scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
JournalISSN: 0895-6308

Research-technology Management 

Taylor & Francis
About: Research-technology Management is an academic journal published by Taylor & Francis. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): New product development & Open innovation. It has an ISSN identifier of 0895-6308. Over the lifetime, 2364 publications have been published receiving 51186 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the critical success factors that underlie excellent new product performance and found that the strongest driver of profitability is the existence of a high-quality, rigorous new product process, which emphasizes up-front homework, tough Go/Kill decision points, sharp early product definition, and flexibility.
Abstract: What are the critical success factors that underlie excellent new product performance? Our benchmarking study was designed to uncover the drivers of performance by studying business units within corporations, and linking their new product performance to various practices We measured performance in different ways, including profitability, success rates and percentage sales by new products Some of the business units studied boasted superb performance; others had a more mediocre new product track record By benchmarking against both the good and the bad, we were able to obtain much greater insights into the factors and practices that really discriminate between the top and poorer performers In short, we were able to link specific practices to high performance The results of this study of 161 businesses are provocative Here is a sample: * The strongest driver of profitability is the existence of a high-quality, rigorous new product process--one that emphasizes up-front homework, tough Go/Kill decision points, sharp early product definition, and flexibility By contrast, merely having a formal new product process has no impact at all on performance! * The role of new product strategy in the business unit--whether or not there is one, what it contains and whether it is clearly communicated--has a pronounced effect on performance * Resources--both people and money--are strongly tied to new product performance RD but overall, these projects have relatively little impact on the firm, and so the business's total new product effort is judged to be mediocre 2 Next, often important practices--for example, creating an innovative climate and culture--are not readily apparent or measurable at the product level Consequently, they are missed in such success/failure studies 3 A more subtle and final reason for omissions is the way the research is designed When pairs of successes and failures are selected from each firm, company characteristics that may have a strong impact on success will be common to both projects And so these company characteristics do not emerge in an analysis of factors that distinguish the successes In recent years, benchmarking against other companies has become popular, and has in part overcome some of the deficiencies listed above …

659 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Eight companies that were Process Effectiveness Network members of the Industrial Research Institute attempted to collectively determine the best practices of the Fuzzy Front End (FFE) of innovation developed a theoretical construct, defined as the New Concept Development (NCD) model, in order to provide a common language and insights on the front end activities.
Abstract: OVERVIEW:Eight companies that were Process Effectiveness Network members of the Industrial Research Institute attempted to collectively determine the best practices of the Fuzzy Front End (FFE) of innovation. Comparing one company's processes to those of another proved insurmountable because there was neither a common language nor clear and consistent definition of the key elements of the front end. As a result, the group developed a theoretical construct, defined as the New Concept Development (NCD) model, in order to provide a common language and insights on the front end activities. The model consists of three key parts: five front end elements, the engine that powers the elements, and external influencing factors. Proficiency of the FFE was evaluated at 19 companies by using the NCD model. Highly innovative companies were found to be more proficient in the FFE and in several elements of the NCD model.

649 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a benchmarking study of 161 business units uncovered the key drivers of new product performance at the business unit level, including percentage of sales by new products, profitability and success rate.
Abstract: OVERVIEW:This benchmarking study of 161 business units uncovered the key drivers of new product performance at the business unit level. Ten different performance measures were gauged, including percentage of sales by new products, profitability and success rate. The ten gauges were reduced to two key performance dimensions—profitability and impact—which defined the “performance map.” Nine possible drivers—including strategy, process, organizational design, and climate for innovation—were investigated, and four key drivers of performance were identified; namely, a high-quality new product process, the new product strategy for the business unit, resource availability, and R&D spending levels. Merely having a formal new product process had no impact.

631 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors consider the evaluation of early-stage technology projects, which often involve significant technical and market uncertainty, and propose new metrics to help a firm focus more upon external sources of innovation to enhance its business model, and enable the firm to salvage value from false negatives that otherwise would be lost.
Abstract: OVERVIEW:Industrial innovation is becoming more open, requiring changes in how firms manage innovation. External sources of knowledge become more prominent, while external channels to market also offer greater promise. This complicates the evaluation of early-stage technology projects, which often involve significant technical and market uncertainty. In such circumstances, companies need to “play poker” as well as chess. Measurement errors (false positives, false negatives) are likely to arise from judgments about the commercial potential of early-stage projects. Most companies' policies consciously limit “false positives” in assessing a project's commercial potential, but few companies take steps to manage the risk of “false negatives.” New metrics may help a firm focus more upon external sources of innovation to enhance its business model, and enable the firm to salvage value from false negatives that otherwise would be lost.

597 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results of the most recent American Productivity and Quality Center study on performance and best practices in new product development have been reported in this paper, with a focus on the people side of NPD.
Abstract: OVERVIEW:This first of three articles reports the results of the most recent American Productivity and Quality Center study on performance and best practices in new product development. Performance results achieved on a number of NPD metrics are reported first, followed by a set of Best Performing businesses, what these businesses have in common and—most important—what differentiates them from the rest. This first article focuses on the “people side” of NPD—on how project teams are organized and on other winning characteristics of teams. The climate and culture for innovation within the business proves to be one of the strongest drivers of NPD performance, and the specifics of what the Best Performers have done to achieve this positive climate are outlined. Finally the role of senior management in setting the stage for the business's NPD effort is examined.

534 citations

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Journal in previous years
YearPapers
202328
202267
202129
202044
201948
201851