A considerable body of research informs the relationship of product innovativeness with firm and environmental variables as well as the impact of product innovativeness on product financial success. While providing significant insight, the extant literature exhibits conflicting findings that raise questions as to how, specifically, product innovativeness contributes to product financial performance. This study ties together several streams of research related to the product innovativeness construct to enhance understanding of the product innovativeness-product financial performance relationship. The product innovativeness construct is deconstructed by conceptualizing the relationships among three dimensions of product innovativeness: technological discontinuity, marketing discontinuity, and customer discontinuity. Product innovativeness is distinguished from product advantage, and the relationships among product innovativeness dimensions, product advantage, and product financial performance are empirically tested. The results reveal that, indeed, product innovativeness consists of three separate dimensions that exhibit no or moderate correlations with product advantage. Furthermore, product advantage positively and marketing discontinuity negatively influence product financial performance. Finally, the study also examines how project protocols impact the product innovativeness dimensions. Project protocols, also known as product definitions, describe the general parameters a new product should exhibit (i.e., target segments, product functions and features, base technology, pricing, communication and distribution channels, and required resources) as well as the priorities of the general parameters. Because they guide product design and set priorities and have been found to be a dominant driver of product financial performance, project protocols are important. The present study enhances understanding of how project protocols influence the dimensions of product innovativeness, finding that project protocols positively impact product financial performance indirectly through product advantage and marketing discontinuity.

No abstract

No abstract

This research employs organizational information processing theory to propose and examine the antecedents and consequences of new product portfolio management (NPPM) decisions. Understanding NPPM decisions is an important research area because these decisions affect firm profitability but are difficult to make because of limited reliable information. Recent survey results of Product Development and Management Association members and other NPPM professionals suggest nearly half of initial new product ideas are chosen to advance through the new product development (NPD) pipeline via informal processes. Thus, managers wield considerable influence in NPPM. Yet only limited research quantitatively examines how NPPM decisions impact performance and the role of manager dispositions. Using as the research context a marketing simulation exercise conducted with mid-level managers, this research reveals important insights into the impact of the three NPPM dimensions-value maximization, balance, and strategic fit-on NPD and firm performance. The analysis suggests a critical role for the NPPM dimension of balance as it is the single dimension impacting performance. However, value maximization is relevant as a criterion for competing because, overall, managers see this dimension as important. At the same time, managers are cautioned in their use of strategic fit as it appears this dimension may constrain innovative choices.Furthermore, three manager dispositions proposed from organizational information processing theory-directive leadership style, need for cognition, and risk perceptions-all influence NPPM dimensions. Managers are recommended to consider the personality traits of managers involved in NPPM decisions to ensure thorough consideration of all dimensions.

In new product development, faster is not always better. Conceptually, being faster to market should improve financial performance by improving product quality and reducing development expenses. Empirical support is mixed, however, demonstrating that higher speed to market exhibits an inverted U-shaped relationship with product profitability. Conventional wisdom and empirical research suggest managers make speed to market-product quality-development expense trade-offs.A particular concern regarding speed to market is that extreme speed may jeopardize product quality. Some researchers suggest that speed to market improves product quality while others suggest firms must balance both speed to market and product quality. Also, shorter lead times may be associated with reduced development expenses, but empirical evidence is conflicting.This research attempts to reconcile conflicting results regarding the speed to market-product quality relationship, their joint impact on product profitability, and their mediation role in the effects of development expenses and cross-functional integration on product profitability. Partial least squares (PLS) is used to analyze multiplexed archival and survey data collected from NPD managers for 1115 different NPD projects in several firms. The results support the hypothesized equations, explaining 27% of speed to market variance, 35% of product quality variance, and 45% of product profitability variance.This study makes two contributions. First, because speed to market and product quality are related, simultaneous consideration of both factors enhances insight into their joint effect. Second, it provides evidence that speed to market and product quality jointly mediate development expense by NPD phase and cross-functional integration effects on product profitability.Key results from the large sample data analysis include the following. Speed to market and product quality both enhance product profitability, but the impact of speed to market is larger than that of product quality. Speed to market and product quality partially mediate the impact of fuzzy front end phase expenses on product profitability, while expenses in the latter phases exhibit no impact on the mediators or profitability. Thus, the results suggest that trade-offs are made not only between time, quality, and expense (i.e., if additional expenses are incurred at all), but also that trade-offs relate to when (i.e., in which NPD phase) additional development expenses are incurred. Finally, crossfunctional integration (both internal and external) substantially impacts product profitability through a mix of direct and mediated effects.