Influence of the Time Perspective on New Product Development Success Indicators
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the underlying reasons for new product development success is central to effective new product management. However, difficulties related to estimating to what extent the objectives are being fulfilled and assessing the trade-offs between different project goals makes the new product development process challenging and risky. It is hence crucial for companies to be able to effectively measure their success. Much conceptual and empirical research has been carried out to identify the critical success indicators of the NPD processes. However, these success indicators might be dynamic as they change depending on where a product is in its lifecycle. The influence of this time perspective on success indicators of new product developments has not been explored very extensively. In this paper, we investigate the success criteria during different phases of the product lifecycle. The goal of this research is to determine the appropriate sets of metrics to be used for assessing success during each phase of a product lifecycle. A practical case study was carried out by investigating 28 companies from Canadian and Danish industries. The companies are various industrial sectors. The data collection was carried out through the use of a survey and interviews with relevant product development managers. The outcomes of this research showed that managers do perceive the success of new product development differently depending on the time perspective. A summary of specific metrics for measuring success during each product lifecycle phase is given.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 it