Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation

The Research Behind By: Dr. Robert G. Cooper, Professor Marketing,

this Whitepaper
McMaster University, Canada, and President,
Most of the findings reported in
this whitepaper are from a recent Product Development Institute Inc.
and major benchmarking study
undertaken by the author with the
APQC (American Productivity
& Quality Center, Houston).
This study of a large number of
What Are the Keys to Success in
firms looked at the product
Product Innovation?
development practices that led to
superb performance (see endnote New product success is vital to the growth and prosperity of the modern
2). This APQC study is just one corporation. In the U.S., almost half of CEOs rate innovation as “very critical”
of a long tradition of research to their future business success, according to a recent Cheskin & Fitch
investigations into what leads to Worldwide study.1 A 2005 ADL study reveals that “enhanced innovation
successful performance in product abilities” is rated as the number one lever to increase profitability and growth
innovation undertaken by the among European companies, even higher than cost cutting and mergers-
author and colleagues (for an and-acquisitions.2
overview of this ongoing research,
see endnote 3). Thus the Developing and launching a steady stream of new product successes is no
conclusions and prescriptions easy feat, however. Only one product concept out of seven becomes a new
presented in this whitepaper are product winner; and 44% of businesses’ product development projects fail to
very much fact-based. achieve their profit targets!3

Some companies, like Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Hewlett
Who Are the Best Performers?
Packard, Sony, Kraft Foods and Pfizer, make it seem easy, however —they are
Best performing businesses in
the consistent winners with one big new product winner after another. But
new product development (NPD)
exceptional performance in product development is no accident. Rather, it is
were identified in order to uncover
the result of a disciplined, systematic approach based on best practices.4
best practices. Best performers are
defined as those that achieve the What are the secrets to success in new product development (NPD) that
highest NPD productivity—they these winning businesses share? This whitepaper highlights the key factors
obtain the greatest output for a and drivers that distinguish the best performing businesses in NPD from the
given input. NPD performance rest. Those factors and drivers that are common across high-productivity,
in the APQC study2 was judged
best performing businesses in NPD were uncovered in a recent and major
on multiple criteria such as: NPD
APQC study into best practices (and in a number of previous investigations).5,6
profitability for money spent; NPD
Prescriptions on how to translate these best practices into action in your
profitability versus competitors;
business are also outlined in this paper.
percentage of projects meeting
sales targets; meeting profit
targets; on-time performance;
and the ability to open up new
windows of opportunity.
 The Innovation Diamond
Four major factors or forces drive a business’s new project performance, according
to the studies, and are illustrated as four points of performance in the Innovation
Diamond shown in Exhibit 1. They are:

1. A product innovation and technology strategy

Exhibit 1: The Four Points of Performance in the Innovation Diamond – for the business
the four main factors that drive NPD performance results

2. Resource commitment and focusing on the

Product right projects—solid portfolio management
Innovation &
Technology
Strategy for the 3. An effective, flexible and streamlined idea-to-
Business
launch process or Stage-Gate® system

Climate, Business’s Resources: 4. The right climate and culture for innovation,
Commitment
culture, teams new product
& leadership performance
& Portfolio true cross-functional teams, and senior
Management
management commitment to new product
development.
Idea-to-Launch
System: While many investigations have identified different
Stage-Gate®
Based on a major APQC study
into NPD best practices 2 facets of new product management as key to success,
Stage-Gate® is a trademark of
Product Development Institute Inc.
the major “aha” of this recent APQC study is that there
is no one key to success in product innovation. Thus
management must step back from looking just at single drivers or even individual
new product projects, and consider the broader picture. For example, having a great
idea-to-launch process is not sufficient—it’s not a standalone driver of positive
performance.

The Innovation Diamond in Exhibit 1 highlights the main drivers and practices that
are common to the best performers in NPD. So do what the winners do—emulate
them! This Diamond proves to be a valuable model for helping senior managers
focus their efforts to improve their business’s NPD productivity and performance. For
example, Procter & Gamble models their new product effort at the business unit level
closely on the Innovation Diamond of Exhibit 1.7

Here now is a more in-depth look at each of the four points of performance, along
with prescriptions for how to make each point work in your business.

1. A Product Innovation and Technology

Strategy for the Business
Best performing businesses put a product innovation and technology strategy in
place, driven by the business leadership team and a strategic vision of the business.
This is the first point of performance in the Innovation Diamond in Exhibit 1. This
product innovation strategy guides the business’s product development direction
and helps to steer resource allocation and project selection. Elements of this product

2
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 innovation strategy are listed in Exhibit 2, along their impacts—insights into whether
each element separates the best from worst performers.

Strategy begins with the goals for the business’s product innovation effort, and how
these goals tie into the broader business goals. Many businesses lack these goals, as
seen in Exhibit 2; or they are not articulated and communicated well.

Next, strategy delineates the arenas of strategic focus—in which product, market
and technology areas the business will focus its product development efforts. Note
from Exhibit 2 that innovation strategy found in best performing businesses is
more than just a list of this year’s development projects; it has a much longer term
commitment.

A business’s innovation strategy also maps out the attack plans—not only where
the business will focus its R&D efforts, but how it intends to win there. Finally, an
innovation strategy deals with resource allocation via strategic buckets, and mapping
of anticipated major initiatives over a multi-year period to yield the product
roadmap.

Businesses that build these elements into their product

Exhibit 2: Best performing businesses develop a Product
Innovation & Technology Strategy, which includes these elements
innovation strategy perform better than the rest!
Exhibit 2 reveals how each of these strategy elements
34.6% is more often found in best performing businesses,
Clearly defined NPD goals 38.1% Worst Performers
51.7%
Average Business and by contrast, how they are lacking among poorer
30.8% Best Performers
Role of NPD in Business
goals
46.3% performers. For example, from Exhibit 2, note that:
58.6%

Strategic arenas defined –

areas of strategic focus
53.8%
64.8%
• Twice as many best performing businesses (versus
69.0%
poor performers) clearly define their goals for
23.1%
Long term comm itment 38.1%
58.6%
product innovation, and define how product
15.4% development fits into their broader businesses
Use strategic buckets 26.9%
41.4% Reads: only 27.6% of businesses on goals.
average develop a Product Roadmap.
19.2% Best performers are about twice as
Product roadmap in place 27.6%
37.9%
likely to use roadmaps as poor
performers – 37.9% versus 19.2%.
• Three times as many best performing businesses
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% take a long term commitment to new product
Percentage of Businesses with Each Strategy Element development. By contrast, poor performers simply
focus on the short term, and think that a list of
this year’s active projects is “their strategy”!

• Three times as many best performing businesses

(versus poor performers) use strategic buckets to
help decide resource allocation.

• Twice as many best performing businesses use

roadmaps to chart their long term development
initiatives, although roadmaps are used by only
one-in-four businesses overall.

3
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 The point is that best performers boast an articulated product innovation strategy,
including the elements outlined above and in Exhibit 2, much more so than do poor
performing businesses. But words of warning: evidence of a comprehensive and
articulated product innovation strategy is missing in the great majority of businesses!
Even the best performers are far from perfect here.

The message for senior management is that if your

Exhibit 3: The ABC’s of defining your business’s Product Innovation Strategy
business is one of many that lacks a product innovation
Define:
a. Define Goals for • Role of NPD in Business
Strategy & Goals
strategy, including the elements in Exhibit 2, then this
Your NPD Effort • Your Goals for NPD
Industry deficiency is likely hurting your performance. The time
Analysis
Arenas of
Company
Strategic is ripe to develop and install such a strategy, an effort
b. Select Strategic Arenas – Analysis
Focus

Areas of Strategic Focus that should be led by the business leadership team. To
Optim um Entry Strategies
help in this undertaking, an A-B-C strategy development
Attack Plans T e c h n o lo g i e s e m b o d i e d i n t h e p r o d u c t s

• Innovator
framework is outlined in Exhibit 3, which includes the key
B ase Ne w , f a m il ia r N e w , u n f a m ili a r

c. Attack Strategy & • Fast Follower

• Low-Cost
Ne w ,
un fa m il i ar
Jo int ve n tu r e s
V e n tu r e c a p ita l
o r V e n t u re
N u rt u r in g o r
E d uc a ti o na l
a c qu isit io n s
V e n t u re ca p it a l
o r V e n tu r e
N ur t ur in g or
E d u ca tio n a l
a cq u is it io n s

Entry Strategy
In t er n a l m a r ke t I n te r n a l v e n tu r e s V e n t u re ca p it a l

• Differentiator

elements uncovered in best performing businesses. This

Ne w , d e v e lo p m e n t o r o r A c q u isi tio n s o r o r V e n tu r e
f a m i lia r A c qu i sit io n s (o r L ice n s in g n u r tu r in g o r
Jo i nt V e n tu r es ) E d u c at io n a l;a

• Niche Market targeted by theI products

n te r na l b a se In te r n a l pr o d u c t
a cq u is it io n s

Jo i nt V e nt u r e s

• Defender Ba s e d e ve l op m e nt s d ev e lo p m e nt o r ( la r g e fi r m w it h
(o r A c qu i sit io n s ) A cq u is itio n s o r s m a ll f irm )
L ice n s in g

ABC guide serves as a useful starting point to develop

d : Resource Commitment &
your own product innovation strategy. (Note that a
R es o urc e C om m itm en t to N P D
P ro d uc t R oad m a p

Strategic Portfolio Decisions:

Ext en sio n s i nto C he m ica l M i xers

O ri gi n al Ag i tator P l atf o rm - Ex ten si on

S trategic Buckets
• T h e Str ateg ic R ol e o f Yo u r
Che m i cal M i xer s: B a
s ic L ine

Pl an Che m i cal M i xer s: Sp eci al I m p el le rs

e xten si o ns

B u sin es s
C he mi ca l M ixe r s: H i - Po wer
& ne w
p la tf orm s

Ex ten si on s i nto Pe trol eu m B le n de rs

Pl a t f o rm
• S tr ate gy, G oa ls a nd T ask
N e w P rodu c t

Deployment, Strategic Buckets &

Pl a tf orm E xte ns io n

P roj e c t s P roj e c t s

product innovation and technology strategy is often

Pet r ol eu m Ble nd er s : L ow P ow er R ang e

Pet r ol eum B len de r s : H ig h Pow er

A p p ro ach ( ch ang e th e basis of

co mpe tition )
N e w P ro du ct P lat f orm: A era tor s

A e rato r Pl atf o rm

P& P Ae r ato r s: Lin e #1 ( f i xed m o unt )

• C o m p etitiv e Par ity
• S p end in g L evel B as ed on

the Strategic Product Roadmap

P & P Aer a t ors : L in e # 2 ( f lo at i ng)

P& P Aer a t or s: H i - Pow er

Ex ten si on s i nto A e rato rs f or C he mi ca l W aste

P la tfo rm Exte n s
io n
D e man d fro m A ctive P ro jects O th er :
E xten sions, M odifica tions,
Ch em i cal Aer a to rs : L in e# 1 Impr ovem ent s, Fixes ,C ost Red uctions
C he mi ca l A er at or s: Li ne # 2

developed as part of the business’s overall strategy; if

e. Tactical Portfolio Project selection (Go/Kill), not, then the innovation strategy should be firmly linked
Decisions prioritization, & resource allocation
to the business’s strategy):

a. Goals and role: Begin with your goals! The business’s

product innovation strategy specifies the goals of your business’s total new product
effort, and it indicates the role that product innovation will play in helping your
business achieve its business objectives. It answers the question: how do new products
and product innovation fit into your business’s overall plan? A statement such as
“By the year 2008, 30% of our business’s sales will come from new products” is a
typical goal.

Another key best practice is to ensure that the role of

Exhibit 4: The Product-Market Matrix delineates possible Strategic new products in achieving the business’s overall goals
Arenas on which to focus your NPD or R&D efforts
is clear and communicated to all (also highlighted
Voice Data Internet Wireless Long
in Exhibit 2). The whole point of having goals is so
Small - Home
Distance
that everyone involved in the activity has a common
Office
purpose... something to work towards. What we witness
Medium
Business here are very mediocre practices with less than half of
Markets
Large
Business
all businesses defining and communicating the role
Multinationals
of product development in achieving their business
Residential
goals.
Products
b. Arenas and strategic thrust: Focus is the key to
The axes of the diagram are “Products” and “Markets.” Each cell represents a
potential strategic arena.
an effective product innovation strategy. Your product
Arenas are assessed for their potential and the company's business position. Stars innovation strategy specifies where you’ll attack, or
designate top-priority arenas – where new product efforts will be focused.
perhaps more important, where you won’t attack.

4
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 Thus the concept of strategic arenas is at the heart of a new product strategy—the
markets, industry sectors, applications, product types or technologies on which your
business will focus its new product efforts. The battlefields must be defined!

The specification of these arenas—what’s “in bounds” and what’s “out of bounds”—is
fundamental to spelling out the direction or strategic thrust of the business’s product
development effort. It is the result of identifying and assessing product innovation
opportunities at the strategic level. Without arenas defined, the search for specific
new product ideas or opportunities is unfocused. Over time, the portfolio of new
product projects is likely to contain a lot of unrelated projects, in many different
markets, technologies or product-types—a scatter-gun effort. And the results are
predictable: a not-so-profitable new product effort.

The first task is one of identifying a possible set of arenas—areas that offer the
business some new and profitable opportunities. The product-market matrix shown
in Exhibit 4 is a typical chart that many firms use as they try to define new but
adjacent areas to operate in. Each cell in the diagram represents a potential strategic
arena on which to focus the business’s R&D efforts, and offers a number of new
product opportunities.

Next comes the task of evaluating these arenas—selecting the battlefields! Usually
two dimensions are used for this evaluation:

• Arena attractiveness—how attractive is the arena

Exhibit 5: The Strategic Map – arenas are plotted on two dimensions to the business. This is an external measure and
Each circle represents a possible captures characteristics such as size and growth of
strategic arena – a possible area
markets here, intensity of competition and margins
of focus for NPD
10 earned, and the potential for developing new
Good Aerators
High Risk
9 Chemical products (for example, the technological maturity
Bets Aerators Waste
Aerators
Bets
8 for P&P Flotation
of the area; or where on the technology S-curve the
Cells
7
Chemical Petroleum arena is).
6 Mixers Aerators

5
Petroleum Hydro-M et High Density • Business strength—what strengths the business
4 Blenders Agitators
Stock

3
Slurry Pumps brings that could be used to advantage in the new
Arena Attractiveness Pumps
2 arena. This involves an assessment of the business’s
Conservative Home Chemical
No
1
Bets
Base Specialty
core competencies and strengths, and asking
0
Pumps Bets
whether these could be leveraged if one entered
10 8 6 4 2 0
Business Strength the new arena.

Usually, a set of 6-10 questions is developed for each

dimension, which senior management then uses to rate the various arenas under
consideration. The result is the strategic map, with each arena plotted; an example
from a process equipment manufacturer is in Exhibit 5. Arenas in the upper left
quadrant—the “good bets”—are designated as the most promising.

c. Attack strategy and entry strategy: The issue of how to attack each strategic
arena should also be part of your business’s product innovation strategy. For example,

5
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 the strategy may be to be the industry innovator, the first to the market with new
products; or to be a “fast follower”, rapidly copying and improving upon competitive
entries. Other strategies might focus on being low cost versus a differentiator versus
a niche player; or on emphasizing certain strengths, core competencies or product
attributes or advantages. An understanding of your business’s core competencies
(unique strengths that can be leveraged to advantage in the marketplace) coupled
with industry success drivers (what it takes to succeed in this industry, sector or arena)
are key analyses that lead to the selection of the appropriate attack strategy.

Additionally, entry plans for new arenas should be defined. Such a plan might be
to “go it alone” via internal product development. Alternately, more and more firms
are seeking alliances through licensing, partnering and joint venturing as a way to
enhance their product development capabilities and succeed in the marketplace.

d. Deployment—spending commitments, priorities and strategic buckets: Strategy

becomes real when you start spending money! Your product innovation strategy must
deal with how much to spend on product innovation; and it should indicate the
relative emphasis, or strategic priorities, accorded each arena of strategic focus. Thus
an important facet of a product innovation strategy is resource commitment and
allocation. And ear-marking resources (funds or person-days targeted at different
strategic arenas, project types or major development initiatives) helps to ensure the
strategic alignment of product development with your business goals.8 More on this
topic next in the section on portfolio management.

2. Resource Commitment and Portfolio Management

The second point of performance in the Innovation Diamond in Exhibit 1 is resource
commitment and focusing on the right projects, namely portfolio management.
Portfolio management is about resource allocation
Exhibit 6: Strategic Portfolio Management practices in best performing in the business. That is, which new product and
businesses
development projects from the many opportunities the
Formal & system atic portfolio
3.8% business faces shall it fund? And which ones should
21.2%
management system in place 31.0% receive top priority and be accelerated to market?
46.2%
Projects are aligned
with Business’s strategy
57.2%
65.5%
It is also about business strategy, for today’s new
Resource breakdown reflects 8.0%
30.7%
product projects decide tomorrow’s product-market
Business’s strategy 65.5%
0.0%
profile of the firm. Finally, it is about balance: about
Portfolio has excellent balance 19.4%
in project types 31.0% the optimal investment mix between risk versus return,
12.0%
Sold job of ranking &
prioritizing projects
26.6% maintenance versus growth, and short term versus
41.4% Worst Performers

Portfolio contains high 0.0% Average Business long term new product projects.
22.8% Best Performers
value projects 37.9%

Balance – sufficient resources 4.0%

21.5%
Best performing businesses boast an effective portfolio
for number of projects
37.9%
management system that helps the leadership team
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percent of Businesses W here Each

effectively allocate resources to the right areas and
Portfolio Management Practice is in Place
to the right projects much more so than do poor
performers (although, as Exhibit 6 shows, a portfolio

6
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 management system is still an elusive goal for almost 80% of businesses). Here are
facets of portfolio management that best performers have in place:

• Development projects in best performers are aligned with their business strategy,
and resource breakdowns in the portfolio mirror the business strategy.

• There is the right balance of projects in the portfolio (for example, between long
term and short term projects; between high risk and low risk; and between major
new products and minor modifications).

• Best performing businesses also do an excellent job of ranking and prioritizing

projects, and their portfolios generally contain high value projects (by contrast,
poor performing businesses have portfolios with too many low value projects!).

• Finally, best performers manage to strike the right balance between resources
available and numbers of projects underway, so that a resource crunch, so typical
in poor performers, is avoided.

Use Exhibit 6, which lists the ingredients of a solid portfolio approach, to benchmark
your own business. If you are typical, your business may be weak on many of these
important items. But note how strongly they are embraced or achieved by the best
performing businesses. This comparison of your practices versus those in Exhibit
6 may convince you that your business is missing one of the key ingredients in
performance, and you may then decide that your business needs more effective
portfolio management. If so, here are some pointers:

a. A hierarchical process: Portfolio management and resource allocation can be

treated as a hierarchical process, with two levels of decision-making (see Exhibit 7):9

• Level 1—Strategic portfolio management: Strategic

Exhibit 7: The two levels of decision-making in portfolio management portfolio decisions answer the question: directionally,
Business Strategy &
Product Innovation
where should your business spend its development
Strategy
resources (people and funds)? How should you
S trate gic B uck ets
split your resources across projects types, markets,
1. Strategic Portfolio
Decisions:
New Produc t
Pr ojects
Pla tform
Proje cts
( chan ge the ba sis o f
com p etition )
R es o urc e C om m itm en t to N PD technologies or product categories? And on what
Resource
major initiatives or new platforms should you
• T he Str ateg ic R o le o f Y ou r

Strategic Buckets &

Other :
E xte nsio ns, Mod ifica tion s,
B u sine ss

Commitment to
Imp r ovem en ts, Fixe s, Co st Re duc tion s

• Stra teg y, G o als an d T ask

A p pr oac h

Strategic Product P ro duc t R oa dm a p

• C o mp etitive Pa rity
• Sp en d ing L evel B ased o n
NPD
concentrate your resources? Establishing strategic
Ex ten si on s i nto C h em ic al M i xers

D em an d fr om A c tive Pro jec ts

Roadmap
O ri g i nal A gi tato r P l at f orm - Ex ten si on

Ch em i cal M i xe r s: B asi c L in e

Ch em i cal Mi xe rs : Sp eci al I m pel le r s

Pl an
e xte nsi o ns
Che m ic a l M i xer s: Hi - Po w e
r
& ne w
p la tf orm s

E xten si on s i nto P etrol e um B l en de rs

P la tf orm E xt ens io n

Pet r o leu m Bl end er s : L ow P ow e r R an ge

Pet r ol eu m B le nde r s : H ig h Pow e r

Ne w Pro du ct P la tf orm : A er ator s

Ae rat or Pl a tfo rm

buckets and defining strategic product roadmaps are

P& P Ae r at or s: Li ne #1 (f i xed mo un t )

P& P Ae ra t or s: L in e # 2 ( f l oat i ng )

P& P Ae r at or s: Hi - Po wer

Ex ten si o ns i nto A e ra to rs f or C h emi c al W as te

P la tf orm Exte n si on

Ch em i cal Aer a to r s: L in e #1

Che m i ca l A er at or s: Li ne # 2

effective tools here (more on these methods below).

Portfolio Review: Stage-Gate® Process:
2. Tactical Ø Holistic
Portfolio Ø All projects in auction
Ø Individual projects • Level 2—Tactical portfolio decisions (individual
Ø In-depth evaluation
Decisions: Project ü Right priorities?
Ø Quality data available project selection): Tactical portfolio decisions focus
ü Right mix?
Selection (Go/Kill), Ø By senior management
ü Alignment?
Prioritization, & ü Sufficiency? Ø Go/Kill decisions on individual projects, but obviously follow from the
Resource ü Resource adequacy? Ø Resources allocated
Allocation Ø By senior management strategic decisions. They address the question: what
specific new product projects should you do? Such
decisions are shown at the bottom part of Exhibit
while tools for these tactical decisions are outlined
later in this whitepaper.

7
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 b. Strategic buckets: Many best performing companies use the concept of strategic
buckets to help in the resource deployment decision. Strategic buckets simply
define where management desires the development dollars to go, broken down by
project type, by market, by geography, and/or by product area.10 Strategic buckets
is based on the notion that strategy becomes real when you start spending money,
and thus translating strategy from theory to reality is about making decisions on
where the resources should be spent—strategic buckets. In the example in Exhibit 8,
management begins with the business’s strategy and then makes strategic choices
about resource allocation: how many resources go to each bucket—“new products”
versus “improvements and modifications” versus “cost reductions” versus “salesforce
requests”? (For illustration in Exhibit 8, these allocated are rounded to $2M, $3M,
$2M and $3M respectively). Note that each of these project types compete for the
same resources; further most companies have far too many of the smaller “low
hanging fruit” projects and not nearly enough of bolder and genuine new product
projects.11

With resources allocation now firmly established and

Exhibit 8: The Strategic Buckets method split resources into different driven by strategy, projects within each bucket are then
envelopes or buckets to ensure resource splits mirror strategic priorities
ranked against each other, until one is out of resources
Project Ran Gate
Project Rank Savings/ in each bucket. This establishes project priorities. Note
MD
k Score
150-C 1 88 that projects in one bucket—such as “new products”—
Jeanie 1 88 97-D 2 85
Monty 2 85 149-F 3 80 do not compete against those in another bucket, such
Kool-Flow 3 80 1402 4 77 $2 M
$2 M Pop-Up 4 77 Cost 98-DD 5 75
as “improvements and modifications” or “salesforce
Regatta 5 75 Reductions
Slow-Brew 6 70
New Products = $2 M
1267
1230-D
6
7
70
69
requests”. If they did, in the short term, simple and
=$2 M
inexpensive projects would always win out as they
Widget-4 7 69

Project Rank Sales/

Improvements
& Modifications
Sales
Project Rank Mktg
do in many businesses. Instead, strategic buckets
Requests

1542 1
MD
42.3
= $3 M = $3 M
Walco-43 1
Score
79
build firewalls between buckets. Thus, by earmarking
Pop-Redo
Quick-Fit
2
3
37.3
31.2
Mini-Pkg
Asda Refill
2
3
68
65
specific amounts to “new products” or to “platform
$3 M 1498-K 4 25.5 Regen-3 4 61 developments,” the portfolio becomes much more
Flavor-1 5 24.1 4 portfolios, fire-walled Small-Pack 5 55
Xmas Pkg 6 18.0 Rank projects until out of Tesco-Lite 6 52 $3 M balanced.
Lite-Pkg 7 6.7 resources in each bucket M&S-41 7 50

In spite of its intuitive appeal, the use of strategic

buckets is a decidedly weak area overall with only
26.9% of businesses developing strategic buckets, as shown in Exhibit 2. But strategic
buckets is clearly a best practice, with almost three times as many best performers
(41.4%) employing this strategic buckets approach (when compared to worst
performers).

c. The strategic product roadmap: A strategic roadmap is an effective way to map

out a series of major initiatives in an attack plan. A roadmap is simply a management
group’s view of how to get where they want to go or to achieve their desired objective.12
Although gaining in popularity, especially in high-technology businesses, the use of
roadmaps is a weak area generally, with only 27.6% of businesses developing product
roadmaps (also shown in Exhibit 2). About twice as many best performers (37.9%) use
product roadmaps than worst performers (19.2%).

8
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 In use, your business’s senior management maps
out the planned assaults—the major new product
Exhibit 9: The Strategic Product Roadmap lays out the major development
initiatives initiatives and their timing—that are required in order
to succeed in a certain market or sector in the form of
Extensions in to Che mical M ixe rs

O rig ina l A g itator Platfo rm - Extension Major development a strategic product roadmap.1 This roadmap may also
Ch em ical Mixers: Basic Lin e projects are mapped out
Plan
e xtensio ns
Ch em ical Mixers: Sp ecial Im p ellers
for the foreseeable future. specify the platform developments required for these
& new
C hem ic al M ixers: Hi-P ow er
Placemarks for these
p la tfo rm s

E xte nsions into Petroleu m Blend ers

projects are established & new products. An illustration of a roadmap (based on
resources tentatively set
P la tform Extension

P etro leum Blend ers : Low P ow er Ra ng e

aside or ear-marked. the equipment manufacturer in Exhibit 5) is shown in
P et ro leum Ble nd ers : Hig h P ow er
Exhibit 9, where major development initiatives are laid
Timeline
out over time (often as far out as 5-8 years). Placemarks
Ne w Platform : A erato rs (fo r P& P I nd ustry)

A era to r P la tfo rm

are established for these development initiatives and

P &P A erat ors: Lin e # 1 (fixed m ou nt)

P& P A erat ors: Line # 2 (floati ng)

resources tentatively earmarked for them. In this way,

P&P Aerato rs: Hi-Po wer

Platform E xtension: A erato rs fo r Che mi ca l W aste

Pla tfo rm Ex tensio n senior management is able to translate its view of the
Ch em ical Aerators: Lin e # 1

Ch em ical Aerators: Lin e # 2 future and its strategy into resource commitments and
concrete actions. Additionally, the development or
0 12 24 36 48 60
Months acquisition of new technologies can be mapped out in
the form of a technology roadmap.2

d. Tactical—project selection: Once these strategic portfolio decisions are made,

management can then deal with the next level of decision making: translating
strategy into reality, namely the tactical decisions.13 When selecting projects, an
important best practice is to make sure that your new product effort has a long
term thrust and focus—that your portfolio includes some longer term projects (as
opposed to just short term, incremental projects). This is a fairly weak ingredient of
the six elements in Exhibit 2, with only 38.1% of businesses having a longer term
new product strategy. Indeed this short time horizon of businesses’ new product
efforts has been a widely-voiced criticism. Ironically, this one ingredient is one of
the most important of the six strategy elements: a longer term orientation separates
top performers from the worst, with 58.6% of the best (and only 23.1% of the worst)
adopting a longer term approach.

Tactical portfolio decisions focus on projects, and address the questions: which
specific new product and development projects should you do? What are their
relative priorities? And what resources should be allocated to each? Such tactical
decisions are shown at the bottom part of Exhibit 7.

To make effective tactical decisions, best performers use a combination of gates and
portfolio reviews, both working in harmony as shown at the bottom of Exhibit 7. Let’s
look at each:

• Gates: Embedded within your idea-to-launch new product system should be

tough Go/Kill decision-points called “gates”. Gates provide an in-depth review of
individual projects one at a time, and render Go/Kill, prioritization and resource
allocation decisions—hence gates must be part of your portfolio management
system (bottom right of Exhibit 7).

9
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 • Portfolio reviews: Doing the right projects is more than simply individual project
selection at gate meetings; rather it’s about the entire mix of projects and
new product or technology investments that your business makes. Thus many
businesses install a second decision process, namely the periodic portfolio review
(bottom left of Exhibit 7). Senior management meets two-to-four times per year
to review the portfolio of all projects. Here, senior management also makes
Go/Kill and prioritization decisions, where all projects and are considered on the
table together, and all or some are up for auction. Key issues and questions are:

✓ Are all projects strategically aligned (fit your business’s strategy)?

✓ Do you have the right priorities among projects?

✓ Are there some project on the active list that you should kill?

✓ Is there the right balance of projects? The right mix?

✓ Are there enough resources to do all these projects?

✓ Do you have sufficiency—if you do these projects, will you achieve your
stated business goals?

e. Project selection tools: Myriad tools exist to select and prioritize development
projects, and often the choice of method depends on the type of project (Note when
using strategic buckets, as in Exhibit 8, multiple portfolios are the result, one for each
project type; and each portfolio or list can thus utilize its own prioritization or Go/Kill
method). Project selection tools include:

Financial: The use of NPV, EVA or payback period are traditional and popular methods
to make Go/Kill decisions at gates, and even to rank projects from best to worst. Note
however that for genuine new products, where there are greater unknowns, financial
tools prove to be the least effective, according to a major
study of portfolio methods and their efficacies.14 This is
Exhibit 10: The Productivity Index – an index used to rank development
projects due not so much to the fact that the tool is unsound,
• Take what you are trying to maximize
but rather that the quality of data and projections—
– Example: NPV expected sales, costs, and time to market—is so poor
• Divide by what the constraining resource is early in the life of a project at the very time the key
– Example: People (expressed as person-days)
– Or Development funds ($000)
Go/Kill decisions must be made.
• And rank your projects by this index until out of resources
Productivity index: A valuable twist on the traditional
• Example:
NPV and a modification designed to maximize
Productivity Output NPV the productivity of your portfolio is the use of the
Index = = Person-Days
Input productivity index.15 Here take what you are trying to
NPV= forecasted NPV of the
maximize—for example, the NPV—and divide by the
project constraining resource, for example the person-days
Person-Days = resources
required to complete the project to complete the project, as defined in Exhibit 10. In
practice, the portfolio manager simply calculates the
productivity index for each project—for example

10
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 NPV/person-days to complete the project—and
Exhibit 11: Determination of Expected Commercial Value of a Project
ranks your projects using this index and until out of
A model of a two-stage investment decision process: First, invest $D in development, which may yield a
resources. This method yields a higher overall value of
technical success with probability Pt . Then invest $C in comm ercialization, which may result in a com mercial
success with probability P cs. If successful, the project yields an income stream whose present value is $PV. More your portfolio—NPV is maximized for a given resource
sophisticated versions of this model would entail more stages than the two shown here, and an array of possible
outcomes from each stage. expenditure—and at the same time, ensures that you
Commercial
Success
don’t have too many projects in your development
Technical
Success
Pcs
Yes
$PV
pipeline for the limited resources available.
Launch
P ts $C

$ECV Development
Yes
No
Real options: Real options (sometime called options
$D Commercial
No pricing theory or expected commercial value) is a
Failure
Technical
Failure
variant of the financial models, and is designed to
ECV = [(PV * Pcs - C) * Pts ]- D
handle risk and uncertainty. Of course, every new
$ECV = Expected Commercial Value of the project product project has some risk: there is never a 100%
Pts = Probability of Technical Success
P cs = Probability of Commercial S uccess (given technical success) chance of either technical success or commercial
$D = Development Costs remaining in the project
$C = Commercialization (Launch) Costs success. Thus, the pundits argue that any method that
$PV = Net Present Value of project's future earnings (discounted to today)
fails to accommodate the inherent risk in a financial
analysis is naïve. One approach to real options is to use
decision-tree analysis—breaking the project into a series of steps or stages, each
step with several outcomes, success or failure, as in Exhibit 11. The consequences
of each outcome or tree-branch are determined, and probabilities of each outcome
occurring are estimated. The method is more correct than the straight NPV approach
above, but is a little more complex to use.16

Scorecards: The scorecard method works, according to an IRI portfolio management

study, although it is not the most popular method.17 The notion here is that qualitative
factors, such as leveraging core competencies and competitive advantage, are much
more important predictors of success than are financial numbers which are often in
error. Many studies have probed new product success factors over the years, and there
now exists a solid body of knowledge about which factors are the best predictors of
new product success and profitability.

In use, scorecards are created that incorporate 6-10 of these key predictive factors.
Here is a typical and proven list of scorecard criteria found to be effective in evaluating
a new product project:18

1. Strategic fit and importance of the project to the business

2. Competitive and product advantage (is the proposed new product differentiated?
with a compelling value proposition?)

3. Market attractiveness (market size, growth, margins and competitive intensity)

4. Leveraging core competencies (your ability to leverage the business’s strengths

in this project)

5. Technical feasibility (size of technical gap; technical complexity; company track

record and experience technically in similar projects)

11
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 6. Risk and reward (size of reward versus the risk: potential financial payoffs,
magnitude of downside risks, and certainty of assumptions).

From this criteria list, an operational scorecard is created. This scorecard is then used at
gate meetings by gatekeepers (senior management) to objectively evaluate and rate
the project in question. The method has the added advantages of engaging senior
management in the decision process in a structured and constructive way, adding
some discipline to a potentially chaotic gate meeting, and ensuring that projects
are objectively evaluated by an outside-the-team group of experienced people.
Scorecards are an excellent method for making early Go/Kill decisions on projects
where financial information is limited and often unreliable, for example at the first
few gates in the case of genuine new product projects and platform developments.

f. Resource allocation: Resource allocation is handled in part by the various project

selection methods outlined above. For example, by ranking projects at a portfolio
review until out of resources using the productivity index, if one is disciplined, the
list of projects is just about right for the available resources. But the question of just
who works on what projects remains a thorny one. Smaller and less sophisticated
businesses handle the issue informally, often letting the project leader propose a
list of candidates (people) to work on his or her project. A step up is to use readily
available and inexpensive software packages. For example, MS-Project® is used as a
planning tool by most project teams to map out the next steps of their project. But
MS-Project® can also be used to roll up the resource requirements from individual
projects into resource requirements for the entire portfolio. Leading businesses
increasingly rely on more advanced software also from Microsoft, such as the Microsoft
Office Enterprise Project Management solution (MS-EPM).19 This software provides
valuable tools to support the execution of the product development process, such as
project scheduling, task-and-resource assignments, and time-and-task-completion
tracking.

3. An Effective, Flexible and Streamlined Idea-to-Launch System

An idea-to-launch system for product innovation is one solution to what ails so
many businesses’ new product efforts.20 Such a system is also one of the four points
of performance in the Innovation Diamond in Exhibit 1. Facing increased pressure
to reduce the cycle time, yet improve their new product success rates, companies
implement Stage-Gate® systems to manage, direct, and control their product-
innovation initiatives—see an example of Stage-Gate® in Exhibit 12. That is, these
businesses have developed a systematic process—a playbook, game plan or
framework—for moving a new product project through the various stages and steps
from idea to launch. But most important, they have built into their framework the
many critical success factors and industry best practices highlighted below in order to
heighten the effectiveness of their idea-to-launch system.

12
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 Almost every best performing business has
Exhibit 12: An Overview of a typical Stage-Gate® idea-to-launch system implemented a stage-and-gate system to drive their
new product projects through to commercialization,
Stage-Gate®: A 5-stage, 5-gate framework according to the APQC benchmarking study; and a
for significant new product projects
solid idea-to-launch process is the most prevalent best
practice observed among the sample of businesses.21
Driving New Products to Market
The PDMA’s best practices study concurs: “nearly 60%
of the firms surveyed use some form of Stage-Gate®
Idea 2nd Go to Go to Go to
Screen Screen Dev’mt Test Launch Post-Launch
Review process. Over half of the firms which have adopted
Stage-Gate® processes have moved from a basic
Gate Stage 2 Gate Gate Gate
Stage 3 Stage 4
Idea
Stage
Gate
1
Stage 1 2 3 4 5 Stage 5
process to more sophisticated versions with formal
process ownership and facilitation (18.5% of the total)
Testing
Discovery Scoping Business
Case
Development Launch
or third generation processes with more flexible gates
Stage-Gate® is a trademark of
and stage structures”.22
Product Development Institute Inc.

While many companies claim to have an idea-to-

launch process, the best performers seem to get it
right more often, and build in more best practices
(see Exhibit 13 for sample best practices). Best performing businesses build in a
strong customer focus and rely heavily on voice-of-customer research in the early
days of projects. They front-end load their projects, undertaking appropriate, often
extensive up-front homework prior to Development (by contrast, poor performers
too often rush a poorly defined, poorly investigated project into Development, and
suffer the consequences later!). And best performers
focus on developing differentiated, superior products
Exhibit 13: Key elements of an effective idea-to-launch system
that meet customer needs better than competitors’. By
Customer focused – voice-of-customer 15.4% contrast, poor performers tend much more to develop
33.4%
work; identify customers needs/problems 69.0%
undifferentiated, vanilla products with little competitive
Front end loaded – an emphasis on 38.5%
homework prior to Development
44.8%
62.1% advantage.
Develop products superior to 15.4%
38.8%
competitors’ in meeting customer needs 58.6% In addition, best performers strive for high quality
18.7%
Excellent quality-of-execution:
all activities, idea-to-launch
34.4%
52.5%
of execution of all activities from idea through to
Tough, rigorous Go/Kill decision 23.1%
33.3%
launch; they build very tough Go/Kill decision points
points thru-out the process 51.7%

15.4%
in the form of gates into their process (where mediocre
NPD project performance metrics 30.0%
(e.g. NPV, sales, on-time launch) 44.8% projects really do get killed); and their process includes
23.1%
A Process Manager in place 42.5%
51.7%
new product project metrics built in, metrics such as
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% NPV, sales and on-time launch, so that performance
Percentage of Businesses
Worst Performers
Average Business that Embrace Each Best Practice results from individual projects can be gauged. Finally,
Best Performers
there is a process manager in place to champion the
process and its proper use and implementation.

Some of these activities and best practices in Exhibit 13 may seem evident and
common sense. The problem is that they’re not as common as one might think!
Indeed, a quick look at Exhibit 13 reveals that only about one-third of companies on
average employ each best practice. So take a hard look at your own idea-to-launch

13
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 system, and critically assess whether these seven best practices in Exhibit 13 are really
built in.

Accelerating the idea-to-launch process—NexGen Stage-Gate®: A number of

businesses have moved to next generation or NexGen Stage-Gate® processes and
have incorporated techniques to render their product development efforts lean,
rapid and profitable. Increased productivity in NPD is the goal! Some worthwhile
enhancements and changes include:

Viewed as a philosophy: Stage-Gate® is more than a method or process… more than

a set of flow charts, templates and check-lists. The best companies now see their new
product process as a philosophy or culture that fosters new and desired behavior.
Success in product innovation requires many behavioral changes, such as discipline;
deliberate, fact-based and transparent decision-making; responsible, accountable,
effective and true cross-functional teams; continuous improvement and learning
from mistakes; and risk taking and risk awareness. The structure and content of the
Stage-Gate® process is increasingly viewed as a vehicle for change—for changing the
way people think, act, decide and work together.

An automated process: Progressive companies recognize that automation greatly

enhances the effectiveness of their new product process. For one thing, the process is
much easier to use by everyone from project leaders to executives, thereby enhancing
buy in (cumbersome, hard-to-use processes have been a hindrance to adoption
in some companies in the past). A second benefit of automation is information
management. Everyone from project team member to senior executive has access to
the best view of relevant information—the information
that they need to move their project forward, to
Exhibit 14: An Overview of NexGen Stage-Gate®
cooperate with other team members globally on vital
2nd Screen Go to Develop Go to Test Go to Launch PLR

Stage-Gate® Regular
tasks, or to help make the Go/Kill decision. Speaking
for major new product Stage 1Gate
2
Stage 2 Gate
3
Stage 3 Gate
4
Stage 4 Gate
Stage 5
5
of decisions, these automated systems are very much
developments
Scoping Business Case Development Testing Launch decision-support systems, with users reporting that
Idea
new product decision-making is enhanced.
Screen Go to Develop Go to Launch PLR

Idea Gate Stage

1& 2
Gate
3
Stage
3&4
Gate
5 Stage 5
As a result, Stage-Gate® automation software tools,
Stage 1
Stage-Gate®
XPress for such as Accolade® by Sopheon, are increasingly being
Discovery Scope & Development Launch
improvements &
modifications
Business Case & Testing
adopted by leading businesses.23 For example, Accolade
Decision to
Execute PLR integrates strategy, portfolio management, Stage-
Stage Gate Stage
Gate® and idea management—a business decision
1& 2 3 3, 4 & 5
Stage-Gate® Lite support system for making new product investment
for Salesforce & Scope & Execute:
Marketing Business Case Development,
Test & Launch decisions more effectively and efficiently.
Requests

A scalable process: There is no longer just one

version of Stage-Gate®. Rather the process
has “morphed” into multiple versions. Exhibit 14 shows some examples:
Stage-Gate® XPress for projects of moderate risk, such as improvements,
modifications and extensions; Stage-Gate® Lite for very small projects, such as simple

14
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 customer requests; and there is even Stage-Gate® TD for technology development
projects, where the deliverable is new knowledge, new science or a technological
capability.24

Flexible and adaptable: The notion of a rigid, lock-stepped process is dead! Rather,
today’s fast-paced NexGen Stage-Gate® system is adaptable and flexible. It allows the
project team considerable latitude in deciding what actions are really needed and
what deliverables are appropriate for each gate; and the system adapts to fluid and
dynamic information.

The concept of spiral development—building in a series of “build test feedback

and revise” loops or spirals from the early days of the project all the way through
to field trials—is one way that fast-paced project teams cope with changing, fluid
information, and at the same time, get their product definition right. Exhibit 15
show a sample series of loops or iterations, beginning early in Stage 2 with voice-
of-customer research followed quickly by a full proposition concept test using, for
example, a virtual prototype and a simulated selling presentation. Similar fast-paced
iterations or spirals continue through the development stage and right up to pre-
Launch.

Further, in a flexible Stage-Gate® system, activities and stages can overlap, with the
principle of simultaneous execution employed—not waiting for the total completion
of a previous step and 100% perfect information before moving ahead. For example,
one does not wait for formal gate approval to move into some facets of the final
stage (the Launch stage in Exhibit 12). Rather, long
lead-time launch activities—such as salesforce training,
Exhibit 15: Spiral Development: A series of “build-test-feedback-revise”
Iterations move the project team quickly to a fact-based product definition preparation of marketing collaterals, and ordering raw
materials—are moved forward into the previous stage
Build (Testing in Exhibit 12) in order to accelerate the project,
Business Testing &
Case Validation even though the project may yet be cancelled. Here
the project team weighs the cost of delay versus the
Gate Gate Gate
Stage 2 Stage 3: Development Stage 4
2 3 4 costs incurred by moving activities forward in the event
the project is cancelled (along with the likelihood of
cancellation occurring).

Field Lean: Management has borrowed the concepts from lean

Trial,
VoC User Beta manufacturing and applied them to the new product
Full Prop 1st- Next Test
Needs & Rapid -
Wants Study Concept Proto &
Proto Proto & process in order to remove waste in the process. Here,
Test & Test Test
Test
by analyzing a map of the idea-to-launch Value Stream,
all non-value-added items are removed. Every activity,
procedure, template, deliverable and committee in the
current process is scrutinized: is it really needed; and how can it be done faster and
better? Continuous learning and improvement is a key facet of the lean method, with
post-mortems undertaken at the Post Launch Review to provide insights on how to

15
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 do projects better and faster (the PLR in Exhibits 12 and 14). The result is a much
more efficient and effective idea-to-launch method.

Partnering and alliances: Since so much of product innovation involves partners,

alliances and out-sourced vendors, increasingly leading firms build in an alliance
sub-process into their traditional new product process. Embedded within in stages
of the NexGen Stage-Gate® process are key external activities, such as identifying
the need for partners, seeking potential partners, and vetting candidate partners.
Similarly, in addition to the usual gate deliverables, such as results of market and
technical assessments or a financial analysis, are items such as “letters of intent” and
“memoranda of understanding” from potential partners. And gate criteria also build
in partnering issues, for example evaluating a project with and without a partner in
place.

4. A Positive Climate and Environment for Innovation

People, culture and leadership is the fourth point of performance in the Innovation
Diamond in Exhibit 1, and although difficult to measure and even harder to change,
proves to be the strongest driver of businesses’ product innovation performance
results. Senior managers in best performing businesses lead the innovation effort
and they are strongly committed to new product development, as shown in Exhibit
16. An example is at Procter & Gamble, where the CEO, A.G.. Lafley (Chairman of the
Board, President and Chief Executive), makes it clear: “Innovation is a prerequisite for
sustained growth. No other path to profitable growth can be sustained over time.
Without continual innovation, markets stagnate, products become commodities, and
margins shrink.”25

A significant minority of businesses are now making

product innovation results part of senior management’s
Exhibit 16: The climate & culture for innovation, and the role of senior
management, are keys to success in NPD
performance metrics, and in some cases tying
variable pay and bonuses to the business’s innovation
Senior management 26.9%
strongly committed to NPD
50.5%
79.3%
performance. For example, at ITT Industries, new
NP metrics are part of senior 14.3%
34.3% product results (measured by new-product sales as a
management’s annual objectives 50.0%

Business's climate supports 7.7%

percentage of the business’s annual sales revenue) is
37.1%
entrepreneurship & innovation 62.1% now a key performance metric for business unit general
Skunk works & unofficial 3.8%
projects encouraged
15.6%
21.4%
managers, along with meeting profit and cost targets.
Time-off for creative work;
0.0%
13.7%
Note that while still not widespread, this practice is
Friday projects 27.6%
7.7%
seen in best performing companies almost four-times
Senior management provides strong 40.0%
support & empowerment to teams 65.5% as often as in poor performers.
NPD team rewards or recognition 7.7%
30.1%
for projects 55.2% Senior management plays a lead role in championing
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Worst Performers
Average Business
the innovation effort in best performing businesses,
Percent of Businesses W ith Each Element of Climate
Best Performers
creating a positive climate and culture for innovation
and entrepreneurship as shown in Exhibit 16, much
more so than in poor performing businesses. For

16
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 example, they foster creativity and innovation by allowing time off for scouting or
“Friday projects” as in Kraft Foods and W.L. Gore & Associates; they are not overly
risk averse and invest in the occasional high risk project; and they encourage
skunk works—projects and teams working outside the official bureaucracy of the
business. Senior management also nurtures a team culture within best performing
organizations, fosters effective cross-functional NPD teams, and provides strong
support and empowerment to these teams. Finally NPD team rewards and recognition
are provided in best performing businesses.

Many so-called cross-functional teams aren’t very effective at all, according to the
APQC study, being closer to “dysfunctional teams” or simply a disparate group of
representatives from functional departments. But a truly holistic approach to product
innovation, one of the keys to reducing time to market, demands effective cross
functional teams. Best performing businesses rely heavily on effective cross-functional
teams to undertake their significant new product projects, with members seconded
from key functions. Note that each team member is very much a part of the project
team and has an equal stake in it.

Best practices regarding new product project teams are outlined in Exhibit 17. On
exiting each gate, best performing businesses define clearly who is on the team and
who is not, (in some businesses, it’s not clear just who is accountable for the end
result!). They keep the team on the field from end to end—hand-offs to another
team or department are not allowed in best performers’ team cultures. As well, a
project leader is clearly defined for each significant project, remains on the project
from beginning to end, is given some authority over team members, and acts as
a entrepreneur-leader rather than an administrator.
Exhibit 17: How best performing businesses organize their teams for NPD
Team performance is improved by the use of a
shared information system based on software such
Team is cross-functional: Technical, 53.8%
72.1% as Accolade® (mentioned earlier), with almost four
Marketing, Sales, Operations 79.3%

Projects undertaken b y cleared 38.6%

times as many best performing businesses having such
61.6%
identified team of players 79.3% information systems in place as poor performers, as
23.1%
Team does project from
beginning to end – no hand-offs
48.6%
72.4%
seen in Exhibit 17.
50.0%
Identifiable project team leader 63.8%
79.6%
Finally, in return for their empowerment and authority,
34.6%
58.1%
project teams are held accountable for project results,
Leader from beginning to end
69.0%
for example, at the Post Launch Review (PLR). At
Team has central & shared 19.2%
43.8%
information system, IT based 65.5% these PLRs, the results achieved on success criteria
Team members accountable for 7.7%
32.4% are compared to the results promised at the key gates
project’s end results 55.2%
on these same success criteria. Exhibit 12 shows that a
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Worst Performers
Average Business Percent of Businesses W ith Each Organizational Element PLR is part of the Stage-Gate® process, but it is missing in
Best Performers
most businesses: 78% of businesses don’t even conduct
a proper Post Launch Review! Note also from Exhibit 17
that less than one-third of businesses hold project teams accountable for the project’s
results, but that this is a clear best practice with best performers endorsing this
approach by an eight-to-one ratio versus poor performers. Be sure to employ success

17
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 criteria at each gate, base the Go/Kill decision on these criteria, and then hold
the team accountable to achieve the result, with the final PLR being the final
accountability review.

5. Winning at Product Innovation

There is no magic to winning at product innovation. Indeed, the APQC study and
others have identified countless success drivers (as shown in Exhibits 2, 6, 13, 16 and
17) and summarized in the Innovation Diamond. The real challenge is making them
work in your business.

The four themes—innovation strategy, a solid idea-to-launch process, portfolio

management, and climate, effective teams and leadership—make up the four points
of performance of the Innovation Diamond and provide a sound framework for
guiding your business’s product innovation efforts. Use the diamond to help structure
your efforts as you move forward to improve your business’s product development
productivity, and then drill down and consider implementing some of the best
practices outlined in this whitepaper—each practice has been shown to work, and to
lead to better results. The diamond works, so work the diamond!

The Author:
Dr. Robert G. Cooper is President of the Product Development Institute Inc., Professor
of Marketing at the DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University in Hamilton,
Ontario Canada, and also ISBM Distinguished Research Fellow at Penn State
University’s Smeal College of Business Administration (email: robertcooper@cogeco.
ca; www.prod-dev.com)

Dr. Cooper is a world expert in the field of new product management, and the father
and developer of the Stage-Gate® process, now widely used by leading firms around
the world to drive new products to market. Bob is a thought-leader in the field of
product innovation management: he has published 100 articles in leading journals
on new product management, with many award winners; and he has also written
six books on new product management, including the popular, Winning at New
Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, with over 160,000 copies sold;
and his just released Product Leadership: Pathways to Profitable Innovation.

About the Microsoft Enterprise Project

Management Solution:
Microsoft’s Enterprise Project Management Solution is used by many of the world’s
best performing product development organizations to support their innovation.
For more information on the Microsoft EPM Solution and companies who use it in
the product development process, and on partners that work with us in new product
development, please visit www.microsoft.com/proddev

18
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation
 Endnotes & References:
(Footnotes)
1 The term “product roadmap” has come to have many meanings in business. Here I mean a strategic
roadmap, which lays out the major initiatives and platforms the business will undertake well into the
future, as opposed to a tactical roadmap, which lists each and every product, extension, modification,
tweak, etc.
2 The term “technology roadmap” also has several different meanings. Here I use the term to denote
your business’s technological developments or technology acquisitions; by contrast, the term
“technology roadmap” is sometimes used to describe what new technologies are anticipated in an
industry—more of an industry technological forecast.
(Endnotes)
1
Fast, Focused, Fertile: The Innovation Evolution, Cheskin and Fitch: Worldwide, 2003.
2
Source of data: Arthur D. Little. How Companies Use Innovation to Improve Profitability and Growth.
Innovation Excellence study, 2005.
3
APQC benchmarking study; see: R.G. Cooper, S.J. Edgett & E.J. Kleinschmidt, New Product
Development Best Practices Study: What Distinguishes the Top Performers, Houston: APQC (American
Productivity & Quality Center), 2002; and: R. G. Cooper, S.J. Edgett & E.J. Kleinschmidt, Best Practices
in Product Innovation: What Distinguishes Top Performers, Product Development Institute, 2003
(www.prod-dev.com).
4
This whitepaper is based on a new book by the author: R.G. Cooper, Product Leadership: Pathways
to Profitable Innovation, 2nd edition. Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 2005. Also available at: www.stage-
gate.com
5
APQC study, see endnote 3.
6
A good summary of research conclusions from many studies into what makes for successful product
innovation is found in: R.G. Cooper, Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea
to Launch, 3rd edition. Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 2001, pp 22-112. See also: R.G. Cooper, “New
products: What separates the winners from the losers,” chapter 1 in: The PDMA Handbook of New
Product Development, 2nd Edition. New York, NY John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
7
Procter & Gamble calls their diamond the “Initiatives Diamond”; it was modeled on our results
from an earlier best practices study. See: M. Mills, “Implementing a Stage-GateTM process at Procter
& Gamble”, Association for Manufacturing Excellence International Conference, “Competing on the
global stage”, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 2004.
8
For an outline of portfolio management methods, including strategic buckets, see: R.G. Cooper,
S.J. Edgett & E.J. Kleinschmidt, Portfolio Management for New Products, 2nd edition. Reading, MA:
Perseus Books, 2002; also: R.G. Cooper, S.J. Edgett & E.J. Kleinschmidt, “Optimizing the Stage-Gate®
process: What best practice companies are doing—part II”, Research-Technology Management, 45,
6, Nov-Dec 2002.
9
Parts of this section are taken from an article by the author: R.G. Cooper, “Maximizing the value
of your new product portfolio: Methods, metrics and scorecards”, Current Issues in Technology
Management. Hoboken, N.J.: Stevens Institute of Technology, Stevens Alliance for Technology
Management, 7, 1, Winter 2003, 1.
10
Section taken from: R.G. Cooper, “Your NPD portfolio may be harmful to your business’s health”,
PDMA Visions, XXIX, 2, April 2005, 22-26; see also endnote 8: Portfolio Management for New
Products.
11
See: R.G. Cooper, “Your NPD portfolio may be harmful to your business’s health”, PDMA Visions,
XXIX, 2, April 2005, 22-26.
12
See: R.E. Albright & T.A. Kappel, “Roadmapping in the corporation”, Research-Technology
Management, 46, 2, March-April, 2003, pp. 31-40; also: A. McMillan, “Roadmapping—Agent of
change”, Research-Technology Management, 46, 2, March-April, 2003, 40-47; and: M. H. Myer & A. P.
Lehnerd. The Power of Product Platforms. New York: Free Press, 1997.
13
Parts of this section are taken from an article by the author; see endnote 9.
14
IRI study of portfolio methods used versus results achieved. See: R.G. Cooper, S. J. Edgett & E.J.
Kleinschmidt, “Portfolio management for new product development: Results of an industry practices
study, R&D Management, 31, 4, October 2001, 361-380. See also endnote 8: Portfolio Management
for New Products, pp 163-164.
15
The Productivity Index is illustrated in more detail in endnote 8: Portfolio Management for New
Products, p 40.
16
The real options or expected commercial value method is explained in more detail in endnote 8:
Portfolio Management for New Products, p 42.
17
IRI study; see endnote 14.
18
Source of scorecard criteria is endnote 8: Portfolio Management for New Products, p 54.
19
Tradename of Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft offers different levels of resource management
software, including MS-Project, MS-Project Professional and Enterprise Project Management. See
www.microsoft.com
20
Stage-Gate® is a registered tradename of the Product Development Institute Inc. This section
describing Stage-Gate®is based on material from many sources; see for example: R.G. Cooper, “Doing
it right—winning with new products,” Ivey Business Journal, July-August 2000, 54-60; R.G. Cooper,
Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, 3rd edition. Reading, MA:
Perseus Books, 2001; R.G. Cooper, “Stage-Gate new product development processes: a game plan
from idea to launch”, in: The Portable MBA in Project Management, ed. by E. Verzuh, Hoboken,
N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003, pp. 309-346. The term “Stage-Gate” was first used in print in early
publications, such as: R.G. Cooper, “The new product process: a decision guide for managers”, Journal
of Marketing Management 3, 3, Spring 1988, 238-255; and: R.G. Cooper, “Stage-gate systems: a new
tool for managing new products”, Business Horizons 33, 3, May-June, 1990.
21
APQC benchmarking study; see endnote 3.
22
Quotation taken from PDMA best practices study; see: A. Griffin, Drivers of NPD Success:
The 1997 PDMA Report: Chicago, Product Development & Management Association, 1997.
23
Accolade® is a registered tradename of Sopheon Inc. Accolade® is a Stage-Gate® automation
software package; see www.sopheon.com
24
See endnote 4: Product Leadership: Pathways to Profitable Innovation, p 233.
25
Source of quotation: M. Mills in endnote 7.

19
Winning at New Products: Pathways to Profitable Innovation