1. what is the main objective of the article? 2. Explain your understanding of new product drivers discussed in the article. 3. Based on your knowledge of NPD, do you think those factors are relevant

1. In search of the success What are the factors that underlie new-product success? And why are some new products so successful and some companies such out- standing performers in product development? The answer is complex, and certainly elusive for many –witness the high failure rates of new products and the poor innovation performance in industry: About 40% of new products are estimated to fail at launch, even after all the de- velopment and testing work; out of every 7 to 10 new-product concepts, only one is a commercial success; and only 13% of firms report that their total new product e fforts achieve their annual pro fit objectives ( Cooper, 2017b ;Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2004). Wide variances exist around these and other performance statistics, however, with the best performers doing dramatically better than the rest. This begs the question …why?

2. The scope and focus of this article The current article and review is based largely on data from the world of physical or manufactured new products (NPD). While new service development (NSD) and software development are obviously important sectors, the fact that in the U.S. manufacturers account for 70% of R&D spending, means that NPD (physical products) is very much a vital area ( NSF, National Science Foundation, 2014). Some of the success factors or drivers, and some of the best practices, outlined in the current article also have applicability to these other two sectors, namely to software and service developments; but not all do, nor are the relative impacts quite the same.

Note that results are obtained from studies of both B2B and B2C fi rms, and across many industries within each category. While the methods, approaches, and tools used for the conception, development, testing, and launch of B2B and B2C products di ffer, there is no hard and consistent evidence that the main success factors are signi ficantly dif- ferent by industry or sector. For example, it's important to have an innovation strategy, do solid voice-of-customer research, and put to- gether e ffective cross-functional teams, regardless of the industry one is in. In short, the factors that make new products successful are fairly universal across industries. The article identi fies success factors from numerous research studies into NPD (new-product development) performance in industry. The impetus for this current article was a look back at two articles on this topic written thirty years ago which appeared in this journal, and which have been widely cited over the years –it is time for an update ( Cooper, 1988 ;Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1987 ). Some of the most revealing in- vestigations on success drivers have been the large-sample quantitative studies of winning versus failed new products (for reviews, see Cooper, 2018, 2017a, 2013a ;Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994 ). This long series of product studies began with Project SAPPHO in the early 1970s, followed by the NewProd series of studies, and the Stanford Innovation Project, and subsequently, studies in countries outside of North America and Europe ( Mishra, Kim, & Lee, 1996 ;Song & Parry, 1996 ). Ad- ditionally, several large benchmarking studies of best practices within fi rms have provided other insights into how to succeed at product in- novation ( APQC, 2003; Cooper & Edgett, 2012).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.005 Received 18 January 2018; Received in revised form 2 July 2018; Accepted 11 July 2018 ⁎Corresponding author at: 48 Brant Street, Oakville, ON L6K 2Z4, Canada.

E-mail address: [email protected] . Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 0019-8501/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: Cooper, R.G., Industrial Marketing Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.005 Twenty success drivers have been singled out in this article. Each of these drivers has been cited in several notable studies, and/or are now found in handbooks on product-development management. For reading convenience, these 20 drivers are arbitrarily divided into three cate- gories (although some drivers cut across categories):

1. Success drivers of individual new product projects: These are tac- tical and capture the characteristics of the new-product project or the product itself (see Table 1).

2. Drivers of success for the business, including organizational and strategic factors such as: the business's innovation strategy and how it makes its R&D investment decisions; climate and culture; lea- dership; and how the firm organizes for NPD (see Table 2).

3. The systems and methods that the firm has in place for managing NPD (see Table 3).

3. Success drivers of individual new-product projects Why do so many new products fail and why do some succeed? And is there a pattern? Seven drivers of success at the development-project level have been identi fied by the research ( Table 1).

3.1. Unique superior products Delivering di fferentiated products with unique bene fits and a com- pelling value proposition for the customer and/or user distinguishes new product winners from losers more often than any other single factor. Such superior products have five times the success rate, over four times the market share, and four times the pro fitability of “me too, ”copycat, reactive and ho-hum products with few di fferentiated characteristics ( APQC, 2003;Cooper, 2013a, 2017b, 2018 ;McNally, Cavusgil, & Calantone, 2010 ).

What do superior products have in common? Winning products:

are superior to competing products in terms of meeting users' needs, o ff er unique features not available in competitive products, or solve a problem the customer has with competitive products; feature good value for money for the customer, reduce the custo- mer's total costs (high value-in-use), and boast excellent price/per- formance characteristics; provide excellent product quality relative to competitors' products (in terms of how the user measures quality); and o ff er product bene fits or attributes that are highly visible and easily perceived as useful by the customer.

The term “product superiority ”used here relates to innovativeness, but defi ned from an external perspective, that is, new to the market, new to the world (rather than from an internal perceptive, namely new to the firm), consistent with the defi nitions of“innovativeness ”by Garcia and Calantone (2002) . One further note is that innovativeness alone is not necessarily the key: A product might be “new and novel ”in the eyes of the customer –the first of its kind, never been seen before – yet deliver little of bene fit to that customer, hence is not superior in meeting needs. The satellite phone is a case in point –clearly novel, but few new bene fits to the majority of potential users, hence a dud when compared to cell (mobile) phones.

Note also that “product” is broadly defi ned here. It includes not only the evident or physical product, but also the “extended product ”–the entire bundle of bene fits associated with the product, including the system supporting the product, product service, and technical support, as well as the product's image or branding. Further, product mean- ingfulness concerns the bene fits that users receive from buying and using a new product, whereas product superiority captures the extent to which a new product outperforms competing products ( Rijsdijk, Langerak, & Jan, 2011 ).

3.2. Market-driven products and voice-of-the-customer (VoC) built in A thorough understanding of customers' needs and wants, the competitive situation, and the nature of the market, is an essential component of new product success ( Cooper, 2013a, 2017b, 2018). This tenet is supported by virtually every study of product success factors.

Conversely, failure to adopt a strong market orientation in product innovation, unwillingness to undertake the needed market assessments, and leaving the customer out of product development spell disaster.

These culprits are found in almost every study about why new products fail. Sadly, a strong market orientation is missing in the majority of fi rms' new product projects. Detailed market studies are frequently omitted from new product projects. In general, marketing activities are Table 1 Success drivers of individual new-product projects.

Source: Cooper (2013a, 2017b, 2018) .

1. USP: A unique superior product –adi fferentiated product that delivers unique bene fits and a compelling value proposition to the customer or user 2. VoC: Building in the voice-of-the-customer –market-driven and customer-focused NPD 3. Pre-work: Doing the homework and front-end loading –due diligence, done before Development gets underway 4. De finition: Sharp and early product de finition to avoid scope creep and unstable specs, leading to higher success rates and faster to market 5. Iterations: Iterative or spiral development –build, test, obtain feedback, and revise –and putting something in front of the customer early and often, to get the product right 6. Global orientation: The world product –a global or “glocal”product concept (global platform, locally tailored) targeted at international markets (as opposed to the product designed to meet home-country needs) 7. Launch: A well-conceived, properly executed launch –a solid, properly resourced marketing plan is at the heart of an e ffective launch Table 2 Drivers of success for businesses –organizational & strategic factors.

Source: Cooper (2013a, 2017b, 2018) .

1. Innovation strategy: A product innovation and technology strategy to focus the business on the best strategic arenas and provide direction for ideation, product roadmaps, and resource allocation 2. Focus: Doing fewer development projects (relative to resources available), better projects, and getting the right mix of projects by adopting systematic portfolio management 3. Leveraging core competencies: Step-out development projects, which take the business into new and unfamiliar markets and technologies, lead to higher failure rates 4. Targeting attractive markets: Certain elements of market attractiveness –market size, growth, and the competitive situation –useful as project selection criteria 5. Resources available: Innovation resources, both quantity (people, money), and quality (the right people) in place 6. Teams: E ffective cross-functional teams to reduce time-to-market 7. Climate: The right climate and culture –one that supports and fosters innovation activities –one of the strongest discriminators between successful innovating firms and the rest 8. Leadership: Top management supporting and leading the innovation e ffector at every opportunity R.G. Cooper Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 2 the most poorly executed activities of the entire new product process, rated far below corresponding technical (engineering, design, R&D) activities. Moreover, relatively few resources are spent on marketing actions (except for the launch), accounting for less than 20% of total project costs.A market focus should prevail throughout the entire new product project ( Griffin & Hauser, 1996) –see Fig. 1:

Idea generation: The best ideas come from customers. Market-or- iented idea generation activities, such as focus groups and VoC re- search (ethnography and site visits) to determine unmet needs or problems, lead to superior ideas ( Cooper & Dreher, 2010). Robust ideas also come from innovative users and web-based customer in- puts (open innovation).

Product design: Customer inputs have a vital role in the design of the product, determining the product's requirements and speci fications.

Often, market research, when done at all, is done too late –simply as an after-the-fact check after the product design has already been decided. But market research must be used as an input to the design decisions, starting with a user needs-and-wants study (VoC research).

Before pushing ahead with development: Best performers 1test the product concept with the customer by presenting a representation of the product –via models, mock-ups, “protocepts, ” 2computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, and even virtual prototypes –and gauging the customer's liking and purchase intent. It's much cheaper to test and learn before development begins than to develop the product and then begin customer testing. Throughout the entire project: Customer inputs shouldn't cease at the completion of the pre-development market studies. Seeking customer inputs and testing concepts or designs with the user is very much an iterative process. By bringing the customer into the process to view facets of the product via a series of rapid prototypes-and- tests, customer tests of working models, and field trials, the devel- oper veri fies all assumptions about the winning product design.

3.3. Pre-development work –the homework Homework is critical to winning. Studies reveal that the steps pre- ceding the actual development of the product make the di fference be- tween winning and losing –the “game is won or lost in the first five plays. ”(Cooper, 2013a, 2017b, 2018 ;Edgett, 2011). Successful firms spend about twice as much time and money as unsuccessful firms on these vital front-end activities:

preliminary market assessment –a quick market study to assess Table 3 The right systems, processes and methodologies.

1. Gating systems: A multistage, gated disciplined idea-to-launch system, such as Stage-Gate (as opposed to an ad hoc approach or no system at all), now used by most top- performing B2B firms in NPD 2. Accelerating development: Many good ways to accelerate development projects, but not at the expense of quality of execution.

3. Agile: Agile methods from the software development world built into traditional gating systems to yield agility, adaptive response to changing requirements, and faster to market 4. Generating breakthrough ideas: E ffective ideation to feed the innovation funnel 5. Execution: Quality of execution of certain key tasks in the innovation process, from idea through launch Fig. 1. A Strong Customer Focus Means Key Actions from Beginning to End in the Innovation Process.

Source: Cooper (2017b) .

1The terms“best performers ”and “top performers ”used throughout gen- erally capture the top 20% of firms in terms of their NPD results. A number of metrics are typically used to gauge results in the studies cited, including per- centage of sales from new products; return-on-investment of R&D eff orts; NP success rates (such as proportion of new products hitting their sales and pro fit targets); on time performance; and so on. 2“ Protocept ”: Something between a “concept representation ”and a working product prototype ready for field trials or beta tests. R.G. Cooper Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 3 market potential and desired product attributes; preliminary technical assessment–the first technical appraisal of the project, assessing technical feasibility and identifying technical risks; detailed market study, market research and VoC research (described above); detailed technical assessment –in-depth technical appraisal, estab- lishing proof of concept, intellectual property issues resolution, and an operations or source-of-supply assessment; and business and financial analysis just before the investment decision to go to full-scale development.

Another issue is the balance within the homework phase. Best performers strike an appropriate balance between market/business-or- iented tasks and technical tasks. Worst performers tend to push ahead on the technical side and pay lip-service to marketing and business is- sues during the early phases of the project. “More homework means longer development times ”is a frequently voiced complaint. However, research shows that homework pays for itself in improved success rates and actually reduces development times:

1. A much higher likelihood of product failure results if the homework is omitted.

2. Better project defi nition, the result of sound homework, speeds up the development process. Poorly defi ned projects with vague targets and moving goalposts incur time slippage as they enter the Development stage.

3. Given the inevitable product design evolution that occurs during the life of a project, ideally most of these design changes should be made early, when they are less costly to correct. Pre-development home- work anticipates these changes and encourages their occurrence earlier in the process.

As Toyota's new products handbook ( Morgan, 2005) recommends, “ Front-end load the project. ”That is, undertake a higher proportion of the project's work in the early stages and ensure that no signi ficant project moves into the Development stage without the key market-fa- cing and technical homework actions listed above.

3.4. Sharp, early, and fact-based product de finition Two of the worst time wasters are project scope creep and unstable product specs. Scope creep means that the de finition of the project constantly changes. The project might begin as a single-customer in- itiative, then be targeted at multiple users, and finally end up being a platform for a new family of products. Unstable product specs means that the product defi nition–product requirements and speci fications – keeps changing throughout the Development stage. Thus, the technical people chase elusive development targets –moving goalposts –and take forever to get to the goal ( Cooper, 2013a, 2017b).

Sharp, early, and fact-based product de finition during the home- work phase is a solution. How well the product are defi ned before the Development stage begins is a major success factor, impacting posi- tively on both pro fitability and reduced time to market. This de finition includes:

the project's scope; the target market; the product concept and the bene fits to be delivered to the user (including the value proposition); the positioning strategy (including the target price); and the product's features, attributes, requirements, and high-level spe- cifi cations ( Cooper, 2017b).

Unless this product de finition is in place and fact-based, the odds of failure increase:

1. Building in a defi nition step forces more attention on the front-end homework, a key success driver.

2. The defi nition serves as a communication tool: all functional areas have a clear defi nition of the product.

3. This defi nition provides clear objectives for the development (technical) team members, so they can move more quickly to their objective.

3.5. Iterative, spiral development –build, test, feedback, and revise Spiral or iterative development is the way fast-paced project teams handle the dynamic information process with fluid, changing in- formation. Spiral development helps the team get the product de finition and product right, in spite of the fact that some information is fluid and even unreliable when the team moves into the Development stage, particularly in rapidly changing markets. Many businesses use too rigid and linear a process for product de- velopment. The project team diligently visits customers in the pre-de- velopment stages and determines customer requirements as best they can. Front-end work is properly done, the product specs are de- termined, and the product defi nition isfixed. Then development begins.

The world moves too fast today, however, to make a stable and rigid product defi nition always possible. Often customers are not clear on what they wanted (or needed), so it's di fficult to get an accurate product defi nition prior to development. As Steve Jobs, never a proponent of traditional market research, famously said, “People don't know what they want until you show it to them ”(Isaacson, 2011, p. 567). And sometimes requirements simply change in the time that passes between the beginning and end of development, and thus the original product defi nition is no longer valid. The result is a cycle back to development to rethink the product's design.

Smart project teams and businesses have made the idea-to-launch system much more adaptive and make adjustments on the fly through spiral or iterative development ( Cooper, 2017b). Thesefirms build in a series of deliberate iterative steps whereby successive versions of the product are shown to the customer to seek feedback and veri fication, as shown via the spiral arrows in Fig. 2. Each iteration consists of: Build: Build something to show the customer –a representation of the product, such as computer-generated graphics, a simulation. a virtual-reality prototype, a protocept, a rapid prototype, a crude working model, an early beta version, a pretotype, or an MVP 3… each version closer to the final product. Test: Test each version of the product with the customer.

Feedback: Gather feedback on that version of the product from the customer or user –what they like (or don't like), and what value they see.

Revise: Reset your thinking about the value proposition, bene fits sought, and the product's design based on the feedback, and move to the next iteration ( Cooper, 2014).

This spiral approach promotes experimentation, encouraging pro- ject teams to fail often, fail fast, and fail cheaply. Not only do iterations or spirals reduce market uncertainties, they also can be used to reduce technical uncertainties by seeking technical solutions in an experi- mental, iterative fashion. Moreover, there is strong evidence that this spiral, iterative development is both feasible and works: 44.8% of best- performing businesses practice these “build-test-feedback-and-revise ” iterations with customers (but only 26.3% of firms on average do) 3MVP or minimum viable product: a feature-limited product that can actu- ally be sold and thus generate revenue; more common in start-up and high-tech businesses ( Ries, 2011). R.G. Cooper Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 4 (Cooper, 2012 ). And a study of leading B2B European manufacturers revealed that, on average, between 3 and 4.5 versions of the product were presented to validate the design with customers through the De- velopment and Testing stages, while product ideation-and-design con- tractors, such as IDEO, iterated on average 15 times with the customer per project ( Sandmeier, Morrison, & Gassmann, 2010 ).

3.6. The world product –a global orientation Corporate growth and pro fitability depend on a global business strategy married to product innovation. In global markets, product development plays a primary role in achieving a sustainable competi- tive advantage ( Kleinschmidt, de Brentani, & Salome, 2007 ). And multinational firms that take a global approach to new-product devel- opment outperform those that concentrate their R&D spending on their home market ( de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2004 ;de Brentani, Kleinschmidt, & Salomo, 2010 ; TheEconomist, 2008; Kleinschmidt et al., 2007). International products designed for and targeted at world and nearest neighbor export markets are the best-performing new products. By contrast, products designed for only the domestic market, and later adjusted and sold to nearest neighbor export markets, fare much worse. The magnitude of the di fferences between international new products and domestic products is striking: 2 or 3:1 on various performance gauges. The management implications of these and other studies is that globalization of markets demands a global innovation culture and a global innovation strategy (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015). To de- fi ne the new product's market as domestic and a few nearby convenient countries severely limits market opportunities. For maximum success in product innovation, the objective must be to design for the world and market to the world. Sadly, this international dimension is often over- looked or, if included, is handled late in the development process or as a side issue. This global orientation translates into defi ning the market as in- ternational and designing products to meet international requirements, not just domestic ones. The result is either a global product (one version for the entire world) or a “glocal product ”(one development e ffort, one basic product or platform, but several product variants of it to satisfy di fferent international regions). A global orientation also means un- dertaking VoC research, concept testing, and product testing in multiple countries rather than just the domestic market, and tailored launch plans in multiple countries. It also means employing a global project team with team members in multiple countries –only one new product project team in five is reported to be a global development team ( de Brentani et al., 2010; Kleinschmidt et al., 2007).

3.7. Planning and resourcing the launch “Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door, ”said Emerson. But Emerson was a poet, not a businessman; not only must the product be superior, but it also must be launched, mar- keted, and supported in a pro ficient manner. A quality launch is strongly linked to new product pro fitability, and e ffective after-sales service is central to the successful launch of the new product ( Di Benedetto, 1999; Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994; Song & Parry, 1996 ).

Good new products don't sell themselves, and the launch should not be treated as an afterthought to be handled late in the project. A well- integrated and properly targeted launch is the result of a finely tuned marketing plan, pro ficiently executed. The launch must be properly resourced in terms of both people and funds; too often, an otherwise great new product fails to achieve its sales goals simply because of an under-resourced launch. And those who will execute the launch –the sales force, technical support people, and other front-line personnel – should be engaged in the development of the market launch plan and therefore should be members of the project team. This ensures valuable input and insight into the design of the launch e ffort, availability of resources when needed, and buy-in by those who must execute the launch –elements critical to a successful launch ( Hultink & Atuahene- Gima, 2000).

4. Drivers of success for businesses: organizational and strategic factors Why are some businesses so much more successful at product in- novation than others? Huge di fferences in product development pro- ductivity exist between the best and worst firms (Arthur D. Little, 2005 ). The top 25% of firms have 12 times the productivity in NPD, realizing a huge $39 in new product sales per R&D dollar spent, while the bottom 25% of firms achieve only $3.3. We continue to explore the theme “drivers of success, ”but focus on the business –see Table 2. Fig. 2. Spiral Development —A Series of “Build-Test-Feedback-Revise ”Iterations with Customers/Users —Gets the Product Right with No Time Wasted.

Source: Cooper (2017b) .

R.G. Cooper Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 5 4.1. A product innovation and technology strategy for the businessA product innovation and technology strategy for this business charts the way for NPD, and having a new product strategy is strongly linked to positive performance ( APQC, 2003;Cooper, 2011 ;Song, Im, van der Bij, & Song, 2011 ). The ingredients of such a strategy with the strongest positive impact on performance include ( Cooper & Edgett, 2010 ):

Clearly de fined product innovation goals and objectives: for ex- ample, specifying what percentage of the business's sales or growth will come from new products.

The role of product innovation in achieving the overall businesses goals, to link the product innovation goals to the business's overall goals.

Strategic arenas defi ned–areas of strategic focus on which to concentrate new product e fforts. The goal is to select strategic arenas rich with opportunities for innovation –those that will generate the business's future engines of growth ( Cooper, 2011, 2017b ). The great majority of businesses do designate strategic arenas –markets, product areas, industry sectors, or technologies – but evidence suggests that many are focused on traditional and sterile areas that fail to yield the needed opportunities ( Cooper, 2005 ).

A product roadmap in place, which maps out a series of planned development initiatives over time, often five to seven years into the future. A roadmap is simply management's view of how to get to where they want to be or to achieve their desired objective ( Albright & Kappel, 2003 ;McMillan, 2003 ) and provides placemarks for speci fic future development projects.

4.2. Focus and sharp project selection decisions –portfolio management Most companies su ffer from too many projects, often the wrong projects, and not enough resources to mount an e ffective or timely ef- fort on each ( Cooper, 2011, 2013a ;Cooper & Edgett, 2002, 2006 ). This stems from a lack of adequate project evaluation and prioritization, with negative results:

First, scarce and valuable resources are wasted on poor projects.

Second, the truly deserving projects don't receive the resources they need, and so the good projects, starved for resources, move at a crawl, or just don't get done.

The desire to cull out bad projects, coupled with the need to focus limited resources on the best projects, means that tough Go or Kill and prioritization decisions must be made. This results in sharper focus, higher success rates, and shorter times to market. Project evaluations, however, are consistently cited as being poorly handled or non-existent:

Decisions involve the wrong people from the wrong functional areas; no consistent criteria exist to screen or rank projects; and there is no will to kill projects, so that projects are allowed to develop a “life of their own. ” Smart firms have built in “tough gates with teeth ”(Cooper, 2009 ).

The result is better focus: fewer but better development initiatives.

They have redesigned their idea-to-launch systems and created a fun- neling process that successively weeds out poor projects. The use of visible Go/Kill criteria at these gates improves decision e ffectiveness, such as list of screening criteria in a scorecard format, namely a scoring model ( Cooper & Edgett, 2006 ;Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2002a, 2002b ).

Selecting high-value new product projects is only part of the task, however. Other portfolio goals are selecting the right mix and balance of projects in the development portfolio, and ensuring strategic align- ment in the portfolio: that the business's spending on product innova- tion mirrors its strategic priorities. Many businesses have moved to more formal portfolio management systems to help allocate resources e ff ectively and to prioritize new product projects ( Cooper et al., 2002a, 2002b ). In order to ensure the right mix and balance of development projects, some leading firms have adopted “Strategic Buckets ”, ear- marking buckets of resources targeted at di fferent project types or di fferent strategic arenas ( Cooper, 2013b, 2017b).

4.3. Leveraging core competencies –synergy and familiarity “ Attack from a position of strength ”may be an old adage, but it applies to new product management. When synergy with the base business is lacking, new products fare poorly on average ( Cooper, 2013a, 2017b ;Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994; Song & Parry, 1996).

Synergy, or leverage, is a familiar term, but exactly how does it trans- late in the context of new products? Synergy means having a strong fit between the needs of the new product project and the resources, competencies, and experience of the firm in terms of: R&D or technology resources (ideally the new product should leverage the business's existing technology competencies); marketing, sales force and distribution (channel) resources; branding, image and marketing communications and promotional assets; manufacturing, operations or source-of-supply capabilities and re- sources; technical support and customer service resources; and management capabilities.

These six synergy or leverage ingredients become important checklist items in a scoring model to prioritize new product projects. If the “leverage score ”is low, then there must be other compelling reasons to proceed with the project. Leverage is not essential, but it does im- prove the odds of winning. “Familiarity ”is a parallel concept and has its basis in the popular Roberts's familiarity matrix ( Roberts & Berry, 1985). Some new product projects take the company into unfamiliar territory –a product category new to the firm; new customers with unfamiliar needs; unfamiliar technology; new sales force, channels and servicing requirements; or an unfamiliar manufacturing process. And the business often pays the price: Step-out projects are riskier and have higher failure rates due to lack of experience, knowledge, skills, and resources. The negative impact here is not as strong as for most success drivers, however. New and unfamiliar territory certainly results in lower success rates and pro fitability on average, but the success rates are not dra- matically lower. The message is this: Sometimes it is necessary to venture into new and unfamiliar markets, technologies, or manu- facturing processes and areas where leverage may be limited (e.g., some key skills or resources are missing). Success rates will su ffer, but the pay-o ffs may be worth the cost.

Further, for such step-out projects, strategies such as collaborative development and open innovation may help the developer acquire the necessary and missing resources, skills, and knowledge ( Chesbrough, 2006 ;Docherty, 2006). Indeed resources from partner firms –from customers, other developer- firms, and even suppliers –may also have a positive impact on other success factors, such as e ffective cross-func- tional teams (team members available from the partner), voice-of-cus- tomer work, and e ffective launches.

Early and extensive supplier involvement in NPD projects has the potential to improve development e ffectiveness and e fficiency ( Johnsen, 2009). Often the developing firm's suppliers can provide necessary but missing resources, skills and capacities. For example, the supplier may possess technology essential for the development of the new product and share it with their customer; and a suppliers pro- duction capabilities may also be used to advantage to supply key components or ingredients. These resources from suppliers must be considered among the total set of “resource collections ”available to the R.G. Cooper Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 6 project (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002). Suppliers may even be willing to share new products ideas with customers ( Wagner, 2012).

Partnering does pose risks, however: Open innovation arrangements and collaborative developments are not always a “win win ”situation for both parties. Con flicts and misalignments can occur due to mis- understandings, cultural di fferences, and even a lack of trust.

Additionally, there is no strong evidence to suggest that partnering or collaborative NPD projects are more successful than those done alone (although some evidence exists that the project may not have been done at all were it not for the partnership). ( Campbell & Cooper, 1999; Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002).

4.4. Targeting attractive markets Market attractiveness is an important strategic variable and plays a role in notable strategy models such as Porter's “fi ve forces ”model and the two-dimensional GE-McKinsey map or business portfolio grid.

Market attractiveness is also important for new products: New products targeted at more attractive markets are more successful ( Cooper, 2013a, 2017b ;Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994; Song & Parry, 1996). Thus, market attractiveness should be considered in project selection and scoring models. There are two dimensions to market attractiveness:

Market potential: Positive market environments, namely, large and growing markets with large long-term potential and where the purchase is important to the customer.

Competitive situation: Negative markets characterized by intense price competition and low margins and competitors with strong products, capable competitive sales forces, channel systems, and support service.

Both elements of market attractiveness –market potential and competitive situation –impact new product fortunes and both should be considered as criteria for project selection and prioritization.

4.5. The resources in place Too many projects su ffer from a lack of time and financial com- mitment. The predictable result is much higher failure rates ( APQC, 2003 ;Cooper, 2017b). As the quest for pro fits has intensi fied, compa- nies often have responded by restructuring and cost-cutting –doing more with less –and so resources are limited. Also, many firms try to do too many projects for the resources available: an inability to say “no ”to mediocre development projects or to kill bad ones. The resulting re- source crunch takes its toll and is the root cause for much of what ails product development: a lack of VoC; inadequate front-end homework; ine ffective launches; and overemphasis on simple, fast, and cheap projects ( Cooper & Edgett, 2003).

Best-practice companies commit the necessary resources to new products, much more so than most firms. While new product resources are limited across the board –with less than 30% of businesses in- dicating that they have su fficient NPD resources in four key functional areas –the best performers appear to be much better resourced ( APQC, 2003 ;Cooper & Edgett, 2003 ). Equally important, these resources are focused and dedicated, with project team members not multi-tasking (not working on too many projects or tasks). Indeed, about half of the best performers have a dedicated product innovation group whose full- time job is to work on new product projects.

4.6. E ffective cross-functional teams Product innovation is very much a team e ffort. Do a post-mortem on any bungled new product project and invariably you'll find each func- tional area doing its own piece of the project with very little commu- nication between functional areas (a fiefdom mentality) and no real commitment of team members to the project. Many studies concur that the way the project team is organized and functions strongly infl uences project outcomes ( Cooper, 2011, 2013a, 2017b ;Nakata & Im, 2010; Valle & Avella, 2003 ). Best performers organize their new product project teams as follows: Every signi ficant new product project has a clearly assigned project team: people who are part of the project and do work for it. And the project team is cross-functional with team members from R&D, Sales, Marketing, and Operations, a practice now embraced by the majority of businesses. Team members are not just representatives of their functions, but rather true members of the project team, shedding their functional loyalties and working together to a common goal.

The project team remains on the project from beginning to end, not just for a short period or a single phase. Almost half of businesses use this “end-to-end ”team approach and it is particularly evident among the best performers.

There is a clearly identi fied project leader –a team member who is in charge and responsible for driving the project, much like the captain of a football team. The project leader is responsible for the project from idea to launch, carrying the project right through the process and not just for one or a few stages.

A central shared-information system for project team members is in place: an IT system that permits sharing of project information and allows project team members to work e ffectively together, across functions, locations, and even countries.

Project teams are accountable for their project's end result –for example, for ensuring that projects meet pro fit, revenue targets, and time targets. Team accountability is a key best practice, separating the best from the worst performers.

Product development must be run as a multidisciplinary, cross- functional e ffort. While the ingredients of good organizational design should be familiar, surprisingly many businesses have yet to get the message.

4.7. The right environment –climate and culture A positive climate for innovation is one of the top three success factors that distinguishes top-performing businesses in new product development, with a huge impact on performance results. Such a cli- mate has been found to have many attributes, including ( APQC, 2003; Cooper, 2011, 2013a ;Edgett, 2011):

senior management strongly and passionately supporting innovation in the business; “intrepreneurs ”(internal entrepreneurs) and risk-taking behavior encouraged; senior management not afraid to invest in the occasional risky project; new product successes rewarded or recognized (and failures not punished); team e fforts recognized rather than individuals; senior managers refraining from micro-managing projects and second-guessing the project team; open project review meetings with senior people (the entire project team participates); idea generators recognized or rewarded; time allowed for creative people to work on projects of their own free choice (projects on-the-side); and employing skunk works and allowing some uno fficial projects (projects done “outside the system” ).

Most businesses are quite weak on almost all of these elements of a positive climate, with typically less than one-third of businesses R.G. Cooper Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 7 employing any one of these practices. Best performers embrace these practices much more so.

4.8. Top management supportTop management's main role is to set the stage for product in- novation, to be a behind-the-scenes facilitator and much less an actor front and center ( APQC, 2003;Cooper, 2011, 2013a ;Edgett, 2011). In best-performing businesses, senior management makes a long-term commitment to product innovation as a source of growth. It develops a vision, objectives, and a strategy for product innovation. It makes available the necessary resources for product development and ensures that they aren't diverted to more immediate needs in times of shortage.

And senior management commits to a disciplined idea-to-launch system to drive products to market. Most important, senior management is engaged in the new product process, reviewing projects, making timely and firm Go/Kill decisions, and if Go, making resource commitments to project teams. And management empowers project teams and supports committed champions by acting as mentors, facilitators, “godfathers, ” or sponsors of project leaders and teams.

5. The right systems and processes The tactics, systems, methods, and procedures that businesses put in place, and how well they are executed, often hold the key to new- product success. For example, today there is much excitement in the business community about new Agile development methodologies from the software world being built into the development of B2B manu- factured products, as well as “open innovation ”, success drivers both listed in Table 3.

5.1. A multistage, disciplined idea-to-launch system A systematic idea-to-launch methodology, such as a Stage-Gate ® system, 4is the solution many companies have adopted in order to overcome the defi ciencies that plague new product e fforts ( Cooper, 2013a, 2017b, 2018; Edgett, 2011;Gri ffin, 1997; Lynn, Skov, & Abel, 1999 ;Menke, 1997 ). Stage-Gate systems are simply roadmaps or “ playbooks ”for successfully and e fficiently driving new products from idea to launch. An APQC benchmarking study revealed that 88% of US businesses employ such a process, and identi fied the stage-and-gate process as one of the strongest best practices, employed by almost every best-performing business ( Cooper & Edgett, 2012). The payoffs of such processes have been frequently reported: improved teamwork; less re- cycling and rework; improved success rates; earlier detection of fail- ures; a better launch; and even shorter cycle times. The goal of a robust idea-to-launch system is to integrate the best practices outlined above into a single model. A typical gating system for major projects, as shown in Fig. 1, breaks the innovation process into fi ve or six stages ( Cooper, 2013a, 2017b ). Preceding each stage in Fig. 1 is a gate. These gates are the quality control checkpoints in the system:

At each gate, the project team meets with senior management, the gatekeepers, to seek approval and resources for their project for the next stage. The gates thus open the door for the project to proceed and commit the necessary resources –people and funds –to the project team. Gating systems have evolved over the years and now include new practices such as ( Cooper, 2008, 2014, 2017b ): A scalable process–for example, Lite and XPress versions of Stage- Gate for lower-risk and smaller projects (see Fig. 3), and even dif- ferent versions of Stage-Gate to handle di fferent types of development projects, such as Stage-Gate-TD for technology plat- form developments ( Ajamian & Koen, 2002 ;Cooper, 2003). A leaner idea-to-launch system –removing all waste and building in continuous improvement –by utilizing value stream analysis bor- rowed from the field of “lean manufacturing ”.

Adapting the system to accommodate open innovation ( Grölund, Rönneberg, & Frishammar, 2010).

Integration with the total Product Life Cycle management –from idea all the way through product exit many years later.

An adaptive and iterative process –for example, by using iterative or spiral development (above).

An automated idea-to-launch system, via software solutions that handle everything including idea management, navigating the de- velopment process, portfolio management, and resource manage- ment.

5.2. Speed –but not at the expense of quality of execution Speed o ffers the competitive advantage of being first on the market, namely “fi rst mover advantage ”. Speed means less likelihood that the market situation has changed. And speed results in a quicker realization of pro fits. Therefore, the goal of reducing the development cycle time is admirable. Note, however, that speed is only an interim objective, the ultimate goal being pro fitability. While studies reveal that speed and pro fit- ability are connected, the relationship is anything but one to one ( Gri ffin, 2002 ). Further, there is a dark side to the emphasis on speed ( Crawford, 1992 ). Often the methods used to reduce development time yield precisely the opposite e ffect and in many cases are very costly:

They are at odds with sound management practices. The objective re- mains successful products, not a series of fast failures. Additionally, overemphasis on speed has led to trivialization of product development in some firms –too many product modi fications and line extensions that can be done quickly, but result in a shortage of truly innovative pro- ducts ( Cooper, 2005 ).

Sound principles that project teams embrace in order to reduce time-to-market, some highlighted above, include the following ( Cooper, 2014 ):

Doing the front-end homework and developing early and fact-based product defi nition saves time downstream.

Building in quality-of-execution at every stage of the project: The best way to save time is by avoiding having to cycle back and do it a second time.

Employing e ffective cross-functional teams: “Rip apart a badly de- veloped project and you will unfailingly find 75 percent of slippage attributable to “siloing ”(sending memos up and down vertical or- ganizational “silos ”or “stovepipes ”for decisions) and sequential problem solving ”(Peters, 1988 ).

Using parallel processing (undertaking tasks concurrently, such as concurrent engineering), and even overlapping stages –moving long lead-time forward, and moving ahead with partial information. The relay race, sequential, or series approach to product development is antiquated and inappropriate for today's fast-paced projects.

Using spiral or iterative development: These build-test-feedback- revise iterations get the product right earlier and make needed ad- justments long before formal product testing begin.

Prioritizing and focusing in order to undertake fewer projects with higher value. By concentrating resources on the truly deserving projects, not only will the work be done better, it will be done faster.

Utilizing an Agile approach, which yields both time-to-market re- duction and increased NPD productivity ( Cooper & Sommer, 2016a, 2016b) –next section. 4Stage-Gate ®is a registered trademark of the author, of R.G. Cooper & Associates Inc., and of Stage-Gate International Inc. in various countries. R.G. Cooper Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 8 5.3. Building agile into traditional B2B gating systemsAgile software development is a group of software development methodologies based on iterative and incremental development, where requirements and software solutions evolve through collaboration be- tween self-organizing, cross-functional teams. Agile promotes adaptive planning, evolutionary development and delivery; utilizes a time-boxed iterative approach; and encourages rapid and flexible response to change. The Agile Manifesto introduced the term in 2001 ( Beck et al., 2001 ).

In the Scrum version of Agile, a software development project consists of a number of iterations called sprints, which are time-boxed and very short, typically 2– 4 weeks. Each sprint produces a working product (executable software code that works) that can be demon- strated to stakeholders. An iteration may not add enough functionality to warrant a market release, but the goal is to have a potentially available release at the end of each sprint; multiple sprints are usually required to release a product or new features. Larger software developers with existing development systems began integrating Agile into their traditional gated development pro- cesses with considerable success ( Karlström & Runeson, 2005, 2006 ):

The two systems dovetailed nicely. More recently, manufacturers of physical products (hardware), especially B2B firms, have successfully built elements of this Agile methodology into their traditional gating models ( Ovesen & Sommer, 2015; Sommer, Hedegaard, Dukovska- Popovska, & Steger-Jensen, 2015 ). Agile is most often initially em- ployed in two stages, namely, Development and Testing in Fig. 4, via a series of 2– 4 week sprints; with experience, manufacturing firms also apply Agile to the entire idea-to-launch process to create a true Agile- Stage-Gate hybrid model ( Cooper, 2016;Cooper & Sommer, 2016a, 2016b ). Sprints begin with a sprint planning meeting; daily scrums (project team meetings) are held during the sprint, facilitated by a scrum master; and each sprint ends with a product demo (to manage- ment and customers) and a sprint retrospect.

A few adjustments must be made when applying Agile to B2B physical products. When contrasted to software development, hardware development is usually not as divisible (it is usually not possible to have anything that actually functions within a few weeks, as in the software world). Thus, a sprint does not build a working product, but a product version somewhere between a “virtual product ”through to a “ready-to- trial prototype ”–something to show the customer to seek feedback, much as was described in spiral development above ( Cooper, 2014). At the end of every 2 –4 week sprint, however, the team must deliver something tangible that can be demo'd (see the IMM article by Cooper & Sommer, 2016b ).

The advantages of Agile-Stage-Gate are speed (sprints are time- boxed with no relaxation of the timeline); dedicated teams (team members are usually 100% dedicated to the one project); much better communication within the team (via daily scrums and a dedicated team residing in one location); and constant customer feedback with strategic pivots (revisions), if needed ( Sommer et al., 2015). Early adopters of this new hybrid Agile-Stage-Gate system report positive results, but implementation challenges do exist, to which many firms have found solutions ( Cooper & Sommer, 2016b, 2018).

5.4. E ffective ideation Great ideas are the foundation for great new products. Thus, in- creasingly more attention is being devoted to the “fuzzy front-end”of the innovation process. Idea generation and idea handling are key components. Studies indicate that although internal methods of idea- tion (e.g., using one's own employees) are the most popular, they are not the most e ffective, on average ( Cooper & Edgett, 2008). Voice-of- customer methods generally are rated the most e ffective for generating breakthrough ideas and many firms build VoC into the earliest stages of their idea-to-launch systems to generate great ideas ( Cooper & Dreher, 2010 ):

Customer visit teams –typically a cross-functional team of 2– 3 people undertaking a systematic visitation program with key pur- chase in fluencers in a limited number of representative customers.

Lead user analysis –identifying leading or innovative users (ahead Fig. 3. Stage-Gate Is Context Based and Scalable —One Size Does Not Fit All.

Source: Cooper (2017b) .

R.G. Cooper Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 9 of the wave) and working with them (typically in workshop format) to develop new product concepts (Lilien, Morrison, Searls, Sonnack, & von Hippel, 2002; von Hippel, Ogawa, & de Jong, 2011).

Ethnography–camping out with customers to observe behaviors (cultural anthropology), and in so doing, understanding their un- spoken, unmet and often unknown needs.

Focus groups –with groups of customers (often consumers) to identify problems, desires, needs, and wants.

Design thinking, whereby users' needs are understood through VoC (for example, ethnography) and a series of product versions are immediately tested with users ( Brown, 2008).

Many commercially important products are initially thought of and even prototyped by users rather than by suppliers ( Lilien et al., 2002; von Hippel, Thomke, & Sonnack, 1999 ). Such products tend to be de- veloped by “lead users ”–innovative companies, organizations, or in- dividuals that are well ahead of market trends and even have needs that go far beyond the average user. The challenge is to track down lead users, who are by defi nition rare–those who are ahead of the wave.

Customer focused innovation has received much attention in recent years, and has been made possible in part because of IT and Internet tools. Here, customers or users are invited to help the product developer design the next new product, and in so doing, provide many ideas for signi ficant product improvements ( von Hippel et al., 2011). Indeed consumers were found to be 2.4 times more e fficient at developing signi ficant innovations than producers, and much more prolifi c and e ffi cient product developers when the field is in its early stages ( Hienerth, von Hippel, & Jensen, 2012).

Strategic methods also are positively rated and include exploiting disruptive technologies ( Christensen, 2000) and peripheral visioning ( Day & Schoemaker, 2005 ).“Open innovation ”–looking outside one's company –is another valuable source of new product ideas ( Chesbrough, 2006; Docherty, 2006). Through open innovation, the developer obtains knowledge and resources from sources external to the company: ideas for new products; IP and outsourced development work; marketing and launch resources; and even licensed products ready to sell. But most firms are not well positioned to solicit or handle outside ideas and IP. Engaging suppliers in the fuzzy front end of the development project provides ideas to the developer, as well as tech- nical insights: A strong positive relationship exists between supplier integration in the fuzzy front end and NPD project performance ( Wagner, 2012 ). Thus, it is important to adapt the firm's processes and systems for open innovation in order to encourage the inclusion of ideas, IP, R&D work, and even fully developed products from outside the firm ( Docherty, 2006; Grölund et al., 2010).

5.5. Quality of execution “Do it right the first time ”is an old adage, referring to the fact that poor quality-of-execution usually results in much waste by having to go back to fix things. Sadly, quality-of-execution is notably lacking in many new product projects. Beginning decades ago, the causes of new product failure were identi fied, and revealed serious de ficiencies in the way new product projects were executed: a lack of market research, poorly implemented launches, weak business cases, and so on. One early study of new product failures showed that market research was poorly done in 73% of projects, product launches were weak in 54%, and product testing defi cient in 49% of the product failures studied.

The front-end of the innovation process tends to be where most of the weaknesses occur ( APQC, 2003;Cooper, 2017b ). For example, only 18% of firms consistently execute the VoC (market research) well; 27% carry out the concept tests well; and only 26% undertake the business analysis well. What really stands out in the research is how much better the top performing businesses execute on every task in a typical new product project –better by as much as 4:1.

The management implications are clear. First, quality-of-execution really does make a di fference in new-product performance. Second, it is notably lacking in too many firms, too many projects, and across too many key tasks. Third, the weakest areas are the front-end (pre-devel- opment) and the business and marketing related tasks (technical tasks are much stronger). Quality can be built into any process, whether it is a manufacturing process or an innovation process, and top firms pro- mote quality of execution in new-product projects: a project team with capable and trained people; dedicated team members with time avail- able to do a quality job; management mentoring and support; a clear innovation process with useful guidelines for the project team; and quality checks or “gates ”during the project that ask “are we doing this project right? ” Fig. 4.A Typical Five-Stage, Five-Gate System, with Agile Built into Each of the Stages —an Agile-Stage-Gate Hybrid Model.

Source: Cooper (2017b) .

R.G. Cooper Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 10 6. Looking aheadPhilosopher and statesman Edmund Burke once said, “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it. ”Thirty years of research focusing on past successes and failures has led to many more insights about new-product best practices and success drivers than we had when my early articles on the topic first appeared in IMM.

Today, however, product developers face many new challenges: The world is faster, more global, less predictable, and more ambiguous than it was when those early articles were written. And there have been many new practices introduced to NPD since then in order to deal with these challenges: practices such as Agile development (for physical products), design thinking for ideation, open innovation, lean product development, lean startup, and others, whose impacts have not yet been thoroughly investigated. And so research into new-product success drivers and novel NPD practices must continue, simply because product innovation is so important to business prosperity, and yet the keys to success still remain quite elusive.

References Ajamian, G., & Koen, P. A. (2002). Technology Stage-Gate: A structured process for managing high risk, new technology projects. In P. Belliveau, A. Gri ffen, A.

Somermeyer, & S. Somermeyer (Eds.). PDMA toolbook for new product development (pp. 267 –295). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons .

Albright, R. E., & Kappel, T. A. (2003). Roadmapping in the corporation. Research- Technology Management, 46 (2), 31–40 .

APQC (American Productivity and Quality Center) (2003). Improving new product devel- opment performance and practice. Houston, TX: APQC.

Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., ... Thomas, D. (2001). Principles behind the Agile Manifesto. Manifesto for Agile Software Development . (available at http://www.agilemanifesto.org/principles.html accessed Jan 2018) .

de Brentani, U., Kleinschmidt, E., & Salomo, S. (2010). Success in global new product development: Impact of strategy and the behavioral environment of the firm. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (2), 143–160 .

de Brentani, U., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2015). The impact of company resources and capabilities on global new product program performance. Project Management Journal, (Feb–March), 1 –18 .

de Brentani, U., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Corporate culture and commitment: Impact on performance of international new product development programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21 , 309–333 .

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review,(June), 85–92 .

Campbell, A. J., & Cooper, R. G. (1999). Do customer partnerships improve success rates?

Industrial Marketing Management, 28 (5), 507–519 .

Chesbrough, H. (2006). ‘Open innovation ’myths, realities, and opportunities. Visions.

XXX(2) .Visions (pp. 18–19) .

Christensen, C. M. (2000). The innovator's dilemma.New York, NY: Harper Collins .

Cooper, R. G. (1988). Pre-development activities determine new product success.

Industrial Marketing Management, 17 (3), 237–247 .

Cooper, R. G. (2003). Managing technology development projects –Di fferent than tra- ditional development projects. Research-Technology Management, 49 (6), 23–31 Nov –Dec .

Cooper, R. G. (2005). Your NPD portfolio may be harmful to your business's health.

Visions, XXIX (2), 22–26 .

Cooper, R. G. (2008). The Stage-Gate idea-to-launch process –Update, what's new and next-gen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25 (3), 213–232 .

Cooper, R. G. (2009). E ffective gating: Make product innovation more productive by using gates with teeth. Marketing Management Magazine, (March–April), 12 –17 .

Cooper, R. G. (2011). Perspective: The innovation dilemma –How to innovate when the market is mature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (7), 2–27 .

Cooper, R. G. (2012). The Stage-Gate ®system for product innovation in B2B firms. In G. L.

Lilien, & R. Grewat (Eds.). Handbook of business-to-business marketing Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Chapter 32 .

Cooper, R. G. (2013a). New products –What separates the winners from the losers and what drives success. In K. B. Kahn (Ed.). PDMA handbook of new product development (3rd ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons (Chapter 1) .

Cooper, R. G. (2013b). Where are all the breakthrough new products? Using portfolio management to boost innovation. Research-Technology Management, 156 (5), 25–32 Sept –Oct .

Cooper, R. G. (2014). What's next? after Stage-Gate. Research-Technology Management, 157 (1), 20 –31 .

Cooper, R. G. (2016). Agile-Stage-Gate hybrids: The next stage for product development.

Research-Technology Management, 59 (1), 1–9 .

Cooper, R. G. (2017a). We've come a long way baby. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (3), 387–391 Special Virtual Issue .

Cooper, R. G. (2017b). Winning at new products: Creating value through innovation (5th ed).

New York, NY: Basic Books .

Cooper, R. G. (2018). Best practices and success drivers in new-product development. In P. N. Golder, & D. Mitra (Eds.).

Handbook of research on new product development .

Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar .

Cooper, R. G., & Dreher, A. (2010). Voice of customer methods: What is the best source of new product ideas? Marketing Management Magazine,(Winter), 38–43. Extended online version http://www.bobcooper.ca .

Cooper, R. G., & Edgett, S. J. (2002). The dark side of time and time metrics in product innovation. Visions, XXVI (22), 14–16 .

Cooper, R. G., & Edgett, S. J. (2003). Overcoming the crunch in resources for new product development. Research-Technology Management, 46 (3), 48–58 .

Cooper, R. G., & Edgett, S. J. (2006). Ten ways to make better portfolio and project selection decisions. Visions, XXX(3), 11–15 .

Cooper, R. G., & Edgett, S. J. (2008). Ideation for product innovation: What are the best sources? Visions, XXXII (1), 12–17 .

Cooper, R. G., & Edgett, S. J. (2010). Developing a product innovation and technology strategy for your business. Research-Technology Management, 53 (3), 33–40 .

Cooper, R. G., & Edgett, S. J. (2012). Best practices in the idea-to-launch process and its governance. Research-Technology Management, 55 (2), 43–54 .

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2002a). Portfolio management:

Fundamental to new product success. In P. Beliveau, A. Gri ffin, & S. Somermeyer (Eds.). The PDMA toolbox for new product development (pp. 331–364). New York, NY:

Wiley .

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2002b). Portfolio management for new products (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Perseus Books .

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Benchmarking best NPD prac- tices-1: Culture, climate, teams and senior management's role. Research-Technology Management, 47 (1), 31–43 .

Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987). Success factors in product innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 16 (3), 215–223 .

Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016a). The Agile –Stage-Gate hybrid model: A promising new approach and a new research opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33 (5), 513–526 .

Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016b). Agile-Stage-Gate: New idea-to-launch method for manufactured new products is faster, more responsive. Industrial Marketing Management, 59 (Nov), 167–180 .

Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2018). Agile-Stage-Gate for manufacturers –Changing the way new products are developed. Research-Technology Management, 61(2), 17–26 .

Crawford, C. M. (1992). The hidden costs of accelerated product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9 (3), 188–199 .

Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2005). Scanning the periphery. Harvard Business Review, 83 (11), 135–148 .

Di Benedetto, C. A. (1999). Identifying the key success factors in new product launch. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16 (6), 530–544 .

Docherty, M. (2006). Primer on “open innovation”: Principles and practice. Visions, XXX (2), 13 –17 .

The Economist (2008). Innovation in America: A global storm? (Canadian ed).389c (8607), 73 –74 .

Edgett, S. J. (2011). New product development: Process benchmarks and performance metrics.

Houston, TX: American Productivity and Quality Center .

Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19 (2), 110–132 .

Gri ffin, A. (1997). Drivers of NPD success: The 1997 PDMA report. Chicago, IL: Product Development and Management Association .

Gri ffin, A. (2002). Product development cycle time for business-to-business products.

Industrial Marketing Management, 31 (4), 291–304 .

Gri ffin, A., & Hauser, J. (1996). Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13 , 191–215 .

Grölund, J., Rönneberg, D., & Frishammar, J. (2010). Open innovation and the Stage-Gate process: A revised model for new product development. California Management Review, 5 (3), 106–131 .

Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2002). Path dependence: Restricting or facilitating technical development? Journal of Business Research, 55 (7), 561–570 .

Hienerth, C., von Hippel, E. A., & Jensen, M. B. (2012). Effi ciency of consumer (household sector) vs. producer innovation. SSRN eLibraryhttps://evhippel.mit.edu (accessed May 2018).

von Hippel, A. E., Thomke, S., & Sonnack, M. (1999). Creating breakthroughs at 3M. Harvard Business Review, (Sept-Oct), 47–57 .

von Hippel, E., Ogawa, S., & de Jong, P. J. (2011). The age of the consumer-innovator. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53 (1), 27–35. See also: http://evhippel.mit.edu/ papers (accessed Jan 2018) .

Hultink, E. J., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2000). The e ffect of sales force adoption on new product selling performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17 (6), 435 –450 .

Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve jobs: The exclusive biography. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Johnsen, T. E. (2009). Supplier involvement in new product development and innovation: Taking stock and looking to the future. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 15 (3), 187 –197 .

Karlström, D., & Runeson, P. (2005). Combining Agile methods with Stage-Gate project management. IEEE Software, (May–June), 43 –49 .

Karlström, D., & Runeson, P. (2006). Integrating Agile software development into Stage- Gate managed product development. Empirical Software Engineering, 11, 203–225 .

Kleinschmidt, E. J., de Brentani, U., & Salome, S. (2007). Performance of global new product development programs: A resource-based view. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24 , 419–441 .

Lilien, G. L., Morrison, P. D., Searls, K., Sonnack, M., & von Hippel, E. (2002). Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product R.G. Cooper Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 11 development.Management Science, 48 (8), 1042–1059 .

Little, A. D. (2005). How companies use innovation to improve pro fitability and growth.

Innovation excellence study. Boston, MA: A.D. Little Inc.

Lynn, G. S., Skov, R. B., & Abel, K. D. (1999). Practices that support team learning and their impact on speed to market and new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16 (5), 439–454 .

McMillan, A. (2003). Roadmapping –Agent of change. Research-Technology Management, 46 (2), 40 –47 .

McNally, R. C., Cavusgil, E., & Calantone, R. J. (2010). Product innovativeness dimen- sions and their relationships with product advantage, product financial performance, and project protocol. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (1), 991–1006 .

Menke, M. M. (1997). Essentials of R&D strategic excellence. Research-Technology Management, 40 (5), 42–47 .

Mishra, S., Kim, D., & Lee, D. H. (1996). Factors a ffecting new product success: Cross- country comparisons. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13 (6), 530–550 .

Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Calantone, R. (1994). Determinants of new product perfor- mance: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11 (5), 397 –417 .

Morgan, J. (2005). Applying lean principles to product development. SAE International Society of Mechanical Engineers (available at http://www.sae.org; accessed Jan 2018).

Nakata, C., & Im, S. (2010). Spurring cross-functional integration for higher new product performance: A group e ffectiveness perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (4), 554–571 .

NSF, National Science Foundation (2014). Business R&D and Innovation Survey.

2017 Washington, DC: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and US Census Bureau. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18302 (accessed May 2018).

Ovesen, N., & Sommer, A. F. (2015). Scrum in the traditional development organization: Adapting to the legacy.

Modeling and Management of Engineering Processes, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference 2013, Berlin and Heidelberg (pp. 87–99). Germany:

Springer-Verlag .

Peters, T. J. (1988). Thriving on chaos.New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York: Crown Publ.

Rijsdijk, S. A., Langerak, F., & Jan, E. (2011). Understanding a two-sided coin: Antecedents and consequences of a decomposed product advantage. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (1), 33–47 .

Roberts, E. B., & Berry, C. A. (1985). Entering new businesses: Selecting strategies for success. Sloan Management Review, 26 (Spring), 3–17 .

Sandmeier, P., Morrison, P. D., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Integrating customers in product innovation: Lessons from industrial development contractors and in-house con- tractors in rapidly changing customer markets. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19 (2), 89 –106 .

Sommer, A. F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I., & Steger-Jensen, K. (2015).

Improved product development performance through Agile/Stage-Gate hybrids –The next-generation Stage-Gate process? Research-Technology Management, 58(1), 1–10 .

Song, X. M., Im, S., van der Bij, H., & Song, L. Z. (2011). Does strategic planning enhance or impede innovation and firm performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (4), 503–520 .

Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. (1996). What separates Japanese new product winners from losers. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13 (5), 422–439 .

Valle, S., & Avella, L. (2003). Cross-functionality and leadership of NPD teams. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6 (1), 32–47 .

Wagner, S. M. (2012). Tapping supplier innovation. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48 (2), 37 –52 .

R.G. Cooper Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 12