Introduction In the past study, the relationship between the power structure of marketing and research and development (R&D) and NPD performance was not consistent (Atuahene-Gima & Evangelista, 2000; Engelen & Brettel, 2012; Li & Atuahene-Gima, 1999, 2001). The inconsistency may result from each study in different industrial contexts. It reflects every NPD project faces different environmental uncertainties. Furthermore, we adopt the external control perspective to glue power structure and NPD performance under a certain external environment together. Therefore, this paper tends to fulfill the gap of prior study, and the main objective of this research is to investigate whether the power structure of marketing and R&D functions have different linear relationships under the different level of environmental uncertainty. A NPD team is like a cross-functional organization that the NPD team is composed of multiple functions, and it has independent budgets. The members in the team will allocate their limited resources like budgets or positions to respond environments and to maximize profits. Theoretical Development When a NPD team faces the high market uncertain situation, marketing function can gather more resources because of its own power. Thus, R&D members in a NPD team may have less determination in the process of NPD. Even though they create a new product, marketing specialists make most decisions in the NPD team. According to function’s contribution argument, the more contribution of a certain function to the NPD process, the more positive related to the new product success (Atuahene-Gima and Evangelista, 2000; Atuahene-Gima and Luca, 2008; Li and Atuahene-Gima, 1999). Therefore, the current study proposes the hypothesis1 described below: H1: Market uncertainty will strengthen the relationship between power structure leaned to marketing and NPD successes. When a NPD team encounters the fast technological change situation, R&D function has more resources because of power. New product teams, however, usually have scare resources, so that another important function like marketing will have fewer resources than R&D function. Thus, marketers in a NPD team may have less determination in the process of NPD. The marketers may have some influence on launch stage like sales and promotion or distribution channels (Hsieh et al., 2008), but R&D specialists make most decisions in a NPD team. Therefore, the current study proposes the hypothesis2described below: H2: Technological uncertainty will strengthen the relationship between power structure leaned to R&D and NPD successes. Eisenhardt and her colleagues indicated that the organizations in high velocity environments have better performance when they decentralize the power structure (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988). They also described that this firm tended to introduce a new product line, and that its channel partners were fighting with each other by price wars but the dominant marketing function did not have enough time to perform its regular job. To maintain its power and resources, the dominant function may highlight its importance, so it will withhold external information and enable other members to perceive the external environment what dominant function expect them to perceive. When organizations find a lot of environmental changes, it is too late. Therefore, in the beginning organizations adopted decentralized power structure, and allocated resources equally. The members in organizations may not snatch resources, so they may not take political actions also. For the specialists in new product development team, they could not control their unique knowledge to withhold the information and to satisfy their own self-interests. Therefore, the relationship between marketing and R&D power distribution in a NPD team and new product financial performance is weakened in high velocity environments (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988). The hypothesis3 in the current study is below: H3: the relation between the power distribution in new product development teams and new product development successes is inverted U curve under the high technological and market uncertainty. Coping environment could rely on top manager’s backgrounds like marketing, technology or finance (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). To maintain the status of the dominant function, the dominant function will lead the organization to identify the important problems related to its function. In order to ensure keeping their power, moreover, the dominant function could institute some regulations or create norms. According to resource dependence perspective, if an organization has higher the formalization of power, the dominant function could gather more resources because of legitimacy. Further, the higher formalization of power may strengthen the relationship between power distribution and performance. Thus, our hypothesis 4 is below: H4: Under the higher formalization of power in a new product development team, the stronger relationship between the marketing and R&D power distribution and new product performance than under the lower degree of formalization of power situation. Research Design The current study used questionnaire survey and purposive sampling method to collect data. In order to eliminate the bias of common method variance (CMV), this study conducted multiple sources including project managers, the member charging marketing, and the member charging R&D to administrate questionnaires differently. In order to avoid selection bias, this study, moreover, asked the informants select the most recent new products developed and launched for minimum of twelve months. We sent three types of questionnaires to project managers, the member charging marketing, and the member charging R&D respectively. The current study sent questionnaires to 112 firms, and 69 firms are returned. The response rate is 61.61%. At new product level, there are 207 new product projects, and 100 firms are returned. The response rate is 48.31%. We also do tests of bias due to nonresponse which were conducted by using a comparison of early to late respondents’ all variable means (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). No evidence of a bias was found. The current study applied Moorman’s (1995) operationalization of new product performance is that the extent to which the product has achieved the objective of market share, sales, return on assets, profit margin, and return on investment during the first 12 months of its life in the marketplace. These items were used a 7-point Likert scale where 1 was “low” and 7 was “high”. This research adopted Homburg et al. (1999) scale to measure the power structure between marketing and R&D functions by using 100-point constant-sum scale for each NPD issue, and other previous studies also used issue-based perceptual power scale (Enz, 1989; Hinings et al., 1974; Pfeffer, 1981; Verhoef and Leeflang, 2009). The current study adopted Jaworski and Kohli’s (1993) scale to measure market and technological turbulence. The items were used a 7-point Likert scale where 1 was “extremely disagree” to 7 was “extremely agree”. In order to rule out other effects, we controlled industrial category, firm age, the number of marketing and R&D members involved in the NPD process, environmental hostility. Result and Conclusion The first finding is that under low market uncertainty and high technological uncertainty, balance of power structure tends to swing to the side of R&D function, and achieve better in NPD performance. Take IC design of High-tech industry as an instance, NPD project ends to perform better when the balance of power structure swing to the side of R&D function. The second finding is that under high market uncertainty and low technological uncertainty, NPD formalization helps to strengthen the relationship between marketing and NPD performance. Take frozen dessert in the food industry or leisure and sports fabrics in the textile industry as examples, formalization of NPD process can help marketing-driven NPD projects perform better in market. These findings advanced the understanding of the relationship between the power structure of marketing and R&D and NPD performance, rather than focusing on a single function, marketing or R&D. Furthermore, examining the relationship between the power structure of marketing and R&D and NPD performance in different environment uncertainty situations explained the inconsistency of the relationship between the power structure of marketing and R&D and NPD performance in past studies. Finally, this research conditionally supported the moderating effect of NPD formalization on the relationship between the power structure of marketing and R&D and NPD performance, and this exploration never been found.

This paper’s aim is to provide an insight into when and for what type of innovation are different types of customers most effective participants in the NPD process (Gemser & Perks 2015). Most of prior research has not considered type of innovation or only focused on one stage of NPD process, although both innovation type and each NPD process are critical factors to the NPD performance in the customer co-development context (Chatterji & Fabrizio 2014). Even though some research has examined all stages of NPD process, they also did not specify users or innovation types to compare them. Thus, we will examine the effect of customer participation on NPD performance considering both innovation and user types in terms of each NPD process. The specific research questions are 1) In the NPD process, will the impact of customer participation on NPD performance differ by user-type (lead users vs. ordinary users)? And the NPD stage?, 2) If so, when we consider both user-type and NPD stage, will the impact of customer participation on NPD performance differ depending on the type of innovation (Incremental vs. radical)? The hypotheses are developed as a basis for the subsequent research. This research has several theoretical contributions. First, we discover more appropriate user type in each NPD stage in the customer participation process. Second, we also find more appropriate user characteristics depending on the type of innovation. Third, if lead users are involved rather than ordinary users, customer participation in the development stage can generate positive impact on NPD performance, which is the opposite result compared to previous research (e.g., Chang & Taylor 2016). Finally, we show practical implications and limitations.

The new businesses started by the companies usually results in being unsuccessful. The main reasons for that are either aiming targeting wrong customers, unsatisfaction of customers’ requesting quality standards, or taking wrong actions against the competitors in the market. Therefore, companies should aim the targets for the newly developing products based on the fulfilling values for the customers when they start the new businesses, and should take good cares for risk managements at the each step of the new business to prevent the failure in advance. In addition to that, the companies starting new businesses not only need to take the customers attributes (CA) into account, but they also should apply the new technologies as one system to initiate a new business to satisfy the basic wants of the customers. This article suggests the New Product Development Pursuing Model using the Indicative Planning methodology and the Quality Management tools. The New Product Development Pursuing Model would be completed by the following steps as below; 1. Drawing the CTQ (Critical To Quality) for setting up the new product development objectives by : i) using the VOC (Voice Of Customers) obtained by the QFD (Quality Function Deploypment) if the market is mature, ii) applying AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) to information in the QIS (Quality Information System) if the market is unmature to get enough need information of the customers. 2. Risk Management in NPD : The NPD pursuing model consisted of the IP (indicative planning) is suggested not by the process of top-down-way mandatory planning process, but by the tools used in the administrative science and economic fields, namely by governance. The companies could apply innovative methodology for new products development processes to fulfil the customers satisfaction in the fields, through the CA (Contingency Approach) of the NPD (New Product Development) process.

Our study aims to investigate the mechanisms leading to focal firm’s innovation performance through the coopetitive relationships. Specifically, we argue focal firm’s two capabilities, coopetition capability and NPD capability, play a crucial role as a mediator of interfirm coopetition and its innovation performance. In order to provide new evidence on this subject, we contribute to this stream by developing a conceptual model. We argue that coopetitive behaviors of partners will influence the focal firm’s coopetition capability, which will then influence the focal firm’s NPD capability, although we assume NPD capability will have an impact on coopetition capability as well. We also argue NPD capability will not only lead to new product advantages, NPD process advantages as well, as a result of them, financial performance at the end. This paper reports the development of this model.

The luxury market is surely one of the most affected areas by the counterfeiting phenomenon. The presence of fake goods means very often a financial loss for companies, both in terms of reduced turnover, but also in terms of intangible losses (i.e. brand value reduction). This phenomenon has led companies, in the last years, to ask their New Product Development (NPD) division if and how it was possible to develop unique products, difficult or even impossible to replicate, and how to help customers in the identification of authentic goods versus fake ones. The authors propose a model to support fashion companies for developing anti-counterfeiting solutions since the NPD phases in order to deal with the effect of black and grey market and preserve their brand and products values.

In this study, calibration characteristics of odorous amine compounds were investigated by gas chromatography (GC)-nitrogen phosphorous detector (NPD). To this end, three different amine compounds (methyl amine (MTA), dimethyl amine (DMA), and trimethyl amine (TMA)) were analyzed in a series of calibration experiments. As the first step, the liquid phase standards of these amines were calibrated at 5 concentration levels with the fixed standard volume (FSV) method. The results showed that response factors of three amines were in the order of TMA ＞ DMA ＞ MTA with their correlation coefficients (r) above 0.97. The results of FSV calibration also indicated that the analytical sensitivity of amines increased with reducing injection volume due to the decrease in matrix effect. However, when these compounds were calibrated by the fixed standard concentration (FSC) method, the results were not stable under most circumstances. In addition, the reliability of internal calibration approach was also tested using pyridine, nitrobenzene, and nicotine. When pyridine was used as internal standard of these amines, analytical reproducibility of amines was improved greatly compared to external calibration results (e.g., an improvement of 75% for DMA).

Pesticides were extracted from samples with 70% acetone and methylene chloride in order, and then cleaned up via open-column chromatography apparatus packed with florisil, and finally analyzed simultaneously the organophosphorus pesticides using GC/NPD. Ultra-2 and Ultra-1 fused silica capillary columns were used to separate and identify the products. Recovery of most analytes from soybean sample, taken from pesticide residues well, was greater than(80%) for all except(6) analytes. This method can simultaneously determine multiple pesticides with a high degree of accuracy and precision.

김치로부터 분리 동정된 Lactobacillus plantarum KLAB21 균주에 있어서 항돌연변이 활성물질 생산을 위한 최적 조건을 조사하였다. 탄소원으로서 glucose 첨가시 가장 높은 항돌연변이 활성을 나타내었으며, 질소원으로서는 yeast extract와 bactopeptone 첨가시 활성이 우수하였다. 탄소원인 glucose의 농도는 2%에서, 질소원인 yeast extract와 bactopeptone의 농도는 1%에서 가장 우수한