The framework allowed a categorizat

The framework allowed a categorization of the wide range of factors into three main groups (knowledge, motivation and organizational context). The variety presented by the literature indicated possible overlap between categories in some cases, which can be viewed as a weakness of the framework, or as seen by the authors a result of the complexity making up the innovation climate in which NPD is created. The empirical findings stress several peculiarities, such as the sudden breakthrough on an NPD at Christmas dinner. The lack, or possibly embedded in other factors, of motivational factors in the literature possibly indicate it as a factor of inferior value in the NPD process. However, the cases studied clearly emphasize the role of motivation (both on an individual and organizational level) as one of the main drives to the level of success accomplished.



With the wide variety of sources leading to NPD, a more open and less stringent system would possibly be more suitable in order to ensure that ideas can be captured by the firm. All case companies have thorough tollgate systems and processes that in detail described the steps and routines for the project once they had started. However, the link between the broad possible sources of NPD and the actual process was often not as stressed.
Without having a “receptive” early phase of NPD, the filtering will possibly be more a result of true product champions who keep pushing to get their idea to the initial screening stage. The importance of knowledge from outside the firm is stressed by strategy research (e.g. Dyer and Singh, 1998) as well as the cases in this study.

In the light of “overlapped” NPD described by Takeuchi and Nonaka (1986) and explored by Beta in Project B the importance of communication, understanding and relationships between functions possibly becomes more important factors to ensure smoothness and long term success in this type of NPD process. In particular the need for understanding between the dissimilar functions that R&D and marketing represent is an area of vital importance.

Within the framework the cases had several similarities even though the differences looked substantial at first glance. The tendency to look outside the organization for inspiration and answers to questions (e.g. closer customer involvement in the NPD) was a common denominator and also the closer collaboration with other entities and sources in the early phases of NPD. However, the more complex situation that is created, it can be expected to have new possible pitfalls. The findings from this study point to the need to have clear objectives and success measures when venturing into an NPD with another firm (Project C in Beta).

The balance of the firm related to the early phases of NPD involves the attention and absorption of new ideas into the organization, yet not to create systems that automatically filters out possible successful new products. The interface that the filter makes up between idea and the NPD-process is an essential part of successful NPD.