New product development 331
Information, therefore, is a base currency of
the NPD process; evaluative information is cru-
cial and must be efficiently disseminated to
facilitate communication. It is even possible to
analyse the various factors which have been
shown to correlate with NPD success in such a
way as to reveal the information needs of the
process for greater success. An example of the
information elements implied by the numerous
studies into success and failure is given in Table
12.4.
Research by Maltz (2000) has shown that
the way in which information is communicated
has a profound effect on its perceived quality
and therefore use. Specifically, his study
showed that, across functions involved in NPD,
the frequency of communications needs to be
above a threshold level before information is
absorbed. Moreover, routine e-mail, contribut-
ing as it does to the often unnecessary buzz and
obscuring the substantive, is unlikely to be
viewed as quality information. Scheduled tele-
phone calls were shown to be of greater value,
and impromptu face-to-face conversations are
associated with higher levels of perceived
information quality.
The foregoing discussion of the usefulness
of existing models shows that, while it is
useful to have a checklist of the crucial tasks
needed to ensure that new products meet
customer needs, any useful framework must
allow for numerous inputs from a variety of
functions both within and outside the com-
pany, and must allow for both vertical and
horizontal flows of market and technical infor-
mation across these functions throughout the
NPD project. Below, an alternative framework
for NPD is discussed, called the multiple
convergent approach.
The multiple convergent approach
In suggesting a way forward in NPD research
which builds on process models but which also
takes account of the lessons to be learned from
studies of success and failure in NPD, the
multiple convergent process attempts to break
down research-discipline boundaries, which
has direct and explicit consequences for people.
This model is conceptually derived from the
idea of parallel processing, and is shown in
Figure 12.5.
Although models based on parallel pro-
cessing were an improvement on earlier ver-
sions, there was an inherent problem in their
parallelism. Definitions of ‘parallel’ refer to
‘separated by an equal distance at every point’
or ‘never touching or intersecting’, and while
there are references to simultaneity, it is a
somewhat troublesome notion that suggests
functional separation, when all the perform-
ance indicators in NPD point to the need for
functional integration. On the other hand, ‘to
converge’ is defined as ‘to move or cause to
move towards the same point’ or to ‘tend
towards a common conclusion or result’, and is
therefore a more precise indicator of what is
required of NPD management.
Realizing, however, that there are still
functionally distinct tasks which must be car-
ried out at specific points throughout the
NPD process, it is clear that the tasks will be
carried out simultaneously at some juncture
and that the results must converge. Due to the
iterations in the process, this convergence is
likely to happen several times, culminating at
the time of product launch. As previously
mentioned, the process is a series of informa-
tion gathering and evaluating activities, and
as the new product develops from idea to
concept to prototype and so on, the informa-
tion gathered becomes more precise and reli-
able, and the decisions are made with greater
certainty. Therefore, as the development proj-
ect progresses, there are a number of natural
points of evaluation and a number of types of
evaluation (market, functional) which need
to be carried out in an integrated fashion.
These convergent points can be set around
decision outputs required to further the
process.