We empirically investigate how time reductions in particular product development stages impact market value. Using longitudinal project data from 107 firms, we compare stage times prior to and following investments in new product development process changes. Our analysis reveals a predominance of focus on time reduction in the late stages of product development. We also find support for the existence of an inverted‐U relationship between market performance and time reductions for some of these stages: beta testing and technical implementation. Therefore, while time reductions can improve time to market, we observe a clear limit to the benefits associated with stage time reductions at particular stages. We also investigate the role of strategic contextual factors such as the extent to which a firm's patented innovations rely upon a variety, as opposed to a limited range, of diverse technology classes. The extent of this technology‐span impacts optimal stage time reductions. We perform an in‐depth post hoc analysis with a small set of firms to uncover how they should invest in stage time reduction given our empirical results. The post hoc analysis highlights that some firms are likely overinvesting in stage time reductions and destroying market value.
AdamsM.BoikeD.. 2004. The PDMA foundation 2004 comparative performance assessment study. Visions28(3): 26–29.
2.
AdlerP.MandelbaumA.NguyenV.SchwererE.. 1995. From project to process management: An empirically‐based framework for analyzing product development time. Management Sci.41(3): 458–484.
3.
AdlerP.BennerM.BrunnerD.MacDuffieJ.OsonoE.StaatsB.TakeuchiH.TushmanM.WinterS.. 2009. Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. J. Oper. Manag.27(2): 99–113.
4.
Atuahene‐GimaK.2003. The effects of centrifugal and centripetal forces on product development speed and quality: How does problem solving matter?The Acad. Manag. J.46(3): 359–373.
5.
BarneyJ.1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag.17(1): 99–120.
6.
BayusB.1997. Speed to market and new product performance tradeoffs. J. Prod. Innovat. Manage.14: 485–497.
7.
BayusB.JainS., and RaoA.. 1997. Too little, too early: Introduction timing and new product performance in the personal digital assistant industry. J. Mark. Res.43(1): 50–63.
8.
BendolyE.2014. Systems dynamics understanding in project execution: Information sharing quality and psychological safety. Prod. Oper. Manag.23(8): 1352–1369.
9.
BendolyE.HurD.. 2007. Bipolarity in reactions to operational ‘constraints’: OM bugs under an OB lens. J. Oper. Manag.25(1): 1–13.
10.
BendolyE.PrietulaM.. 2008. In ‘The Zone’: The role of evolving skill and transitional workload on motivation and realized performance in operational tasks. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.28(12): 1130–1152.
11.
BermanS.DalleMuleL.GreeneM.LuckerJ.. 2012. Simpson's Paradox: A cautionary tale in advanced analytics. Significance. May.
12.
BlythC. R.1972. On Simpson's Paradox and the sure‐thing principle. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.67(338): 364–366.
13.
BurgelmanR. A.1991. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organ. Sci.2(3): 239–262.
14.
BrownW.KaragozogluN.. 1993. Leading the way to faster new product development. Acad. Manag. Execut.7(1): 36–47.
15.
BrownC.LatinJ.. 1994. Investigating the relationship between time in market and pioneering advantage. Management Sci.40(10): 1361–1369.
16.
BurnhamK. P.AndersonD. R.. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: Practical Information‐Theoretic Approach. Springer, New York, NY.
17.
CalantoneR.DiBenedettoC.. 2000. Performance and time to market: Accelerating cycle time with overlapping stages. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.47(2): 232–244.
18.
CamererC.WeberM.. 1992. Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertain.5: 325–370.
19.
ChaoR.KavadiasS.. 2008. A theoretical framework for managing the NPD portfolio: When and how to use strategic buckets. Management Sci.54(5): 907–921.
20.
ChoH.PucikV.. 2005. Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability, and market value. Strateg. Manag. J.26(6): 555–575.
21.
ClarkK. B.1989. Project scope and project performance: The effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management Sci.35(10): 1247–1263.
22.
ClarkK. B.FujimotoT.. 1991. Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization and Management in the World Auto Industry. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge.
23.
CohenM. A.EliashbergJ.HoT.. 1996. New product development: The performance and time‐to‐market tradeoff. Management Sci.42(2): 173–186.
24.
CohenM.EliashbergJ.HoT.. 2000. An analysis of several new product performance metrics. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.2(4): 337–349.
25.
CooperR. G.1990. Stage‐gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Bus. Horiz.33(3): 44–54.
26.
CooperR. G.2001. Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch. Perseus, Cambridge, MA.
27.
CooperR.EdgettS.KleinschmidtE.. 2004. Benchmarking best NPD practices. Res. Technol. Manag.47(1): 31–34.
28.
CooperR. G.KleinschmidtE. J.. 1987. New products: What separates winners from losers?J. Prod. Innov. Manag.4(3): 169–184.
29.
CooperR. G.KleinschmidtE. J.. 1994. Determinants of timeliness in new product development. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.11(5): 381–396.
30.
CooperR.KleinschmidtE.. 1995. New product performance: Keys to success, profitability, and cycle time reduction. J. Mark. Manag.11: 315–337.
31.
DaneseP.FilippiniR.. 2010. Modularity and the impact on new product development time performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.30(11): 1191–1209.
32.
DeMarisA.2004. Regression with Social Data: Modeling Continuous and Limited Response Variables. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
33.
ElingK.LangerakF.GriffinA.. 2013. A stage‐wise approach to exploring performance effects of cycle time reduction. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.30(4): 626–641.
34.
EllsbergD.1961. Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q. J. Econ.75(4): 643–669.
35.
FoxJ.FriendlyM.WeisbergS.. 2013. Hypothesis tests for multivariate linear models using the car package. R J.5(1): 39–52.
36.
GravesS. B.1989. The time‐cost tradeoff in research and development: A review. Eng. Costs Prod. Econ.16(1): 1–1.
37.
GriffinA.1997. The effect of project and process characteristics on product development cycle time. J. Mark. Res.34(1): 24–35.
GuptaA. K.BrockhoffK.WeisenfeldU.. 1992. Making trade‐offs in the new product development process: A German/US comparison. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.9(1): 11–11.
40.
HaA.PorteusE.. 1995. Optimal timing of reviews in concurrent design for manufacturability. Management Sci.41(9): 1431–1447.
41.
HendersonR.ClarkK.. 1997. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Q.35(1): 9‐30.
42.
HendricksK.SinghalV.. 1997. Delays in new product introductions and the market value of the firm: The consequences of being late to the market. Management Sci.43(4): 422–436.
43.
HendricksK. B.SinghalV.. 2005. Association between supply chain glitches and operating performance. Management Sci.51(5): 695–711.
44.
IttnerC. D.LarckerD. F.. 1997. Product development cycle time and organizational performance. J. Mark. Res.34(1): 13–23.
45.
JacobsM.VickeryS.DrogeC.. 2007. The effects of product modularity on competitive performance: Do integration strategies mediate the relationship?Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.27(9/10): 1046–1068.
46.
JaffeA.FogartyM.BanksB.. 1998. Evidence from patents and patent citations on the impact of NASA and other federal labs on commercial innovation. J. Ind. Econ46(2): 183–206.
47.
KesslerE. H.ChakrabartiA. K.. 1996. Innovation speed: A conceptual model of context, antecedents, and outcomes. Acad. Manag. Rev.21(4): 1143–1191.
48.
KoenP.AjamianG.BurkartR.ClamenA.DavidsonJ.D'AmoreR.ElkinsC.HeraldK.IncorviaM.JohnsonA.KarolR.SeibertR.SlavejkovA.WagnerK.. 2001. Providing clarity and a common language to the ‘fuzzy front end’. Res. Technol. Manag.44(2): 46–55.
KrishnanV.EppingerS.WhitneyD.. 1997. A model‐based framework to overlap product development activities. Management Sci.43(4): 437–451.
51.
KrishnanV.LochC. H.. 2005. A retrospective look at Production and Operations Management articles on new product development. Prod. Oper. Manag.4(14): 433–441.
52.
LangerakF.HultinkE.. 2006. The impact of product innovativeness on the link between development speed and new product profitability. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.23(3): 203–14.
53.
Leonard‐BartonD.1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strateg. Manag. J.13(1): 111–125.
LindenA.SamudsS. J.. 2013. Using balance statistics to determine the optimal number of controls in matching studies. J. Eval. Clin. Pract.19(5): 968–975.
56.
LindermanK.SchroederR. G.ChooA. S.. 2006. Six Sigma: The role of goals in improvement teams. J. Oper. Manag.24(6): 779–790.
57.
LochC. H.TapperS.. 2002. Implementing a strategy‐driven performance measurement system for an applied research group. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.19(3): 185–198.
58.
LochC. H.TerwieschC.. 1998. Communication and uncertainty in concurrent engineering. Management Sci.44(8): 1032–1048.
59.
MacherJ. T.2006. Technological development and the boundaries of the firm: A knowledge‐based examination in semiconductor manufacturing. Management Sci.52(6): 826–843.
60.
MarchJ. G.1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci.2(1): 71–87.
61.
McDermottC.O'ConnorG.. 2002. Managing radical innovation: An overview of emergent strategy issues. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag.19: 424–438.
62.
MeyerC.PurserR. E.. 1993. Six steps to becoming a fast‐cycle‐time competitor. Res. Technol. Manag.36(5): 41–41.
63.
ModiS.MishraS.. 2011. What drives financial performance–resource efficiency or resource slack? evidence from U.S. based manufacturing firms from 1991 to 2006. J. Oper. Manag.29(3): 254–273.
64.
MorganL.MorganR.MooreW.. 2001. Quality and time‐to‐market trade‐offs when there are multiple product generations. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.3(2): 89–104.
65.
MurmannP. A.1994. Expected development time reductions in the German mechanical engineering industry. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.11(3): 236–236.
66.
NelsonR. R.WinterS. G.. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
67.
NitindraR. J.YassineA. A.EppingerS. D.WhitneyD. E.. 2001. Performance of coupled product development activities with a deadline. Management Sci.47(12): 1605–1620.
68.
OlivaR.StermanJ.. 2001. Cutting corners and working overtime: Quality erosion in the service industry. Management Sci.47(7): 894–914.
69.
PageA. L.1993. Assessing new product development practices and performance: Establishing crucial norms. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.10(4): 273–273.
70.
ParkinsonC. N.1958. Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress. John Murray, London.
71.
RamaswamiN.SrivastavaR. K.BhargavaM.. 2009. Market‐based capabilities and financial performance of firms: Insights into marketing's contribution to firm value. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.37(2): 97–116.
72.
RosenauM. D.1988. Speeding your new product to market. J. Consum. Mark.5(2): 23–23.
73.
RosenkopfL.NerkarA.. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strateg. Manag. J.22(4): 287–306.
74.
RosenthalS. R.1992. Effective Product Design and Development. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
75.
SchillingM.A. 2005. Strategic Management of Technology Innovation, Tata McGraw‐Hill Education, New York, NY.
76.
SchultzK. L.JuranD. C.BoudreauJ. W.. 1999. The effects of low inventory on the development of productivity norms. Management Sci.45(12): 1664–1678.
77.
SchultzK.SchoenherrT.NembhardD.. 2010. An example and a proposal concerning the correlation of worker processing times in parallel tasks. Management Sci.56(1): 176–191.
78.
ShaneS.2001. Technology opportunities and new firm creation. Management Sci.47(2): 205–220.
79.
ShankarV.CarpenterG.KrishnamurthiV.. 1998. Late mover advantage: How innovative late entrants outsell pioneers. J. Mark. Res.35(1): 54–70.
80.
ShaverJ. M.1998. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival. Management Sci.44(4): 571–585.
81.
SkinnerW.1985. Manufacturing: The Formidable Competitive Weapon. John Wiley, New York, NY.
82.
SpenceA. M.1981. The learning curve and competition. Bell J. Econ.12(1): 49–70.
83.
SrikantD.JordanC.KekreS.RajivS.SrinivasanK.. 1997. New product development structures and time‐to‐market. Management Sci.43(4): 452–464.
SwinkM.TalluriS.PandejpongT.. 2006. Faster, better, cheaper: A study of NPD project efficiency and performance tradeoffs. J. Oper. Manag.24(5): 542–542.
86.
TatikondaM.Montoya‐WeissM.. 2001. Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation: The influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on development performance. Management Sci.47(1): 151–172.
87.
TerwieschC.LochC. H.. 1999. Measuring the effectiveness of overlapping development activities. Management Sci.45(4): 455–465.
88.
ThomkeS.FujimotoT.. 2000. The effect of “front‐loading” problem‐solving on product development performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.17(2): 128–142.
89.
UlrichK.1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res. Policy24(3): 419–40.
90.
VincentG.1989. Managing New Product Development. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
91.
WadeM.HullandJ.. 2004. The resource based view and information systems research: Review, extensions and suggestions for future research. MIS Q.28(1): 107–142.
92.
WheelwrightS.ClarkK.. 1992. Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. Simon and Schuster, 1992.
93.
WheelwrightS.ClarkK.. 1994. Accelerating the design‐build‐test cycle for effective product development. Int. Mark. Rev.11(1): 32–46.
