Success Factors for Integrating Suppliers into New Product Development

Faster, better, cheaper—these marching orders summarize the challenge facing new product development (NPD). In other words, NPD teams must find the means for speeding time to market while also improving product quality and reducing product costs. Cross-functional teams have proved effective for meeting these challenges, and such teams may extend beyond company boundaries to include key materials suppliers. Effective integration of suppliers into NPD can yield such benefits as reduced cost and improved quality of purchased materials, reduced product development time, and improved access to and application of technology. As Gary Ragatz, Robert Handfield, and Thomas Scannell point out, however, those benefits do not automatically accrue to any NPD team that includes representatives from a supplier's company. In a study of 60 member companies from the Michigan State University Global Procurement and Supply Chain Electronic Benchmarking Network, they explore the management practices and the environmental factors that relate most closely to successful integration of suppliers into the NPD process. The study identifies supplier membership on the NPD project team as the greatest differentiator between most and least successful integration efforts. Although the respondents reported only moderate use of shared education and training, the study cites this management factor as another significant differentiator between most and least successful efforts. Respondents listed direct, cross-functional, intercompany communication as the most widely used technique for integrating suppliers into NPD. To integrate suppliers into NPD, a company must overcome such barriers as resistance to sharing proprietary information, and the not-invented-here syndrome. The results of this study suggest that overcoming such barriers depends on relationship structuring—that is, shared education and training, formal trust development processes, formalized risk/reward sharing agreements, joint agreement on performance measurements, top management commitment from both companies, and confidence in the supplier's capabilities. Overcoming these barriers also depends on assett sharing, including intellectual assets such as customer requirements, technology information, and cross-functional communication; physical assets such as linked information systems, technology, and shared plant and equipment; and human assets such as supplier participation on the project team and co-location of personnel.     

The Effects of Cognitive Problem-Solving Orientation and Technological Familiarity on Faster New Product Development

This study examines the relationships between speed of development and the cognitive problemsolving orientations of both members of the team and the project leader when they work with more familiar or less familiar technologies. Edward McDonough and Gloria Barczak collected data from 32 new product development projects in 12 British companies. They report that technological familiarity moderates the relationship between speed of development and the cognitive problem-solving orientation of both project leaders and project teams and they explore implications of these results for R&D managers.     

Organizing for Product Development Projects

How should companies organize to support the development of new products? Erik Larson and David Gobeli assessed the relative effectiveness of five different project management structures by comparing the performance of 540 development projects in terms of cost, schedule and technical performance. The findings contradict Peters and Waterman's popular conclusion that project teams are superior to matrix structures for developing new products and services. Both the balanced matrix and project matrix compared favorably with project teams in terms of cost, schedule and technical performance. Furthermore, the project matrix received a stronger recommendation from managers than the project team. Little support was found for either the functional or functional matrix approach to project management.     

Communication Flows in International Product Innovation Teams

Recently, we have witnessed a strong growth in the internationalization of many firms' product development activities. However, the lack of attention devoted by scientific research to the management of international innovation contrasts sharply with the importance attached to it as a cornerstone of international business success. Although several empirical studies and normative theories have specified the communication requirements in innovation teams, an empirically based insight is definitely needed on the communication requirements and requirements that prevail in the complex context of international innovation teams, in which the participants are located in different company units, countries, and cultures. This article addresses the following research question: viewing international innovation as an interfunctional activity, what are the communication requirements an international innovation team is facing, and what are the communication capabilities (interface mechanisms) that may be adopted to initiate, develop, and launch the new product effectively and efficiently? An extensive case study research project was designed to develop a comprehensive theoretical framework. Over a two year time period, the research team has investigated selected innovation projects in four European multinational corporations. The analysis of the case study data suggests five requirements that determine the effectiveness and efficiency of communication in international product development teams: network transparency, knowledge codification, knowledge credibility, communication cost, secrecy. To cope with these communication requirements, organizations may create firm level capabilities (parallel structures, cross‐functional and inter‐unit climate, communication infrastructure, goal congruence) and team level capabilities (core team, team leadership, formalization, procedural justice). The evidence from the in‐depth case study research indicates that these mechanisms provide a parsimonious and powerful approach to address the communication requirements in international product innovation teams. After the information processing framework proposed by Tushman and Nadler [124], the adoption of these mechanisms is expected to improve innovation effectiveness. This holds important consequences for the management of international product innovation projects. First, the innovating firm must balance centralization and decentralization, employ formal as well as informal strategies, and integrate ad‐hoc and permanent strategies. Second, it highlights the critical role of the project leader. Given the fact that companies often select the most available person, rather than the best person for the job, the allocation of light weight project leaders may create heavyweight problems in international teams. Third, following the argument in favor of procedural justice, the absence of involvement may severely hinder cross‐functional commitment to international innovation projects. Fourth, the innovating firm must also actively manage the communication flows with external parties. Failure to do so may result in flawed specifications, and a limited understanding about product design and market strategies.     

Experiential Education In New Product Design And Business Development

We describe an experiential approach to teaching new product design and business development in a year‐long course that combines intensive project work with classroom education. Our course puts together up to six teams of graduate students from management and engineering who work on projects sponsored by individual companies. Student teams work with faculty from multiple disciplines and personnel from the sponsoring companies. The year‐long format and involvement with company personnel provide opportunities for students to gain hands‐on experience in a real product development project. Time constraints, coupled with students' determination to demonstrate what they can accomplish, stimulate teams to learn how to compress the design and development cycle. To help students generalize from their own projects to a wider universe of product design and business development phenomena, students participate continuously in constructive critiques of others' projects; and in presentations, case discussions and workshops that help them learn about the product and business development process itself. This article describes course objectives, syllabus, projects, sponsors, faculty, students and our course administration. In an effort to move towards a “paperless” course, we have put as much of the course material as possible on the World Wide Web; relevant websites are referred to in the article. At the end of the course each team presents a prototype and a protoplan to the sponsoring company in a final report, which in many cases includes suggestions for the sponsor on how to improve its design and development process. Students' positive evaluations, along with their comments, indicate that they are attaining their educational goals. Course projects have resulted in commercialized products, patents, continuing development projects in sponsoring companies, and placements for students. The course has generated public relations value for the units involved and for the university as a whole. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.     

The Difficult Path to Lean Product Development

Lean product development holds the promise of dramatically improving a company's competitive position. Its implementation offers the potential for faster product development with fewer engineering hours, improved manufacturability of products, higher quality products, fewer production start-up problems, and faster time to market. Of course, all of this improves the likelihood of market success. As Christer Karlsson and Pär Åhlström point out, however, a company attempting to implement lean product development must overcome numerous obstacles. By spending more than 2 years observing and facilitating one company's efforts to make this transition, they were able to identify various factors that either hinder or support the implementation of lean product development. Lean product development comprises numerous interrelated techniques, including supplier involvement, cross-functional teams, concurrent engineering, integration (as opposed to coordination) of various functional aspects of each project, the use of a heavyweight team structure, and strategic management of each development project. However, a company does not achieve lean product development simply by implementing some of these techniques. A successful move toward lean product development requires approaching these interrelated techniques as elements of a coherent whole. As observed in the subject company, several factors can hinder attempts to achieve lean product development. For example, managerial overemphasis on R&D in development projects hampers efforts to achieve cross-functional integration. In other words, creating a team with members from various functions is easier than achieving a cross-functional focus throughout an organization. Similarly, a cross-functional team cannot perform effectively if a sequential view of the development process persists. Factors that support the transition to lean product development include: tight development schedules, which contribute to a must-do attitude; close cooperation with a qualified customer, who can provide vital information as well as challenge the development team; highly competent engineers; and, most important, the active, ongoing support and participation of top management. Most participants in the process examined in this study seemed interested in the possibilities of lean product development, which suggests that motivation to change may not pose a significant problem in similar efforts.     

From Experience: Securing Sponsors and Funding for New Product Development Projects—The Human Side of Enterprise

Gaining approval for a project requires playing a role that may be unfamiliar for many new-product development (NPD) professionals—that of salesperson. The NPD professional must sell management on the market potential of the product concept, and persuade management to commit the resources needed for transforming the concept into a marketable product. Finding a well-placed sponsor within the company's management ranks can improve the chances of obtaining approval for a project, but securing sponsorship is, in many respects, yet another sales job. Gary Tighe offers guidance for NPD professionals who must sell their projects to potential sponsors. He describes the key steps in the process of securing a sponsor, he gives guidelines for choosing the right sponsor based on the nature of the project, and he provides practical advice for developing a presentation that will gain the support of a prospective sponsor and company management. He then presents a vignette that illustrates the principles he discusses. He identifies three elements that are necessary for securing a sponsor and obtaining funding for a proposed project: clearly defining the project, its scope, and its objective; specifying how the proposed project affects the prospective sponsor and that person's organization; and detailing the project's effects on revenue, profits, cost, or output. These elements forge a strong link between project outcomes and the interests of the sponsor, the sponsor's organization, and the company as a whole. Choosing the right sponsor requires careful consideration of the project's expected effects on specific functional areas and the entire organization, the resources required, the project objectives, and time constraints. For example, senior management sponsorship is essential for projects that cut across existing organizational boundaries. After helping to ensure that projects receive adequate funding, sponsors may serve as advisers to project teams, and they may provide additional resources if a team encounters unexpected problems. Through regular progress reports and sponsor participation in team meetings, the project team can ensure the active, ongoing support of the sponsor.     

Company Competencies as a Network: The Role of Product Development

Product development managers and academics like to assure themselves and each other that new product development is one of the most critical areas of company competence and contributes positively to company success. But does top management agree? Because if they do not, the consequences will heavily influence the resource allocation to product development and career possibilities of new product developments manager. This study examines how top managers view the importance of product development relative to other central competence areas. Although asking managers about their perception is one way of evaluating the importance, its contribution to company success is another important measure. In this study, the impact of product development, relative to other important competence areas, is measured to assess further how critical product development is for overall company success.The authors investigate these matters in a survey of top managers in 513 Danish production companies. Ten areas important for achieving company objectives are identified. These are product development, market intelligence, production management, strategy and vision, sales, market responsiveness, promotion, internal co-operation, image, and supply management. Product development is rated a fairly important competence as it ranks number four, with sales, market responsiveness, and production management ranking numbers one to three. Yet a distressing negative impact on overall company success is found for product development proficiency, whereas success is positively related to production management, image, and differentiation of products. Further analysis reveals that product development contributes positively to success by enabling product differentiation and enhancing promotion proficiency. Influenced by and influencing many other competencies, product development is found to be a central competence.Results support a nonfunctional and broad perspective of how bundles of competences interact and impact on success and establish a positive overall contribution to product development.     

How Canon and Sony Drive Product Innovation Through Networking and Application-Focused R&D

To ensure the ongoing vitality of a company's product offerings, R&D professionals must play a daunting array of roles. The already rapid, yet still accelerating, pace of technological change may lead some companies to devote more resources to intensive internal research efforts. However, the shift toward global competition demands a more market-oriented focus from R&D; clear understanding of current and potential markets must drive R&D efforts. And efficient, cost-effective manufacturing of new products requires an R&D organization that understands and interacts effectively with the production department. How does a company create an environment in which its R&D organization comprises market-savvy, production-friendly experts in diverse technologies? With case studies of R&D efforts at Canon and Sony, Sigvald Harryson identifies and illustrates the key mechanisms that these companies use to foster product innovation. His examples show how Canon and Sony use a combination of external and internal networking mechanisms to identify and acquire key technologies and related skills, gain market knowledge, improve the results of internal R&D efforts, and ensure the successful transfer of these results to efficient production processes. He identifies four key mechanisms underlying successful product innovation at Canon and Sony: strategic training and job rotation for engineers, application-driven R&D, direct transfer of development teams from R&D to production, and extensive networking with external centers of excellence and key suppliers. At Canon, the initial training program for all researchers and engineers begins with three months of work on a production line. Sony's new researchers and development engineers spend one month in production. Both companies also give their new R&D professionals three months of training in sales and marketing. The emphasis on market-driven research at both companies means that researchers have identified some commercial application for almost every initial research proposal that gains approval. Neither company treats research as a long-term assignment; almost all engineers at both companies eventually move from the labs to production. And rather than viewing this job rotation strategy as a drain on the technological expertise in their labs, both companies rely on strong external networks with key suppliers and university-based researchers as important sources for acquiring new technologies and the competencies needed to support them.     

An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams

This paper presents the results of an investigation of differences between global, virtual and colocated new product development (NPD) teams. Specifically, we examined whether and how these three types of teams differed in terms of usage, challenges, and performance. A survey of PDMA members was undertaken to collect the data. Out of 103 firms participating in the survey, 54 had used or were using global teams for some of their NPD efforts. Overall, we found that the use of global teams in our respondent firms is rapidly increasing. Our respondents indicated that by the year 2001, approximately one out of every five NPD teams in their companies are likely to be global. However, our respondents also expect that their companies will be using multiple types of teams that is, global, virtual, and colocated, to develop their new products. Our findings also suggest that global teams generally face greater behavioral and project management challenges than either colocated or virtual teams. Global team performance is also lower than the performance of virtual or colocated teams. Are these challenges associated with poorer performance? In examining this question, our results suggest that greater project management challenges are associated with lower performance, for all three types of teams. Surprisingly, behavioral challenges were not associated with performance for any team type. Our results suggest that firms face different problems associated with managing each type of NPD team—global, virtual and colocated. To effectively manage each type of team may, in turn, require that companies and their managers employ different solutions to these different problems. Additionally, companies may find that the preparation they provide to their managers and team members to work in these different team environments may also need to be different. Further research is clearly needed to address these managerial implications.     

An Empirical Study of Platform and Derivative Product Development Projects

Many firms now realize the importance of planning product families and product platforms. However, little research addresses planning and execution of different types of projects within a product family platform series. This study investigates project characteristics, development challenges, typical outcomes, and success factors for product development projects at different locations in the product family spectrum. “Platform” projects result in products that initiate a new product family platform for a company. “Derivative” projects result in products consisting of extensions to an existing product family platform. Data on 108 new product development projects from a variety of assembled products industries were collected via a detailed survey and analyzed. Findings indicate that: (1) platform and derivative projects differ in project task characteristics (including the amount of new technology development undertaken and project complexity) and market newness; (2) platform and derivative projects generally do not differ in terms of project success (achievement of project objectives, level of company satisfaction, and perceived customer satisfaction) or smoothness of project execution; (3) both platform and derivative projects generally are executed in similar ways; (4) certain managerial approaches (including contingency planning, project-based evaluation of personnel, and overlap of design and manufacturing engineering) are associated with higher project execution success for both platform and derivative projects; and (5) use of interdependent technologies and novel project objectives are associated with project execution failure for platform projects. The results suggest that firms can continue to employ a single product development management process for both platform and derivative projects, as long as modest customization of the process is made for the given project type. Completely different management processes are not required. In all, the results presented in this article suggest specific managerial actions companies can take to significantly improve product development success. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.     

Distributed New Product Development Project Based on Internet and World-Wide Web: A Case Study

The deluge of hype about the wonders of the Internet, Intranets, and the World Wide Web continues unabated. At the same time, we hear numerous tales about endless streams of busy signals, broken connections, and painfully slow response times. Surveying the apparent gap between the promise and the often-painful reality, a skeptical manager might reasonably question whether this technology can satisfy the rigorous demands of business users such as product development project teams. In a case study of a large, geographically distributed product development project, Ari-Pekka Hameri and Jukka Nihtila find that Web-based applications can play an important role in new-product development (NPD) efforts. Particularly when projects involve numerous teams from various locations, such tools can provide effective media for communicating and disseminating information. The case study also suggests that these networked information technology (IT) applications can offer important benefits in terms of project and process management. The project described in this study involves a major NPD collaboration, with several independent subprojects and hundreds of team members from various research institutes and companies. The Internet and the World Wide Web provide the media for managing and disseminating project data. Using hypertext links, the Web-based system gives team members easy access to engineering drawings, 3D models, parameter lists, prototype test results, and other engineering information. The point-and-click interface also allows team members to access information about the project structure and schedules, as well as meeting notes, newsgroups, and electronic bulletin boards. Analysis of the file-transfer activities between the Web server and the project groups highlights several important points regarding networked IT applications, information sharing, and project management. First, the system used in this project serves primarily for disseminating information, rather than for fostering collaboration between different groups. Increased collaboration among networked team members probably requires more sophisticated version- and configuration-management capabilities. Second, file-transfer activities typically come in bursts around project milestones; this highlights the essential role that project milestones play in coordinating the work of distributed team members. The electronic media enhance not only the work leading up to milestones, but also the dissemination of decisions made at each milestone.     

Shared knowledge and product design glitches in integrated product development

Product development processes based on the joint collaboration of the cross-functional team, suppliers, and customers can minimize project glitches. Glitches in the product development project can cause project cost over-runs and delay a project past when first mover advantages are possible. While previous theoretical work has suggested a negative relationship between shared knowledge and product development glitches, empirical studies have not identified how different types of shared knowledge are associated with each other and the design glitches. This study proposes a model of the relationship between specific types of shared knowledge and design glitches in integrated product development (IPD) projects. We test our model using a sample of 191 projects from the automotive industry in the United States. The major findings were that: (1) shared knowledge of the development process can be built by improving a team's shared knowledge of customers, suppliers, and internal capabilities, (2) shared knowledge of the development process for a project reduces product design glitches, and (3) reduced product design glitches improve product development time, cost, and customer satisfaction.     

The roles of R&D team leaders in Korea: a contingent approach

This study empirically examines the relationship between the role of R&D project leaders and their team performance using data from 87 project teams in 6 R&D organizations in Korea. The results reveal that:
(1) R&D project leaders played five different roles in performing their jobs – strategic planner, team builder, gatekeeper, technical expert, and champion;
(2) All but the champion role of a leader is positively related with project team performance;
(3) However, this relationship between the role of leader and project team performance varies according to the characteristics of R&D project teams and their tasks.
Specifically, it becomes important for a leader to focus less on the team building role as the team gets older. The team building role of a leader, however, is more important for higher performance of relatively certain R&D projects, while for uncertain R&D projects, the strategic planning role appears to be more crucial. Based on these results, this study discusses several managerial and theoretical issues related to the role of a leader in R&D project teams.     

Trends and determinants of managing virtual R&D teams

The past years have seen a decentralization of R&D to local markets and centres-of-excellence. Supported by modern information and communication technologies, 'virtual project teams' were formed to facilitate transnational innovation processes. With their boundaries expanding and shrinking flexibly with changing project necessities, virtual teams are believed to be an important element in future R&D organization. Based on 204 interviews with R&D directors and project managers in 37 technology-intensive multinational companies we identify four distinct forms of virtual team organizations used to execute R&D projects across multiple locations. Ordered by increasing degree of central project coordination, these four team concepts are based on: (1) decentralized self-organization, (2) a system integrator as a coordinator, (3) a core team as a system architect, and (4) a centralized venture team. Our contingency approach for organizing a transnational R&D project is based on four principal determinants: (1) the type of innovation (radical/incremental), (2) the systemic nature of the project (systemic/autonomous), (3) the mode of knowledge involved (tacit/explicit), and (4) the degree of resource bundling (complementary/redundant). According to our analysis, the success of virtual teams depends on the appropriate consideration of these determinants.     

Accelerating New Product Development: A Preliminary Empirical Test of a Hierarchy of Implementation

Although time to market and a product's profitability are closely linked, simply speeding up new product development (NPD) is no guarantee of success. In fact, haphazardly adopting the numerous methods for accelerating NPD may jeopardize the potential success of the new product and the company. An article in a previous issue of The Journal of Product Innovation Management suggests that companies seeking to speed up their NPD process should take a hierarchical approach to implementing the various acceleration techniques. To improve the likelihood that efforts to accelerate NPD will pay off with shorter development time, greater market share, and improved profitability, it is recommended that a company start by focusing on simplification of the NPD process. From there, the company can proceed in sequence through techniques involving the elimination of unnecessary steps in the NPD process, parallel processing (i.e., performing two or more NPD steps at the same time), the elimination of delays, and speeding up of the NPD process. Ed J. Nijssen, Arthur R. L. Arbouw, and Harry R. Commandeur follow up on this earlier work by addressing several key questions regarding the proposed hierarchy of techniques for accelerating NPD. First, do companies that make extensive use of the proposed hierarchy develop new products faster than companies that do not? Second, do companies that make extensive use of the hierarchy enjoy better financial performance than those that do not? Third, regardless of the hierarchy, are products developed faster by companies that make more intensive use of acceleration methods than by companies that use fewer methods of acceleration? Finally, how does financial performance compare among companies that make more intensive use of acceleration methods without following the hierarchy and those that use fewer methods of acceleration? A survey of Dutch companies finds that the proposed hierarchy of techniques has a positive effect on NPD speed. The survey results also suggest that faster NPD is possible through the use of the various acceleration methods without regard for the order in which they are implemented. However, a strong positive relationship is evident between the hierarchy and the profitability of the product and the company. In other words, a random approach to NPD acceleration does not improve financial performance. By trying to accelerate NPD in accordance with the proposed hierarchy of methods, a company can avoid critical mistakes that might otherwise limit financial results.     

Autonomous Teams and New Product Development

An autonomous team is an emerging tool for new product development (NPD). With its high degree of autonomy, independence, leadership, dedication, and collocation, the team has more freedom and stronger capabilities to be innovative and entrepreneurial. Several anecdotal cases suggest that autonomous teams are best when applied to highly uncertain, complex, and innovative projects. However, there is no empirical study to test such a notion. Moreover, autonomous teams are not a panacea, and implementing them can be costly and disruptive to their parent organization. When should this powerful, yet costly tool, be pulled out of the new product professional's toolbox? This paper attempts to answer this question. The objective of this study is to explore under which circumstances an autonomous team is the best choice for NPD. Based on contingency and information‐processing theories, autonomous teams are hypothesized to be more effective to address projects with: (1) high technology novelty and (2) radical innovation. To test these hypotheses, the relative effectiveness of four types of team structures: autonomous, functional, lightweight, and heavyweight are compared. The effectiveness measures include development cost, development speed, and overall product success. Vision clarity, resource availability, and team experience are the controlled variables. The empirical results based on the data from 555 NPD projects generally support the research hypotheses. Relative to other team structures, autonomous teams are more effective in addressing projects with high technology novelty or radical innovation. The results also suggest that heavyweight teams perform better than other teams in developing incremental innovation. These results provide some evidence to support contingency and information‐processing theories at the project level. Given the importance of the development of novel technology and radical innovation in establishing new businesses and other strategic initiatives, the findings of this study may not only have some important implications for NPD practices but may also shed some light on other important topics such as disruptive innovation, strategic innovation, new venture, corporate entrepreneurship, and ambidextrous organization.     

R&D at Indian Organic Chemicals Limited (IOCL) – from a service to an enterprise: a case study

IOCL is a pioneer in the country in the field of bulk chemical manufacture. The company achieved its leadership position by utilizing the locally available feedstock i.e. ethyl alcohol from molasses and homegrown technologies to produce a range of bulk chemicals. The R&D activity in the company started almost simultaneously with the erection of the first production plant. It was envisaged to play a role of a typical ‘in-house’ R&D set up. Thus, its activities encompassed the traditional spectrum that most in-house R&D departments of the times were built to perform. These were: 1. Supporting ongoing production activity. 2. Value addition by extending the product line. 3. Improving the quality of the products. The R&D department played these roles competently. Towards this end, the department was well served by trained task oriented staff. However, perhaps the very success of its efforts led to the development of a highly inward-looking culture. However, the post liberalization era brought with it a new set of challenges. With entry barriers slowly diminishing, the company was no longer able to sustain its position of pre-eminence in the fields that it was a leader. Local competition by leaner and meaner players equipped with better technology also played its part in this erosion. Unfavourable economies of scale and lower margins on the traditional products led to the management to rethink on future business strategy. A change of course was called for. For a company with IOCL’s resources, the course change that the management thought would preserve share holder value, was to shift the product mix from bulk chemicals characterized by high volume/low value to fine and specialty areas characterized by low volumes and high value. It decided that the R&D would provide the driving force for this strategic change. In essence, the R&D would be supporting a cluster of new activities, which would be revenue generating and thus be able to metamorphose from a cost center to a profit center. In order to play its new role, the R&D required to redefine its own character. Several changes in the existing systems and introduction of some newer management practices were necessary. The steps to be taken were identified as follows: 1. Shifting from a skill-based to knowledge-based staffing; 2. Creating a structured approach to project management; 3. Initiating a multi functional approach to shorten the project time cycles; 4. Putting in place mechanisms to interface and interact with the customers; 5. Inculcate a business orientation into a traditionally groomed group of scientists and technicians; 6. Integrating the activities of R&D into the enterprise resource planning network of the company; 7. Most importantly, set up a mechanism to market the R&D services.     

Are really new product development projects harder to shut down?

Just as a good houseguest knows when it's time to say good-bye, effective managers must recognize when it's time to terminate a new product development (NPD) project. As a product progresses toward commercialization, a manager's reluctance to terminate a failing project becomes increasingly expensive. Despite this growing expense, however, many managers are reluctant to shut down failing NPD projects. Jeffrey Schmidt and Roger Calantone hypothesize that this reluctance may be even more pronounced for innovative new products than for incremental NPD efforts. They suggest that perhaps the excitement that really new products engender within a company makes managers more reluctant to shut down the NPD project, even in the face of clear-cut evidence that the project is not a winner. To test these assumptions, they conducted a decision-making experiment in which managers were asked to make go/no-go decisions at each stage in a hypothetical NPD project. One project involved an innovative new product; the other project involved an incremental development—that is, a line extension that offered only marginal size and cost reductions compared to current models. At the outset of the experiment, participants were given market share and profit objectives for assessing the new product's performance. At each stage in the hypothetical NPD project, the participants then received updated performance data. The performance data provided to participants was identical for the two hypothetical projects, and fell increasingly farther below the performance objectives as the project progressed. The results of the experiment support the hypothesized relationship between product innovativeness and managers' reluctance to terminate a failing NPD project. Given identical, poor, performance forecasts, the managers who participated in this experiment were more optimistic about the likelihood of success, were more committed to the project, and were more likely to opt for continuing the project when it involved the more innovative product. In fact, the participants were more likely to allow the highly innovative NPD project to proceed all the way through commercialization, notwithstanding the progressively ominous performance feedback.     

The importance of a common project management method in the corporate environment

Like so many other major companies in the world today, Ericsson runs most of its product development operations as projects. The increasing complexity of telecommunication solutions often requires that many technologies are brought together in one turnkey project, such as telephone switching, mobile radio networks, DECT radio Access and others. Competence centres within Ericsson, spread out over many countries need to work together in'cross functional' projects.
While the advantage of the project concept is obvious, carrying out projects in which various Ericsson companies participate, in different countries, can prove to be a very complex undertaking. Many such projects are running simultaneously and often compete for resources and priority with ever increasing time constraints. In order to succeed we need a common methodology for managing projects.
This methodology must provide Ericsson with a shared view on how we allocate scarce (human) resources, the roles that need to be played by all those involved in the project and the supporting line functions, the criteria to be used for decisions to be taken inside the project and in relation to other projects, and many more issues that require a common view. A shared view on project management is also a prerequisite for handling conflicts within an organization in which the project, as a working form, is predominant. Various Ericsson companies and units have achieved different degrees of maturity in their management of projects. This combined experience has produced a methodology called 'PROPS' that Ericsson uses today. The widespread use of PROPS has given Ericsson a common terminology and common perspective of projects. This contributes to shorter lead-time, time to market and time to customer. In this article is explained some of the PROPS features and how PROPS is applied.