Purpose: During the last 20 years or so the changing environment in which universities operate has meant that commensurately more emphasis has been placed on marketing principles. In light of this emphasis, it is perhaps a little surprising that relatively little attention has been directed towards the processes by which universities develop their products, and the extent to which module and programme development processes are market informed and customer oriented. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach: This paper adopts a case study methodology to examine early stage new product development (NPD) processes in UK higher education (HE) institutions. Findings: The findings reveal some potential shortcomings in the early stages or fuzzy front end of NPD in universities. In particular, there appears to be a lack of staff incentives, financial or otherwise, to innovate and introduce new ideas relating to module and programme development. Research limitations/implications: The issue of sample bias needs to be factored into however, given that these six institutions proactively engaged with this process possibly indicating a recognition or impetus on their part to learn how new programme development could be better understood. That the vast majority of the sample were teaching dominant institutions is also an interesting consideration as this will have an impact on the imperative to improve new programme development processes in an increasingly competitive HE environment. Practical implications: The paper discussed some of the implications for the corporate governance structures of universities and also emphasized the need for cultural change. In this respect, one of the biggest challenges facing universities is to break down or erode the barriers, which exist between academic and non-academic staff and create a "level playing field". Originality/value: As the authors enter an era of higher student fees, the question of value for money combined with an associated increase in the expectations of university stakeholders, will have potentially quite marked implications for universities. Accordingly, the future viability of some degree programmes and, perhaps, even the long-term survival of some institutions may be dependent on the adoption of the sort of changes identified in this paper.