Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,226

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.

Benchmarking the Firm's Critical Success Factors in New Product Development

Robert G. Cooper, Elko J. Kleinschmidt·1995·Journal of Product Innovation Management

Abstract

Managing new product development (NPD) is, to a great extent, a process of separating the winners from the losers. At the project level, tough go/no‐go decisions must be made throughout each development effort to ensure that resources are being allocated appropriately. At the company level, benchmarking is helpful for identifying the critical success factors that set the most successful firms apart from their competitors. This company‐ or macro‐level analysis also has the potential for uncovering success factors that are not readily apparent through examination of specific projects. To improve our understanding of the company‐level drivers of NPD success, Robert Cooper and Elko Kleinschmidt describe the results of a multi‐firm benchmarking study. They propose that a company's overall new product performance depends on the following elements: the NPD process and the specific activities within this process; the organization of the NPD program; the firm's NPD strategy; the firm's culture and climate for innovation; and senior management commitment to NPD. Given the multidimensional nature of NPD performance, the study involves 10 performance measures of a company's new product program: success rate, percent of sales, profitability relative to spending, technical success rating, sales impact, profit impact, success in meeting sales objectives, success in meeting profit objectives, profitability relative to competitors, and overall success. The 10 performance metrics are reduced to two underlying dimensions: program profitability and program impact. These performance factors become theX‐and Y‐ax.es of a performance map, a visual summary of the relative performance of the 135 companies responding to the survey. The performance map further breaks down the respondents into four groups: solid performers, high‐impact technical winners, low‐impact performers, and dogs. Again, the objective of this analysis is to determine what separates the solid performers from the companies in the other groups. The analysis identifies nine constructs that drive performance. In rank order of their impact on performance, the main performance drivers that separate the solid performers from the dogs are: a high‐quality new product process; a clear, well‐communicated new product strategy for the company; adequate resources for new products; senior management commitment to new products; an entrepreneurial climate for product innovation; senior management accountability; strategic focus and synergy (i.e., new products close to the firm's existing markets and leveraging existing technologies); high‐quality development teams; and cross‐functional teams.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1016/0737-6782(95)00059-3

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,226

Metadata

Authors
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J.
Venue
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-11-01
Volume
12
Issue
5
Pages
374-391
ISSN
0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2103013833
Cited by
1,226
References
0
FWCI
50.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Benchmarking the Firm's Critical Success Factors in New Product Development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0737-6782(95)00059-3
The paper
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1995). Benchmarking the Firm's Critical Success Factors in New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(95)00059-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.