While several NPP researchers identify key success factors(KSFs) for high performance (e.g. Cooper, 1998; Hart, 1993;Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994), their reviews andempirical studies demonstrate that certain independentvariables labeled KSFs associate positively with high versuslow new product performance (NPP) - high NPP occurs for anumber of launches in the absence of one or more KSFs.However, each of the identified KSFs is neither necessary norsufficient for high NPP; a number of cases occur in the empirical studies that these studies report showing the highNPP occurs in the absence of one or more specific KSFs.Consequently, the five articles in this special issue focusattention on the nuances involved that are found to occur intransforming a likely new product success into a failure andvice versa.Recognizing that certain path combinations ofenvironmental conditions, strategic actions, and risk factorslead to high versus low NPP represents taking a useful stepbeyond thinking in terms of identifying KSFs (Woodside,1994). Certain paths or combinations of environmentalconditions - management actions - risk factors likely lead tohigh NPP and other paths or combinations likely lead to lowNPP. From an empirical positivist perspective, proposingmoderating and interaction effects among independentvariables influencing NPP reflects such causal path thinking(e.g. see Song and Parry, 1997). From a case studyinterpretive perspective, specific sequences of e actionseventsleading to NPD success versus failure reflects suchcausal path thinking (e.g. see Christensen, 2001; Dougherty,1990, 1992; Tellis and Golder, 2001). Such case study research of action-event sequences is the primary focus of thecomparative method (see Ragin, 1987).There are many types of new products. Their novelty canbe defined on at least two dimensions (Cooper, 1995):1 New to the

company, in the sense that the firm has nevermade or sold this type of product before, but other firmsmight have.2 New to the market; the product is the first of its kind on themarket.Development of new products is crucial for a company tomaintain a competitive advantage (Cooper, 1995; Cooper andKleinschmidt, 1995; Zinkhan and Pereira, 1994). Cooperemphasizes the importance of innovations and their proportionon corporate profits:New products have a similar impact on corporate profits. In the period 1976-81 new products contributed 22 per cent of corporate profits. This hadgrown to 33 per cent for the next five-year period (1981-6). By 1995, it wasestimated, the figure would rise to 46 per cent. That is, profits from newproducts accounted for almost half of corporate profits. (Cooper, 1995,p. 462).Tellis and Golder (2001) provide circumstantial evidenceAnsoff's (1984, p. 329) wisdom, "Success breeds failure . . .the historical success model becomes the major obstacle tothe firm's adaptation to the new reality." Following severalyears, often decades, of high performance frommanufacturing and marketing products based on a currentlydominating technology, inertia builds up and leads to failureto embrace new technology product platforms andsubsequent death of the strategic business unit (SBU), andpossibly the entire enterprise (see Christensen, 1997 fordetailed examples).These advances in NPD theory and empirical findings arethe rationales for the continuing study of the antecedents toNPP. While most of the focus on the NPD performanceliterature is on identifying key success factors (KSFs) andenvironmental factors (for a review, see Montoya-Weiss andCalantone, 1994), this special issue includes a systemdynamics perspective on NPP. A systems view offers theadvantages of:. proposing multiple routes to high and low NPP;. recognizing that no one factor is

necessary or sufficient forachieving high performance and thereby allows for highNPP in the absence of a KSF; and. advocating a contingency versus a deterministic approachto modeling high and low NPP.The literature provides extensive support for the basicproposition that increases in NPD strategic planning andactivities affect the quality of the implemented NPD process(Song and Parry, 1997) as well as directly influencing NPP(e.g. Cooper, 1998). Zinkhan and Pereira (1994) provide ahistorical overview of marketing strategy. They especiallyemphasize the crucial role of marketing strategy for successfulnew product development. Many studies focus on how thestrategy planning can make a difference. Hart and Banbury(1994) offer a review of prior re-search. They point out that,with a few exceptions, research on the linkage betweenstrategy-making processes and firm performance adopts aneconometric perspective. They strongly support the theorythat firms committing to substantial strategy planning showhigh levels of performance. Firms that combine high levels ofcompetence in multiple modes of strategy appear to be thebest performers. After the strategy making process, the strategy has to be implemented. Nath and Sudharshan (1994)emphasize the importance of the planned and implementedstrategy coherence at different firm management levels. Suchcoherence is defined as the underlying fit or consistencybetween a firm's strategies formulated by the top managementand implementation by the functional levels. Nath andSudharshan (1994) group corporations by their strategicstatement and looked for the similarities in their planned andimplemented decision patterns. In their findings, this measureof coherence relates positively to performance.The entrepreneurial role of innovative usersIn the first article in this special issue, Lettl and Gemun̈denprovide a comprehensive

multi-case analysis of the role ofusers in radical innovation projects. These authors identifyand thickly describe the entrepreneurial role of inventiveusers. This article supports and extends earlier well-knownwork (e.g. von Hippel, 1989).How luck and poor judgment affect innovationdiffusion-adoption outcomesIn the second article, Woodside describes how luck and poorjudgment sometime serve as the yin and yang of success andfailure in the life and death of new product development. Theempirical study in this article describes the critical role ofmanufacturer and reseller relationships in launching a newproduct in the marketplace. The article serves well in linkingthe first and third articles in this special issue.Partnering in new product developmentprocessesDuring a new product development-project differentfunctional areas of the company and external organizationsare involved. Their involvement has an impact on the newproduct performance (Hagedoorn and Schakenraad, 1994;Kalwani and Narayandas, 1995, Doyle et al., 1993). Spechtet al. (1995) explains the specific importance of the interfacesbetween functional areas. To cope with increased quality andflexibility requirements, the interfaces need nurturing.Hagedoorn and Schakenraad (1994) measure the effect ofstrategic partnering between firms for the development of newproducts. They find a strong tendency for the intensity ofstrategic partnering to increase with the size of the firm.However, strategic partnering can be used to attract, ratherthan to generate technological knowledge.The third article by Zablah, Johnston, and Bellenger in thisspecial issue provides a rich conceptualization of how resellerinvolvement supports adoption and implementation oftechnological innovations. Their report advances Hagedoornand Schakenraad's (1994) findings to include a verysophisticated view of how to increase

channel performancein diffusing such innovations.Advancing hermeneutic research for interpretinginterfirm NPDThe fourth article broadens the proposal by Zablah, Johnston,and Bellenger to include an open systems view of new productdevelopment and diffusion. In the fourth article, Woodside,Pattinson, and Miller propose collecting multiple rounds of emic (participant) and etic (researcher) and descriptions andinterpretations of what happened in new productdevelopment processes. The authors illustrate the approachempirically by deepening and extending a well-known NPDcase study (i.e. Red Hat).Modelling innovation, manufacturing, diffusion,and adoption/rejection processesIn the final article, Woodside and Biemans further develop thesystems dynamic view of IMDAR processes. This articleemphasizes the research need to uncover the hidden demons(i.e. the often unrecognized and seemingly inconsequentialdamaging relationships) in NPD and the value of longitudinalrather than cross-sectional studies. The main proposition inthis final article reflects the general theme of the special issue:field research in business and industrial managing of newproducts needs to include in-depth reporting of theinteracting decisions, communications, and outcomes acrossmultiple organizations and time periods.Previously published in: Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Volume 20, Number 7, 2005.