IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v29y2001i1p85-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the relationship between practice changes and process improvement in new product development

Author

Listed:
  • Maylor, Harvey

Abstract

This paper reports the findings of a study into the process of new product development. Specifically, it challenges the limitations of the current research into the relationship between the adoption of new tools and techniques and performance improvements in new product development. The study was carried out on a sample of manufacturing firms. Cluster analysis yields a new classification of firms, which is shown to provide a significant explanation of the relationship between levels of tool and technique usage and managers' perceptions of improvements in outcomes. The existing evaluation of tools and techniques is shown to be deficient in not considering adoption jointly rather than singly. The study shows the benefits of a high level of overall tool and technique usage for improving key competitive objectives in new product development, but with limitations. Significantly, project costs are not improved by a high use of tools and techniques. Improved assessment of tools and techniques should be employed to reduce the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of process improvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Maylor, Harvey, 2001. "Assessing the relationship between practice changes and process improvement in new product development," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 85-96, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:29:y:2001:i:1:p:85-96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(00)00025-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gopalakrishnan, S. & Damanpour, F., 1997. "A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 15-28, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gerrit Anton De Waal & Paul Knott, 2019. "Npd Tools, Thoroughness And Performance In Small Firms," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(06), pages 1-26, August.
    2. repec:thr:techub:10025:y:2021:i:1:p:476-495 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Benedikt Müller-Stewens & Klaus Möller, 2017. "Performance in new product development: a comprehensive framework, current trends, and research directions," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 157-201, May.
    4. Dani Ramdani Harun & Sony Heru Priyanto & Lieli Suharti, 2021. "Transformation of Information Technology to Improve Human Resources of Farmers in the Indonesian Context: The Role of Farmer Cards," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 25(1), pages 476-495, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sony, Michael & Naik, Subhash, 2020. "Industry 4.0 integration with socio-technical systems theory: A systematic review and proposed theoretical model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    2. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    3. Cevahir Uzkurt & Halil Semih Kimzan & Cengiz Yılmaz, 2016. "A Case Study of the Mediating Role of Innovation on the Relationship Between Environmental Uncertainty, Market Orientation, and Firm Performance," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(06), pages 1-21, December.
    4. Georgios Giotis & Evangelia Papadionysiou, 2022. "The Role of Managerial and Technological Innovations in the Tourism Industry: A Review of the Empirical Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, April.
    5. Kong YuSheng & Masud Ibrahim, 2020. "Innovation Capabilities, Innovation Types, and Firm Performance: Evidence From the Banking Sector of Ghana," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    6. Geanina S. BANU & Andreea DUMITRESCU & Anca A. PURCĂREA, 2014. "Considerations About The Essential Features Of Innovation," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 5, pages 135-142, November.
    7. Hervas-Oliver, Jose-Luis & Sempere-Ripoll, Francisca & Boronat-Moll, Carles, 2012. "Process innovation objectives and management complementarities: patterns, drivers, co-adoption and performance effects," MERIT Working Papers 2012-051, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    8. Michał Gazdecki & Grzegorz Leszczyński & Marek Zieliński, 2021. "Food Sector as an Interactive Business World: A Framework for Research on Innovations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Dedy Dewanto, 2022. "The characteristic of leader innovativeness, a case in Indonesian’s construction industry," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 11(8), pages 153-165, November.
    10. Zach, Florian J. & Nicolau, Juan L. & Sharma, Abhinav, 2020. "Disruptive innovation, innovation adoption and incumbent market value: The case of Airbnb," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    11. Kumar, Rajesh & Agarwala, Arun, 2016. "Renewable energy technology diffusion model for techno-economics feasibility," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1515-1524.
    12. Li, Can, 2020. "Enhancing or inhibiting: The impact of investment in political ties on the link between firm innovation and productivity," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(2).
    13. Meeus, Marius T. H. & Oerlemans, Leon A. G., 2000. "Firm behaviour and innovative performance: An empirical exploration of the selection-adaptation debate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 41-58, January.
    14. Hervas-Oliver, Jose-Luis & Sempere-Ripoll, Francisca, 2015. "Disentangling the influence of technological process and product innovations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 109-118.
    15. David Emsley & Lai Hong Chung, 2010. "How Management Accountants' Cognitive Style and Role Involvement Combine to Affect the Effort Devoted to Initiating Change," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 46(3), pages 232-257, September.
    16. Yanica Dimitrova, 2018. "The Culture of Innovation Model," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 1, pages 39-68.
    17. Hatak, Isabella & Kautonen, Teemu & Fink, Matthias & Kansikas, Juha, 2016. "Innovativeness and family-firm performance: The moderating effect of family commitment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 120-131.
    18. Bergmann, Stephan & Tiwari, Rajnish, 2017. "Innovationspfade in der deutschen Automobilzulieferindustrie: Eine Untersuchung aus der Frugalitätsperspektive," Working Papers 97, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    19. McEachern, Menzie & Hanson, Susan, 2008. "Socio-geographic perception in the diffusion of innovation: Solar energy technology in Sri Lanka," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 2578-2590, July.
    20. Li, Xu, 2023. "When firms may benefit from sticking with an old technology," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120131, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:29:y:2001:i:1:p:85-96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.