NPD stands as a pivotal activity for business success, encompassing both complexity and uncertainty. Its complexity arises from the breadth of activities it encompasses, ranging from initial conceptualization, design, production, to marketing (Kagan et al., 2018). As a result, NPD serves as a crucial driver of enterprise success (Morgan & Liker, 2020). Moreover, NPD is a highly interdependent and intricate process (Mishra & Shah, 2009), encompassing product definition, project management, technical schemas, process modeling, organizational structures, departmental integration, and group collaboration (Durmuşoğlu & Barczak, 2011; Florén & Frishammar, 2012). Precisely, it is the interplay of this complexity and creativity that extends the development cycle of NPD (Mishra & Shah, 2009).

The uncertainty surrounding new product development (NPD) has been exacerbated by various external factors, including the rapid pace of innovation, intense industry competition, and shifting environmental landscapes. Consequently, companies are faced with the challenge of creating products that are not only superior but also faster to market and more cost-effective. As technological advancements, particularly those driven by digitization, continue to gain momentum, the complexity and creativity of modern technology are escalating (Marion & Fixson, 2021), thereby compressing the lifespan of products (Gerwin & Barrowman, 2002).

Furthermore, the escalating competitiveness within industries has led to an increase in the uncertainty surrounding customer demand, resulting in a lack of clarity in product definition (Bocken et al., 2014; Florén & Frishammar, 2012). Additionally, strategic environments are constantly in flux due to unexpected events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which has further compounded the already existing uncertainty in the market environment. This volatile landscape poses significant challenges to the development of new products (Cooper, 2021; Griffin et al., 2019).

Therefore, the evolving external environment not only heightens the uncertainty surrounding NPD but also necessitates a heightened focus on speed, quality, and cost-efficiency (Kagan et al., 2018; McNally et al., 2011). Companies must navigate this complex terrain with precision and agility to ensure the successful development and launch of new products.

Consumer participation is an integral part of New Product Development (NPD). The essence of NPD lies in aligning customer demand with the engineering and manufacturing capabilities of enterprises, and a lack of comprehension of customers often serves as the primary cause of NPD failures. Furthermore, NPD emphasizes the capability to fulfill customer requirements and translate them into product specifications and finished goods (Beckman, 2020; Tzortzopoulos et al., 2020). In front-end management, NPD kicks off with customer awareness, encompassing the identification of the latest consumer trends, client needs, and market opportunities. In essence, customer insights serve as pivotal inputs for Integrated Product Development (IPD) (Liedtka, 2020; Robins, 2003).

During the development process, customers engage actively in the NPD process, contributing ideas, testing products, and providing feedback on product development, thus facilitating critical decision-making processes and enhancing development effectiveness (Cooper, 2021; Nicholas & Steyn, 2020). From a future support perspective, client participation strengthens the ability to respond promptly post-product launch, thereby enhancing market responsiveness and adaptability (Quach et al., 2020).

Von Hippel posits that the principal driving force behind NPD is not enterprises, but rather leading users. He introduces the theory of consumer innovation (Von Hippel et al., 2012), emphasizing that these pioneering individuals are adept at recognizing issues and pinpointing novel product development requirements. Subsequently, they devise and test solutions tailored to meet these demands. This shift transforms the NPD innovation paradigm from producer-driven to consumer-centered (Von Hippel, 2017; Von Hippel & Kaulartz, 2021). Enterprise NPD processes should have an advantage in exploring and developing leading users in that they can discover the business value of consumer innovation and develop NPD models based on the concepts of openness and collaboration (Baldwin & Von Hippel, 2011; Griffin et al., 2019).

In summary, user participation is indispensable in new product development. It not only aids enterprises in better understanding and fulfilling customer needs but also drives the smooth progress of the product development process through the provision of crucial inputs and feedback.

IPD, as a practical outcome of NPD, significantly enhances research and development efficiency by integrating internal and external resources and capabilities (Gerwin & Barrowman, 2002). This approach is particularly suitable for managing complex NPD projects and has gradually established itself as a new standard and paradigm for NPD (Ahmad et al., 2013; Sommer et al., 2014).

From the perspective of external integration, IPD deeply integrates customers, suppliers, and strategic partners into the NPD process, effectively reducing the uncertainty of front-end activities (Mishra & Shah, 2009). This ensures that projects are closer to market demands and reduces potential risks.

In terms of internal integration, IPD relies on structured and modular design concepts (Sommer et al., 2014) and leverages core strengths such as high-level support, cross-functional teams, and influential project managers (Boughzala & De Vreede, 2015; Hoonsopon & Puriwat, 2021) to significantly enhance the overall organizational capabilities (Dyer & Smith, 2021). Additionally, IPD focuses on flexibility-driven activities, which enhance information processing capabilities through problem formulation and resolution activities (Ahmad et al., 2013), ensuring that projects can quickly respond to market changes. Furthermore, based on demand-driven, IPD has greatly improved project efficiency by means of parallel development and technical tools (Boughzala & De Vreede, 2015; Cooper, 2021) to ensure that the project can stand out in the highly competitive market environment.

The Lean Startup theory, a remarkable contribution by Eric Ries from Stanford University, is designed to navigate the highly uncertain terrain of entrepreneurship. This framework seamlessly integrates diverse elements such as user development methods (Blank & Dorf, 2012), agile development methodologies (Ries, 2011), and the business model canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010), creating a cohesive and comprehensive system.

Within this theoretical framework, entrepreneurs swiftly gather user feedback through the launch of Minimum Viable Products (MVPs), continuously optimizing and iterating their business models. The Lean Startup theory particularly emphasizes the importance of scientific experimentation, allowing entrepreneurs to precisely validate the quality of their ideas through a series of rigorous tests (Grimes, 2018; McDonald & Eisenhardt, 2020), thereby significantly reducing uncertainty in the startup process (Ehrig & Schmidt, 2022; Yu, 2020).

Moreover, the Lean Startup theory encourages enterprises to operate like startups, actively listening to customers from the initial stages of front-end management and maintaining a keen interest in novel ideas and technologies (Heirmann & Clarysse, 2007). This approach not only fosters employee initiative and a culture of learning through doing, but also challenges existing paradigms through business experiments and scientific trial and error, driving corporate growth.

In practice, companies widely adopt lean principles, agile methodologies, and the Stage-Gates model to accelerate product development while eliminating waste and inefficiencies throughout the ideation-to-launch process (Cooper, 2021; Griffin et al., 2019). The application of these methods not only enhances operational efficiency but also provides entrepreneurs with a viable roadmap to achieving success in a challenging and uncertain market.

Our research on Huawei began in 2001, when Ren Zhengfei, the founder of Huawei, published The Winter of Huawei, which shocked the industry with its awareness of danger in times of peace. Through nearly 20 years of follow-up research, we have accumulated more than 1 million words of material and data about Huawei. The main data sources include: First, IPD guidance materials. Huawei has been adhering to the concept of cooperation and openness to promote the IPD model. Second, internal reports. Collect the internal summary reports and relevant public information of Huawei executives over the years. Thirdly, Huawei research books. There are more than 100 books on Huawei research in China, including 'Will Huawei Fall Next', 'From Chance to Necessity: Huawei's R&D Investment and Management Practice', 'The Way of IPD: Huawei's R&D', 'Huawei Can, You Can: IPD Product Management Practice', 'Huawei Performance Management', 'Huawei Management Law', and so on. Focus on reading works from Huawei executives, covering R&D, human resources (HR) and finance departments, and collating a large number of materials from the front line of management practice. Fourth, network information. Focus on collecting Huawei executives and R&D teams to share IPD experience and practices.

According to the logic of cognition, implementation, process, and performance, we uniformly code Huawei's IPD-related data. Primary coding is A, B, C, and D; secondary coding is done by subscript i (see Table 1); and tertiary coding is done by subscript ‘j’, according to the content of each domain, such as Aij, Bij.

Data processing. Based on the data sources listed above, we focus on filtering the relevant raw data of Huawei in the IPD practice process, ensuring the reliability and validity of the case materials through "triangle verification" (Yin, 2009). By considering the relationship among the research theme, research data, and theoretical basis, the research team repeatedly refines, compares, verifies, and iterates the data to maintain their consistency and objectivity and minimize biased conclusions.

During the rigid phase (1999–2004), Huawei was busy digesting, understanding, and refining IPD. Following the launch of the IPD project, four product development teams (PDT) were chosen as pioneers, embarking on the IPD pilot in 2000 (B11). By 2001, 30 % of PDTs had adopted IPD (B12), and by 2002, the figure had risen to 70 % (B13). It took Huawei five years to gradually unwrap and experiment with IPD (B14). Ren Zhengfei, the visionary leader, believed that initial rigidity was not a bad thing, emphasizing that "before deeply grasping the essence, we must refrain from hastily altering others' perspectives "(B15) .This cautious approach paved the way for Huawei's eventual success in integrating IPD into its core operations.

In 2004, Huawei embarked on a journey towards enhancing product lifecycle management, gradually delving into the core functionalities of the Integrated Product Development (IPD) framework. By 2005, the company seamlessly integrated IPD with market management (MM) and order requirement (OR) processes, laying the foundation for an end-to-end IPD process and demand-driven product development (B21). Since 2006, Huawei has progressively aligned its production, manufacturing, procurement, and R&D activities, effectively integrating the quality management system with the IPD process (B22). Through relentless efforts in optimization and improvement, Huawei's development team of 100,000 individuals has achieved the nimbleness characteristic of a small-to-medium enterprise, enabling them to swiftly and cost-effectively respond to customer needs (B23). As an example, in the telecommunications market, Huawei innovatively introduced the "IPD Solution Process," providing customers with comprehensive solutions encompassing products, services, global training, and customer support (B24).

During the solidification phase, Huawei reinforced its IPD framework through a trifecta of routinization, standardization, and ITization. Routinization involved transforming exceptional occurrences into routine matters through the establishment of systems and procedures, ultimately transforming them into standardized regulations and practices (B31). Standardization focused on templating clear and repeatable processes, converting all standard work into standardized templates, ensuring that any engineer could access all necessary learning resources on the internal learning network. As Xu Zhijun aptly stated, "New employees need not seek assistance from veterans" (B32). ITization, on the other hand, entailed leveraging software tools like Notes office to digitize and streamline all processes, enabling online execution. Essentially, the solidification stage aimed to streamline processes, enhance collaboration, and boost work efficiency (B33).

Product portfolio management is the core of market management. The goal of Huawei's investments in products is to pursue value maximization, profits, long-term core competitiveness, and the interests of customers and industrial chain ecological partners (C11). After Huawei changed from a "fast follower and active competitor" to an industry leader, Xu Zhijun, rotating chairman of Huawei's board, believed that "management needs to gain a deep insight into industry trends to ensure that Huawei does not lose its direction on the road to industrial development" (C12). The core of market segmentation is finding valuable customers who can provide the right input for the IPD process. Ren Zhengfei believes that "Huawei has limited capabilities and can only focus on choosing valuable customers as strategic partners" (C13). Market management provides consistent methods and processes for analysis, and it encourages management to constantly adjust the product portfolio through lifecycle management while monitoring market performance.

The core of requirement management is finding a clear product development roadmap. Huawei has been enforcing the "customer-centered" concept for a long time, understanding consumers’ needs under various scenarios and cases, and discovering customers' pain points in order to improve understanding of consumer demand (C21). Ren Zhengfei believes that "consumers should be the end users, not just the market operators," and when demand shifts, Huawei should have sensitive insights (C22). Through the collection, analysis, distribution, implementation, and verification of demand, Huawei implements the overall management of consumer demands from business opportunity to value realization. Demands are separately processed in three categories: long-term demand, mid-term demand, and product package demand, while emergency demand is handled through a plan change request (PCR) and added to the currently developing product or solution design to simultaneously fulfill both the mid-to long-term as well as the emergency demands of consumers (C23).

The IPD process divides the NPD into six stages: concept, planning, development, validation, launch, and lifecycle management (see Fig. 1). There is a clear goal for each of the stages, and four decision checkpoints (DCPs) are defined in the process: concept DCP, planning DCP, availability DCP for the pre-launch period, and lifecycle termination DCP for the post-launch period (C31). There are consistent measurement criteria for each DCP, and the product can only proceed to the next DCP after the prescribed work and quality requirements are met and completed (C32). Moreover, technology review points (TR) are placed in the concept, planning, and development stages to ensure that the end-to-end management requirements are satisfied (C33).

After the implementation of IPD, Huawei underwent a structural change from a pure R&D mode to a cross-departmental team collaborative development and joint responsibility mode. The cross-departmental team model is organized as a matrix. The team manager is appointed by the company and is responsible for the team results, and the members are selected from the functional departments, covering development, testing, R&D, marketing, technical services, finance, supply, procurement, quality control, and other departments (C41). The Integrated Portfolio Management Team (IPMT) and the Investment Review Board (IRB) are the management teams. The IRB coordinates strategy and investment management across departments and divisions, while the IPMT is responsible for the basic unit of fundamental business and production and also coordinates the senior team across departments and manages the product portfolio (C42). The PDT is responsible for the execution. They complete the project objectives in a timely, accurate, and high-quality manner under the constraint of limited investment resources (C43). Huawei performs end-to-end collaborative management of new products from development, testing, production, and marketing, and the cross-departmental team is responsible for the overall project success (C44). The parallel engineering development mode enables manufacturing, procurement, and marketing preparation to be completed at the same time as product testing, thereby shortening the development time (C45).

In 1998, IBM consultants diagnosed Huawei and listed dozens of problems in its R&D management, such as ignoring customer needs and the existence of departmentalism. We examine the main problems and their solutions (see Table 2) (D11). In an interview with Fortune in 2012, Xu Zhijun said, "Although our R&D teams consist of more than seventy thousand people, they can still carry out their work in an orderly manner, and this is the result of our cooperation with IBM to carry out the PD reform" (D12).

Huawei's IPD implementation focuses on the reliability, manufacturability, deliverability, and serviceability of products at the front-end management of NPD to improve the efficiency of manufacturing, supply, sales, delivery, and service. After Huawei's official IPD implementation, followed by five years of practice, the average product R&D cycle was shortened from 84 weeks to 54.5 weeks; the product failure rate decreased from 17 % to 1.3 %, and the customer satisfaction rating increased from 79 % to 85 % (D21). Sales revenue grew from US3.8 billion in 2003 to US22.3 billion in 2008, with an average annual growth rate of 77 % (D22). Compared with PRTM recommended targets and IBM's actual growth, Huawei's IPD projects achieved the expected gains (D23) (see Table 3).

The value of the IPD project is far-reaching and multi-dimensional. Ren Zhengfei's view that "the essence of IPD is from opportunity to commercial realization" (D31) reveals the core role of IPD in the process of value creation.

First of all, the IPD project has actively explored an innovative management mode. Huawei has always regarded technology investment as a strategic move, striving to maintain a leading position in the field of technology (D32). However, the core of business logic is to meet customer needs. Therefore, Huawei has built a virtuous circle mechanism between innovation management and business model. That is, to develop products based on customer needs, and to build a future architecture platform based on technology (D33). The establishment of this model has built a bridge between innovation management and business value creation for enterprises.

Secondly, the IPD project updates the concept of product development. Huawei has changed from traditional technology orientation to customer demand orientation, and regards new product development as an investment behavior. The concept of "engineering businessman" (D34) proposed by Ren Zhengfei emphasizes the business literacy that engineers need to possess in the process of product development. He further pointed out that the invention of scientists can only be transformed into a commercially valuable product when the window of opportunity for the real generation of customer needs arises (D35). This change of concept will help enterprises to grasp market demand more accurately and improve the success rate of product development.

In addition, the IPD project has also enhanced the sustainable innovation management capability of enterprises. Under the guidance of IBM consultants, after more than ten years of understanding and digestion, Huawei has successfully integrated IPD into its own organizational system, and combined it with BLM (Business Leadership Model) to build an iterative closed-loop of innovation management and business value. This IPD paradigm of cross-departmental team model is especially suitable for the management of large and complex projects, and helps enterprises to achieve more efficient and systematic innovation management.

Finally, the IPD project has improved Huawei's ability to cope with uncertainty. Huawei has been able to maintain steady business growth in the face of continued sanctions and a series of challenges from the US government. Although the limited supply of chips has had a certain impact on some businesses in the short term, Huawei has successfully coped with the challenges brought by external uncertainties by adjusting its business structure and increasing R&D investment. This fully demonstrates the important role of IPD projects in enhancing the resilience and risk resistance of enterprises.

In summary, Huawei's IPD project has successfully provided a practical solution to address pain points in the short term. From a medium-term perspective, the project has basically achieved the expected revenue targets. And from a long-term viewpoint, IPD has not only brought remarkable progress to Huawei in terms of innovative management models and product development concepts, but also achieved outstanding results in enhancing continuous innovation management capabilities and the ability to respond to uncertainty. These achievements undoubtedly inject powerful momentum into Huawei's sustainable development and provide solid support.

While Huawei recognizes the "window of opportunity" presented by technological leadership, it still faces shortcomings in integrating technological transformation, innovation, and entrepreneurship. The IPD paradigm places significant emphasis on the process and management of product development but is less effective in stimulating internal entrepreneurial passion and promoting the commercialization of innovative achievements. To overcome this limitation, Huawei can consider fostering an "entrepreneurial culture" by establishing internal venture funds and organizing entrepreneurship competitions to stimulate employees' innovative spirit and entrepreneurial enthusiasm. Additionally, the company should create a value loop for technological achievements to ensure that technological innovations can be translated into commercial value and achieve an effective connection between technology and the market.

Although the IPD paradigm identifies business opportunities through market management and demand management, there is still room for improvement in terms of business insight. The demand management process has not fully accounted for customer segmentation and focus, nor has it provided deep insight into customer workflows, pain points, and benefits. To address this, Huawei can enhance the refinement and dynamism of customer profiles and more accurately grasp customer needs and market trends through big data analysis, user research, and other means. Furthermore, Huawei can prioritize the development and management of lead users to achieve differentiated product competition by tapping into and shaping market demand.

Regarding agile development, Huawei has made progress in implementing agile engineering but still needs to strengthen the development and iteration of the minimum viable product (MVP). Agile development requires companies to respond quickly to market changes and achieve rapid product iteration and upgrading through continuous experimentation, optimization, and learning. To achieve this goal, Huawei can enhance its understanding and application of MVP concepts and validate the feasibility and market acceptance of product ideas through rapid prototyping and testing. Simultaneously, an effective "develop-measure-learn" feedback loop should be established to ensure continuous product improvement and optimization during the development process.

In conclusion, while the IPD paradigm has limitations in terms of entrepreneurial ideas, customer insight, and agile development, Huawei can overcome these challenges and achieve more efficient and innovative product development by fostering an entrepreneurial culture, enhancing customer insight, and deepening its commitment to agile development practices.

As market pioneers, leading users possess excellent problem insight, solution development, and verification capabilities (Von Hippel, 2017). They can assist enterprises in addressing the most risky and costly aspects of new product development, such as requirement identification, scheme design, and preliminary inspection. By incorporating leading users into IPD, enterprises can gain deeper insights into both technology and the market (Von Hippel & Kaulartz, 2021), providing strong support for product innovation.

In terms of customer development, we ensure the authenticity of customer needs and the feasibility of business logic through rigorous exploration and validation. We are committed to clarifying customer segmentation, building angel user groups, and tightly integrating them with IPD to enhance its business insight.

Agile development is a crucial strategy for enterprises to respond swiftly to market changes. By mastering the skills and methods of developing MVPs (minimum viable products) (Ries, 2011), enterprises invite leading users to participate in the MVP design and development process. Through continuous and rapid MVP iterations, enterprises can accelerate the development and validation of new products, thereby improving innovation efficiency.

As the fundamental framework for value creation, delivery, and acquisition, optimizing the business model is crucial for the long-term development of enterprises. To facilitate clearer customer segment management and product management, we recommend utilizing the business model canvas tool (Osterwalder et al., 2015). This approach focuses on individual products and customer segments (Wang et al., 2022), analyzing and optimizing each of the nine key sectors individually. Based on this, rapid iteration of the business model occurs. Subsequently, through effective customer segment management and product management, we can achieve synergistic effects and realize scenario-based business model management.

In conclusion, optimizing the IPD paradigm enables enterprises to better adapt to the demands and challenges of the digital age. We anticipate continuously refining the IPD paradigm and generating greater business value for enterprises through sustained effort and innovation.6. Research conclusions and prospects