The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PDMA Success Measurement Project: Recommended Measures for Product Development Success and Failure
Abstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1978.4305755 · Cited by 4,527
Determinants of New Product Performance: A Review and Meta‐Analysis
Montoya‐Weiss, M. M., & Calantone, R. (1994) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1016/0737-6782(94)90029-9 · Cited by 1,359
Strategies for diversification
Hako, B. (1972) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/0024-6301(72)90048-9 · Cited by 1,257
The Impact of Product Innovativeness on Performance
Kleinschmidt, E. J., & Cooper, R. G. (1991) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1016/0737-6782(91)90046-2 · Cited by 820
An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success and Failure
Griffin, A., & Page, A. L. (1993) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1016/0737-6782(93)90072-x · Cited by 744
Self-citationShortell, S. M., & Zajac, E. J. (1990) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256292 · Cited by 617
Marketing Strategy Implications of the Miles and Snow Strategic Typology
McDaniel, S. W., & Kolari, J. W. (1987) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224298705100403 · Cited by 450
Order of entry and performance in new markets
Lambkin, M. (1988) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250090713 · Cited by 409
Research Evidence On The Miles-Snow Typology
Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1990) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639001600407 · Cited by 374
The Hidden Costs of Accelerated Product Development
Crawford, C. M. (1992) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1016/0737-6782(92)90029-c · Cited by 330
Cited by
The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences
Danneels, E. (2002) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.275 · Cited by 2,381
Market Orientation, Creativity, and New Product Performance in High-Technology Firms
Im, S., & Workman, J. P. (2004) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.2.114.27788 · Cited by 1,084
Leung, F. F., Gu, F. F., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-021-00829-4 · Cited by 580
Lawson, B., Petersen, K. J., Cousins, P. D., & Handfield, R. B. (2009) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00343.x · Cited by 438
Meskendahl, S. (2010) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.007 · Cited by 423
Metadata
- Authors
- Griffin, A., & Page, A. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-11-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 478-496
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2058473965
- Cited by
- 854
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 30.39
- 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: PDMA Success Measurement Project: Recommended Measures for Product Development Success and Failure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0737-6782(96)00052-5
- The paper
- Griffin, A., & Page, A. L. (1996). PDMA Success Measurement Project: Recommended Measures for Product Development Success and Failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0737-6782(96)00052-5
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.