1. How well the engineering managment problem addressed in the paper defined? 2. What was the source of data that the autohor used to investigate the problem? 3. Were the data analysed in a logical and scientifically sound manner? As a response to competitive and rapidly changing business environment, developing new products is an essential process that sustains competitive advantage and ensures business success of firms (Ferreras-Méndez, Olmos-Peñuela, Salas-Vallina, & Alegre, 2021; Turkcan, Imamoglu, & Ince, 2022). However, failure rate of the new product development (NPD) processes is high (Cooper, 2019). Consequently, both scholars and practitioners tirelessly explore factors leading to NPD success and examine their contribution to NPD performance in different contexts and levels. According to open innovation concept (Chesbrough, 2003), customer is one of the most mportant external knowledge sources of firms and plays a vital role in their success (Vaquero Martín, 2021). In this regard, considering customer participation (CP) as a success factor of the NPD process and investigating its effect on NPD performance is one of the common research streams in the literature. CP (terms such as “customer integration” and “customer involvement” are also used in the literature) implies to participation of the customers in the NPD process of firms and is the extent to which customers and firms jointly create value for new product (Morgan, Obal, & Anokhin, 2018). When customer participates in the firm’s NPD process, it provides information (customer needs) and technical and design skills (solution-related knowledge) and helps the firm in developing successful new products (Chang & Taylor, 2016). Notwithstanding the potential benefits infused by CP, it may also have negative effects on NPD performance. Due to the difference between references, standards and codes of customer and firm (Lin, Tu, Chen, & Huang, 2013) and the occurrence of mutual misunderstanding about the jointly developed product (S. Najafi-Tavani, Naudé, Smith, & Khademi-Gerashi, 2023), CP may increase conflict between customer and firm that may have negative effect on NPD performance (Wang, Jin, Zhou, Li, & Yin, 2020). In the literature, CP is introduced as “double-edged sword” so that its positive effect on NPD performance is under debate. Indeed, prior researchers have reported inconsistent findings about the effect of CP on NPD performance. While some studies have reported positive effect of CP on NPD performance (Anna S. Cui & Wu, 2016; Morgan & Anokhin, 2023; Wang, Jin, & Zhou, 2019), other’s findings have indicated insignificant and even negative effect (Chang & Taylor, 2016; Wang et al., 2020). Contingency theory (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967) is a potential explanation for this inconsistency. This theory indicates that organizations are open systems so that organizational and environmental factors influence their strategy (Hoffer, 1975). According to contingency theory, the relationship between CP and NPD performance may be influenced by organizational and environmental factors. In this study, we try to identify conditions in which firms could overcome disadvantages of CP and benefit from its advantages. By doing so, we also explain inconsistent findings of empirical studies about the relationship between CP and NPD. Based on contingency theory, we consider product development proficiency (PDP) of developer firm (organizational factor) and task uncertainty (TU) of new product (environmental factor) as contingency variables (moderators) in the relationship between CP and NPD performance. These variables have vital roles in the NPD process and their contingent effect on this relationship merit exploration (to our best knowledge, the contingent effect of these variables have not been addressed by prior researchers). PDP implies to the knowledge, skill, and efficacy of firms in executing activities of the NPD process and originates from the resources that firms allocate to their NPD process (Xiao & Zhang, 2021). In the literature, PDP comprises product development marketing proficiency (PDMP) and product development technical proficiency (PDTP) (K. B. Lee & Wong, 2011; Li & Huang, 2012; X. M. Song & Parry, 1997). PDMP implies to proficiency in performing market- related activities while PDTP refers to proficiency in execution of technical-related activities of the NPD process (K. B. Lee & Wong, 2010). In this study, we argue that high level of PDP enables firms to cope with customers and acquire more knowledge from them, which finally leads to better NPD performance.
1. How well the engineering managment problem addressed in the paper defined?
2. What was the source of data that the autohor used to investigate the problem?
3. Were the data analysed in a logical and scientifically sound manner?
As a response to competitive and rapidly changing business environment, developing new products is an essential process that sustains competitive advantage and ensures business success of firms (Ferreras-Méndez, Olmos-Peñuela, Salas-Vallina, & Alegre, 2021; Turkcan, Imamoglu, & Ince, 2022). However, failure rate of the new product development (NPD) processes is high (Cooper, 2019). Consequently, both scholars and practitioners tirelessly explore factors leading to NPD success and examine their contribution to NPD performance in different contexts and levels. According to open innovation concept (Chesbrough, 2003), customer is one of the most mportant external knowledge sources of firms and plays a vital role in their success (Vaquero Martín, 2021). In this regard, considering customer participation (CP) as a success factor of the NPD process and investigating its effect on NPD performance is one of the common research streams in the literature.
CP (terms such as “customer integration” and “customer involvement” are also used in the literature) implies to participation of the customers in the NPD process of firms and is the extent to which customers and firms jointly create value for new product (Morgan, Obal, & Anokhin, 2018). When customer participates in the firm’s NPD process, it provides information (customer needs) and technical and design skills (solution-related knowledge) and helps the firm in developing successful new products (Chang & Taylor, 2016). Notwithstanding the potential benefits infused by CP, it may also have negative effects on NPD performance. Due to the difference between references, standards and codes of customer and firm (Lin, Tu, Chen, & Huang, 2013) and the occurrence of mutual misunderstanding about the jointly developed product (S. Najafi-Tavani, Naudé, Smith, & Khademi-Gerashi, 2023), CP may increase conflict between customer and firm that may have negative effect on NPD performance (Wang, Jin, Zhou, Li, & Yin, 2020).
In the literature, CP is introduced as “double-edged sword” so that its positive effect on NPD performance is under debate. Indeed, prior researchers have reported inconsistent findings about the effect of CP on NPD performance. While some studies have reported positive effect of CP on NPD performance (Anna S. Cui & Wu, 2016; Morgan & Anokhin, 2023; Wang, Jin, & Zhou, 2019), other’s findings have indicated insignificant and even negative effect (Chang & Taylor, 2016; Wang et al., 2020). Contingency theory (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967) is a potential explanation for this inconsistency. This theory indicates that organizations are open systems so that organizational and environmental factors influence their strategy (Hoffer, 1975). According to contingency theory, the relationship between CP and NPD performance may be influenced by organizational and environmental factors. In this study, we try to identify conditions in which firms could overcome disadvantages of CP and benefit from its advantages. By doing so, we also explain inconsistent findings of empirical studies about the relationship between CP and NPD. Based on contingency theory, we consider product development proficiency (PDP) of developer firm (organizational factor) and task uncertainty (TU) of new product (environmental factor) as contingency variables (moderators) in the relationship between CP and NPD performance. These variables have vital roles in the NPD process and their contingent effect on this relationship merit exploration (to our best knowledge, the contingent effect of these variables have not been addressed by prior researchers).
PDP implies to the knowledge, skill, and efficacy of firms in executing activities of the NPD process and originates from the resources that firms allocate to their NPD process (Xiao & Zhang, 2021). In the literature, PDP comprises product development marketing proficiency (PDMP) and product development technical proficiency (PDTP) (K. B. Lee & Wong, 2011; Li & Huang, 2012; X. M. Song & Parry, 1997). PDMP implies to proficiency in performing market- related activities while PDTP refers to proficiency in execution of technical-related activities of the NPD process (K. B. Lee & Wong, 2010). In this study, we argue that high level of PDP enables firms to cope with customers and acquire more knowledge from them, which finally leads to better NPD performance.
Step by step
Solved in 5 steps
