Process Innovation and Integration in Process‐Oriented Settings: The Case of the Oil Industry

Scholars have long argued that in new product development integrated innovation processes replace sequentially organized ones because of changing capabilities, integration of knowledge, and the increasing importance of market orientation. The intention of this paper is to study whether this also applies in process‐oriented industries. Process‐oriented settings are fundamentally different from product‐oriented ones as the emphasis is on efficiency, clear guidelines, and tacit knowledge, while radical innovation is less important. It is also less obvious why market orientation—a key driver of integration in new product development—should change the way the innovation process is organized, as there is no product to be developed in the first place. A Stage Gate Model could therefore be well‐suited to achieve more efficiency and effectiveness. In order to investigate process innovation in a process‐oriented setting, we decided to study the upstream oil and gas industry, a scale‐intensive, process‐oriented setting that substantially contrasts with traditional science‐driven industries such as biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, where patents are relevant. The particular advantage of this setting is that virtually no product innovation occurs, allowing the isolation of process innovation. Relying on five inductive case studies of major projects (BP's Prudhoe Bay, Chevron's Kern River, Conoco Philips's Ekofisk, ENI's el‐Bouri, and Shell's Troll field), we find that integration occurs in process‐oriented settings but does so for different reasons than in product‐oriented ones. Integration emerges from an innovation mode characterized by: (1) trial and error (not R&D) as the main mode of innovation; (2) the cooperation of experts from different knowledge backgrounds; (3) the development of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), which facilitates this cooperation across disciplines and projects; and (4) the need to increase efficiency as demand outstrips supply. More precisely, demand shapes reward systems and determines whether new raw materials will be used (creating new supply that requires innovation of processes in periods when demand outstrips supply). Supply and reward systems therefore create the conditions where trial and error, integration of knowledge, and ICT development mutually enforce each other, leading to the integration of the innovation process. Besides contributing to the literature on innovation the paper also offers interesting insights for managers. In order to foster innovation in process‐oriented settings they need to provide specialists with room to experiment over extended periods of time, encourage cooperation across disciplines, and create both incentives and systems to facilitate this process. Finally, managers need to consider the ability of staff to cooperate at the outset, when they set up their recruitment process.     

Customer and Competitor Insights,New Product Development Competence,and New Product Creativity: Differential,Integrative, and Substitution Effects

Developing creative new products requires a synthesis among customer‐oriented and competitor‐oriented learning, and new product development competence. However, underlying this synthesis is a paradox: how to integrate both customer and competitor insights within a technology‐centric new product development process. In order to examine the nature of this organizational tension, this study develops a conceptual framework and tests a series of six hypotheses with data generated from our study of creative new products within 187 high‐technology ventures in China. Differential effects are found in the way in which customer‐oriented learning (neutral) and competitor‐oriented learning (positive) relate to new product creativity. Their integration, meanwhile, is positively related to this new product outcome. Results also reveal that new product development competence, both independently and when integrated with customer‐oriented learning, positively impacts new product creativity. However, the study also reveals a surprising finding of a substitution effect where the combination of competitor‐oriented learning with new product development competence is inversely related to new product creativity. These findings are discussed, and their implications are derived for further research and both market and technology management.     

The Effects of Formal Controls on Supervisee Trust in the Manager in New Product Selling: Evidence from Young and Inexperienced Salespeople in China*

How should sales managers enhance the support and commitment of young, inexperienced salespeople during a new product selling? Some scholars have suggested sales managers should use formal controls (i.e., output and process controls) to develop the salespeople's trust in their benevolence. Drawing on a sample of young, inexperienced salespeople with rather low education selling new products in China's competitive, volatile, and transitional economic environment, the present study investigates the relationship between output and process controls and supervisee trust (i.e., the salesperson's trust in the sales manager). The empirical results of the study suggest that process and output controls have differential effects on supervisee trust. Specifically, the results indicate that process control enhances supervisee trust by itself and also under conditions of intense training for new product selling and when market volatility is perceived as high. However, process control hinders supervisee trust when the manager is long‐term oriented and engages in participative supervision. It was found that output control engenders supervisee trust when the manager is long‐term oriented but hinders supervisee trust when salespeople have undergone intensive training for new product selling. Implications of these results are provided for both researchers and practitioners involved in launching and selling new products.     

The Impact of User‐Oriented Design on New Product Development: An Examination of Fundamental Relationships*

Design offers a potent way to position and to differentiate products and can play a significant role in their success. In many ways it is the focus on deep understanding of the customer or user—what may be termed user‐oriented design (UOD)—that transforms a bundle of technology with the ability to provide functionality into a “product” that people desire to interact with and from which they derive benefits. Even though the importance of this type of design is gaining recognition, several fundamental relationships between user‐oriented design contributions and the new product development (NPD) process and outcomes (i.e., product) remain unresearched, although they are assumed. This article examines the fundamental relationships underlying the incorporation of a user orientation into the NPD process. The discussion is organized around UOD's impact in terms of enhancing collaborative new product development (process oriented), improving idea generation (process oriented), producing superior product or service solutions (product oriented), and facilitating product appropriateness and adoption (product oriented). Each of these is developed and presented in the form of a research proposition relating to the impact of user‐oriented design on product development. The fundamental relationships articulated concerning UOD's impact on NPD form a conceptual framework for this approach to product design and development. For practitioners, the article suggests how user‐oriented design can improve NPD through its more grounded and comprehensive approach, along with the elevated appreciation of design challenges and heightened sense of possibilities for a product being developed. For scholars, the article identifies four important areas for UOD research. In addition to the rich avenues offered for research by each of these, the framework presented provides a foundation for further study as well as the development of new measures and tools for enhancing NPD efforts.     

The Role of Value‐Informed Pricing in Market‐Oriented Product Innovation Management*

Although the positive effect of a market orientation on new product success is widely accepted and the market orientation literature has increased its understanding of how a market orientation leads to performance, the extant literature has overlooked the role of value‐informed pricing in the relationship. Value‐informed pricing is a pricing practice in which the decision makers base the price of the new product on the customers' perceptions of the benefits that the product offers and how these benefits are traded by customers against the price (that has yet to be determined). Considering that pricing mistakes may hit hard on the profitability of product innovations, it is important to firms to have a good understanding of its role. This study develops a framework in which value‐informed pricing is integrated in the relationship between market orientation and new product performance. A distinction is made between customer and competitor orientations, and relative product advantage is also included in the conceptual model. The model is tested on data obtained from managers based on a cross sectional sample of 144 firms. The respondents were involved in a decision‐making process of the pricing of a new product. The model is tested using structural equations modeling. The results show that value‐informed pricing has a strong effect on new product performance. It also reveals that each component of a market orientation fulfills a specific role in a market‐oriented organization. Value‐informed pricing is found to have important mediating effects in the market orientation–new product performance relationship. Results show that firms with a strong customer orientation engage in value‐informed pricing and develop superior benefits to customers in an advantageous product. In turn, both value‐informed pricing and relative product advantage positively affect new product market performance. However, no significant effect of competitor orientation on value‐informed pricing is found. Combined with the finding that competitor orientation negatively affects relative product advantage, this suggests that competitor orientation may hurt new product performance when this orientation is not balanced with a strong customer orientation. The results also portray that value‐informed pricing leads to higher product advantage. Interestingly, this relation is contingent on the degree of interfunctional coordination within the firm. This suggests that the relationship between market orientation and new product performance is strongest if firms integrate value‐informed pricing in the new product development process. In this sense, a market‐oriented firm mirrors the customer value perception that makes a trade‐off between benefits and price.     

The Impact of Market Orientation, Product Advantage, and Launch Proficiency on New Product Performance and Organizational Performance

Some scholars have suggested recently that a market‐oriented culture leads to superior performance, at least in part, because of the new products that are developed and are brought to market. Others have reinforced this wisdom by revealing that a market‐oriented culture enhances organizational innovativeness and new product success, both of which in turn improve organizational performance. These scholars do not reveal, however, through which new product development (NPD) activities a market‐oriented culture is converted into superior performance. To determine how critical NPD activities are for a market‐oriented firm to achieve superior performance, our study uses data from 126 firms in The Netherlands to investigate the structural relationships among market orientation, new product advantage, the proficiency in new product launch activities, new product performance, and organizational performance. We focus on product advantage—because product benefits typically form the compelling reasons for customers to buy the new product—and on the launch proficiency—as the launch stage represents the most costly and risky part of the NPD process. Focusing on the launch stage also is relevant because it is only during the launch that it will become evident whether a market orientation has crystallized into a superior product in the eyes of the customer. The results provide evidence that a market orientation is related positively to product advantage and to the proficiency in market testing, launch budgeting, launch strategy, and launch tactics. Product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics are related positively to new product performance, which itself is related positively to organizational performance. Market orientation has no direct relationship to new product performance and to organizational performance. An important implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on organizational performance is channeled through the effects of a market orientation on product advantage and launch proficiency; subsequently through the effects of product advantage and the proficiency in launch tactics on new product performance; and finally through the effect of new product performance on organizational performance. These channeling effects are much more subtle and complex than the direct relationship of market orientation on organizational performance previously assumed. Another implication of our study is that the impact of a market orientation on performance occurs through the launch activities rather than being pervasive to all organizational processes and activities. A reason for this finding may be that NPD is the one element of the marketing mix that predominantly is the responsibility of the firm, whereas promotion and distribution often are in control of organizations outside the firm (e.g., advertising agencies, major retailers) and whereas the channel or the market often dictates the price. Both implications provide ample opportunities for further research on market orientation and NPD.     

Modified Stage‐Gate® Regimes in New Product Development*

The purpose of this research was to explore the nature of the Stage‐Gate^®process in the context of innovative projects that not only vary in new product technology (i.e., radical versus incremental technology) but that also involve significant new product development technology (i.e., new virtual teaming hardware‐software systems). Results indicate that firms modify their formal development regimes to improve the efficiency of this process while not significantly sacrificing product novelty (i.e., the degree to which new technology is incorporated in the new offering). Four hypotheses were developed and probed using 72 automotive engineering managers involved in supervision of the new product development process. There was substantial evidence to creatively replicate results from previous benchmarking studies; for example, 48.6% of respondents say their companies used a traditional Stage‐Gate^®process, and 60% of these new products were considered to be a commercial success. About a third of respondents said their companies are now using a modified Stage‐Gate^®process for new product development. Auto companies that have modified their Stage‐Gate^®procedures are also significantly more likely to report (1) use of virtual teams; (2) adoption of collaborative and virtual new product development software supporting tools; (3) having formalized strategies in place specifically to guide the new product development process; and (4) having adopted structured processes used to guide the new product development process. It was found that the most significant difference in use of phases or gates in the new product development process with radical new technology occurs when informal and formal phasing processes are compared, with normal Stage‐Gate^®usage scoring highest for technology departures in new products. Modified Stage‐Gate^®had a significant, indirect impact on organizational effectiveness. These findings, taken together, suggest companies optimize trade‐offs between cost and quality after they graduate from more typical stage‐process management to modified regimes. Implications for future research and management of this challenging process are discussed. In general, it was found that the long‐standing goal of 50% reduction in product development time without sacrificing other development goals (e.g., quality, novelty) is finally within practical reach of many firms. Innovative firms are not just those with new products but also those that can modify their formal development process to accelerate change.     

Exploring the Nonlinear Impact of Organizational Integration on New Product Market Success

This article explores the nonlinear relationship between organizational integration and new product market success (NPMS). The concept of organizational integration was measured by assessing the degree of integration among various groups of people involved in the development of new products including new product development (NPD) teams that are typically the focal points of NPD efforts. New product market success was measured by examining four often‐used measures of NPD success. The mail survey research approach was used to gather empirical data from NPD managers in three major industries. The data gathered from this survey process were used as the basis from which to extract information to address this study's major research questions, which include: (1) How is the degree of new product market success related to the nonlinear degree to which groups of people (including NPD teams) integrate during NPD processes? and (2) How is the degree of new product market success related to the nonlinear degree to which separate groups of people (e.g., customers, suppliers, and functional departments) integrate during NPD processes? This study found that high levels of organizational integration (overall organizational integration and supplier organizational integration) during NPD processes are associated with high levels of new product market success. Additionally, this study found that the relationship between new product market success and organizational integration (customer organizational integration and functional organization integration) during NPD processes exhibit nonlinear, U‐shaped relationships. Therefore, the first important finding of this study confirms that various forms of organizational integration impact in a positive way the market success of new products. This suggests that management responsible for all NPD projects should consciously integrate important groups of people to support such developments. This study's findings also confirm and imply that new product developers in the studied industries should integrate marketing and research and development (R&D) over the duration of the NPD process. This suggests that new product managers must be proactive to assure that members of NPD teams are actively engaged with groups of supporting people within and outside new‐product–producing organizations. Unlike prior research, a major finding of this study suggests that the association between organizational integration and new product market success does not form inverted U‐shaped relationships. Data from this research imply that new product market success is linearly influenced by overall and supplier organizational integration. However, this study's data suggest that new product market success is nonlinearly influenced by customer and functional organizational integration. This study's data suggest that when customer organizational integration and/or functional organizational integration is increased, new product market success can be increased at a rate which is greater than a linear rate.     

New Product Development Practices and Early‐Stage Firms: Two In‐Depth Case Studies

New product development practices (NPD) have been well studied for decades in large, established companies. Implementation of best practices such as predevelopment market planning and cross‐functional teams have been positively correlated with product and project success over a variety of measures. However, for small new ventures, field research into ground‐level adoption of NPD practices is lacking. Because of the risks associated with missteps in new product development and the potential for firm failure, understanding NPD within the new venture context is critical. Through in‐depth case research, this paper investigates two successful physical product‐based early‐stage firms' development processes versus large established firm norms. The research focuses on the start‐up adoption of commonly prescribed management processes to improve NPD, such as cross‐functional teams, use of market planning during innovation development, and the use of structured processes to guide the development team. This research has several theoretical implications. The first finding is that in comparing the innovation processes of these firms to large, established firms, the study found several key differences from the large firm paradigm. These differences in development approach from what is prescribed for large, established firms are driven by necessity from a scarcity of resources. These new firms simply did not have the resources (financial or human) to create multi‐ or cross‐functional teams or organizations in the traditional sense for their first product. Use of virtual resources was pervasive. Founders also played multiple roles concurrently in the organization, as opposed to relying on functional departments so common in large firms. The NPD process used by both firms was informal—much more skeletal than commonly recommended structured processes. The data indicated that these firms put less focus on managing the process and more emphasis on managing their goals (the main driver being getting the first product to market). In addition to little or no written procedures being used, development meetings did not run to specific paper‐based deliverables or defined steps. In terms of market and user insight, these activities were primarily performed inside the core team—using methods that again were distinctive in their approach. What drove a project to completion was relying on team experience or a “learn as you go approach.” Again, the driver for this type of truncated market research approach was a lack of resources and need to increase the project's speed‐to‐market. Both firms in our study were highly successful, from not only an NPD efficiency standpoint but also effectiveness. The second broad finding we draw from this work is that there are lessons to be learned from start‐ups for large, established firms seeking ever‐increasing efficiency. We have found that small empowered teams leading projects substantial in scope can be extremely effective when roles are expanded, decision power is ground‐level, and there is little emphasis on defined processes. This exploratory research highlights the unique aspects of NPD within small early‐stage firms, and highlights areas of further research and management implications for both small new ventures and large established firms seeking to increase NPD efficiency and effectiveness.     

The Effect of Product Design Activities on Commercial Success Levels of New Industrial Products

Previous research has investigated the link between product success and key steps in the new products development process. Because the design/development phase of this process uses large proportions of resources, it has been carefully scrutinized. Nevertheless, the impact on new product success levels of an important aspect of this phase—the technically oriented design steps—has not been comprehensively examined and has been neglected in favor of such nontechnical dimensions as the marketing/R&D interface problem. Richard Hise, Larry O'Neal, James McNeal and A. Parasuraman report the results of a study of 195 new industrial products. They conclude that new product developers may jeopardize the success potentials of new industrial products by not performing specific design steps and by instituting an incomplete design/development agenda.     

Management Practices Influencing New Product Success and Failure in the United States and Scandinavia: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study

This comparative cross-cultural study of United States (U.S.) and Scandinavian telecommunications products found both similarities and differences in the successful new product development (NPD) management practices within the U.S. and Scandinavia. Proficiencies in conducting development, marketing, and customer service activities were identified as important to NPD success in both Scandinavia and the U.S. However, differences between the U.S. and Scandinavia were found with regard to the importance of research and development/marketing integration and project manager competency, with these aspects being more important to NPD success in the U.S. Additional differences between Scandinavia and the U.S. were found in the successful NPD strategies for entering familiar versus unfamiliar markets, with the Scandinavian systems being more oriented toward product design strategies. The overall results characterized U.S. NPD management systems as product-market oriented, task focused, and project management driven. By comparison, the Scandinavian NPD management systems were characterized as product-service oriented, driven by enduring interpersonal relationships and socially oriented to helping others. These characterizations were found to be consistent with dissimilarities in the national cultures of the U.S. and Scandinavia, suggesting that some core NPD management principles may be generally important to success, whereas others may be culturally dependent. The importance of recognizing these differences is pointed out in a discussion of their implications for NPD theory and practice in today's global economy. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.     

Managing seller-buyer new product development relationships for customized products: a contingency model based on transaction cost analysis and empirical test

Sellers often customize their product offerings in order to increase the value offered to individual buyers and gain a competitive advantage over the seller’s competitors. However, such customization has a downside—it usually requires considerable seller-buyer interactions aimed at matching the seller’s technological capabilities with the buyer’s needs, which can pose exchange risks such as the safeguarding and adaptation problems noted in the transaction cost analysis literature. In the present study, we develop a contingency model to investigate the impact of product customization on sellers’ perceived relationship satisfaction and subsequent expectations of relationship continuity. We draw on the logic of transaction cost analysis to hypothesize that product customization’s effect on satisfaction and continuity may be moderated by three activities that sellers may engage in during the new product development (NPD) process: education, product knowledge generation, and joint new product development.Our substantive hypotheses were tested with data from a national survey of 296 small to medium size firms in several high-tech industries using a series of hierarchical OLS regression models. Overall, we found mixed support for our hypotheses. The results indicated that joint new product development reduced the negative effect of product customization on seller satisfaction and enhanced customization’s positive effect on continuity, as expected. Contrary to our expectations, product knowledge generation activities increased the negative effect of customization on satisfaction; it also had no significant moderating impact on continuity. Buyer education activities were found to reduce the negative impact of customization on satisfaction, but showed no moderating effect on continuity.This study offers important theoretical and managerial implications. It is one of the first to rely on transaction cost analysis as a basis for examining how various relationship activities conducted during the new product development process moderate product customization’s effect on qualitative outcomes. Whereas traditional NPD processes have emphasized unilateral approaches to product development, our study provides evidence of how bilateral approaches to NPD can benefit sellers of innovations. We provide new insights for managers to consider when deciding whether to engage buyers early on and then continue interacting with them throughout the product development process when developing customized products.     

An Exploratory Study of the Innovation Evaluation Process

In their search for the keys to successful product innovation, product managers and researchers typically focus on trying to identify the most effective organizational processes, strategies, and structures. Surprisingly, little or no effort is directed toward understanding the process that consumers use for evaluating an innovation. By gaining insight into this evaluation process, a firm can present an innovative product in a more effective manner and thus increase the likelihood that consumers will respond favorably to the innovation. Richard W. Olshavsky and Richard A. Spreng provide insight into this process by describing the results of an experiment in which subjects were asked to evaluate several innovative concepts. From their observations, they develop a model of the detailed information-processing steps that these consumers employed in order to evaluate the new products. Consistent with previous research, they found that judgment was the predominant evaluation strategy, particularly for the most innovative concepts. Various subjects also used a categorization strategy, though none used categorization for more than four of the nine concepts that were evaluated. Contrary to expectations, none of the evaluations relied solely on the manufacturer's reputation or the recommendation of a friend. In a simplified model of the evaluation process, when presented with an innovative concept, consumers first attempt to categorize the product. In other words, an innovation may be rejected simply because consumers somehow link it to an existing category that has a negative connotation. If consumers cannot categorize the product, they then employ a judgment process based on some evaluative criteria. Based on the data collected in this study, this simplified model is extended to include four other cognitive processes that strongly influence the evaluation process: forming evaluative criteria, forming expectations about the innovative concept, assessing satisfaction with an old product, and comparing the new and old products. When faced with a highly innovative concept, consumers may find it difficult to form their own evaluative criteria and expectations concerning that innovation. Consequently, managers may have an opportunity to shape the judgment process by educating consumers about the appropriate evaluative criteria or by clearly communicating the product's attributes, benefits, and appropriate use.     

Evaluating QFD's Use in US Firms as a Process for Developing Products

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a process that originated in Japan for managing product development. In this article, Abbie Griffin presents results of a field-based, scientific study of US firms' efforts to implement QFD methods. Her research goals were to understand the QFD process as it is used and implemented, to begin to estimate US product development improvements attributable to QFD and to identify factors linked to QFD's successful use. Based on a study of 35 projects, she found that QFD demonstrated only relatively minor, short-term, measurable impacts on product development performance. Yet, the process may have the potential to improve the development climate in the long term, possibly leading to future, measurable improvements in development performance. Successful projects differed in several ways from those projects that failed in their implementation efforts. Finally, the results suggest several characteristics of product development processes that improve the way products are developed in US companies, including structuring the decision-making processes across functional groups, building a solidly organized, highly motivated team and moving information efficiently from its origin to the ultimate user.     

The new product development process for commercial financial services

The attention of senior executives in the financial services industry is increasingly being focused on how well the new product development process is working within their institutions. This focus on product development results from the combined pressures of increased competition, a rapidly changing marketplace, new technology, and new and pending legislative changes. All of these factors underscore the need to be able to design, develop, and launch, in a timely fashion, new products that are winners. A strong new product initiative is now considered an essential weapon in both offensive and defensive initiatives.To achieve their goals, executives are increasingly reexamining their organizations' approach to development and launch of new products to determine if the process can be redesigned for faster reaction time, better utilization of limited resources and improved success rates. This article examines the new product development process within the setting of corporate/commercial financial services. Its conclusions provide executives with some broad principles for their own new product processes to help them in their quest for competitive advantage through winning new products.     

Information Use in New Product Development: An Initial Exploratory Empirical Investigation in the Chemical Industry*

In‐depth interviews with product developers and product development software providers in a previous qualitative phase of research uncovered eight general types of information that are used across the new product development process (strategic, project management, financial, market and customer, wants and needs, technical, competitor, and regulatory information) and three general approaches to managing information in the process (project‐centric, functionally oriented, and fully distributed). This paper presents a second phase of research trying to understand the role that managing knowledge and information plays in developing new products and achieving NPD success. This research phase empirically investigates use of the eight types of information across three general phases of the NPD process in the chemical industry using 81 mail survey responses from marketing and new product development professionals. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which each of the eight information types was used in each of the following general phases of new product development: the fuzzy front end, development, and testing and launch. The respondents also provided information on new product development success, information management system sophistication, and innovation strategy. This research makes several contributions to new knowledge. First, this research suggests that information management in product development is even more complex than initially posited in Zahay et al. (2004) , with each of the eight types of information identified being used in each of the three phases of development. Unexpectedly, for all but one type of information use is higher in later stages of the NPD process, even though use of several kinds of information early in the project is associated with increased success. Thus, managers may need to encourage teams to start gathering information from outside the firm earlier than is currently the norm. Second, the results suggest that more sophisticated information management systems are indeed associated with increased use of various different types of information, as expected. Third, more sophisticated information management systems are more highly associated with success than less sophisticated information management systems. These results are important, as most new product development information management systems are limited in their ability to handle complex and non‐quantitative information such as customer wants and needs, as well as strategic, competitor, and regulatory information. However, being able to transmit information on these issues is associated with increased firm performance and project success from these data. Thus, firms need to figure out how to improve their ability to manage and use non‐quantitative information more effectively.     

Managing platform architectures and manufacturing processes for nonassembled products

The article presents methods for defining product platforms and measuring business performance in process intensive industries. We first show how process intensive product platforms can be defined using the products and processes of a film manufacturer. We then present an empirical method for understanding the dynamics of process intensive platform innovation, allocating engineering and sales data to specific platform and product development efforts within a product family. We applied this method to a major product line of a materials manufacturer. We gathered ten years of engineering and manufacturing cost data and allocated these to successive platforms and products, and then generated R&D performance measures. These data show the dynamic of heavy capital spending relative to product engineering as one might expect in a process intensive industries. The data also show how derivative products can be leveraged from underlying product platforms and processes for nonassembled products. Embedded within these data are strategies for creating reusable subsystems (comprising components, materials, etc.) and common production processes. Hard data on the degree to which subsystems and processes are shared across different products frequently are typically not maintained by corporations for the duration needed to understand the dynamics of evolving product families. For this reason, we developed and applied a second method to assess the degree of reuse of subsystems and processes. This method asks engineering managers to provide subjective ratings on an ordinal scale regarding the use of technology and processes from one product to the next in a cumulative manner. We find that high levels of reuse generally indicate that a product family was developed with a platform discipline. We applied this measure of platform intensity to two product lines of integrated circuits from another large manufacturer. We used this method to gather approximately ten years of information for each product family. Upon analysis, one product family showed substantial platform discipline, emphasizing a common architecture and processes across specific products within the product line. The other product family was developed with significantly less sharing and reuse of architecture, components, and processes. We then found that the platform centric product family outperformed the latter along a number of performance dimensions over the course of the decade under examination.     

Metrics for Measuring Product Development Cycle Time

As global competitive pressure increases and product life cycles compress, many companies are trying to shorten their product development cycles. Firms are implementing a wide variety of different techniques, management processes and development strategies in their quest for shorter development cycles. We read anecdotal accounts of some efforts that herald great success stories but seldom hear about any failures. Unfortunately, some of the companies changing their development processes do so without any a priori basis for determining whether the process change will have helped or hindered them. The firm implements the new process without having a cycle time performance baseline against which to compare results from the new process. In this article, Abbie Griffin presents a method for obtaining product development cycle time performance baselines. She also demonstrates how to use them to either forecast expected project duration, given that you have not changed your development process, or determine whether a process change has actually decreased development cycle times.