Developing New Products On Time, In Time

Accelerated product development--getting new products to market in record speed and ahead of competition--as become the key to success and profitability, according to many pundits. The dilemma faced by managers is that, while cycle time reduction may be an admirable goal, there is very little hard evidence or prescriptions based on fact on how to achieve this. We are bombarded with techniques, approaches and concepts that promise accelerated product development (1-9), but the fact is that most ape based on speculation, opinion, anecdotal evidence and a handful of case studies--hardly what one would call "strong scientific evidence. " In short, real evidence of cycle time reduction based on solid research studies is surprisingly lacking. (Some exceptions, namely studies on cycle time reduction in product development, are found in 10-13). One reason for this lack of hard data is that the field of accelerated product development is relatively new. A second and more serious reason is that research into cycle time reduction is difficult research: Measuring project times--for example, when does a project "start"? --and comparing times of different types of projects is much easier to do conceptually than in practice. Research into measuring and comparing cycle times is fraught with operational problems. This article reports on a large sample size investigation into new products and time-to-market: Here the particular emphasis is on project timeliness; that is, on those factors that drive both fast-paced product development, and on-time, on-schedule launches (see also 14). Drivers of New Product Timeliness The overall goal of the investigation was to uncover some of the critical factors that impact on project timeliness. More specifically, its purpose was to undertake an extensive and rigorous study involving an analysis of a large sample of actual new product projects to find out what really makes the difference between fast-paced, on-schedule projects and those that limped along, and were launched way behind schedule. The results of the investigation are both provocative and sobering. For example, there is no one-to-one link between financial performance and timeliness; while there is a connection, it is not nearly as strong as some would have us believe. Some of the study's results support previous speculation; for example, the vital role of cross-functional teams and the need for sharp, early product definition in fast-paced development projects were confirmed. But there were surprises as well; for example, some of the steps where people cut corners in the interest of saving time actually had the opposite effect. The role of "the voice of the customer" in cycle-time reduction yielded provocative results as well. Also highlighted are some good practices (and poor practices) that were uncovered as part of the data collection phase. The study's results are based on 103 major new product projects from leading firms in four countries in the chemical industry. Two-thirds of the projects were rated as commercial successes. Although undertaken in one industry, the conclusions are likely to have applicability to moderate-to-high technology firms in other industries as well. Before we get into the study's results and implications, however, here is some background on the rationale for the study. Additionally, a description of the research method--what was measured and how--is summarized in "How the Research Was Done," below. Speed at All Costs? The topics of time-to-market and cycle-time reduction have been popular in recent years, as witnessed by the number of books, trade press articles and consul reports on the subject. Indeed, Crawford notes that the talk around the subject "verges on hype" (2). There are several underlying beliefs which lead to this emphasis on speed--some based on myth, others on fact: 1. First into the market wins. --This is a popular view, but there is conflicting evidence on this; as Crawford points out, there exist no hard data to show that "first in wins," except those that assume that the second and third entries have comparable products (2). …