Stage‐Gate has become a popular system for driving new products to market, and the benefits of using such a robust idea‐to‐launch system have been well documented. However, there are many misconceptions and challenges in using Stage‐Gate. First, Stage‐Gate is briefly outlined, noting how the system should work and the structure of both stages and gates. Next, some of the misconceptions about Stage‐Gate—it is not a linear process, nor is it a rigid system—are debunked, and explanations of what Stage‐Gate is and is not are provided. The challenges faced in employing Stage‐Gate are identified, including governance issues, overbureaucratizing the process, and misapplying cost‐cutting systems such as Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing to product innovation. Solutions are offered, including better governance methods such as “gates with teeth,” clearly defined gatekeepers, and gatekeeper rules of engagement, as well as ways to deal with bureaucracy, including leaner gates. Next‐generation versions of Stage‐Gate are introduced, notably a scalable system (to handle many different types and sizes of projects), as well as even more flexible and adaptable versions of Stage‐Gate achieved via spiral development and simultaneous execution. Additionally, Stage‐Gate now incorporates better decision‐making practices including scorecards, success criteria, self‐managed gates, electronic and virtual gates, and integration with portfolio management. Improved accountability and continuous improvement are now built into Stage‐Gate via a rigorous postlaunch review. Finally, progressive companies are reinventing Stage‐Gate for use with “open innovation,” whereas others are applying the principles of value stream analysis to yield a leaner version of Stage‐Gate.

No abstract

Objective To develop and validate new classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) and their major subgroups. Methods Candidate variables were assembled from published criteria and expert opinion using consensus methodology. Data were collected from 47 rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and pediatric clinics worldwide. Several statistical methods were utilized to derive the classification criteria. Results Based on data from 976 IIM patients (74% adults; 26% children) and 624 non-IIM patients with mimicking conditions (82% adults; 18% children) new criteria were derived. Each item is assigned a weighted score. The total score corresponds to a probability of having IIM. Sub-classification is performed using a classification tree. A probability cutoff of 55%, corresponding to a score of 5.5 (6.7 with muscle biopsy) “probable IIM”, had best sensitivity/specificity (87%/82% without biopsies, 93%/88% with biopsies) and is recommended as a minimum to classify a patient as having IIM. A probability of ≥90%, corresponding to a score of ≥7.5 (≥8.7 with muscle biopsy), corresponds to “definite IIM”. A probability of <50%, corresponding to a score of <5.3 (<6.5 with muscle biopsy) rules out IIM, leaving a probability of ≥50 to <55% as “possible IIM”. Conclusions The EULAR/ACR classification criteria for IIM have been endorsed by international rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and pediatric groups. They employ easily accessible and operationally defined elements, and have been partially validated. They allow classification of “definite”, “probable”, and “possible” IIM, in addition to the major subgroups of IIM, including juvenile IIM. They generally perform better than existing criteria.

Effective portfolio management is vital to successful product innovation. Portfolio management is about making strategic choices—which markets, products, and technologies our business will invest in. It is about resource allocation—how you will spend your scarce engineering, R&D, and marketing resources. It focuses on project selection—on which new product or development projects you choose from the many opportunities you face. And it deals with balance—having the right balance between numbers of projects you do and the resources or capabilities you have available. In this article, the authors reveal the findings of their extensive study of portfolio management in industry. This study, the first of its kind, reports the portfolio management practices and performance of 205 U.S. companies. Its overall objective was to gain insights into what portfolio methods companies use, whether they are satisfied with them, the performance results they achieve with the different approaches, and suggestions for others who are considering implementing portfolio management. The research first assesses management's satisfaction with portfolio methods they employ and notes that some firms face major problems in portfolio management. Next, businesses are grouped or clustered into four groups according to management's view of portfolio management: Cowboys, Crossroads, Duds, and Benchmark businesses. The research first assesses management's satisfaction with portfolio methods they employ and notes that some firms face major problems in portfolio management. Next, businesses are grouped or clustered into four groups according to management's view of portfolio management: Cowboys, Crossroads, Duds, and Benchmark businesses. Various performance metrics are used to gauge the performance of the business's portfolio. The results reveal major differences between the best and the worst. Benchmark businesses are the top performers. Their new product portfolios consistently score the best in terms of performance—high‐value projects, aligned with the business's strategy, the right balance of projects, and the right number of projects. The authors take a closer look at these benchmark businesses to determine what distinguishes their projects from the rest. Benchmark businesses employ a much more formal, explicit method to managing their portfolio of projects. They rely on clear, well‐defined portfolio procedures, they consistently apply their portfolio method to all projects, and management buys into the approach. The relative popularity of various portfolio methods—from financial methods to strategic approaches, bubble diagrams, and scoring approaches—are investigated. Not surprisingly, financial approaches are the most popular and dominate the portfolio decision. But what is surprising is the dubious results achieved via financial approaches. Again, benchmark businesses stand out from the rest: they place less emphasis on financial approaches and more on strategic methods, and they tend to use multiple methods more so than the rest. Strategic m...

Portfolio management for product innovation ± picking the right set of development projects ± is critical to new product success. This article reports on the new product portfolio practices and performance of a large sample of firms in North America. Reasons why portfolio management is important are identified, followed by the relative popularity of the different portfolio techniques: financial methods are first, followed by business strategy methods, bubble diagrams and scoring models. Next, how the various portfolio methods fare in terms of six performance metrics is probed. Financial methods, although the most popular and rigorous, yield the worst results overall, while top performing firms rely more on nonfinancial approaches ± strategic and scoring methods. The details of how some of these more popular methods are employed by firms to rate and rank development projects are also provided. Finally, managerial implications, including suggestions for making portfolio management more effective in industry, are outlined.

No abstract

In a comprehensive study of 252 new product histories at 123 firms, Robert Cooper and Elko Kleinschmidt looked critically at the new products management process. Each company was shown a set of 13 activities which formed a general “skeleton” of a new product process. This article examines how this structure was modified by the companies and how well various stages of the process were reportedly executed. The results show a variety of practices among the surveyed companies. While the presence of activities cannot guarantee successful new products, certain activities were singled out as particularly weak. Firms should consider placing more emphasis on market studies, initial screening activities, and preliminary market assessment. The article provides a thoughtful assessment of the level of implementation of current practices in new products management.

There is no issue more fundamental to new products managers than understanding the factors that separate success from failure. In this article, Robert Cooper and Elko Kleinschmidt present a series of ten hypotheses which they test using data obtained from their study of 203 new products. Significantly, these products include both commercial successes and failures, since previous studies have concentrated on either one or the other. The authors conclude that product superiority is the number one factor influencing commercial success and that project definition and early, predevelopment activities are the most critical steps in the new products development process. Success, they argue, is earned. It is not the ad hoc result of situational or environmental influences. Synergy, both marketing and technical, is crucial.