Determinants of the Adoption of New Product Development Tools by Industrial Firms

Edwin J. Nijssen Ruud T. Frambach

Despite the fact that failure rates of new products remain high, research shows low levels of penetration for tools and techniques to aid new product development (NPD). The objective of this study is to increase our understanding of the determinants of the adoption and diffusion of NPD tools and techniques. Empirical research was conducted in The Netherlands using a sample of 70 industrial companies. The results show a significant influence of innovation strategy, the number of interactions between departments involved in the NPD process, the number of departments involved in the NPD process, prior adoption of tools, and the number of NPD stages on tool adoption. The results and managerial implications are discussed. 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The importance of new product development (NPD) for corporate survival is widely acknowledged [13]. Faced with an increasing volatile external environment characterized by shorter product life cycles, heightened local and global competition, maturing industries and flat markets, and a quickening pace of technological developments, many companies are in a position where NPD is no longer a strategic option but has become a strategic

Address correspondence to Dr. Edwin J. Nijssen, Nijmegen Business School, P.O. Box 9108, 6500HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Tel: 31(0)243611868; Fax: 31(0)24-3611933; e-mail: [Link]@[Link] The authors thank the reviewers and editor of Industrial Marketing Management for their helpful comments regarding a previous version of this article.

Industrial Marketing Management 29, 121131 (2000) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

0019-8501/00/$see front matter PII S0019-8501(98)00043-1

Tools represent an important way to improve NPD output.

necessity [4]. Therefore, both managers and scholars have focused on the issue of how to organize and manage the NPD process effectively. Breaking down barriers between departments using multifunctional teams, and accelerating the NPD process have gained considerable interest [59]. New product tools and techniques that can be used in the different stages of the NPD process, such as brainstorming, synectics, limited roll out, and quality function deployment (QFD) have, however, received much less attention as far as their adoption and successful application are concerned [10]. This is strange as in their well-known study New Product Development for the 1980s, Booz, Allen and Hamilton [11] already identified a lack of proven analytical techniques as a serious internal obstacle to the successful introduction of new products ([11], p.5). Tools and techniques represent an important way to improve NPD output. They can be used to improve managements decision quality at different stages of the NPD process [12], and thus to improve the overall success rate of new products [10, 13]. Such improvement is important as failure rates remain high, and the costs of failure are substantial [14, 15]. Failure rates up to 46% are reported [2]. In an assessment of the role of NPD tools and techniques in supporting and improving the NPD process in the United States, Mahajan and Wind [10] conclude that the use of tools and techniques is relatively low, although large differences in penetration exist between tools (see also [16]). The adopters of NPD tools and techniques use them to identify problems and improve on or predict new product success. More recently Nijssen and Lieshout [17] provided initial support for a positive relationship between the use of NPD tools and performance. The issue of which organizations use these tools and techniques has, however, not been addressed. It is the objective of this article to study the determinants of adoption and diffusion of NPD tools and techniques by (industrial) firms. NPD managers of industrial firms in particular will benefit from such information. Industrial firms new product-share in company sales has increased [18] and NPD managers are under pressure to improve their companys NPD performance [19]. Information on tool adoption may help increase their awareness and penetration level. Further, NPD research has been identified as one of the market research industrys major growth businesses of the 1990s [10]. Information on firms adoption behavior of NPD tools will also help research agencies market their services more effectively. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON THE USE OF NPD TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES Over the past 30 years many tools and techniques have been developed to improve the NPD process [1, 10]. The tools and techniques introduced include brainstorming, synectics, focus groups, quality function deployment (QFD), and limited roll out. A number of tools are identified and defined in Table 1. Most NPD tools have been created for dealing with different types of problems and thus for use in different stages of the NPD process. Idea generation techniques, for example, have been introduced to help firms systematically generate large numbers of good new product ideas. Concept tests have been proposed to optimize the new product. Simulated test marketing has been suggested as a cheap alternative to help decide on the most optimal marketing mix or launch strategy for the new product, and computer prediction models are an aid to forecast new product success. Apart from these focused tools more generally applicable and integrated techniques have been put forward. A good example is QFD.

EDWIN J. NIJSSEN is an associate professor of Marketing at Nijmegen Universitys Nijmegen Business School, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. RUUD T. FRAMBACH is an associate professor of Marketing at Tilburg University and Ghent University, Belgium.

122

TABLE 1 A Listing of NPD Tools and Techniques Method/Model Brainstorming Morphological analysis Description A systematic creative group session in which barriers to creative thinking are removed to stimulate the production of new ideas through association. An approach to find a large number of theoretical solutions to a problem by dividing it into smaller parts/problems. For every part solutions are generated. These solutions are then linked together to solve the whole problem. A creative group session in which the original problem is converted into a much wider problem or analogy. For this alternative problem solutions are generated. At a later stage these solutions are transformed back into solutions for the original problem. A multi-survey consisting of several sequential rounds in which a number of experts are asked to give their opinion and vision on developments. Through feedback one general vision is established. A group session of customers in which they react to and discuss a number of topics. The aim is to gather information on underlying needs, wants, etc. Construct in which the sales/volume of a product are/is mapped over time, resulting in an S-shaped curve. It can be used to determine the life-cycle phase in which the market is and help draw conclusions with regard to the need to adapt existing products or start looking for new products. A methods to ask a number of customers to evaluate a particular product concept. The product concept can be explained to the customers in writing or be visualized by simple means. An approach for concept development, aiming to determine the relationship between product attributes and customer preferences. The respondents are asked to order a number of product concepts consisting of different combinations of attribute scores, based on preference. An approach that has a number of customers test a new product at home for a certain period of time. Afterwards experiences encountered are discussed. A method designed to help the NPD-project team to identify and interpret the needs and wants of customers. The aim is to establish the importance of product attributes and transform them into technical requirements. An approach for introducing a new product to the market. The new product is first introduced on a small scale, with the objective to expand slowly in order to limit market risk. During introduction the content of the market strategy may be modified. A method to present consumers with alternative marketing mixes for the new product in order to determine the best launch strategy for the new product. The test marketing can be done using an experiment but also using a computer simulation using consumer behavior models. Models, generally computerized, to help one estimate the market success of a new product.

Synectics

Delphi method

Focus group Product life cycle

Concept test

Conjoint analysis

In-home use test Quality function deployment

Limited roll-out

(Simulated) Test marketing

Market forecast models/ Computer prediction models

This technique identifies the attributes consumers look for in a product and translates them into technical specifications. Table 2 shows the results of a European study displaying stages in which NPD tools tend to be used [17]. The sample consisted of 75 industrial firms in The Netherlands. The results show a rather unfocused use of most tools, although a clustering around the original problem area the techniques were designed for can be noted. Three major groups of publications have investigated the use of NPD tools. The first group of empirical research focuses solely on the first stage of the NPD process (i.e., the idea generation stage). Most studies are European [2024]. The gen-

eral outcome of these studies is that, except for brainstorming, there is little awareness of idea generation techniques. Those who use them state that they help but on the whole their performance rating is average. Evidence that tool use improves NPD outcome is modest. Further, Geschka [22] reports, based on his research and experience as a consultant, that penetration of idea generation techniques had reached saturation in Germany in the early 1970s. The second group of studies covers the NPD process as a whole. These studies investigate a wider range of NPD tools and techniques simultaneously [10, 12, 17]. Their results show a limited-to-reasonable degree of usage and a high level of user satisfaction for most tech123

Tool penetration is still limited.

niques. Remarkable is the fact that many tools and techniques are used in a rather unfocused way. The tools and techniques are used to solve problems beyond those they were actually designed for (e.g., concept testing is also used to generate new ideas). Users do not consider NPD a highly delineated or neatly, sequentially staged activity. Consequently, the tools and techniques are used with a high degree of flexibility. Furthermore, companies make all kinds of adaptations to tools and even (re)invent them [25]. An example is a start-up company using QFD for idea generation. As the company has no prior product in the market it cannot evaluate its own product. However, new ideas may be derived from applying QFD to identify shortcomings of a number of competitive products. The third group of studies concerns the research of a particular technique. These studies include Griffins [26] research on the use of QFD, McCabe and Narayanans [27] research on PIMS and Boston Consulting Group (BCG) models, and Wittink and Cattins [28] study regarding the use of conjoint analysis. The general picture that derives from the results of this group of studies is that the use of these techniques is limited, in part because, for example, QFD and conjoint analysis are relatively new and QFD is a rather complex technique. Griffin, for example, estimated that QFD was used by about two dozen U.S. companies by 1987, and Wittink and Cattin estimated that about 200400 commercial applications of conjoint analysis had been carried out during the early 1980s. Further, McCabe and Narayanan [27] showed that large firms, due to its limitations, have already abandoned the BCG technique. Because of the in-depth investigation of each tool, these studies provide detailed insight into the specific uses and problems of each tool. The results suggest that, despite the problems, most firms do feel that they help them understand their NPD processes and outcomes better. Consequently, a further, but perhaps slow, diffusion of most tools is generally expected by the authors of the studies. The overall conclusion is that NPD tools and techniques are not used by the majority of potential users. This raises questions as to which factors determine these

TABLE 2 Industrail Firms Actual Usage of NPD Tools by NPD Stage (based on [17]) NPD stage: Concept Business Number of Idea Idea development Marketing economic Product Market user-firms generation screening and testing strategy analysis development testing Commercialization in sample 44 21 7 28 4 27 43 12 44 12 12

Tools Brainstorming Morphological analysis Synectics Product life cycle Delphi method Focus group In-home use test Conjoint analysis Concept testing QFD Limited roll-out Percentage of firms that use in this stage

: = 50% of users uses the tool in this stage. : 2550%. : = 15%

124

In the past decade tool use has increased significantly.

tools and techniques adoption and diffusion. Which companies have and which have not adopted them and why? THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Adoption refers to a firms individual decision to either use a specific tool or technique in the NPD process or to reject the use of such an instrument. Diffusion refers to the cumulative number of firms that has adopted NPD tools or techniques over time. In the literature extensive attention has been paid to the explanation of innovation adoption decisions [29, 30]. Since an innovation can be defined as an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption ([29], p. 11) the findings from the innovation adoption literature may very well be applied to the study of the adoption of NPD tools and techniques. In his recent review of the literature of organizational innovation adoption, Rogers ([29], p. 380) identified three sets of variables that influence a firms propensity to adopt an innovation: (1) characteristics of the organizations management; (2) internal characteristics of the organization; and (3) external characteristics of the organization. However, prior use of related innovation may be argued to stimulate adoption also [31]. Based on these sets of variables of the adoption literature a set of hypotheses regarding the adoption of NPD tools and techniques by industrial firms is developed. Management In general, the importance of (top) management support and commitment for successfully implementing new ideas and activities within the NPD process has been well documented [32]. The extent to which management supports innovation has often been found to be one of the most important internal determinants of innovation (e.g., [33]). This also extends to the supporting role that management can play in the adoption of an innovation. Geschka [22] points out that to implement NPD tools and techniques successfully, a positive attitude of a firms top management toward the use of such tools and techniques is essential. This is consistent with Verhage et al. [24] who argue that companies may experience an unsupportive organizational climate for adopting NPD tools and techniques. Further, Meyer and Goes [34] found in their study on the adoption of new medical technology in a hospital that the hospital chief executive officer exerted substantial influence on the innovation adoption decision in his role as the innovations champion. Therefore, the following hypothesis is put forward:
H1: The level of top management involvement with the NPD process has a positive effect on the level of adoption of NPD tools and techniques.

Internal Characteristics of the Organization With respect to the internal characteristics of an organization, several variables have been found to influence innovation adoption. First, a positive affect of organizational size on innovation adoption has been consistently reported [29, 35]). Large firms adopt innovations more quickly than small firms, especially when economies of scale are involved [36]. It can be expected that this also holds for NPD tools and techniques [12, 26, 27]. Furthermore the positive influence of size on the adoption of tools is related to firm structure, financial strength, and the level of education of employees. Larger organizations are more likely to employ engineers that have learned about NPD tools and techniques and/or that are in touch with consultants or market research agencies that use them. In addition, large organizations use of these tools and techniques may be higher due to more need for new products to support their organization than smaller organizations. Finally, large firms generally have more formal organizational and NPD structures than smaller organizations, the latter often being more flexible and less bureaucratic. The rather formal and systematic tools may better fit a more formal structure than a flexible, less bureaucratic one. Therefore, large organizations are expected to adopt NPD tools more quickly than their smaller counterparts. Thus, 125

Adopters are innovative, have a more staged NPD process, and a high level of intra-communication.
H2a: Firm size has a positive effect on the level of adoption of NPD tools and techniques.

As Rogers ([29], p. 379) points out size is probably a surrogate measure of several dimensions that lead to innovation: Total resources, slack resources, technical expertise of employees, organizational structure, and so on. Therefore, it is essential to also consider the effect of internal characteristics of organizational structure on adoption, in addition to size. A firms organizational structure may either encourage or discourage the acceptance of new ideas and products [37]. On one hand, companies with a highly structured organization may be less likely to come into contact with NPD tools and techniques. The existence of a fixed format and routine may prevent change and thus the adoption of new things. On the other hand, however, well-structured firms will be better equipped to implement NPD tools [37]. In organizing for NPD the latter affect may be more important as firms with a higher level of formalization of their NPD processes have been shown to benefit more from adopting and using NPD tools [17]. Linking the level of NPDformalization to the level of task specification within the NPD process [17] a positive effect of the number of NPD stages on the adoption of NPD tools and techniques is anticipated. Thus,
H2b: The number of stages within the NPD process is positively related to the level of adoption of NPD tools and techniques.

[15], this affect should also be considered while addressing interconnectedness in the NPD context. Associating interconnectedness with the number of departments involved and the level of communication between them, a positive influence of both the number of departments participating in the NPD process and their level of interdepartmental communication on tool adoption can be anticipated. When one member of the decision-making unit is pro-adoption he or she will have more easy access and is more likely to be able to persuade the other unit members under conditions of high interconnectedness. Further, the more departments involved, the more likely that tool-awareness exists. Therefore,
H2c: The number of departments involved in the companys NPD has a positive effect on the level of adoption of NPD tools and techniques. H2d: The level of communication between departments has a positive effect on the level of adoption of NPD tools and techniques.

Internal/External Characteristics of the Organization Next to the internal characteristics of a firm, external characteristics of organizations have been found to influence innovation adoption behavior [29]. A highly innovative and competitive environment can, for instance, accelerate the adoption of certain innovations. Innovations that fit a companys environment and thus help an organization stay contingent with its environment have the best chance of being adopted [34]. The contingency issue is directly related to firm strategy [38]. Consequently, one can argue that an industrial firms strategy will influence the probability of innovation adoption [39]. With regard to the adoption of NPD tools the NPD strategy of a firm will be of particular importance. If a company is heavily involved in turning out new products, it will ben-

The degree to which the units in an organization are linked by interpersonal networks (i.e., the degree of interconnectedness) has also been found to be positively related to innovation adoption [29, 37]. With regard to organizations this relates to the internal communication process or the level of communication and interaction between departments. However, since involvement of different organizational departments has been found to be a major factor of success of new product development 126

Tool use breeds tool use.

efit more from using NPD tools than when it only occasionally has new introductions. Thus,
H3: An NPD strategy focusing more on turning out many new products has a positive effect on the level of adoption of NPD tools and techniques.

Prior Use of Related Innovation Gauvin and Sinha [31] argue that a major determinant of innovation adoption is a companys current use of products and ideas similar or comparable to the innovation, which is up for adoption. Prior adoption of concepts related to an innovation will especially increase a companys receptiveness. The more receptive the organization the more likely it will adopt the innovation [40]. The idea of usage breeds usage may also apply to NPD tools and techniques. Mahajan and Wind [10] observed that most users of NPD tools are satisfied with their performance. Firms that are satisfied with their NPD tools are most likely to also try other, new tools and techniques. They will be more open to adoption than firms with no such positive experience. Thus,
H4: Former NPD tool and technique users are more likely to adopt new NPD tools and techniques.

METHODS Extensive desk research preceded the testing of the hypotheses. The objective was to identify all available NPD tools and techniques. Next, a framework was developed to organize them. A classification based on the problem area the tool or technique was designed for was used [41]. Within the category of idea generation techniques a subclassification was made. In accordance with the literature, creative and non-creative (i.e., more analytical idea generation techniques) were distinguished [20]. Qualitative research was conducted next. This included expert interviews and a focus group with seven practitioners. NPD managers awareness and actual use of NPD tools and techniques within their companies NPD processes were discussed. The results of the focus group showed that several respondents did not know cer-

tain tools or techniques by name. However, once definitions were provided most tools/techniques were recognized. Respondents often used a similar technique but generally in a less formal manner. Often the techniques had even been self-invented. Based on these findings the decision was made to include a definition of each tool/ technique in the questionnaire of the quantitative study. The focus group also helped to select a relevant set of NPD tools and techniques. After eliminating techniques with extremely low levels of awareness (e.g., market forecast tools, see also Mahajan and Wind [10] who report less than 5% use in the United States) 11 techniques remained (Table 1). Finally, a sample of 125 industrial companies, randomly selected from the Dutch ABC-register of companies, was approached by telephone and asked about their use of NPD tools and techniques using an extensively pre-tested computerized (CATI) questionnaire. Seventyfive companies cooperated (response rate 60%). The main reason for not cooperating with the research was no time to answer the questions (86%). Testing for a possible nonrespondent bias, no significant difference was found between nonrespondents and respondents based on company size. As 10 cases contained missing values with regard to the variables analyzed in this study, and three outliers were identified, the effective sample size dropped to 62 cases. All respondents were actively involved in the NPD process (e.g., marketing managers, new-business managers, R&D managers) and thus can be expected to be familiar with the topic and their companies NPD practices. The sample comprised four major industries (electronics, machinery, metal, and paper) and a group of miscellaneous companies. The median size of the companies was 200500 employees. The respondents were asked to indicate from the list of tools and techniques those that their companies currently used. Each tools frequency of use was also measured (1 unfrequently; 3 very frequently). Both answers provided the input for the dependent variable adoption that was computed as the cumulative frequency of use of the adopted techniques. This measure of adoption is considered superior to the commonly used dichotomous 127

Companies should select a set of suitable, complementary tools and experiment.

measure of adoption versus non-adoption [29]. The independent variables of the study were operationalized in the following way. Top management involvement and communication level were both measured using Likerttype statements (1 very low; 5 very high top management involvement; and 1 very low; 5 very high levels of interdepartmental communication, respectively) [37]. Company size was operationalized based on the firms number of full-time employees and company sales (five categories). The extent of formalization of the NPD process was measured objectively by the number of stages in the NPD process using Kotlers [42] categorization and labels (1 1; 8 8 or more stages). The number of departments involved in the NPD process was measured in the same way (1 1; 5 5 or more departments, i.e., research, development, production, marketing, and others). Strategy was operationalized using a 5-point Likert scale asking for the companys emphasis on developing new product development relative to its main competitors (1 very low emphasis; 5 very high emphasis). Finally, also prior use of NPD tools and techniques was assessed. Both the year of adoption (i.e., first use of the instrument) and the year of discontinuation of use were registered. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Before testing the hypotheses, the descriptives and frequencies of NPD tool usage were studied. The results showed that the current number of techniques used was approximately three per company. Further, a remarkable increase of use of NPD tools and techniques by individual firms could be observed for the past decade. However, growth seemed to have slowed down, resulting in some degree of saturation. With only four companies in our sample reporting to have discontinued one or more of their tools and techniques, the actual number of former users was relatively low (6%). Once the descriptives regarding tool use per company had been studied, the next step was to identify the influ128 ence of the key factors associated with adopting NPD tools and techniques. The results of the regression analysis performed are shown in Table 3. The adjusted R2 suggested that the model that underlies the total set of hypotheses, had a good or adequate overall fit. The significant factors relating to the adoption of NPD tools were the level of interdepartmental communication, the number of stages in the NPD process, the companys NPD strategy, and the firms prior adoption of tools and techniques. These results confirmed Hypotheses 2d, 2b, 3, and 4, respectively. Further, a marginally significant positive influence of the number of departments involved in NPD on adoption was found, providing some support for Hypothesis 2c. The influence of top management involvement on adopting NPD tools and techniques was marginally significant also, providing some support for Hypothesis 1. No support was found for Hypothesis 2a concerning the effect of firm size on organizational adoption behavior of NPD tools. Examining the overall results it is clear that a higher level of organization of NPD activities breeds a higher degree of adoption of NPD tools. Companies with a more elaborate NPD process, more departments involved in their NPD process, and a higher level of interdepartmental communication all make more use of NPD tools and techniques. Several explanations come to mind. First, these companies will perceive a higher relative advantage of tool adoption, as will companies with prior adoption experience. The tools may help them to assess the NPD situation better, but may also facilitate the communication processes between departments where the NPD project is concerned. Second, companies with a higher level of formal organization of NPD activities (a formal NPD organization, more procedures with regard to NPD handling, etc.) will be better equipped to implement the NPD tools and techniques selected for adoption. The level of trialability for these companies is probably higher, making also the actual implementation easier. The strategy variable shows that the more a company is involved in turning out new products, the more NPD

tools and techniques it uses. When a company develops many new products it may get more experienced at NPD, but at the same time it will experience an increased need for specific routines and instruments to monitor and evaluate the NPD process in a systematic and simple way [43]. NPD tools and techniques probably help satisfy this need and help to reduce the uncertainty involved in developing new products and launching them successfully. All organizational characteristics included in this study, except organization size, had a significant influence on the adoption of NPD tools and techniques by industrial companies. The finding regarding size is consistent with Rogers [29] argument that size is a surrogate for other variables in explaining innovation adoption. When considered in combination with other internal organizational factors, the effect of firm size on innovation adoption generally becomes less significant [44]. However, the relationship may be more complex. Large and small companies both play an important role in developing and commercializing new technology [45]. Therefore, both types may also benefit from the adoption of NPD tools and techniques, eliminating the effect of organizational size as an explaining variable for tool adoption. The marginal significance of the effect of top management involvement in the NPD process on the level of adoption seems puzzling, especially as many studies on NPD success have found top management to play a key role in NPD management and success. However, a close examination of the measure applied pointed out that top managements attitude towards the use of NPD tools and techniques and the managements specific expecta-

tions with regard to tool effectiveness might have been better, more direct measures [24]. The positive influence of prior adoption of NPD tools or techniques is consistent with the high level of satisfaction among current users reported in many previous studies [10, 17]. The use of tools and techniques by industrial firms breeds use, something that has also been found with regard to the application of performance measures in the NPD process [43].

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS The findings of our study have several important implications for companies involved in developing new products. With previous research having established a link between the use of NPD tools and companies financial performance, top management may want to stimulate the adoption and use of NPD tools. NPD tools can help analyze problems more systematically and thus help the decision processes involving new product development. Their implementation can be facilitated by increasing the level of NPD organization (i.e., explicitly distinguishing between stages in the NPD process, involving more departments, and stimulating interdepartmental communications). All three variables were found to have a positive relationship with the adoption of NPD tools by companies. Further, promoting experiments with applications of NPD tools will stimulate adoption. Users tend to be satisfied and early initial adoption stimulates the general level of adoption of NPD tools.

TABLE 3 Regression Results on the Determinants of the Adoption of NPD Tools and Techniques (Dependent variable: Level of adoption of NPD tools and techniques) Beta Independent variables: Management Involvement of top management (H 1) Internal characteristics of organizational structure Firm size (H 2a) Number of stages in NPD process (H 2b) Number of departments in NPD process (H 2c) Interaction between departments (H 2d) Internal/External characteristics of the organization NPD strategy (H 3) Prior use of related innovation First year of adoption (H 4) Adj. R 0.37, F = 6.06 n = 62
2

probability T

0.18 0.11 0.25 0.21 0.31 0.26 0.29

1.7 1.1 2.4 1.9 2.8 2.4 2.7

0.10 0.29 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.01

Signif F = 0.00

129

To select a useful technique and familiarize oneself with it, a company may get outside help (e.g., consultant or market research agency). It can even first outsource before deciding on adoption. It is important, however, that the choice of tool be based on the merit of the tool or technique for the companys NPD process rather than on whether the tool is in vogue [46]. The type of tools and techniques to adopt will depend on the nature and content of a companys NPD strategy. A company aiming at developing new-to-the-world products should focus on upstream techniques (see Table 1), such as idea generation techniques, whereas a company that is pursuing a fast follower strategy will benefit more from, for instance, product optimizing techniques (as the product idea already exists). Further, a company will generally not select one or two tools but use a selection of complementary tools. For example, at Akzo Nobel McKinsey introduced a complete tool-box to help make decisions in the NPD process. Moving the company toward more innovative projects will also help NPD tool use. As more innovative products have to be developed more problems emerge, increasing the chance that tools will be needed, used, and appreciated. Managers of companies with many innovative projects should consider introducing new NPD tools or expanding their use. The low number of users that discontinued the tools they adopted, and the high level of user satisfaction reported in previous studies, show that NPD tools are effective techniques that can help improve NPD performance. The tools will help their users monitor and evaluate their NPD projects systematically, in a simple standardized way. They can help the organization learn from previous projects, help support the communication between the parties involved in the NPD process, and facilitate the decisions that have to be made. REFERENCES
1. Hart, S., ed.: New Product Development: A Reader. The Dryden Press, London, 1996. 2. Urban, G. L., and Hauser, J. R.: Design and Marketing of New Products, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993. 3. Crawford, C. M.: New Products Management, 3rd ed. Richard D. Irwin Inc., Boston, MA, 1991. 4. Craig, A., and Hart, S.: Where to Now in the New Product Development Research? European Journal of Marketing 26(11), 349 (1992). 5. Griffin, A.: Measuring Product Development Time to Improve the Development Process. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper, Report number 93118 October (1993).

6. Millson, M. R., Raj, S. P., and Wilemon, D.: A Survey of Major Approaches for Accelerating New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 9, 5369 (1992). 7. Crawford, C. M.: The Hidden Costs of Accelerated Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 9, 188199 (1992). 8. Gupta, A. K., and Wilemon, D. L.: Accelerating the Development of Technology Based New Products. California Management Review 32, 2444 (1990). 9. Takeuchi, H., and Nonaka, I.: The New Product Development Game. Harvard Business Review January-February, 137146 (1986). 10. Mahajan, V., and Wind, J.: New Product Models, Practice, Shortcomings and Desired Improvements. Journal of Product Innovation Management 9 (1), 128139 (1992). 11. New Products Management for the 1980s. Booz, Allen & Hamilton: Company Report, New York, NY, 1982. 12. Schelker, T.: Problem Solving Methods in the New Product Development Process (in German). Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern, 1976. 13. Greenwald, P., and Ottenfeld, M.: New Product Testing: A Review of Techniques. Applied Marketing Research 29(3), 1724 (1989). 14. Song, X. M., Souder, W. E., and Dyer, B.: A Causal Model of the Impact of Skills, Synergy, and Design Sensitivity on New Product Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14, 88101 (1997). 15. Cooper, R. G.: New Products: The Factors that Drive Success. International Marketing Review 11(1), 6076 (1994). 16. Rigby, D. K.: Managing the Management Tools. Planning Review September-October, 2024 (1994). 17. Nijssen, E. J., and Lieshout, K.: Awareness, Use and Effectiveness of Models and Methods for New Product Development. European Journal of Marketing 29(10), 2744 (1995). 18. Hultink, E. J., and Robben, H. S. J.: Measuring New Product Success: The Difference that Time Perspective Makes. Journal of Product Innovation Management 12, 392405 (1995). 19. Gupta, A. K., and Wilemon, D. L.: Changing Patterns in Industrial R&D Management. Journal of Product Innovation Management 13, 497511 (1996). 20. Buijs, J.: Innovation and Intervention (in Dutch), 2nd ed. Kluwer, Deventer, 1984. 21. Holt, K.: Product Innovation Management: A Workbook for Management in Industry. Butterworths, London, 1987. 22. Geschka, H.: Introduction and Use of Idea Generating Methods. Research Management May, 2528 (1978). 23. Geschka, H.: Creativity Techniques in Product Planning and Development: A View from West Germany. R&D Management 13(3), 169183 (1983). 24. Verhage, B., Waalewijn, Ph., and van Weele, A. J.: New Product Development in Dutch Companies: The Idea Generation Stage. European Journal of Marketing 15(5), 7385 (1981). 25. Nijssen, E. J., and Frambach, R. T.: Market Research Companies and Their Use of New Product Development Tools. Journal of Product and Brand Management 7(4), 305318 (1998). 26. Griffin, A.: Evaluating QFDs Use in US Firms as a Process for Developing Products. Journal of Product Innovation Management 12(3), 171188 (1992). 27. 27. McCabe, D. L., and Narayanan, V. K.: The Life Cycle of the PIMS and BCG Models. Industrial Marketing Management 20, 347352 (1991). 28. Wittink, D. R., and Cattin, P.: Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update. Journal of Marketing 53, 9196 (1989). 29. Rogers, E. M.: Diffusion of Innovations 4th ed. The Free Press, New York, 1995.

130

30. Robertson, T. S., and Gatignon, H.: Competitive Effects on Technology Diffusion. Journal of Marketing 50, 112 (1986). 31. Gauvin, S., and Sinha, R. K.: Innovativeness in Industrial Organizations: A Two-Stage Model of Adoption. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10(2), 165183 (1993). 32. Cooper, R. G., and Kleinschmidt, E. J.: Performance Typologies of New Product Projects. Industrial Marketing Management 24, 439456 (1995). 33. De Brentani, U., and Ragot, E.: Developing New Business-to-Business Professional Services: What Factors Impact Performance? Industrial Marketing Management 25, 517530 (1996). 34. Meyer, A. D., and Goes, J. B.: Organizational Assimilation of Innovations: Multi-level Contextual Analysis. Academy of Management Journal 31(4), 897923 (1988). 35. Kennedy, A.: The Adoption and Diffusion of New Industrial Products: A Literature Review. European Journal of Marketing 17, 3188 (1983). 36. Kimberley, J. R., and Evanisko, M. J.: Organizational Innovation: The Influence of Individual, Organizational, and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Technological and Administrative Innovations. Academy of Management Journal 24, 689713 (1981). 37. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., and Holbek, J.: Innovations and Organizations. Wiley & Sons, New York, 1973.

38. Johnson, G., and Scholes, K.: Exploring Corporate Strategy. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1997. 39. Chisnall, P. M.: Strategic Industrial Marketing. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989. 40. Baldwin, W. L., and Scott, J. T.: Market Structure and Technological Change. Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, Switzerland, 1987. 41. Oppedijk van Veen, W. M.: Consumer Research Within the Faculty of Industrial Design (in Dutch). Delft University Press, Delft, 1987. 42. Kotler, Ph.: Marketing Management, Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, 9th ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1997. 43. Griffin A., and Page, A.: An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success and Failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management 10(4), 291308 (1993). 44. Frambach, R. T., Barkema, H., Nooteboom, B., and Wedel, M.: Adoption of a Service Innovation in the Business Market: An Empirical Test of Supply-Side Variables. Journal of Business Research 41(2), 161174 (1998). 45. Schumpeter, J.: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper & Row, New York, 1947. 46. Abramanson, Eric: Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of Innovations. Academy of Management Review 16(3), 586 612 (1991).

131