The major objectives of this thesis are as follows:
1. What is the most distinctive feature that can distinguish hightech products from low-tech products?
2. How different are the important product-related resource bases between high and low technology products for their performances?
3. What is the most distinctive strategic dimension that can explain the difference between high and low technology new product strategy? Furthermore, according to the level of products' technology, what is the most effective strategy for new product development and marketing?
4. How different are the influences of new product processes on their performance between High and Low Technology Product?
The unit of analysis is new product project and sixty-one new product projects were used from thirty-two manufacturing firms including twenty-eight(14/14, success/failure) high-tech products and thirty-three (16/17, success/failure) low-tech products. Hypotheses were tested using t-test, regression analysis, ANOVA and MDA.
The Major findings of this thesis are as follows:
1. Based on the literature review, industry study, case study and empirical analysis, the most distinctive feature between high and low technology products is environmental uncertainty, especially technological uncertainty and market uncertainty.
2. As to technological success, production, financial and R&D capabilities are important for high-tech products and only production capability is important for low-tech products. As to commercial success, financial, production and R & D capabilities are important for high-tech products and only marketing capability is important for low-tech products.
3. As to technological success, there was no outstanding strategic type for high-tech products and external-oriented strategy was more effective for low-tech products. As to commercial success, offensive strategy was more effective than defensive strategy for high-tech products and offensive/internal-oriented strategy was the most effective for low-tech products.
But the findings should be interpreted with caution, since this study has several limitations in measurement and sampling method. Further research is suggested and encouraged with more elaborated methodology and suitable new product implementation.
