Trends in Food Science & Technology 14 (2003) 58–64
Viewpoint
What separates the
winners from the
losers in new food
product
development?
Barbara Stewart-Knox* and
Peter Mitchell
Northern Ireland Centre for Diet and Health (NICHE),
University ofUlster, Coleraine BT521SA,UK (tel: +44-
28703-24965; e-mail: b.stewart@ulster.ac.uk)
The low rate of innovation and high rate of failure of new
food products is a cause for concern. Whilst a wide range
of product development process factors are known to
influence product success and failure, these predictors are
based almost exclusively upon investigations into ‘industrial’
rather than food products. In this paper, an analysis of
existing models of product development is carried out, a
recently developed model for reduced fat food product
development is described and implications for best practice
in food product development discussed. Market and con-
sumer knowledge and retailer involvement are key success
factors in food product development.
# 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
New food product innovation is necessary for survi-
val in today’s competitive global market. Yet, despite
the large amount of research, published on optimising
the product development process, the vast majority of
* Corresponding author.
0924-2244/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 92 4 - 2 24 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 23 9 - X
new food products (72–88%) continue to fail (Buisson,
1995; Lord, 1999; Rudolph, 1995). If a ‘new’ food
product is defined as ‘one that is new to the consumer’,
only 7–25% of food products launched can be con-
sidered truly novel (Lord, 1999; Rudolph, 1995). This
low rate of innovation, coupled with the high failure
rate of food products following market launch implies
that the methodology for new food product develop-
ment urgently needs improvement. The process needs
to become more ‘focused, quantitative, rapid and
knowledge based’ (Earle, 1997a). Nevertheless, analyses
of the product development process have almost
exclusively focused upon developing models for ‘indus-
trial’ product outcomes (Burchill & Fine, 1997; Cala-
tone & Cooper, 1979; Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1996;
Ford & Sternman, 1998), whilst neglecting food pro-
ducts. So far, only five studies appear to have addres-
sed issues relating to product development in the food
sector, one of which is a qualitative study (Parr, Knox,
& Hamilton, 2001), two of which are surveys (Hoban,
1998; Iiori, Oke, & Sanni, 2001) and very recently, two
predictive models of food product development (Knox,
Parr, & Bunting, 2001; Kristensen, Ostergaard, & Juhl,
1998). Findings derived from previous research into the
product development process both generally and speci-
fically in relation to food are discussed with reference
to best practice.
The product development process
The product development process has been described
as a five to eight-step process including idea or concept
generation and screening, research, development and
product testing and marketing launch activities (Rud-
der, Ainsworth, & Holgate, 2001). Early models of pro-
duct development implied that those companies who
employed a stepwise new product process were more
successful (Booze-Allen & Hamilton, 1982; Cooper &
Kleinschmidt, 1987). However, it is now generally
accepted that a stepwise model of food product devel-
opment is over simplistic and that a concurrent or
overlapping, flexible team oriented product develop-
ment process is more advantageous than a sequential
process (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1996; Earle, 1996;
Ford & Sternman, 1998; Jenkins, Forbes, Durrani, &
Banerjee, 1997; Krishnan, Eppinger, & Whitney, 1997;
Urban & Hauser, 1993). Dahan and Hauser (2001)
describe an ‘end to end’ model, within which different
 B. Stewart-Know and P. Mitchell / Trends in Food Science & Technology 14 (2003) 58–64
stages are integrated and sometimes repeating and
including factors external to the process such as exper-
tise of team members and the supply chain. Such a
model enables consideration of the various trade-offs
between different aspects of the process. For example,
using ‘existing platforms’, that is, those resources that
are already set in place for other projects and or for
products of similar composition, can save time and
money but may compromise on satisfying consumer
need. More recently, product development has come to
be perceived as a spiral process providing repeated
feedback through every phase (Dahan & Hauser, 2001).
In practice, these models emphasise the integration of
the different stages and repeated evaluation throughout
the process.
Success and failure and the product development
process
The work of Cooper and colleagues (Calatone &
Cooper, 1979; Cooper, 1993; Cooper & Kleinschmidt,
1986, 1987, 1996) over more than two decades has
encouraged product developers to consider not only
what they do but also how to go about it. There is con-
siderable evidence to suggest that there are consistent
patterns that contribute new product outcome. Ground
breaking research by Calatone and Cooper during the
late 1970s established that product success is dependent
upon the product being unique and superior; good
understanding of consumer wants, needs and pre-
ferences; effective communication between product
development team personnel; top management support;
and, effective product marketing and launch (Calatone
& Cooper, 1979). The international SAPPHO project
and other cross-industry investigations carried out
within the USA, Japan and Europe (Booze-Allen &
Hamilton, 1982; Rothwell, 1976; Utterback et al., 1976),
also consistently found that senior management invol-
vement in product innovation and pre-market consumer
research were among crucial factors for product success.
On the other hand, lack of market knowledge and
technical problems tended to be associated with product
failure.
Subsequent critical analyses of the new product
development process have aimed both to refine Coop-
er’s model and to generalise it across different industries
and cultures. Meanwhile, evidence that product failure
is most closely linked to inadequacies within pre-
development activities has steadily accumulated
(Cooper, 1993; Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1986, 1987;
Davis, 1993; Dyer, Gupta, & Wilemon, 1999; Song &
Parry, 1996). Models of product development, whether
applied to food or not, consistently link product suc-
cess to ‘up-front’ activities such as consumer testing
and the subsequent feeding through of consumer need
into technical development (Dahan & Hauser, 2001;
Rudder et al., 2001).
59
Although the involvement of senior personnel in the
product development process has been found to be
advantageous for success, more recent research has
indicated that cross-functional teams are even more
effective than coordinator led or matrix approaches
(Cooper & Klienschmidt, 1996; Dyer et al., 1996; Jen-
kins et al., 1997; Karlsson & Ahlstrom, 1997). Also
important is communication between the different team
members, particularly between technical and marketing
personnel (Dahan & Hauser, 2001; Rudder et al., 2001).
This implies that companies, who bring together indivi-
duals from different departments and from beyond the
company to work cohesively together, are more likely to
be more successful. Cross-industry research therefore
implies that an interdisciplinary team, an original pro-
duct idea, in addition to thorough market research and
careful planning at the concept stage of product devel-
opment could potentially prevent problems arising else-
where in the product development process.
Success and failure and the food product develop-
ment process
So, how does research into product development
translate to food? Research specifically into food pro-
duct development has indicated certain factors for suc-
cess. Results from three recent investigations into the
food product development process are compared (Table
1). Hoban (1998) reports a survey carried out in the
USA, while Kristensen and colleagues (1998) in Den-
mark and Stewart-Knox, Parr, Bunting, and Mitchell
(in press) in the United Kingdom (UK) report models of
food product success and failure. Common to all three
studies, are the findings that market and consumer
knowledge and retailer involvement, were associated
with success. There also appeared to be some agreement
that original products were more likely to be successful.
Although the Danish team found product adaptations
to be more successful, they do not appear to take into
account whether or not the original product concept
was unique. Where assessed, the involvement of outside
agencies and enlistment of technical expertise appeared
important for food product success.
There is however, disagreement on the degree to
which the involvement of senior management deter-
mines product outcome. Whereas the UK study found
senior management involvement in the product devel-
opment process to be irrelevant to product outcome,
studies carried out in the USA and Denmark found it to
be a determinant of product success. This apparent
contradiction could reflect industry structure, manage-
ment culture and marketing environment differences.
The UK sample comprised a greater proportion of
small to medium sized companies wherein senior man-
agers tend to have a shorter term tactical rather than
longer term strategic outlook, and where levels of retai-
ler involvement in product development tend to be
60 B. Stewart-Know and P. Mitchell / Trends in Food Science & Technology 14 (2003) 58–64
Table 1. Factors determining success in new food product development
Source of dataa UK model (Stewart-Knox et al.,
in preparation)
Unique product of high quality Original concepts more successful
Market/consumer knowledge Predictive of success Assumed
from retailer
Senior management involvement No association with outcome
PD organised /technical synergy No association with outcome
Customer/retailer involved Predictive of success
Suppliers and others involved Predictive of success
Food technologist involved Predictive of success
a
Data is extracted from the research presented in Hoban (1998), Kristensen et al. (1998), Stewart-Knox et al. (in preparation).
higher. Nevertheless, these results imply a need for
more research investigating the relevance of various in-
house and external sources of expertise for food pro-
duct outcome.
Consistent with previous analyses of industrial pro-
ducts, food product success appears contingent upon a
high quality product, senior management support,
sound knowledge of the consumer and cross-functional
team work (Hoban, 1998; Knox et al., 2001). However,
although factors important to product outcome appear
consistent across sectors, there is evidence for cross-sec-
toral variation in the degree to which various practices
impact upon product outcome. Unique to food product
development appears to be the positive impact of wide
consultation with agencies and the involvement of
expertise beyond the company upon the success of food
products (Balbontin, Yazdani, Cooper, & Souder, 1999;
Knox et al., 2001; Stewart-Knox et al., in preparation).
Models of food product development must take into
account the sensory characteristics of food (Rudder et
al., 2001). Input and expertise from various sources
including retailers, suppliers, food and research centres
is required to prevent and solve the kind of technical
problems that inevitably arise in food product develop-
ment (Stewart-Knox et al., in preparation). Only
recently have issues to do with communication within
the food product development process been considered
in relation to food product outcomes. Models that have
specifically considered food emphasise involving the
consumer from the start of the process and consistently
advocate the integration of technology and marketing
efforts.
One such model is the House of Quality approach,
which is the first of four phases within quality function
deployment (QFD) (Costa, Dekker, & Jongen, 2001).
Originally developed in Japan during the 1970s for use
in the automobile industry, QFD brings quality, as
demanded by a consumer market segment, to the early
stages in the product development process. Subse-
quently developed by Hauser and Clausing during the
1980s, QFD has recently been applied to food by Hans
Danish model USA survey (Hoban, 1998)
(Kristensen et al., 1998)
Product adaptations Most important factor for success
more successful
Predictive of success Second important factor for success
Predictive of success Third important factor for success
No association with Factor for success
outcome
Predictive of success Factor for success
Not assessed Factor for success
Not assessed Not assessed
van Trijp and Steenkamp (1998). QFD advocates a
structured food product development process involving
the bringing together and integration of different dis-
ciplines and expertise and consumer involvement from
the very start and as far as possible in all aspects of the
process. The emphasis of this approach is very much
upon communication. Requirements are plotted on a
product-planning matrix against the likelihood of
achieving these goals through technological means, tak-
ing into account any trade-offs between requirements
(Dekker & Linnermann, 1998). Another strength of the
QFD model is that it can take into account the sensory
attributes of food. A full review describing the applica-
tion of QFD in practice has previously been provided
by Costa et al. (2001).
It has become increasingly important to model and
assess factors for success against the food product
development process. That food, not only the type of
foods eaten, but also how food is produced, prepared
and used is deeply rooted in our culture, implies that
there are likely to be cross-cultural differences in terms
of factors for success in food product development.
There is emerging evidence for cross-cultural variation
in the degree to which various practices impact upon
product outcome (Balbontin et al., 1999). More
research is clearly required to determine differences
across cultures, food sectors and food types.
Success and failure in reduced fat food product
development
New research funded by the Food Standards Agency
(UK) has been undertaken to investigate and model
factors specifically associated with the success and fail-
ure of reduced fat foods (Stewart-Knox et al., in press).
Reduced fat foods require considerable investment in
terms of time, money and resources whilst the risk of
product failure is perceived as great. Modelling of the
reduced fat product development process is therefore
important for improved product success. This appears
to be the first study of this kind carried out in the UK
(England and Northern Ireland) and to focus mainly
 B. Stewart-Know and P. Mitchell / Trends in Food Science & Technology 14 (2003) 58–64
upon small to medium sized companies. The research is
also unusual in using qualitative methods for data col-
lection. Key company-personnel were invited to take
part in depth interview as to their experiences in devel-
oping reduced and standard fat food products. The
qualitative approach brought about a high level of
compliance and co-operation among the product devel-
opers. The qualitative approach also strengthened the
research in that it ensured that a complete set of vari-
ables was entered into the eventual model and not just
those considered important by the researchers. The
resulting model is unique not only in terms of the pro-
duct focus, but also in taking account of the problems,
both technical and otherwise, frequently encountered in
reduced fat food product development. Product out-
come was assumed from the decision taken in each case
by the company concerned. The company definition of
success and failure was adopted throughout in the belief
that this would more accurately reflect decision making
in actual commercial conditions.
Information derived from 127 food product case his-
tories (both standard and reduced-fat) was used to
compile a database of 150 binary coded variables.
Topics discussed included problems encountered in the
product development process as well as relationships
between different parties involved in the food product
development process. Sources of information also
included company profile information, product doc-
umentation, marketing and sales data, equipment and
process information. The different variables were then
screened using cross-tabulation and accordingly entered
into the model. The variables were then compared
through a series of binary logistic regression analyses
and a model of best practice in reduced fat food product
development constructed. Initial qualitative findings
and subsequent comparison between reduced and stan-
dard fat foods were used to inform and interpret the
analysis.
The findings appear encouraging for continued devel-
opment of reduced fat foods. Surprisingly, reduced fat
products were more likely to succeed than standard
products. This may be because such products may be
more often retailer-driven and therefore based upon
knowledge of consumer needs. Also reasons for pur-
chasing these products are also likely to be health rather
than product attribute related (Knox et al., 2001). Six
groups of variables comprised the final model of
reduced fat product development (Fig. 1). The model
was estimated to predict product outcome with 84%
accuracy. Predictive variables related to the product
concept and the source of inspiration, technical pro-
blems and solutions, as well as to issues associated with
communication within and beyond the product devel-
opment team. Failure was more likely in the case of
‘copy-cat’ products and where there had been a lack of
communication between the product developers and
61
other appropriate agencies including retailers and
research centres. On the other hand, chances of success
appeared enhanced by including retailers within the
product development team. Texture problems presented
the biggest technical barrier to reduced fat product suc-
cess. Accordingly, input from food technologists, parti-
cularly for recipe development, appeared imperative for
success.
Interpretation across the model implied that commu-
nication, both between different team members and with
other agencies beyond the company, throughout the
process was crucial for product success. In contrast to
existing results from cross-industry research, although
senior management was involved in the development of
57% of the product cases, this involvement was irrele-
vant to product success. Also irrelevant to success was
whether or not the product development process was
planned. Consistent with previous cross-industry
research, pre-development activities and in particular,
the nature of expertise consulted at concept stage was
predictive of product outcome. Wide consultation with
appropriate bodies such as suppliers and research orga-
nisations and sourcing of technical expertise beyond the
company were found to enhance chances of reduced fat
food product success (Knox et al., 2001; Stewart-Knox
et al., in preparation).
Pre-development consumer need research had been
carried out by the retailer for 32% of product and
retailer-inspired products appeared more likely to be
successful. The qualitative research indicated that food
product developers assume the retailer to have, and to
act upon, informed knowledge of the consumer and
market. More products surveyed were panel tested by
retailers (46%) than by the companies who developed
them (29%). Retailer involvement could therefore be
taken as a proxy indicator of consumer input into the
process. Products developed in collaboration with sup-
pliers and research centres also tended to be more suc-
cessful, probably because these agencies bring
technological expertise to the project. These results
taken together imply that food product developers
would be wise to seek knowledge and expertise widely,
in addition to that supplied by the retailer.
Although retailer involvement in the product devel-
opment process was predictive of product success, this
success appeared contingent upon the manufacturer
rather than the retailer formulating the product recipe.
The qualitative research implied that company recipes
were more successful because they are more appropriate
to existing expertise, process and plant. This also agrees
with the finding that successful Japanese firms build
upon existing knowledge and processes rather than
invest in projects that require new technological cap-
ability (Song & Parry, 1996). New products may there-
fore be more likely to succeed if they make use of
existing resources as far as possible. Although products
62 B. Stewart-Know and P. Mitchell / Trends in Food Science & Technology 14 (2003) 58–64
Fig. 1. Model of best practice for reduced fat food product development.
that met with texture problems were highly likely to fail,
the involvement of a food technologist, particularly at
concept and recipe stage, appeared to obviate texture
problems. It is therefore recommended that product
developers consult with retailers throughout the process
but develop their own product recipe employing the
expertise of a food technologist.
Implications for food product development
Importance of innovation
More than two decades of cross-industry research
has concluded that original products are more likely to
succeed (Booze-Allen & Hamilton, 1982; Calatone &
Cooper, 1979; Dahan & Hauser, 2001; Song & Parry,
1996). In relation to food, there is also a growing body
of evidence to indicate that original concepts are more
successful than ‘copy-cat’ or ‘me too’ products
(Hoban, 1998; Knox et al., 2001; Stewart-Knox et al.,
in preparation; Van Trijp & Meulinberg, 1996; Van
Trijp & Steenkamp, 1998). This is further corroborated
by a recent survey of food company practices in the
USA, which has indicated that the failure rate for truly
new food products is only 25% (Hoban, 1998). In
other words, a unique product that fills a need will
succeed most often. New innovative products are more
likely to succeed because food product markets can
become rapidly overcrowded. New and improved
technologies are increasingly being used in food inno-
vation to successfully differentiate products (Katz,
1998). Nevertheless, only a small proportion of food
product releases are truly innovative (Rudolph, 1995).
Fear of new product failure has resulted in low rates
of innovation in the food industry with many compa-
nies preferring to re-develop old products to create
new products in the attempt to increase success rates
(Iiori et al., 2001; Kristensen et al., 1998; Van Trijp &
Meulinberg, 1996). Ironically, this apparently ‘safe’
approach perpetuates the problem of high food pro-
duct failure.
Importance of consumer-driven food product
development
The food chain in Europe has undergone a shift of
control from the producer to the retailer (Van Trijp &
Steenkamp, 1998), a shift that has been reflected in the
vast increase in retailer ‘own brand’ food products
comprising up to 50% of the market share in recent
years (Earle, 1997b). Survey of food product develop-
ment practices in the UK and the USA have indicated
that product developers rely heavily upon retailer cus-
tomers for market information (Hoban, 1998; Parr et
al., 2001) and that in practice, few actually draw upon
other sources such as suppliers, consultants, research
organisations or trade journals for guidance. Conse-
quently, retailer involvement in product development
has become increasingly important for food product
success (Knox et al., 2001; Stewart-Knox et al., in
press). Nevertheless, it is the manufacturer and not the
retailer who carries the risk in terms of lost investment if
the product fails. For this reason, it is crucially impor-
tant that food product developers independently edu-
cate themselves as to consumer need and the market
environment as an initial, mandatory part of the food
product development process. Gathering market infor-
mation so that new market niches can be located for
new product ideas prior to product development may
reduce the risk of product failure and enhance chances
of product success. The need for greater involvement of
consumers in the product development process has
long been recognised (Von Hippel, 1977, 1978). It has
become imperative that food product developers
acknowledge and apply in practice the long estab-
lished and growing body of evidence that advocates
putting the consumer at the start of the ‘food chain’
(Costa et al., 2001; Lord, 1999; Moscowitz, 1994;
Saguy & Moscowitz, 1999; Urban & Hauser, 1993;
Von Hippel, 1977, 1978). A consumer driven food
product development process is likely to produce more
successful products.
 B. Stewart-Know and P. Mitchell / Trends in Food Science & Technology 14 (2003) 58–64
Importance of communication in product development
It has never been easier for food product developers,
including those attached to smaller companies, to
obtain market information cheaply and easily for
themselves. It was predicted nearly a decade ago that
the food product development process would be ‘revo-
lutionised’ by information technology (IT) in enabling
product testing and providing market information on
line (Fuller, 1994). IT has the potential to facilitate
communication not only between different members of
the product development team, whether based on site or
elsewhere, but also between the product development
team and the consumer (Dahan & Hauser, 2000). Today
it is possible to generate food product concepts qualita-
tively from consumers as well as to test them ‘on-line’
using consumer panels (Moscowitz, 1994) thereby mini-
mising risk and speeding time to market (Dahan &
Hauser, 2000). Yet, despite enhanced potential for
communication, it appears that this ‘revolution’ has yet
to occur in food product development.
Implications for further research
Modelling of technical and organisational problems
associated with the food product development process,
both generally and in relation to specific food product
types, is clearly required for improved food product
innovation. Such models should take into account the
common problems that arise and also cross-cultural
differences in terms of specific practices and the impact
of these practices. There is a need to highlight target
areas for intervention aimed at reducing the failure risk
associated with food product research and development
and encouraging the innovation of new food products.
A challenge for the future will be to apply this paradigm
to food product development in practice.
Conclusions
Implications for best practice in product development
appear robust with only minor differences in the weight
of different factors when ideas are transferred across
sectors from industrial to food products. Models of
product development agree that actions taken during
the concept phase of the product development process
and the nature of expertise employed throughout the
process are critical to success. Consultation activities
appear to be particularly important for food product
success and food companies are drawing upon outside
support more and more for new product success.
A basic premise of Cooper and Kleinschmidt’s (1987)
model is that process factors are more important than
situational or environmental factors for predicting new
product outcome. Redmond (1995), however, has urged
caution in attributing new food product failure entirely
to weaknesses within the product development process
while ignoring the wider competitive environment.
Cooper and colleagues (Calatone & Cooper, 1979;
63
Cooper, 1993; Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1986, 1987,
1996) advocate that assessment of the market for the
product should ideally become an integral, initial part
of the product development process. In terms of food
products, the market is particularly susceptible to rapid
overcrowding and fragmentation making new products
difficult to locate, hence, the imperative for food pro-
duct developers to anchor product ideas with sound
knowledge of the market.
The future success of any food company depends
upon the effective use of the new product development
process. Unfortunately, following this process does not
always guarantee success with 46% of the resources
devoted to the process going towards unsuccessful pro-
jects (Deschamps & Nayak, 1996). Existing knowledge
implies that food manufacturers should not be afraid to
create new innovative food products, especially if the
product idea is based upon sound knowledge of con-
sumer requirements and developed within the technical
capability of a cohesive interdisciplinary product devel-
opment team.
References
Balbontin, A., Yazdani, B., Cooper, R., & Souder, W. E. (1999). New
product development success factors in American and British
firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 17, 259–
280.
Booze-Allen, & Hamilton. (1982). New product management for the
1980s. New York Marketplace, USA: Booze, Allen and Hamilton,
CRC Press.
Buisson, P. D. (1995). Developing new products for the consumer.
In D. Marshall (Ed.), Food choice and the consumer. London:
Blackie Academic and Professional.
Burchill, G., & Fine, C. H. (1997). Time versus market orientation in
product concept development: empirically based theory gen-
eration. Management Science, 43, 465–478.
Calatone, R. J., & Cooper, R. G. (1979). A discriminant model for
identifying scenarios of industrial new product failure. Journal of
Academy of Marketing Science, 7, 163–183.
Cooper, R. G. (1993). Winning at new products: accelerating the
process from idea to launch, (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: Addison
Wesley Publishing Co (chapters 2–4).
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1986). An investigation into the
new product process: steps, deficiencies, and impact. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 3, 71–85.
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987). New products: what
separates winners from losers?. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 4, 169–184.
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1996). Winning businesses in
product development: the critical success factors. Research
Technology Management, 39, 18–29.
Costa, A. I. A., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W. M. F. (2001). Quality
function deployment in the food industry: a review. Trends in
Food Science and Technology, 11, 306–314.
Dahan, E., & Hauser, J.R. (2000). The virtual customer: communica-
tion, conceptualization, and computation. (http://mitsloan.mi-
t.edu/vc/)
Dahan, E., & Hauser, J. R. (2001) Product development—managing
a dispersed process. In B. Weitz, R. & Wensley, (Eds.) Handbook
of marketing, (http://mitsloan.mit.edu/vc/)
Davis, R. E. (1993). From experience: the role of market research in
64 B. Stewart-Know and P. Mitchell / Trends in Food Science & Technology 14 (2003) 58–64

the development of new consumer products. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 10, 309–317.
Dekker, M., & Linnemann, A. R. (1998). Product development in the
food industry. In W. M. F. Jongen, & M. T. J. Meulenberg (Eds.),
Innovation of Food Production Systems. Product Quality and
Consumer Acceptance. Netherlands: Wageningen Pers.
Deschamps, J. P., & Nayak, P. R. (1996). Product juggernauts: how
companies mobilise to generate a stream of market winners.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dyer, B., Gupta, A. K., & Wilemon, D. (1999). What first to market
companies do differently. Research Technology Management, 42,
15–21.
Earle, M. D. (1997a). Changes in the food product develop-
ment process. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 8,
19–24.
Earle, M. D. (1997b). Innovation in the food industry. Trends in
Food Science and Technology, 8, 166–175.
Ford, D., & Sternman, J. (1998). Dynamic modelling of product
development processes. Systems Dynamics Review, 14, 31–68.
Fuller, G. W. (1994). New food product development from concept
to marketplace. USA: CRC Press.
Hoban, T. J. (1998). Improving the success of new product devel-
opment. Food Technology, 52, 46–49.
Iiori, M. O., Oke, J. S., & Sanni, S. A. (2001). Management of new
product development in selected food companies in Nigeria.
Technovation, 20, 333–342.
Jenkins, S., Forbes, S., Durrani, T. S., & Banerjee, S. K. (1997).
Managing the product development process—(part II: case stu-
dies). International Journal of Technology Management, 13, 379–
394.
Karlsson, C., & Ahlstrom, P. (1997). Perspective: changing product
development strategy—a managerial strategy. Journal of Pro-
duct Innovation Management, 14, 473–484.
Katz, F. (1998). How major core competencies affect development
of hot new products. Food Technology, 52, 46–50 & 52.
Knox, B., Parr, H., & Bunting, B. (2001). Model of ‘best practice’ for the
food industry. Proceedings of the British Nutrition Society, 60, 169a.
Krishnan, V., Eppinger, S. D., & Whitney, D. E. (1997). A model-
based framework to overlap product development activities.
Management Science, 43, 437–451.
Kristensen, K., Ostergaard, P., & Juhl, H. J. (1998). Success and fail-
ure of product development in the danish food sector. Food
Quality and Preference, 9, 333–342.
Lord, J. B. (1999). New product failure and success. In A.L Brody, & J.
B. Lord (Eds.), Developing new food products for a changing
marketplace. USA: Technomic Publishing.
Moscowitz, H. R. (1994). Food concepts and products. Just-in-time
development. Connecticut: Food and Nutrition Press.
Parr, H., Knox, B., & Hamilton, J. (2001). Problems and pitfalls in the food
product development process. The Food Industry Journal, 4, 50–60.
Redmond, W. H. (1995). An ecological perspective on new product
failure: the effects of competitive overcrowding. Journal of Pro-
duct Innovation Management, 12, 200–213.
Rothwell, R. (1976). The Hungarian SAPPHO: some comments and
comparison. Research Policy, 3, 30–38.
Rudder, A., Ainsworth, P., & Holgate, D. (2001). New food product
development: strategies for success. British Food Journal, 103,
657–671.
Rudolph, M. J. (1995). The food product development process.
British Food Journal, 97, 3–37.
Saguy, I. S., & Moskowitz, H. R. (1999). Integrating the consumer
into new product development. Food Technology, 53, 68–73.
Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. (1996). What separates Japanese new
product winners from losers. Journal of Product Innovation Man-
agement, 13, 422–439.
Stewart-Knox, B., Parr, H., Bunting, B., & Mitchell, P. C. A model for
reduced fat food product development success. Food Quality
and Preference (in press)
Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). Marketing of new products (2nd
ed.). USA: Prentice-Hall International.
Utterback, J. M. et al. (1976). The Process of Innovation in Five
Industries in Japan. In IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-
ment. 3–9 February
Van Trijp, H. C. M., & Meulinberg, M. T. G. (1996). Marketing and
consumer behaviour with respect to foods. In H. L. Meiselman,
& H. J. H. McFie (Eds.), Food Choice, Acceptance and Consump-
tion. London: Blackie Academic & Professional.
Van Trijp, H. C. M., & Steenkamp, J. (1998). Consumer oriented
new product development principles and practice. In W. M.
F. Jongen, & M. T. J. Meulenberg (Eds.), Innovation of Food Pro-
duction Systems. Product Quality and Consumer Acceptance.
Netherlands: Wageningen Pers.
Von Hippel, E. (1977). Has a customer already developed your next
product? Sloan Management Review, Winter, 63–74.
Von Hippel, E. (1978). Successful industrial products from customer
ideas. Journal of Marketing, January, 39–49.

Any Suggestions?
Articles published in TIFS are usually specially invited by the Editors, with assistance from our International Advisory Editorial
Board. However, we welcome ideas from readers for articles on exciting new and developing areas of food research. A brief
synopsis of the proposal should first be sent to the Editors, who can provide detailed guidelines on manuscript preparation.
Mini-reviews focus on promising areas of food research that are advancing rapidly, or are in need of re-review in the light
of recent advances or changing priorities within the food industry. Thus they are shorter than conventional reviews, focusing
on the latest developments and discussing likely future applications and research needs.
Features are similar in style to mini-reviews, highlighting specific topics of broad appeal to the food science community.
The Viewpoint section provides a forum to express personal options, observations or hypotheses, to present new perspectives,
and to help advance understanding of controversial issues by provoking debate and comment.
Conference Reports highlight and assess important developments presented at relevent conferences worldwide.

TIFS also welcomes Letters to the Editor concerned with issues raised by published articles or by recent developments in the
food sciences.

All Review-style articles are subject to editorial and independent peer review by international experts in the appropriate field.