Improving the management of concurrent new product development using process modelling and analysis

This paper focuses on how process modelling and analysis using 'light weight' technology¹ supported by focused group discussions and workshops can improve the 'concurrence' and integration within the New Product Development process. This enables managers to improve the management of product design and development through a better understanding of the issues. The paper argues that the traditional changes in human resource management via introduction of multifunctional/collocated teams required by Concurrent New Product Development (CNPD) can be complemented by the introduction of process management, focused on the modelling and analysis of the 'softer' organisational issues. A case study of a domestic appliance manufacturer, developing a new product using a collocated product development team, is described to verify the research. The paper concludes by discussing the issues that emerge from this type of approach to performance improvement in NPD management, such as involvement of all team functions, senior management commitment, standardisation of processes, and training in the process management concept including modelling and analysis techniques. The approach proposed allows one to make both tangible benefits, in terms of cost, delivery (lead times) and quality, and intangible benefits, in terms of communication, people empowerment, motivation, and collaboration.     

Managing the Sources of Uncertainty: Matching Process and Context in Software Development

There is increasing interest in the literature about the notion of a contingent approach to product development process design. This interest stems from the realization that different types of projects carried out in different environments are likely to require quite different development processes if they are to be successful. Stated more formally, a contingent view implies that the performance impact of different development practices is likely to be mediated by the context in which those practices operate. This article provides evidence to support such a view. Our work examines whether projects in which the development process matches the context achieve superior performance. We focus on two sources of uncertainty that generate challenges for project teams: platform uncertainty, reflecting the uncertainty generated by the amount of new design work that must be undertaken in a project; and market uncertainty, reflecting the uncertainty faced in determining customer requirements for the product under development. We develop hypotheses for how these sources of uncertainty are likely to influence the relationships between a number of specific development practices and performance. We then test these hypotheses using data from a sample of 29 Internet software development projects. Our results provide evidence to support a contingent view of development process design. We show that in projects facing greater uncertainty, investments in architectural design, early technical feedback, and early market feedback have a stronger association with performance. The latter relationships are influenced by the specific sources from which this uncertainty stems: platform uncertainty mediating the impact of early technical feedback and market uncertainty mediating the impact of early market feedback. Our results also indicate that while greater uncertainty is associated with making later changes to a product's design, this practice is not associated with performance. Our findings suggest that managers carefully must evaluate both the levels and sources of uncertainty facing a project before designing the most appropriate process for its execution. In particular, they should explore the use of specific development practices based upon their usefulness in resolving the specific types of uncertainty faced. Importantly, these decisions must be made at the start of a project, with purposeful investments to create a process that best matches the context. Reacting to uncertainty ex‐post, without such investments in place, is unlikely to prove a successful strategy.     

When Product Development Performance Makes a Difference: A Statistical Analysis in the Electronics Industry

Throughout the pages of JPIM and other publications, researchers and practitioners devote considerable effort to identifying the dimensions of new-product development (NPD) performance that relate most closely to business success. Although we may hope to unveil a set of universal truths about the relationship between NPD performance and business success, the relevant NPD performance measures appear to depend on the industry in which a firm competes. In fact, Christian Terwiesch, Christoph Loch, and Martin Niederkofler suggest that the overall relevance of NPD performance to business success depends on the firm's competitive market environment. In a study of 86 business units operating in 12 different electronics industries worldwide, they develop a market contingency framework for understanding the impact of NPD performance on a firm's profitability. Their study uses data from the “Excellence in Electronics” project, a joint research effort by Stanford University, the University of Augsburg, and McKinsey & Co. They describe market context in terms of three dimensions: market share, market growth, and external stability—that is, the average product life cycle duration in the market. Looking at all 86 business units in the study, they find that industry membership accounts for 23% of the variance in profits, with 18 percent of the variance determined by industry profitability and 5% by the three dimensions of market context. For the firms in the study, development performance has the most significant effect in slow-growth markets and in markets with long product life cycles. In these stable industries, low development intensity, product line freshness, and technical product performance increase profitability. The results indicate that NPD performance plays a much more important role for explaining the profitability of dominant firms than that of the low-market-share firms in the study. NPD performance explains 30% of the profitability variance among the high-market-share business units in the study, but none of the variance for the low-market-share business units. Although the profitability of the smaller firms in the study is driven primarily by the industry environment, these firms can compete on the basis of superior technical performance.     

Book Reviews

The first review describes the eighth book we have reviewed on the general topic of faster new product development. This book is distinguished by its emphasis on human issues, especially in the context of contracted development for an original equipment manufacturer. The second review covers a book that contrasts the Japanese and U.S. approach to product development. The book indicates that U.S. companies should put more emphasis on early predevelopment activities. The third review describes how Kodak's black and white film-making operation was overhauled by a team effort. Our reviewer suggests that many of the book's team-building lessons must be adopted for any company to change its culture and improve its product development performance. The fourth review describes a short book about quality function deployment (QFD). Although the book lacks specific product development examples, the reviewer recommends it as a helpful primer on this important product development tool. The fifth review reports on a technology management book. The book comprises a series of separately authored chapters on varied issues, some of which are directly pertinent to developers of technology-based new products. The reviews conclude with a brief note about a book on rapid prototyping.     

A model of value assessment in collaborative R&D programs

This study examines the tasks, processes, and frameworks central to performance assessment in collaborative research organizations. The domain of the study is the partnered learning approach to research and development (R&D) management. The empirical results highlight relationships between context (center scale) and performance (value perceived by industry sponsors) in such R&D collaborations. Insights from this research are broadly applicable to the maintenance of alliances among firms involved in collaborative R&D and are generalizable to that context. Data gathered from a national population of 58 National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored centers over a 3-year period reveal significant evolutionary patterns in the development of collaborative relationships. Successful industry university consortia leverage four core process relationships: (1) the creation of research capacity yielding advances in process and product knowledge; (2) technology transfer behaviors within the participants' organizations; (3) participant satisfaction with the outcomes; and (4) the continuity of industry sponsor support, i.e., commitment to the collaboration.     

Building Dynamic Capabilities in New Product Development through Intertemporal Integration

Although successful development of a given product may help explain the current success of a firm, creating longer‐term competitive advantage demands significantly more attention to developing and nurturing dynamic integration capabilities. These capabilities propel product development activities in ways that build on and develop technological and marketing capabilities for future product development efforts and create platforms for future product development. In this article, we develop a conceptual model of a dynamic integration process in product development, which we call intertemporal integration (ITI). In its most general form ITI is defined as the process of collecting, interpreting, and internalizing technological and marketing capabilities from past new product development projects and incorporating that knowledge in a systematic and purposeful manner into the development of future new products. Research propositions outlining the relationship of ITI to performance are presented. We provide specific examples of managerial mechanisms to be used in implementing ITI. We conclude with implications for research and practice. Effective management of ITI can increase new product development success and long‐term competitive advantage. This implies that management needs to engage in activities that gather and transform information and knowledge from prior development projects so that it can be used in future development projects. Project audits, design databases in computer‐aided design (CAD) systems, engineering notebooks, collections of test and experimental results, market research and test market results, project management databases, and other activities will all be important in the acquisition of knowledge from prior new product development (NPD) projects. Managers also should initiate the creation and maintenance of databases of technical and marketing information from prior projects, job performance reports, seminars and workshops related to technological issues and advances, and publication of technical journals to assist in the process of knowledge acquisition. Similarly, techniques such as assigning project managers from earlier development projects, reusing key components and technologies, and developing a company‐wide methodology for managing projects can be used to boost the application and use of knowledge.     

Product and Process Modularity's Effects on Manufacturing Agility and Firm Growth Performance

Modularity in product design has been hailed as a way to speed new product development (NPD), to reduce NPD cost, and to enhance customization possibilities for consumers. Modularity in process design may speed new product manufacturing setup times, reduce costs, and enhance the profitability of the lower volumes that customization often entails. However, empirical evidence is scarce that either product or process modularity—individually, jointly, or sequentially—actually produce these or other proposed benefits (e.g., performance growth). This study builds on general modular systems theory (GMST) by examining the theoretical relationship between product and process modularity and the effects of each on firm growth performance. Using structural equation modeling, partial versus complete mediation by manufacturing agility is also scrutinized. In one pair of models, product modularity and process modularity are separate direct antecedents to manufacturing agility, which is modeled to affect firm growth performance; in a second pair of models, product and process modularity are related antecedents to manufacturing agility, with product modularity preceding process modularity. Results from the best‐fitting model show that product modularity directly and positively affects process modularity, manufacturing agility, and firm growth performance. Process modularity was unrelated to manufacturing agility, and neither process modularity nor manufacturing agility predicted growth performance. Consistent with GMST, the study provides empirical evidence of the power of one element of a modular system to orchestrate a fit between a firm's product and manufacturing strategies and to directly drive system performance. Thus, modularity in product design is revealed as the key to understanding GMST effects concerning how changes in one system generate changes in other systems.     

"Managing" Learning by Doing: An Empirical Study in Semiconductor Manufacturing

This article examines the contributions of human resource and organizational practices to the development and supply chain management interface. It addresses this issue in the context of the semiconductor industry by highlighting the importance of these practices for learning‐based improvement in manufacturing. One of the most important factors for competitiveness in the semiconductor industry is the ability to manufacture new process technologies with high yields and low cycle times. The more effective management of new process technologies within the manufacturing facility aids firms in managing production costs, volumes, and inventories. Efficient management of new process development and introduction translates into enhanced internal supply chain management performance by improving the design of internal workflows, manufacturing performance, and the acquisition and installation of new manufacturing processes. Because much of the knowledge that underpins semiconductor manufacturing is idiosyncratic, however, firm‐level differences in human resource and organizational practices are likely to have consequences for performance. The article derives learning curve models of the rate of improvement in manufacturing yield (i.e., the rate of learning) and cycle time (i.e., the speed of production) following the introduction of a new process technology in a manufacturing facility. It then tests the influence of the use by semiconductor manufacturers of teams for problem solving and intrafirm knowledge transfer, the level of internal adoption of information technology (IT), and more extensive and effective workflow and production scheduling systems on manufacturing performance. It finds that the manners in which semiconductor manufacturers allocate engineering resources to problem‐solving activities, utilize information technology in the manufacturing facility, schedule production, and control the “shop floor” influence the levels and rates of improvement in both manufacturing performance measures. The article makes several contributions to the literature on product and process development and, accordingly, to research on the product development/supply chain interface. In particular, the model of organizational‐based learning provides a better understanding of the determinants of learning‐based performance improvement. In particular, better manufacturing performance results not strictly from greater cumulative volume but also from the actions of managers that affect the organization of establishment‐level problem‐solving activities and information exchange. The article also demonstrates that human resource and organizational practices in both the development and the adoption of new process technologies improve manufacturing performance by accelerating new product introduction, improving workflow, and enhancing the efficiency of manufacturing processes.     

An exploratory study of product development in emerging economies: evidence from medical device testing in India

Recent research has studied innovation in emerging economies. However, microlevel product development processes in these economies are relatively unexplored, and the mechanisms by which the emerging economy context might affect such processes are still unclear. In this paper, we explore the testing routines fundamental to product development in one emerging economy. Based on an exploratory field study of medical device development projects in India, we observe the frequent, iterative testing of prototypes in clinical settings and investigate the related learning process. The observed testing approach is distinctly different from the comparatively linear and sequential approach adopted by medical device development teams in developed countries like the United States. Further, we suggest that such testing is feasible in India because of the prevailing regulatory flexibility, the cognitive orientation of device development practitioners and the normative orientation of medical professionals.     

Structural and relational influences on the role of reward interdependence in product innovation

This study examines the relationship between reward interdependence, or the extent to which managers' rewards are tied to the performance of colleagues in other functions, and product innovation. It also considers how structural and relational features of the organizational context might moderate this relationship. Our analysis of a sample of Canadian‐based firms reveals a positive relationship between reward interdependence and product innovation that is invigorated at higher levels of job rotation, social interaction, and interactional fairness, but we find no evidence of a moderating effect of decision autonomy. Consistent with a systems approach to organizational contingencies, we also find that the reward interdependence–product innovation relationship is stronger when the organization's context comes closer to an ‘ideal’ holistic configuration that is most conducive to knowledge exchange within the organization, with a more prominent role played by the relational sub‐context (social interaction and interactional fairness) than the structural sub‐context (job rotation and decision autonomy). The findings have important implications for innovation research as they shed light on how the extent to which individual rewards are tied to collective performance can be channeled to enhance innovation pursuits.