Tacit Knowledge, Lessons Learnt, and New Product Development Keith Goffin and Ursula Koners New product development (NPD) is a complex activity that is dependent on knowledge and learning. Much of the knowledge generated in NPD is tacit; it is difficult to express, connected with problem solving, and dependent on the interactions within teams. Post-project reviews (PPRs) are recognized as a highly effective mechanism for stim- ulating learning in NPD teams but, surprisingly, neither the typical ‘‘lessons learnt’’ that emerge from PPRs nor the role of tacit knowledge in NPD learning have previously been studied. To address this gap, five in-depth case studies were conducted at leading German companies. Three main sources of data were used: interviews with experienced NPD personnel using repertory grid technique, inspection of company process and project documentation, and observations of PPR discussions. Systematic coding of the qualitative data was conducted by two researchers working in parallel and verified through checks involving independent researchers. The coding process identified the lessons learnt and also the usage of metaphors and stories (which signifies tacit knowledge generation). The lessons that NPD personnel perceive to be the most important were identified from the repertory grid data. These included: knowing how to deal with project budgets, solving technical problems, meeting schedules, resource management, and managing organizational complexity. Four lessons learnt appear to be particularly closely linked to tacit knowledge: dealing with project budgets, problem solving, coping with time schedules, and coping with changes in product specifications. Data triangulation showed that the five companies did not capture many lessons in their reports on PPRs. In addition, it appears that the learning that was related to tacit knowledge was not captured for dissemination. Although the results from our exploratory sample cannot be generalized, there are some important implications. The results indicate that R&D managers should capitalize on the tacit knowledge within their organizations through mentoring (to transfer the lessons that are most closely linked to tacit knowledge), and encouraging the use of metaphors and stories to transfer key NPD knowledge. Future research needs to verify the results using a larger sample, focus on how NPD professionals learn, and identify the mechanisms that facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge and project-to-project learning. Tacit knowledge is a popular management concept but one that is poorly understood, as empirical evidence to demonstrate the validity of the theoretical concepts is sadly lacking. This provides a unique opportunity for NPD scholars—they have the ideal arena in which a deeper understanding of tacit knowledge can be generated. Introduction M anaging new product development (NPD) is a challenging, complex process. In order to maintain a competitive edge, compa- nies need to launch new products faster than their competitors and this is why senior managers perceive NPD as a key competence (Harmsen, Gruner, and Bove, 2000). To develop this competence, it is crucial to learn from each and every NPD project and to ap- ply this learning to subsequent projects. NPD gener- ates a vast amount of knowledge on organizational processes as well as technical knowledge on products (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989). An important way to promote learning is to conduct post-project reviews (PPRs)—formal meetings of the project team to dis- cuss what can be learnt for the future (Bowen, Clark, Holloway, and Wheelwright, 1994; Lane, 2000). Such reviews help identify lessons learnt—‘‘key project ex- periences which have a . . . relevance for future pro- jects’’ (Schindler and Eppler, 2003, p. 220). This article focuses on the lessons that individuals learn from NPD, compared to the learning that emerges from post-project reviews. Five exploratory case studies were conducted to determine what NPD personnel (engineers, project managers, and R&D managers) had learnt from projects. Learning is The authors gratefully acknowledge the interest shown and encour- agement given by Tom Hustad. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their very challenging and insightful comments on the first draft of this article. Finally, many thanks to Alan Cousens and Chris van der Hoven for their support in verifying our coding. Address correspondence to: Keith Goffin, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, UK MK43 0AL. E-mail: k.goffin@cranfield. ac.uk. Tel: 0044-(0)1234-754871. J PROD INNOV MANAG 2011;28:300–318 r 2011 Product Development & Management Association