An exploration of organizational factors in new product development success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study surveys a broad spectrum of new product development (NPD) projects from the biochemistry industry in the USA, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Belgium with the purpose of exploring the role of the organizational activity factors in the NPD success. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the resource‐based view of the firm, the authors present a set of hypotheses concerning the relationship between the people resources, development resources, testing resources, and launch resources committed to NPD projects and their financial success. In addition, the effect of the firm's international market involvement on the NPD project success is considered. In this study, testing of the hypothesized relationship is accomplished through linear probability model, binary probit model, and binary logit model. Findings Empirical results generally support the predictions from the theory. Specifically, the findings of this study show that: the involvement of a strong champion, use of a multi‐disciplinary team, and focus of a dedicated team are key factors for NPD project success among the people resources; the detailed market research has a significant impact on the project success in the development phase of the NPD process; the allocation of resources to the testing of the product with the final customer, market testing, and production start‐up positively influences the NPD project success; advertising quality plays a key role in the NPD project success during its launch; and the NPD project success is positively associated with the degree of a firm's diversification into international markets. Originality/value This study provides several guidelines for product managers seeking to launch new products. It offers critical insights into the identification of firm resources that influence the NPD project success. This study also has important implications for firms that consider diversifying or have already diversified into international markets. Understanding the role of market diversification in the NPD project success advances the ability of managers to direct their efforts in international market involvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".