New Products: The Factors that Drive Success

Robert G. Cooper
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Product innovation is central to business prosperity. As industries and companies restructure and “re strategize”
to cope with changing times — rapidly developing technologies, new and fierce competition, and radically shifting
marketplaces — those managements that are able to improve the effectiveness and time efficiency of their new product
efforts will be the ultimate winners.
New product success remains an elusive goal for too many firms, however. While major strides have been
made in other areas of management — in customer service, product quality and production efficiency improvements
— product innovation remains largely the hit-and-miss affair that it was two decades ago. Indeed, product innovation
may well be the last important frontier area within the firm that needs major repair work: cut the failure rate in half, and
watch the bottom line improve!
This article is about new product success — more specifically about what drives success in product innovation,
and how these drivers can be translated into management action. The results, conclusions and lessons that we present
are based not on hearsay, speculation and wishful thinking, but on rigorous research into new product practices and
what separates winners from losers. Our NewProd research has investigated over 1,000 new product launches in more
than 350 firms in Europe and North America over the last two decades, providing us with a rich database from which
to draw conclusions.
Over the last 20 years, the NewProd research investigations have probed the causes of new product failure, and
what distinguishes new product successes from failures. The database now includes over 1,000 new product projects –
products which went to market and whose commercial outcomes are known – from over 350 firms in North America
and Europe, largely industrial goods in moderate-to-high technology industries.
The majority of the NewProd results referred to in the current article are based on two studies:
 NewProd III: an investigation of 203 industrial new product projects: half were commercial winners; the others
failed financially in the marketplace. Hundreds of characteristics of these projects were measured in order to
uncover what distinguished the successes from failures (see Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1990; Cooper, 1990; 1993;
Cooper and Kleinschmidt, (1986; 1987a; 1987b).
 A study of new products in the chemical industry: 103 actual new product projects from major chemical
companies in four countries (UK, USA, Germany, Canada); 68 commercial successes and 35 fail- ures. These
were major products and were speciality items (non-com- modity). Although specific to one industry, many of
the results are consistent with previous studies, and hence appear to have validity for a broad range of
moderate-to-high tech businesses (see Cooper, 1994; Cooper and Kleinschmidt 1993a; 1993b).
So what are the keys to new product success? We’ve tried to keep the presentation straightforward, limiting
the number of major drivers to only eight. There are other drivers of course, some with fairly minor effects; but if
management can get right the eight drivers outlined below, our guess is that new product success and profitability would
more than double!

The Number One Success Factor Is a Unique Superior Product: A Differentiated Product that Delivers Unique
Benefits and Superior Value to the Customer
Product superiority — delivering unique benefits and product value to users — separates winners from losers
more often than any other single factor. That product advantage, superiority or differentiation is the key determinant
of success is a recurring theme in all of our new product studies.
How dramatic is the impact of product superiority? We developed an index of product superiority, comprising
seven ingredients of a “superior” product:
(1) unique attributes and characteristics for the customer — not available from competitive products;
(2) good value for money for the customer (positive economic impact on the customer);
(3) superior to competing products in terms of meeting customer needs;
(4) excellent relative product quality — relative to competitors’ products, and in terms of how the customer
measures quality;
(5) superior price/performance characteristics for the customer relative to competitors’ products;
(6) product benefits or attributes easily perceived as being useful by the customer.
(7) highly visible benefits — very obvious to the customer.
 When the top 20 per cent of new products on this product superiority index were compared to the bottom 20
per cent, the results were dramatic: these superior products had much higher success rates, achieved greater market
shares, had higher profits, and met company sales and profit objectives much more, according to NewProd III. Here,
success was measured in a variety of ways, including financial performance, market share, impact on the firm, meeting
objectives, and even timeliness:
•
 Success rate: the proportion of products that met or exceeded the firm’s minimum acceptable profitability
(financial) cut-off criterion, however profit is measured (yes/no).
 Profit rating: the degree to which the product’s profits exceeded (or fell short of) the minimum acceptable
profit criterion (0-10 scale).
 Market share: per cent share in the defined target market (domestic market).
 Met sales objectives: degree to which new product met sales objectives (0-10 scale).
 Met profit objectives: degree to which new product met profit objectives (0-10 scale).
 Tech success: the technical success rating - degree to which the product was considered to be a technical,
technological or scientific success (0-10 scale).
 Impact on company: the impact that the product’s sales and profits had on the firm (0-10 scale; 10=major
positive impact).
 Time efficiency: how fast the product was developed and launched, relative to what it could have been (0-10
scale; 10=very fast).
 Adhered to schedule: degree to which the product was developed and launched on schedule (i.e., according to
the timeline) (0-10 scale; 10=on or ahead of schedule).
It should be noted that not all gauges of success listed above were measured in both New Prod studies.
Compare the performance of the top 20 per cent — the truly superior products — with the bottom 20 per
cent, the “me too”, undifferentiated ones, as shown in Table I.
Our most recent study of the chemical industry reveals almost identical results (see Table II). When the top
third on a similar product superiority index were compared to the bottom third, success rates were three time as high;
profits were higher; market share was three times as great; sales and profit objectives were met; and time efficiency
was better[1], (see Table II).
A frequently voiced question is: what is the impact of advantages gained from elements other than a better
product, for example, via a superior salesforce, a positive company image or superb customer service? Our chemical
industry study probed non-product advantage side-by-side with product advantage: the conclusion was that elements of
non-product advantage yield positive results, but with not nearly the same impact as that obtained via product advantage
(above). Here, non-product advantage was gained from:
 superior customer service and technical support for the new product;
 a high level of company technical competence (as perceived by the customer) for this type of product;
 a superior sales force (e.g., a larger sales force, better qualified);
 a positive company image or reputation;
 product availability: faster or more reliable product delivery;
 a well-known brand name used for the product.
New products in the top third in terms of these six elements achieved a 40 per cent higher success rate, and
were more profitable, on average. But these differences paled in comparison to the impact of product advantage. Note
that superior customer service stood out from the others in the list above. Two other possible elements of non-product
advantage included superior advertising and promotion and low price. Neither impacted on positive new product
outcomes in the chemical study.
The management implications of the success impact of product superiority are clear:
 First, the seven ingredients of a superior product (above) provide a useful checklist of questions in assessing the
odds of success of a proposed new product project. In short, these seven items — unique attributes, good value-
for-money, superior in meeting needs, relative product quality and so on — logically become top priority
questions in a project screening checklist. If a project rates low on these items, this is a signal that the project
should be put on “hold”.
 Second, the central role of product superiority provides prescriptions for the management of the new product
process. The development of a new product with real advantages and customer benefits becomes paramount.
Simply being “equal to the competition” or “having good product/market fit” is not enough; the goal must be
superiority and advantage. These ingredients of a superior product thus become challenges to the project team
to build into their new product design. Note that the definition of what is “unique and superior”, what is “value”
and what is a “benefit” must be from the customer’s perspective; it must be based on an in-depth understanding
of customer needs, wants, problems, likes and dislikes:
 Determine customer needs at the outset. Start with a user needs-and- wants study – market research – to
 probe customer needs, wants, preferences, likes and dislikes.
 Do a competitive product analysis. If you can understand the competitor’s product weaknesses, then you’re
halfway to beating him.
 Test and verify all your assumptions about your winning product design via concept tests prior to development;
rapid-prototype-and-tests during development; and customer trials following development.
This disciplined approach to discovering product superiority is decidedly customer focused, which leads to
success factor number 2, a strong market orientation.

A Strong Market Orientation — a Market-driven and Customer- focused New Product Process — Is Critical
both to Success and to Cycle Time Reduction
This message comes out strongly: a thorough understanding of customers’ needs and wants, the competitive
situation and the nature of the market is an essential component of new product success. Sadly a market orientation and
commitment to the customer are often missing. For example, new product projects were found to be decidedly
unbalanced between technological versus marketing activities in NewProd III: only 16 per cent of the person-days spent
on projects went to marketing activities — market research, market assessment, customer tests, trial sell and the launch.
Worse yet, if the effort spent on launch is subtracted, then marketing actions received just over 8 per cent of the total
effort! In terms of money, the marketing side of projects fared even worse: market assessment, seeking customer inputs
and customer- oriented tasks accounted for only 5.5 per cent of total project costs, on average. More evidence: Key
marketing tasks were the ones most often omitted in new product projects. The “omission rates” for three key marketing
actions from the two studies are shown in Table II.
A market-oriented, customer-focused approach pays off, however. When more effort went to marketing
actions, success rates rose, according to NewProd III: successful projects had 2.2 times as much money spent on seeking
customer input and feedback — market studies, customer tests, etc. — as did failures! Further, projects which featured
quality of execution in their marketing actions — from preliminary market assessment to launch — had much better
success rates. Here we measured quality of execution of five marketing activities: preliminary market assessment;
detailed market study; customer tests or trials; trial sell/test market; and market launch. Those projects that scored in the
top 20 per cent in terms of quality of execution of these marketing actions had a stunning performance: double the
success rate; three times the market share; and excellent performance on the other measures, as shown in Table IV.
Our chemical industry studied yielded parallel results: when marketing activities were carried out well,
projects were significantly more profitable, had more than double the success rate, boasted almost three time the market
share, and had a strong positive impact on the firm, as shown in Table V.
The added bonus was that this top third in terms of solid marketing activities were actually done more
quickly as well: they were more time efficient; and they adhered to the time schedulefar more.
A dedication to building in marketing activities is central to new product success. Too often these actions
were not an integral facet of the project, and when done, were often included as an afterthought or were poorly
resourced. The message is that a strong market orientation coupled with quality of execution of these vital
marketing actions is essential. This finding is supported in virtually every study of product success factors. Conversely, a
failure to adopt a strong market orientation in product innovation, an unwillingness to undertake the needed
market assessments, and leaving the customer out of product development spells disaster. Poor market research,
inadequate market analysis, weak market studies, test markets and market launch, and inadequate resources devoted to
marketing activities were common weaknesses found in virtually every study of why new products fail.
To be successful, a market orientation must prevail throughout the entire new product project:
 Idea generation: Companies must devote more resources to market- oriented idea generation activities, such
as focus groups with customers; market research to determine customer need areas; using the sales force to
actively solicit ideas from customers; and developing relationships with lead users.
 The design of the product : The stage at which the product’s specification and requirements are being defined.
Too often, market research, when done at all, is done too late — after the product design has been decided and
simply to verify that the proposed product indeed has market acceptance. If the results of the market study
are negative, most often they are conveniently ignored and the project is pushed ahead regardless.
 The mistake is clear: market research must be used as an input to the design decisions, and not solely as an
after-the-fact check. Investigations to determine users’ needs, wants and preferences; and to identify
competitive product strategies, strengths and weaknesses provide insights which are invaluable guides
to the design team before they charge into the design of the new product.
 Technology-push: New products (where the product emanates from the lab or engineering design
department, perhaps the result of a technological breakthrough). Even here, there still should be
considerable marketing input as the technology is shaped into a final product design. That is, following the
technical discovery or initiation, but before full fledged development gets under way, there is ample
opportunity to research and interact with the customer to determine needs and wants, to shape the final
product the way the customer wants it, and to gauge likely product acceptance.
 Throughout the entire project : Customer inputs should not cease at the completion of the pre-development
market studies. Seeking customer inputs and testing concepts or designs with the customer is very much an
 iterative or “back and forth” process. For example, during the actual development phase of the project,
constant and continuing customer contact remains essential. Keep bringing the customer into the process to
view facets of the product as the prototype or final product takes shape. Develop rapid prototypes, working
models or facsimiles of the product
 as early as possible to show to the customer in order to seek feedback regarding market acceptance and needed
design changes. Do not wait until the very end of the development phase — the field trials — to unveil the
product to the customer. There could be some very unpleasant surprises!

Success or Failure Is Often Decided in the First Few Stages of the Projects: The Up-front Homework Is Pivotal
to Success
NewProd and other studies reveal that the steps that precede the actual design and development of the product
— screening, market studies, technical feasibility assessment and building the business case — are key factors
separating winners from losers. Errors and omissions in these vital activities can and often do spell disaster later in the
project.
Consider the evidence:
 First, relatively little is spent on these up-front activities: on average, only 7 per cent of the project’s total
expenditures and only 16 per cent of the person-days are devoted to these critical pre-development activities,
according to NewProd III. In too many projects, we witnessed a new product idea that moved directly into
development with very little in the way of homework to define and justify the project.
 Those managers who did spend the time and money on pre-development homework reaped the rewards:
successes had 2.1 times as much money and 1.7 times as many person-days spent on the up-front homework
as did failures.
 When these up-front or homework activities were well executed, performance results were markedly higher.
The top 20 per cent of projects, in terms of quality homework, fared much better than those projects with poor
homework: higher success rates, double the market share and higher profitability, as shown in Table VI.
 The chemical industry study results are almost identical. Good homework doubles the success rate and
improves profits. Moreover, far from adding time to the project, good homework actually improves
timeliness: more time efficient projects and a closer adherence to the time schedule, as shown in Table VII.
These pre development or up-front homework activities are important because they qualify and define the
project: they help to focus resources on the right projects, and they provide inputs to assist in the definition of a winning
new product design.
Solid homework also reduces cycle time. A major time-waster occurs when projects are poorly defined as they
enter the development phase: they suffer from vague targets and moving goalposts, usually the result of weak pre-
development activities; the target user is not well understood, user needs and wants are vaguely defined, and desired
product features and performance requirements are clouded. Homework yields better product and project
definition which speeds up the development process. Additionally, good up- front homework anticipates problems and
likely changes in the product design, and encourages changes to occur earlier in the process rather than later, when they
are more costly. The result is considerable savings in time and money at the back end of the project, and overall a more
cost- and time-efficient new product process.
The message is that more time and resources must be devoted to the activities that precede the design and
development of the product. These initial screening, market and technical analyses, and definitional stages are critical
to success. Managers must resist the temptation to skip over the up-front stages of a project, and move an ill-defined
and poorly investigated project into the development phase. Pivotal pre-development activities which were so crucial to
new product success include: initial screening, preliminary market and technical assessments, detailed market studies,
and business or financial analysis. These five key pre-development activities must be built into the new product process
as a matter of routine rather than by exception. These up-front activities are also closely linked to the product definition
(see next section); unless these pre-development actions are carried out well, then product definition is likely to be weak,
vague, or at best, based on hearsay evidence.

Sharp and Early Product Definition — before Product Development Begins — Decides the Winners and Helps
to Keep Projects on Time
How well the product is defined prior to entering the development phase is increasingly cited as a key success
factor. Crawford (1984) implores managers to include a “protocol step” just prior to the development phase, where the
requirements of the product are clearly spelled out and agreed to by all parties involved in the project. Successful new
products indeed had much sharper definition prior to development, according to our research. Projects that had these
sharp definitions were more successful; had higher market shares; achieved greater profitabilities; and tended to
meet company sales and profit objectives much more:
 Sharp, early definition was the number 2 success factor in NewProd III: Those projects where sharp definition
was in place before development began — the best 20 per cent in terms of definition — achieved enviable
 results, as shown in Table VIII.
 Sharp and early definition was also an important success factor in our chemical industry study, impacting
positively on most measures of performance, including the ability to stay on schedule, as shown in Table IX.
This early product definition includes four key elements, each of which was correlated with performance:
(1) specification of the target market: exactly who the intended users are;
(2) description of the product concept and the benefits to be delivered;
(3) delineation of the positioning strategy;
(4) and definition of the product’s requirements, features, attributes and specifications (prioritized: “must have”
and “would like to have”).
It is evident why projects that have sharp project definition prior to development are considerably more
successful. First, building a definition step into the new product process forces more attention to the up-front or pre-
development activities. Second, the definition serves as a communication tool and guide: all party agreement or “buy
in” means that each functional area involved in the project has a clear and consistent definition of what the product and
project are, and are committed to it. Finally, this definition provides a clear set of objectives for the development phase
of the project, and the development team members — development proceeds more efficiently with no moving goalposts
and no fuzzy targets!
The Cross-functional Team Approach Not Only Speeds Products to Market; It Also Enhances the Success Rate
Organizational design — how the firm organizes for new products — is critical. Except for the simplest of
products and projects — line extensions and product up-dates — product innovation must cut across traditional
functional boundaries and barriers: a cross-functional team approach.
The evidence is compelling. Investigations into new product success consistently cite interfaces between
R&D and marketing, co-ordination among key internal groups, multi-disciplinary inputs to the new product project, and
the role of teams and the team leader. Successful new product projects feature a balanced process consisting of critical
activities that fall into many different functional areas within the firm: marketing and marketing research,
engineering, R&D, production, purchasing, finance, to name a few. Our NewProd studies in the chemical
industry show clearly that projects undertaken by empowered multi-functional teams were more indeed successful.
Here were some of the ingredients in organization design that we found were strongly connected to project
outcomes in our chemical industry study:
 organized as a cross-functional team (as opposed to each function doing its own part of the project
independently);
 where the team was dedicated and focused (i.e., devoted a large percentage of their time to this project, as
opposed to spread over many projects);
 where the team was accountable for the entire project from beginning to end (as opposed to accountability for
only a phase of the project
  where there was a strong project leader who led and drove the project; where top management was
committed to (and strongly supported) the project.
Consider how these five elements, acting together, led to high performance: higher success
rates and better profits; and most important, cycle time reduction. Indeed, these organizational
elements above were the strongest drivers of cycle time reduction of all factors in our chemical industry
study!(See Table X.)
The lack of a cross-functional team, with a clear leader, and empowered and dedicated team
members, is probably the single greatest reason for project delays, errors in product design, and miscues
in the project. Yet, in too many projects we have studied over the years, there was evidence of a decided lack
of a cross-functional team effort. Even in this chemical industry study, which focused on large, multi-
national, well-managed firms, the notion of a true cross- functional team was missing in about 40 per cent of
the projects probed.

Focus Is Central to Success: Much Sharper Evaluation and Decision Points Are Required in the
Process
Most firms’ new product programmes suffer from a lack of resources: too many projects, and
simply not enough time, money or people to do each well. Some evidence of the constrained resources has
already been highlighted above: the pitifully small amounts of time and money devoted to critical activities
such as marketing actions, and the pre-development homework steps.
One solution is better focus: that is, sharper project selection, ensuring that the limited resources
are devoted to the truly meritorious projects. Sadly, project evaluations — the various go/kill decision points
in the innovation process — tend to be handled badly. Indeed they are rated by managers to be among the
weakest steps in the entire process, yet ironically they prove decisive in determining outcomes:
Initial screening was identified by managers as the number 2 activity “in greatest need of
improvement” in NewProd III. Its proficiency was rated poorly: in only 12 per cent of projects was this
decision point well handled. Yet effective screening was among the top activities which were correlated
with success.
The critical “go-to-development” evaluation was similarly poorly handled: in the chemical
industry study, next to the detailed market study, it was the weakest activity of the process. In both studies,
proficiency here was strongly correlated with success.
In both the chemical industry study and NewProd III, the pre-launch business analysis and
decision point was frequently omitted (in 47 per cent and 65 per cent of the projects, respectively). Again,
proficiency at this critical evaluation point proved to be key: for example, it was the number two activity
driving success in the chemical industry study.
Often the problem of poor project evaluation boils down to a lack of criteria against which to
judge projects: what is a “good” project? The many studies into success and failure provide insights in
what criteria to use. New product success is fairly predictable — certain project characteristics
consistently separate winners from losers, and in a strong way:
 Product superiority, specifically products that offer unique features; provide good value-for-
money; meet customer needs better; have higher relative product quality; boast superior
price/performance characteristics; have benefits perceived as useful; and whose benefits are
highly visible (described above in the first section).
 Synergy, notably marketing and technological synergies: products that build on in-house
development technology, utilize inside engineering skills, and use existing manufacturing
resources and skills; and products with a strong project/company fit in terms of sales force,
distribution channels, customer service resources, advertising and promotion, and market
intelligence skills and resources.
 Market attractiveness, specifically market size, market growth, degree of market need, and
purchase importance. While elements of the competitive situation were not as strongly linked
to success, they did have some impact, and might also be included as part of market
attractiveness. They include: the absence of intense competition, lack of price competition and
 weak competitive products.
These three success factors — product superiority, synergy and market attractiveness — and the
ingredients that comprise them, can and should be used as scoring criteria in order to make more effective
screening and project prioritization decisions.
Quality of Execution Is Paramount: The Various Steps and Actions which Make up the Innovation
Process — How Well They Are Done, and whether They Are Done — Drive New Product
Outcomes
A popular business adage is: “if you don’t like the results, then look at the process that delivered
them!” And so it is with product innovation. Indeed, the various activities of the innovation process have
been shown in countless studies to be strongly linked to success and failure.
Consider Table XI (results from both NewProd III and our chemical industry study), which
provides an overview scorecard of the new product process: it shows:
 the “percentage done” — the proportion of projects where the activity was actually done (areas
of omission are in bold);
 a “quality of execution index” for each activity for successes versus failures (areas of deficiency
are noted in bold);
 those activities having the greatest impact on project outcomes (major impact; some; none).
The results show a strong link between quality of execution and success for most activities:
observe the differences in “quality of execution” scores between winners and losers and the number of
activities with major impacts in Table XI. In both studies, quality of execution of both marketing and
technological activities was strongly tied to a variety of measures of new product performance[2].
What we also witness is a process that is very much in trouble. It is plagued by errors of
omission, with pivotal activities, such as market studies and business analyses, simply omitted
altogether in the majority of projects. It is also a process plagued by errors of commission: poor quality of
execution for too many crucial activities that make the difference between winning and losing— activities
such detailed market studies, business and financial analyses, test market or trial sell and initial screening.
Note the mean quality ratings are typically in the range of 4-6 out of 10 across all activities — hardly the
scores one would expect from a well executed project.

A Multi-stage-and-gate “Game Plan” Overcomes Some of the Deficiencies

The solution that some enlightened firms have adopted is the re-engineering of their product
innovation process (Cooper, 1993). That is, they have dissected their current “process” from idea to
launch; observed what is good and bad about it; and redesigned the innovation process around best
practices. Often, many of the conclusions and lessons derived from our NewProd studies are built into
these re-engineered processes.
The typical result is a “stage-gate” new product process. Firms such as Exxon Chemicals
(worldwide), Lego in Denmark, various divisions of ICI, DuPont and Rohm and Haas, Reckitt & Colman
in the UK, Proctor & Gamble and Polaroid in the USA, and even financial institutions (e.g. Royal Bank of
Canada) have opted for a re-engineered stage-gate process for new products. Here, TQM methodology is
applied to the new product process: the process is divided into stages — typically four to six in number.
These stages comprise multiple, parallel and prescribed activities that cut across functional boundaries.
Particular emphasis is placed on traditionally weak activities and stages, including marketing actions and
pre-development activities or homework.
Separating the stages are “gates” or decision points: these act as quality control check-points
in the process. Gates, which are manned by senior management, have pre-specified deliverables, and
a set of go/kill decision criteria. The combination of prescribed activities, a multi-functional approach, an
emphasis on homework, a dedication to the marketplace and customer, pre- specified deliverables and
visible Go/Kill criteria helps to overcome many of the deficiencies which currently beset most firms’
innovation processes.
 Do these stage-gate new product processes work? While many firms are just now beginning
implementation, the evidence appears positive from the handful of companies with longer experience. A
study of 29 divisions in major companies which had implemented a stage-and-gate process reveals
positive results (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1991) (see Table XII).
Overall, the results are encouraging — higher success rates, and generally faster to market — so
much so that one management study proclaimed that “The multi-step new product process is an essential
ingredient in successful new product development” (Booz, Allen & Hamilton, 1982). Some European firms
have even used stage-gate systems to meet ISO 9004 requirements for management/internal processes[3].
Cycle Time Reduction
The goal of getting products to market on time is an overriding one for many companies, so much
so that it merits special attention here. Several factors drove the two measures of cycle time reduction —
time efficiency and adherence to the time schedule — some in a strong fashion. These are given in rank
order in Table XIII (correlations are shown in parentheses).

Conclusion
As managements look for ways to improve their firms’ productivities and profits, product
development activities will increasingly come under scrutiny. Indeed, product innovation represents the last
frontier within the co rporation where significant productivity improvements can and should be sought.
Ironically, it is the one area characterized by glaring deficiencies, poor management practices, and gross
errors of omission and commission — in short, a process in disarray.
Improvements in new product effectiveness (e.g., higher success rates) and efficiency (e.g., better
returns on allocated resources and faster to market) go straight to the firm’s bottom line. By highlighting
eight key success drivers in product innovation, this article has shed light on what actions management can
take to obtain needed improvements. The time is ripe to take those needed actions!
Notes

1. Note that the chemical industry differences are not quite as pronounced as those for our general industry study, NewProd
III: in the latter, we looked at polar extremes (the top 20 per cent vs the bottom 20 per cent); whereas in the chemical
industry, the two groups were not quite as extreme — merely the top third versus the bottom third.
2. For example, when both marketing activities and pre-development activities were considered as activity groups,
their respective impacts on performance were dramatic (see second and third sections: “a strong market orientation”
and “up-front homework”). The same was true for technological activities when taken as a group (development and
production tasks) — results not shown here.
3. While ISO 9000 regulations deal with product standards, higher levels of ISO deal with processes and methods within
the firm. For product development methods, see for example, ISO 9004 Section 7, items 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, which focus on
the role of marketing input to the new product design; and Section 8, items 8.1 through 8.8, which set standards for
various facets of the product development process, including product testing, design reviews, production release and
market readines