Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1986;3:71-85
0000
process and the impact that their activities have on pro- and a "killed" project. 1 The interviews lasted 3 to 4
jects' outcomes. If what happens during the new prod- hours each and were based on a detailed, pretested
uct process itself--the action details--is key to suc- questionnaire.
cess, then a clear need exists to examine more closely One facet of the interview focused on the new prod-
those actions or activities that make up the new product uct process. Here, managers were asked to relate the
process. story of each project--a "blow-by-blow" description
of what happened from idea to launch. Next, re-
spondents were queried about each of the 13 activities
that were thought to comprise the new product process.
The Research Respondents were aided in their recall: A brief descrip-
tion of each activity was provided, and respondents
indicated whether such an activity was undertaken as
part of the project. The 13 particular activities consid-
The investigation described in this article addresses ered were based on both normative and empirically
some of these questions; following are specific research based descriptions of the new product process and are
questions: listed in Exhibit 1 [1,3,10,12,15,17].
Each activity was probed in greater detail, using
both open-ended (verbal, descriptive) and closed-end-
What happens as a new product project moves
ed (e.g., rating scales) questions. Only data from pro-
from idea to launch'? What occurs within each
jects that were eventually launched into the market are
stage of the process--what do people do'?
considered in this article: a total of 203 projects, includ-
ing 123 commercial successes and 80 commercial
How well are the tasks or activities undertaken'?
failures.
And what improvements are needed'?
Exhibit 1. N e w Product Process Activities (done in only 22.5% of the cases) and a detailed
market study or marketing research (done in only
Activity a Description
25.4% of the projects).
1. Initial screening The initial go/no go decision
where it was first decided to Other weak activities--undertaken in less than
allocate funds to the proposed half of the projects studied--were precommer-
new product idea. cialization business analysis and trial production.
2. Preliminary market An initial, preliminary, but
assessment nonscientific, market
assessment; a first and quick When one stands back and looks at the entire new
look at the market. product process, very few projects--only 1.9%--fea-
3. Preliminary technical An initial, preliminary appraisal
tured all 13 activities. Exhibit 3 shows the results. In-
assessment of the technical merits and
difficulties of the project.
deed, in the majority of projects studied, less than 9 of
4. Detailed market Marketing research, involving a the possible 13 activities were carried o u t - - a limited
study/market research reasonable sample of new product process. Further, in almost one third
respondents, a formal design, (32.7%) of the projects, seven activities or less were
and a consistent data collection undertaken, that is, approximately half the new product
procedure.
process.
5. Business/financial A financial or business analysis
analysis leading to a go/no go decision Note that there may be good reasons why certain
prior to product development. commonly recommended steps of the new product pro-
6. Product development The actual design and cess should be omitted. This is particularly true in the
development of the poduct, case of product improvements and line extensions,
resulting in, e.g., a prototype where a shortened process may be appropriate. Howev-
or sample product.
Testing the product in-house: in
er, the data here are based on new product items, not
7. In-house product
testing the lab or under controlled marginal extensions and minor modifications. More-
conditions (as opposed to in over, the frequency of omission was substantial, cer-
the field or with customers). tainly more than one might have expected from the
8. Customer tests of Testing the product under real- occasional deletion of a step in the process. The evi-
product life conditions, e.g., with
dence suggests that the new product process in practice
customers and/or in the field.
9. Test market/trial sell A test market or trial sell of the is a truncated one, particularly when compared to pre-
product--trying to sell the scribed process models.
product but to a limited or test
set of customers.
10. Trial production A trial production run to test the
production facilities. Proficiencies of Activities
1 I. Precommercialization A financial or business analysis,
business analysis following product development
but prior to full-scale launch.
12. Production start-up The start-up of full-scale or In those cases where a certain activity had been under-
commercial production. taken, we probed to determine how well the activity
13. Market launch The launch of the product, on a was carried out and to what extent improvements were
full-scale and/or commercial
basis: an identifiable set of
thought to be required. Exhibit 4 shows the mean re-
marketing activities specific to sults for each activity. (Proficiency was measured on a
this product. 0 to 10 scale, where 0 is very poor and very deficiently
handled, and 10 is excellent and very well handled;
°These activities provide a reasonable "skeleton" of the new product
process [1, 3, 10, 12, 15, 17] and were used as a guide during the inter- similarly, the need for improvement was also gauged
views to help respondents indicate what occurred during their projects. on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 indicated improvements not
needed at all and 10 indicated major improvements
analysis, were undertaken in less than half the
needed.) Following are some highlights:
projects studied.
• The weakest activities (most often omitted) were * Overall, the mean proficiency score for all ac-
two of the market tasks: test market or trial sell tivities was a mid-range 5 to 6 out of 10--not a
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE NEW PRODUCT PROCESS J PROD INNOV MANAG 75
1986;3:71-85
Production Start-Up
56.0%iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiii
Market Launch 66.t% ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
[ I I I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
"In 92.3% of the 203 projects, initial screening was carried out.
3 activities 1.9%
4 activities 2.5%
I
5 activities 6.3% [ii i !i i ;i i i i i i i i i i i!i ;i i i i i ]
6 activities 6.9% [;ii i i i li i i ililili;i i i;i i i i i i i i i i l
7 activities 14.5% I :::::;::;;;;;;:::::::::::::::::= ::;::;::;: ::::::::;:;:::::
8 activities 18.2%
I
9 activities 20.8%
Exhibit 4. The Activities Rated: Proficiencies of Activities and Need for Improvement
i I
Proficiency [ I Need for Improvement
t I
~5,74
Detailed Market Study/
MarketingRes. 5.93!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;iiiiiii;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;i
J
i
Iiiiiiiiiii:!i:iiiiiii!:ii:ii:;i:ii:ii:!i
iiii:ii:ili!:iiii:ii:ii:ii:;il
6,g Business/Financial
Ana,ys,s ,.27!ili!!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiii;iii
] i
[i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilili;iliiii:;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:i
6.55 Product Development
I
i!i!i!iiiiiiiiii!iiiii:iiiiiii;ii!iii!ii!iii;iii;iii;iiiiiiiiiiil
6.69 CustomerTests o,
Product 3.99 ~
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~j{i~i!i:i~i~iiii~i~i:~iiiiii~i~6.86
Test Market/
i~:~!~:~:~J~:Ji~:~! Trial Sell ,.591iiiiiiil;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil
[!::::::iii ii ii!::!i::::i::::::iiii!iiiiiii 6.79 Trial Production 3.66~
I
Iiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiil;iii;i!i:ii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!6.26 Pre-CommercializatiOnBusiness
Analysis 3 . 9 5 ~
[i:~iiiiiiiii[;iiiiiiii[iiiii!i[iiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiii
I 6.31 Production Start-Up
/
Jli::;::;:~i:~iiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiii;ii;i!i;iiiiiii;;;;!iil
6.36 Market Launch ,., iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilil
I I I
7 6 5 a 4 5 6
Stronger Weaker Lower Need Higher Need
stellar performance. The standard deviations Here, then, is a summary of these activities across
were in the 2 to 3 range (not shown), pointing to a projects.
fairly broad variation in performance.
The Idea
There were few major differences in proficiencies
across activities. The weakest rated activities Typically, the new product process was initiated by a
were the "up front" or predevelopment activites, product idea that was market derived--from a custom-
namely initial screening, preliminary market as- er, salesperson, or competitor. There was less tendency
sessment, and the detailed market study. for ideas to be technology driven--an in-house, lab,
technical group, or supplier source. For example, on a
On average, managers indicated moderate need 0 to 10 scale, where 0 meant "market source," the
for improvement: in the 3 to 5 range on the 0 to l0 average idea scored 3.66, that is, close to the market-
scale. Activities singled out for the greatest im- derived end of the scale.
provements were, not surprisingly, the same The idea did not typically come forth as the result of
three up front activities: the detailed market a proactive, aggressive search. The average idea scored
study, initial screening, and preliminary market 4.49 on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 meant "passive
assessment. search" and 10 meant "aggressive/proactive" search.
The specific sources of ideas were also determined
and appear, in descending order of frequency, in Ta-
ble 1.
T h e Activities: A D e s c r i p t i v e R e v i e w
Initial Screening
Space does not permit a detailed description of what Initial screening, although undertaken in over 90% of
happened in each project at each stage of the process. projects, was rated as the weakest activity, scoring
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE NEW PRODUCT PROCESS J PROD 1NNOV MANAG 77
1986;3:71 85
Percent of Percent
Source projects Suggestion of cases 3
Customer request 20.0 Better assessment of the market; more external 39.6
Sales force 17.4 inputs at this early screening stage.
Management 13.3 More formal and consistent procedures; more 23.1
R&D group/department 12.3 detailed evaluation.
Competitor's product 7.7
Engineering/design group or department 7.2
All others: distributor, service department, 22. I
creativity session (brainstorming), trade Preliminau Market Assessment
show, result of customer survey, etc.
Total 100.0 Preliminary market assessment was also rated as a
weak activity. It was omitted altogether in almost one
quarter of the projects and, when done, was rated a
weak 5.47 out of 10, on average.
Preliminary market assessment involved a varied set
lowest on the proficiency scale, and cited as an activity
of tasks. The most frequently mentioned appear in
greatly in need of improvement. A variety of different
Table 4. Direct customer contact, however, dominated
approaches to screening were uncovered and may sug-
gest why screening was thought to be so deficient. They the list.
Preliminary market assessment was also singled out
are listed, in terms of popularity, in Table 2.
as one stage in need of improvement. A sharper, more
Group processes dominated this critical screening
focused definition of the market, more customer con-
decision: the initial " g o " decision was a group deci-
sion in more than three quarters of the cases. But tacts, and the allocation of more time and effort were
screening remains very much an informal decision, that the suggestions most frequently cited.
is, no consistently used checklist of criteria or scor-
ing/rating procedures. For example, in less than 2% of
the projects, evaluators used a formal checklist ques- Preliminary Technical Assessment
tionnaire or scoring model to rate projects.
Initial screening was also pinpointed as one of the This activity was rated moderately strongly: it was un-
activites where improvements were sorely needed. dertaken in the great majority of projects (84.9%) and
Managers were queried about the types of improve- was rated as proficiently undertaken. The main tasks
carried out are listed in Table 5.
ments desired, and the main suggestions are listed in
Although preliminary technical assessment was not
Table 3.
viewed as a major problem area by managers, there
were, nonetheless, several suggestions for improve-
ment:
Table 2. Approaches to Screening
Percent
1. A group decision, based on an informal 59.5
Tasks of cases
d i s c u s s i o n - - n o formal techniques used at
all, e.g., no checklists of criteria, no rating
1. Direct contact with customers 46.3
forms, etc.
2. Discussions with the sales force 9.9
2. A single individual made the decision, again 23.7
3. Review of competitors' products 9.1
on an informal basis (no formal techniques).
4. Access secondary/puNished data 8.3
3. A group decision, based on a formal 11.6
5. Knew market already--internal 8.3
checklist of criteria.
assessment/discussion session only
2percent of cases where activity was undertaken; the sum is less than
100% because other "approaches" are not included. 3Percent of cases where a response was given.
78 J PROD INNOV MANAG R.G. COOPER AND E. J. KLEINSCHMIDT
1986:3:71 85
Table 5. Tasks Involved in Preliminary The majority of these market studies focused on the
Technical Assessment domestic market only (43,2% of cases). A handful of
studies (18.9%) included nearby export trading areas 4,
Percent
Task of cases
whereas a surprising 37.8% of the studies investigated
markets and countries outside the domestic and imme-
I. Capability/feasibility analysis 30.5 diate trading area, that is, rest-of-world countries.
2. Engineering assessment 28.9 The market research stage was cited as an area where
3. Product specifications 10.2 many improvements were needed and possible. Sug-
4. Product design, model development 8.6
gestions included the following:
More depth and detail regarding technical is- of cases). Most often, the customer test involved giving
sues/problems/questions during development. a sample or prototype of the product to the customer at
no charge and letting the customer try the product
More resources required: more and more experi- (77.9% of customer tests). In a minority of projects
enced people; better facilities. (14.2%), there was a rigorously designed customer
test, complete with written testing procedures. In a few
More time and effort to be spent. projects (7.1%), the customer was brought to the com-
pany's premises for an on-site user test of the product.
Improvements mentioned included a more thorough
testing program (more tests undertaken at more test
Product Testing--In-House sites and at more representative sites) and better control
Following product development, the product was typ- over the customer tests.
ically subjected to a set of in-house tests (88.9% of
cases). This stage was rated as the strongest one, on
average. The most common approaches to product test-
Test Market/Trial Sell
ing included those listed in Table 8. Requested im-
provements included more time and effort to be spent This activity was undertaken least frequently of all 13
on testing, and a more detailed, formal, and rigorous activities in the process: Only 22.5% of projects fea-
testing procedure. tured a trial sell/test market. But, when undertaken,
this step was proficiently executed. Typically, a trial
sell involved the approaches given in Table 9.
Trade shows and reduced price/rental schemes were
Product Testing with the Customer
also employed to provide a trial sell of the product. Few
This was a fairly well-rated activity and one that was improvements were recommended here, but these in-
undertaken in the majority of projects studied (66.3% cluded better/sharper definition of the test market cus-
tomers and more objective and better measures of the
test market results.
Table 8. In-House Testing
Percent
Approach of cases Trial Production
Trial production was carried out in less than half the
1. Prototype testing: to determine if the product 32.5
projects but, when undertaken, was rated proficiently.
functioned properly and reliably.
2. Operating tests: tests to check the 28.5
The two focuses typical to a trial production are shown
functionality/reliability of the product under in Table 10.
real-life working conditions. Improvements requested here were few but included
3. Specifications check: tests and checks to 26.2 better training of production employees, better control
determine if the product met specifications, over the production system, and better coordination
outside design standards, etc.
among departments and people. More feedback and
4. Field tests of the product. 7.1
better measures were also suggested.
80 J PROD INNOVMANAG R.G. COOPERAND E. J. KLEINSCHMIDT
1986;3:71-85
Percent of Percent
Focus projects Approach of cases
1. A test of the production system itself (e.g., 53.7 1. Trade literature, trade shows, and trade 35.8
that production equipment ran properly). advertising but no special promotion or
2. A test of the integrity of the product that 41.8 training for the sales forcc.
the production system yielded (e.g., to see 2. Trade literature, trade shows, and trade 20.8
that the resulting product specs were met). advertising plus a strong sales force
promotional effort: demonstrations,
conferences, and seminars for customers.
3. Trade literature, trade shows, and trade 20.8
Precommercialization Business Analysis advertising plus special training for the sales
force.
Managers were queried about whether or not a detailed 4. Very limited efforts: virtually nothing special 17.0
business analysis was undertaken after product devel- done for the launch.
opment, but before full launch. Only a minority of
projects (34.8%) featured such an analysis; but typ- A variety of improvements in this phase of the pro-
ically, if carried out, it was handled proficiently. The cess were suggested: better coordination; better man-
methods used for the final " g o / n o g o " decision are agement; more detailed documentation and procedures;
listed in Table 1 I. Suggestions on how to make this and more resources, namely time, money, and quali-
final go/no go decision more effective included a total
fied people.
"start-from-scratch" review; revision and update of all
data; and better market information, including inputs
from a market acceptance or test market study. Market Launch
The launch stage was rated moderately postively on
average. Surprisingly, in over 30% of the projects, the
Production Start-up launch stage was not formally recognized as a distinct
In the majority of cases, production start-up was a rela- and identifiable stage or activity.
The projects were all industrial products, and launch
tively straightforward activity. It was recognized as a
distinct stage in 56% of the projects and was rated fairly efforts were limited to those listed in Table 12.
proficiently. It involved either no changes to the exist- Numerous possible improvements were identified
ing production facilities (12.5% of cases) or few for the launch. These included the following:
changes (35.0% of projects). In 31.3% of the projects,
• More resources and effort to be allocated to the
production start-up meant acquisition and commission-
advertising and promotion effort for the new
ing of significantly new equipment and production fa-
cilities and, in a few cases, a new factory. Extraordi- product.
nary quality control checks for start-up were imple- • A clearer definition of marketing objectives.
mented in only 7.5% of the projects.
• Better in-house coordination among the sales, ad-
vertising, service, and production departments.
Table 11. Precommercialization Business Analysis
• Better training and preparation of the sales force.
Percent
Methods of cases
Business/Financial 50.7
.012
Analysis 69.7
81.7
Product Development .025
93.4
47.1
Production Start-Up .058
61.6
55.1
Market Launch .005
75,9 !" i~i~iiii~.:~:!~!!!!~!~!i~i~i~i~i~iiiii~!!~!~!~i~i~iiiiiiii~i!!!!!!!!!~!!~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~i!!!i~i~iiii;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiii~i1
I I I I I I i I I I
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
"Shaded bars show significant differences between successful and unsuccessful products. Signif. indicates
level of significance, based on two-tail t-test.
But the question remains, how important are each of Whether or not an activity was part of the new
these activities? And to what extent does new product product process was significantly related to pro-
success hinge on carrying out specific activities well? ject outcomes for 9 of the 13 activities. Suc-
Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 provide these answers. cessful projects consistently featured a higher fre-
The completeness of the new product process-- quency of these nine activities (see Exhibit 5).
whether an activity was carried out or not--is strongly
linked to project outcomes. Exhibit 5 shows the fre-
Finally, when one looks at the completeness of the
quency of activities for successful projects versus un-
new product process (i.e., how many activities were
successful ones. For certain activities, there were sig-
carried out), successful projects featured significantly
nificant differences.
more activities--a much more complete process--
than did failures (two-tail t-test, 0.003 level). A more
Preliminary market assessment and the formal detailed analysis revealed that only 38.2% of all failure
market launch stage were much more prevalent in projects featured nine or more activities. In contrast,
successful projects than in the failures. These two 54.8% of successes had nine or more activities. Fur-
activities showed the most significant differences ther, nearly one quarter (23.6%) of all failures had five
between successes and failures. or less activities completed compared to only 4.8% of
successes. (These latter differences were significant at
Some activities, such as test markets and the de- the 0.003 level, Chi-square test.) In short, a more com-
tailed market study, were done so infrequently plete new product process appears to make a differ-
that no meaningful differences between successes ence.
and failures could be detected. How proficiently these activities were undertaken
82 J PROD iNNOV MANAG R.G. COOPER AND E. J. KLEINSCHMIDT
1986:3:71 85
I
Activity Signif. [ Proficiency of Activities (0 - 10 rating)
Customer Tests of
N,S. 6.41
Product 6.83
Test Market/
.040 6.00
Trial Sell 7.35
was also strongly tied to project outcomes. Exhibit 6 -- in-house product tests;
shows the mean proficiency ratings for successful ver- -- test market/trial sell;
sus unsuccessful products; following are some high- -- market launch.
lights:
Initial screening 0.41 b 0.001 0.33 0.001 0.34 0.001 0.29 0.001
Preliminary market assessment 0.31 0,001 0.22 0.006 0.24 0.001 0.25 0.002
Preliminary technical assessment 0.16 0.03 0.17 0.02 NS NS
Detailed market study/marketing 0.41 0.001 0.24 0.06 0.18 0.10 0.41 0.003
research
Business/financial analysis 0.33 0.001 0.17 0.04 0.26 0.004 NS
Product development 0.32 0.001 0.27 0.001 0.10 0.10 NS
In-house product testing 0.30 0.001 0.27 0.001 NS NS
Customer tests of products NS NS NS NS
Test market/trial sell 0.28 0.05 0.35 0.02 0.43 0.005 0.25 0.07
Trial production 0.14 0. I 0 0.21 0.03 0.20 0.03 NS
Precommercialization business NS NS NS NS
analysis
Production start-up 0.15 0.08 NS NS NS
Market launch 0.26 0.002 0.28 0.001 0.20 0.01 NS
"Signs of correlations with paybacks were all negative (not shown): the more proficient the activity, the shorter the paybaek period.
t'When undertaken, the proficiency of screening was positively correlated (r - 0.41) with the rated success of the project.
2. The payback period of the project (measured in • Only the proficiencies of precommercial business
years). analysis and customer tests of the product were
3. The domestic market share. uncorrelated with project outcomes (although the
4. The foreign market share (averaged over the prin- frequency of both activities indeed was linked to
cipal target market countries). outcomes [see Exhibit 5]).
The proficiency rating of each activity was then re-
Profitability measures--overall profitability and
lated to each of these four measures of success (Pearson
the payback period--appeared more directly ex-
correlation coefficients; see Exhibit 7); following are
plained by the new product process activities than
some highlights:
were the market share measures.
. More time, effort, and resources. One of the recur- program, there is certainly ample justification for di-
ring themes that emerged from the study was that recting more attention to the way we conceive, devel-
more time, money, and manpower should be allo- op, and commercialize new products. This investiga-
cated to certain activities in the new product pro- tion has focused on the activities that comprise the new
cess. What is the point of implementing a process product process. By shedding light on the strengths and
model if there aren't the resources required to carry weaknesses of the process, the hope is that managers
out the activities that comprise the model! To make will become better atuned to the need to implement a
such a process model work, there must be commit- disciplined new product process, backed by the needed
merit--not just in words, but in terms of resources. resources to carry out the key activities.
The standard rebuttal is, " W e can't afford it." Our
response is, "Given the importance of new prod-
References
ucts, the amounts at stake, and the high likelihood 1. Booz Allen & Hamilton. New Product Management for the 1980's.
of failure, you can't afford not to commit the re- New York: Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 1982.
sources to these critical activities." 2. Cooper, R. G. The performance impact of product innovation strat-
egies. European Journal t~['Marketing 18(5):3 54 (1984).
. More focus on certain key activities. Certain ac-
3. Cooper, R. G. A process model for industrial new product develop-
tivities were singled out as particularly weak ones ment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-30(1):2-
yet were strongly associated with success. These I1 (February 1983).
activities must be built into the new product pro- 4. Cooper, R. G. New product success in industrial firms. Industrial
Marketing Management 11 (3):215-223 (1982).
cess. And special attention must be paid these ac-
5. Cooper, R. G. Project NewProd: Factors in new product success. Euro-
tivities to ensure that they are carried out well. pean Journal ~['Marketing 14(5/6):277-292 (1980).
These flagged activities include 6. Cooper. R. G. The dimensions of industrial new product success and
market studies: to determine market size; com- failure. Journal of Marketing 43(3):93 103 (Summer 1979).
petitive situation; customer needs, wants, and 7. Cooper, R. G. Identifying industrial new product success. Industrial
Marketing Management 8:124-135 (1979).
preferences; and customer reaction to the pro- 8. Crawford, C. M. New product failure rates--Facts and fallacies. Re-
posed product or product concept. search Management, 9-13 (September 1979).
initial screening: a formal go/no go decision 9. Hopkins. D. S. New Product Winners and Losers. Conference Board
Report No. 773, 1980.
point very early in the new product process, in-
10. Little, B. Characterizing the new product for better evaluation and
volving multidisciplinary, multifunctional inputs planning. Working Paper Series, No. 21, University of Western On-
and preferrably based on a written checklist of tario, London, Canada, July 1970.
criteria. I 1. M. A. Maidique and B. J. Zirger. A study of success and failure in
product innovation: The case of the U.S. electronics industry. IEEE
preliminary market assessment: an early and rel- Transactions on Engineering Management EM-31(4):192-203 (No-
atively simple, nonscientific market appraisal, vember 1984).
checking out the market validity of the proposed 12. Myers, S., and Marquis, D. G. Successful industrial innovations. Na-
tional Science Foundation Technical Report N.S.F. 69-17. 1969.
product.
13. Peters, T. J., and Waterman, R. H. In Search of Excellence. New York:
Harper & Row, 1982.
14. Rothwell, R. Factors.[~r Success in Industrial Innovations: Project
SAPPHO A comparative Study ~f Success and Failure in Industrial
Innovation. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex,
Conclusion Brighton, U.K., 1972.
15. Rothwell, R. et al. SAPPHO updated: Project SAPPHO phase II. Re-
search Policy 3:258-291 (1974).
16. Rubenstein, A. H. et al. Factors influencing innovation success at the
project level. Research Management 15-20 (May 1976).
New product success can never be guaranteed, but
17. Utterback, J. M. The process of technological innovation within the
given the payoffs of a successful product innovation firm. Academy c?fManagement Journal 75-88 (March 1971 ).