The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices
Abstract
Product development professionals may have the feeling that yet another buzzword or magic bullet always lurks just around the corner. However, researchers have devoted considerable effort to helping practioners determine which tools, techniques, and methods really do offer a competitive edge. Starting 30 years ago, research efforts have aimed at understanding NPD practices and identifying those which are deemed “best practices.” During the past five years, pursuit of this goal has produced numerous privately available reports and two research efforts sponsored by the PDMA. Abbie Griffin summarizes the results of research efforts undertaken during the past five years and presents findings from the most recent PDMA survey on NPD best practices. This survey, conducted slightly more than five years after PDMA's first best‐practices survey, updates trends in processes, organizations, and outcomes for NPD in the U.S., and determines which practices are more commonly associated with firms that are more successsful in developing new products. The survey has the following objectives: determining the current status of NPD practices and performance; understanding how product development has changed from five years ago; determining whether NPD practice and performance differ across industry segments; and, investigating process and product development tools that differentiate product development success. The survey findings indicate that NPD processes continue to evolve and become more sophisticated. NPD changes continually on multiple fronts, and firms that fail to keep their NPD practices up to date will suffer an increasingly marked competitive disadvantage. Interestingly, although more than half of the respondents use a cross‐functional stage‐gate process for NPD, more than one‐third of all firms in the study still use no formal process for managing NPD. The findings suggest that firms are not adequately handling the issue of team‐based rewards. Project‐completion dinners are for the most frequently used NPD reward; they are also the only reward used more by best‐practice firms than by the rest of the respondents. The best‐practice firms participating in the study do not use financial rewards for NPD. Compared to the other firms in the study, best‐practice firms use more multifunctional teams, are more likely to measure NPD processes and outcomes, and expect more from their NPD programs.
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
Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products
Urban, G. L., & von Hippel, E. (1988) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.5.569 · Cited by 1,125
Cited by
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.413 · Cited by 2,385
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1920110 · Cited by 3,470
Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M., & Jayaram, J. (2005) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2005.00067.x · Cited by 855
Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Enz, C. A. (2006) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00224.x · Cited by 544
Perspective: New Product Failure Rates: Influence of Argumentum ad Populum and Self‐Interest
Castellion, G., & Markham, S. K. (2013) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.01009.x · Cited by 311
Service innovation and performance in SMEs
McDermott, C. M., & Prajogo, D. I. (2012) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443571211208632 · Cited by 226
An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams
McDonough, E. F., Kahnb, K. B., & Barczaka, G. (2001) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1820110 · Cited by 543
Rodríguez, N. G., Pérez, M. J. S., & Gutiérrez, J. A. T. (2008) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.011 · Cited by 145
The impact of service innovation on firm performance: a meta-analysis
Feng, C., Ma, R., & Jiang, L. (2021) · Journal of Service Management · doi:10.1108/josm-03-2019-0089 · Cited by 125
Meinel, M., Eismann, T. T., Baccarella, C. V., Fixson, S. K., & Voigt, K.-I. (2020) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2020.02.002 · Cited by 98
Organizational adoption of supply chain management system: A multi-theoretic investigation
Cao, Q., Gan, Q., & Thompson, M. A. (2013) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2013.02.003 · Cited by 39
Really New Services: Perceived Risk and Adoption Intentions
Savas-Hall, S., Koku, P. S., & Mangleburg, T. (2022) · Services Marketing Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15332969.2021.1994193 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Griffin, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-11
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 429-458
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5885
- OpenAlex
- W4246854862
- Cited by
- 1,490
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 41.42
- 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
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.