Impact of Strategic Type on Success Measures for Product Development Projects

Does the strategic type of firm affect which success measures should be used for product development (PD) projects? This paper theorizes that it should and finds that it does because the PD projects undertaken are usually an expression of the strategic type of the firm. The purpose of this research is to affirm a 1996 survey of members of the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) that proposes that firms' PD performance measures should vary by their strategic type. Thus, for example, prospectors, the strategic type most likely to introduce new products to new markets, should place greater importance on PD success measures consistent with their characteristic strategies of changing product lines and early market entry. In contrast, defenders, the strategic type most likely to maintain stable product lines for existing markets, should place greater importance on PD success measures consistent with their characteristic strategies of stable product lines and market penetration. Analyzers, a hybrid type between prospectors and defenders, should prefer measures consistent with their characteristic strategies for improving products and being early followers in newer markets. To relate strategic types to specific success measures for PD projects, this paper proposes a model of the relationship based on the degree of project newness to the firm and then catalogs measures of PD project success and groups them according to degree of project newness. The research findings are based on survey responses from 222 individuals who are employed by financial service providers, who identified their firms by strategic type and rated the importance of PD success measures to their firms. The importance of 21 performance measures is compared by strategic type to find significant differences among prospectors, analyzers, and defenders. This research finds several significant relationships. prospectors, for example, attach greater importance to customer satisfaction, launch timeliness, and product return on investment, all of which may be characterized as relating to a higher degree of project newness to the firm. defenders and analyzers, on the other hand, attach more importance than prospectors to measures of unit volume, cost reduction, and margin goals, all of which relate to a lower degree of project newness to the firm. In short, because prospectors seek to introduce new products to new markets, they consider important those measures, which accord with greater product and market newness. The major conclusion of this paper is that strategic type affects the importance of project performance measures and that all firms should not use the same success measures. Firms should contextualize their success in PD projects based on their strategic type. This conclusion resonates with previous findings that strategy is a key determinant of PD success, though it is infrequently included in PD success studies. This paper, therefore, challenges the implicit assumption in the mainstream of PD success literature that success can be determined without regard to firm strategy.

[1]  D. Hambrick Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of Miles and Snow's strategic types. , 1983, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[2]  Donald C. Hambrick,et al.  Taxonomic Approaches to Studying Strategy: Some Conceptual and Methodological Issues , 1984 .

[3]  D. Wilemon,et al.  A Model for Studying R&D–Marketing Interface in the Product Innovation Process , 1986 .

[4]  R. Cooper,et al.  Success factors in product innovation , 1987 .

[5]  James W. Kolari,et al.  Marketing Strategy Implications of the Miles and Snow Strategic Typology , 1987 .

[6]  M. Lambkin Order of entry and performance in new markets , 1988 .

[7]  P. Varadarajan,et al.  Strategic Adaptability and Firm Performance: A Market-Contingent Perspective , 1989 .

[8]  S. Shortell,et al.  Perceptual and archival measures of Miles and Snow's strategic types: a comprehensive assessment of reliability and validity. , 1990, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[9]  S. Floyd,et al.  Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type: A research note , 1992 .

[10]  Stanley F. Slater,et al.  Product‐market Strategy and Performance: An Analysis of the Miles and Snow Strategy Types , 1993 .

[11]  Mark P. Sharfman,et al.  Industry variety and performance , 1993 .

[12]  A. Griffin,et al.  An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success and Failure , 1993 .

[13]  R. Calantone,et al.  Determinants of New Product Performance: A Review and Meta-Analysis , 1994 .

[14]  K. Hatten,et al.  Further evidence on the validity of the self typing paragraph approach: Miles and snow strategic , 1995 .

[15]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: PAST RESEARCH, PRESENT FINDINGS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS , 1995 .

[16]  Roger J. Calantone,et al.  Business performance and strategic new product development activities: An empirical investigation , 1995 .

[17]  A. Griffin,et al.  PDMA Success Measurement Project: Recommended Measures for Product Development Success and Failure , 1996 .

[18]  A. Griffin PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices , 1997 .

[19]  Susan J. Fox-Wolfgramm,et al.  Organizational Adaptation to Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of First-Order Change in Prospector and Defender Banks , 1998 .

[20]  A. Johne,et al.  New service development: a review of the literature and annotated bibliography , 1998 .

[21]  Arch G. Woodside,et al.  Assessing relationships among strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies, and organizational performance , 1999 .

[22]  Aleda V. Roth,et al.  Antecedents of New Service Development Effectiveness , 2000 .

[23]  Eric M. Olson,et al.  Strategy type and performance : The influence of sales force management , 2000 .

[24]  Eric M. Olson,et al.  Marketing's contribution to the implementation of business strategy: an empirical analysis , 2001 .

[25]  Gila E. Fruchter,et al.  Optimal Membership Fee and Usage Price Over Time for a Network Service , 2001 .

[26]  D. Hambrick On the staying power of defenders, analyzers, and prospectors , 2003 .

[27]  Neil A. Morgan,et al.  A Configuration Theory Assessment of Marketing Organization Fit with Business Strategy and Its Relationship with Marketing Performance , 2003 .

[28]  John C. Narver,et al.  Responsive and proactive market orientation and new-product success. , 2004 .

[29]  W. DeSarbo,et al.  Revisiting the Miles and Snow Strategic Framework: Uncovering Interrelationships between Strategic Types, Capabilities, Environmental Uncertainty, and Firm Performance , 2005 .

[30]  Eric M. Olson,et al.  The Contingent Value of Responsive and Proactive Market Orientations for New Product Program Performance , 2005 .

[31]  Eric M. Olson,et al.  The Performance Implications of Fit among Business Strategy, Marketing Organization Structure, and Strategic Behavior , 2005 .

[32]  Marjorie Adams‐Bigelow,et al.  First Results from the 2003 Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS) , 2007 .