Visit https://ebookgate.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

New Product Development Process Benchmarks And

Performance Metrics Edgett

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookgate.com/product/new-product-development-
process-benchmarks-and-performance-metrics-edgett/

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookgate.com

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!

Financial and Process Metrics for the New Economy James

Sagner

https://ebookgate.com/product/financial-and-process-metrics-for-the-
new-economy-james-sagner/

ebookgate.com

The PDMA ToolBook 3 for New Product Development Product

Development and Management ToolBooks 1st Edition Abbie
Griffin
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-pdma-toolbook-3-for-new-product-
development-product-development-and-management-toolbooks-1st-edition-
abbie-griffin/
ebookgate.com

Step growth polymerization process modeling and product

design Kevin Seavey

https://ebookgate.com/product/step-growth-polymerization-process-
modeling-and-product-design-kevin-seavey/

ebookgate.com

Mastering Lean Product Development A Practical Event

Driven Process for Maximizing Speed Profits and Quality
First Edition Ronald Mascitelli
https://ebookgate.com/product/mastering-lean-product-development-a-
practical-event-driven-process-for-maximizing-speed-profits-and-
quality-first-edition-ronald-mascitelli/
ebookgate.com
Design Thinking New Product Development Essentials from
the PDMA 1st Edition Michael G. Luchs

https://ebookgate.com/product/design-thinking-new-product-development-
essentials-from-the-pdma-1st-edition-michael-g-luchs/

ebookgate.com

Rapid Sensory Profiling Techniques Applications in New

Product Development and Consumer Research 1st Edition J
Delarue
https://ebookgate.com/product/rapid-sensory-profiling-techniques-
applications-in-new-product-development-and-consumer-research-1st-
edition-j-delarue/
ebookgate.com

Product Design and Development 5th Edition Karl T. Ulrich

https://ebookgate.com/product/product-design-and-development-5th-
edition-karl-t-ulrich/

ebookgate.com

Product and Process Modelling A Case Study Approach 1st

Edition Ian T. Cameron

https://ebookgate.com/product/product-and-process-modelling-a-case-
study-approach-1st-edition-ian-t-cameron/

ebookgate.com

Implementing design for Six sigma a leader s guide getting

the most from your product development process First
Edition Georgette Belair And John O'Neill
https://ebookgate.com/product/implementing-design-for-six-sigma-a-
leader-s-guide-getting-the-most-from-your-product-development-process-
first-edition-georgette-belair-and-john-oneill/
ebookgate.com
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NCHMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 2
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NCHMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

New Product Development:

Process Benchmarks and Performance Metrics

Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission.

Stage-Gate is a registered trademark of the Product Development Institute

ISBN 978-0-9732827-3-3

ISBN 978-1-60197-171-5

Publishers: Product Development Institute and APQC

Author: Dr. Scott J. Edgett

Contributors: Rachel Brill, Marisa Brown, Rebecca Colley, and Erin Williams

For more information please contact:

Product Development Institute APQC

Product Development Institute APQC

1425 Osprey Drive, Suite 201 123 North Post Oak Ln, Third Floor
Ancaster • Ontario • L9G 4V5 Houston, TX 77024-7797
Canada +1-713-681-4020 • 800-776-9676
+1-905-304-8798 [email protected]
www.prod-dev.com www.apqc.org

For information regarding other publications by the author, seminars, and Stage-Gate solutions
please visit www.stage-gate.com.

For information regarding other publications and research conducted by the APQC please visit
www.apqc.org.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 3
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NCHMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Table of Contents
1. Introduction 7
1.1 The Quest for Best Practices in Product Innovation 7
1.2 The Key Research Questions 8
1.3 Topic Areas Studied 8
1.4 How the Benchmarking Research Was Undertaken 9
1.5 Organization of the Results 12

2. New Product Performance Metrics 13

2.1 Percentage of Revenues and Profits from New Products 13
2.2 Success, Fail and Kill Rates 14
2.3 Time to Market 16
2.4 On Time and On Budget 17
2.5 New Product Development (NPD) Projects Meeting Objectives 18
2.6 Business Entity Performance 20
2.7 Performance Metrics Used to Measure Project and NPD Program 21
2.8 Defining and Identifying the Top Performers 24
2.9 How the Best Versus Worst Businesses Fare in Terms of Performance Metrics 25
2.10 Types of New Products Developed 27

3. The Idea-to-Launch New Product Process and Practices 30

3.1 A Systematic New Product Process 30
3.2 Key Upfront Activities that are Built into the NPD Process 36
3.3 Gatekeeper Governance Practices 37
3.4 Quality of Your Gate Deliverables 40
3.5 Improving Your Gate Practices 42

4. The Impact of People 44

4.1 The Way NPD Project Teams are Organized and Lead 44
4.2 How to Handle Project Team Management 46
4.3 Senior Leadership Support 49
4.4 The Role of the Process Manager 50

5. Portfolio Management—A Special Insert 52

5.1 Portfolio Management 52

6. Conclusions and Recommendations 57

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 4
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NCHMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Appendices
A. In-Depth Case Studies
1. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 61
2. Ashland, Inc. 77
3. Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) 90
4. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (ESI) 103
5. EXFO 114

B. Selected Data Charts

Section 1: Organizational Characteristics 138
Section 2: Governance 147
Section 3: Culture and People 150
Section 4: The NPD Process 153
Section 5: New Product Performance 168
Section 6: Tools and Systems to Support NPD 175

References and Endnotes 177

About the Author 179

About the Product Development Institute and APQC 180

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 5
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NCHMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Exhibits
1.1 The Sample—Industry Breakdown 11
1.2 Selected Characteristics of Businesses in the Sample 12
2.1 Percentage of Revenues & Profits from New Products 14
2.2 Success, Fail and Kill Rates—The Average Business 15
2.3 Success, Fail and Kill Rates—Top 25% vs. Bottom 25% 15
2.4 Time to Market (Idea to Launch Months) 16
2.5 Percent of Projects On Time, On Budget—Average Business 17
2.6 Projects On Time, On Budget—Top 25% vs. Bottom 25% 18
2.7 Percent of Projects Meeting Objectives 19
2.8 Additional Performance Metrics—The Average Business 20
2.9 How Businesses Fare in Terms of Performance Metrics 21
2.10 Key Measures Used to Define New Product Success or Failure 23
2.11 Key Indicators Used to Measure the Total New Product Program 24
2.12 Performance Metrics Results—The Best vs. Worst Performers 26
2.13 Performance Metrics—The Best vs. Worst Performers 27
2.14 Breakdown of Projects by Project Type for the Average Business 28
2.15 Breakdown of Projects by Project Type: Best 25% vs. Worst 25% of Performers 29
3.1 Whether Businesses Have a Systematic NPD Process in Place 32
3.2 Impact of Having a Systematic New Product Process in Place 34
3.3 How Business Performs on Critical Pre-Development Activities 37
3.4 Gatekeeping/Governance Approaches 38
3.5 How Effective are the Gates 40
3.6 Gate Deliverables 41
4.1 Primary Approach to Establishing Project Teams 45
4.2 NPD Project Team support—Best vs. Worst 46
4.3 Who Leads the New Product Development Teams 47
4.4 Senior Leadership Support—Best vs. Worst 49
4.5 Types of NPD Training Offered 50
5.1 How Businesses Fare on Portfolio Management 54
5.2 Impact of Portfolio Management—Best vs. Worst 54

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 6
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

1. Introduction
1.1 THE QUE ST F OR BE ST PR ACTI CE S I N PR OD U CT INNOV AT I ON

As organizations try to move forward through what will likely be a long and bumpy economic
recovery, two key imperatives are emerging for those of us with an eye on creating future value for
our organizations.
1. We cannot manage the past.
2. In every industry, innovation is moving forward whether or not your organization is moving
with it.

As we know, the nature of the recovery, or the “new normal”, differs depending upon your industry
and the different parts of the world in which your customers are based. Still, the above principles
apply.

So, given the need to keep innovating despite resource restraints, what are other companies doing to
keep moving ahead? And what does it mean for new product development (NPD) efforts?

In this study, we benchmarked what organizations are currently doing, what best practices are, and
provide a baseline that you can use to compare against your organization’s capabilities. A number of
key themes are benchmarked including performance measures and metrics, NPD process standards
and activities, governance (gatekeeping), and culture.

For example, a complete evaluation of the performance measures that companies are using and the
typical results achieved provide a solid baseline to compare to your organization’s performance. We
gathered numerous NPD-related performance metrics including sales, profit, speed to market, and
performance versus budget. Hence, this report provides metrics that compare company or business
unit level product innovation performance and also evaluates performance at the project level.
Similarly, a detailed examination was undertaken of NPD activities at both an organizational level
(process standards) and at the project execution level (the type of activities occurring, the quality, and
their impact). Finally, we measured some aspects of culture to learn how organizations leverage
teams and support them to improve organizational capability as well as the role of the NPD process
manager.

The key challenge, of course, is how to do all of this effectively and repeatedly. In this report, we
share how best-practice organizations support product innovation processes that deliver results. The
findings present an interesting picture of what these organizations do and how they developed and
continue to manage their processes. We hope these best practices will help your organization
improve its performance in this important endeavor of managing your new product development
efforts.
NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
page 7
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

1.2 T HE KEY RE SEARCH QUE STI ONS

This investigation addresses four main questions in new product development:
1. Metrics: How are businesses performing in terms of their new product development efforts?
For example: How successful are they? Are they profitable? What percentage of sales and
profits comes from new products? What types of innovation are undertaken? And, at the
project level: what metrics are used to gauge how project teams are performing against
budgets and timelines?

2. NPD process: How are businesses faring on a number of practices that have been identified
over the years as positive drivers of performance? For example: Do businesses really have a
new product development process in place? Is it working? Do the early pre-development
activities impact the ultimate success of the project?

3. Gatekeeping and governance: What practices are used? How effective are gatekeeping practices?
What is the impact on success?

4. Best vs. worst companies: What are the best- or top-performing businesses doing differently
from the rest? What are some of the details and examples of best practices? How have
companies sought to leverage the people side of innovation? And additional questions.

1.3 T OPI C ARE AS ST UD IE D

Previous research has identified a number of factors that are proposed to drive new product
performance1. These factors provide the conceptual framework and basis for the current study. The
ten main topic areas studied include:

Performance Metrics:
1. Product innovation metrics at the business unit level

2. The type of projects undertaken—the portfolio breakdown

3. Metrics used to gauge NPD performance at the project level

4. Differences in performance between top performing companies (top 25 percent), and the
poor performing companies (bottom 25 percent)

The Idea-to-Launch New Product Process and Practices:

5. The business’s NPD process—the idea-to-launch or stage-gate process—and its elements

6. Best practices embedded within the NPD process

7. Quality of execution of key activities in typical new product development projects/programs

8. The quality of up-front activities (before development begins)

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 8
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

9. The effectiveness of Gatekeeping and Governance practices including the quality of gate
deliverables and their quality

10. The impact of teams, leadership, and process management.

Each of these 10 key topic areas has a number of sub-items, so that a total of 68 practices, methods,
and approaches were researched.

NPD performance metrics are always a question of interest as organizations strive to benchmark
themselves against others to determine if their performance standards are acceptable or not. In this
study the performance of businesses’ new product development efforts—their total NPD
programs—was also measured. Note that NPD performance is a multi-dimensional concept, so
multiple measures of performance are used in this study. These performance measures include:

 Percentage of new products meeting sales, profit, and market share objectives (3 measures)
 Success, failure, and kill rates of NPD projects (3 measures)
 Proportion of NPD projects on budget and on schedule (2 measures)
 Average slip rates for projects behind schedule
 Percentage of the business’s sales and profits generated from new products (2 measures)
 Overall profitability of the business’s total new product efforts relative to spending
 Time to market
 Whether the business’s total NPD program has met or exceeded its sales and profit
objectives (over the last three years)
 The success and profitability of the business’s total NPD program (over the last three years)
 Whether the business has been able to reduce product development cycle time—
development-to-launch time—significantly over the last three years
 Other key indicators used to measure performance.
From these multiple performance metrics, top performing performance dimensions were created
which enable us to identify the Best Performers in NPD.

1.4 H OW THE BENCHMARKI NG RE SE AR CH W AS U NDER TAKE N

The research was undertaken jointly by the American Productivity & Quality Center (APQC) and the
Product Development Institute (PDI) with the author as subject matter expert. The study used
APQC’s standard and proven benchmarking methodology, including both qualitative and
quantitative methods.

Qualitative: Site visits were organized with five companies previously identified as having best
practices in new product development in place. The APQC research team consisted of the subject
matter expert, a number of representatives from the sponsor companies, and APQC personnel who
conducted the meetings. These on-sites visits were based on a detailed interview guide or
questionnaire, which covers essentially the same 10 topics as listed in Section 1.3.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 9
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

The following five companies were visited.

 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Performance Materials Division) is engaged in high-
end, performance-specific applications, primarily in a business-to-business model and is
comprised of six business lines: specialty additives, functional additives, personal care,
reactive intermediates, polyurethane additives, and epoxy additives. The PMD group
generated about $700 million in sales in 2009.

 Ashland, Inc. (Performance Materials Business Unit) has a business-to-business focus

within two main markets: transportation and building/construction. This business unit sells
the resins that are eventually used by its customers for composites and high-performance
adhesives composites. This business unit contributes approximately $1 billion in sales
annually.

 Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) is a global medical technology company,

comprised of three divisions: Biosciences, Diagnostics and Medical, that develops,
manufactures, and sells medical supplies, devices, laboratory instruments, antibodies,
reagents, and diagnostic product. Annual sales were about $7.3 billion in 2010 of which
Diagnostics comprised approximately 30 percent.

 Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (ESI) is a leading supplier of innovative, laser-based

manufacturing solutions for the microtechnology industry. Its systems enable precise
structuring and testing of micron to submicron features in semiconductors, LEDs and other
high-value components.

 EXFO is a leading provider of optical testing solutions and wireless protocol analyzers and
network simulators, and portable test sets for the telecommunications industry.

Quantitative: A detailed quantitative questionnaire was also constructed, focusing on the 10 topics
in Section 1.3. A total of 68 variables or measures were used to capture the existence and proficiency
of practices, approaches, and methods in the questionnaire. Additionally, some general descriptive
questions to characterize the businesses were included.

Many questions were measured on Likert-type anchored 0-10 scales—for example, questions that
sought the degree to which certain practices or methods were employed and how well, or how
successful NPD Gatekeeping practices are. Other questions were direct, seeking a quantitative
answer, such as percentage of projects that were commercial successes or failures or percentage of
projects meeting sales targets. Finally, a number of open-ended questions that sought text responses
were included.

The quantitative sample: A total of 257 business entities responded to the detailed quantitative
questionnaire. Refinement of the data sample plus the removal of small organizations led to a useable
sample of 211 respondents. Selected sample statistics are:

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 10
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

 Businesses are in a number of different industries, with about half in the manufacturing
sector (Exhibit 1.1)
 The businesses have median sales of $1 billion and the median number of employees is
2,500 (Exhibit 1.2)
 Median R&D spending data is $10 million per business or 4.0 percent of sales. The mean
values are also shown in Exhibit 1.2, but are skewed by a number of very large businesses.

Exhibit 1.1: The Sample – Industry Breakdown

Industry Percentage of Participants

Industrial Products 20.4%

Consumer Goods 18.5%

Service 15.6%

Chemical 7.1%

Other Business-Business 7.1%

Health Care 6.6%

Telecommunication 5.7%

Electronics/computers 4.3%

Software 4.3%

Other 10.4%

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 11
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Exhibit 1.2: Selected Characteristics of Businesses in the Sample

Average Value Across Median Value (50th

Characteristic
Businesses percentile) Across Businesses

Number of employees 15,423 2,500

Annual sales revenue $8.4 billion $1 billion

Spending on R&D
8.2% 4.0%
(as a percent of sales)

Annual spending on R&D $1.1 billion $10 million

1.5 ORG ANI ZATI ON OF THE RE SUL T S

Next comes the reporting of the results. With so many practices, methods, and performance metrics
gauged, a roadmap of the report may be useful:

 The next section, Chapter 2, provides NPD performance results of the businesses on the
many performance metrics measured. Here, these performance metrics are also combined to
identify the Best and Worst Performers.
 Chapters 3 and 4 outline how the businesses rate or fare on the different practices and
methods in each of the first 10 topic areas outlined. Additionally, each practice is measured
against performance metrics to assess how the top and bottom performers score on each.
 Chapter 5 looks at portfolio management and its impact on success.
 Chapter 6 outlines the Conclusions and Recommendations.
 Appendix A provides detailed case descriptions from the site visits undertaken with the five
best practice companies which are presented as individual case studies.
 Appendix B provides the survey data results in chart form to provide the reader with
additional points for reference and information.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 12
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

2. New Product Performance Metrics

Determining how your organization is performing and how it compares to other organizations is
always an interesting question. Without clear metrics and a way to compare them, it can be very hard
to know whether you are doing well or poorly at product innovation, if your investment in R&D is
producing the desired results, and what areas of your performance might need to be improved or
strengthened. In this chapter, how the businesses fare on a number of the top performance metrics is
highlighted, along with the distribution of results—the top and bottom 25 percent of businesses.
Also, based on these performance results, a subset of best performing businesses are identified,
which then help to identify best practices in subsequent chapters.

2.1 PER CE NT AGE OF REVE NUE S AND PR OFI TS F R OM NEW PR ODUC T S

The most popular performance metrics used at the business unit level are the percentage of sales
(revenue) and the percentage of profits derived from new products. But how do businesses perform
on these popular metrics? Exhibit 2.1 reveals the results:

Average Business Top 25% Bottom 25%

% revenue from new products 27.3% 36.3% 10.0%

% of profits from new products 25.2% 30.5% 10.0%

These percentages of sales revenues and profits are defined as follows: the percentage of the business
entity’s annual sales revenues (or the business’s profits) that is derived from new products launched
within the last three years.

Overall, the average percentages are impressive for new products launched within the past three
years. But most impressive are the results of performers in the top 25 percent on these two metrics:
36 percent of sales and 30.5 percent of profits coming from new products.

But words of caution: Although these are popular metrics, be aware that they are not necessarily the
right metrics to gauge performance or the only metrics to use. Here are the comments of an astute
and experienced CTO:

“Percentage of sales is a ‘good news, bad news’ metric. One of our business units has a very
high percentage of sales from new products. But this is due to a combination of negative
factors: high and costly product obsolesce in their market; new products that did not
perform—either technically or financially—and needed to be fixed and replaced; and over-
reaction to every single customer request. The result is a lot of ‘churn’ in the product line,
which is very costly to the business. So a high percentage of sales is not always a good
thing.”

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 13
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
PROCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PERFOR MANCE ME TRICS

Exhibit 2.1: Percentage of Revenues & Profits from New Products

Bottom 25% of
10.0% Businesses

% of revenue coming Average

27.3% Business
from NPs
36.3%

Top 25% of
Businesses

10.0%
% of profits coming
25.2%
from NPs
30.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Percentage of the Business’s Sales Revenues & Profi ts

Comi ng from New Products La unched in Last 3 Years

2 . 2 S UC CE SS , F AI L A ND K IL L R ATE S
Another key metric is the NPD success rate: what proportion of projects entering development
become commercial successes? Or become commercial failures? Or are killed along the way?

The average values are shown in Exhibit 2.2, while the top 25 percent and bottom 25 percent of
businesses on this metric are shown in Exhibit 2.3:

Average Business Top 25% Bottom 25%

Success Rate 53.2% 70.0% 35.0%

Failure Rate 26.5% 10.0% 35.0%

Kill Rate 20.3% 5.0% 30.0%

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 14
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Exhibit 2.2: Success, Fail and Kill Rates – The Average Business

Killed Prior to Launch

Commercial
Successes

Commercial Failures

Exhibit 2.3: Success, Fail and Kill Rates – Top 25% vs. Bottom 25%

Bottom 25% of
% of projects 35.0% Businesses
commercially Top 25% of
successful 70.0%
Businesses

% of projects 35.0%
commercial failures 10.0%

% of projects killed 30.0%

prior to launch 5.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Business’s New Product

Projects that are Successes, Failures, or Killed

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 15
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

The result is a respectable success rate on average of 53 percent. But note the huge difference
between the top 25 percent of businesses and the bottom 25 percent on this Success Rate metric: the
top 25 percent have double the success rate of the bottom 25 percent. And the bottom 25 percent
have more than three times the failure rate of the top 25 percent. These are not small differences—
these performance differences are of great magnitude, and raise the questions: what separates the
best from the worst; and why do the top businesses do so exceptionally well?

2.3 T I ME TO MARKET
Time to market is a very typical performance metric, given the heavy emphasis placed on speed-to-
market and cycle time reduction in product innovation. The median product development time from
Idea Generation through to Product Launch is slightly less than 18 months. However, the
breakdown, by businesses, shows that a wide range in cycle times exists (see Exhibit 2.4). Note that:

 55.1 percent of businesses take less than 18 months, on average; and

 30.7 percent take at least two years or more to get new products from idea to market.

Exhibit 2.4: Time to Market (Idea to Launch Months)

More than five years 3.1%

Three to five years 8.2%

Two to three years 19.4%

Nineteen to 24 months 14.3%

Thirteen to 18 months 24.0%

Seven to 12 months 22.4%

Three to six months 8.2%

Two months or less 0.5%

0% 10% 20% 30%

Percentage of Businesses – Average Time to Market

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 16
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

2.4 ON TI ME AND ON B U DGET

Another performance perspective is the proportion of projects that meet their targeted launch dates
on time and on budget. Exhibit 2.5 provides the results for the average business, and Exhibit 2.6
shows the results for the top 25 percent and bottom 25 percent on this metric:

Average Business Top 25% Bottom 25%

Percent of projects on time 44.4% 70.0% 20.0%

Percent of projects on budget 56.5% 81.0% 40.0%

The fact that, on average, more projects are behind schedule (missing their scheduled launch date)
and that a considerable percentage (43.5 percent) are over budget raises serious concerns about
scheduling, resource management, project management, and commitments to timelines. Admittedly,
there is a small group of businesses doing much better than these average businesses: 70.0 percent on
schedule and 81.0 percent on budget. But the other extreme is the bottom 25 percent, whose
performance is 3.5 times lower than the top 25 percent. The significant difference between the top
25 percent and bottom 25 percent indicates that many firms have yet to achieve acceptable on-time
and on-budget results, although a handful of firms prove that this goal can be achieved.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 17
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Exhibit 2.6: Projects On Time, On Budget – Top 25% vs. Bottom 25%

Bottom 25% of
% of projects launched
20.0% Businesses
on schedule
70.0% Top 25% of
Businesses

Time late (as % of

40.0%
schedule)
19.0%

% of projects on budget 40.0%

81.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Business’s New Product Projects

On Time, On Budget

But how late is late? The “slip rate” measures how late a project is as a percentage of its total
scheduled time to market. On average, when a project is late to market, it is behind schedule (the
“slip rate”) by 31.4 percent, as noted in Exhibit 2.5. That is, if a project is scheduled for 18 months
time-to-market, the typical “late project” gets there in 23.6 months, i.e. 5.6 months late.

That is the data for the average business. The worst performers (bottom 25 percent on this metric)
see their “late projects” miss the scheduled launch by 40 percent, while the best drive their slip rates
down to 19 percent.

2.5 NPD PROJE CT S MEET ING OBJE CTI VE S

What portion of NPD projects meet their objectives? Management measures the performance of
NPD projects on a number of objectives, for example profits, sales, and market share. But just how
do businesses rate on these metrics? Exhibit 2.7 shows the proportion of projects meeting profit,
sales, and market share objectives. It also shows the results for the top 25 percent and bottom 25
percent of businesses on these three metrics:

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 18
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Average Bottom
Top 25%
Business 25%

% meeting profit objectives 51.1% 70.0% 29.9%

% meeting sales objectives 52.2% 70.0% 33.5%

% meeting market-share objectives 48.8% 70.1% 30.0%

The performance metric results are a cause for concern. First, the fact that the mean values are
averaging about 50 percent for all three metrics means that a sizable proportion of projects (almost
half) are failing to meet objectives. This result should be unacceptable for most senior management
teams. Next, consider the distribution of results: the top 25 percent of businesses on these metrics
are achieving almost 2.5 times the performance of the bottom 25 percent, suggesting that many
businesses have a lot of room for improvement.

Exhibit 2.7: Percent of Projects Meeting Objectives

29.9% Bottom 25% of Businesses

% of projects meeting profit
51.1% Average Business
objectives
70.0% Top 25% of
Businesses

33.5%
% of projects meeting sales
52.2%
objectives
70.0%

30.0%
% of projects meeting market
48.8%
share objectives
70.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Business’s New Product Projects

Meeting Objectives

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 19
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
PROCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PERFOR MANCE ME TRICS

2.6 BUSINESS E NTITY PERFOR MANCE

There are many ways to measure a business’s performance at product innovation. These include a
number of qualitative metrics and comparative measures that are best captured on 0 to 10 scales.
Exhibit 2.8 shows the average results on six such scaled metrics, while Exhibit 2.9 shows results for
those with very positive results (scoring 8, 9, or 10 out of 10) and those with poor results (scoring 0,
1, 2, or 3 out of 10) on each performance metric. The results:

1. Most businesses actually do keep score and measure their overall NPD performance (mean
rating: 5.4 out of 10). A surprising 11.7 percent do not, however.
2. Businesses see their NPD efforts or programs as moderately profitable relative to how much
they spend on them (mean rating: 5.8 out of 10). Only 19.2 percent see their programs as
very profitable.
3. The ability to meet profit objectives is more weakly rated on average (mean rating: 5.2 out of
10). Only 12.9 percent of businesses were very satisfied with their ability to exceed profit
objectives.
4. Meeting sales objectives was rated weakly as well (mean rating: 5.3 out of 10) and only 13.0
percent of businesses were very satisfied with their ability to exceed sales objectives.
5. Cycle time reduction is the goal in many businesses’ product innovation efforts. And so, the
ability to reduce cycle time over the last three years is a key metric. Businesses rate poorly on
this metric (mean rating: 5.2 out of 10), with only 11.6 percent of business claiming very
good results.

Exhibit 2.8: Additional Performance Metrics – The Average Business

Product performance is measured 5.4

Product performance tracked centrally 5.4

Profitability vs. spending 5.8

Met/exceeded profit objectives 5.2

Met/exceeded sales objectives 5.3

Reduction of cycle time 5.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0=Not 10=Excellent,
at all The Degree that Each to a great
Performance Metric is extent
Measured

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 20
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

A quick glance at Exhibit 2.8 shows that mean scores fall almost entirely down the middle of the
chart, with the average business achieving a moderate-to-weak 5 to 6 out of 10 on just about every
performance metric. These depressed scores are a definite concern. The worst performance is on the
cycle reduction metric. The strongest performance metric was the business’ profitability relative to
spending over the past three years.

2.7 PER F ORMANCE MET RI C S U SED T O MEASU RE PR OJEC T AND NP D PR OG RAM

What gets measured usually gets done! Metrics that are regularly measured and reported also tend to
shape what people try to improve upon. So, what types of performance metrics are commonly
employed in NPD? We investigated the specific metrics employed in NPD management, not so
much as a best practice (there are no ratings or scores reported here), but as a way to gain insights
into which metrics are the most popular.

Two types of metrics are investigated:

1. Metrics used to gauge how successful an individual new product project was. For example,
was project X a success or a failure?
2. Metrics used to gauge how well the business’s total new product effort performs (its NPD
program). For example, the percentage of new products launched that were commercial
successes.

Thus, one set of metrics is at the project level (Exhibit 2.10); the other is at the business or business unit
level (Exhibit 2.11). The results are self-evident.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 21
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Individual NP project performance metrics:

Most companies use multiple project performance metrics (on average, the companies used 4.2
different metrics per business). The most popular metrics are, in order of popularity:

Metric Percentage of Businesses Using

Revenue versus forecasted revenue (meets revenue goals) 68.9%
Customer satisfaction measures 60.5
Profitability of the new product (NPV, operating profit, EVA, etc.) 56.3
Time to market 48.4
Profitability versus forecasted profits 47.4
Performance to schedule (on-time launch) 41.4
Market share 37.4
Performance to budget 35.3
Time to profit/breakeven time 29.5
Cost of NPD as a percent of revenue produced 25.8
Percent of repeat customers 16.8

Program (overall NPD efforts) performance metrics:

Most businesses use multiple metrics here (on average, the companies used 2.6 different program
metrics). The most popular metrics used to gauge the entire NPD efforts of the business are:

Metric Percentage of Businesses Using

Percentage of revenue from new products 68.8%
Percentage of growth in sales coming from new products 44.1
Percent of profit generated by new products 39.8
Success rate of launched products 37.1
Number of major launches per year 37.1
Return on investment of R&D dollars 29.0
Overall profits (annual) generated by new products 29.0

In all cases, a time frame had been defined: new products launched over the last two, three, or five
years. Often the definition of “what is a new product” proved difficult or problematic, but in better
practice firms this term had been precisely defined to enable the use of these metrics.

But words of caution: Although these are popular metrics, be aware that they are not necessarily the
right or universal metrics to gauge NPD performance. Nor will a single metric necessarily capture all
facets of new product performance. Recall the comments of the experienced CTO (Section 2.1) who
noted that “percentage of revenue” can reward or induce the wrong kind of behavior. He was not
alone. We heard a number of knowledgeable people suggesting caution in that NPD metrics, as with
all metrics, can cause or incent the wrong kind of management actions. For example, NPD
performance measured strictly by “percentage of sales from new products” will logically lead to a
NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
page 22
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

number of short-term, fast projects (and few longer term ones); projects that generate sales but not
necessarily profits; new products that could cannibalize existing products and create a lot of
unnecessary churn in the product line; and so on.

Exhibit 2.10: Key Measures Used to Define New Product Success or Failure

Revenue vs. forecasted revenue 68.9%

Customer satisfaction 60.5%
Profitability 56.3%
Time to market 48.4%
Profitability vs. forecasted profits 47.4%
Performance to schedule 41.1%
Market share 37.4%
Performance to budget 35.3%
Time to profit/breakeven time 29.5%
Cost of NPD as a % of revenue produced 25.8%
% of repeat customers 16.8%
Other 2.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percent that Use the Measure

Note: Most companies use multiple measures

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 23
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Exhibit 2.11: Key Indicators Used to Measure the Total New Product Program

% of revenue from new products 68.8%

% growth in sales from new products 44.1%

Success rate of launched products 37.1%

Number of major launches per year 37.1%

% of profit generated by new products 39.8%

Return on investment of R&D dollars spent 29.0%

Overall profits generated by new products 29.0%

Other 5.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percent that Use the

Indicator
Note: Most companies use multiple measures

2.8 DE FI NING AND ID E NTI FY ING THE T OP P ER F OR MER S

Which businesses are the best or top performers? And which are the worst? These are important
questions, and they lie at the basis of a valid benchmarking study. By comparing the practices used in
Best versus Worst Performers, one can zero in on the best practices. For example, while many of the
practices and methods we observe and report in this study may seem intuitively obvious as “best
practices”—such as building in the voice-of-customer, or adopting a solid new product development
system. Unless these practices have a significant impact on performance, they cannot be considered
as best practices. Moreover, just because someone in the company claims that some method or
approach is a best practice, does not necessarily make it so. Unless it can be shown to positively
impact on performance, it probably is not a best practice. Thus, identifying the top performing
businesses in product development, and then comparing what they do versus the poor performers, is
an important step to identifying and validating best practices. Note also that poor performers must
be identified, because it’s only by comparing and contrasting practices in the Best versus the Worst
Performers that best practices can be proven.

Numerous performance metrics were identified and investigated in this study. Previous sections in
this chapter have reported how businesses perform on these metrics. Trying to identify which
businesses are the best versus the worst on each and every metric becomes a cumbersome task;
moreover, some of these metrics are themselves inter-correlated.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 24
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

As a result, a composite variable was created using responses to three key performance metrics
focusing on profits and sales. The “top” performers for this composite had consistently strong
performance across all questions, and the “bottom” performers for this composite had consistently
weak performance in the three areas. The “middle” group had any other combination of scores. The
three key measures are:

 Profitability of the NPD program over the past three years relative to spending on it,
 Ability to meet or exceed profit objectives over the last three years, and
 Ability to meet or exceeded its sales objectives over the last three years.
Hence, a new composite variable was created that reflects the three groups’ strength on these three
metrics. Group one was very strong on achieving profit and sales results; the second group was very
poor or fell far short of profit and/or sales objectives; and a third, middle group that comprises the
rest of the respondents.

2.9 H OW THE BE ST VER SU S W ORST BU SI NE SSE S FARE IN TER MS OF PE R F OR MANCE

METR IC S
How well or poorly did the Best and Worst Performers do in terms of the many performance metrics
that were measured? And are they really the Best and Worst businesses according to these metrics?
Let’s look now at how well and poorly they really did in NPD—a validation (see Exhibits 2.12 and
2.13).

The results are overwhelming: clearly a powerful set of Best Performers that can readily compare to a
weak set of Poor Performers have been identified. There are 16 performance metrics in total
(Exhibits 2.12 and 2.13). Here we see that on all 16 metrics, the Best Performers score significantly
higher and stronger than the Worst.

For example, the Best versus the Worst Performing businesses in Exhibit 2.12:

 Have much higher new product success rates (62.0 percent vs. 44.9 percent) and lower
failure rates
 Have higher proportions of projects on time (60.4 percent vs. 25.5 percent) and on budget
(66.7 percent versus 40.0 percent)
 Have more projects that meet their sales objectives (74.7 percent vs. 36.7 percent) and profit
objectives (about 71.8 percent vs. 36.7 percent)
 See a much higher proportion of their business’s sales revenues and profits coming from
new products (about 45 percent vs. 14 percent).

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 25
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
PROCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PERFOR MANCE ME TRICS

Exhibit 2.12: Performance Metrics Results – The Best vs. Worst Performers

44.9% 52.2%
% of developments successful (success rate)
62.0%
34.2%
% of developments that fail (failure rate %) 27.7%
13.8%
20.9%
% of projects killed (prior to launch) 20.1%
24.3%
40.0%
% of projects on budget 61.4%
66.7%
25.5%
% of projects on schedule 46.9%
60.4%
36.7%
% of projects that met profit objectives 50.1%
71.8%
36.7%
% of projects that met sales objectives 50.1%
74.7%
43.2%
% of projects that met mkt share targets 46.7%
66.1%
16.9% 28.2%
% of revenue coming from NPs Worst Performers
46.6%
Middle Business
10.5%
% of profits coming from NPs 26.2% Best Performers
43.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mean Rating Percentage

Note: Statistically significant at a confidence level of 0.05 or better

And in Exhibit 2.13

 Measure and track performance (mean rating on a 1-10 scale: 6.6 vs. 3.1)
 Have more profitable NPD programs versus spending (mean rating on a 1-10 scale: 8.4 vs.
3.2)
 Have NPD programs that meet the business’s profit objectives (mean rating a 1-10 scale: 8.1
vs. 1.9).

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 26
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
PROCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PERFOR MANCE ME TRICS

Exhibit 2.13: Performance Metrics – The Best vs. Worst Performers

3.2
Product performance is measured 5.7
6.7
3.0
Product performance tracked centrally 5.7
6.5
3.2
Profitability vs. spending 6.0
8.4
1.9
Met/exceed profit objectives 5.6
8.1
2.3
Met/exceed sales objectives 5.5
8.2
2.2 Worst Performers
Reduction of cycle time 4.6 Middle Business
5.6 Best Performers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% of Businesses that are “Very Good” vs. “Very Poor”

On Performance Metrics

Note: Statistically significant at a confidence level of 0.05 or better

2.10 TYPE S OF NE W PRODUCT DEVE LOPE D

What is the right portfolio mix in terms of projects? This is always a question that we are asked and
one that executive teams are always debating. Other common questions are: What is the right mix of
project types to have in the portfolio? How do we optimize the portfolio mix? Or, what is the right
split between high and low risk projects? The answers to these questions should be reflected in the
breakdown of product development or project types undertaken—where the funds are invested. By
default the projects that are currently active and funded is your current and active portfolio and a
reflection of current managements’ view of their innovation strategy and a reflection of their risk
profile. Additionally, breakdowns of new products and projects by innovation type should give a
predictor of the business’s NPD performance and act as an indicator of what types of results we
should be able to expect in the future. For example, too much emphasis on short term, low risk small
projects might point to an under-achieving business or a business where the actual spending reflects
a very risk adverse culture. Exhibit 2.14 shows the breakdown for the average business. Note that the
dominant categories are:

 Incremental product improvements/changes (34.8 percent); followed by

 Major product revisions (22.5 percent); and then
 New products to the firm (20.0 percent).

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 27
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
PROCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PERFOR MANCE ME TRICS

This is a fairly reasonable balance among projects in these three main categories. By contrast, new-to-
the-world products—true innovations—and minor development—such as promotional and package
changes—represent a minority of new products (6.7 percent and 13.4 percent, respectively).

Do the Best Performers adopt a different mix of project types—is there an optimal portfolio of
project types? Consider how the Middle businesses compare to the Best and Worst Performing
businesses—see Exhibit 2.15.

What is noteworthy is the shift towards much more innovative and/or riskier and bolder projects as
one migrates from Worst to Best businesses. For example:

 More than half (57.1 percent) of Worst businesses’ projects are the small, incremental
ones—promotional/package changes or incremental product improvements and changes.
 By contrast, only 40 percent of Best Performers’ projects are these small, incremental ones.
 Best Performers take on a higher proportion of larger, more innovative projects: 38.2
percent of Best Performers’ projects are either new-to-the-business or true innovations—
new-to-the-world.

Exhibit 2.14: Breakdown of Projects by Project Type for the Average Business

Promotional
New product to Other development/package
world
change
2.6%
6.7% 13.4%

New product to
business 20.0%

Incremental product
34.8%
improvement/change

22.5%
Major product
revision

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 28
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Exhibit 2.15: Breakdown of Projects by Project Type: Best 25% vs.

Worst 25% of Performers

Bottom 25% Middle Top 25% of

of Businesses Businesses Businesses

Promotional Developments, Price

17.1% 13.0% 10.8%
Changes & Packaging Changes
Incremental Product Improvements &
40.0% 34.5% 29.5%
Changes

Major Product Revisions 21.4% 23.1% 20.5%

New to the Business Products 14.0% 20.3% 26.7%

New to the World Products 4.1% 6.4 11.5%

~40% ~50% ~59%

Note: Does not add to 100% down a column due to a
small percentage of “other” projects.
Point Steps

 By contrast, only 18.1 percent of Worst Performers’ projects are these bolder projects.
 Consider the last category on its own in Exhibit 2.15: Best Performers do almost three times
the number of true innovations (new-to-the-world products) projects than do Worst
Performers: 11.5 percent versus 4.1 percent.
 As you progress from the worst to middle to best performers, there is a full 10 percent step
change in the project mix towards the more innovate types of projects reflecting an increase
in risk as you move from each of the three categories.

Conclusions: We cannot prove cause-and-effect here—that doing more venturesome projects will
lead to better performance results. But if you wish to benchmark the Best Performers in terms of
project types, Exhibit 2.15 is a good guide. And note the tendencies when comparing Worst versus
Best Performers—the heavy shift from small and incremental projects to bolder and more innovative
projects.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 29
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

3. The Idea-to-Launch New Product Process and

Practices

This section deals with the process that businesses use to drive new product projects from the Idea
Stage through to Launch. Specific topics in this section include:

1. The nature of the business’s new product process,

2. Practices embedded within this process, and
3. The role of governance (gatekeeping).

3.1 A SY STE MATI C NEW PR ODUC T PR OCE SS

A new product process—a game plan or playbook to guide NPD projects from idea to launch—is a
key to NPD success. The term “new product process” means more than just a flow-chart; the term
includes all process elements—the stages, stage activities, gates, deliverables and gate criteria that
constitute a well-defined new product process. For more than twenty years, organizations have been
urged to design and implement such a new product process, and they appear to have heeded the
experts. Indeed, having a well-defined new product process is the strongest practice observed in the
sample of businesses. Consider now some of the details and practices associated with this best
practice (Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2):

1. A clearly defined idea-to-launch new product process: As noted, businesses rate very
high here, with 88.2 percent of businesses having such a NPD process, and only 11.9
percent scoring weakly (Exhibit 3.1). The Best Performers score 9.2 out of 10 here
compared to only 5.7 for the worst performers.

2. A visible, documented process: Some firms claim to have a NPD process; but on closer
inspection, it’s more of a high level and conceptual process—a few flow diagrams with
boxes and diamonds and little more. To be operational, an effective new product process
should be well mapped-out, visible and well-documented. Again, the sample of businesses
does fairly well, with best performers having a mean rating of 8.4 out of 10. 84.6 percent of
businesses indicate that they have a reasonably well-documented and visible NPD process;
only 15.2 percent scored poorly.

3. An adaptable and scalable process: Is the NPD process a flexible one, adapted to the
needs, size and risk of the project? Or is it a rigid, one-size-fits-all process, failing to
recognize the difference between high risk and low risk projects? Two thirds of the
businesses in this study (80.6 percent) view their process as somewhat flexible, adaptable and
scalable. (The Best Performers score of 8.0 out of 10 compared to only 4.7 for worst
performers).

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 30
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

4. Whether the NPD is really used: The true test of a process is whether or not it is really
used; or is it merely window-dressing in the business (i.e. a paper process only). There is
clear evidence that some businesses have a process that is consistently used and understood
by the organization with 78.7 percent indicating a moderate or strong use of their NPD
process. Somewhat disturbing is that although the great majority does claim to have some
type of NPD process in place (only 11.9 percent claimed not to have a process at all), 21.4
percent claim that their process is not really used.

5. An enabling process for the project team: Another test of one’s NPD process is whether
or not it is a facilitating process that helps project teams get their products to market (rather
than a bureaucratic process that stands in the way). This is one of the weakest elements of
the NPD process, with a moderate mean rating score of 5.9 out of 10, and with 56.8 percent
reporting that the process is only moderately enabling (22.0 percent of businesses reporting
that it is strongly enabling). (However, best performers outscore the worst performers 7.2 vs.
4.1 out of 10.)

6. Defined Go/No Go criteria at gates: Go/Kill criteria are considered important to better
evaluate the merits of NPD projects, and to assist management in making the critical
Go/No Go decision. In spite of the logic of having such consistent gate criteria, the lack of
such criteria is fairly widespread (22.5 percent of businesses lack these criteria; only 43.1
percent claim to have very well-defined gate criteria). Indeed this is a somewhat weaker facet
of business’s NPD processes (a mediocre mean rating score of 6.6 out of 10). Without clear
decision criteria it is hard to separate the winning projects from the less attractive ones.
Interestingly, the best performers score twice as strong as the worst performers (8.6 vs. 4.3).

7. Deliverables defined for each gate: A menu of what the project team is expected to
deliver to each gate in the NPD process—their “deliverables”—is a positive feature of best-
in-class new product processes that is also common amongst the sample of businesses.
Overall, having well-defined deliverables is rated fairly strongly, with 84.6 percent of
businesses having such an explicit menu of deliverables to guide project teams.

8. Checks to monitor if the process is followed: Monitoring to see how well the process is
followed is a good way to determine if project teams are actually using the process. If too
many teams are not following the process, the checks can act as an early warning signal.
Unfortunately, the overall mean score reported here was 5.6 out of 10 with only 23.5 percent
of companies reporting that they are very good at monitoring the process.

Merely having a NPD process in place, however, is a good start but it is not enough to maintain the
position of a top performing company. Instead having a good process in place is really just the
starting point. The Best Performers go on to further enhance their process to ensure it is working
effectively and delivering the desired results. Unfortunately, the poorer performers still have not
adapted this best practice as the results in Figure 3.2 clearly demonstrate.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 31
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Some examples: As would be expected of best practice firms, companies that took part in the site visits
(the case studies) had in place a well designed stage-gate new product development process (e.g., Air
Products, Ashland, BD, ESI, and EXFO). A detailed profile of each company’s process is provided
in Appendix A. Each company indicated that a solid, well-defined process with clearly defined
activities in each stage and a well-defined decision framework for the gates (decision points) was a
critical best practice for them.

 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.: “The organization uses a consistent, organization-wide
process called offering development and introduction (ODI) that is modeled on the Stage-
Gate® process. This process, a company-wide stage-gate framework, has become
institutionalized and is ingrained in the language and culture of the company.”

 Ashland, Inc.: “We have been able to successfully combine our product development
process [Stage-Gate] with our Six Sigma program. This combined approach allows us to
produce high-quality products in a disciplined manner.”

 Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD): “BD’s global new product development system
serves as an effective baseline for planning and managing NPD projects and provides a basis
for functional transparency and accountability.”
NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
page 32
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

 Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (ESI): “The improved consistency of the process is
helping to improve the quality of content, accelerate learning for new participants, and
enable objective status reporting.”

 EXFO: “We have a well-defined stage-gate process that over the years has evolved as we
have adapted to changing market needs. Our process is a considered an asset.”

The results from these and other firms have been impressive. For example, Michael Popule, Group
Manager, Reaction Engineering, Air Products when asked about the impact of their process, said “It
allows us to fail fast and move on rather than not try risky projects that could have a large reward.”

A closer look at the ingredients of such a process confirms the conclusion above: that having a new
product process is the starting point to separate the Best from the Worst Performers. Having all of
the elements of this process is very evident in top performing businesses. Note how high Best
Performing businesses rate on almost all the elements of a systematic NPD process in Exhibit 3.2
compared to the Worst Performers.

 Best Performers’ NPD processes are enablers—they make it easier for project teams to drive
their NPD projects to market (rather than being a burden on them)
 Best Performers’ NPD processes are adaptable and scalable—they are flexible processes,
adapted to the needs, size and risk of the project (rather than being a rigid one-size-fits-all
process, failing to recognize the differences between major and minor projects).

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 33
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Exhibit 3.2: Impact of Having a Systematic New Product Process in Place

5.7
Use formal NPD process 8.1
9.2
5.7
Visible, documented process 7.6
8.4
4.7
Adaptable, scalable process 6.9
8.0
3.8
NPD process is really used 6.1 Worst Performers
6.8 Middle Business
4.1 Best Performers
Process enables project teams 5.9
7.2
4.3
Go/No Go criteria defined 6.6
8.6
5.1
Deliverables defined per gate 7.5
8.8
3.3
Checks to monitor process is followed 5.6
6.0

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0=Not 10=Very
at all Impact of Each NPD Process Element much so

Note: Statistically significant at a confidence level of 0.05 or better

Conclusions: Overall, the majority of businesses fare very well in terms of their new product
processes. For the majority of businesses, the NPD process is in moderately good shape.

Best Performers overwhelmingly have a NPD process in place, along with most of its elements. Thus
having a NPD process, along with the items or ingredients listed in Exhibit 3.1, is highlighted as a
best practice in this study. So, if your business lacks a solid NPD process, or it’s only a high-level
process, it’s time to install a best-in-class process, complete with these eight items observed in our
Best businesses:

1. A clearly defined idea-to-launch new product process. This includes clearly designated
stages—a series of defined stages, for example: ideation, scoping, build the business case,
development, testing and launch; with activities defined for each stage (i.e. outlines of what
happens in each stage and includes guidelines on the “how tos”).

2. A visible documented process—well mapped-out, visible and well-documented, much like a

playbook—that provides genuine guidance to project leaders and teams).

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 34
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

3. An adaptable and scalable process—a flexible process, adapted to the needs, size and risk of
the project.

4. A process that is really used. An effective implementation and ability to sustain the process is
essential: getting senior management buy-in and commitment (i.e. they really are walking the
talk); user-friendly documentation; training of all players—teams, team leaders, and
gatekeepers; ensuring all projects are in the process; a Process Manager in place; a process
database, IT support and performance metrics all contribute to ensuring the process is
enabling people and that they actually use it.

5. An enabling process for project teams—a facilitating process, helping project teams get their
products to market.

6. Defined Go/No Go criteria at gates—the criteria that projects will be judged on to make
Go/Kill and prioritization decisions.

7. Deliverables defined for each gate—a menu of what the project team is expected to deliver
to each gate meeting. This is often in the form of templates.

8. Monitoring the process to ensure it is really working. By ensuring that teams are actually
using the process and identifying where and or why they are not provides the continual
feedback needed to continue improving the process and making it “the way we do business”.

Note that merely having a formal and documented NPD process is only the first step. It is how the
process, its activities and recommended practices are implemented that makes the difference. We will
see some of these impacts later in this chapter.

Bureaucracy: It is also important to ensure that your process is constantly improving over time to
leverage internal learnings and to ensure if it is meeting both internal and external needs. Hence,
there is a need to be consistently on the alert for non-valued work or outdated documentation. You
need to get rid of any bureaucracy that may have entered into your process over time. Your NPD
process should be designed to facilitate project teams in getting their new products to market,
securing resources and senior management commitment, and removing roadblocks. Instead, too
many NPD processes, implemented with the best of intentions, appear to create bureaucracy and
much non-value-added work. One way to prevent this from occurring is to periodically review your
process to make any needed improvements. Most companies in the survey have revamped or
restructured their process:

 73.2 percent within the past three years

 10.6 percent within the past three-five years.
If you have not revamped or modernized your process within the past few years it is probably time
to do so.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 35
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Flexibility: Next, make sure that the process is flexible and scalable, perhaps having different versions
of the process—a full five-stage, five-gate process for major NPD projects, and perhaps a shorter
three-stage process or “Stage-Gate Express” for lower risk projects, such as enhancements,
modifications and extensions. One size does not fit all!

3.2 KEY U PF R ONT ACT IVI TIE S TH AT ARE BU IL T I NT O THE NP D PR OCE SS

A handful of best practices are often cited that should be built into companies’ NPD processes
before the Development Stage begins. This emphasis on pre-development work has also been
historically identified as the most problematic phase. It’s here where the new product idea is fleshed
out into a clear product definition; where the magnitude of the opportunity is assessed and the
business case constructed; and the action plan for the rest of the project is mapped out. All these
activities are supposed to occur before serious development work begins—at least, that’s the theory!
But is there really this emphasis on up-front work in typical businesses?

Most companies acknowledged that they do attempt to do these activities but there are significant
differences in how well each activity is actually conducted. These include:
1. Initial screening—the first decision to move ahead on a new product project. Often this idea
screen is handled by a mid-management group, and relies on criteria for making the Go/No
Go decision to allocate funds or people to the proposed new product idea.

2. Preliminary technical assessment—the first technical assessment of the project, identifying

potential technical risks, probable solutions, and technical challenges.

3. Preliminary operations (or manufacturing) assessment—an initial assessment of the manufacturing or

operations process before development begins, including process design, source of supply,
operating costs and equipment requirements.

4. Customer value assessment—determining the value of the product (or value-in-use) of the
proposed new product in the customer’s eyes.

5. Business/financial analysis—a financial or business analysis leading to a Go/No Go decision

prior to the Development Stage. This often includes a strategic assessment, along with a
spreadsheet analysis (e.g. NPV, EBIT, sensitivity analysis).

Although no one group excelled at these key activities the best performing companies were
consistently able to do better quality work for each activity (see Exhibit 3.3). In other words these
organizations were able to conduct better quality of execution to derive better quality information on
the merits of undertaking a project before the actual development work began. There is a clear
emphasis on up-front homework: Up-front homework takes place—both customer and technical
assessments—before projects move into the Development Stage. This is probably one of the key
reasons why these better performing companies achieved the performance results highlighted in the
previous chapter.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 36
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Exhibit 3.3: How Business Performs on Critical Pre-Development Activities

4.6
Initial screening 5.8
6.8

5.0
Technical assessment 6.5
7.3

4.3
Manufacturing assessment 6.0
6.9

4.1
Customer value assessment 5.8
6.4 Worst Performers
Middle Business
5.0 Best Performers
Business analysis 6.6
7.4

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0=Very What is the Quality of Each 10=Excellent
poor NPD Process Element

Note: Statistically significant at a confidence level of 0.05 or better

3.3 G ATEKEE PI NG G OVE RNANCE P R AC TI CES

The Gates in a well-defined idea-to-launch process are the Go/Kill decision points where the latest
information on a project is reviewed to ensure that only the right projects move forward in the
process. Effective gates are central to the success of a fast-paced, product innovation process—“as
the gates go so goes the process”. So how well are gatekeeping best practices applied and what is the
impact on project success?

First let’s look at the use of gatekeepers in general. Sometimes it is unclear just who should undertake
project reviews and whose signatures are needed for a project to proceed. The locus of decision-
making—the people who make the Go/No Go decisions at gates—is also an important feature of
many firms’ NPD processes. In Exhibit 3.4 most companies clearly have identified gatekeepers or
decision makers. In some organizations these decision makers remain the same throughout the
process while others use more senior or higher level decision makers for later Gates that require
more resources and use the lower level gatekeepers for the earlier Gates. Best performing companies
tend to use the later approach more often, indicating that they reserve senior management time by
using mid-level decision makers for the early Gates (usually Gate 1 and 2) where fewer resources are
allocated. However some companies argue that it was better to keep a consistent set of gatekeepers
throughout the process.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 37
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Exhibit 3.4: Gatekeeping/Governance Approaches

6.0
Have designated Gatekeepers 7.6
8.1

2.8
Gatekeepers change as risk changes 4.2 Worst Performers
5.5 Middle Business
Best Performers

4.3
Go/No Go criteria 6.6
8.6

5.1
Defined Gate deliverables 7.5
8.8

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10=Very
0=Not Presence of Each NPD much so
at all Process Element

Note: Statistically significant at a confidence level of 0.05 or better

Next, defined Go/Kill criteria are considered important to better evaluate the merits of projects, and
to assist management in making the Go/No Go decision. In spite of the logic of having such gate
criteria that are spelled out for each gate (written down and visible to everyone), the lack of such
criteria is fairly widespread amongst the poorer performing organizations (4.3 out of 10 compared to
8.6 for best performers). Thus, best performers were twice as likely to have clear Go/Kill criteria as
worst performers.

Finally, for gatekeepers to be able to make good decisions and apply decision criteria, it is helpful to
have the right information available to aid in making these decisions. Top performers tended to have
deliverables clearly defined for each gate. A standard list of items that the project team is expected to
deliver to each gate in the process—their “deliverables”.

In summary, best-in-class new product processes have clearly designated gatekeepers with clear
Go/No Go decision criteria and predefined deliverables identified. Interestingly, when probed about
global gatekeepers that have oversight for projects spanning multiple geographic locations the results
were mixed with 46.9 percent of companies indicating that they were moving in this direction but
53.1 percent did not use this approach.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 38
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Having the gate structure in place is, in itself, not enough however. It is also important to ensure that
these meetings are effective: that the meetings are held; that the right people attend; that the
discussion and decisions are of high quality and even that the decisions are actually made. If the
meetings are well run and are producing good quality decisions, then the people will see these
meetings as a productive and efficient way to handle this type of decision-making. So how does our
sample of companies measure up? Interestingly most organizations indicate that this was an area that
could be improved upon. However both the moderate and best performers were well ahead of the
poor performers in how they practice the Gate principles (the results are illustrated in Exhibit 3.5):
1. Gatekeepers attend the meetings: All of the key decision makers invited to participate as
gatekeepers attend the gate meeting. There are no cancellations, if at all possible, and when a
cancellation does occur by one individual the meeting still goes ahead.

2. Effective Gate meetings: The meetings themselves are managed effectively. Agendas are
distributed in advance, meetings start and end on time, the agenda is followed and a record
of all decisions is kept. In other words good meeting protocols are developed and followed.

3. High quality contribution: Each gatekeeper makes good quality contributions. In order
for this to occur, each gatekeeper comes prepared for the meeting and has pre-read the
project materials. The questions are insightful and helpful to understanding the risk
associated with the project. (Note this was the weakest area for the poor performers).

4. Quality/Objective decisions: A high quality approach to decision-making is used.

Decisions are fact-based and objective in nature.

5. Decisions are actually made: Decisions are made at each gate meeting. Either a
Go/Kill/Hold/Recycle decision, including approval of the action plan for the next stage of
work and approval of the resources and date for the next meeting.

6. Gatekeepers support the decision: Each gatekeeper visibly supports the decision made at
the gate meeting (including resources) in the weeks or months after the meeting. This was
the highest score of this category by the best performers (7.1 out of 10).

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 39
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

Exhibit 3.5: How Effective are the Gates

4.7
Gatekeepers attend meetings 6.1
6.2

4.9
Effective gate meetings 6.4
6.9

3.0
High quality contribution 5.6
5.9

3.6
Quality/objective decisions 5.8
6.7

3.9
Decisions are actually made 6.5
6.9 Worst Performers
Middle Business
3.7 Best Performers
Gatekeepers support decision 6.0
7.1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0=Not How Effective is Each Gate Principal 10=Very
at all much so

Note: Statistically significant at a confidence level of 0.05 or better

3.4 QUALI TY OF Y OUR G ATE DELIVE RABLE S

To support effective gatekeeping practices, the quality of deliverables needs to be of high enough
quality that the decision makers can, in fact, make the decisions that are being asked of them. So, best
practices companies also have standards and expectations around the gate deliverables. Similar to our
discussion above on gate principles the moderate and best performers tended to both score
adequately here although it was acknowledged that this was an area that they are constantly trying to
improve. Not surprising, the poor performers however are struggling with Gate deliverables. In
Exhibit 3.6 four key practices are profiled.
1. Gate deliverables are complete: The agreed-upon deliverables are completed by the team.
The plan that was approved at the previous gate and the corresponding activities and
deliverables in that plan has been completed. This was the best score in this category for the
best performers (7.0 out of 10).

2. Deliverables are distributed on time: All agreed-upon deliverables are distributed to the
gatekeepers on time. Hence the deliverables are received on time, reviewed for completeness

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 40
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

and distributed to the gatekeepers per the guidelines in the NPD process. Note that this was
the weakest score for the poor performers (4.1 out of 10).

3. Business case is of high quality: The business case and/or executive summary that are
submitted to the gatekeepers are of high quality. That is, they are complete, include accurate
information, add value, and focus on the critical issues.

4. Gate presentation is of high quality: The presentation made at the gate meeting is of high
quality. It is concise, within the allotted time period, includes a clear recommendation with
options/alternatives, action plan for the next stage of work, and has a clear request for
resources.

Exhibit 3.6: Gate Deliverables

Deliverables are 5.4

6.7
complete 7.0

Deliverables are 4.1

6.2
distributed on time 6.9

Business case is 4.4

6.2
high quality 6.9

Gate presentation 4.9 Worst Performers

6.4
is high quality 6.9
Middle Business
Best Performers

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0=Not 10=Very
at all Quality of Gate Deliverables much so

Note: Statistically significant at a confidence level of 0.05 or better

In summary, an important part of a well-constructed NPD process is the gates or Go/No Go

decision points. At gates, management meets with the project team to review the project, evaluate its
merits, and make Go/No Go and resourcing decisions. What seems to separate the best performers
is the ability to have, on a repeated bases, these demanding Go/No Go decision points in the
process where the hard choices are made, and projects really do get killed. They have the protocols
and best practices built into their process and have the discipline to follow it. Some businesses claim
to have gates in their NPD processes, but a closer inspection reveals that these are largely “project
review points” or “milestone reviews” with no tough decisions—projects rarely are killed and a lot of
time is spent on discussing how to “fix” the project.
NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
page 41
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

3.5 I MPR OVI NG Y OUR G ATE PR AC TI CE S

If your company needs to improve its gate practices with respect to product innovation, a number of
easily identifiable symptoms will be evident. Generally, lack of alignment, poor cooperation across
functions, meetings that do not seem to be productive and unhealthy competition across groups
and/or business units are early warning signals. The most tell-tale sign is a lack of clarity and
transparency about the direction of your business’s R&D program or total new product efforts.2

Other common warning signs that you may have poor governance practices are:

1. Inefficiencies occur due to duplication of effort. Without good co-ordination and approval, your
projects and project teams from around the world are very often working on similar projects,
or even worse, the same project, without realizing it. Oversight of the innovation pipeline
helps to ensure that different parts of your company—often with good intentions—are not
duplicating each other’s efforts.
2. Decision making is not clear and is lacking in accountability. Who is responsible for a project and
how an approval is gained should not be guesswork or the result of hallway lobbying efforts.
As good projects surface in your business, a clear path should exist to secure timely
approvals. For this to happen, clear accountability and a clear specification of who should be
making these types of decisions are needed.
3. The right decisions are not being made. The information to make effective investment or Go/Kill
decisions is often missing or not available. A common symptom here is the uneasy feeling
that your development pipeline contains too many projects that should be killed, and that it
lacks the type of projects needed to meet your business goals.
4. Resource deployment is not clearly aligned with your business’s strategy. Although your people are
working hard and have a full plate of projects to work on, there is no assurance that these
efforts support the strategic direction of your business. This is likely the result of weak
guidelines that lack clear decision criteria.
5. Frustration over the value of the innovation pipeline. Here a common symptom is the feeling that, if
all projects in your pipeline were completed, they would not meet desired targets. It is
probably full of time-consuming, yet low value projects. Or, worse yet, there are no realistic
valuations on projects. Hence there is no real control and prioritization.
6. Business units are not following a governance process to manage innovation. The problem here is that
each business unit spends R&D resources or consumes corporate R&D budgets, but does
not utilize a proper and standard approach to selecting and funding projects; or they have no
clearly defined innovation strategy. Without this type of oversight, it is very hard to have
confidence in the business unit’s ability to deliver results against their strategic plans.
7. Decisions are not timely. Your competitors always seem to be ahead of you and, as a result, your
project teams always seem to be racing to catch up. With a poorly managed innovation
strategy, organizations do not fund their strategic buckets properly. Instead, they are busy
supporting short-term market requests from the sales teams. Hence, no balance exists

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 42
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

between incremental product development projects and longer term, more strategic, major
projects.
8. Internal politics play too large of a role. We have all been there. More time is spent lobbying than
actually doing real work. With no clear definition of roles and responsibilities, your people
learn how to work the system to get things done. So a large amount of their time is spent
lobbying to get or keep their budgets and people.
9. A lack of visibility regarding decision making. No one can really explain how to get approvals or
how past projects were approved. Good projects lie fallow, while others seem to have a life
of their own.
10. Frustration around the level of bureaucracy. Your people’s frustration with the level and degree of
bureaucracy is often a warning sign that existing polices and supporting documentation
requirements are actually counterproductive. Stifling innovation with too much bureaucracy
is very easy, particularly in a large organization. While some policies and procedures are
needed, companies today are too lean to support unnecessary work.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 43
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

4. The Importance of People

This section, the last of those that review the study results shifts away from process and addresses
the “people” issues. After all, product innovation—its success or failure—seems to be very much
within the hands of the people who work on or lead projects teams, and on their management. The
four key areas investigated here include:

1. The nature of project teams and how they are organized

2. Different approaches to project team management

3. The role of senior management

4. The role of the Stage-Gate process manager.

4.1 T HE WAY NPD PROJE CT TE AMS ARE ORG ANIZE D AND LE AD

The way project teams are structured, organized and leverage functional representation is
fundamental to new product success. This success factor has been highlighted in a number of studies
and books over the years, and it seems that many businesses have heeded the message: project teams
appear to be in fairly good shape, on average.3 In general, team structure, organization and function
is fairly positive as most organizations recognize the importance of this in successful product
innovation. Typically, each significant NPD project has a clearly assigned team—people who are part
of the project and work on it. The primary approach to establishing these teams is assignment by
management based on resource availability (see Exhibit 4.1 and Exhibit 4.2).

 The team composition is cross-functional from different functional areas such as R&D,
Marketing, Operations, Supply Chain, etc. as needed.
 These teams work to resolve specific problems and to perform tasks related to the project.
Top performers are much better at this than poorer performing companies (8.5 vs. 5.9 out
of 10).
 There is a clearly identified team leader—a person who is in charge and responsible for
driving the project.

The in-depth case studies that were conducted highlight a number of best practices that these
companies use to leverage their teams for more successful outcomes. Here is a summary of the key
findings from these case studies that are presented in more detail in Appendix A:

 All major projects have a clearly identified project team leader

 Project team leaders tend to remain the same throughout the life of the project versus
changing leaders as the project progresses

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 44
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
New Product Development
P R OCE SS BE NC HMARK S AND PER F OR MANC E ME TRI CS

 Each project is assigned team members that represent the cross-functional needs of the
project
 Key team members tend to remain with the project from start to finish
 Cross-functional cooperation and communication is good
 The assigned project team is accountable for the performance of the project
 Teams are able to handle outside-the-team inputs and decisions effectively and have an
executive sponsor to help when necessary
 The team leader can be from any functional area however it is more common to see these
team leaders as professional project leaders with the proper training
 Technology is leveraged so the team members can communicate effectively. This is more
important when teams are not co-located such as in regional or global project teams.

Exhibit 4.1: Primary Approach to Establishing Project Teams

Formal teams based on availability of

37.1%
resources
Management determines project team
membership and reallocates resources as 36.2%
needed
Informal teams based on availability of
13.3%
resources

Team leaders determine project team

11.4%
membership

Other 1.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Percent that Use as Primary Approach to

Establish Team

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

page 45
Copyright © 2011 by Product Development Institute and APQC
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 I m not such a goose of a thing;
But after I had consented
To Joe—and he gave me the ring—

I felt such a queer sensation.

I seemed to go into a trance,
Away from the music’s pulsation,
Away from the lights and the dance.
And the wind o’er the wild prairie
Seemed blowing strong and free,
And it seemed not Joe, but Harry
Who was standing there close to me.

And the funniest feverish feeling

Went up from my feet to my head,
With little chills after it stealing—
And my hands got as numb as the dead.
A moment, and then it was over:
The diamond blazed up in my eyes,
And I saw in the face of my lover
A questioning, strange surprise.

Maybe ’twas the scent of the flowers,

That heavy with fragrance bloomed near,
But I didn’t feel natural for hours;
It was odd now, wasn’t it, dear?
Write soon to your fortunate Clara
Who has carried the prize away,
And say you’ll come on when I marry;
I think it will happen in May.
 THE WATCHER.

THINK I hear the sound of horses’ feet

Beating upon the graveled avenue.
Go to the window that looks on the
street,
He would not let me die alone, I knew.”
Back to the couch the patient watcher passed,
And said: “It is the wailing of the blast.”

She turned upon her couch and, seeming, slept,

The long, dark lashes shadowing her cheek;
And on and on the weary moments crept,
When suddenly the watcher heard her speak:
“I think I hear the sound of horses’ hoofs—”
And answered, “ ’Tis the rain upon the roofs.”

Unbroken silence, quiet, deep, profound.

The restless sleeper turns: “How dark, how late!
What is it that I hear—a trampling sound?
I think there is a horseman at the gate.”
The watcher turns away her eyes tear-blind:
“It is the shutter beating in the wind.”

The dread hours passed; the patient clock ticked on;

The weary watcher moved not from her place.
The gray dim shadows of the early dawn
Caught sudden glory from the sleeper’s face.
“He comes! my love! I knew he would!” she cried;
And smiling sweetly in her slumbers, died.
FALSE.
 ALSE! Good God, I am dreaming!
No, no, it never can be—
You who are so true in seeming,
You, false to your vows and me?
My wife and my fair boy’s mother
The star of my life—my queen—
To yield herself to another
Like some light Magdalene!

Proofs! what are proofs—I defy them!

They never can shake my trust;
If you look in my face and deny them
I will trample them into the dust.
For whenever I read of the glory
Of the realms of Paradise,
I sought for the truth of the story
And found it in your sweet eyes.

Why, you are the shy young creature

I wooed in her maiden grace;
There was purity in each feature,
And my heaven I found in your face
And, “not only married but mated,”
I would say in my pride and joy;
And our hopes were all consummated
When the angels gave us our boy.

Now you could not blot that beginning

So beautiful, pure and true,
With a record of wicked sinning
As a common woman might do.
Look up in your old frank fashion,
With your smile so free from art;
And say that no guilty passion
Has ever crept into your heart.
How pallid you are, and you tremble!
You are hiding your face from view!
“Tho’ a sinner, you cannot dissemble”—
My God! then the tale is true?
True and the sun above us
Shines on in the summer skies?
And men say the angels love us,
And that God is good and wise.

Yet he lets a wanton thing like you

Ruin my home and my name!
Get out of my sight ere I strike you
Dead in your shameless shame!
No, no, I was wild, I was brutal;
I would not take your life,
For the efforts of death would be futile
To wipe out the sin of a wife.
Wife—why, that word has seemed sainted,
I uttered it like a prayer.
And now to think it is tainted—
Christ! how much we can bear!

“Slay you!” my boy’s stained mother—

Nay, that would not punish, or save;
A soul that has outraged another
Finds no sudden peace in the grave.
I will leave you here to remember
The Eden that was your own,
While on toward my life’s December
I walk in the dark alone.
THE PHANTOM BALL.
 OU remember the hall on the corner?
To-night as I walked down street
I heard the sound of music,
And the rhythmic beat and beat,
In time to the pulsing measure
Of lightly tripping feet.

And I turned and entered the doorway—

It was years since I had been there—
Years, and life seemed altered:
Pleasure had changed to care.
But again I was hearing the music
And watching the dancers fair.

And then, as I stood and listened,

The music lost its glee;
And instead of the merry waltzers
There were ghosts of the Used-to-be—
Ghosts of the pleasure-seekers
Who once had danced with me.

Oh, ’twas a ghastly picture!

Oh, ’twas a gruesome crowd!
Each bearing a skull on his shoulder,
Each trailing a long white shroud,
As they whirled in the dance together,
And the music shrieked aloud.

As they danced, their dry bones rattled

Like shutters in a blast;
And they stared from eyeless sockets
On me as they circled past;
And the music that kept them whirling
Was a funeral dirge played fast.

Some of them wore their face-cloths,

 Others were rotted away.
Some had mould on their garments,
And some seemed dead but a day.
Corpses all, but I knew them
As friends, once blithe and gay.

Beauty and strength and manhood—

And this was the end of it all:
Nothing but phantoms whirling
In a ghastly skeleton ball.
But the music ceased—and they vanished,
And I came away from the hall.
THE KINGDOM OF LOVE.
 N the dawn of the day when the sea and the earth
Reflected the sunrise above,
I set forth with a heart full of courage and mirth
To seek for the Kingdom of Love.
I asked of a Poet I met on the way
Which cross-road would lead me aright.
And he said: “Follow me, and ere long you shall see
Its glittering turrets of light.”

And soon in the distance a city shone fair.

“Look yonder,” he said; “how it gleams!”
But alas! for the hopes that were doomed to despair,
It was only the “Kingdom of Dreams.”
Then the next man I asked was a gay Cavalier,
And he said: “Follow me, follow me;”
And with laughter and song we went speeding along
By the shores of Life’s beautiful sea.

Then we came to a valley more tropical far

Than the wonderful vale of Cashmere,
And I saw from a bower a face like a flower
Smile out on the gay Cavalier.
And he said: “We have come to humanity’s goal:
Here love and delight are intense.”
But alas and alas! for the hopes of my soul—
It was only the “Kingdom of Sense.”

As I journeyed more slowly I met on the road

A coach with retainers behind.
And they said: “Follow me, for our Lady’s abode
Belongs in that realm, you will find.”
’Twas a grand dame of fashion, a newly-made bride,
I followed, encouraged and bold;
But my hopes died away like the last gleams of day,
For we came to the “Kingdom of Gold.”
At the door of a cottage I asked a fair maid.
“I have heard of that realm,” she replied;
“But my feet never roam from the ‘Kingdom of Home,’
So I know not the way,” and she sighed.
I looked on the cottage; how restful it seemed!
And the maid was as fair as a dove.
Great light glorified my soul as I cried:
“Why home is the ‘Kingdom of Love!’ ”
UNDER THE SHEET.
 HAT a terrible night! Does the Night, I wonder—
The Night, with her black veil down to her feet
Like an ordained nun, know what lies under
That awful, motionless, snow-white sheet?
The winds seem crazed, and, wildly howling,
Over the sad earth blindly go.
Do they and the dark clouds over them scowling,
Do they dream or know?

Why, here in the room, not a week or over—

Tho’ it must be a week, not more than one—
(I cannot reckon of late or discover
When one day is ended or one begun),
But here in this room we were laughing lightly,
And glad was the measure our two hearts beat;
And the royal face that was smiling so brightly
Lies under that sheet.

I know not why—it is strange and fearful,

But I am afraid of her, lying there;
She who was always so gay and cheerful,
Lying so still with that stony stare:
She who was so like some grand sultana,
Fond of color and glow and heat,
To lie there clothed in that awful manner
In a stark white sheet.

She who was made out of summer blisses,

Tropical, beautiful, gracious, fair,
To lie and stare at my fondest kisses—
God! no wonder it whitens my hair.
Shriek, oh, wind! for the world is lonely;
Trail cloud-veil to the nun Night’s feet!
For all that I prized in life is only
A shape and a sheet.
HIS YOUTH.
 YING? I am not dying. Are you mad?
You think I need to ask for heavenly grace?
I think you are a fiend, who would be glad
To see me struggle in death’s cold embrace.

“But, man, you lie! for I am strong—in truth

Stronger than I have been in years; and soon
I shall feel young again as in my youth,
My glorious youth—life’s one great priceless boon.

“O youth, youth, youth! O God, that golden time,

When proud and glad I laughed the hours away.
Why, there’s no sacrifice (perhaps no crime)
I’d pause at, could it make me young to-day.

“But I’m not old! I grew—just ill, somehow;

Grew stiff of limb, and weak, and dim of sight.
It was but sickness. I am better now,
Oh, vastly better, ever since last night.

“And I could weep warm floods of happy tears

To think my strength is coming back at last,
For I have dreamed of such an hour for years,
As I lay thinking of my glorious past.

“You shake your head? Why, man, if you were sane

I’d strike you to my feet, I would, in truth.
How dare you tell me that my hopes are vain?
How dare you say I have outlived my youth?

“ ‘In heaven I may regain it?’ Oh, be still!

I want no heaven but what my glad youth gave.
Its long, bright hours, its rapture and its thrill—
O youth, youth, youth! it is my youth I crave.

“There is no heaven! There’s nothing but a deep

A d i f hi h I h i k i f
 And yawning grave from which I shrink in fear.
I am not sure of even rest or sleep;
Perhaps we lie and think, as I have here.

“Think, think, think, think, as we lie there and rot,

And hear the young above us laugh in glee.
How dare you say I’m dying! I am not.
I would curse God if such a thing could be.

“Why, see me stand! why, hear this strong, full breath—

Dare you repeat that silly, base untruth?”
A cry—a fall—the silence known as death
Hushed his wild words. Well, has he found his youth?
 WANTED—A LITTLE GIRL.

HERE have they gone to—the little girls

With natural manners and natural curls;
Who love their dollies and like their toys,
And talk of something besides the boys?

Little old women in plenty I find,

Mature in manners and old of mind;
Little old flirts who talk of their “beaux,”
And vie with each other in stylish clothes.

Little old belles who, at nine and ten,

Are sick of pleasure and tired of men;
Weary of travel, of balls, of fun,
And find no new thing under the sun.

Once, in the beautiful long ago,

Some dear little children I used to know;
Girls who were merry as lambs at play,
And laughed and rollicked the livelong day.

They thought not at all of the “style” of their clothes,

They never imagined that boys were “beaux”—
“Other girls’ brothers” and “mates” were they;
Splendid fellows to help them play.

Where have they gone to? If you see

One of them anywhere send her to me.
I would give a medal of purest gold
To one of those dear little girls of old,
With an innocent heart and an open smile,
Who knows not the meaning of “flirt” or “style.”
TWO SINNERS.
 HERE was a man, it was said one time,
Who went astray in his youthful prime.
Can the brain keep cool and the heart keep quiet
When the blood is a river that’s running riot?
And boys will be boys, the old folks say,
And a man is the better who’s had his day.

The sinner reformed; and the preacher told

Of the prodigal son who came back to the fold.
And Christian people threw open the door,
With a warmer welcome than ever before.
Wealth and honor were his to command,
And a spotless woman gave him her hand.

And the world strewed their pathway with blossoms abloom,

Crying, “God bless layde, and God bless groom!”

There was a maiden who went astray,

In the golden dawn of her life’s young day.
She had more passion and heart than head,
And she followed blindly where fond Love led.
And Love unchecked is a dangerous guide
To wander at will by a fair girl’s side.

The woman repented and turned from sin,

But no door opened to let her in.
The preacher prayed that she might be forgiven,
But told her to look for mercy—in heaven
For this is the law of the earth, we know:
That the woman is stoned, while the man may go.

A brave man wedded her after all,

But the world said, frowning, “We shall not call.”
MEG’S CURSE.
 HE sun rode high in a cloudless sky
Of a perfect summer morn.
She stood and gazed out into the street,
And wondered why she was born.
On the topmost branch of a maple-tree
That close by the window grew,
A robin called to his mate enthralled:
“I love but you, but you, but you.”

A soft look came in her hardened face—

She had not wept for years;
But the robin’s trill, as some sounds will,
Jarred open the door of tears.
She thought of the old home far away;
She heard the whir-r-r of the mill;
She heard the turtle’s wild, sweet call,
And the wail of the whip-poor-will, whip-poor-will, whip-poor-will.

She saw again that dusty road

Whence he came riding down;
She smelled once more the flower she wore
In the breast of her simple gown.
Out on the new-mown meadow she heard
Two blue-jays quarrel and fret,
And the warning cry of a Phœbe bird:
“More wet, more wet, more wet.”

With a blithe “hello” to the men below

Who were spreading the new-mown hay,
The rider drew rein at her window-pane—
How it all came back to-day!
How young she was, and how fair she was;
What innocence crowned her brow!
The future seemed fair, for Love was there—
And now—and now—and now.
In a dingy glass on the wall near by
She gazed on her faded face.
“Well, Meg, I declare, what a beauty you are!”
She sneered, “What an angel of grace!
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
What a thing of beauty and grace!”
She reached out her arms with a moaning sob.
“Oh, if I could go back!”
Then, swift and strange, came a sudden change;
Her brow grew hard and black.

“A curse on the day and a curse on that man,

And on all who are his,” she cried.
“May he starve and be cold, may he live to be old
When all who loved him have died.”
Her wild voice frightened the robin away
From the branch by the window-sill;
And little he knew as away he flew,
Of the memories stirred by his trill.

He called to his mate on the grass below,

“Follow me,” as he soared on high;
And as mates have done since the world begun
She followed, and asked not why.
The dingy room seemed curtained with gloom;
Meg shivered with nameless dread.
The ghost of her youth and her murdered truth
Seemed risen up from the dead.

She hurried out into the noisy street,

For the silence made her afraid;
To flee from thought was all she sought,
She cared not whither she strayed.
Still on she pressed in her wild unrest
Up avenues skirting the park,
Where fashion’s throng moved gayly along
I V it F i h h k!
 In Vanity Fair—when hark!

A clatter of hoofs down the stony street,

The snort of a frightened horse
That was running wild, and a laughing child
At play in its very course.
With one swift glance Meg saw it all.
“His child—my God! his child!”
She cried aloud, as she rushed through the crowd
Like one grown suddenly wild.

There, almost under the iron feet,

Hemmed in by a passing cart,
Stood the baby boy—the pride and joy
Of the man who had broken her heart.
Past swooning women and shouting men
She fled like a flash of light;
With her slender arm she gathered from harm
The form of the laughing sprite.

The death-shod feet of the mad horse beat

Her down on the pavings gray;
But the baby laughed out with a merry shout,
And thought it splendid play.
He pulled her gown and called to her: “Say,
Dit up and do dat some more;
Das jus’ ze way my papa play
Wiz me on ze nursery floor.”

When the frightened father reached the scene,

His boy looked up and smiled
From the stiffening fold of the arm, death-cold,
Of Meg, who had died for his child.
Oh! idle words are a woman’s curse
Who loves as woman can;
For put to the test, she will bare her breast
And die for the sake of the man.
A FABLE.
 OME cawing Crows, a hooting Owl,
A Hawk, a Canary, an old Marsh-Fowl,
One day all met together
To hold a caucus and settle the fate
Of a certain bird (without a mate),
A bird of another feather.

“My friends,” said the Owl, with a look most

wise,
“The Eagle is soaring too near the skies,
In a way that is quite improper;
Yet the world is praising her, so I’m told,
And I think her actions have grown so bold
That some of us ought to stop her.”

“I have heard it said,” quoth Hawk with a sigh,

“That young lambs died at the glance of her eye,
And I wholly scorn and despise her.
This and more, I am told, they say;
And I think that the only proper way
Is never to recognize her.”

“I am quite convinced,” said Crow with a caw,

“That the Eagle minds no moral law;
She’s a most unruly creature.”
“She’s an ugly thing,” piped Canary Bird;
“Some call her handsome; it’s so absurd—
She hasn’t a decent feature!”

Then the old Marsh Hen went hopping about;

She said she was sure—she hadn’t a doubt—
Of the truth of each bird’s story;
And she thought it her duty to stop her flight,
To pull her down from her lofty height,
And take the gilt from her glory.
But, lo! from a peak on the mountain grand,
That looks out over the smiling land,
And over the mighty ocean,
The Eagle is spreading her splendid wings—
She rises, rises, and upward swings,
With a slow, majestic motion.

Up in the blue of God’s own skies,

With a cry of rapture, away she flies,
Close to the Great Eternal.
She sweeps the world with her piercing sight;
Her soul is filled with the Infinite
And the joy of things supernal.

Thus rise forever the chosen of God,

The genius-crowned or the power-shod,
Over the dust-world sailing;
And back like splinters blown by the winds,
Must fall the missiles of silly minds,
Useless and unavailing.
 THE WAY OF IT.

HIS is the way of it, wide world over,

One is beloved, and one is the lover,
One gives and the other receives,
One lavishes all in wild emotion,
One offers a smile for a life’s devotion,
One hopes and the other believes.
One lies awake in the night to weep,
And the other drifts off in a sweet, sound sleep.

One soul is aflame with a godlike passion,

One plays with love in an idler’s fashion,
One speaks and the other hears.
One sobs “I love you,” and wet eyes show it,
And one laughs lightly, and says “I know it,”
With smiles for the other’s tears.
One lives for the other and nothing beside,
And the other remembers the world is wide.

This is the way of it, sad earth over,

The heart that breaks is the heart of the lover,
And the other learns to forget.
“For what is the use of endless sorrow?
Though the sun goes down, it will rise to-morrow;
And life is not over yet.”
Oh! I know this truth, if I know no other,
That passionate Love is Pain’s own mother.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookgate.com