Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose Seeks to advocate adopting the comparative case study method and system dynamics modeling to inform theory and to prescribe executive actions for successfully managing new products built using radically new technologies. Design/methodology/approach Reviews NPD theory and research on the dynamic processes including feedback loops and the hidden demons (hard to identify weak linkages that have large downstream impacts) in radically new innovation, manufacturing, diffusion and adoption/rejection processes; examines the IMDAR process model (innovation‐manufacturing‐diffusion‐adoption/rejection) of new products. Findings Several alternative routes of tacit and explicit interorganizational behaviors and decisions lead to NPD successes and failures; while executives believe surveys identifying specific factors are important particularly for NPD success, none of these factors is necessary or sufficient by itself for explaining success – specific cases of NPD success occur in the absence of any one of the identified success factors – embracing a system dynamics rather than a main effects view of NPD success and failure provides solid grounding for useful theory and practice in NPD. Research limitations/implications Does not provide an empirical comparison between cross‐sectional data‐based modelling versus system dynamics analysis. Business and industrial marketing research that embraces complexity and examines decision and actions over multiple time periods is still in its infancy. Practical implications Most successful companies suffer from their success: they fail to remain watchful, mindful, and active with regard to new technological developments that seemingly have minor relationships to their industries. Originality/value This paper offers a theory‐of‐the‐firm system dynamics approach to inform new product executives to think beyond check‐lists and embrace multiple‐path thinking.
Woodside et al. (Thu,) studied this question.