Drivers of thoroughness of NPD tool use in small high-tech firms (original) (raw)
Related papers
Patterns and Drivers of NPD Tool Adoption in Small High-Technology Firms
—In this paper, we set out the drivers and patterns of adoption of new product development (NPD) tools in small high-technology firms. Despite previous findings that using NPD tools can improve NPD performance outcomes, surveys of large firms show reluctance to make full use of such tools. Our study is the first to look at NPD tool adoption in small high-technology firms. We draw on survey data from 99 firms in New Zealand, covering 76 NPD tools, including both functional and support tools, and tools from nontechnical aspects of NPD, such as the market perspective. The firms in our sample adopted fewer tools overall than studies report for larger firms, and fewer complex tools, but adopted just as many simple tools such as brainstorming, competitor analysis , project management, and alpha prototype. The firms typically did not have formalized NPD processes, but those that did also adopted more NPD tools. We found no significant differences in tool adoption by the level of project novelty to the firm or between industrial and consumer products. We conclude by discussing the case for small firms to formalize their NPD processes and to adopt a greater number and range of NPD tools.
NPD TOOLS, THOROUGHNESS AND PERFORMANCE IN SMALL FIRMS
This paper draws on survey data to clarify whether small high-technology firms benefit most from adopting greater numbers of new product development (NPD) tools to support NPD projects, or from using tools more thoroughly. This is an important issue given that small firms adopt NPD tools despite facing acute resource limitations and using informal processes. Prior studies of the performance impact of NPD tools have focused on large firms, and very few have assessed the performance impact of using NPD tools to higher levels of thoroughness.The paper covers tools across functional/technical and management/marketing aspects of NPD, and measures performance in process, product and market. We found that increasing the number of tools adopted did not measurably improve performance, in contrast to prior findings in larger firms. Instead, we found that firms obtained meaningfully improved NPD performance from using tools at higher average levels of thoroughness. Higher average thoroughness produced statistically significant performance benefits across seven of our nine performance measures. Our findings imply that small firms should emphasize selective but thorough and well-designed implementation of NPD tools.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2008
This study examines information technology (IT) usage for new product development (NPD) in a global context. Specifically, this research seeks to ascertain the factors that influence IT usage and the relationship between IT usage and new product performance in two different countries—the United States and the Netherlands. The interest here is in discovering if, and how, these relationships may be different depending on the country within which the NPD effort is undertaken. Employing a mail survey methodology, the present study uses data from a sample of U.S. practitioner members from the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) and new product managers from Dutch manufacturing companies to examine the effect of IT infrastructure, IT embeddedness, NPD process formalization, colocation, outsourcing of NPD projects, and length of time on the job on the extent of IT usage. The data are also used to explore the impact of IT usage on speed to market and market performance. The results indicate that IT embeddedness and NPD process formalization positively influence IT usage in both the United States and the Netherlands. Colocation and length of time on the job are negatively associated with IT usage only in Dutch firms. Similarly, outsourcing of NPD projects is positively related to IT usage only in U.S. firms. Finally, IT usage has a positive relationship with speed to market in the Netherlands and with market performance in the United States. An important implication of the present study is that IT usage does impact speed to market and market performance, confirming anecdotal evidence. However, these relationships are not the same in each country. Moreover, the antecedents to IT usage also vary by country. Thus, the precursors and consequences of IT usage in NPD are context specific. Another implication of this research is that unless IT is embedded into the NPD process, it is unlikely that the benefits of IT will come to fruition. Finally, this study suggests that as firms use more globally dispersed teams for NPD and outsource more of their development activities, IT usage is likely to increase to facilitate communication and cooperation.
Information & Management, 2016
Responses from 152 managers from a wide range of industries were used to test a conceptual model examining the influence of IT and non-IT resources on IT capabilities and their subsequent effects on pre-development stage outcomes. It was found that the resources of IT infrastructure, IT embeddedness, firm outward focus, and competitive intensity have varied effects on the frequency of usage of general purpose and collaborative IT artifacts. Firms with higher levels of usage of collaborative artifacts in their NPD process have improved pre-development stage performance, including the number of generated concepts and prototypes, and more efficient NPD team collaboration.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2000
Many development practices and software tools enable new product development (NPD), yet few empirical studies shed light on the project characteristics and project contexts driving their use. Using a cross-sectional sample of NPD projects, this study examines how project characteristics and availability of information technology (IT) infrastructure relate to the use of NPD practices and software tools. We also examine how the extent of their use is associated with NPD project performance. The results indicate that different project characteristics influence the use of NPD practices and software tools, with project complexity associated with software tool use, but project uncertainty associated with NPD practice use. Also, customer facing IT infrastructure is associated with the use of NPD practices, while manufacturing plant IT infrastructure is associated with the use of design/validation software tools. Moreover, use of NPD practices has a positive association with all project-level performance metrics examined in this study, and as a result, a greater impact on overall market success. In comparison, the performance impacts of software tools appear relatively limited, with only design/validation software tools exhibiting a strong positive association with product performance quality and a weak positive association with time-to-market and responsiveness. Communication/teamwork software tools exhibit no such impact. Index Terms-Information processing theory, information technology (IT), new product development (NPD) performance, project management (PM), technology management. I. INTRODUCTION M ANY development practices, software tools, and other helpful aides enable new product development (NPD). These means for improving NPD outcomes include information organizing frameworks, design philosophies and rules of thumb, and software tools for performing detailed design tasks, communicating, collaborating, collecting information, and managing timelines and resources [1]. In the NPD literature, a distinction is often made between the software tools (tools for short) and NPD practices. Some representative software tools include computeraided design (CAD), computer-aided process planning (CAPP),
PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1997
Product development professionals may have the feeling that yet another buzzword or magic bullet always lurks just around the corner. However, researchers have devoted considerable effort to helping practioners determine which tools, techniques, and methods really do offer a competitive edge. Starting 30 years ago, research efforts have aimed at understanding NPD practices and identifying those which are deemed "best practices." During the past five years, pursuit of this goal has produced numerous privately available reports and two research efforts sponsored by the PDMA.
2013
Effective interaction across organisational boundaries is a critical success factor in new product development (NPD). However, few studies have investigated how different mechanisms enable effective interaction across organisational and particularly hierarchical boundaries. This study explores how the formality of the NPD process influences the nature of interactions across different organisational boundaries and specifically identifies interaction mechanisms used across hierarchical boundaries. Cross-sectional interviews were conducted in nine firms. Findings highlight that in firms with a formalised NPD process, interactions tend to have a transactional/managerial bias. In contrast, in firms where the NPD process is flexible, interactions have a more social objective.
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.