Strategic management of R&D and marketing integration for multi-dimensional success of new product developments: an empirical investigation in the Korean ICT industry

Figures & data

Table 1: Confounding results on impact of R&D and marketing integration.

Paper	Method	Key arguments	Summary
Moenaert et al. (1994)	78 NPD projects Linear regression	Inter-functional climate increases commercial success of innovation project	More integration between marketing and R&D leads to better new product performance
Calantone and di Benedetto (1988)	U.S software industry GLS regression	Strong R&D and marketing cooperation has positive impact on new product advantage
Song, Montoya-Weiss, and Schmidt (1997)	High-tech Mexican firms SEM	Higher integration may lead to shorter development processes, cost reduction and improved quality
Song and Noh (2006)	Korean high-tech firms MANOVA	R&D and marketing integration increase the possibility of technical success
Kahn and Mentzer (1998)	Electronic industry Linear regression	Many interaction activities do not promote performance success but instead overburden personnel with too many meetings and stress	Not all NPD projects within a company need to achieve equal level of cooperation
Sethi, Smith, and Park (2001)	Consumer nondurables Linear regression	Too much cohesion may lead to agreement about a group decision, regardless of its correctness
Troy, Hirunyawipada, and Paswan (2008)	Meta-analysis (146) Linear regression	Consequence of an excess of integration limits objective criticism
Swink (2000)	Manufacturing industry Linear regression	An excess of integration generates myopia and premature elimination of options

Figure 1: Proposed research framework.

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of variables.

Framework dimensions	Variables	Variable abbreviation	Cronbach alpha	Mean	Standard deviation
Organisational capability	R&D and marketing integration	RMI	0.838	4.8080	1.0635
	Formality of project	FOR	0.861	4.7515	1.1355
	Support of TMT	TMT	0.873	4.7943	1.1856
R&D capability	Research resource	RES	0.831	5.0681	0.9661
	Development resource	DEV	0.834	4.9739	1.0642
Marketing capability	Consumer needs analysis	CON	0.858	4.6250	1.1927
	Market research	MRS	0.896	4.5602	1.2163
	Business analysis	COM	0.893	4.9205	1.1613
Success dimension	Time to market	TIME	0.843	4.2034	1.1012
	Technological innovation	FADV	0.889	4.6750	1.0515
	Product sales	SALE	0.932	4.3287	1.2219

Table 3: LR-test of estimated models.

Model	DF	Log likelihood	DF	Chi sq.	Pr (>Chi sq.)
Main effect only model	31	−752.43
Main effect with two-way interaction model	37	−732.94	6	38.979	***
Main effect with two-way interaction model	37	−732.94
Main effect with three-way interaction model	43	−712.90	6	40.089	***

Table 4: Comparison of AIC and BIC between models.

Model	AIC	BIC
Main effect only model	1566.864	1706.124
Main effect with two-way interaction model	1539.885	1706.098
Main effect with three-way interaction model	1511.796	1704.963

Table 5: LR-test of parametric linear regression model and nonparametric MARS model.

Model	DF	Log likelihood	DF	Chi sq.	Pr (>Chi sq.)
Parametric model	37	−756.38
Nonparametric model: MARS	43	−712.90	6	86.961	***

Table 6: Comparison of adjusted R-square between parametric model and nonparametric MARS model.

Model	Time to market	Technological innovation	Product sales
Parametric model	0.4182	0.4702	0.3664
Nonparametric model: MARS	0.5402	0.5121	0.4831

Table 7: Regression result: knot configuration and spline coefficients.

Basis functions	Response variables
	Time to market	Technological innovation	Product sales
Intercept	3.935 (0.220)***	4.527 (0.217)***	3.809 (0.259)***
Max(0, 6-DEV)	0.268 (0.088)**	−0.018 (0.087)	0.362 (0.105)***
Max(0, MRS-2.5)	0.187 (0.057)**	0.154 (0.056)**	0.249 (0.067)***
Max(0, RMI-4.75)	0.254 (0.122)*	0.424 (0.120)***	0.332 (0.143)*
Max(0, DEV-6) * Max(0, CON-6)	4.199 (1.040)***	2.399 (1.024)*	2.746 (1.225)*
Max(0, 6-DEV) * Max(0, RMI-6)	−1.013 (0.269)***	0.147 (0.264)	−1.110 (0.316)***
Max(0, 4.67-FOR) * Max(0, TMT-5.25)	−1.471 (0.290)***	0.028 (0.285)	−1.329 (0.341)***
Max(0, FOR-5.67) * Max(0, 5.25-TMT)	1.146 (0.448)**	1.326 (0.441)**	1.833 (0.527)***
Max(0, 5.67-FOR) * Max(0, 5.25-TMT)	−0.262 (0.036)***	−0.174 (0.034)***	−0.282 (0.042)***
Max(0, 6-DEV) * Max(0, FOR-3) * Max(0, 6-RMI)	−0.148 (0.028)***	−0.061 (0.028)*	−0.156 (0.033)***
Max(0, 3.25-COM) * Max(0, FOR-5.67) * Max(0, 5.25-TMT)	0.645 (1.361)	−4.377 (1.339)**	−4.208 (1.601)**
NPD_Size	−0.001 (0.001)	−0.001 (0.001)	0.001 (0.001)
NDP_Type	0.505 (0.133)***	0.168 (0.131)	0.246 (0.157)
Firm_Size	−0.002 (0.065)	−0.041 (0.063)	0.019 (0.076)
Sample	220	220	220
Adjusted R-square	0.5402	0.5121	0.4831

*P < .10.

**P < .05.

***P < .01.

Figure 2: Marginal response functions for time to market, technological innovation, and product sales with respect to R&D and marketing integration.

Figure 3: Marginal response surface for ‘Time to market’, ‘Technological innovation’, and ‘Product sales’ with respect to R&D and marketing integration and development resource.

Table

I. Organisational capability
R&D and marketing integration	NPD team members evenly consisted of people from R&D and marketing departments.
	When problems arise during the project period, R&D and marketing departments successfully search for solutions that are agreeable to both departments.
	All R&D and marketing members were involved in the decision-making process for this project.
	R&D and marketing team members actively shared information about this project.
Formality of NPD project	We had a well-defined NPD process, which include role and responsibility for this project.
	We clearly followed the procedure described in the protocol for this project.
	All tasks were conducted following the official procedure, described in the protocol for this project.
Support of TMT	The impetus for this project came from TMT’s recognition of a short-term and long-term distinctive goal.
	TMT provided enough financial and non-financial resources for this project.
	TMT was willing to accept the possibility of failure in the initial stage of this project.
	TMT willingly took a risk in the middle of the project.
II. Technological capability
Research	The preliminary technical assessment in the initial stage of the project was greatly successful.
	The preliminary appraisal of the NPD plan was carefully conducted, to identify the probable technical route at the initial stage of the project.
	Our scientific research activities were fully utilised in the evaluation of the possibility of the success of the NPD for this project.
Development	We were completely familiar with the technology used for the development.
	The technological aspects for the development for this project were well-known to us.
	When a technical problem rose within this project, we had a database of information to draw from.
	Our development skills on design and interface specification were at ideal level for this project.
III. Marketing capability
Consumer need analysis	Customers’ needs were well-defined.
	We actively contacted customers and gathered information about their desired product features for this project.
	The customers’ needs could be readily translated into a new product specification.
	We updated information related to customers’ responses and made it available to all project members.
Market research	Our marketing research skills were at ideal level for this project.
	Our perceived marketing research expertise in this project area was very high.
	Our forecast of the market demand for this new product was accurate.
	We quantitatively observed external environmental changes for this project.
Competition analysis	We could accurately analyse competitors’ product attribute changes.
	We could accurately analyse competitors’ price changes.
	We could accurately analyse competitors’ product strategy changes.
	We could accurately analyse consumer’s loyalty and satisfaction toward competitors’ products.
IV. Success dimension
Time to market	Did the TMT satisfy the project launching time?
	Did the project adhere to a time schedule?
	Was the project undertaken quickly and in a time efficient manner?
Technological innovation	Did the product offer unique attributes not available from competing products?
	Were the product’s technological performance characteristics useful for solving customers’ inconveniences that they felt with extant products?
	Was the product superior to competing products in terms of technological sophistication?
	Was the product outstanding to competing products in terms of compatibility?
Product sales	Was the new product’s sales record a noticeable financial success?
	Did the product’s sales bring a large positive impact on the company?
	Did the product’s sales contribute to an increase of market share in the same product market?

Moenaert, R.K., Souder, W.E., De Meyer, A., and Deschoolmeester, D. (1994), ‘R&D-marketing integration mechanisms, communication flows, and innovation success’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 31–45. doi: 10.1016/0737-6782(94)90117-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Calantone, R.J., and di Benedetto, C.A. (1988), ‘An integrative model of the new product development process: an empirical validation’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5, 201–215. doi: 10.1016/0737-6782(88)90023-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Song, X.M., Montoya-Weiss, M.M., and Schmidt, J.B. (1997), ‘Antecedents and consequences of cross-functional cooperation: a comparison of R&D, manufacturing, and marketing perspectives’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 35–47. doi: 10.1111/1540-5885.1410035

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Song, M., and Noh, J. (2006), ‘Best new product development and management practices in the Korean high-tech industry’, Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 262–278. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.04.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kahn, K.B., and Mentzer, J.T. (1998), ‘Marketing’s integration with other departments’, Journal of Business Research, 42, 53–62. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00068-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sethi, R., Smith, D.C., and Park, C.W. (2001), ‘Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products’, Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 73–85. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.38.1.73.18833

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Troy, L.C., Hirunyawipada, T., and Paswan, A.K. (2008), ‘Cross-functional integration and new product success: an empirical investigation of the findings’, Journal of Marketing, 72, 132–146. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.72.6.132

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Swink, M. (2000), ‘Technological innovativeness as a moderator of new product design integration and top management support’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17, 208–220. doi: 10.1016/S0737-6782(00)00040-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar