Early research on new product development (NPD) has produced descriptive frameworks and models that view the process as a linear system with sequential and discrete stages. More recently, recursive and chaotic frameworks of NPD have been developed, both of which acknowledge that NPD progresses through a series of stages, but with overlaps, feedback loops, and resulting behaviors that resist reductionism and linear analysis. This article extends the linear, recursive, and chaotic frameworks by viewing NPD as a complex adaptive system (CAS) governed by three levels of decision making — in-stage, review, and strategic—and the accompanying decision rules. The research develops and presents propositions that predict how the configuration and organization of NPD decision-making agents will influence the potential for three mutually dependent CAS phenomena: nonlinearity, selforganization, and emergence. Together these phenomena underpin the potential for NPD process adaptability and congruence. To support and to verify the propositions, this study uses comparative case studies, which show that NPD process adaptability occurs and that it is dependent on the number and variety of agents, their corresponding connections and interactions, and the ordering or disordering effect of the decision levels and rules. Thus, the CAS framework developed within this article maintains a fit among descriptive stance, system behavior, and innovation type, as it considers individual NPD processes to be capable of switching or toggling between different behaviors — linear to chaotic — to produce corresponding innovation outputs that range from incremental to radical in accord with market expectations.

1. J PROD INNOV MANAG 2006;23:437–456
r 2006 Product Development & Management Association
New Product Development as a Complex Adaptive System of
Decisions
Ian P. McCarthy, Christos Tsinopoulos, Peter Allen, and Christen Rose-Anderssen
Early research on new product development (NPD) has produced descriptive
frameworks and models that view the process as a linear system with sequential
and discrete stages. More recently, recursive and chaotic frameworks of NPD have
been developed, both of which acknowledge that NPD progresses through a series of
stages, but with overlaps, feedback loops, and resulting behaviors that resist reduc-
tionism and linear analysis. This article extends the linear, recursive, and chaotic
frameworks by viewing NPD as a complex adaptive system (CAS) governed by
three levels of decision making—in-stage, review, and strategic—and the accom-
panying decision rules. The research develops and presents propositions that predict
how the configuration and organization of NPD decision-making agents will influ-
ence the potential for three mutually dependent CAS phenomena: nonlinearity, self-
organization, and emergence. Together these phenomena underpin the potential for
NPD process adaptability and congruence. To support and to verify the proposi-
tions, this study uses comparative case studies, which show that NPD process
adaptability occurs and that it is dependent on the number and variety of agents,
their corresponding connections and interactions, and the ordering or disordering
effect of the decision levels and rules. Thus, the CAS framework developed within
this article maintains a fit among descriptive stance, system behavior, and innova-
tion type, as it considers individual NPD processes to be capable of switching or
toggling between different behaviors—linear to chaotic—to produce corresponding
innovation outputs that range from incremental to radical in accord with market
expectations.
Introduction sectors. Given the importance and value of NPD to
firm performance, researchers have developed de-
I
t is widely recognized that effective new product scriptive frameworks based on linear, recursive, and
development (NPD) processes are causally chaotic system perspectives, which provide different
important in generating long-term firm suc- insights and descriptive theories about NPD process
cess (Cooper, 1993; Ulrich and Eppinger, 1995; structure and behavior. These are then often the basis
Wheelwright and Clark, 1995). They can lead to a for normative research, which seeks to predict and
core competence that either differentiates a firm from prescribe causality in NPD processes (Griffin, 1997b;
its competitors (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990) or pro- Page, 1993).
vides a threshold competency that is necessary just to Linear frameworks help explain how the organiza-
survive in fast-changing and innovative industry tion and management of NPD processes relate to
NPD performance, specifically to lead times and due
Address correspondence to: Christos Tsinopoulos, University of dates. Yet this overriding focus on process structure,
Durham, Durham Business School, Durham, Mill Hill Lane, DH1
3LB, UK. reliability, and control has tended to ignore the

2. 438 J PROD INNOV MANAG I. P. MCCARTHY ET AL.
2006;23:437–456
factors that govern the ability to innovate (Badaracco, and presents a complex adaptive system (CAS) frame-
1991; Moenaert et al., 2000). This myopia occurs be- work of NPD. It combines the system dimensions
cause linear frameworks represent the NPD process as presented by Schoderbek, Schoderbek, and Kefalas
an ordered, sequential, and relatively predictable sys- (1985) with differences in NPD decision-making levels
tem of activities (Bonner, Ruekert, and Walker, 2002). and rules to interpret how the CAS phenomena of
This leads to a mechanistic interpretation and focus nonlinearity, self-organization, and emergence occur
on process efficiency, which is inclined to ignore how in NPD processes. These constructs provide a basis
process factors such as flexibility, informality, feed- for understanding the balance between the process
back, and autonomy might influence innovation order and control emphasized in the linear view and
(Clark and Fujimoto, 1991; Dougherty, 1992; the process instability and creativity emphasized in
Griffin, 1997a). Consequently, researchers have the recursive and chaotic views. Thus, the CAS frame-
responded by developing recursive and chaotic-based work asserts that NPD process behaviors and config-
frameworks to understand better how these factors urations are not necessarily fixed. An individual
and resulting process behaviors are associated with process has the ability to adapt and to produce a
different types of innovation. range of process behaviors—linear to chaotic—with
To complement and to build on the linear, recur- corresponding types of innovation output—incremen-
sive, and chaotic frameworks, this article develops tal to radical.
The foundation of the CAS framework is the rec-
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES ognition that NPD processes are systems whose ele-
Dr. Ian McCarthy is Canada Research Chair in Management of ments, known as agents, are partially connected and
Technology in the Faculty of Business Administration at Simon have the capacity for autonomous decision making
Fraser University. His research interests focus on the diversity and and social action, known as agency. The decision
design of industrial organizations, encompassing the areas of oper-
ations management, organization science, technology management,
rules, interactions, and outcomes of agents create
and evolutionary theory. He is a chartered engineer, a college mem- three mutually dependent phenomena that define
ber of the UK Engineering Physical Sciences Research Council and characterize CASs: nonlinearity, self-organi-
College, and a director of the Complexity Society. Previously he was
a tenured faculty member at the University of Warwick and the
zation, and emergence. Thus, studies of CASs are
University of Sheffield and held management positions at Philips not concerned with the relative complicatedness or
Electronics, British Alcan, and Footprint Tools. complexity of systems and their elements (Anderson,
Dr. Christos Tsinopoulos is lecturer of operations and strategy in 1999; McCarthy, 2004; Morel and Ramanujam,
the Durham Business School at Durham University. His research 1999). They are interested in how certain systems
interests focus on understanding innovation in organizations using
are able to learn and to create new rules, structures,
systems methods that stem from evolutionary and complex systems
thinking. Previously he was a research fellow in new product de- and behaviors at several interrelated levels. These
velopment at the University of Warwick. He holds a Ph.D. from the characteristics are necessary and important for sys-
University of Warwick and an M.Sc. from the University of Shef- tems concerned with exploration and innovation, but
field. He has held management positions in the copper and alumi-
num industries in the quality and maintenance departments.
they are also difficult to represent and to analyze using
static, linear models.
Dr. Peter Allen is professor and head of the Complex Systems
Management Centre in the School of Management at Cranfield
The decision aspect of the framework acknowledg-
University. He is also coordinator of NEXSUS, the ESRC Priority es that the principal role of NPD agents is to make
Network in Complex and Dynamic Processes. His research is di- judgments and choices that bridge the gap between an
rected toward the application of the new ideas concerning evolu-
tionary complex systems to real-world problems. He has a Ph.D. in
idea and reality. This process agency is also a central
theoretical physics, was a Royal Society European Research Fellow component of CAS theory (Choi, Dooley, and Rung-
from 1970 to 1971, and was a senior research fellow at the Univer- tusanatham, 2001; Eisenhardt and Bhatia, 2002;
´
site Libre de Bruxelles from 1972 to 1987, where he worked on the
McCarthy, 2004) that helps to examine the black-
theory of complex systems with Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine.
box activities of NPD (Krishnan and Ulrich, 2001)
Christen Rose-Anderssen worked as a naval architect and manager
regardless of functional perspective (Whetten, 1989).
in the ship-building industry in Norway, Northern Europe and Asia
for many years. He has worked with strategy, marketing, human Thus, the present study assumes that NPD project
resource management, and organizational change in offshore engi- teams deal with uncertainty through information
neering. His main interests are in organizational change through processing (Galbraith, 1977) and that decision levels
collective work and the management of knowledge and learning for
innovation through effective communication development across
and accompanying decision rules affect the mode and
cultural boundaries in complex activity networks. viability of NPD operation, contingent upon a fit be-
tween the NPD process and its environment.

3. NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AS A COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM OF DECISIONS J PROD INNOV MANAG 439
2006;23:437–456
With this introduction, the contribution and the on the cooperation, coordination, and communica-
structure of this article are as follows. First, it pro- tion of those involved in the NPD process (Cooper
vides a review of the linear, recursive, and chaotic and Kleinschmidt, 1986). By focusing on the structure
NPD frameworks to understand their relative inter- of process and the interstage connections, linear
pretations, benefits, and limitations. It then introduc- frameworks attempt to explain how process behavior
es and defines a CAS and proposes three NPD affects product quality, execution of key tasks, prod-
decision levels as constructs for the CAS framework. uct development costs, product reliability, product
The aim of these two review sections is to position the variety, and managerial complexity (Muffatto and
contribution of this article within the context of NPD Roveda, 2000; Shepherd and Ahmed, 2000).
literature and to show how a CAS framework pro- Probably the best-known framework based on the
vides a complementary perspective that both com- linear view is the stage-gate method (Cooper, 1990).
bines and extends the linear, recursive, and chaotic This framework represents NPD as a sequential and
descriptive interpretations. A CAS framework views ordered process of four to five stages of activities and
individual NPD processes as adaptable or malleable decisions. These typically include concept develop-
systems capable of producing a range of behaviors to ment, product design, testing and validation, and
suit different innovation expectations, levels of mar- product launch and ramp-up. The inputs into the
ket uncertainty, and rates of change. This interpreta- system are new ideas and market needs, the system
tion forms the basis for four propositions that predict elements are resources such as engineers and market-
a fit among NPD process adaptability, the market ers, and the outputs are new products (Clark and
expectations imposed on the process, and the effect Wheelwright, 1993). Between the stages are gates or
decision levels have on the order and disorder in the checkpoints, where the progress and outputs of the
NPD process. To support and provisionally test these previous NPD process stages are evaluated. This log-
propositions the second half of this article uses three ical and systematic representation of NPD helps to
case studies to describe and to characterize causes of organize and to comprehend the complexity of the
CAS phenomena in relatively regulated and formally process (Clift and Vandenbosch, 1999) and to con-
managed NPD processes. The case-study observa- ceptualize the potential for parallel tasks and activities
tions reveal how the configuration of NPD decision (Winner et al., 1988).
makers and corresponding decision levels and deci- Although linear frameworks can reveal how inap-
sion rules might affect process adaptability and the propriate structure and poor control can result in
potential to produce innovative outputs congruent planning and coordination problems, they tend to ig-
with the needs of its environment. Finally, the article nore the behaviors and system features that govern
concludes with a discussion of the implications that a the innovative capacity of an NPD process (Bonner,
CAS framework of NPD might have for managerial Ruekert, and Walker, 2002; Clift and Vandenbosch,
practice and suggests a future research agenda. 1999; Johne and Snelson, 1988; Olin and Wickenberg,
2001; Quinn, 1985). This is in part because linear
frameworks focus on and represent the structural log-
ic of an NPD process, which then facilitates and pro-
Literature Review
motes understanding of the factors that govern
NPD Frameworks process lead time and consistency. The result is a
descriptive compromise between NPD control and
To date, frameworks for interpreting and describing autonomy, each respectively influencing process
NPD reality are based primarily on three schools of reliability and process creativity.
thought that reflect three different systems views: lin- During this period, researchers also challenged the
ear, recursive, and chaotic. assumption that NPD activities were exclusively an
Linear NPD frameworks stem from traditional and ordered and sequential system of discrete stages
logical project management methods that seek to de- (Kline and Rosenberg, 1986; Leonard-Barton, 1988;
liver appropriate outputs on time and within cost. Schroeder et al., 1989). A seminal article by Rothwell
They interpret the process of innovation as a series of (1992) argued that the study of NPD as an automatic,
events and activities, which are sequential and discrete dependable, and routine decision-making process did
in nature (Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek, 1973). not explain how radical innovations emerge (Dewar
Also, process control and efficiency are dependent and Dutton, 1986; Leifer et al., 2000; McDermott and

4. 440 J PROD INNOV MANAG I. P. MCCARTHY ET AL.
2006;23:437–456
O’Connor, 2002; Utterback, 1996). As radical inno- From a descriptive stance, the recursive perspective
vations or really new products can significantly alter assumes that the connections and boundaries between
and redefine markets (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, NPD events are less clear and rigid (Cheng and Van
1993; Schmidt and Calantone, 1998; Song and Mon- de Ven, 1996), because innovation is a process that is
toya-Weiss, 1998), it is important to distinguish be- always dynamic, mostly nonlinear, and often untidy
tween NPD process characteristics that typically and muddled. For example, Repenning’s (2001) study
generate incremental product innovations and those of firefighting—solving unplanned problems and
capable of producing breakthrough products. To challenges—in formal and controlled NPD projects
avoid contradictory or paradoxical representations, concluded that firefighting is a self-reinforcing
such differentiation requires the development and use phenomenon more likely to occur in large complex
of frameworks that are capable of interpreting the var- projects. As the level of concurrent and cross-
iations in process activities and structure, in accord with functional activity in NPD projects has grown, a cor-
the mix of environmental and organizational factors responding increase has occurred in the dynamic
that govern NPD behavior (Van de Ven et al., 1999; complexity of NPD projects (Smith and Eppinger,
Crawford and Di Benedetto, 2000). Cooper, Edgett, 1997; Wetherbe, 1995). With these developments,
and Kleinschmidt (1999, 2002), who were the main Ford and Sterman (1998) argued that the frameworks
exponents of the stage-gate method, recognized that for understanding NPD have simply not been keeping
descriptive linear frameworks encourage linear pace with this increased complexity. This results in in-
management practices, which tend to produce only in- adequate descriptions and limited explanations (Paich
cremental innovations. To emphasize the significance of and Sterman, 1993; Rechtin, 1991; Sterman, 1994).
achieving a balanced product portfolio—that is, an as- The third NPD framework, the chaotic view, is an
sortment of both incremental and radical innovations— extension of the recursive framework (Cheng and Van
Cooper and colleagues also advocated the use of stra- de Ven, 1996; Koput, 1997). It assumes that chaotic
tegic buckets to define how management should allocate behavior can occur in NPD processes and depicts
NPD resources in terms of innovation, market and highly innovative NPD processes as systems with ran-
product type. With these developments, a consensus dom-like and nonlinear behavior that generate irreg-
had formed that innovation is a temporal process made ular or disordered actions. Such NPD processes are
of identifiable events but that the linear perspective fails relatively unpredictable, as small changes in one part
to fully represent the connective, dynamic, turbulent, of the process can rapidly develop and take the system
and fuzzy aspects of the radical NPD process. Thus, along new trajectories, referred to as sensitivity to in-
recursive and chaotic NPD frameworks were developed itial conditions. To study innovation from this per-
to advance interpretation and understanding of the spective Cheng and Van de Ven (1996) used a chaos-
types of activities that underlie the development of rad- theory algorithm from physics to examine the effects
ical innovations. of feedback loops in NPD. The result was a model
Kline and Rosenberg (1986) offered one of the first suggesting that the process of innovation starts cha-
alternatives to the linear framework. They presented a otically and finishes in stability and that the latter
chain-linked model with feedback loops to describe stages of product innovation are better suited to linear
the relationships and iterations among research, in- frameworks. The work by Koput (1997) also used a
vention, innovation, and production. Leonard-Barton chaotic framework but was concerned with the dy-
(1988) made similar observations in a study that de- namics of searching for innovation. The main conclu-
scribed NPD as a series of small and large recursive sions were that the innovation activities of search,
cycles that represent project setbacks and restarts. screening, and implementation are inextricably linked
These recursive frameworks of NPD seek to represent to each other and that understanding how process
‘‘events in which activity is multiple, concurrent, and feedback loops influence the properties of these
divergent, in which the process includes feedback activities is an important and significant research
and feed-forward loops’’ (Adams, 2003, p. 232). challenge.
Thus, recursive frameworks challenge the idea of Together the three NPD frameworks provide a
orderly sequences and assert, particularly for radical complementary hierarchy or ladder of abstraction
innovations, that NPD stages overlap, creating for interpreting and describing different types
fuzziness and disorder in the process (Adams, 2003; of NPD reality (see Table 1). Linear frameworks
Constant, 2000; Schroeder et al., 1989; West, 1990). provide a simple and logical overview of the process

5. NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AS A COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM OF DECISIONS J PROD INNOV MANAG 441
2006;23:437–456
structure and flows. They are suitable for NPD
(i.e., does not consider process adaptability).
Does not consider the dynamic behaviors
projects that are significantly close to the customer
and relationships associated with agency,
the structural and behavioral instabilities
and for innovations that are incremental or sustaining
whole process and does not represent
overall process configuration is fixed
Assumes similar behavior across the
freedom, and resulting innovations.
the stages and presupposes that the
in nature. Recursive frameworks emphasize the feed-
Focuses on differences between
back connections and nonlinearity in NPD, especially
Limitations
if greater levels of product newness or innovation are
expected. Chaotic frameworks on the other hand as-
sert that the initial stages of NPD tend to be chaotic
and that the final stages are relatively ordered.
of the process.
Individually, each framework provides valuable in-
sights and understanding about the behavior and
structure of NPD processes. However, collectively
they are more than just rival frameworks. As a group,
they provide rich and holistic interpretations of the
reliable market push or strong market pull forces.
exploration aspects of very radical innovations or
NPD processes and facilitate a contingency theory
Recognizes different system behaviors across the
process. Suited to more radical innovations with
Represents the dynamic and fluid nature of the
cumulative causation. Suited to the search and
process and acknowledges the effects of highly
incremental innovation activity with relatively
Provides a simple and effective representation
approach (Galbraith, 1977; Lawrence and Lorsch,
of the structural logic and flows. Suited to
1967; Scott, 1987). This is the basis of the theoretical
view and contribution in this article. It proposes that a
push–pull market force combinations.
CAS framework is capable of facilitating interpreta-
tions of NPD reality that maintain a fit among de-
Benefits
scriptive stance, system behavior, and innovation
type. Thus, the congruence of an individual NPD
process is dependent on the connections and interac-
really new products.
tions between process agents. This system configura-
Table 1. Linear, Recursive, and Chaotic Frameworks of New Product Development
tion will govern the process ability to switch or toggle
between behaviors that range from linear to chaotic to
produce corresponding innovations that range from
incremental to radical.
of feedback across the process. The initial stages exhibit
A process with concurrent and multiple feedback loops
be random and unpredictable, whereas the latter stages
during the initial stages, resulting in different degrees
Complex Adaptive Systems
A process where the linkages and flows are greater
and outcomes that are more difficult to predict.
chaotic dynamics and outcomes that appear to
between stages that generate iterative behavior
The concept and study of CASs originates in the life
and physical sciences (Gell-Mann, 1994; Kauffman,
Descriptive Interpretation
and sequential stages. The connections,
A process with relatively fixed, discrete
flows, and outcomes of the process are
1993, 1995; Prigogine and Stengers, 1984); has been
developed and used by the engineering sciences (Friz-
are relatively stable and certain.
elle and Suhov, 2001; Holland, 1995; Krothapalli and
comparatively deterministic.
Deshmukh, 1999); and has been discussed significant-
ly by the social sciences in areas such as strategic or-
ganizational design (Anderson, 1999; Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1998; Dooley and Van de Ven, 1999;
Eisenhardt and Bhatia, 2002; McKelvey, 1999), sup-
ply chain management (Choi, Dooley, and Rung-
tusanatham, 2001) and innovation management
(Buijs, 2003; Chiva-Gomez, 2004; Cunha and Comes,
2003). To develop and to apply this perspective to the
NPD Framework
study of NPD, this section of the article introduces
and defines a CAS and then shows how the key
Recursive
concepts of nonlinearity, self-organization, and
Chaotic
Linear
emergence apply to NPD processes. This discussion
provides the basis for the first two research

6. 442 J PROD INNOV MANAG I. P. MCCARTHY ET AL.
2006;23:437–456
Figure 1. The Configuration of a Complex Adaptive System
propositions that reflect the exploratory and descrip- high levels of predictability and efficiency but with
tive nature of this research. They are concerned with low levels of adaptability (Eisenhardt and Bhatia,
framing CAS concepts in NPD processes, as opposed 2002). Chaotic systems, on the other hand, are rela-
to hypotheses that require measures (Eisenhardt and tively unstructured and loosely coupled, resulting in
Bhatia, 2002; Whetten, 1989). As part of the intro- outcomes that appear so random and disorganized
duction to CASs the limitations of the CAS perspec- that it is not possible for the system to adapt. A CAS
tive are considered, and it is argued that multiple is somewhere between a linear and a chaotic system,
methods are required to examine the multilevel and with partially connected agents whose decision mak-
nested nature of CASs. This provides a rationale for ing and interactions produce behavior and outcomes
using case studies to corroborate and to provisionally that are neither fully controlled nor arbitrary. Brown
test the propositions. and Eisenhardt (1997) called this level of connectivity
Complex adaptive systems are complicated systems semistructures. It produces system behavior that lies
with the ability to develop new system configurations between order—no change or periodic change—and
and corresponding levels of order or disorder chaos—irregular change—and leads to the zone of
(Dooley, 1997; Gell-Mann, 1994; Holland, 1995; system adaptability known as the edge of chaos
Schoderbek, Schoderbek, and Kefalas, 1985). Appen- (Kauffman, 1993).
dix A provides an account of the differences between a Complex adaptive systems consist of a nested and
complicated system and a CAS using four systems di- scaleable system of agents; that is, the level of system
mensions. These are (1) the number of elements that abstraction could be an individual, a group, or an or-
make up the system; (2) the attributes of the elements; ganization. To illustrate this, Figure 1 shows two lev-
(3) the number and type of interactions among the els of abstraction. With the first level, the aggregate
elements; and (4) the degree of organization inherent view, there are three agents (1, 2, 3), each is assumed
in the system (Schoderbek Schoderbek, and Kefalas, to be a recognizable group of people. The agents par-
1985). These dimensions illustrate how CASs differ tially connect to and interact with other agents. Their
from linear systems and chaotic systems, due to the actions and outputs— chosen options—are controlled
structure and connectivity between the system ele- by organizational rules and criteria (i.e., formal proc-
ments, known as agents. Linear systems are highly ess procedures, checks). Their behavior, however,
structured and tightly coupled, leading to relatively is also partly autonomous and affected by the

7. NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AS A COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM OF DECISIONS J PROD INNOV MANAG 443
2006;23:437–456
self-directed decisions and actions of other agents uncertainty about the use of research methods (Morel
throughout the CAS. The second level shown in and Ramanujam, 1999), and misconceptions that sys-
Figure 1 provides a disaggregated view. It shows tem outcomes are purely random and therefore that
that agent 2 is composed of three agents (2-1, 2-2, nothing can be predicted (Baumol and Benhabib,
and 2-3), each assumed to be the individual members 1989; Radzicki, 1990). These problems have become
of the group. The disaggregated view also shows more exacerbated as the interest in and expectations of
detail, with a basic illustration of agent rules and CASs have grown. For example, there has been a
decision option space. The option space includes both general anticipation that CAS research would pro-
relatively known options (i.e., previous solutions to duce universal models and metatheories that apply to
similar problems) and relatively unknown options all types of systems. However, as argued by Levy
(i.e., novel solutions). As agents experiment with (1994) this is very unlikely, as the causes of adapta-
and select and reject both rules and option space, bility in physical, life, and social systems each have
they produce a system agency and collective dynamic very different starting conditions. To acknowledge
that results in nonlinearity, self-organization, and these different system contexts, Bradach (1997),
emergence. Together these CAS phenomena are the Brown and Eisenhardt (1997), and Eisenhardt and
basis of adaptability in complex adaptive systems Bhatia (2002) argued that the framing of CAS behav-
(Anderson, 1999; Choi, Dooley, and Rungtusanat- ior in social systems will require qualitative research
ham, 2001; Dooley and Van de Ven, 1999; McCarthy, approaches to complement the computational meth-
2004; Morel and Ramanujam, 1999; Stacey, 1995). ods developed by the physical sciences (e.g., agent-
The resulting behaviors and outcomes resist reduc- based models, cellular automata models). They sug-
tionism, the practice of analyzing and describing phe- gest that case studies are well suited to capturing the
nomena in terms of their simple or fundamental rich and qualitative features of social CASs, and the
constituents. This is because the behavior of a CAS highly iterative and descriptive nature of case studies
as a whole is different from the sum of the behaviors permits theory building and initial theory testing.
of the individual agents that comprise the CAS. A A CAS framework of NPD extends the linear, re-
CAS is therefore capable of producing behaviors and cursive, and chaotic perspectives by recognizing that
system changes that are sometimes inconsistent with nonlinearity and feedback can occur at multiple levels
any rules imposed on the system as a whole. between individual agents and between groups of
If the notion of CASs is applied to NPD, then agents. This in turn drives self-organization and emer-
agents represent people and groups of people—de- gence, which together enable the process to be malle-
pending on the level of analysis—within the process. able and to exhibit different modes of behavior—
They have the ability to receive and process informa- linear to chaotic. Existing NPD frameworks ignore
tion, such as marketing or engineering, and to re- these CAS characteristics or use a reductionist ap-
spond in accordance with their current internal rules proach to model and to aggregate behavior. The aim
and their connections with other agents. They are able of the next section is to elaborate on how nonlinearity,
to follow rules and be self-directed—that is, they are self-organization, and emergence appear in NPD and
able to sense changes in project expectations and cir- to conclude with propositions concerning the poten-
cumstance and to respond in an independent, timely, tial for complex adaptive behavior in NPD processes.
and goal-directed fashion. Their current rules reflect
their accumulated experience, but as they act and ex- Nonlinearity. NPD processes are composed of
periment within these rules the outcomes—good or feedback loops due to their connections. The feed-
bad—result in learning and potential modifications of back loops produce system sensitivity and dispropor-
their internal rules and evaluation criteria. These com- tional outcomes known as nonlinearity. What
bined attributes and interactions of the individual happens locally in one part of the process often does
agents govern the behavior and performance of the not necessarily apply to other parts of the same proc-
NPD process as a whole. ess (Sterman, 2002). For example, if an NPD process
The limitations and criticisms of the CAS perspec- is allocated extra resources, such as more designers,
tive revolve around how the accompanying theory, the result is unlikely to be a proportional increase in
methods, and models have been developed and adopt- the number of ideas or products produced. The causes
ed. There is confusion and misuse of the terms of nonlinearity in NPD include inadequate or late
complex and complexity (Eisenhardt and Bhatia, 2002), information—feedback problems—because the product

8. 444 J PROD INNOV MANAG I. P. MCCARTHY ET AL.
2006;23:437–456
design space can be infinite. In addition, development Emergence is thus the product of self-organization.
activities are typically a series of reiterations culminat- It is the manifestation of new process characteristics
ing in a market launch event (Hart and Baker, 1994; due to the collective behavior of the agents, as op-
Jin, 2000). The potential outcome from this nonlinear- posed to the individual behavior of each agent
ity is a chaotic dynamic similar to that identified by (Anderson, 1999; Holland, 1995; Kauffman, 1995;
Flake (1999) and Sterman (2002) in their system dy- Waldrop, 1992). In the NPD context, it is the mate-
namic models. Although the phenomenon of nonline- rialization of different process configurations, which,
arity in NPD is central to the recursive and chaotic like the innovations they seek to produce, are often
frameworks, they do not provide interpretations that not predetermined and sometimes are unwelcome and
explain and predict how scaled behavior occurs across unwanted. Emergence occurs because the process al-
different process stages and decision levels. lows experimentation, rule breaking, and exploratory
actions, all of which can generate novel behaviors and
Self-organization and emergence. The second and corresponding levels of product innovation. This
third phenomena of a CAS are both facets of adapt- emergent capability is dependent on the NPD proc-
ability and are the natural result of nonlinearity. Self- ess having a variety or surplus that is congruent with
organization is the rate of increase of order or regu- the array of changes an environment may impose on
larity in an NPD process (Von Foerster, 1960), and it the process. Thus, if a market requires high levels of
arises due to the autonomous behaviors of the various innovation, the NPD process should have corre-
agents that constitute the process not because of ex- sponding levels of internal variety to facilitate explor-
ternal or central control (Maturana and Varela, 1980). atory behavior. This condition is known as Ashby’s
This is not because there is an absence of formal con- law of requisite variety (Ashby, 1956) or as excess di-
trol rules; rather, it is because the process as a whole versity (Allen, 2001) or as organization slack (Bour-
independently adapts and develops new confi- geois, 1981; Nohria and Gulati, 1996).
gurations. As discussed earlier, this self-organized In summary, the number and variety of agents in an
order arises when process agents are partially connect- NPD process, along with the resulting interactions,
ed. If they were tightly coupled and highly structured determine the potential for nonlinearity, self-organi-
then the process would be relatively rigid. On the zation, and emergence. These CAS phenomena are
other hand, an unstructured and loosely coupled set both causes and characteristics of adaptability, pro-
of agents would result in feedback and instabilities viding an individual NPD process with the ability to
that inhibit the emergence of regularity. That is, the generate a range of process behaviors and corre-
process would be so recursive that it would struggle sponding innovation outputs in accordance with the
to make progress toward new configurations and degree of order or chaos imposed on the process.
behaviors. Formally stated these principles are the basis of Prop-
Anderson (1999) stated that for a system to self-or- ositions 1 and 2:
ganize it must maintain a level of internal energy that
is proportional to the level of disorder imposed on the Proposition 1: The rate of NPD process adaptability is
system by its environment. In terms of NPD, this determined by the rates of change and levels of stability
means that the process should possess appropriate or disorder imposed on the process, which leads to con-
amounts of passion, enthusiasm, and curiosity to cope gruence between the innovative output of the firm’s
with the levels of stress, confusion, and uncertainty NPD processes—incremental versus radical—and the
transmitted to the process. The ability to generate needs of its environment.
sufficient energy will depend on the number and
Proposition 2: NPD process adaptability is determined
variety of agents, along with the decision rules that
by the number and variety of agents, their correspond-
govern process coupling, structure, priorities, timing, ing connections and interactions, and the ordering or
and permissions within which agents act (Eisenhardt disordering effect of the process rules and organization.
and Sull, 2001; Chiva-Gomez, 2004). These factors
are consistent with Schoderbek, Schoderbek, and
Kefalas’s (1985) first and second system dimensions New Product Development Decisions
and will govern system autopoiesis, the ability to pre-
serve a coherent process form while evolving new ones The principal role of NPD agents is to make decisions
(Maturana and Varela, 1980). that bridge the gap between an idea and reality.

9. NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AS A COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM OF DECISIONS J PROD INNOV MANAG 445
2006;23:437–456
To examine how different NPD decisions influence deal with the cost of prototyping, the method of
process adaptability and resulting innovation outputs, prototyping to be used, and how the experiments
this study uses the widely recognized NPD stages of should be designed (Thomke, Von Hippel, and
concept development, product design, testing and val- Franke, 1998). Finally, during the product launch
idation, and launch and ramp-up and three levels of stage, the output of these decisions might concern
NPD decisions: strategic, review, and in stage. the need for test marketing and the sequence in which
At the highest level, NPD decisions relate to the products are introduced to the market. In the present
market and product strategy (Cooper and Kleinsch- article, these are called in-stage decisions.
midt, 1986) and the funding and management of In addition to variations in NPD decision levels,
project portfolios (Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt, different decision rules govern how the NPD process
1999, 2002). Typically, these decisions set the initial is supposed to operate. Decision rules refer to the way
aims and objectives of an NPD project and then over- strategic, review, and in-stage NPD decisions are
see the process from a strategic level. They are con- made and shape the process in terms of agent at-
cerned with the target market for a new product, its tributes and the degree of organization. These are
desired competitive position or fit with the organiza- consistent with Schoderbek, Schoderbek, and Kef-
tion’s current product offerings, and the technology alas’s (1985) second and fourth system dimensions, as
platform to be employed (Bonner, Ruekert, and different decision rules will generate different types of
Walker, 2002). In the present article, these are called NPD behavior (e.g., rules that promote order versus
strategic decisions. rules that promote disorder) with varying degrees of
The second level of decisions occurs between stag- uncertainty. Together, decision levels and decision
es. They are process milestone points that usually fol- rules create NPD progress paths, or trajectories,
low the completion of development stages such as with outputs that range from incremental to radical.
concept development, product design, and testing The CAS view reflects the NPD process in real
(Clark and Fujimoto, 1991; Thomas, 1993). Such de- time, as open, changing, and potentially adaptive. It
cisions include whether the project should proceed or implies that process agency can yield different NPD
be terminated or whether it should be reviewed and behaviors with trajectories and outcomes that may or
how it should proceed (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, may not be predetermined by the inputs. To some ex-
1991; Thomas, 1993). Decisions at this level are gen- tent, the nature of the trajectories will be consistent
erally made by middle to senior managers, and with the linear, recursive, and chaotic NPD frame-
the outcomes significantly affect NPD lead time work perspectives. For example, a trajectory where
(Murmann, 1994). In the present article, these are the effect of a decision on the project would be the one
called review decisions. anticipated—such as the improvement of a certain
Finally, the third level of decisions relates to those product feature following customer feedback—is con-
taken within and at the operational level of each sistent with the linear framework. In contrast, a cy-
process stage (Krishnan and Ulrich, 2001). Creative clical path is consistent with the recursive framework,
and exploratory behavior primarily occurs at this lev- as it will feed back and reuse similar and familiar de-
el, in accord with the degree of agency and freedom cisions from previous and comparable projects. Fi-
allowed or encouraged by the strategic and review nally, chaotic behavior in NPD is associated with the
decisions. At this level, the customer requirements are capacity to produce novelty or surprises, as any deci-
assessed using a range of direct and derived impor- sion could create a potential change in trajectory di-
tance measures (Griffin and Hauser, 1993), and the rection. This is because decision outcomes can be
characteristics of the product are decided. The out- amplified, producing paths that lead to good or bad
puts of these decisions vary for each stage of the de- process performance. The probability and degree of
velopment process. So for instance, at the concept trajectory change will depend on which stage of the
development stage the outputs might address the as- NPD process the decision takes place at and the hie-
sessment of customer requirements—that is, product rarchal level of the decision making. It is important to
specification decisions. At the design stage, such de- note that chaotic trajectories are different from stoc-
cisions could result in geometric models of assemblies hastic ones, which have such a rate of new and un-
and components, a bill of materials, and control doc- wanted process inputs that the next process state or
umentation for production (Krishnan and Ulrich, configuration cannot be deduced from the present one
2001), whereas the testing and validation stage might (Stewart, 1989). In contrast, a chaotic trajectory is so

10. 446 J PROD INNOV MANAG I. P. MCCARTHY ET AL.
2006;23:437–456
Table 2. Complex Adaptive System Framework of New Product Development
NPD Framework Descriptive Interpretation Benefits Limitations
CAS A process with partially Assumes that overall Semantic confusion
connected agents whose process configurations concerning the terms
interactions cross and behaviors are malleable. complex and complexity.
stages and decision They can be internally changed Challenges in framing
levels. Collectively they are to match push or pull market and measuring the process
able to produce a forces and innovation constructs coupled with
process dynamic between expectations that range the misconception that
order and chaos, from incremental to very radical. process outcomes are random
which results in process and therefore unpredictable.
adaptability and
the potential to generate
different behaviors
and innovation outcomes.
sensitive to system changes that it appears stochastic permit assessment and validation of the framework
but, in fact, exhibits patterns over time. and its accompanying propositions. This combined
With this review of NPD decisions and building on top-down and bottom-up approach is an important
P1 and P2, it is possible to deduce that different de- and customary aspect of the research process. It
cision levels and decision rules will promote or con- facilitates theory building and the identification of
strain agent coupling and interactions, which in turn possible correlations, which become the basis for
will determine the potential for adaptive behavior in quantitative descriptive models and normative theo-
an NPD process. These factors combine with the CAS ry building (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Eisenhardt,
phenomena of nonlinearity, self-organization, and 1989; Feldman, 2004; Whetten, 1989).
emergence and the system dimensions concerned The rationale for using case studies was to observe
with the number and variety of agents, their coupling, and to describe the NPD process elements, interac-
and degree of organization. Together they provide the tions, and behaviors within their real-life settings. As
theoretical constructs for a CAS framework of NPD a research method, it is well suited to relatively new
summarized in Table 2 and followed by Propositions research topics, especially when the phenomena are
3 and 4. poorly understood and characterized (Eisenhardt,
1989). This is certainly the case with CAS interpreta-
Proposition 3: Strategic and review decisions and their tions of NPD processes. The case-study approach also
accompanying decision rules generate order and disor- provides a number of research contributions, includ-
der at the in-stage decision level of NPD, which results ing description (Harris and Sutton, 1986), theory
in corresponding potentials for process adaptability and building (Gersick, 1988), and initial theory testing
matching innovations.
(Pinfield, 1986). The following sections report how the
case studies were selected and conducted.
Proposition 4: In-stage decisions and their accompany-
ing decision rules are able to produce enough internal
energy to explore and to produce self-determined proc-
ess adaptability. Company Selection
Three companies were selected that would help
The Study conceptualize and describe CAS behavior in NPD
processes. This multiple case-study approach is
The process this research followed was highly itera- appropriate for examining phenomena such as CAS
tive. The review of existing NPD frameworks and ac- behaviors in more than one natural organizational
companying theories were primarily deductive in setting. The names of the case-study companies are
nature and generated constructs and propositions not disclosed and will be referred to as Company A,
concerning NPD as a CAS. The case studies present- Company B, and Company C.
ed in this section provide observations and descrip- The companies were selected using criteria similar
tions of CAS phenomena in NPD processes that to those adopted by Swink, Sandvig, and Mabert

11. NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AS A COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM OF DECISIONS J PROD INNOV MANAG 447
2006;23:437–456
(1996). This required companies to (1) have substan- istence of a formal and documented NPD process
tial experience in NPD; (2) be developing relatively within the organizations. To address this issue, the
discrete products; (3) be classified as producing rela- selected case-study companies provided process maps
tively incremental and predictive innovations for ex- or workbooks that showed the NPD process used,
isting customers and markets; and (4) collectively along with identifiable activities, stages, and resourc-
represent a diversity of internal process characteris- es. The companies were also required to have formal
tics in terms of size, rules, structure, and organization. and distinct operating budgets for their NPD proc-
It was also important to exclude NPD processes char- esses. A similar criterion was also employed by
acterized as unstructured, free thinking, and relatively McDermott and O’Connor (2002). To study the
constraint free, as the aim was to identify the existence fourth dimension, the selected companies needed to
and potential for CAS behavior in a nonobvious NPD exhibit different NPD management rules, structures,
environment. Therefore, the focus was on processes procedures, and technologies. For example, Company
typified as linear, organized, and controlled and with A operated a fixed multinational process based on
a tendency to develop products in consultation with expertise—that is, the NPD team members were lo-
their customers. In addition, the three case-study cated and organized in terms of geography and func-
processes were required to be different according to tionality regardless of the project—whereas Company
Schoderbek, Schoderbek, and Kefalas’s (1985) four B, also a multinational business, organized its NPD
system dimensions: number of elements, attributes of members according to a multidisciplinary matrix
specified elements, number of interactions among structure which changed according to the needs of
these elements, and degree of inherent organization. the project. The process organization and structure
Thus, the selection constrained any potential case for Company C were fixed and informal, with the
variation due to extraneous process context—that is, same team working on all projects.
government laboratories and other blue-sky research
facilities were not considered—while focusing the
study on the constructs central to the propositions. Data Collection and Analysis
The first and third dimensions—number of ele-
ments and number of interactions among those ele- Data were collected using questionnaires, structured
ments, respectively—relate to the number of agents, interviews, and observation. The questionnaires were
the level of decision-making authority, and the types used to gather detailed information on the companies’
and number of interactions that take place between NPD process. They included both closed and open-
each agent. These dimensions are central to P1 and ended questions on the configuration of the process in
P2; therefore, the case-study companies needed to ex- terms of stages; the number and professional types of
hibit variations in the size of their organizational and the people involved in the process; and information
NPD process settings. Consequently, Companies A about the decision levels, decision rules, and any ac-
and B were large manufacturing organizations, and companying decision tools and techniques employed.
their NPD teams consisted of more than 60 designers The senior managers—chief executives, vice presi-
and engineers located in different parts of the world. dents, and directors—responsible for NPD in the
Company C was a relatively small organization, and case-study companies completed the questionnaires.
its NPD team consisted of 12 engineers and designers, The questionnaire data were then used to design semi-
all located in the same facility. In all three cases, the structured interviews for each of the case-study or-
total number of people involved in the process varied ganizations. The interviews had two aims. The first
according to NPD stage, with the initial stages utiliz- was to overcome the limitations of questionnaire sur-
ing fewer people than the middle and final stages. veys such as item nonresponse bias—when some ques-
The second and fourth system dimensions—at- tions have not been answered—and nonconsistency in
tributes of the elements and the degree of organiza- understanding of questions (Hussey and Hussey,
tion, respectively—relate to P2 and P4 and concern 1997). The second aim was to achieve a deeper un-
the decision rules and management practices that gov- derstanding about the type of process organization
ern NPD agents and the process. To examine the sec- and decision rules employed by the NPD teams. To
ond dimension and to ensure that the case-study achieve this, 14 people in all were interviewed who
processes exhibited some control and organization collectively were involved at each stage and decision
over the agents, it was important to identify the ex- level of the NPD process. As reported by McDermott

12. 448 J PROD INNOV MANAG I. P. MCCARTHY ET AL.
2006;23:437–456
and O’Connor (2002) and Eisenhardt (1989) this use example of nonlinearity in Company A and Compa-
of multiple interviewees reduces the risk of undue in- ny B was what this present study calls exponential ex-
fluence that an individual interviewee may have on the pectation change. This is when information such as
study and brings a rounded and balanced insight into project due dates increase or decrease exponentially
each case. when passed from agent to agent. This occurred be-
The final phase of data collection involved four sets cause agents at different stages and levels would seek
of three-day visits at each company to observe current to cushion or to expedite process progress and out-
NPD activities and to attend NPD meetings. The aim comes by altering this type of information. It is im-
of this phase was to observe, in real time, the actions portant to note that these observations are not
and behaviors of people and to triangulate and to necessarily novel. Their purpose and value is to con-
validate the data collected from the previous two firm that such behaviors exist and then, using a CAS
stages. During these visits, secondary data such as lens, to better understand how simple rules of inter-
Gantt charts, progress reports, and project notes were action, coupled with variations in agent-decision level,
collected. Annual reports, company brochures, and can generate different aggregated outcomes that affect
corporate websites were also analyzed to gather back- process adaptability and innovation output. For ex-
ground information about the case-study companies. ample, with Company A, the senior managers based
at their parent company took the strategic NPD de-
cisions. These decisions focused on selecting the port-
Framing New Product Development as a folio of products that would satisfy the market
Complex Adaptive System requirements in terms of functionality, performance,
and cost. The senior managers would also decide the
In this section, the cases are described to generate in- level of funding for and the timing and allocation of
sights and to conceptualize NPD as a CAS. This in- NPD projects for the company. Once these strategic
volves a summary of the cross-case analysis, where the decisions were made, the review and in-stage decision-
documentation for each case was reviewed to identify making agents had relative autonomy to organize
and to categorize any common factors that constrain themselves and to develop new products within a rec-
or promote CAS behavior in terms of nonlinearity, ognized framework and set of governing procedures.
self-organization, and emergence. The relationship Thus, Company A’s strategic decisions had limited
among these phenomena, the decision levels—in influence on any prospective nonlinear behavior in the
stage, review, and strategic—and decision rules were NPD process.
evaluated to further refine and to build insights that The opposite situation existed in Company C, the
would assess and provisionally test the propositions. smallest of the three case-study companies. The stra-
tegic decisions in this NPD process were the respon-
sibility of the chief executive, who would constantly
Nonlinearity in New Product Development develop and change agreements with distributors and
key customers, which in turn governed strategic deci-
Despite the market-focused, project-controlled and sions concerning the type of product architecture, the
relatively sequential nature of each NPD process stud- number of product variants, the supply chain, and the
ied, it was possible to identify nonlinear behavior in level of funding. The result was a process whereby the
all three companies, especially at the in-stage decision strategic decisions and in-stage decisions were closely
level. For example, when Company A and Company coupled, and any changes in the strategic decisions
B added new team members in an effort to advance significantly influenced in-stage behavior, generating
and to improve progress, the outcome was not a NPD outputs that could be nonlinear—amplifying or
corresponding improvement but was a temporary reducing—depending on the stability of the market
decrease in progress as the system learned to and the judgment of the chief executive.
accommodate, to train, and to integrate these new The review-decision level provides checks and con-
agents during the first four weeks. This observation is trols for any major NPD milestones. The case studies
consistent with existing research on the effects of provided examples of how the frequency and duration
adding NPD resources and changing team character- of decisions at this level can affect the propensity for
istics to increase NPD performance (Cooper and nonlinear behavior. For example, with Company A,
Kleinschmidt, 1991; Gomes et al., 2001). Another the NPD director and a project-planning team

13. NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AS A COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM OF DECISIONS J PROD INNOV MANAG 449
2006;23:437–456
conducted review decisions on a bimonthly basis tive product development platforms, and computer-
according to project progress, funding availability, aided design. The procedures and rules involved a
and a reevaluation of market and product priority formal design change and documentation process; a
objectives. The relative regularity and complexity of make versus buy assessment for each designed com-
these decisions exerted a dampening control that ponent; and an approval and sign-off procedure for
sought to ensure a correlation between causes and an extensive range of in-stage product decisions for
effects. The situation was similar for Company B, but issues such as product color, material types, product
representatives from the NPD teams and the customer shape, prototyping plans, vendor selection, and test-
companies undertook the review decisions jointly. ing schedules. Feedback, changes, and adjustments in
With Company C, the review decisions created posi- the process were also relatively formal to ensure trace-
tive and negative feedbacks that affected the type and ability, accountability, and archiving of information
level of nonlinearity. This occurred when the chief for future NPD projects. By comparison, the in-stage
executive, who regularly participated at this decision decision makers in Company C were all located in the
level, made weekly decisions that reflected his approv- same office room, and the process of communication
al or disapproval of the project progress. The scale throughout all stages of the NPD process was rela-
and regularity of this decision feedback rapidly esca- tively informal, open, and unmonitored.
lated and determined the direction of the project. In summary, the case studies revealed links be-
These negative and positive feedback loops do not tween agency and nonlinearity across all three deci-
respectively correspond to criticism or praise. Rather, sion levels, with the degree and type of nonlinearity
a negative feedback loop keeps the system at a desired either constrained or propelled by the type and
state; it negates changes in the system; in contrast, a number of connections, interactions, and feedback
positive feedback loop has an amplifying or self-rein- loops with agents at the various decision levels. The
forcing effect on the system that eventually makes the associated dynamics and outputs from these relation-
system unstable and open to change. Thus, disap- ships underpin the tendency for process adaptability
proval, or positive feedback, from the chief executive in terms of self-organization and emergence, which
would quickly destabilize the project, counteract any are discussed in the next section.
progress made, and lead to a reorganization of activ-
ities, whereas approval, or negative feedback, would
strengthen and maintain the current NPD configura- Self-Organization and Emergence in New Product
tion and trajectory. The frequency and intensity of the Development
feedback loops in Company C regularly created be-
haviors such as system overconfidence, oscillation, As described earlier in this article, self-organization
growth, and overshoot as described by Sterman and emergence are simply two aspects of the same
(1994) in his account of the fundamental modes of process capability: adaptability. New product devel-
dynamic behavior. opment processes are able to adjust and to adopt new
At the in-stage decision level, agents deal with mul- ways of working when their agents are free to connect,
tiple decisions such as how the product components to communicate, and to cooperate in a way that pro-
should be joined, if a certain material type would duces sufficient levels of self-organization. Adaptabil-
work, what color it should be, and what shape the ity is a process behavior that cannot be attributed to
product should have. Collectively these decisions in- any one agent, because, as observed in the case stud-
volve producing and processing a rich diversity of ies, it is the result of communal and mutual decision-
rules and criteria that are the basis of creative activ- making that occurs primarily at the in-stage level.
ities and ideas in the NPD process. Thus, at the in- Thus, even though NPD agents may follow simple
stage decision level the number of interactions and the rules or targets, it is possible for the process to gen-
type of organization—formal control versus autono- erate behavior, which has the potential to be distinctly
mous—imposed on the decision makers influenced different and possibly more effective than that origi-
NPD nonlinearity. For example, Companies A and B nally designed and planned by the organization.
used formal procedures, rules, and technologies to As with nonlinearity, all three case-study compa-
permit communication among engineers located in nies exhibited self-organizing and emergent behavior.
several countries. The technologies included group- Companies A and B used collaborative product de-
ware meetings, virtual e-rooms, intranet, collabora- velopment software with process procedures and rules

14. 450 J PROD INNOV MANAG I. P. MCCARTHY ET AL.
2006;23:437–456
to facilitate and to record interactions among all decisions because of significant customer involvement
decision levels and across all NPD stages. Yet despite and regulation requirements for its aerospace prod-
this relatively high level of control and monitoring, ucts. Yet an occasion arose when process control
when decisions occurred outside the boundaries set by procedures were ignored, creating an unplanned in-
formal practices and rules, instances of self-organizing novation. It occurred when a prototype component
behavior were observed. For example, with Company failed an important functionality test. Instead of doc-
A the concept for an entirely new product technology umenting and reporting the failure, it was concealed
developed during and after a game of golf that took from senior management to avoid an assessment of
place during a personnel development course that the project progress and viability. Motivated by the
several members of the NPD team happened to be fear of project failure and termination, the NPD team
attending. The outcome was an unplanned and tem- members secretly revaluated the test results and ex-
porary social unit, with some of the NPD members plored substitute applications. The outcome was an
meeting in person for the first time. The result was a unplanned and radical innovation with a level of com-
new process configuration with novel system interac- mercial success much greater than the original NPD
tions and organization. As explained by one of the project application. This was a classic example of self-
manufacturing engineers interviewed, ‘‘This innova- organization by rule breaking, whereby the decision-
tion was the result of meeting and communicating in a making agents exhibit unpredictable, or loose-can-
non-work place environment. We were able to coop- non, behavior. Thus, even though the most controlled
erate and problem solve without the normal bureau- of NPD processes may appear to operate according to
cratic constraints that make up the day-to-day grind imposed organizational rules or accepted practices,
of our jobs.’’ Again, the identification of this type of they have the potential for self-organizing and emer-
brainstorming event is not unique and should not be gent behavior. Olin and Wickenberg (2001) argued
credited to the use of a CAS framework. However, a that rule breaking is a positive attribute, as their re-
CAS framework promotes and facilitates novel in- search shows that NPD processes that regularly break
sights based on questions about how this event rules tend to be more creative. A possible reason for
emerged with no one individual planning, organizing, this is that rule breakers tend to be more entrepre-
and controlling it; about what sort of parallel inter- neurial and exploratory in nature, whereas members
actions took place between the agents; and about of rule controlled NPD processes often feel con-
what environmental conditions are required to facil- strained in their ability to discover new ideas, to
itate the emergence of new working practices and take risks, or to develop solutions to problems.
outcomes. These issues are relevant to management With Company C, its in-stage decision-making en-
practice because in an attempt to replicate the success vironment was relatively unceremonious, dynamic,
of the ad hoc and informal brainstorming event, Com- and disordered, which reflected the fluid and chang-
pany A went on to organize a biannual three-day re- ing nature of its strategic and review decisions. The
treat known as Exploration Days. These events were result was a NPD process that was highly adaptable
designed to allow NPD members to work, to socialize, with informal and new behaviors created regularly in
and to learn in a rule-free environment. Yet partici- response to the confusing and changing rules and un-
pants from the original event who had also attended known constraints and product specifications. This
the Exploration Days stated that the two events were process of self-organization was a forceful and disor-
very different. With Exploration Days, the environ- ganized combination of top-down and bottom-up in-
ment may have fewer regulations and restrictions teractions. The top-down interactions were governed
compared to the normal workplace, but there are still by the hierarchal structure and authority of the sys-
expectations and rules not present during the golf tem in terms of decision levels such as strategic deci-
event. For example, attendance at Exploration Days sions, whereas the bottom-up interactions were due to
is compulsory for all NPD members, and the purpose the agency at the lower level of the hierarchical struc-
is clear: to produce ideas. ture such as the in-stage decisions. Also, for Company
Another instance where self-organizing behavior C’s relatively small size, the NPD process exhibited
resulted in new emergent NPD practices was when the greatest number and variety of system connections
NPD team members in Company B decided to disre- and interactions. This helped produce an emergent
gard the process rules and procedures. Company B dynamic that was consistent with the notion of being
sought to formalize and to record all in-stage far from equilibrium (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984)