New Product and Process Development (1)

1
New Product and Process Development (1)

• ???, ???

2
Goodness of Fit

• ???? ???? ??? form ??.
• Form ??? ?? ??? ??? regular or homogeneous ???
  force ? form ? ?? ???, irregular ? ????? form ?
  ???.
• ?? ???? ??? ? ??? entities, ? form ? context ???
  fitness ? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????,
• Form ??? ?? ???? ??. Context? ?? ??? ??? ????
• ??? ? ???.
• Context ??? ??. ??? ??? ???? ??.
• Design form ? context ? ???? ??? ?? ?.
• ? , ??? ???? ?? ?? ?, ??? ??? form ? ???? ???,
  form ? ??? context ? ???? ???? ??? ??.
• The rightness of the form depends on the
  degree to which it fits the
• rest of the ensemble.
• ??? ensemble ? ? (p.16)

3

• ???? form ? context ??? fit ? characterizing ???.
  
• Real world ?? ??? ??? ?? context ? ??? unitary
  description ? ??.
• Context ? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???
  ????? ??? ??? ??,
• Form ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ? ? ????
• Form? context ? ??? ???? ?? fitness ?? ??? ?????,
  ?? ???? context ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???.
• Good fit ???
• ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????, good fit? ??
  ????? ???.
• ???? fit ? ?? ????? ???? misfit ???? ???.
• (ex) misfit ? ? (p.23)

4
Source of Good Fit

• Unselfconscious culture
• ??? ??(general principle)? ???? ?? ???? ?????,
• ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??.
• Communication ??? ???? ??? written records ?
  architectural drawings ? ??, intercultural
  exchange ? ?? ??.
• ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??, ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????
  ????, ???? ??? habit ? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???
  ??, ??? ??? ???? ??? ?. ??? ?? form ? ?? ?????
  ????.
• ??? Form-making ? imitation ?? correction ? ??
  informally ?? ???? ?? unselfconscious culture ?
  ??.
• Selfconscious culture
• ??? formal ?? ??? ??, teaching ? ??? ??? ????
  ????. ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ? ?? ?? ? ??.
• ???? instruction ? ????, ????? ??? ??? ??, ??? ?
  ?? ???? ??? ?? ? ??? ?.
• ??? purpose ? ?? ??? ???.
• ??? context ? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????
  ???? ?? ??? ???.
• ??? form-making ? ??? ??? ?? academically ?????
  selfconscious culture ? ??.

5
The Natural and Artificial Worlds

• Natural science
• Knowledge of things in the world,
  characteristics, properties, behavior,
  interaction.
• Goal is to find pattern in apparent chaos.
• The task of science is to show that the wonderful
  is not incomprehensible, to show how it can be
  comprehend- but not to destroy wonder
• Artificial science
• Knowledge about artificial objects and phenomena.
  
• Four distinctions between natural and artificial
• Artificial things are synthesized by human beings
• imitate appearances of nature, but lack some
  aspects of reality of natural
• can be characterized by functions, goals,
  adaptation and
• are often discussed in terms of imperatives along
  with descriptive.

6

• Inner environment vs. outer environment
• the real nature of the artifact is the interface.
• Interface is considered as a meeting point
  between inner environment, the substance and
  organization of the artifact itself, and an
  outer environment, the surroundings in which it
  operates.
• The design artifact mediates the demands of the
  outer environment through a set of operative
  principles in its inner environment.
• Design is concerned with how things to be and the
  natural sciences are about how things are.
• Optimization theory- in designing, it based on
  utility theory and statistical decision theory,
  and it is used as a logical framework for
  rational choice among given alternatives by
  deducing which of the available alternatives is
  the optimum.

7

• Choosing satisfactory alternatives
• A practical procedure pursuing not the best but
  better, satisfactory alternatives, satisficing
  design solutions.
• Searching for all alternatives is the
  computations required astronomical and cannot be
  carried out by humans and existing or even
  prospective computers
• design as resource allocation
• Cost minimization as a design criterion has
  changed from implicit to explicit consideration
  design functions as resource allocation
• In Designing
• The complex system that might to be constructed
  in a hierarchy of levels
• Design of complex system decompose it into
  semi-independent components corresponding to its
  many functional parts.
• Mutually rewarding conversation and experiences
  sharing helped us combat our own
  multiple-cultures isolation

8
Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development
NPD (New Product Development)
One Market Success
1.7 Launched
10 to Front End
4 to Development
Takes 40-60 of total development time and
determines 80 of total costs (Smith,
Reinertsen 1995, p. 49, Schmidt 1995)
9
Product development cycle
Incremental technology improvements need to be
motivated then anticipated and then acquired.
Implementation of new technology next requires
research in how to embed the technology into a
new model of a product, plan that new
model, design, and produce the new product
model. In the product - development cycle, the
technology implementation stage begins with
research (benchmarking), which then leads to
product planning (necessary and desired
features), and then into product design before
product production
Frederick Betz, "Managing Technological
Innovation Competitive Advantage From
Change", 3rd Edition, John Wiley Sons,
10
What is new product development?

• Ulrich and Eppinger (20042) define NPD as the
  set of activities beginning with the perception
  of a market opportunity and ending in the
  production, sale, and delivery of a product.
• Addressing this larger context, Wheelwright and
  Clark (1992 Chapter 1) defined NPD as the
  effective organization and management of
  activities that enable an organization to bring
  successful products to market, with short
  development times and low development costs.
• Clark and Fujimoto (1991 7) add that
  performance results from consistency in total
  organization and management.

C. H. Loch and S. Kavadias, Handbook of New
Product Development Management
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007.
11
NPD ?? ?? ????

• NPD encompasses a large number of topics and
  challenges in a firm, such as strategy
  formulation, deployment, resource allocation, and
  coordinated collaboration among people of
  different professions and nationalities, and
  systematic planning, monitoring, and control.
• In that light, NPD has long been an important
  topic for several business research disciplines,
  certainly economics, marketing, organizational
  theory, operations management, and strategy.

C. H. Loch and S. Kavadias, Handbook of New
Product Development Management
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007.
12
Product Development Past Research, Present
Findings, and Future Directions (1995) - Shona
L. Brown and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt

• Innovation ?? ?? ??
• economics-oriented tradition patterns of
  innovation across countries and industrial
  sectors, evolution of technologies
• organizations-oriented tradition microlevel
  regarding how specific new products are developed
  -gt ? ??? ??
• Product development? ???
• Product development is critical because new
  products are becoming the nexus of competition
  for many firms(e.g., Clark Fujimoto, 1991)
• Product development is thus a potential source of
  competitive advantage for many firms (Brown
  Eisenhardt, 1995)
• Thus, product development is among the essential
  processes for success, survival, and renewal of
  organizations, particularly for firms in either
  fast-paced or competitive markets

13
?? ??

• Product-development literature? three streams? ??
• ?Rational plan, ?communication web, and
  ?disciplined problem solving
• The research within each stream is theoretically
  and methodologically similar.
• Synthesize these research findings into a model
  of factors affecting the success of product
  development
• Potential paths for future research

14
(No Transcript)
15
Product Development as Rational Plan

• pioneering work Myers and Marquis(1969) and
  SAPPHO studies (Rothwell, 1972 Rothwell et al.,
  1974)
• This rational plan perspective emphasizes that
  successful product development is the result of
  (a) careful planning of a superior product for an
  attractive market and (b) the execution of that
  plan by a competent and well-coordinated
  cross-functional team that operates with (c) the
  blessings of senior management.
• Simply put, a product that is well planned,
  implemented, and appropriately supported will be
  a success.

16
(No Transcript)
17

• a product that is well planned, implemented, and
  appropriately supported will be a success.

18
Product Development as Rational Plan

• ??
• This broad-brush approach leads to an excellent
  and a comprehensive overview of the
  product-development process, which emphasizes
  features of the product, internal organization,
  and the market.
• ??
• The findings of many studies read like a "fishing
  expedition- too many variables and too much
  factor analysis. In this research stream, it is
  not uncommon for a study to report 10 to 20 to
  even 40 or 50 important findings
• the research stream relies heavily on
  retrospective sense making of complex past
  processes, usually by single informants.
• Most important, the research in this stream often
  presents results without relying on well-defined
  constructs.

19
Product Development As Communication Web

• pioneering work Allen at MIT (1971, 1977)
• early studies highlight the importance of
  external communication to success. Specifically,
  these studies observed the presence of
  "gatekeepers"-(i.e., high-performing individuals
  who also communicated more often overall and with
  people outside their specialty) (Allen, 1971).
• Von Hippel (1986) noted how important
  communication with key customers was regarding
  better product designs.
• more effective teams engaged in both political
  and task-oriented external communications,
• the relationship among the mean tenure of a team,
  the degree of external communication, and
  performance. but this relationship reversed and
  performance dropped off after five years.
• Two theoretical theme information-processing
  view, resources dependence view

20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
Product Development As Communication Web

• ??
• In contrast to the first perspective, this stream
  is narrowly focused on one independent
  variable-communication. Thus, these studies
  emphasize depth, not breadth as in the rational
  plan, by looking inside the "black box" of the
  development team
• ??
• the principal shortcoming of this perspective is
  that it is so focused on communication by project
  team members that other factors are neglected.
• performance measures frequently are very
  subjective, and so it is difficult to know
  whether the results would replicate for more
  objective measures of performance, such as
  product profitability.
• this stream does not distinguish between
  different types of products, such as incremental
  versus breakthrough versus platform products.

23
Product Development as Disciplined Problem Solving

• pioneering work studies of Japanese
  product-development practices in the mid-1980s
  (e.g., Imai et al., 1985 Quinn, 1985)
• Successful product development is seen as a
  balancing act between relatively autonomous
  problem solving by the project team and the
  discipline of a heavyweight leader, strong top
  management, and an overarching product vision.
• The researchers observed that strong formal ties
  to suppliers and RD networks were very important
  to the product-development process.
• the authors observed that product development was
  accelerated by overlapping of development phases
  and cross-functional teams only if supported by
  continuous communication among project members.
• senior management should engage in "subtle
  control."

24

• They(Clark Fujimoto, 1991) reported that
  extensive supplier networks coupled with
  overlapping product-development phases,
  communication, and cross-functional groups (what
  they term integrated problem solving) improved
  the performance of development teams.
• Iansiti (1992, 1993) deductively examined the
  mainframe computer industry. The primary result
  is that a high system focus (i.e., a combination
  of technical integration, exposure to systems
  integration, and accumulation of interaction
  knowledge) predicted both lead time and
  productivity.
• One focuses on factors such as planning and
  overlap that are relevant for more stable
  products in mature settings (e.g., Clark
  Fujimoto, 1991 Iansiti, 1992), and the other
  focuses on experiential product design that is
  relevant for less predictable products in
  uncertain settings, such as personal computers,
  work-stations, and peripherals.

25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
Product Development as Disciplined Problem Solving

• ??
• In contrast to the rational plan stream, this
  stream is more specific about the effective
  organization of work and is more focused on the
  development process and product concept than on
  the financial success of the product.
• In contrast to the communication web perspective,
  this stream has a broader scope and considers the
  role of suppliers and senior management in
  addition to project leaders and teams.
• ??
• One is that there is a lack of political and
  psychological realism.
• Second, some of the constructs are challenging to
  comprehend. For example, subtle control, product
  vision, and system focus are vague concepts.
• Finally, there is an extensive reliance on a
  Japanese viewpoint.

28
TOWARDA N INTEGRATIVE MODELO F PRODUCTD EVELOPMENT

• Project Team
• Project Leader
• Senior Management
• Suppliers and Customers
• Financial Success

29
AGENDA FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

• One research opportunity is to examine the
  primary links of the model-that is, the links
  among process performance, effective product,
  market factors, and financial performance.
• A related research opportunity is determining the
  relative importance of these factors.
• examine whether process performance, product
  effectiveness, and munificent markets are
  actually independent variables.
• A second area of research is the organization of
  work. As was noted, two models have emerged to
  describe alternative organizations of work.
• yet this second model(experiential product
  development) has received only limited empirical
  examination.
• For huge and lengthy projects, Benghozi (1990)
  suggested that innovation routines, which include
  dynamic planning, monitoring, and scheduling
  projects over time as the environment changes,
  are needed.
• Third, our understanding of how senior managers
  affect development is incomplete.

30
Strategy, structure and performance in product
development Observations form the auto industry
(1991) - Michael A. Cusumano and Kentaro Nobeoka
Japanese firms integration of workers and
suppliers, as well as the development and
systematic application of innovative managerial
and quality-control techniques for manufacturing
31

• product development as ideally composed of three
  elements a product strategy that determines task
  requirements in individual projects project
  structure and processes (the organization and
  management systems) and product as well as
  project performance.

32
(No Transcript)
33
Key variables

• Product strategy
• product concept, which may include the pricing
  segment (luxury versus economy) or size of a
  model, as well as the degree of new or
  sophisticated technology incorporated into
  different components
• Task requirements is the individual project
  strategy, which includes project (or task)
  complexity and project scope.
• Structure and process
• include the internal organization and management
  of product development, as well as the
  utilization of external resources.
• Performance
• Input measures engineering hours and lead
  time
• Output measures technical performance, styling
  or the match of the product with the target
  customers tastes,
• Market performance market or production share
  and growth in share.

34
Major findings - Product strategy to performance

• Product-strategy taxonomy high-end specialists,
  volume producers
• Japanese manufacturers in general displayed
  higher development productivity in terms of
  engineering hours and lead time.
• Japanese firms were more dependent on suppliers
  than the U.S. or European manufacturers -gt
  reduced project scope, the number of in-house
  engineering hours as well as the amount of time
  projects required
• The number of model lines a company offered also
  correlated closely with its total sales volume.
• The specific assumption of this study, although
  not tested with performance data such as market
  shares, was that shorter product life cycles for
  replacing existing models and adding new models
  provide an advantage in that faster firms can
  more quickly and broadly expand their product
  lines as well as introduce new technology or
  better meet customer demands as these change over
  time.

35
Major findings - Product strategy to performance
36
Major findings - Product strategy to performance
replacement rate (the total number of new models
in this period the number of new models
that were new product lines
rather than replacements for existing models,) /
the number of models
the firm had in the base year expansion rate the
number of totally new models /
the number of models the firm had in the base
year.
37
Major findings - Product strategy to performance
Design for Manufacturability (DFA) asked 19
automobile companies to rank competitors
products in terms of ease of assembly.
38
Major findings - Structure and process to
performance

• Japanese manufacturers, in general, have
  heavier heavyweight product managers than their
  U.S. or European counterparts.
• Japanese projects, in addition to their superior
  performance characteristics in general, had
  higher overlapping ratios.
• Japanese projects had more informal and intensive
  information processing among various stages
  that seemed to make this higher degree of
  overlapping possible and useful.
• Japanese auto producers developed extensive
  networks of subsidiaries and other suppliers, and
  then subcontracted huge amounts of manufacturing
  work as well as cooperated in technology
  acquisition and components development

39
Major findings - Structure and process to
performance
40
Research critique

• Product strategy to performance
• Clark and Fujimoto did not adequately treat the
  level of difficulty
• Sheriff and Nobeoka do not adequately explain
  how they arrived at the weights used for
  different types of changes or components
• one project per company does not say much about
  which company is consistently superior in product
  development
• Krafciks productivity research, centered on
  assembly operations rather than components
  manufacturing as well as assembly.
• there is the issue of economic returns to
  investments in product development apart from
  market share
• product-development performance and project
  complexity with changes in sales and profits but
  uses financial data at the company level

41
Research critique

• Structure and process to performance
• no study concentrates on the supplier
  coordination process in product development, and
  there are even fewer studies on other forms of
  inter-organizational coordination.
• pay more attention to adjusting for differences
  in vertical integration for development
• needs further exploration is internal project
  management
• mechanisms through which product managers
  contributed to higher design quality or higher
  development productivity
• multiple project coordination
• Have studied only a sample of one project per
  manufacturer.

42
Technology integration Managing technological
evolution in a complex environment (1995)- Marco
Iansiti

• This work aims to fill some of the gap between
  these two bodies of knowledge existing research
  on organizational response to technological
  evolution, and on the management of RD
  organizations.
• Development performance under discontinuous
  technical change
• By discontinuous, we mean that relationships
  between product functionality, process
  requirements and disciplinary expertise change,
  necessitating a substantial evolution in the
  knowledge base of the development organization
  (as in Anderson and Tushman, 1990 Henderson and
  Clark, 1990).

43
?? ??
System-focused organizations will be associated
with high levels of development performance in
environments characterized by discontinuous
technological change.
System-focused organizations will be associated
with a broader approach to solving problems than
other organizations-this will involve information
search and processing activities that cross a
broader base of existing disciplinary expertise.
In a complex environment characterized by
technological discontinuities, high
problem-solving efficiency(and development
performance) will be associated with approaches
that sample a broad base of disciplinary
expertise.
44
Empirical approach

• Mainframe processor, 27 projects, 61
  problem-solving efforts

45
Empirical results - Problem solving and
performance
ltP1gt In a complex environment characterized by
technological discontinuities, high
problem-solving efficiency(and development
performance) will be associated with approaches
that sample a broad base of disciplinary
expertise.

• ???? ??(????) person year, ????
• RD ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? - disciplinary knowledge
  bases are linked to each other
• Integration group members had managed to resolve
  a difficult problem early by framing it broadly
  and by making use of a novel combination of
  context-specific knowledge bases.

? ???? ?? ? ?? person year(? ? ???) ? ?? ????
-????? context-specific breadth? ?? -?????
context-independent breadth ???? ??
P1 ??
46
Empirical results - System focus and performance
ltP2gt System-focused organizations will be
associated with high levels of development
performance in environments characterized by
discontinuous technological change.

• lt?6gt The correlation between individual
  indicators of system focus(Table 2) and
  development speed and productivity
• (-)? ??? ???
• System focused ????? ????? ???? ???

P2 ??
System focus? ????(person year, ????)? ??(-)??
???(0.1??)
47
Empirical results - System focus and performance
ltP3gt System-focused organizations will be
associated with a broader approach to solving
problems than other organizations-this will
involve information search and processing
activities that cross a broader base of existing
disciplinary expertise.

• ????? ??(?), system focus, ?????? ??? ??

P3 ??
????? ?? system focus?? ???? ????? ??? ???(0.1??)
48
Empirical results - Development process and
problem-solving approach
System-focused organizations do a good job of
identifying potential problem areas early in the
project, before concept selection was completed.
49
Discussion

• Literature Review Paper v.s. Empirical research
• Physical Product? Software Product? ??? ????
• NPD v.s. NSD(New Service Development)? ???? ?????
• ????? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ? ????
• ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????
• ??? ?? ??(???, ????, )
• ???? ?? ??

50
?? Past overviews of NPD research - 1
51
?? Past overviews of NPD research - 2
52
?? Past overviews of NPD research - 3
53
?? Elements of evolutionary problem solving
Shane, Scott, Handbook of Technology and
Innovation Management, John Wiley Sons Ltd.,
2008