klaus Möller

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benedikt Müller-Stewens .

See Table  2 .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Müller-Stewens, B., Möller, K. Performance in new product development: a comprehensive framework, current trends, and research directions. J Manag Control 28 , 157–201 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-016-0243-4

Download citation

Published : 07 January 2017

Issue Date : May 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-016-0243-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• New product development
• Management control systems
• Systematic review

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier Sponsored Documents

The role of product development practices on new product performance: Evidence from Nigeria's financial services providers

Nkemdilim iheanachor.

a Strategy and International Business Group of Lagos Business School, Pan-Atlantic University, Lagos, Nigeria

Immanuel Ovemeso Umukoro

b Information Systems & Digital Business Transformation, Lagos Business School, Pan-Atlantic University, Lagos, Nigeria

Olayinka David-West

c Professor of Information Systems, Lagos Business School, Pan-Atlantic University, Lagos, Nigeria

Associated Data

• • Impact of product development practices on the performance of newly launched products.
• • When key product development practices are not well implemented the likelihood of product failure increases.
• • Development of financial service products affect adoption, use and product penetration.
• • Management teams of various financial service providers should invest in developing sound product development practices.

This study investigates the impact of product development practices on the performance of new financial products and services through the analysis of ten in-depth case studies. We argue that weak product development practices negatively affect product performance. This study finds that in Nigeria, new financial product performance is suboptimal because of poor product development practices. This study further shows that when poor execution follows inadequate product development practices, the likelihood of product failure increases, as evidenced by poor product performance and low adoption. The processes adopted in the development of financial services affect the adoption, use, and overall penetration of the product in the target market. Therefore, this study suggests that the management team of various financial service providers invest in developing sound product development practices in the actualization of their goals of increasing the adoption and use of their products.

1. Introduction

In emerging markets, financial services innovation (whether in products or business models) is critical to a provider's sustainability and competitiveness ( David-West et al., (2019) ). Technological innovation has disrupted the financial services sector by establishing novel ways of creating and delivering value to customers ( Hine and Greenaway, 2016 ; Li, 2016; Madeira, 2016 ). This warrants additional investments in information technology (IT) assets, resources and capabilities. As IT investments increase, customer needs are also becoming more diverse. Financial service providers (FSPs) must also strengthen their processes to meet and surpass the needs of their customers who are the most influential yet volatile stakeholders ( De Oliveira and Rabechini, 2019 ; Kim et al., 2018 ; Ouma et al., 2017 ; Pollari, 2016 ).

Understanding consumer pain points remains a critical driver in creating and delivering a compelling customer value proposition that meets their diverse financial service needs. David-West et al., 2019 report that customer value propositions (CVPs) such as affordability, accessibility, ease of use, service reliability and security characterize financial products and services. FSPs need these CVPs to acquire and retain customers. To achieve and sustain these attributes in their products, FSPs must continually review their customer value propositions and product fit amidst changing consumer behaviours. The continuous review of product development practices is one such approach. This is undoubtedly true, especially in an era where new non-bank financial technology (Fintech) firms are challenging the incumbents and disrupting the financial services space with new value propositions.

Financial product development requires the commitment of critical resources and an understanding of customer needs, characteristics and behaviours to gain the adoption, customer satisfaction ( Brockmann, 2017 ; Laukkanen, 2016 ; Park and Koh, 2017 ), and continuous use of financial services ( David-West et al., 2019b ). Well-developed financial products yield benefits such as improved market shares, higher profits, returns on equity, customer loyalty, and long-term survival ( Albers et al., 2018 ; Lalic et al., 2018 ; Mikkola, 2018 ). For new products to be successful, organizations must ensure that product development processes such as ideation, prototyping, testing and launching must be carefully and systematically executed ( Roy et al., 2017 ; Yoon and Rim, 2018 ; Claudy et al., 2016 ). Beyond the value proposition, pilot and launch strategies that FSPs adopt can also affect product acceptance. There is, therefore, a need to be innovative in the product development process. Such processes require a competent team, efficient operational processes, and a strategy for managing emerging product risks.

The spike in financial product failure in emerging economies is caused by a lack of adherence to good product development practices ( Albers et al., 2018 ; Lalic et., 2018; Mikkola, 2018 ). For instance, low financial inclusion rates in Nigeria can be attributed to poor product adoption resulting from poor product-customer fit and other exclusion enablers. Evidence of failed financial products abounds in Asia ( Kim et al., 2016 ) and Africa ( Karabag, 2019 ; Šoltés et al., 2017 ; Gumel, 2017 ). These products often fail to address customers’ pain points. Likewise, product failures have significant impacts on customers, employees, profitability, market share, brand equity, investors, and the economy at large. Such failures can erode consumers’ trust in a brand and could be capitalized upon by rival firms. This study investigates the impact of product development practices on the performance of newly launched products by financial service providers by relying on evidence provided by ten case studies of purposively sampled FSPs.

The goal of product development practices is to meet consumer needs while keeping a focus on profitability and business sustainability. Products are one dimension of competition in the financial services space. The practices that produce the products must receive adequate attention. They are vital to improving the quality of services to promote customer adoption, consumer satisfaction, customer retention, profitability and long-term sustainability.

1.1. Rationale

The concept of product development has been widely discussed in the literature, especially in innovation management research. However, the analysis of the literature on product development practices shows that most references and case studies are in the manufacturing ( Akroush and Awwad, 2018 ; Chang and Taylor, 2016 ; Vinayak and Kodali, 2014 ), telecom ( Namusonge et al., 2017 ), aviation ( Naghi Ganji et al., 2017 ) and transportation sectors. Studies on product development practices of financial service providers remain sparse, especially those from an emerging economy perspective. This phenomenon is essential given the low level of adoption of financial services in Nigeria, resulting in a low financial inclusion rate despite the broad spectrum of financial products and services offered by Nigerian FSPs. Where financial products exist, their adoption and utility are usually low. The adoption of financial services (used interchangeably with financial products) is a significant phenomenon as it plays a critical role in enabling Nigeria to attain its financial inclusion goals of 80% by 2020. Despite the high number of bank and non-bank FSPs in Nigeria, approximately 36.8% (36.6 million) of the adult population remains financially excluded. Additionally, 14.6% (14.6 million) of adults are underserved. The underserved segment resorts to the use of informal channels and services ( EFInA, 2018 ), which could be costly and risky.

The challenge of financial inclusion in Nigeria and its consequent negative impact on economic development continues to attract the attention of scholars and governments at all levels. Several factors are responsible for this low level of adoption. While a demand-side approach may amplify the voice of financial services consumers, a supply-side approach provides a broader perspective on the processes through which FSPs conceptualize and develop products. This can offer insight into how product development practices may contribute to low financial service adoption and, by extension, low financial inclusion. Financial exclusion can be due to lack of product-customer fit, often resulting from flawed research and development efforts. This can be because of insufficient business case analysis, ineffective market segmentation, the absence of product prototype development, and insufficient testing and refinement, among other causes.

Specifically, the study examines the following:

• 1 The nature of product development practices (PDPs) among financial services providers (FSPs) in Nigeria
• 2 The impact of product development processes on new product performance in Nigeria
• 3 How the risk management strategies of financial services providers affect the performance of the new products of financial service providers

1.2. Research questions

The following research questions guided this study:

• 1 How do Nigerian FSPs undertake product development?
• 2 To what extent do best product development processes guide Nigerian FSPs in their new product development efforts?
• 3 What is the role of product development processes in the performance of new products developed by Nigerian FSPs?

We organize the rest of this paper as follows. The section after this introduction provides a brief review of the related literature on product development practices. It aims to explore the relevant literature and outline extant theories within the context of product development practices. The method section follows the literature review. The results and discussion sections are next; followed by a conclusion, recommendations, implications for practice and directions for further studies.

2. Literature review

2.1. product development and product development practices.

The term product development or new product development refers to the transformation process of a market opportunity and a set of assumptions regarding product technology into a product accessible to the market ( Chang and Taylor, 2016 ). It is a process that leads to introducing new products into a market as a response to a market opportunity by logically combining a set of activities. Product development practices (PDPs) are a defined set of tasks, steps and phases that describe the standards by which a company repetitively converts embryonic ideas into sellable products or services (Kahn, 2004). They are firm practices that translate into the development and launch of new products as a response to new market opportunities. PDPs are "success drivers of new product development efforts" ( Troy et al., 2008 , p. 136) because when properly implemented, they can positively impact an organization's market share, profitability and long-term survival. PDPs include practices that help business organizations arrive at quality and viable products that meet market needs and can capture value for the organization while creating value for customers (see Fig. 1 ). The concept impacts three broad aspects of organizational success: operational, financial, and marketing performance.

Product development framework ( Source: Author's representation ).

Nguyen et al. (2018) note that practices such as the development of product programmes, research and development (R&D) and innovation can translate into the success of a new product. There are two categories of PDPs – process speed and integrative practices.

• ■ Process Speed: This refers to the compression of activities ( Kiss and Barr, 2017 ) versus traditional sequential new product development practices. Process speed could be agile development, early feedback or late decision-making product development practices for accelerating the speed of the product development process. Agile development is characterized by rapid development iterations used to gain feedback combined with overlapping processes where the next iteration begins before the current iteration finishes ( Haidar et al., 2017 ; Mohan et al., 2010 ). Agile development contrasts with the traditional waterfall development methodology that focuses on preparing a complete and detailed design specification before the execution phase begins ( Guntamukkala et al., 2006 ; Roems, 2017 ). Early feedback  refers to regularly gathering feedback from multiple constituents at the earliest stages of the product development process ( Lakemond et al., 2013 ; Thomas, 2014 ; Narasimhan et al., 2006 ). Late decision making is a process in which product concepts, capabilities and designs are not finalized until the last phases of the development process ( Buganza et al., 2010 , 2009 ). Late decision-making contrasts with the traditional stage-gate style processes where product development is in a sequential structure of decision gates (Kahn, 2004). At each decision gate, a facet of the product is agreed upon and frozen before moving to the next gate.
• ■ Integrative P ractices: These are processes used by the organization to regenerate its knowledge base (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Kogut and Zander, 1992 ; Marsh and Stock, 2006 ). They include foundational customers and supplier participation. Foundational customers are customer representatives who participate in the new product development process in a manner that helps shape the requirement analysis ( Carbonell et al., 2009 ; Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997 ) for new product development. In-depth requirement analysis of market realities is critical for the success of financial products. Validating initial market assumptions requires engaging customers that can provide a near real-life input to the requirement analysis and initial product design stages. Supplier participation refers to the various roles that suppliers play in the product development process. It ranges from merely delivering parts based on a specification to substantial involvement in the design process ( Ragatz et al., 2002 ; Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997 ; Cusumano and Takeishi, 1991 ). Suppliers are a critical category of stakeholders in the product development process. The interface with customers provides useful feedback on customer buying and consumption behavior. Lau, 2011 also state that supplier involvement and inter-functional integration can also eliminate barriers that lead to new product failure.

2.2. Product performance and performance measures

Product performance refers to how well a product performs across defined measurement indicators. The indicators could be how product development promotes customer attraction (market share) and retention, revenues and net profit, brand equity, customer satisfaction and feedback, among other indicators ( Namusonge et al., 2017 ; Ganeshkumar and Nambirajan, 2013 ; Schilling and Hill, 2005 ). Product performance reflects the financial and market performance of a firm's new or existing product ( Najafi-Tavani et al. (2016) ). Product performance measures or outcomes are the actual performance of a product against the expected level of performance. They are indicators that measure changes that the firm needs to manage the transition towards defined goals. In examining how firms benefit from new product development, we can broadly categorize product performance into four distinct dimensions:

• ■ Profitability (financial) Performance : Financial performance is the degree to which the product exceeds or falls short of the expected profitability level ( Cooper, 2019 ). The profitability dimension includes both the level of profit and profit objectives. On average, the level of profit is scored relatively higher than the score for profit against the objective. It, therefore, implies that firms expect a higher level of profit from introducing new products.
• ■ Sales and Market Performance : Market performance is the extent to which the product exceeds or falls short of achieving market expectations ( Cooper, 2019 ). Sales performance illustrates the performance of new products and comprises measures of performance relative to sales objectives, and measures of total sales. Sales performance is growth in sales against the aim.
• ■ Customer Satisfaction :  This is the level of the purchaser's affective response. It is an assessment indicator of how well financial services perform. High adoption is due to customer satisfaction with the product. However, Umukoro and Tiamiyu (2017) warn that in the context of e-services, the absence of better alternatives may increase use without necessarily translating into customer satisfaction. One way of ensuring customer satisfaction is for FSPs to define a product value proposition in ways that address customer needs ( David-West et al., 2019b , 2017 ; Mbiti and Weil, 2013 ).
• ■ Enhanced Opportunities : These are the gains of product development practices to the firm as an entity rather than solely accruing to the product. This factor illustrates the long-term benefits that can be derived from introducing a new product. Repositioning the firm, creating a new market, and platforms for the introduction of additional new products or new product features increase the potential for long-term prosperity.

2.3. Product development practices and product performance (success)

Schilling and Hill 1998 suggest that for a firm to be successful at new product development, it must simultaneously meet two critical objectives: maximizing profits through customer needs and minimizing the time to market. While these objectives often pose conflicting demands on a firm, there is a growing body of evidence that a firm may adopt strategies to meet these objectives successfully. Successful companies are known for articulating their strategic plan and leveraging their R&D portfolio to achieve a fit between their new product development goals and their current resources and competencies. Namusonge et al (2017) posits that strategic product development practices have a positive and significant influence on financial performance.

Many products fail too quickly because of weak market analysis, poor design (weak products), regulatory risks, weak and unvalidated market assumptions, and late arrival to market, among other reasons. Ateke et al. (2015) note that firms can also measure the performance of a new product in terms of the levels of customer adoption and satisfaction, the profitability of the new product, and how long the product survives competition from rival products. It is important to note that how well a new product performs in terms of financial performance, customer adoption, growth in market share, and customer satisfaction is a function of the product development practices that the firm adopts ( Nguyen et al., 2018 ).

Successful products need a strong product development team to conduct practices that foster the success of developed products ( Naghi Ganji et al., 2017 ). Product managers must, therefore, understand the business impacts of product development decisions and the need to have the right product development practices in place ( Nguyen et al., 2018 ). Often, product development managers are quick to isolate the causes of poor product performance and may tackle them individually. However, a combination of these factors may exist. Cassia et al. (2012) argue that new products and ideas fail because they lack structured product development processes or practices. The absence of efficient product development practices such as risk management, product development strategy, research and development and other practices can lead to weak products (Almeida and Miguel, 2007). This can lead to poor market and requirement analysis resulting to products that do not align with customer needs.

2.4. Product development practices include the following

• ■ Research and Development: Product innovation begins with an understanding of a need and how well to solve the need. Frankort (2016) reports that knowledge acquisition through R&D is positively associated with product performance both in terms of product breadth and market performance. Many organizations, including those in the financial service sector, are engaging in R&D to be more deliberate in the products they introduce. Organizations such as Google, Apple, and Microsoft take R&D further and include the establishment of research, development and innovation labs to aid their product development efforts. With greater involvement in R&D, products perform better in terms of profitability, adoption, and usage ( Cuervo-Cazurra et al., 2018 ; Santoro et al., 2017 ; Homburg et al., 2017 ; ). Considering this, we argue the following:

Proposition 1: Research and development practices enhance new financial product performance.

• ■ Well-established or Structured Product Development Processes: Product development involves a logical implementation of a set of activities ( Chang and Taylor, 2016 ; Kahn, 2004). Good product development practices include well-thought-out processes that follow a product development methodology. Although many methodologies exist, certain features characterize them. For instance, product requirement analysis is a necessary process or practice that must be undertaken to understand customer and market dynamics and validate initial market assumptions. A well-structured product development process also considers critical activities in the product development life cycle. These activities include customer empathy and ideation, the determination of a business case, design and prototyping, testing and launch, and product performance assessment. Given these assumptions, we argue the following:

Proposition 2: Structured product development processes contribute to the success of new financial products.

• ■ Product Development Strategy: The product strategy is a plan that focuses on the product efforts directed towards achieving business goals. It is a set of actions in a sequence explaining why this is the right approach. Poor products can also result from a poor product strategy, given that the strategy determines the products’ impact and performance. Product development efforts become aimless without a defined strategy, just as a strategy is useless without execution. The product development strategy helps contextualize the problem that the product will solve, for whom, when and where should a new financial product be introduced. A well-articulated product strategy helps a firm to assess how its product development capabilities match the market opportunities. Such capabilities may include leadership, functional and technical skills. Where existing capabilities are inadequate for exploring market opportunities, the firm must strategize on how to play, where to play, and when to play to win (Ogechie, 2018). This can significantly increase the chances that the proposed product will perform well when finally developed. Consequently, we argue the following:

Proposition 3: The existence of a product development strategy enhances the success (performance) of new financial products.

• ■ Risk Management: New product development efforts often face risks that, when not well managed, may lead to product failure; and sometimes, product development efforts may not even materialize. Risks differ across different organizations and product lines. While the risk profiles for different financial products may not be identical, it is essential to identify where on the spectrum a company wants to be to plan risk mitigation measures. Consequently, we argue the following:

Proposition 4: Risk management practices can enhance the performance of new financial products.

2.5. Theoretical foundation and research framework

The dynamic capabilities (DCs) theory extends the well-established resource-based view (RBV) theory. The dynamic capabilities theory emphasizes the ability of a firm to integrate, develop and reinvigorate its internal capacity to address challenges arising from rapidly changing business environments ( Teece et al., 1997 , p. 516). From the above definition, we can infer that DCs promote continuous change and the configuration of the productive resources of a firm to adapt better to the environment.

The literature provides empirical evidence that suggests that the management of various competitive organizations invests in product development practices as a strategic solution for long-term survival in some dynamic environments (e.g., Pavlou and El Sawy, 2011 ; Schilke, 2014 ). Regular product development practices (PDPs) and product introduction require a variety of activities that are the driving forces to regenerate and renew the routines and competitors' strategies of a firm, ensuring environmental adaptation in various industries ( Helfat and Winter, 2011 ). The DC theory provides the underpinning for this case study on the product development practices of financial services as it helps to explain how financial service providers develop and integrate assets, resources and capabilities for new product development as a response to the needs of a changing business environment.

Fig. 2 shows four critical product development practices – product development processes, risk management, research and development, and product strategy – as factors that affect the performance of new financial products.

Research framework.

3. Methodology

This paper is an exploratory study. It adopts a qualitative method using multiple case studies of eight (8) financial services providers to investigate the product development practices and the effects of these practices on new product performance. Case studies provide very engaging and rich explorations of a project as it develops in a real-world setting ( Berkowitz, 1997 ). The study uses a cross-case analysis given its robustness for analysis and synthesis of data across multiple sources, unlike the individual or intra-case analysis approach that restricts the analysis to a single case ( Cruzes et al., 2015 ; Miles et al., 2013 ; Berkowitz, 1997 ; Mahoney, 1997 ;). We collected data on product development practices using semi-structured interviews.

Theories and concepts from the existing literature were identified (see Table 1 ) and used in the development of question items for the interview guide. Pertinent questions were framed and validated for each of the constructs. We derived the questions from an item generation process while incorporating themes, noting patterns, seeing plausibility, clustering, making metaphors, counting, contrasting/comparing and partitioning variables ( David-West et al., 2018 ; Miles et al., 2013 ). The final instrument is a semi-structured interview developed from the validation of questions conducted through several iterations of expert review. Convenient and purposive sampling of FSPs (cases) was conducted to select the respondents who were within reach. The purposiveness of the sampling approach ensures that the data were collected from product development managers or senior team members (see Table 1 ) at FSP headquarters, where product development and decision-making processes are located.

Profile of interviewees.

*All respondents interviewed are of the managerial cadre.

Table 1 highlights the sampling profiles used in the study. Embedded research ethics protocols guided the practices used in seeking formal participation consent and session recordings. An a priori list of codes guided the coding and analysis of interview transcripts. The hierarchical code structure from the a priori list of codes was replicated in an Nvivo QDA environment ( David-West et al., 2018 ).

4.1. Demographic characteristics of the interviewed FSPs

In Table 2 , we present the main characteristics of these ten FSPs. For the reason of confidentiality, financial services providers have been anonymized in the table.

Main features of selected FSPs for multiple case studies.

Many of the FSPs interviewed mentioned that several financial services were developed within the last five years. As noted earlier, a plethora of financial products has always characterized the Nigerian financial service market. However, many of these products underperform. The products shown in Table 2 can be broadly grouped into savings, credits, insurance, pensions, utility and bill payment, corporate banking, SME banking, and remittance products.

4.2. Product development practices and level of implementation by FSPs

Table 3 summarises the different product development practices of FSPs and the FSPs' performance levels on each of those practices reported. The dominant product development practices of FSPs include R&D, product design and prototyping, risk management, product performance measurement, strategy formulation and execution, and impact measurement. As shown in Table 3 , all FSPs reported engaging in all the product development practices that were identified. In attempting to assess how product development practices affect new product performance, the study also assessed the level of implementation of these product development practices. The results are presented in Table 3 .

Product Development Practices (PDPs) and FSPs Scorecard on each PDP.

The results presented in Table 3 show that the level of execution of product development practices varies across different FSPs. However, similar patterns exist among FSPs with similar assets, resources, and capabilities (ARCs). The results are discussed in the following section.

5. Discussion

5.1. nature of product development practices among nigerian fsps.

We assess the product development practices conducted by the different financial service providers to understand the differences and similarities and the attendant's reasons for the level of PDPs conducted.

• • Product Development Practices among Mobile Money Operators (MMOs): Mobile money operators (FSPs 2, 4, 8, & 9) performed low or moderate across the PDP measures. These institutions primarily provide payment services through mobile devices. They rely mainly on the quality of mobile network connectivity and the spread of their agents across different locations of interest. MMOs typically offer higher-priced services because of the high service charges they incur from different partners who provide the service delivery channels. Manpower costs are high, which limits the product development capabilities of these providers. The assessed risk is average as payment services do not involve the extension of credit. MMOs have a significant need for high-quality talent, which is expensive and scarce. Market sizing and product viability assessments are non-existent. Market and occupational segmentation are also not visible, although product development and deployment are driven by profitability assessments. Low levels of ideation and market testing are observed.
• • Product Development Practices among Pension and Insurance Providers: Pension and insurance providers scored low in R&D, customer empathy and ideation, business case determination, product design, prototyping, testing and launch, and product impact assessment, although both FSPs (7 and 10) scored moderately in their risk assessment practices. These institutions primarily focus on providing affordable retirement savings to working individuals to make them financially secure and independent in their old age. Most product offerings are homogenous, and the product design exists only within the regulatory boundaries defined by PENCOM.

These regulatory safeguards are heavily skewed towards risk management with little incentives to potential savers compared with other FSPs that offer them credit. They mostly engage in product adaptation rather than developing new products to meet the needs of banked and served consumers. Risk management here is very strong while leveraging the risk management capabilities of the parent pension companies. Market sizing and product viability assessments are very scant. They do not have products that are gender specific, but they have products that speak to the general needs of the consumers outside the pension net. We also observed a low level of prototyping and product testing among pension and insurance providers.

• • Product Development Practices among Microfinance Banks/Institutions: These institutions (FSPs 1 and 5) also exhibited similar product development practices. While they score moderate across several PDPs, more attention is given to business case analysis, product design, and prototyping. These institutions are part of the FSP segment in Nigeria that customizes services with ethical lending practices in the form of small business loans to unemployed, low-income individuals. These people would otherwise have limited or no access to other financial products, especially in semi-urban and rural areas. There are no procedures for how to track product performance. The most popular products are near-identical. It takes from two months to two years for them to launch new products. The prototyping and actual product development process are also unclear. MFBs do not have products that are gender specific, and they have fewer cost reduction initiatives in terms of interest rates. MFBs identify the need for new products through agent networks, organic movement, and interviews (FGDs) that provide them with an understanding of the dynamics of consumer behaviours and locations.
• • Product Development Practices among Deposit Money (Commercial) Banks: Although deposit money banks (FSPs 3 & 6) are not very similar in product development practices, none of the DMBs scored high in any of the product development practices. DMBs have well-resourced product development teams that come from diverse functional areas in the organization. Providers in this area conduct more product adaptation and offer the same product to virtually all consumers. Minimal customization occurs. These factors lead to low product adoption; and where adoption exists, customer attrition is high. Risk assessment is high, and this could reduce adoption. Market sizing and product viability assessments are very scant. Market and occupational segmentation are shallow as providers rely more on customer feedback to gage market needs, some of which are unstructured or inaccurate. For DMBs, product development is better resourced. Product testing and roll-out can take an average of 2 to 3 months with regulatory approval not serving as a major impediment. A low level of ideation is widespread and could be the reason for the product homogeneity that is observed among DMBs.

5.2. Product development practices and product performance

Proposition 1: Research and Development Practices and Product Performance

In the first proposition, we argue that R&D enhances new financial service performance. All FSPs studied scored low or average on R&D efforts. The findings of this study suggest that poor R&D practice is one reason financial services fail in Nigeria. For instance, a respondent stated the following:

"…our research and development are mainly on market research to map out where the unbanked and under-banked customers are located. That way, our products can be more targeted in our marketing efforts."

This is not an R&D effort that defines the product development direction, but rather it is research that helps the marketing of the product. Beyond demographic profiling, R&D entails behavioural and psychometric profiling of the target market segments to understand their economic lives and the reasons for their behaviours. R&D efforts that consider human-centred design approaches can unravel the various consumer archetypes across various demographic profiles. It is in this stage that the team empathizes with the customer to ideate and refine the value proposition. A good R&D effort provides a clear picture of the problem and potential solutions. A respondent notes thus:

"…I have been involved in some ideation where we have to engage women in some market places to ask them what are the pain points, what are the things that we need to know. We are trying to build a product that will help them to save more and trying to attach some new product to it but we found that what we were thinking about was not what they even wanted and that led to the introduction of a new product to them."

Grimpe et al. (2017) note that innovative product design, packaging, pricing, and promotion that are rooted in R&D can significantly drive the performance of new products. Processes driven by R&D can guide the product development team during the design, prototyping, and testing phases. We conclude that the low level of research and development among FSPs is a driver of the poor performance of new financial services (products) in the Nigerian market.

Another respondent states the following:

"The number of unbanked and under-banked adults in Nigeria is about 50 percent of the adult population. We aim to reach those in places that no one is interested in."

Products developed with this mindset will fail. While the market may exist, not all of it is addressable. Serving a dynamic market such as Nigeria requires quality R&D effort. D'Este et al. (2016) stress that there is clear evidence that firms' knowledge creation capacities, especially internal R&D activities, are decisive for their product performance.

Proposition 2: Product Development Processes and Product Performance

We argue for structured product development processes. They include customer empathy, ideation, concept testing and refinement, requirement analysis and market validation, prototyping, piloting, product lunch and performance assessment. They contribute to the success of new financial products. The data show that FSPs scored low on each product development process except on indicators such as business case determination, design and prototyping, and ideation where a few FSPs scored high (see Table 3 ). Many FSPs deploy homogenous products to consumers without following a rigorous product development process guided by an established product development methodology. Some FSPs do not conduct customization that ensures that the products meet the needs of the diverse mass market they aim to serve. Homogenous products do not address diverse customer needs and may lead to poor product performance. One of the senior executives interviewed remarked the following:

"…we trust our product development team because they come with a wealth of experience having worked in the manufacturing industry for years. They understand how to carry out product development, and we give them full support once they can show the profitability of the product."

The products that meet the needs of this market may vary across demographic groups and would require understanding customer needs, defining product requirements and business cases, and scenario planning. Good product development practices require product teams to be methodological ( Kauffman et al., 2015 ; Orbach and Fruchter, 2011 ). These methodological approaches can help in developing products in a manner that considers different customer archetypes across different demographic profiles. This helps to achieve well-defined use cases and customer-centric products with guaranteed wide adoption and profitability. Well-defined and executed product development processes can also help reduce product failures ( D'Este et al., 2016 ) as product development teams can run more iterations of prototypes, allowing for quality checks and determining the product's desirability, viability and feasibility. We conclude that the absence of or a poor implementation of these processes can translate into product failure.

Proposition 3: Product Development Strategy and Product Development Performance

Here, we argue that the availability of a product development strategy enhances the success (performance) of new financial products, given that strategy is required to serve a market efficiently and profitably. Grimpe et al. (2017) posit that a well-developed strategy is critical to successfully taking a product to the market as it considers market forces, especially the threat of substitute products, barriers to entry and other forces that may lower product performance. Product strategies are unique to specific products. The route-to-market (RTM) also differs across locations and demographics. The findings also show that all the FSPs scored low on the product strategy indicator. What many FSPs treat as a product strategy are marketing plans detailing how they will undertake branding and advertising. A respondent notes as follows:

"…sometimes we have partnerships to deploy some products, so we have to work with banks, like I said pension companies, sometimes we . . …there is a small scale pilot which is with the internal customers, which is me and my colleagues so we are the internal customers, and then expanded retail team, who are the guys who manage the retail product on the field and then we also sample a number of our key agent for a soft life deployment before giving out the products to the customers in general…"

Product pricing is the responsibility of the finance department, just as operations are an HR concern. There was no strategy document showing how the product will translate into the realization of the overall organization vision. The absence of this has resulted in poor product performance measurement. Drawing from Danneels's (2002) first- and second-order competencies, we can explain that a product strategy helps product managers and teams build marketing innovations that help in aligning new product performance metrics to the overall organizational goal. The absence of this can negatively affect product performance as there are likely to be undefined indicators or approaches for measuring product performance or for taking appropriate corrective measures.

Proposition 4: Risk Management Practices and Product Performance

Proposition four argues that risk management practices can enhance the performance of new financial products. The study observes that the risk management practices in product management are suboptimal among Nigerian FSPs. Few FSPs (mainly MMOs), however, prioritized risk. An MMO representative stated as follows:

"Like I said at the product conceptualization and development, all the functionary units including risk are involved. So, all the risk exposure deliberations are handled at that stage. We have what we call the product papers…in that document every aspect of that product is articulated and documented including the risk mitigants."

A key area where risk is dominant is the platform and not risks relating to product development. FSPs are more concerned with managing risks that are associated with the security of their platforms while neglecting risks that may arise from non-approval by regulators. Such risks, when poorly managed, may lead to products not making it to the hands of the target user groups because of non-approval from regulatory bodies.

6. Conclusion

New financial products in Nigeria struggle to perform well because of poor product development practices. Although the financial service sector has grown over the years with an improved regulatory environment, this study shows that product development practices seeking to guarantee new product success are poorly implemented. The resultant effects are poor product performance and low adoption. The processes adopted in the development of financial services affect the adoption, use, and overall penetration of the product in the marketplace. Financial inclusion rates will therefore remain low if the adoption and use of financial services remain low.

Evidence suggests that several financial services are inappropriately designed and unsuited to the needs of the diverse segments of unbanked and underbanked Nigerians. Additionally, there is an overestimation of the market size owing to lack of adequate market research and R&D, which can cause products to not meet financial projections. Products also fail because of poor product designs stemming from inadequate requirement analysis and a lack of well-designed and tested prototypes before products are launched. This can also translate to wrongly positioned, priced, or advertised products that underperform in terms of adoption and profitability. One reason highlighted by this study is that the different FSPs have insufficient product development skills. Most times, product development teams comprise software engineers and those with a manufacturing background whereas financial products are service-oriented. The absence of a skilled and well diversified team can translate to high development costs, which may lead to unprofitable products ( Olson et al., 2001 ).

Addressing these concerns requires FSPs to reconfigure their product development teams. The teams must possess the capabilities needed for the development of quality financial services (products) that meet validated market assumptions. With the right set of product development capabilities, poor product performance can be closed using industry-wide market research that incorporates human-centred design (HCD) and design-thinking techniques. These can lead to the development of financial services that are customer-centric and widely adopted, trusted by consumers, and compliant with market regulations. Additionally, market knowledge breadth that flows from rigorous R&D can help firms transform novel ideas into new products, thereby intensifying product performance ( Jin et al., 2019 )

Good R&D practices such as the adoption of approaches such as human-centred design can help product managers and the broader product development teams to provide answers that validate initial market assumptions. These could be assumptions on consumer needs, buying behaviour, market share, rival firms, and other prevailing market conditions. These methodologies can help answer questions such as the following: 1) What non-existing value is being proposed by the new product? 2) What use cases exist, and what is the addressable market? 3) Is there an effective product development process? How competent is the product development team? 4) What is the time frame between ideation and launch? 5) How efficient is the operational process? 6) Is the product prototype tested before or after launch? 7) Are there strategies for mitigating risks emerging from new financial product development? 8) What are the feedback channels for customers' opinions on new products? 9) How does management respond to unfavourable feedback on new financial products?

7. Managerial implications

The literature ( Schilke, 2014 ; Pavlou and El Sawy, 2011 ) provides empirical evidence that suggests that the more an organization invests in product development practices, the higher the likelihood of product success. Effective product development practices (PDPs) serve as forms of competitive strategies, especially in an industry with multiple players ( Cheng and Yeng, 2019 ). DC theory argues for the development of capabilities that help a firm meet the demands of a dynamic environment of business. In the Nigerian financial sector, management teams of FSPs must build the capabilities required for product development to ensure the high performance of their products. It should be noted that executive commitment and support are key success factors for both product development teams and ultimate product performance.

7.1. Study limitations and directions for further studies

A limitation of this study is the limited number of respondents, which makes the generalization of the findings challenging. Moreover, the busy nature of the category of respondents (being c-level executives) meant that some were unavailable, and single interviews were sometimes conducted twice to enable the authors to gather rich data. This reduced the number of respondents for some FSPs to one, making it difficult to achieve diversity across functional roles in the product development spectrum and, to a certain extent, leading to potential data loss. Further studies should aim to reach a larger sample size and involve several respondents in a single organization to achieve a higher level of saturation. Future studies can further distil the issues into distinct FSP types such as banks, insurance companies and pension providers in the Nigerian market.

Author statement

All persons who meet authorship criteria are listed as authors, and all authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content, including participation in the concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of the manuscript. Furthermore, each author certifies that this material or similar material has not been and will not be submitted to or published in any other publication before its appearance in the Technological Forecasting and Social Change .

Biographies

Dr Nkemdilim Iheanachor is a Faculty member in the Strategy and International Business Group of Lagos Business School, Pan-Atlantic University, Ajah, Lagos, Nigeria. Nkemdilim holds a PhD Degree in Management from Pan-Atlantic University.

Mr Immanuel Umukoro is a Research Fellow in Lagos Business School, Pan-Atlantic University, Ajah, Lagos, Nigeria. Immanuel holds a Master of Science Degree in Information Science from University of Ibadan

Professor Olayinka David-West is a Professor of Information Systems in Lagos Business School, Pan-Atlantic University, Ajah, Lagos, Nigeria. Olayinka holds a Doctorate in Business Administration Degree from Manchester Business School.

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120470 .

Appendix. Supplementary materials

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT An Empirical Study of the Effects of Innovation Strategy, Organization Learning, and Market Conditions

Related Papers

Janet Fritzmont

British Food Journal

Mark Speece

ABSTRACT New product development,(NPD) in food processing industries is often one element,which determines,whether companies,are able to remain competitive in rapidly changing ,consumer ,markets. Current research suggests that well managed,NPD should be organized as a continuous learning process. It should have strong ,information linkage across functions and outside the company ,to suppliers ,and customers. We examine,NPD in Thailand’s food processing industry

Peter J Mellalieu

Use of New Product Development Methods (NPD) may benefit New Zealand SMEs and entrepreneurial firms in gaining greater market share. In this paper we review the literature on New Product Development, NPD theory, and methods for early stage product design and development. Our reading suggests that product design has greater success when the customer is involved in the design effort. It also recommends methods of approach to new markets in the (NPD) life cycle. The literature further elucidates methods for identification of product design criteria based on customer needs identification. In essence, customer-product interaction in the early stages of product development is important to product success in new markets for entrepreneurial firms and SMEs. Of particular interest are early-stage NPD research methods and their influence on the company's marketing strategy. Citation: Coleman, E. B., Frederick, H., & Mellalieu, P. J. (2006). Customer-Product Interaction - A Model for New Product Development in Entrepreneurial Firms. In Third AGSE International Entrepreneurship Research Exchange (AIREX-2006). Auckland: Unitec Institute of Technology. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1513318/Customer-Product_Interaction_-_A_Model_for_New_Product_Development_in_Entrepreneurial_Firms Related: Coleman, E. B. (2004). Water & Food Safety Testing Products for New Zealand Mollusc Aquaculture Organisations: A Case Study in New Product Development (Industry-Based Research Project Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Innovation and Entrepreneurship). Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland. Retrieved from http://fgcu.academia.edu/ElizabethBColeman/Papers/1629049/

International Journal of Technology Management

Patricia Sandmeier

TJPRC Publication

The New Product Development (NPD) is one of the emerging trends among the leading apparel industries to gain and maintain the competitive advantage. The consumers are demanding for value-added innovative products at competitive prices. Hence, the apparel producers are faced with immense pressure to produce new products with unique features at competitive prices. Therefore, apparel industrialists are insisted to follow systematic NPD process models and with shorter cycle times. In the study, various NPD process models from a verity of diversified industries were critically evaluated, to examine the appropriateness using relevant Performance Indicators (PI) and characteristics. Such evaluation criteria were characterized to screen the most effective NPD models to reflect the unique features of the product design and development operations of the apparel industry. As concluding remarks, the study shows directions for academics and practitioners to develop result oriented NPD models specifically adoptable for apparel industry.

John Nicholas

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.

European Journal of Business and Management

mohammad ghanbari

Journal of business market management

International Journal of Production Economics

Roberto Filippini

Tanika Sofianti

Open innovation offers the prospect of innovation with lower cost, faster times to market and sharing risks with others. The key points of knowledge-based NPD is the idea and the process of leveraging external knowledge, and the process of new knowledge co-creation with other entities in the business ecosystem. There are three key points being concerned in this research. First, knowledge can be identified as the critical success factor in NPD. Second, much of the required knowledge in NPD is tacit and resides with entities outside the boundary of the firm, mainly is with customers, but also with other stakeholders such as competitors, suppliers and business partners and. Third, the required knowledge is not simply ‘out there’, ready to be collected and processed by the firm, but actually needs to be created at least in part. This paper promotes a model that integrates and connects these key points. The model details several success factors of knowledge co-creation in NPD, focused on the involvement of customers. The result of this paper is the detailed model that can be used to design the metric of the customer knowledge co-creation performance in NPD process. This paper is a preparatory step of a wider research.

RELATED PAPERS

Physical Review Letters

Gustavo Burdman

West Indian Medical Journal

YAVUZ HEKİMOĞLU

Manjish Pal

Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures

Muhammad Umair

Jaqueline Canuto

Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung

Magdalena Rozenberg

Anticancer research

George Geromichalos

F1000Research

Pratana Satitvipawee

Journal of Medical Systems

BMC Infectious Diseases

Sophie Desmonde

Congresso Brasileiro de Mecânica dos Solos e Engenharia Geotécnica

Rodolfo José Angulo

Cultura Educación y Sociedad

JESÚS NICASIO GARCÍA SÁNCHEZ

Journal of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences

La Revue de Médecine Interne

Vassilis tsatsaris

Reflexiones... Hacia una didáctica del proyecto... sobre el pensamiento proyectual y su práctica

Maria Florencia Di Matteo

Ecological Modelling

NATHAN PHILIPS

Journal of Polymer Research - J POLYM RES

Prof. Vijay Kumar Sinha

Pilar Maldonado

The South China Sea Arbitration: PCA's Unilateralism and its Consequences on the World Community 1

Abu Raihan Muhammed Khalid

Physical Therapy

Larissa Tavares Aguiar

Gonzalo Garrido

Japanese Journal of Cancer Research

Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia

Valéria Paula

Tania Mariño Méndez

Journal of Physics: Conference Series

Dudy Heryadi

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

--> AGU