The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products
Abstract
Does the development of really new products require a different approach from that of incremental new products? Current research and management practice seem to suggest that any successful new product development (NPD) process comprises a set of key activities, regardless of a product's innovativeness. It seems almost foolhardy to suggest that NPD could proceed without proficiency in all of the following tasks: strategic planning, idea development and screening, business and market opportunity analysis, technical development, product testing, and product commercialization. Suggesting that the difference may be in the details, X. Michael Song and Mitzi Montoya‐Weiss present the results of a study that examines the development of 163 really new products and 169 incremental new products. The study's objective is to compare the NPD processes and performance outcomes of really new and incremental products. In other words, the study examines the interplay between a product's innovativeness, the NPD process, and the product's performance in the marketplace. For the firms in the study, four sets of NPD activities—strategic planning, market analysis, technical development, and product commercialization—are key determinants of new product success for both really new products and incremental products. However, strategic planning and business and market opportunity analysis activities play contrasting roles for the two types of products. Working to improve proficiency in business and market opportunity analysis may be counterproductive for really new products, but it can increase the profitability of incremental products. Conversely, improving the proficiency of strategic planning activities has a positive effect on the profitability of the really new products, but it has a negative effect for the incremental products. Overall, the really new products in the study surpass the incremental products in meeting profit objectives. Comparing current practice to best practice, the firms in the study have room for improvement. For both really new and incremental products, the firms in the study do not place sufficient emphasis on product commercialization activities. The participants also need to reassess the relative emphasis they place on strategic planning activities. The projects involving really new products do not place sufficient emphasis on strategic planning, while the incremental projects exhibit a relatively high level of proficiency in this area—exactly the opposite of the order that this study recommends.
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
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1920110 · Cited by 3,470
The Role of Existing Knowledge in New Product Innovativeness and Performance
Brockman, B. K., & Morgan, R. M. (2003) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/1540-5915.02326 · Cited by 438
Lee, Y., & Colarelli O'Connor, G. (2003) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/1540-5885.t01-1-201002 · Cited by 348
Verworn, B., Herstatt, C., & Nagahira, A. (2008) · R&D Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00492.x · Cited by 253
Metadata
- Authors
- Song, X. M., & Montoya‐Weiss, M. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-03
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 124-135
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5885
- OpenAlex
- W4236431509
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.68
- 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: Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1540-5885.1520124
- The paper
- Song, X. M., & Montoya‐Weiss, M. M. (1998). Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1520124
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.