The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A study of success and failure in product innovation: The case of the U.S. electronics industry
Open accessAbstract
This paper summarizes the first phase of the Stanford Innovation Project, a long-term study of U.S. industrial innovation. As part of this initial phase, begun in 1982, two surveys were conducted: 1) an open-ended survey of 158 new products in the electronics industry, followed by 2) a structured survey of 118 of the original products. Both surveys used a pairwise comparison methodology. Our research identified eight broad areas that appear to be important for new product success in a high-technology environment: 1) market knowledge gained through frequent and intense customer interaction, which leads to high benefit-to-cost products; 2) and 3) planning and coordination of the new product process, especially the R&D phase; 4) emphasis on marketing and sales; 5) management support for the product throughout the development and launch stages; 6) the contribution margin of the product; 7) early market entry; 8) proximity of the new product technologies and markets to the existing strengths of the developing unit. Based on these results, a preliminary model of the new product process is proposed in the concluding section. There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. Niccolo Machiavelli.
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
Cited by
Product development: Past research, present findings and future directions
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258850 · Cited by 3,777
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1920110 · Cited by 3,470
Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.005 · Cited by 1,222
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.51.3.451 · Cited by 1,152
An Empirically Derived Model for the Adoption of Customer‐based Interorganizational Systems*
Grover, V. (1993) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1993.tb01295.x · Cited by 757
A cross-national comparative study of new product development processes: Japan and the United States
Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. (1997) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299706100201 · Cited by 709
Key Characteristics of the Large Innovating Firm*
Pavitt, K. (1991) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.1991.tb00014.x · Cited by 347
What separates Japanese new product winners from losers
Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. (1996) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1350422 · Cited by 311
Defining and identifying disruptive innovations
Nagy, D., Schuessler, J., & Dubinsky, A. (2016) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.017 · Cited by 260
Metadata
- Authors
- Maidique, M. A., & Zirger, B. J.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
- Published
- 1984-11
- Volume
- EM-31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 192-203
- ISSN
- 0018-9391 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-0040
- OpenAlex
- W1981057110
- Cited by
- 635
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.