This article represents findings of a PDMA task force studying measures of product development success and failure. This investigation sought to identify all currently used measures, organize them into categories of similar measures that perform roughly the same function, and contrast the measures used by academics and companies to evaluate new product development performance. The authors compared the measures used in over seventy‐five published studies of new product development to those surveyed companies say they use. The concept of product development success has many dimensions and each may be measured in a variety of ways. Firms generally use about four measures from two different categories in determining product development success. Academics and managers tend to focus on rather different sets of product development success/failure measures. Academics tend to investigate product development performance at the firm level, whereas managers currently measure, and indicate that they want to understand more completely, individual product success.

Success is not just elusive; it is also multifaceted and difficult to measure. A firm can assess the success or failure of a development project in any (or all) of many terms, including customer satisfaction, financial return, and technical advantage. To complicate matters, success may be measured not only at the level of the individual project, but also at the program level. With so many variables to consider and so many stakeholders involved, managers face a difficult challenge just deciding which measures are useful for measuring product development success. Recognizing that no single measure suffices for gauging the success of every product development project, Abbie Griffin and Albert L. Page hypothesize that the most appropriate set of measures for assessing project‐level success depends on the project strategy. For example, the objectives (and thus, the success criteria) for a new product that creates an entirely new market will differ from those of a project that extends an existing product line. Similarly, they hypothesize that the appropriate measures of a product development program's overall success depend on the firm's innovation strategy. For example, a firm that values being first to market will measure success in different terms from those used by a firm that focuses on maintaining a secure market niche. To test these hypotheses, product development professionals were presented with six project strategy scenarios and four business strategy scenarios. For each project strategy scenario, participants were asked to select the four most useful measures of project success. For each business strategy scenario, participants were asked to choose the set of four measures that would provide the most useful overall assessment of product development success. The responses strongly support the idea that the most appropriate measures of project‐level and program‐level success depend on the firm's project strategy and business strategy, respectively. For example, customer satisfaction and customer acceptance were among the most useful customer‐based measures of success for several project strategies, but market share was cited as the most useful customer‐based measure for projects involving new‐to‐the‐company products or line extensions. At the program level, firms with a business strategy that places little emphasis on innovation need to focus on measuring the efficiency of their product development program, while innovative firms need to assess the program's contribution to company growth.

No abstract

Managerial ties, the personal networks of senior managers, have been found to be facilitators of firm performance because of their network benefits. However, social network theory suggests that managerial ties only play a "conduit" role by providing possibilities and opportunities to approach external resources. How can firms turn these possibilities and opportunities into internal knowledge assets and further transform them into firm innovation? Extant research constructs a direct mechanism for the managerial ties-firm innovation link. The research reported here, however, provides and investigates an indirect ties-innovation argument where organizational knowledge creation processes, including knowledge exchange and knowledge combination, are mediators. And managerial ties are examined through two traditional dimensions, business ties and political ties. This study employs empirical data from 270 firms in China and uses structural equation modeling techniques to reveal interesting findings. First, the results support the key argument that the influence of managerial ties on firm innovation is indirect. Second, knowledge exchange and knowledge combination are different constructs and the former positively influences the latter. More interestingly, business ties can exert a significant direct impact on both knowledge exchange and knowledge combination, while political ties can only influence knowledge exchange directly. Although both knowledge exchange and knowledge combination impact product innovation directly, only knowledge combination can directly influence process innovation.These findings indicate that the role of political ties is declining, but business ties still have substantial influence on firm innovation in transitional China. Different processes of organizational knowledge creation, such as knowledge exchange and knowledge combination, make distinct contributions to firm innovation. Product innovation, as opposed to process innovation, is more externally oriented and needs more organizational level knowledge creation activities.This article extends the understanding of the ties-innovation link, organizational knowledge creation theory, and firm innovation in a transitional economy by providing a more complete understanding of how firms can access and internalize external resources and then transform them into product innovation and process innovation.

No abstract