Contact detail: Professor Multi Business Model Innovation and Technology Peter Lindgren Aarhus University School of Business and Social Sciences Birk Centerpark 15, Office: MBIT LAB DK - 7400 Herning Denmark T: +45 29442211/ +45 23425504 e-mail: peterli@btech.au.dk Pure.: http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/peter-lindgren(244bfceb-2a4c-4ef0-8c5a-34ad8238b5eb)/publications.html W: http://www.riverpublishers.com/journal.php?j=JMBMIT/1/2
Evolution of market demands (model adapted from Harry Boer, 2001). | |
High speed in product development until 2003. | |
Differences in product development time. | |
The context and main components of “The field of product development”. | |
Speed in network based product development. | |
Relationship between long term success criteria in network based product development. | |
Research purpose. | |
Views on HS NB PD. | |
High speed product development matrix. | |
0Enablers to high speed. | |
1Analysis model for product development in networks. | |
2Product development in networks. | |
3Radical and incremental product development. | |
4Research hypothesis. | |
5Sources of hypothesis. | |
6Time and phases schdedule for PhD project. | |
7Structure of the book. | |
Benneth’s research model. | |
Actual research model. | |
Research idea stage. | |
Horizontal research process. | |
Analysis model for network product development. | |
Kuhn’s theory of paradigm. | |
Working paradigm of scientific area. | |
Four aspects of validity. | |
Jick’s model for trade-offs in doing scientific research. | |
The Elaboration/Refinement process and product definition. | |
Birth and maturity process of product. | |
One idea – many concepts, fewer products. | |
The Boston consulting group’s market share. | |
Product and process dimensions. | |
Cost value. | |
Three levels of a product. | |
Classification of products. | |
Summary of variants of generic development process. | |
0The total product concept. | |
1Three intensive growth strategies. | |
2Nature of phenomenon. | |
3Defining the business – market evolution in three dimensions. | |
4Elaboration/Refinement process and product definition. | |
5Activity stage model. | |
6Chain model. | |
7Generic product development process. | |
8The Booz, Allen and Hamilton activity- and stage model of new product development. | |
9Flexible model of product development. | |
0Costs of flexible and stage-gate product development models related to uncertainty and dynamics. | |
1Process of continuous porduct innovation at single product level. | |
2Informal product development model. | |
3The NPD funnel. | |
4Actual development funnel. | |
5Generic product development processes – design driven (adapted from Eppinger and Verganti). | |
6Underlying processes. | |
7Related strands of development. | |
8Vertical and horizontal processes. | |
9Stage gate functions which move up into the model. | |
Several network partners. | |
Network partners at identical levels. | |
Network partners at different levels. | |
Analysis model for network product development. | |
Vertical match of success criteria in NB HS NPD. | |
Horizontal match of success criteria in NB HS NPD. | |
Optimization of NB PD success criteria across networks. | |
Speed in NB HS PD. | |
Relationship between long-term success criteria in network based product development. | |
Interaction of the field of product development. | |
The field of product development. | |
The contents and main components of the field of product development. | |
Incremental and radical PD. | |
Choice of PD model and process. | |
Costs of flexible and stage-gate PD models related to uncertainty and dynamic PD projects. | |
Relationship between long-term success criteria in network based product development. | |
Decision model. | |
PD task model. | |
The field of product development. | |
Product development pencil model. | |
Potential functions involved in product development model. | |
Framework model for network based product development. | |
Lyngsˆˆf8’s product and process development matrix. | |
PD task at Lyngsˆˆf8. | |
The interaction on field of product development at Lyngsˆˆf8 Industri. | |
TLC’s product and process development matrix. | |
PD task at TLC. | |
The interaction on TLC’s field of PD. | |
AKV’s product and process development matrix. | |
PD tasks at AKV. | |
Lindholst’s product and process matrix. | |
0PD tasks at Lindholst. | |
1GSI’s product and process development matrix. | |
2PD tasks at GSI. | |
Field of product development. | |
PUIN group product/process development focus. | |
Participation of functions. | |
Turban’s three dimensions. | |
Field of product development. | |
Research methodology. | |
The overall research framework model. | |
Different views on PD. | |
Cost curve of different PD views and speed strategies. | |
Cost value curve. | |
Business optimal time of market introduction. | |
Emperical definition of speed in PD. | |
Cost value tunnel. | |
Perceived value and alternative cost tunnel. | |
Measurement of time and speed in PD projects compared to the PD task and “the components of PD.” | |
0Different views on time and speed in PD. | |
1Business optimal view on time and speed. | |
2SMEs focus on cost and value in NPD. | |
3Business optimal point of leave related to lifecycle from inception to demise. | |
4Risk and uncertainty related to pressure on speed. | |
5Speed in NB PD. | |
6Learning speed across networks. | |
7The choice of PD model and process. | |
8Costs of flexible and stage-gate product development models related to uncertainty and dynamics. | |
9PD on the market. | |
0Relationship between long term success criteria in network based product development. | |
1HS enablers in network. | |
2Ability to act and/or analyse. | |
Speed and NPD strategy. | |
Measurement of success criteria in NPD. | |
On the market product development. | |
Encapsulation of new products in the product development process. | |
Encapsulation of new product across the vertical, horizontal and network based product development process. | |
Cost value tunnel. | |
Pressure on incremental PD. | |
PD leadership and PD management. | |
Generic model for measuring NB HS PD. | |
Trade-offs for scientific research. |
Context for product development | |
The shape of the main components in the product development game | |
The question for the research on NB HS NPD | |
Short and long term NB HS PD criteria | |
Overall research questions | |
Basic scientific research as opposed to practice oriented research | |
Structured and unstructured PD tasks | |
Research methodology | |
Research activities and empirical activities | |
Characteristics of product development assignment | |
Sources of ideas | |
Sources to product development ideas in general | |
Drivers for the PD process | |
Frequency of activities in new product process development project | |
Processes within stages and gates | |
Change in the concept of product and product development | |
Shape of the network components | |
Network analysis of cases | |
Enablers to HS PD | |
Use of high speed enablers in secondary case businesses | |
Definition of success criteria | |
Product development models and HS PD appropriateness | |
Short- and long-term success criteria | |
Hypotheses of network based success criteria | |
Product characteristics – now and in future | |
New use of high speed enablers | |
Network challenges | |
Shape of main components in PD game | |
NB HS NPD success criteria | |
Important issues to future NB HS NPD | |
Components and characteristics | |
The shape of the main components in the product development game | |
Success criteria | |
Points of entry | |
Elements of core | |
Definition of stages and gates | |
Internal functions of PD | |
Evaluation of cases | |
Network partners’ participation in SME’s PD | |
Business facts on case businesses | |
Consequences of highs speed on parameters | |
Hypotheses to be verified in Chapter | |
Focus on product types | |
Focus on products and processes | |
Lyngsˆˆf8’s product development task | |
Product development projects in relation to strategy | |
Product development in relation to product | |
PD in relation to customer groups | |
0PD projects in relation to customer needs | |
1PD projects in relation to technology | |
2PD projects in relation to competition | |
3PD projects in relation to degree of innovation | |
4Sources of PD ideas in general | |
5Goals and limits to product development | |
6Management of projects at Lyngsˆˆf8 | |
7Network partners involved in PD process | |
8Stages and gates of Lyngsˆˆf8’s formal PD model | |
9Stages and gates of Lyngsˆˆf8’s informal PD model | |
0Importance of informal PD model in relation to success criteria | |
1Influence of informal PD process on success criteria | |
2Functions participating in PD idea stage | |
3Priorities of success criteria at Lyngsˆˆf8 | |
4Lyngsˆˆf8’s focus on success criteria | |
5HS enablers in use at Lyngsˆˆf8 industri | |
6Consequences of high or right speed | |
7Perspectivising the “Lyngsˆˆf8 Singapore case” | |
8Focus on product types | |
9Focus on products and processes | |
0TLC’s PD task | |
1PD projects in relation to strategy | |
2PD in relation to product | |
3PD in relation to customer groups | |
4PD projects in relation to customer needs | |
5PD projects in relation to technology | |
6PD projects in relation to competition | |
7PD projects in relation to degree of innovation | |
8Sources of PD ideas in general | |
9Goals and limits to PD | |
0Stages and gates of TLC’s formal PD model | |
1Functions participating in PD idea stage | |
2Network partners involved in PD process | |
3Priorities of success criteria at TLC | |
4TLC’s focus on success criteria | |
5HS enablers used at TLC | |
6Consequences reflected on general PD model and processes | |
7Characteristics of development task | |
8Perspectives and reflection on High Speed related to TLC and the Bogpa case | |
9Focus on product types | |
0Focus on products and processes | |
1Sources of product development ideas in general | |
2Goals and limits to product development | |
3AKV product development tasks | |
4PD projects in relation to strategy | |
5Product development in relation to product | |
6PD in relation to customer groups | |
7PD projects in relation to customer needs | |
8PD projects in relation to technology | |
9PD projects in relation to competition | |
0Innovation degree at AKV Langholt | |
1Stages and Gates of AKV’s formal PD model | |
2Informal PD model at AKV Langholt | |
3Importance of informal PD model in relation to success criteria | |
4Functions participating in PD idea stage | |
5Management of projects at AKV | |
6Network partners involved in PD process | |
7Priorities of success criteria at AKV | |
8AKV’s focus on success criteria | |
9AKV’s use of HS enablers | |
0Special characteristics of the development task | |
1Focus on product types | |
2Focus on products and processes | |
3Sources of PD ideas in general | |
4Goals and limits to PD | |
5Lindholst’s PD task | |
6PD projects in relation to strategy | |
7PD in relation to product | |
8PD in relation to customer groups | |
9PD projects in relation to customer needs | |
0PD projects in relation to technology | |
1PD projects in relation to competition | |
2PD projects in relation to degree of innovation | |
3Stages and gates of Lindholst’s formal PD model | |
4Stages and gates of Lindholst’s informal PD model | |
5Functions participating in PD idea stage | |
6Management of projects at Lindholst | |
7Network partners involved in PD process | |
8Priorities of success criteria at Lindholst | |
9Lindholst’s focus on success criteria | |
0Use of HS enablers at Lindholst | |
1Special characteristics of the PD task | |
2Focus on product types | |
3Focus on products and processes | |
4Sources of PD ideas in general | |
5Goals and limits to product development | |
6GSI’s product development task | |
7PD projects in relation to strategy | |
8PD in relation to product | |
9PD in relation to customer groups | |
00PD projects in relation to customer needs | |
01PD projects in relation to technology | |
02PD projects in relation to competition | |
03PD projects in relation to degree of innovation | |
04Stages and gates of GSI’s formal PD model | |
05Stages and gates of GSI’s informal PD model | |
06Importance of informal PD model in relation to success criteria | |
07Functions participating in PD idea stage | |
08Management of projects at GSI Lumonics | |
09Priorities of success criteria at GSI | |
10GSI Lumonics’ focus on succes criteria | |
11HS product enablers used at GSI | |
12Special characteristics of the development task | |
13Empirical results – pilot case study | |
14Verification table | |
General themes and agendas for focus group meetings | |
Consequences of high speed/right speed | |
Hypotheses to be verified | |
Focus on product types | |
Focus on products and processes | |
Comments on conditions in “the field of PD” | |
Product development task of focus group businesses | |
PD projects in relation to strategy | |
Product development in relation to product | |
0PD in relation to customer groups and needs | |
1PD projects in relation to technology | |
2Product development projects in relation to competition | |
3PD projects in relation to degree of innovation | |
4PD task in relation to radical and incremental PD | |
5Sources of product development ideas in general | |
6Goals and limits to product development | |
7Goals and limits to product development | |
8Stages and gates of Lyngsˆˆf8’s formal PD model | |
9Stages and gates of informal PD model of focus group businesses | |
0Importance of informal PD model in relation to success criteria | |
1Functions participating in PD idea stage | |
2Functions participating in PD concept stage | |
3Functions participating in PD stage | |
4Functions participating in process development stage | |
5Functions participating in idea gate | |
6Functions participating in concept gate | |
7Functions participating in protype gate | |
8Functions participating in process gate | |
9Management of projects at focus group businesses | |
0Network partners involved in PD process | |
1HS enablers used in focus group businesses | |
2Priorities of success criteria at Lyngsˆˆf8 | |
3General priorities of success criteria at focus group SMEs | |
4Specific priorities of success criterias at focus group SMEs | |
5Verification table of Chapter | |
Survey response statistics | |
Consequenses of speed on different parametres | |
Hypotheses to be verified in Chapter | |
Focus on product types | |
Focus on products and processes | |
General conditions on the field of PD according to the survey | |
Sources of PD ideas in general | |
PD Tasks of survey businesses | |
PD projects in relation to strategic areas | |
0PD in relation to product | |
1PD in relation to customer groups and needs | |
2PD projects in relation to technology | |
3PD projects in relation to competition | |
4PD projects in relation to degree of innovation | |
5Incremental and radical product development in SMEs | |
6Goals and limits to product development | |
7Stages and gates of the survey businesses’ formal PD model | |
8Stages and gates of focus group businesses informal PD model | |
9Importance of informal PD model in relation to success criteria | |
0Functions participating in PD idea stage | |
1Functions participating in PD concept stage | |
2Functions participating in PD product development stage | |
3Functions participating in process development stage | |
4Functions participating in idea gate | |
5Functions participating in concept gate | |
6Functions participating in protype gate | |
7Functions participating in process gate | |
8Management of projects in survey businesses | |
9Network partners involved in PD process | |
0HS enablers used in the survey businesses | |
1Priorities of success criteria at survey SMEs | |
2Specific priorities of success criteria at the surevey SMEs | |
3Verification table of Chapter | |
Hypotheses to be verified in Chapter | |
Impact on different prametres by speed | |
Results of development at Dolle | |
Results of DISPU survey | |
Results of SMER research project | |
Observations from TIP project | |
Findings during BESTCOM project | |
Verification table of Chapter | |
Overall research questions of PhD project | |
Definition of time | |
Definition on speed verified in the emperical research | |
Practical and theoretical definitions of speed and time in PD | |
Different views on high speed PD | |
Success criteria and genreal PD phases | |
Pressure on time related to field of product development and PD task | |
Time and speed related to stage and gate | |
Types of speed in NB HS NPD | |
0Confirmation of existence of formal PD model | |
1Where was the idea discovered? | |
2Businesses’ focus on success criterias on the market | |
3PD models and appropriateness to high speed PD | |
4Short-term and long-term success criteria | |
5Incremental and radical PD in SMEs | |
6Strategic areas and PD task | |
7Core of NB HS NPD | |
8The core of SMEs’ PD model | |
9Goal formulation in PD | |
0Goal formulation in PD | |
1Organisational resources and PD | |
2Use of HS enablers in SMEs | |
3High speed PD models verified in the research | |
4Extra enablers in NB HS NPD | |
Types of NB HS NPD | |
Types of speed | |
Demands to NB HS NPD | |
Barriers to NB HS NPD |
Source: Harry Boer, 2001 (adapted from Bolwijn and Kumpe, 1998).
“Dozens of large businesses had fallen victim to competitors with faster, more flexible new-product development programmes.” (Kotler, 1996) (Case No. 1 Zara)
“To speed up their product development cycles, many businesses were adopting a faster, more agile, team-oriented product development approach.” (Goldman, 1998)“Businesses were dropping the sequential product development method in favour of the faster, more flexible simultaneous product development approach. to save time and increase effectiveness.” (Kotler, 1996)
“Product development at the idea and concept stage always takes its time and it always will.” (Engineer employed at LSI Denmark 2002)
“a business to business product that can be offered to a market for attention, acquisition, use or consumption, that might satisfy a want or need both tangible and intangible.”
Context for Product Development | Until 2003 | Trends for the Future |
Market | National Stable Common | Global FragmentedDynamic Individualised |
Technology | Single technology Expensive Data power low Unstable | Mix of technology or multi-technology CheapData power over capacity Stable |
Network | Closed networks Stable networks | Open networksDynamic networksVirtual networksGlobal networks |
Competences of the businesses | Stable competences Competences developed inside the Business or in narrow networks | Dynamic competencesCompetences continuously under development and pressureCompetences developed with network partners and in open and many networks |
The product | Mostly physical products and to some extent immaterial productsThe product is stableThe product is used in the same way | A mixture of physical, immaterial digital and virtual productsThe product is continuously developing and changing formThe product is used in many new ways |
The product development model | Stable modelsStage and gate models | Many product development modelsStage and gate modelsFlexible modelsDynamic modelsProcess models |
Success criteria | Speed, cost and performance | Speed, time, cost, performance, efficiency, Quality, CI, CIM, Learning |
“Speed is the new competitive weapon” although“I will never recommend cutting corners of executing in a sloppy fashion in order to save time – it just does not pay off” “Speed is important, but it is only one component of our overarching goal of profitable new products.” (Cooper, 1993)
The Main Context of Network Based High Speed Product Development | Characteristics | Example of Markets 2002 |
Market – (Sanchez, 1996) | ||
Stable markets | Stable market preferences | Food industry, Furniture industry |
Evolving markets | Evolving market preferences | Agriculture industry, environment industry |
Dynamic markets | Dynamic market preferences | Software industry, Bio and gene industry |
Technology (Sanchez, 1996) | ||
Stable technology | Stable and known technologies | Audio and video technology |
Evolving technologies | Evolving technologies | Biotechnologies |
Dynamic technologies | Dynamic and mixed technologies | Nanotechnology |
Network (Child & Faulkner, 1998) | ||
Stable networks | Networks mainly based on physical and stable networks often internal and dominated network | Industrial groups, branch groups |
Evolving networks | Networks based on a mix and evolving system of networks: Physical networks, ICT networks, virtual networks | PUIN network group, EU community |
Dynamic network | Networks based on a mix of dynamic networks with high degree of dynamic where network partners constantly comes in and goes out. Often there is no formal network leader. | Virtual network groups, Ambia’s |
Business competence context (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994) | Support competencesComplementary competencesCore competences |
“The winners are concentrating on cash-generation, cost controls and subscriber margins.” (Tim Burt, Financial Times, Monday 25 November 2002)
Source: Lindgren & Bohn, 2002.
Key Questions of the Book on NB HS NPD |
What is the product? |
What is network based high speed product development? |
What is a high speed product development model and which NB HS product development model can be identified? |
What is a high speed product development process and which NB HS PD can be identified? |
What is a high speed product development enabler and which enablers can be identified? |
What are the success criteria for network based high speed product development? |
Source: Bohn & Lindgren, 2000.
Source: Inspired by Balachandra, 2000.
NB HS NPD Success Criteria Short Term Perspective | NB HS NPD Success Criteria Long Term Perspective |
Time | Right Time |
Cost | Right Cost |
Performance | Right Performance |
Continuous Improvement and Continuous Innovation | |
Learning | |
Right Speed |
Overall Research Questions | Hypotheses to be Tested | |
1. | What is network based high speed NPD? | |
2. | What enablers to NB HS PD can be identified? | |
3. | What framework models and processes in the idea and concept stage/gate of high speed product development based on networks can be measured? | |
4. | What success criteria can be used for measuring high speed product development based on networks? |
Basic Scientific Research | Practice Oriented Research | |
Aim/Motivation | To understand and explain the phenomenon better | To improve out control of the phenomenon |
Types of Problem | Scientific problems (guided towards maximum scientific contribution) | Technological problems (guided towards the reaching of a function with instructions for a process) |
Paradigm Dependency | Yes, the paradigm of the subject | To a lesser extent. Is multi-paradigmatic in a narrow sense (cross scientific and paradigmatic) |
Role | Basic realization of the present time | Communicator across scientific and practical areas |
Problem Generator | The researcher society (from the inside) | Practice (without the researcher society) |
Criteria for Result Evaluation | Increased insight and scientific durability | Increased efficiency, achievement of function and increase of problem solution preparedness |
Source: Bohn, Kim (adapted from Frank Gertsen, 1989).
Consumer-Based |
Expert-Based | ||
Unstructured | Structured | Unstructured | Structured |
Individual in-depth interviewsa) non directiveb) semi-structured/ focus individual analysis | Ned/benefit segmentation | Brain storming | Problem/opportunity analysis |
Motivation research | Problem detection studies | Synetics | Morphological analysis |
Focus group interviews | Market structure analysis/gap analysis | Suggestion box | Growth opportunity analysis |
Consumption system analysis | Product deficiency analysis | Independent inventors and licensors | Environmental trends analysis |
Consumer complaints | Analysis of competitive products | ||
Projective analysis | Search of patents and other sources of new ideas | ||
Observations |
Source: Adapted from Wind, Yoram J. (1975).
Source: Based on model presented by John Bessant, (2000) University of Brighton.
The Relevant Method | The Committed Method | The Action Researcher | |
Choice of Problem | Prior to data collection | In relation to field of research | In relation to field of research |
Method | Positivistic | Interpreting | Interpreting |
Starting Point for Research | Theoretic categories and hypotheses | Met-theoretic guidelines | Meta-theoretic guidelines |
Research Strategy and Analysis Unit | In terms of quantity | In terms of quality | In terms of quality |
Empiric Collection Methods | The field is examined independently of context | Phenomena are studied in relation to context | Phenomena are studied in relation to context |
Interaction with Actors in the Field | Disassociated relationship | Interact without intending to bring about changes | Active participation in the field intending to bring about changes |
Pitfalls | Ignorant, |
Risk of getting lost in details | Risk of getting lost in details |
Completion of Study | Sufficiently representative | When inner understanding suffices for an outer understanding | When inner understanding has been reached and the problem solved |
Method of Presentation | Normative and explanatory | Descriptive and understanding | Descriptive and understanding |
Source: Translated from Pernille Kræmergård – Centre for Industrial Production, 2001.
Source: Bohn & Lindgren, 2000.
Research Activities | Activity | Referred to in Chapters | Publication | Appendix |
Scenarios | Discussion with Professor John Bessant, Professor Marianno Corso, Professor Roberto Verganti, Professor Spina, Professor Harry Boer, Professor John Johansen, Professor Jens Riis, Professor Richard Leifers, Professor Mogens Myrup, Associated Professor Poul Dreisler | Several Chapters | (Appendix 2) | |
Conferences | Eiasm Conference Anti PolisCiNET – AalborgCiNET – Helsinki | More Chapters | Right speed in NB HS NPD …. | (Appendix 3) |
Focus Group Discussions | PUIN GroupDISPU Group | Chapter |
Product development in Network | (Appendix 4) |
Survey – internet based | PUINDISPU | Chapter |
(Appendix 5) | |
Meetings with experts on specific areas | Development director Preben Meyer TDC Internet, | Chapter |
(Appendix 6) | |
Participation in various lectures and seminars relevant to the project | PhD Summer school in COMO | Chapter |
(Appendix 7) | |
Action research laboratory project – TIP Project | Aarhus School of Business Economics; School of Danish Architecture in Aarhus; and School of Engineer Århus | Chapter |
Network based High speed product development ISBN | (Appendix 8) |
Participation in other research groups | (SMER, Loknit, Pitnit, Dispu, PUIN, RESME, SALSA, The TOM Project) | Chapter |
SMERLoknit, Pitnit Case Book | (Appendix 9) |
Participation in national and international projects | Chapter |
Process report 1, 2 and 3Bestcom toolbox, case book and theory collection | (Appendix 10) |
“The product development models you present are not used in our business at all! – We just do it. We just develop a prototype” (SCANIO)“If we ask our employees to slow down during a short span of time, everything stops. Therefore, a product development course must be run at high speed throughout the entire course” (Grundfos)“Generally speaking, we only perform incremental product development – in 95% of the cases. Advanced models are only used in connection with large, radical product development assignments” (Danfoss)
“the research instrument measures what the individual using the instrument wishes to measure” (Philips, 1996)
“the research instrument is consistent and the outcome of subsequent measurements produce approximately the same results”. (Philips 1986)
Source: Based on McGrath et al., 1982+.
“Ideally, a scientific study should reach all three aims – at least traditional Natural Science studies. However, within the world of management, the three objectives will constrain each other. In McGrath’s (1982) interpretation, the model becomes a “three-horned dilemma” in the sense that a researcher can only reach two or three objectives in a study – leaving him or her vulnerable to critique for not reaching the third objective – the third objective (whatever that may be). Thus realism, precision and generalisability are impossible to reach at the same time for researchers.” (Drejer A. et al., 1998)
“You may have noticed by now that the new products process essentially turns an opportunity into a profit flow. It begins with something that is not a product (the opportunity) and ends up with another thing that is not a product (the profit). The product comes form a situation and turns into and end.” (Crawford, 1992)
“In the course of a product development the product definition will often be prepared as a cooperation between marketing, customer and designers.” (Jiao and Tseng 1999)
Source: Copied from Jianxin Jiao and Mitchell M. Tseng “A requirement management databasesystem for product definition”; Integrated Manufacturing Systems 10/3 [1999] 146–153.
a product is considered finished at the exact time when it is introduced on the market
Source: Peter Lindgren, 2001.
Source: Heldey. B., “Strategy and the Business Portfolio”, Long Range Planning.
“the need satisfying offering of a firm or anything than can be offered to someone to satisfy a need or want.” (McCarthy and Perreault, 1990)
“the product is regarded as a process in which the business creates a product – or a platform – with many solutions, many possibilities of extension and many starts and ends.”
“everything, both favourable and unfavourable, that one receives in an exchange” (Dibb et al., 1991:208).
“a product is defined as a set of tangible and intangible attributes, including packaging, colour, price, quality, brand, and the services and reputation of the seller. A product may be a tangible good, service, place, person or idea.” (Stanton et al., 1991:168–9)
Source: Inspired by Turban 2001.
“a product is anything that can be offered to a market for attention, acquisition, use or consumption, that might satisfy a want or need.” (Kotler, 1994: 432)
“a product is a mixture of anything physical, digital, or virtual that can be offered to a market for attention, acquisition, use or consumption, that might satisfy a want or need”
“a product is therefore, anything that satisfies the customer and increasingly it is something which has embodied in it a high level of service. The consumption of products and services is the way in which users attempt to satisfy needs.” (Bradley, 1995)
Source: Kotler, P., 2001.
Source: Kotler, P., p. 436–438 Marketing Management 8th edition 1994.
Source: Eppinger, 2000.
Products with meanings but without function (Philip Starke)
“a mixture of business to business product and process that can be offered to a market for attention, acquisition, use or consumption, that might satisfy a want or need both tangible and intangible”
Source: Ansoff; Product/Market Expansion Grid.
Source: Ricard Leiferd.
Source: D. F. Abell Defining the business The starting point of strategic planning.
Source: Balachandra, R. “An expert system for new product development projects” IndustrialManagement & Data Systems 100/7 [2000] 317–324.
Product Development Characteristics | Variable 1 | Variable 2 |
Customer Needs (Abell, 1980) (Kotler, 2002) | Old | New |
Customer Group (Ansoff, 1980) (Balachandra 2000) (Abell, 1980) (Kotler, 2002) | Existing | New |
Customer Technology (Abell, 1980) (Balachandra) (Sanchez, 2000) | Existing | New |
Production Technology (Abell, 1980) (Sanchez 2000) | Familiar | Unfamiliar |
Market (Ansoff, 1980) (Balanca, 2000) (Abell, 1980) (Kotler, 2002) (Leifers 2002) | Existing | New |
Technology – One or Few (Balachandra, 2000) (Sanchez, 2000) | Few | Many |
Innovation – Product Development Assignment (Ansoff, 1980) (Abell, 1980) | Incremental | Radical |
Innovation – Strategic Area (Abell, 1980) (Ansoff, 1980) (Balachandra, 2000) | Existing | New |
Process (Boer, 2001) please see later | Old | New |
Competition (Porter, 1980) | Low | High |
Network (Coldmann & Price, 1995) (Child and Faulkner, 2001) please see later | Old | New |
“These describe the NPD process by focusing on the departments or functions that hold responsibility for various tasks carried out” … “The ideas are often assumed to arise in the R&D department; the engineering function will then “make” the prototype, after which production will become involved to plan and carry out the launch.” (Hart, 1999)
“These representations are rather outmoded as it is now accepted that the “pass the parcel” and “relay” approach to NPD from one department to the next is too time-consuming and does foster ownership of and strategic responsibility for the new product and there is no market feedback since marketing is presented with the product to market.” …“These models have been abandoned by the literature which examines NPD and by major businesses as more NPD cases show that everything happens mostly simultaneously.” (Hart, 1999)
“This type of model improves on the department model-stage models through its focus on actual activities carried out, which include various iterations of product development and market testing.” (Sarens, 1984) (Hart, 1999)
Source: Cooper, 1993.
“These models have been criticized for still promoting a pass the parcel approach to NPD since the activities are still seen to be the responsibility of separate departments or functions.” (Takeuchi and Nonaka, 1986)
“The model describes processes consisting of stages of activity, followed by review points, or gates, where the decision to continued (or not) with the development is made. These NPD models are known under a number of different names, depending on their origin : (Hart, 2000).”
Source: Christensen, Jens Frøslev; Produktinnovation – proces og strategi.
Source: Eppinger, Steven D.; p. 16.
“This approach clarifies the reality and importance of feedback loops, which although not impossible within the framework of the simpler activity-stage models, are usually not highlighted either. With the decision-stage models, each stage is viewed in terms of its potential output.” (Sarens, 1984) (Hart et al., 1999)
“These NPD models provide little insight into the NPD process, since they view it as a “black box” in an attempt to get away from the imposed rationality of departmental, activity, and decision based models. The alternative conversion process is a collection of the unspecified tasks which may or may not be carried out, depending on the nature of the innovation.” (Hart, 1999)
“Essentially, a series of inputs are envisaged, which may be composed of information on customer needs, a design drawing or an alternative manufacturing procedure. Over time, depending on a multiplicity of factors, including human, organizational and resource related, this input is converted into an output.” (Sarens, 1984) (Hart, 1999)
Source: Verganti, R., Developing Product on “Internet Time”, 2001.
Source: Inspired by Corso, M., 2001.
Source: Lindgren, P., 2001.
Source: Wheelwright & Clark, 1993.
Innovative Ideas |
Customers |
Marketing |
Engineering |
Manufacturing |
Suppliers |
Source: Clark & Wheelwright.
Sources to Product Development Ideas in General | In Percent |
Customers | |
Suppliers | |
Marketing | |
Sales | |
Leadership/Management | |
Production | |
Product Development | |
Competition | |
Others |
Source: Verganti, 2002.
Drivers for PD Process | Idea Stage |
Market Pull | |
Technological Push | |
Platform Products | |
Process Intensive Products | |
Customized Products | |
Design Driven Pull/Push |
Activity/Processes | Frequency (%) | Proficiency Quality Index Scores (0–10) | Need for Improvement Scores (0–10) |
Initial Screening | 92,3 | 5,27 | 5,48 |
Preliminary Market Assessment | 76,8 | 5,47 | 5,37 |
Preliminary Technical Assessment | 84,9 | 6,69 | 4,60 |
Detail Marketing Study/Marketing Research | 25,4 | 5,74 | 5,83 |
Business & Financial Analysis | 62,9 | 6,49 | 4,27 |
Product Development | 89,1 | 6,55 | 4,47 |
In-House Product Testing | 88,9 | 6,96 | 3,87 |
Customer Test of Product | 66,3 | 6,69 | 3,99 |
Test Market/Trial Sell | 22,5 | 6,86 | 4,59 |
Trial Production | 48,9 | 6,79 | 3,66 |
Pre-Commercialization Business Analysis | 34,5 | 6,26 | 3,95 |
Production Start-Up | 56,0 | 6,31 | 4,37 |
Market Launch | 68,1 | 6,36 | 4,44 |
Stage of Development | Information Needed for Stage; Nature of Information | Sources of Information | Likely Output of Stage in Light of Information |
Explicit statement of new product strategy, budget allocation | Preliminary market and technical analysis; business objectives | Generated as part of continuous MIS and corporate planning | Identification of |
Idea generation (for gathering) | Customer needs and technical developments in |
Inside business: sales people, technical functions. Outside business: customers, competitors, inventors, etc. | Body of initially acceptable ideas |
Screening ideas: finding those with most potential | Assessment of whether there is a |
Main internal functions:∙ R&D ∙ Sales ∙ Marketing | Ideas which are acceptable for further development |
business can make it. Assessment of financial implications: market potential and costs. Knowledge of business goals and assessment of fit | ∙ Finance ∙ Production | ||
Concept development: turning an idea into a recognizable product concept, with attributed and market position identified | Initial research with customer(s). Input from marketing and technical functions | Identification of key attributed that need to be incorporated in the product, major technical costs, target markets and potential | |
Business analysis: full analysis of the proposal in terms of its business potential | Fullest information thus far: ∙ Detailed market analysis ∙ Explicit technical feasibility and costs ∙ Production | Main internal functions Customers | Major go-no go decision: business needs to be sure the venture is worthwhile as expenditure dramatically increases after this stage. |
implications ∙ Corporate objectives | Initial marketing plan. Development plan and budget specification | ||
Product development: crystallizing the product into semi-finalized shape | Customer research with product. Production information to check “makeability” | Customers Production | Explicit marketing plans |
Test marketing: small-scale tests with customers | Profile of new product performance in light of competition, promotion and marketing mix variables | Market research: production, sales, marketing, technical people | Final go-no go for launch |
Commercialization | Test market results and report | As for test market | Incremental changes to test launch Full-scale launch |
Source: Wheelwright & Clark, 1992.
“The NPD process is idiosyncratic to each individual firm and to the new product project in question. Its shape and sequence depend on the type of new product being developed and its relationship with the firm’s current activities.” (Cooper, 1988, Johne and Snelson, 1988)In addition to the need to adapt the process to individual instances, it should be stated that in real situations there is no clear beginning, middle and to the NPD process (Hart, 1999).
Source: Lindgren, P., 2002.
“do not adequately communicate the horizontal dimensions of the NPD process” (Hart, 1999).
Source : Lindgren, P., 2002.
Source: Lindgren, P., 2002.
Change in the Concept of Product and Product Development | Now | Future |
Product characteristics | Physical products and immaterial productsA productOne final product delivered to the market | From physical products to more immaterial productsA total product Multi products (Both physical, digital, immaterial and virtual products)Sequential encapsulation of a product – “never ending story”From product to processThe product change to a process |
Stable products | Dynamic products | |
Focus on function and value | Focus on perceived value and meaning | |
The business finish the product | The customer change the product together with the business continuously | |
The customer and the business does not accept trials and error | The customer and the business accepts trial and error | |
Physical and digital process | Physical, digital and virtual process | |
Physical service and to some extent physical processes | Physical, digital and virtual process | |
The core of the product | Mostly stable and well defined core of the product | Rarely stable or always under construction and dynamic |
Not interactive into all areas | Interactive in all areas | |
The core of the product development project | Mostly static | Rarely static – high degree of dynamic |
The product development model | Mostly stage-gate model | All types of product development models |
The Product development process | One process with one start and one beginning. | Continuous process with many starts and many ends. |
The Main Components Context | Characteristics | Example of Networks |
Stable networks | Networks mainly based on physical and stable networks often internal and dominated network | Industrial groups, branch groups |
Evolving networks | Networks based on a mix and evolving system of networks – Physical networks, ICT – networks, virtual networks | PUIN network group, EU community, |
Dynamic network | Networks based on a mix of dynamic networks with high degree of dynamic where network partners constantly comes in and goes out. Often there is no formal network leader. | Virtual network groups, Ambia |
“The actors are linked to one another through various kinds of interaction processes in which resources are exchanged or used in joint activities. The network is thus the arena in which industrial actors compete and cooperate with one another in order to achieve their goals. For the individual actor the surrounding network constitutes an important part of the environment in which it operates. Its freedom to act is very much determined by the characteristics of the network, which give both opportunities and constraints.” (Laage-Hellmann 1989)
“A virtual network is a network that exist when there is a task for it but does not exist when there is not a task for it”
“Customer-focused and opportunity based, and it must have a clear and agreed upon set of objectives. Through the combination of the core competencies of all its members, it must establish a set of world-class core competencies to meet each opportunity” (Coldmann & Price, 1999)
“The relationship among the partners in a virtual organisation must include trust, open and honest communication, and compatible management styles. The organisation must be able to make decisions quickly and to disband relatively painlessly when the opportunity that occasioned its creation has passed. It must have been organized because no one member could have met the opportunity alone. It may be designed to be joined very easily to operate in distributed mode, to exploit concurrency, or to include competitors.” (Coldmann & Price, 1999)
“The virtual organisation can appear to customers as if it were, and it can act like, a big business because of the access to complementary competencies that it has in a virtual organisation. Look bag and retaining the entrepreneurial nature of being small.” “Regardless of size, the virtual organisation offers to its members access to expanded markets, the ability to combine resources for new markets, and the ability to cut the concept to cash time through concurrency.” “The virtual organisation has the ability to combine a disparate set of core competencies and offer advantages to customers in terms of systems reliability and capability. […]the combined set of core competencies can exceed the capabilities of the members organisations acting either alone or in a non-integrated network. A virtual organisation of small businesses can collectively take on systematic tasks and be responsible for the manufacturing function of a customer firm.” (Coldmann & Price, 1999)
“Access to skills and experience of many different manufacturing approaches (initially and over timer)” “Focus on the system versus components”
“The protection of intellectual properties.” (Coldmann & Price, 1999)
Network Type | Idea Phase | Concept Phase | |||||
Participating Functions | |||||||
ProductDevelopment | Marketing | Sale | Finance | Production | HR | Management | |
Traditional Network (Internal) | |||||||
Traditional Network (External) | |||||||
Virtual network | |||||||
Computer Network (E-development) |
“A high speed enabler is a catalyst put to the product development process that increase the speed and diminish the time at which a product development process can be completed”.
Enablers to High Speed Product Development | Today | In the Future |
Information and communication | Physical and to some extent digital information and communication | Mix of all existing information and communication tools mixed with new and high speed communication tools |
Customer satisfaction/customer focus | Customer to some extent involved in product development process | Customer involved in all phases of the product development process |
Optimization of PD processes | ||
Network product development | Few and narrow networks in PD | Network and all types of network in all product development projects |
Development of product development innovation | Innovation ad hoc | Innovation continuously |
Human resource | HRM not particularly involved. HRM not very important | HRM involved in all phases of the product development project – HRM very important in PD |
Process optimization | ||
From product to process | Some businesses see the product as a process | All businesses see the product as a process |
Product modularisation | Businesses try to use product modularisation but not with great success | All businesses use product modularisation |
E-development | Some businesses use E-development | All businesses use e-development |
Use of High Speed Enablers in Secondary Case Businesses | Total in % |
ICT Communication Enabler | 2 |
Customer Enabler | 9 |
PD Model Enabler | 11 |
Network Enabler | 11 |
Innovation Enabler | 6 |
HRM Enabler | 27 |
Process Enabler | 2 |
Product to Process Enabler | 2 |
Modularisation Enabler | 24 |
E-Development Enabler | 8 |
Total | 100 |
Success Criteria | Theoretical | Practical ( Secondary Cases) |
Time | Relative time – according to the view set for the PD task | Physical time – an working our e.g. |
Cost | Direct and alternative cost | Direct costs |
Performance | Perceived value | Value |
Speed | Relative time it takes to move a PD idea from idea generation to encapsulation of a product – according to the view set for the PD task. | Physical time moving a product development project from idea to market implementation |
Stage Gate Model | Flexible Model | |
Characteristics | ||
Markets | Familiar markets | Unfamiliar markets |
Technology | Familiar Technology | Unfamiliar Technology |
Network | Physical networks and stabilised ICT networks | Dynamic networks, ICT – networks, Virtual and dynamic networks |
Competences | Stable and physical competences | Dynamic and virtual competences |
Product | Products are mainly hardware | Products are mainly processes Software, services, |
Strength | When main components can be characterised as stable and in some case evolving on the product development field. | Flexible to sudden change in the main components on the product development field. |
Weakness | Un flexible to sudden change on the product development field | When product development turns out to be stable for a long period. |
Opportunities | When market, technology, network and competence turn to stabilise | When market, technology, network and competence turn to be dynamic and virtual |
Threats | “Trapped in a dynamic process” either in market, technology, network or competence – performance does not match demand of market. | “Trapped in a stable process” either in market, technology, network or competence – too much cost. |
Time for change of NPD – model and speed | Going from stabilised to dynamic PD – characteristicsWhen products turn to processes | Going from dynamic to stabilised PD – characteristicsWhen processes turn into products – standard modules |
NB HS NPD Success Criteria Short-Term Perspective | NB HS NPD Success Criteria Long-Term Perspective |
High Speed – Time | Right Time – Right Speed |
Costs | Right Costs |
Performance | Right Performance |
Continuous Improvement | |
Learning | |
Continuous Innovation |
Source: Lindgren & Bohn.
Hypotheses of Network Based Success Criteria | Today | In Future |
Success criteria in the business | Short term primarily oncostTimePerformance | Long termRight costRight timeRight performance(Perceived value)CIMCILearning |
Success criteria in the network | Vertical success criteria | Vertical, horizontal and network based success criteria |
The match | Matching success criteria to the business or narrow network partners | Matching success criteria across businesses and a broader set of network partners |
Product Characteristics Before | Product Characteristics in the Future | Case Examples |
A product | A total productA total process | |
A Physical Product | From physical product to more immaterial products | |
Single products | Multi-products (both physical, digital, immaterial and virtual products) | |
One time encapsulation | Sequential encapsulation of a product – “never ending story” | |
From product to a new product | The product changes to a processDynamic products | |
Focus on cost | Focus on direct and alternative cost | |
The customer cannot change the product or is blamed if they change the product | The customer continuously changes the product together with the business | |
The customers do not accept errors | The customer and the business accept trial and error | |
Physical processes | Physical, digital and virtual process |
High Speed Enablers | New Use of High Speed Enablers |
Information and Communication | Mix of all Existing Information and Communication Tools Mixed with New and High Speed Communication ToolsWill be the Case |
Customer satisfaction/customer focus | Customers will be involved in all phases of the product development process. We will see more beta-versions or prototypes because customers are always on the look-out for new products and will accept beta-versions. |
Optimization of PD processes | Businesses will always look for continuous optimisation of the product development process |
Network product development | Network and all types of network in all product development projects will be used. |
Development of product development innovation | Continuous innovation will be the case |
Human resource | HRM will be involved in all phases of the product development project. HRM will be very important in PD because access and overview on competences will be essential |
From product to process | All businesses will turn their view from product to process |
Product modularisation | All businesses use product modularisation but in a more advance way than today |
E-development | All businesses use e-development as a major tool in the product development process |
Network Challenges in Future Product Development | |
Network characteristics | Multi network and global networks |
Numbers of networks | Many and unknown actors because some actors will have to be brought in from places where the specific competences exist. |
Network construction | Interactive in all areas of the product development process. Network actors can interact on all phases in the product development process. |
The core of the network based product development project | Rarely static – but with a high degree of dynamic |
Management | Not static and mostly joined management or fragmented management. Management can change over the product development process. Please see the new EU 6 program which are constructed like this. |
Boundaries | More risky, un-formalised and fuzzy boundaries |
Important network competences | TrustCompetence to hub up on networksLanguage and communication competences |
Success criteria for a network actor | Able to do continuous improveAble to be innovativeAble to learn, learn fast when “walking around”Able to focus on value and cost at the same time |
The Main Components Context | Characteristics | Example of Markets 2002 |
Market (Sanchez 1996) | ||
Stable markets | Stable market preferences | Food industry, Furniture industry |
Evolving markets | Evolving market preferences | Agriculture industry, environment industry |
Dynamic markets | Dynamic market preferences | Software industry, Bio and gene industry |
Technology (Sanchez1996) | ||
Stable technology | Stable and known technologies | Audio and video technology |
Evolving technologies | Evolving technologies | Bio – technologies |
Dynamic technologies | Dynamic and mixed technologies | Nano-technology |
Stable networks | Networks mainly based on physical and stable networks often internal and dominated network | Industrial groups, branch groups |
Evolving networks | Networks based on a mix and evolving system of networks – Physical networks, ICT – networks, virtual networks | PUIN – network group, EU – community, |
Dynamic network | Networks based on a mix of dynamic networks with high degree of dynamic where network partners constantly comes in and goes out. Often there is no formal network leader. | Virtual network groups, Ambias |
Business competence context (Prahalad and Hammel, 1990) | Support competences Complementary competences Core competences |
“Our business has lost much money because of an expensive high speed product development approach. Our product was too early in the market and then the Internet came up and everything was turned around.” (Case No. 46 – ODI, UK)“We developed several E-learning products with high speed, and we built up an international competence in multimedia production with high speed because all market and all expert signs indicated a future heavy demand for e-learning products. When the product development finished and our technology and competences were ready for the evolving market – the market did not evolve as we had expected and we had to close our e-learning activities.” (Case No. 52 – M2SIRE)“We invested in a new particleboard surface machine for melamine production due to a strong market want and pressure from customers and sales. When we were ready for production, the market had turned to be minimal and covered by competitors.” (Case No. 53 – NOVDK)
Source: Lindgren & Bohn, 2002.
Source: Lindgren & Bohn, 2002.
Source: Lindgren inspired by R. Verganti, 2002.
NB HS NPD Success Criteria Short-Term Perspective | NB HS NPD Success Criteria Long-Term Perspective |
High Speed – Time | Right Time – Right Speed |
Cost | Right Cost |
Performance | Right Performance |
Continuous Improvement | |
Learning | |
Continuous Innovation |
Source: Lindgren & Bohn.
Important Issues of NB HS NPD in Future |
The product development architecture |
The product development process architecture |
A new product development process model |
Product development leadership (PUL) |
Choice of high speed enablers |
Choice and involvement in networks |
Competence to “hub up on” networks |
Trust and openness in network |
Learning and dynamic learning |
Long term success criteria |
Analytical approach to NB HS NPD |
The Main Components Context | Characteristics | Example of Markets 2002 |
Market (Sanchez 1996) | ||
Evolving dynamic markets | The markets becomes more evolving and dynamic in all markets | The textile line of business – Zara, Case No. 1, The mobile line of business The TDC case 57 |
Rapid cheap power technology | The technology gives us more possibilities and more technological power. The technology will be mixed faster and in a more dynamic and agile way. | Lyngsø Case No. 38, Mobilix, Case No. 40 |
Dynamic mixture of networks | Networks based on a mix of dynamic networks with high degree of dynamic where network partners constantly comes in and goes out. Often there is no formal network leader. | UK Chemical, Case No. 19 |
Increasing pressure on businesses competence | The pressure on businesses competences increase the businesses approach to perform more agile and flexible businesses where competences moves in and out according to the product development task | Rossflex, Case No. 11 |
The product becomes a process | The product turn into a process and the product becomes digital or virtual until “encapsulation” | Footshoe, Case No. 4; Scooter, Case No. 55 |
i Jianxin Jiao and Mitchell M. TsengA Requirement Management Database System for Product Definition ; Integrated Manufacturing Systems 10/3 [1999] 146–153.
The Main Components Context | Characteristics | Analysis Tools |
Market – (Sanchez 1996) | ||
Stable markets | Stable market preferences | Market analysis on behalf of Sanchez’ characteristics |
Evolving markets | Evolving market preferences | |
Dynamic markets | Dynamic market preferences | |
Technology (Sanchez1996) | ||
Stable technology | Stable and known technologies | Technology analysis on behalf of Sanchez’ characteristics |
Evolving technologies | Evolving technologies | |
Dynamic technologies | Dynamic and mixed technologies | |
Network (Håkonson & Håkonson; Child and Faulkner, 1999) | ||
Stable networks | Networks mainly based on physical and stable networks often internal and dominated network | Network analysis on behalf of Håkonson and Håkonson and Child and Faulkner’s characteristics. |
Evolving networks | Networks based on a mix and evolving system of networks – Physical networks, ICT – networks, virtual networks | |
Dynamic network | Networks based on a mix of dynamic networks with high degree of dynamic where network partners constantly comes in and goes out. Often there is no formal network leader. | |
Business competence context (Prahalad and Hammel 1990) | Support competences Complementary competences Core competences | Analysis on behalf of Prahalad and Hammels characteristics |
NB HS NPD Success Criteria Short-Term Perspective | NB HS NPD Success Criteria Long-Term Perspective |
High Speed – Time | Right Time – “Right Speed” |
Costs | “Right Costs” |
Performance | “Right Performance” |
Continuous Improvement | |
Learning | |
Continuous Innovation |
Sources to Product Development Ideas in General | In Per Cent Point of Entry |
Customers | |
Suppliers | |
Marketing | |
Finance | |
Sales | |
Leadership/Management | |
Production | |
Product Development | |
Human Resources | |
Competition | |
Others | |
Do not know | |
Total |
Elements of the Core in NB HS NPD | Hypothesis to Be Tested | |
1. | Mission | Does the core in HS NB NPD consist of the elements mentioned 1 to 5? When is the elements formulated in relation to the product development process?Can businesses which have formulated or formulate the core of NB HS NPD run with higher speed in PD than businesses with out a formulated core? |
2. | Objectives | |
3. | Strategy | |
4. | Business resources | |
5. | Other actors boundaries to network actors |
Source: Bohn & Lindgren, 2000.
Stage and Gates | Definition | Activity |
The pre idea stage | Actors network, discuss on an often informal basis | Networking |
The idea stage | Actors find an idea and define it | Idea generation |
The Idea gate | Actors screen the ideas | Idea Screening |
The concept stage | The ideas are conceptualised | Concept generation |
The concept gate | Actors screen the concepts | Concept screening |
The Product development stage or the “prototype stage” | The concepts are transformed into prototypes | Prototyping |
The Prototype gate | Actors screen the prototypes | Proto type screening |
The Process stage | The process for production of the new product is developed | Process development |
The Process gate | The final product is tested against quality standards and the process is screened against success criteria | Process screening and quality screening |
The Market implementation stage | The new product is introduced to the market | Market implementation |
The Market evaluation and control gate | The market evaluate the product. The business control the performance of the product. Proposals for adjustments turns up. | Market evaluation and control |
Source: Lindgren, P., 2002.
Functions Involved in Product Development Model | Definition of Function | Function Activity in Product Development Process |
Marketing function | - | |
Sales function | - …. | |
Product development function | - …. | |
Finance function | - …. | |
Production function | - …. | |
HRM Function | ||
Management function |
Source: Bohn & Lindgren, 2000.
Customers |
Suppliers |
Competition |
Other Network Partners | |||||||||||||
Y | N | ISC | DN | Y | N | ISC | DN | Y | N | ISC | DN | Y | N | ISC | DN | |
Idea Generation | ||||||||||||||||
Concept Generation | ||||||||||||||||
Product Development | ||||||||||||||||
ProcessDevelopmentPhase | ||||||||||||||||
Idea Screening | ||||||||||||||||
Concept Screening | ||||||||||||||||
Proto Type Test | ||||||||||||||||
Process Test |
Business | Line of Industry | Employees | Turnover |
Lyngsø Industries | Software Industry | 220 | 120 mill. DKK |
The Language Centre | Multimedia – E-learning industry | 6 | 4 mill. DKK |
AKV Langholt | Food Industry | 120 | 70 mill. DKK |
Lindholst | Machine Industry | 55 | 120 mill. DKK |
GSI Lumonics | Welding machine industry | 180 | 250 mill. DKK |
Consequences | High Speed | Right Speed |
Time | ||
Cost/Value | ||
Performance | ||
Market Fit | ||
Risk | ||
Security |
Empirical Results – Pilot Case Studies |
Lyngsø Industries A/S (Lyngsø) |
The Language Centre (TLC) |
AKV Langholt (AKV) |
GSI Lumonics (GSI) |
Lindholst (Linco) | ||||||
Overall Research Questions to be Verified | Hypothesis to be Verified and Tested | General PD | Specific PD | General PD | Specific PD | General PD | Specific PD | General PD | Specific PD | General PD | Specific PD |
What is network based high speed NPD? | NPD can be seen from different views (macro environment, business, product, market, customer, technology, competitive, and network view) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
HS NPD is a matter of right speed and not high speed | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
What enablers to NB HS PD can be identified? | Businesses use different HS enablers | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
HS enablers are identical to the 10 enablers – 1–10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
There can be more than these 10 enablers to HS PD | X | X | X | ||||||||
The enablers will play a different role according to the PD situation and project (Secondary focus) | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
The customer enabler, the network enabler, and the PD model enabler plays an important role in the upper phase of the HS PD + phase | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
What framework models and processes in the idea and concept stage/gate of HS PD based on networks can be measured? | The HS PD projects can be divided into radical and incremental PD projects | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
The radical and the incremental PD projects follow different generic HS PD models and processes and can thereby be described by different generic frameworks | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
What success criteria can be used for measuring HS PD based on networks? | The success criteria for HS PD are dependent on the specific PD project – radical or incremental. | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
HS PD success criteria can be formulated as short term and long term success criteria | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
Time, costs, and performance are central success criteria in a short-term perspective | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
Continuous improvement (CIM), continuous innovation (CI), and learning are central success criteria in a long term perspective so reach right time, right cost and right performance in NB HS PD. | X | X | X | X | X |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 40 | 50 | 10 |
New Products | 10 | 20 | 70 |
Physical Products | Digital Products | Virtual Products | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 40 | 60 | 0 |
Physical Processes | Digital Processes | Virtual processes | |
20 | 70 | 10 |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 40 | 50 | 10 |
New Products younger than 1 year | 10 | 20 | 70 |
Product Development | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Strategic Areas | ||
Known and Old Areas | Unknown and New Areas | |
Total Average | 40 | 60 |
Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Small Adjustments | Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Big Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Year with a Need for Small Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Year with a Need for Big Adjustments | |
TotalAverage (%) | 25 | 35 | 20 | 20 |
Known and Old Customer Groups | Unknown and New Customer Groups | |
Total Average | 85 | 15 |
Known and Old Customer Needs | Unknown and New Customer Needs | |
Total Average | 50 | 50 |
KnownTechnology | Known Technology withSmall Adjustments (Incremental Technology) | Completely New Technology (Radical Technology) | |
Total Average (%) | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Markets with Low or No Competition | Markets withMedium or Intensive Competition | Markets with Fierce and Rival Competition | |
Total Average (%) | 30 | 20 | 50 |
No Degree of Innovation – Routine NPD Project | Medium Degree of Innovation – Modified Product Development with Minor Demands on Adjustment (Incremental) | High Degree of Innovation – with Many Elements of Innovation (Radical Innovation) | |
Total Average (%) | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Sources to Product Development Ideas in General | In Percent |
Customers | 36, 4 |
Suppliers | 9,1 |
Sales | 27,3 |
Leadership/Management | 9,1 |
Production | 4,5 |
Product Development | 9,1 |
Competition | 4,5 |
Total | 100 |
Definition of Goals and Limits to Product Development Project | |
Mission | Yes |
Goals | Yes |
Strategy | Yes |
Economic Resources | Yes |
Personnel/Organisational Resources | Yes |
Contact Limits to Network Partners | Yes |
Management of Project (%) | |
Customer | 60 |
Supplier | 5 |
Marketing | 10 |
Sales | 25 |
Total | 100 |
Customers | Suppliers | Competition | Other Network Partners | |
Idea Generation | Y | N | N | N |
Concept Generation | Y | N | N | N |
Product Development | N | N | N | N |
Process Development Phase | N | N | N | N |
Idea Screening | Y | N | N | N |
Concept Screening | Y | N | N | N |
Proto Type Test | Y | N | N | N |
Process Test | Y | N | N | N |
Idea | Concept | PD Phase | Process Development Phase | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Proto Type | Process Testing |
N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y |
Idea | Concept | PD Phase | Process Development? | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Proto Type | Process Testing |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Time | Costs | Performance | CIM | CI | Learning | |
Yes | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Time | Costs | Performance | CIM | CI | Learning |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
90Marketing | 90Finance | 90Sales | 90Management | 90Production | 90Product 90Development | 90HRM | |
Idea Generation | ISC | N | Y | Y | ISC | Y | N |
Concept Generation | N | N | Y | Y | ISC | Y | N |
Product Development | N | N | Y | Y | ISC | Y | N |
Process Development Phase | N | ISC | ISC | Y | Y | Y | N |
Idea Screening | ISC | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N |
Concept Screening | ISC | N | Y | Y | ISC | Y | N |
Proto Type Test | N | N | ISC | ISC | Y | Y | N |
Process Test | N | N | N | ISC | Y | Y | N |
Priorities | |
Time | 2 |
Cost | 2 |
Performance | 1 |
CIM | 2 |
CI | 1 |
L | 2 |
Very Much | In Some Cases | No | Do Not Know | ||
ICT Communication Enabler | Yes | ||||
Customer Enabler | Yes | ||||
PD Model Enabler | Yes | ||||
Network Enabler | Yes | ||||
Innovation Enabler | Yes | ||||
HRM Enabler | Yes | ||||
Process Enabler | Yes | ||||
Product to Process Enabler | Yes | ||||
Modularisation Enabler | Yes | ||||
E-Development Enabler | Yes |
Consequences at Lyngsø Reflected on Their General Product Development Model and Processes Related to Their Characteristic on the Field of PD | High Speed | Right Speed |
Time | High speed will not give Lyngsøs product development any benefit on time because they will loose in alternative time | Right speed will give Lyngsø a competitive advantage because they will have time to develop and implement their product at the right time for the market. |
Cost/Value | The direct and alternative cost will be too high and the value both direct and alternative will not match the markets demand for value. | The direct and alternative cost will diminish as both the value curve both and the cost curve both direct and alternative will match the markets demand for value. The business gains a possibility to find the right value and the right cost. |
Performance | The performance on the products will either come out with a too high performance related to the market demand or a product that cannot match the performance of the market because of marketing and technological “bugs”. | The performance on the products will come out with the right performance related to the market demand or a product that can match the demand for performance on the market. It will be possible to use play with perceived value because of marketing, design technology, production are matching each other. |
Market fit | Will not fit the market – “over valued” and customer demand are out of fit. | Will fit the market – “valued” and customer demand are in fit |
Risk | The profit will diminish and the span between value and cost will diminish. Too many cost to product development because technology are not stable. | The profit will increase diminish and the span between value and cost will diminish. Too many cost to product development because technology are not stable. |
Threat | Lyngsø implement a product too early and the products will either fail to be adapted to the market or be very early copied by competitors. | Lyngsø implement a product too early and the products will either fail to be adapted to the market or be very early copied by competitors. |
ROI | No return on investment or late ROI | ROI and earlier ROI |
Proposal for improvement | Increase the innovation capacity – use more PD enabler, Innovation enabler and modularisation enabler Be careful about the product architecture and choice of product development model. A right product architecture will give the possibility to use the Modularisation HS enabler later in the product development process and in the future, which can make Lyngsø speed product development further seen from a competitive and customer perspective. |
Dimension | Incremental | Radical |
Where was the idea discovered? | On the field of product development by a network partner – a supplier. | |
Initiator of idea | Network partner – a supplier | |
Product type | Hardware 40%software 60%Physical product 20%Digital product 40%Virtual product 40%. | |
Consequences for product core | new core | |
Placement in product development stage | idea stage | |
Innovation degree | High | |
Market | New | |
Customer needs | New | |
Customer group | Old and known | |
Technology | New | |
Network | Old | |
Innovation degree and challenge to competence | Middle | |
Product management | Loin Management | |
Competition | Low not existent | |
Strategic importance | low and long term not critical | |
Success criteria | Performance – highCost – middelSpeed – middelCI – noneCIM – noneLearning – none | |
Product development task | Incremental Radical | |
PD model – formal | Network based stage gate model | |
Functions involved in initial phase | Sales | |
Partners involved in initial phase | Supplier and in concept customer | |
Enablers involved | Network enabler, Innovation enabler in the initial phase. |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 100 | 0 | 0 |
New Products | 100 | 0 | 0 |
Physical Products | Digital Products | Virtual Products | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 80 | 20 | 0 |
Physical Processes | Digital Processes | Virtual processes | |
100 | 0 | 0 |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 100 | 0 | 0 |
New Products (3 years) | 100 | 0 | 0 |
Product Development | 80 | 10 | 10 |
Strategic Areas | ||
Known and Old Areas | Unknown and New Areas | |
Total Average | 100 | 0 |
Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Small Adjustments | Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Big Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Year with a Need for Small Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Year with a Need for Big Adjustments | |
Total Average (%) | 0,0 | 0,0 | 100,0 | 0 |
Known and Old Customer Groups | Unknown and New Customer Groups | |
Total Average | 100 | 0 |
Known and Old Customer Needs | Unknown and New Customer Needs | |
Total Average | 100 | 0 |
Known Technology | Known Technology with Small Adjustments (Incremental Technology) | Completely New Technology (Radical Technology) | |
Total Average (%) | 80 | 10 | 10 |
Markets with Low or No Competition | Markets with Medium or Intensive Competition | Markets with Fierce and Rival Competition | |
Total Average (%) | 0 | 0 | 100 |
No Degree of Innovation – Routine NPD Project | Medium Degree of Innovation – Modified Product Development with Minor Demands on Adjustment (Incremental) | High Degree of Innovation – with Many Elements of Innovation (Radical Innovation) | |
Total Average (%) | 0 | 80 | 20 |
Sources to Product Development Ideas in General | In Per Cent |
Customers | 15,0 |
Sales | 20,0 |
Leadership/Management | 30,0 |
Product Development | 15,0 |
Competition | 20,0 |
Total | 100 |
Definition of Goals and Limits to Product Development Project | |
Mission | Yes |
Goals | Yes |
Strategy | Yes |
Economic Resources | Yes |
Personnel/Organisational Resources | No |
Contact Limits to Network Partners | No |
Idea | Concept | PD Phase | Process Development Phase | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Proto Type | Process Testing |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
90Marketing | 90Finance | 90Sales | 90Management | 90Production | 90Product 90Development | 90HRM | |
Idea Generation | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Concept Generatino | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Product Development | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Process Development | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Phase Idea | Y | N | |||||
Screening | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Concept Screening | NA | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Proto Type Test | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Process Test | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Customers | Suppliers | Competition | Other Network Partners | |
Idea Generation | Y | N | N | N |
Concept Generation | N | N | N | N |
Product Development | N | Y | N | Y |
Process Development Phase Idea | N | N | N | Y |
Screening | N | N | N | Y |
Concept Screening | N | Y | N | Y |
Proto Type Test | Y | N | N | Y |
Process Test | Y | Y | N | Y |
Priorities | |
Time | 1 |
Cost | 2 |
Performance | 1 |
CIM | 1 |
CI | 1 |
L | 1 |
Very Much | In Some Cases | No | Do Not Know | |
ICT Communication Enabler | Yes | |||
Customer Enabler | Yes | |||
PD Model Enabler | Yes | |||
Network Enabler | Yes | |||
Innovation Enabler | Yes | |||
HRM Enabler | Yes | |||
Process Enabler | Yes | |||
Product to Process Enabler | Yes | |||
Modularisation Enabler | Yes | |||
E-Development Enabler | Yes |
Consequences at TLC Reflected on their General Product Development Model and Processes Related to their Characteristics on the Field of PD. | High Speed | Right Speed |
Time | TLC is under high pressure on time and cost from “the field of product development”. Especially the market and the technology press TLC to continuously lower cost and increasing introduction on new products. The product life cycle of the products are diminishing continuously incremental new product must be introduced to the market at high speed Diminishing time in product development is a must for TLC. However, high speed focused only on cost will not give TLC benefit or competitive advantage on the market because competitors can develop at the same speed and with often lower cost. TLC come either too fast or too slow to the market and loose on alternative time and cost | Right speed in TLC means high speed but with a focus to competitive advantage TLC will in this market not have time to develop and implement their product at a slow speed A market oriented out side in management style is necessary at TLC. The field of product development” has to be analysed carefully to find the right time for product introduction. TLC has to focus on a strong product architecture. TLC must find the right time for market introduction. |
Cost/Value | The direct and alternative cost are too high and the value both direct and alternative do not match the markets demand for value and perceived value. | The direct and alternative cost will diminish as both the value curve and the cost curve directly and alternatively will match the market’s demand for value when TLC focus on perceived value it will gain bigger profitability. The business gains a possibility to find the right value and the right cost. |
Performance | The product either comes out with a too high performance related to the market demand or the product cannot match the performance of the market because of marketing and technological “bugs”. | The product comes out with the right performance related to the market demand or the product can match the demand for performance on the market. It will be possible to use and play with perceived value because of marketing, design technology, production are matching each other. |
Risk | The profit will diminish and the span between value and cost will diminish. Too many costs to product development because technology is not stable. And its very expensive to develop content. | The profit will increase because the span between value and cost will increase. Cost to product development because technology are not stable. |
Threat | TLC implement a product too early and the products will either fail to be adapted to the market or be very early copied by competitors. | TLC implement a product at the right time continuously and the products are adapted immediately to the market. It will be very difficult for the competitors to copy the product and if so the competitors will be too late before a new incremental product development has taken place. |
ROI | No return on investment or late ROI | ROI and earlier ROI |
Proposal for improvement | Increase the customer enabler – use more the modularisation enabler and formulate the product architecture very carefully at the very initial idea and concept stage. Secure the possibility of fast variation and diminish cost continuously. Focus on perceived value and right time. |
Dimension | Incremental | Radical |
Where was the idea discovered | On the marketplace | |
Initiator of idea | Customer | |
Product type | Hardware 5% Software 95% | |
Consequences for product core | Modified to radical modification of the core | |
Placement in product development stage | Concept stage | |
Innovation degree | High to TLC | |
Market | Old and mature market | |
Customer needs | Stable interest | |
Customer group | Old | |
Technology | Old and stable | |
Network | Old | |
Competence’s | To some extent new – “perceived value”. | |
Product management | the business | |
Competition | High and radical | |
Strategic importance | high, important, short term and critical – survival | |
Success criteria | CI – none CIM – some Learning – none | Performance – high on perceived performance Cost – high on diminishing the cost Speed – very high – pressure from competitors |
Product development task | ||
PU model – formal | Stage gate model | |
Functions involved in initial phase | Sales and production | |
Partners involved in initial phase | Business and customer | |
Enablers involved | Customer enabler |
Consequences at TLC Reflected on their General Product Development Model and Processes Related to their Characteristic in the Field of PD. | High Speed | Right Speed |
Time | High speed will not give TLC product development any benefit on time because they will loose in alternative time | Right speed will give TLC a competitive advantage because they have time to develop and implement their new product at the right time. However right speed in this case is both focused on high speed and perceived value because of the characteristics on the field of product development. |
Cost/Value | The direct and alternative cost will be too high and the value both direct and alternative will not match the markets demand for value and perceived value. | The direct and alternative cost will diminish as both the value curve will increase and the cost curve diminish direct alternative will match the markets demand for value. The business gains a possibility to find the right value and the right cost. |
Performance | The performance on the products will either come out with a too high performance related to the market demand or a product that cannot match the performance of the market because of marketing and technological “bugs” or the technology is out of date. | The performance on the products will come out with the right performance related to the market demand or a product that can match the demand for performance on the market. It will be possible to use play with perceived value because of marketing, design technology, production are matching each other. |
Market fit | Will not fit the market – either “over valued” or “under valued” and customer demand are out of fit. | Will fit the market – “valued” and customer demand are in fit |
Risk | The profit will diminish and the span between value and cost will diminish. Too many cost to product development because technology are not always stable. | The profit will increase because the span between value and cost will increase. Cost to product development will diminish because the market is ready to the product. Implementation and because TLC will choose when technology are stable. |
Threat | TLC implement a product too early and the products will either fail to be adapted to the market or be very early copied by competitors. | TLC implement a product at right time and the products will be adapted to the market or be very early copied by competitors. |
ROI | No return on investment or late ROI | ROI and earlier ROI |
Proposal for improvement | Increase the innovation capacity – use more PD enabler, innovation enabler and modularisation enabler with focus on product architecture – use the e-development enabler more intensively. |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 100 | 0 | 0 |
New Products | 100 | 0 | 0 |
Physical Products | Digital Products | Virtual Products | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 100 | 0 | 0 |
Physical Processes | Digital Processes | Virtual processes | |
100 | 0 | 0 |
Sources to Product Development Ideas in General | In Per Cent |
Customers | 15,0 |
Suppliers | 5,0 |
Sales | 50,0 |
Production | 25,0 |
Competition | 5,0 |
Total | 100 |
Definition of Goals and Limits to Product Development Project | |
Mission | Yes |
Goals | Yes |
Strategy | Do not know |
Economic Resources | Yes |
Personnel/Organisational Resources | Yes |
Contact Limits to Network Partners | Yes |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 100 | 0 | 0 |
New Products | 100 | 0 | 0 |
Product Development | 100 | 0 | 0 |
Strategic Areas | ||
Known and Old Areas | Unknown and New Areas | |
Total Average | 95 | 5 |
Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Small Adjustments | Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Big Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Year with a Need for Small Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Year with a Need for Big Adjustments | |
Total Average (%) | 40 | 10 | 30 | 20 |
Known and Old Customer Groups | Unknown and New Customer Groups | |
Total Average | 90 | 10 |
Known and Old Customer Needs | Unknown and New Customer Needs | |
Total Average | 95 | 5 |
Known Technology | Known Technology with Small Adjustments (Incremental Technology) | Completely New Technology (Radical Technology) | |
Total Average (%) | 80 | 15 | 5 |
Markets with Low or No Competition | Markets with Medium or Intensive Competition | Markets with Fierce and Rival Competition | |
Total Average (%) | 30 | 20 | 50 |
No Degree of Innovation – Routine NPD Project | Medium Degree of Innovation – Modified Product Development with Minor Demands on Adjustment (Incremental) | High Degree of Innovation – with Many Elements of Innovation (Radical Innovation) | |
Total Average (%) | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Idea | Concept | PD Phase | Process Development Phase | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Proto Type | Process Testing |
N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y |
Idea | Concept | PU Phase | Process Development? | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Prototype | Process Testing |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Time | Costs | Performance | CIM | CI | Learning | |
Yes | Y | Y | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
To some extent | 0 | 0 | Y | Y | 0 | Y |
No | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Y | 0 |
Do not know | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Not answered | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product 90Development | HRM | |
Idea Generation | Y | ISC | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Concept Generation | Y | N | Y | ISC | Y | ISC | N |
Product Development | ISC | N | ISC | ISC | Y | Y | N |
Process Development | N | N | N | N | Y | ISC | N |
Phase Idea | |||||||
Screening | Y | Y | ISC | ISC | Y | ISC | Y |
Concept Screening | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | ISC | N |
Proto Type Test | N | ISC | ISC | N | Y | ISC | N |
Process Test | N | N | N | N | Y | NA | N |
Management of Project (%) | |
Customer | 85 |
Do not Know | 15 |
Total | 100 |
Customers | Suppliers | Competition | Other Network 90Partners | |
Idea Generation | Y | N | N | N |
Concept Generation | Y | Y | N | N |
Product Development | Y | Y | N | N |
Process Development Phase | N | N | N | N |
Idea Screening | Y | N | N | N |
Concept Screening | N | N | N | N |
Proto Type Test | Y | Y | N | N |
Process Test | Y | Y | N | N |
Priorities | |
Time | 2 |
Cost | 3 |
Performance | 1 |
CIM | 3 |
CI | 4 |
L | 4 |
Very Much | In Some Cases | No | Do Not Know | |
ICT Communication Enabler | Yes | Yes | ||
Customer Enabler | ||||
PD Model Enabler | Yes | |||
Network Enabler | Yes | |||
Innovation Enabler | Yes | |||
HRM Enabler | Yes | |||
Process Enabler | Yes | |||
Product to Process Enabler | Yes | |||
Modularisation Enabler | Yes | |||
E-Development Enabler | Yes |
Dimension | Incremental | Radical |
Where were the idea discovered | Internal the business – production – due to a reclamation from a customer | |
Initiator of idea | Director and production manager | |
Product type | Hardware 50% Software (knowledge of the process and combination of chemicals) 50% | |
Consequences for product core | modification of core and ad to functions | |
Placement in product development stage | concept stage | |
Innovation degree | high | |
Market | old and mature | |
Customer needs | new | |
Customer group | Old | |
Customer technology | new | |
Technology | new | |
Network | old | |
Competences | new and unknown | |
Product management | the business manager | |
Competition | high | |
Strategic importance | high, important, middle term and critical – competitive advantage | |
Success criteria | Cost – middle CI – none CIM – some Learning – none | Performance – high Speed – very high |
Product development task | Incremental Radical | |
PD model – formal | Stage gate | |
Functions involved in initial phase | Management and production | |
Partners involved in initial phase | business alone firstly – internal product development project afterwards prototyping with one or two main customers. | |
Enablers involved | HRM – enabler and a new enabler to the PhD research – the Management enabler. The product development enabler – Rapid prototyping. |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 75 | 25 | 0 |
New Products | 80 | 15 | 5 |
Physical Products | Digital Products | Virtual Products | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 80 | 20 | 0 |
Physical Processes | Digital Processes | Virtual processes | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 75 | 25 | 0 |
Sources to Product Development Ideas in General | In Per Cent |
Customers | 20,0 |
Suppliers | 5,0 |
Marketing | 5,0 |
Sales | 15,0 |
Leadership/Management | 10,0 |
Production | 10,0 |
Product Development | 15,0 |
Competition | 20,0 |
Total | 100 |
Definition of goals and Limits to Product Development Project | |
Mission | Yes |
Goals | Yes |
Strategy | Yes |
Economic Resources | No |
Personnel/Organisational Resources | No |
Contact Limits to Network Partners | No |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 75 | 25 | 0 |
New Products | 80 | 15 | 5 |
Product Development | 80 | 15 | 5 |
Strategic Areas | ||
Known and Old Areas | Unknown and New Areas | |
Total Average | 80 | 20 |
Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Small Adjustments | Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Big Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Year with a Need for Small Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Year with a Need for Big Adjustments | |
Total Average (%) | 0 | 40 | 0 | 60 |
Known and Old Customer Groups | Unknown and New Customer Groups | |
Total Average | 90 | 10 |
Known and Old Customer Needs | Unknown and New Customer Needs | |
Total Average | 80 | 20 |
Known Technology | Known Technology with Small Adjustments (Incremental Technology) | Completely New Technology (Radical Technology) | |
Total Average (%) | 15 | 15 | 70 |
Markets with Low or No Competition | Markets with Medium or Intensive Competition | Markets with Fierce and Rival Competition | |
Total Average (%) | 0 | 50 | 50 |
No Degree of Innovation – Routine NPD Project | Medium Degree of Innovation – Modified Product Development with Minor Demands on Adjustment (Incremental) | High Degree of Innovation – with Many Elements of Innovation (Radical Innovation) | |
Total Average (%) | 30 | 35 | 35 |
Idea | Concept | PD Phase | Process 90Development 90Phase | Idea 90Screening | Concept 90Screening | Proto Type | Process 90Testing |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Idea | Concept | PU Phase | Process 90Development | Idea90Screening | Concept 90Screening | Prototype | Process 90Testing |
N | Do not know | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y |
Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product 90Development | HRM | |
Idea Generation | ISC | N | ISC | ISC | N | Y | N |
Concept Generation | N | N | ISC | ISC | N | Y | N |
Product Development | N | N | N | ISC | Y | Y | N |
Process Development | N | N | ISC | ISC | ISC | Y | N |
Phase | |||||||
Idea Screening | ISC | N | ISC | ISC | N | Y | N |
Concept Screening | ISC | N | ISC | ISC | N | Y | N |
Proto Type Test | N | N | N | N | ISC | Y | N |
Process Test | N | N | N | N | ISC | NA | N |
Management of Project (%) | |
Sales | 10 |
Production | 20 |
Product Development | 70 |
Total | 100 |
Customers | Suppliers | Competition | Other Network Partners | |
Idea Generation | Y | N | N | N |
Concept Generation | Y | N | N | N |
Product Development | N | N | N | N |
Process Development | N | N | N | N |
Phase | ||||
Idea Screening | Y | N | N | N |
Concept Screening | Y | N | N | N |
Proto Type Test | Y | N | N | N |
Process Test | Y | N | N | N |
Priorities | |
Time | 2 |
Cost | 2 |
Performance | 1 |
CIM | 2 |
CI | 2 |
L | 2 |
Very Much | In Some Cases | No | Do Not Know | |
ICT Communication Enabler | Yes | |||
Customer Enabler | Yes | |||
PD Model Enabler | Yes | |||
Network Enabler | Yes | |||
Innovation Enabler | Yes | |||
HRM Enabler | Yes | |||
Process Enabler | Yes | |||
Product to Process Enabler | Yes | |||
Modularisation Enabler | Yes | |||
E-Development Enabler | Yes |
Dimension | Incremental | Radical |
Where was the idea discovered | External the business – customer and sales – due to a strong customer need to solve a working environmental problem and a need for faster production in the chicken slaughter | |
Initiator of idea | Customer | |
Product type | Hardware 50% Software (knowledge of the technology to solve the hanging up process of chicken for slaughtering) 50% | |
Consequences for product core | Modification of core and ad to functions | |
Placement in product development stage | Concept stage | |
Innovation degree | High | |
Market | Old and mature | |
Customer needs | New | |
Customer group | Old | |
Customer technology | New | |
Technology | New | |
Network | Old | |
Competence’s | New and unknown | |
Product management | The business – manager | |
Competition | High | |
Strategic importance | High, important, short term and critical – competitive advantage | |
Success criteria | Cost – middle Speed – middle CI – none CIM – some Learning – none | Performance – high |
Product development task | ||
PU model – formal | Stage gate | |
Functions involved in initial phase | Management, product development | |
Partners involved in initial phase | Customer and the business |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 80 | 15 | 5 |
New Products | 70 | 25 | 5 |
Physical Products | Digital Products | Virtual Products | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 80 | 20 | 0 |
Physical Processes | Digital Processes | Virtual processes | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 65 | 35 | 0 |
Product Development | 55 | 45 | 0 |
Sources to Product Development Ideas in General | In Percent |
Customers | 25,0 |
Suppliers | 10,0 |
Marketing | 5,0 |
Sales | 20,0 |
Leadership/Management | 5,0 |
Production | 5,0 |
Product Development | 20,0 |
Competition | 5,0 |
Others | 5,0 |
Total | 100 |
Definition of Goals and Limits to Product Development Project | |
Mission | Yes |
Goals | Yes |
Strategy | Yes |
Economic Resources | Yes |
Personnel/Organisational Resources | Yes |
Contact Limits to Network Partners | Yes |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 80 | 15 | 5 |
New Products (3 years) | 70 | 25 | 5 |
Product Development | 70 | 25 | 5 |
Strategic Areas | ||
Known and Old Areas | Unknown and New Areas | |
Total Average | 85 | 15 |
Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Small Adjustments | Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Big Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Year with a Need for Small Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Year with a Need for Big Adjustments | |
Total Average (%) | 20,0 | 50,0 | 25,0 | 5,0 |
Known and Old Customer Groups | Unknown and New Customer Groups | |
Total Average | 90 | 10 |
Known and Old Customer Needs | Unknown and New Customer Needs | |
Total Average | 80 | 20 |
Known Technology | Known Technology with Small Adjustments (Incremental Technology) | Completely New Technology (Radical Technology) | |
Total Average (%) | 10 | 25 | 65 |
Markets with Low or No Competition | Markets with Medium or Intensive Competition | Markets with Fierce and Rival Competition | |
Total Average (%) | 10 | 35 | 55 |
No Degree of Innovation – Routine NPD Project | Medium Degree of Innovation – Modified Product Development with Minor Demands on Adjustment (Incremental) | High Degree of Innovation – with Many Elements of Innovation (Radical Innovation) | |
Total Average (%) | 15 | 45 | 40 |
Idea | Concept | PD Phase | Process Development Phase | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Proto Type | Process Testing |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Idea | Concept | PD Phase | Process Development Phase | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Proto Type | Process Testing |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Time | Costs | Performance | CIM | CI | Learning | |
Yes | Y | Y | Y | 0 | Y | Y |
To some extent | 0 | 0 | 0 | Y | 0 | 0 |
No | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Do not know | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Not answered | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product 90Development | HRM | |
Idea Generation | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Concept Generation | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Product Development | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Process Development | ISC | Y | ISC | Y | Y | Y | N |
Phase | |||||||
Idea Screening | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Concept Screening | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Proto Type Test | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
Process Test | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | N |
Management of Project (%) | |
Customer | 10,0 |
Supplier | 10,0 |
Marketing | 5,0 |
Sales | 10,0 |
Management | 10,0 |
Production | 10,0 |
Product Development | 30,0 |
Common Leadership | 15,0 |
Total | 100 |
Priorities | |
Time | 1 |
Cost | 3 |
Performance | 1 |
CIM | 3 |
CI | 1 |
L | 1 |
Very Much | In Some Cases | No | Do Not Know | |
ICT Communication Enabler | Yes | |||
Customer Enabler | Yes | |||
PD Model Enabler | Yes | |||
Network Enabler | Yes | |||
Innovation Enabler | Yes | |||
HRM Enabler | Yes | |||
Process Enabler | Yes | |||
Product to Process Enabler | Yes | |||
Modularisation Enabler | Yes | |||
E-Development Enabler | Yes | Yes |
Dimension | Incremental | Radical |
Where was the idea discovered | Internal the business – product development, management – due to a strong business need to gain an competitive advantage in the laser welding market specifically the automobile production | |
Initiator of idea | The business | |
Product type | Hardware 50% Software(knowledge of the technology to solve the laser welding process) | |
Consequences for product core | Modification of core and ad to functions | |
Placement in product development stage | Concept stage | |
Innovation degree | Regarded as middle but turned out high | |
Market | Old and mature | |
Customer needs | New | |
Customer group | Old | |
Customer technology | New | |
Technology | New | |
Network | Old | |
Competence’s | New and unknown | |
Product management | The sub-supplier - product development manager | |
Competition | High | |
Strategic importance | High, important, short term and critical – competitive advantage | |
Success criteria | Cost – middle advantage CI – none CIM – none Learning – none | Performance – high Speed – high – competitive first mover |
Product development task | ||
PU model – formal | Stage gate | |
Functions involved in initial phase | Management, product development | |
Partners involved in initial phase | Sub-supplier and the business | |
Enablers involved | The network enabler |
Dimension | Results |
Product Type | Primarily physical products (65%), service (20%), and knowledge and consultancy (5%) Primarily physical processes (70%), digital processes (30%), and virtual processes (0%) |
Idea Generation | Before, during, and after the product development phase Primarily by customers, sales, and product development |
Consequences to Core of Product | Related product development, seldom alterations of the core of the product |
“Goals and Framework” | Mission not always formulated Goals and budget not always formulated Use of personnel/organisational resources formulated and specified Strategy, interface, and contact to network partners normally not formulated. More dynamic pari passu with the arising needs and demands from product development |
Strategic Area | Known strategic areas (95%), unknown strategic areas (5%) Low degree of innovation (85%), high degree of innovation (15%) Old markets (80%), new markets (20%) Old customer needs (85%), new customer needs (15%) Old customer groups (90%), new customer groups (10%) Known customer technology (70%), unknown customer technology (30%) Technologically old areas (65%), technologically new areas (35%) Known networks (90%), new networks (10%) Weak competitive environments (10%), medium competitive environment (30%), fierce competitive environment (60%) |
Innovation Degree | |
Market | |
Customer Needs | |
Customer Group | |
Customer Technology | |
Technology | |
Network | |
Competition | |
Product Life Cycle | Generally diminished Often need for product development adjustments Often need for product development on products with less than 3 years On the market |
Product Development Model | Mainly stage-gate model Normally 4 stages and 3 gates Informal product development models exist in the businesses often as a result of pressure on time and creativity |
Management of Product Development | Very focused on short-term success criteria; time, costs, and performance Very focused on PDM and hardly ever on PDL Top-managed; choice of manager made by top-management itself Different managerial styles authoritarian, decentralized, and team based managerial style |
Functions Involved in Product Development | Traditional functions involved; marketing, sales, product development, and management primarily in the initial phases. Finance in the concept screening phases. Product typically not involved until the last part of the concept phase and in the product development phase. HRM not involved in product development phase |
Prioritizing Success Criteria for Product Development | Performance – high, especially in the idea and prototype phase Costs – medium to high especially in the screening phase and the last parts of the product development phase Time – High in idea, screening, and product development phase CI – hardly ever prioritised CIM – hardly ever prioritised Learning – hardly ever prioritised |
Verified/Not | ||
Chapter |
Verified | |
Overall Research Questions to be Verified | Hypotheses to be Verified and Tested | |
1. What is network based high speed NPD | HS NPD can be seen from different view (Macro environment, business, product, market, customer, technology, competitive and network view) | Verified |
HS NPD is a matter of right speed and not high speed. | Verified | |
2. What enablers to NB HS PD can be identified? | Businesses use different HS enablers. | Verified |
HS enablers are identical to the 10 enablers – 1–10 | Partly verified | |
There can be more than these 10 enablers to HS PD | Verified | |
The enablers will play a different role according to the PD situation and project (Secondary focus) | Verified | |
The customer enabler, the network enabler and the PD model enabler plays an important role in the upper phase of the HS PD phase. | Partly verified | |
3. What framework models and processes in the idea and concept stage/gate of high speed product development based on networks can be measured | The HS PD projects can be divided into to radical and incremental PD projects | Verified |
The radical and the incremental PD projects follow different generic HS PD models and processes and can thereby be described by different generic frameworks | Partly verified | |
4. What success criteria can be used for measuring high speed product development based on networks? | The success criteria for HS PD are dependent on the specific PD project – radical or incremental | Verified |
Overall Research Questions to be Verified | Hypotheses to be Verified and Tested | |
HS PD success criteria can be formulated as short term and long term success criteria | Verified | |
Time, cost and performance are central success criteria in a short term perspective | Verified | |
Continuous improvement (CIM), continuous innovation (CI), and learning are central success criteria in a long term perspective to reach right time, right cost and right performance in NB HS PD. | Not verified |
General Theme and Agenda for the 10 Focus Group Meetings |
General conditions and Trends in PD |
The task of PD – Radical or incremental |
Enablers to NB HS product development |
The core of a HS PD project |
HS PD models and networks |
Success criteria of HS PD |
Time and HS PD |
Speed and HS PD |
Cost and HS PD |
Performance and HS PD |
Consequences | High Speed | Right speed |
Time | ||
Cost/Value | ||
Performance | ||
Market fit | ||
Risk | ||
Security |
EmpiricalResults – Focus Group Interview | Meeting 1 | Meeting 2 | Meeting 3 | Meeting 4 | Meeting 5 | Meeting 6 | Meeting 7 | Meeting 8 | Meeting 9 | Meeting 10 | |
Overall Research Questionsto be Verified | Hypothesis to be Verified and Tested | General Conditions and Trends in PD | The Task of PD – Radical or Incremental | Enablers to NB HS PD | The Core of a HS PD Project | HS PD Models and Networks | Success Criteria of HS PD | Time and HS PD | Speed and HS PD | Cost and HS PD | Performance and HS PD |
What is network based high speed NPD? | HS NPD can be seen from different views (macro environment, business, product, market, customer, technology, competitive, and network view) | X | X | ||||||||
HS NPD is a matter of right speed and not high speed. | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
What enablers to NB HS PD can be identified? | Businesses use different HS enablers. | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
HS enablers are identical to the 10 enablers – 1–10. | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
There can be more than these 10 enablers to HS PD. | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
The enablers will play a different role according to the PD situation and project (Secondary focus). | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
The customer enabler, the network enabler, and the PD model enabler plays an important role in the upper phase of the HS PD phase. | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
What framework models and processes in the idea and concept stage/gate of HS PD based on networks can be measured? | The HS PD projects can be divided into radical and incremental PD projects. | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
The radical and the incremental PD projects follow different generic HS PD models and processes and can thereby be described by different generic frameworks. | X | X | |||||||||
What success criteria can be used for measuring HS PD based on networks? | The success criteria for HS PD are dependent on the specific PD project – radical or incremental. | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
HS PD success criteria can be formulated as short term and long term success criteria. | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
Time, costs, and performance are central success criteria in a short-term perspective. | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
Continuous improvement (CIM), continuous innovation (CI), and learning are central success criteria in a long term perspective so reach right time, right cost and right performance inNB HS PD. | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing product portfolio | 83,5 | 15,0 | 1,5 |
New products | 83,0 | 8,5 | 8,5 |
Physical Products | Digital Products | Virtual Products | |
Existing product portfolio | 86 | 13 | 1 |
Physical processes | Digital processes | Virtual processes | |
83 | 16 | 1 |
The Main Components Context | Characteristics |
MarketStable marketsEvolving marketsDynamic markets | Most SMEs claimed that they were operating in stable to evolving market with customers who have mostly incremental development in preferences. |
Technology Stable technologyEvolving technologiesDynamic technologies | The businesses claimed that their markets were under pressure of new evolving and some times unknown technologies. The technology gave the businesses new technological possibilities but the technological possibilities were often ahead of market demand. |
Network Stable networksEvolving networksDynamic network | The businesses general involvement in networks was mainly based on physical and stable, narrow networks often internal and dominated network. However, a slightly new evolvement of networks based on a mix of new evolving system of networks – both physical networks and ICT networks were recognized. None of the businesses were joining virtual networks. Only very few of the businesses joined networks based on a mix of dynamic networks with a high degree of dynamic where network partners constantly come and go. None of the businesses had joined a network with no formal network leader. |
Business competence context | The businesses felt that there was a high pressure on support competences and that they had to develop on complementary competences either by internal development or by external recruiting in their networks. A high pressure on the businesses’ core competences were realised and some of the businesses felt that their competitive advantage on core competences was reduced or diminished by competitors. |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing product portfolio | 83 | 15 | 2 |
New products | 81,5 | 9,5 | 9 |
Product development | 81 | 8 | 11 |
Strategic Areas |
||||||
Known an Old Areas | Unknown and New Areas | Market | Technology | Network | Business | |
Lyngsø | 40 | 60 | Evolving and dynamic | Dynamic | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic |
Linco | 80 | 20 | Evolving | Evolving | Stable and evolving | Evolving |
AKV | 95 | 5 | Stable | Stable | Stable | Stable |
B&O | 80 | 20 | Evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and evolving | Evolving |
Danfoss | 95 | 5 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and evolving | Evolving |
NEG Micon | 90 | 10 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and evolving | Evolving |
Ansager | 90 | 10 | Stable | Stable | Stable | Stable |
Scanio | 80 | 20 | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving |
GSI | 85 | 15 | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic |
Grundfoss | 70 | 30 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving |
Total Average | 80 | 20 |
Average need of product development after 1 year | 48% |
Average need of big redevelopment in products | 49% |
Average products need for redevelopment after 1 years lifetime | 48% |
Known and Old Customer Groups | Unknown and New Customer Groups | Known and Old Customer Needs | Unknown and New Customer Needs | Market | Technology | Network | Business Competences | |
Lyngsø | 40 | 60 | 40 | 60 | ||||
Llnco | 90 | 10 | 80 | 20 | Evolving and dynamic | Dynamic | Evolving and Dynamic | Evolving and dynamic |
AKV | 90 | 10 | 95 | 5 | Evolving | Evolving | Stable and evolving | Evolving |
B&O | 80 | 20 | 50 | 50 | Stable | Stable | Stable | Stable |
DANFOSS | 95 | 5 | 95 | 5 | Evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
NEG MICON | 95 | 5 | 90 | 10 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
Ansager | 90 | 10 | 80 | 20 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
Scanio | 70 | 30 | 70 | 30 | Stable | Stable | Stable | Stable |
GSI | 90 | 10 | 80 | 20 | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving |
Grundfoss | 80 | 20 | 65 | 35 | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic |
Total Average | 82 | 18 | 75 | 26 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Stable and Evolving |
“Generally speaking, we only perform incremental product development – in 95% of the cases. Advanced models are only used in connection with large, radical product development assignments.” (Danfosss)
Known Technology | Known Technology with Small Adjustments (Incremental Technology) | Completely New Technology (Radical Technology) | Market | Technology | Network | Business Competences | |
Lyngsø | 40 | 30 | 30 | Evolving and dynamic | Dynamic | Evolving and Dynamic | Evolving and dynamic |
Linco | 15 | 15 | 70 | Evolving | Evolving | Stable and evolving | Evolving |
AKV | 80 | 15 | 5 | Stable | Stable | Stable | Stable |
B&O | 50 | 20 | 30 | Evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
DANFOSS | 70 | 20 | 10 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
NEG MICON | 30 | 50 | 20 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
Ansager | 80 | 15 | 5 | Stable | Stable | Stable | Stable |
Scanio | 70 | 20 | 10 | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving |
GSI | 10 | 25 | 65 | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic |
Grundfoss | 35 | 40 | 25 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Stable and Evolving |
Total Average | 48 | 25 | 27 |
Markets with Low or No Competition | Markets with Medium or Intensive Competition | Markets with Fierce and Rival Competition | Market | Technology | Network | Business Competences | |
Lyngsø | 30 | 20 | 50 | Evolving and dynamic | Dynamic | Evolving and Dynamic | Evolving and dynamic |
Linco | 0 | 50 | 50 | Evolving | Evolving | Stable and evolving | Evolving |
AKV | 30 | 20 | 50 | Stable | Stable | Stable | Stable |
B&O | 0 | 0 | 100 | Evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
DANFOSS | 0 | 0 | 100 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
NEG MICON | 0 | 0 | 100 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
Ansager | 0 | 60 | 40 | Stable | Stable | Stable | Stable |
Scanio | 10 | 20 | 70 | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving |
GSI | 10 | 35 | 55 | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic |
Grundfoss | 0 | 0 | 100 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Stable and Evolving |
Total Average | 8 | 21 | 72 |
No Degree of Innovation – Routine NPD Project | Medium Degree of Innovation – Modified Product Development with Minor Demands on Adjustment (Incremental) | High Degree of Innovation – with Many Elements of Innovation (Radical Innovation) | Market | Technology | Network | Business Competences | |
Lyngsø | 25 | 25 | 50 | Evolving and dynamic | Dynamic | Evolving and Dynamic | Evolving and dynamic |
Linco | 30 | 35 | 35 | Evolving | Evolving | Stable and evolving | Evolving |
AKV | 25 | 25 | 50 | Stable | Stable | Stable | Stable |
B&O | 30 | 40 | 30 | Evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
DANFOSS | 50 | 45 | 5 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
NEG MICON | 30 | 50 | 20 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Evolving |
Ansager | 0 | 80 | 20 | Stable | Stable | Stable | Stable |
Scanio | 10 | 20 | 70 | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving | Stable and evolving |
GSI | 15 | 45 | 40 | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic | Evolving and dynamic |
Grundfoss | 5 | 15 | 80 | Stable and evolving | Evolving and dynamic | Stable and Evolving | Stable and Evolving |
Total Average | 22 | 38 | 40 |
Dimension | Incremental | Radical |
Where was the idea discovered | On the marketplace | |
Initiator of idea | Customer | |
Product type | Hardware 5% Software 95% | |
Consequences for product core | Modified core | |
Placement in product development stage | Concept stage | |
Innovation degree | Low | |
Market | Old and mature | |
Customer needs | Evolving | |
Customer group | Old | |
Customer technology | Old | |
Technology | Old and stable | |
Network | Old | |
Competence’s | Old and known | |
Product management | The business | |
Competition | High | |
Strategic importance | High, important, short term and critical – survival | |
Success criteria | Performance – highCost – high Speed – very high CI – noneCIM – someLearning – none | |
Product development task | ||
PU model – formal | Stage gate | |
Functions involved in initial phase | Sales and production | |
Partners involved in initial phase | Business and customer |
Sources to Product Development Ideas in General | Lyngsø | Linco | AKV | B&O | DANFOSS | NEG MICON | Ansager | Scanio | GSI | Grundfoss | In Per cent |
Customers | 36 | 20 | 15 | 0 | 40 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 5 | 19 |
Suppliers | 9 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 4 |
Marketing | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 3 |
Finance | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sales | 27 | 20 | 50 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 45 | 0 | 20 | 10 | 21 |
Leadership/ | |||||||||||
Management | 9 | 10 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
Production | 5 | 10 | 25 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 15 | 9 |
Product | |||||||||||
Development | 9 | 20 | 0 | 80 | 20 | 45 | 15 | 50 | 20 | 50 | 31 |
Human | |||||||||||
Resources | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Competition | 5 | 20 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 8 |
Others | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Do not know | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Definition of Goals and Limits to PD Projects |
In Percentage |
|||
At the Beginning | Yes | No | Do not Know | Total |
Mission | 80 | 20 | 0 | 100 |
Goals | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Strategy | 60 | 10 | 30 | 100 |
Economic Resources | 90 | 10 | 0 | 100 |
Personnel/Organisational Resources | 70 | 20 | 10 | 100 |
Contact Limits to Network Partners | 60 | 20 | 20 | 100 |
Definition of Goals and Limts to Product Development Project | Lyngsø | Linco | AKV | B&O | DANFOSS | NEG MICON | Ansager | Scanio | GSI | Grunfoss |
ved begyndelsen | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | In most cases | Yes | Yes | In most cases |
Mission | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Goals | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Strategy | Yes | Yes | DNT | Yes | Yes | No | nsir | Yes | Yes | DNT |
Economic | ||||||||||
Resources | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Personnel/Organisational | ||||||||||
Resources | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | DNT | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Contact | ||||||||||
Limits to Network | ||||||||||
Partners | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | DNT | Yes | DNT | Yes | Yes | No |
Yes | Yes | |||||||||
No | No | |||||||||
DNT | Do not know |
Idea | Concept | PD Phase | Process Development Phase | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Proto Type | Process Testing | ||
Lyngsø | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | ISO 9001 |
Linco | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
AKV | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | ISO 9001 |
B&O | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ISO 9001 |
DANFOSS | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ISO 9001 |
NEG MICON | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | ISO 9001 |
Ansager | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | ISO 9001 |
Scanio | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | |
GSI | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ISO 9001 |
Grundfoss | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | ISO 9001 |
Total Average Yes | 60 | 80 | 90 | 90 | 40 | 60 | 90 | 80 | |
Total Average No | 40 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 60 | 40 | 10 | 20 |
Idea | Concept | PU Phase | Process Development | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Prototype | Process Testing | |
Lyngsø | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Linco | N | Do not know | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y |
AKV | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
B&O | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
DANFOSS | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | N |
NEG MICON | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Ansager | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Do not know |
Scanio | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
GSI | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Grundfoss | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Total Average Yes | 40 | 50 | 60 | 50 | 30 | 40 | 60 | 40 |
Total Average No | 60 | 40 | 40 | 50 | 70 | 60 | 40 | 50 |
Total Average Do Not Know | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
Time | Costs | Performance | CIM | CI | Learning | |
Lyngsø | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Linco | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
AKV | Y | Y | TSE | TSE | N | TSE |
B&O | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Danfoss | TSE | TSE | N | TSE | TSE | TSE |
NEG Micon | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Ansager | Y | Y | TSE | N | TSE | TSE |
Scanio | N | N | N | N | N | N |
GSI | Y | Y | Y | TSE | Y | Y |
Grundfos | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Total Average Yes | 50 | 40 | 20 | 20 | 30 | 30 |
Total Average TSE | 10 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 20 | 30 |
Total Average No | 40 | 50 | 60 | 50 | 50 | 40 |
Total | Idea Generation | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Development | HRM |
Y | 70 | 0 | 90 | 70 | 60 | 100 | 10 | |
ISC | 20 | 40 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | |
N | 10 | 60 | 0 | 10 | 20 | 0 | 90 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Concept Generation | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 60 | 10 | 70 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 0 | |
ISC | 10 | 20 | 30 | 50 | 10 | 20 | 0 | |
N | 30 | 70 | 0 | 10 | 30 | 0 | 100 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Product Development | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 20 | 20 | 20 | 30 | 90 | 100 | 10 | |
ISC | 40 | 0 | 40 | 50 | 10 | 0 | 0 | |
N | 40 | 80 | 40 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 90 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Process Development | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 10 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 100 | 70 | 10 | |
ISC | 10 | 20 | 10 | 40 | 0 | 30 | 0 | |
N | 80 | 70 | 80 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 90 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Idea Gate | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 50 | 30 | 60 | 50 | 60 | 90 | 0 | |
ISC | 30 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 0 | 10 | 0 | |
N | 20 | 60 | 20 | 20 | 40 | 0 | 100 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Concept Gate | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 50 | 20 | 60 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 0 | |
ISC | 30 | 0 | 20 | 30 | 10 | 20 | 0 | |
N | 20 | 80 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 100 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Prototype Test | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 20 | 20 | 30 | 20 | 80 | 70 | 0 | |
ISC | 10 | 20 | 30 | 50 | 20 | 30 | 0 | |
N | 70 | 60 | 40 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 100 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM | ||
Total | Process Test | |||||||
Y | 30 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 90 | 60 | 0 | |
ISC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
N | 70 | 50 | 80 | 30 | 0 | 20 | 100 | |
Total | 100 | 80 | 100 | 50 | 90 | 80 | 100 |
Management of Project (%) | Lyngsø | Linco | AKV | B&O | Danfoss | Neg Micon | Ansager | Scanio | GSI | Grundfoss | Total |
Customer | 60 | 0 | 85 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 95 | 50 | 10 | 90 | 49 |
Supplier | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 10 | 0 | 5 |
Marketing | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 |
Finance | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sales | 25 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 10 | 0 | 7 |
Management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 65 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 8 |
Production | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 3 |
Product Development | 0 | 70 | 0 | 100 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 24 | |
HRM | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Competition | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Common Leadership | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 2 |
Do not Know | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 3 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Customers |
Suppliers |
Competition |
Other Network |
|||||||||||||||||
Y | N | ISC | DN | Y | N | ISC | DN | Y | N | ISC | DN | Y | N | ISC | DN | Y | ||||
Idea | 90 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 10 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 20 | 60 | 0 | 20 | 100 |
Generation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Concept | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 30 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 10 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 60 | 30 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Generation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Product | 60 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 10 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 50 | 40 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Development | ||||||||||||||||||||
Process | 10 | 80 | 0 | 10 | 100 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 10 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 20 | 60 | 0 | 20 | 100 |
Development | ||||||||||||||||||||
Phase | ||||||||||||||||||||
Idea | 50 | 10 | 0 | 40 | 100 | 20 | 60 | 0 | 20 | 100 | 0 | 90 | 0 | 10 | 100 | 10 | 40 | 0 | 50 | 100 |
Screening | ||||||||||||||||||||
Concept | 40 | 30 | 0 | 30 | 100 | 20 | 60 | 0 | 20 | 100 | 10 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 20 | 30 | 0 | 50 | 100 |
Screening | ||||||||||||||||||||
Proto Type | 90 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 40 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 90 | 0 | 10 | 100 | 20 | 60 | 0 | 20 | 100 |
Test | ||||||||||||||||||||
Process Test | 40 | 40 | 0 | 20 | 100 | 70 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 90 | 0 | 10 | 100 | 30 | 50 | 0 | 20 | 100 |
Total |
||||||
HS Enablers | Y | ISC | N | DN | Total | |
1 | ICT Communication Enabler | 50 | 40 | 10 | 0 | 100 |
2 | Customer Enabler | 80 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
3 | PD Model Enabler | 30 | 60 | 10 | 0 | 100 |
4 | Network Enabler | 50 | 40 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
5 | Innovation Enabler | 50 | 40 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
6 | HRM Enabler | 30 | 50 | 20 | 0 | 100 |
7 | Process Enabler | 20 | 70 | 10 | 0 | 100 |
8 | Product to Process Enabler | 70 | 20 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
9 | Modularisation Enabler | 70 | 20 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
10 | Development Enabler | 20 | 40 | 20 | 20 | 100 |
Total |
||||||
Success Criteria | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total |
Time | 30 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Cost | 30 | 20 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Performance | 90 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
CIM | 20 | 50 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
CI | 50 | 20 | 10 | 20 | 0 | 100 |
L | 20 | 40 | 30 | 10 | 0 | 100 |
Priorities | Lyngsø | Linco | AKV | B&O | Danfoss | Neg Micon | Ansager | Scanio | GSI | Grundfoss |
Time | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Cost | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
Performance | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
CIM | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
CI | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
L | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Idea | Concept | PD Stage | Process Stage | PD Test | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Proto Type Test | Process Test | |
Time | 30 | 30 | 50 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 10 | 40 |
Costs | 0 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 20 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Performance | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 0 | 60 | 50 | 0 |
CIM | 20 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CI | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
Learning | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
NA Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 30 |
100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Chapter |
|||
Overall Research Questions to be Verified | Hypotheses to be Verified and Tested | Verified/not verified | |
1. | What is network based high speed NPD | HS NPD can be seen from different views (Macro environment, business, product, market, customer, technology, competitive and network view) | Verified |
HS NPD is a matter of right speed and not high speed. | Verified | ||
2. | What enablers to NB HS PD can be identified? | Businesses use different HS enablers. | Verified |
HS enablers are identical to the 10 enablers – 1–10 | Partly verified | ||
There can be more than these 10 enablers to HS PD | Verified | ||
The enablers will play a different role according to the PD situation and project (Secondary focus) | Verified | ||
The customer enabler, the network enabler and the PD model enabler plays an important role in the upper phase of the HS PD phase. | Partly verified | ||
3. | What framework models and processes in the idea and concept stage/gate of high speed product development based on networks can be measured | The HS PD projects can be divided into to radical and incremental PD projectsThe radical and the incremental PD projects follow different generic HS PD models and processes and can thereby be described by different generic frameworks | VerifiedPartly verified |
4. | What success criteria can be used for measuring high speed product development based on networks? | The success criteria for HS PD are dependent on the specific PD project – radical or incrementalHS PD success criteria can be formulated as short term and long term success criteria | VerifiedVerified |
Time, cost and performance are central success criteria in a short term perspective | Verified | ||
Continuous improvement (CIM), continuous innovation (CI), and learning are central success criteria in a long term perspective to reach right time, right cost and right performance in NB HS PD. | Partly verified |
Survey Response Statistics | No. | Danish | Foreign | Total | % |
Original respondent | 456 | 444 | 12 | 456 | 100 |
E-mail address error | 77 | 77 | 12 | 89 | 19.5 |
Potential respondent | 379 | 367 | 12 | 379 | 80.5 |
Did not want to answer out of total | 87 | 87 | 0 | 87 | 19.1 |
Did not want to answer out of potential | 87 | 87 | 0 | 87 | 23.0 |
Potential respondents who wanted to answer | 292 | 280 | 12 | 292 | 77.0 |
Answered out of total | 156 | 144 | 12 | 156 | 34.2 |
Answered out of potential | 156 | 144 | 12 | 156 | 53.4 |
Consequences | High Speed | Right Speed |
Time | ||
Cost/Value | ||
Performance | ||
Market fit | ||
Risk | ||
Security |
Empirical Results – Survey | |||
Overall Research Questions to be Verified | Hypotheses to be Verified and Tested | Survey | |
1. | What is network based high speed NPD | HS NPD can be seen from different views (Macro environment, business, product, market, customer, technology, competitive and network view). | X |
HS NPD is a matter of right speed and not high speed. | X | ||
2. | What enablers to HS PD can be identified? | Businesses use different HS enablers. | X |
HS enablers are identical to the 10 enablers – 1–10 | X | ||
There can be more than these 10 enablers to HS PD. | X | ||
The enablers will play a different role according to the PD situation and project (Secondary focus). | X | ||
The customer enabler, the network enabler and the PD model enabler plays an important role in the upper phase of the HS PD phase. | X | ||
3. | What framework models and processes in the idea and concept stage/gate of high speed product development based on networks can be measured | The HS PD projects can be divided into to radical and incremental PD projects. | X |
The radical and the incremental PD projects follow different generic HS PD models and processes and can thereby be described by different generic frameworks. | X | ||
4. | What success criteria can be used for measuring measuring high speed product development based on networks? | The success criteria for HS PD are dependent on the specific PD project – radical or incremental. | X |
HS PD success criteria can be formulated as short term and long term success criteria. | X | ||
Time, cost and performance are central success criteria in a short term perspective. | X | ||
Continuous improvement (CIM), continuous innovation (CI), and learning are central success criteria in a long term perspective to reach right time, right cost and right performance in NB HS PD. | X |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledgeand Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 81 | 11 | 8 |
New Products | 88 | 4 | 8 |
Physical Products | Digital Products | Virtual Products | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 93 | 4 | 3 |
Physical Processes | Digital Processes | Virtual Processes | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 92 | 5 | 3 |
The Main Components Context | Characteristics |
Market Stable marketsEvolving marketsDynamic markets | Most SMEs claimed that they were operating in stableto evolving market with customers who have mostly incremental development in preferences. |
Technology Stable technologyEvolving technologiesDynamic technologies | The businesses claimed that their market were under pressure from new, evolving and some times unknown technologies. The technology gave the businesses new technological possibilities but the technological possibilities were often ahead of market demand. |
Network Stable networksEvolving networksDynamic network | The businesses’ general involvement in networks were mainly based on physical and stable networks; often internal and dominated network.However, a slightly new evolvement of networks based on a mix of new evolving system of networks – both physical networks and ICT networks were recognized. None of the businesses were joining virtual networks. Only very few of the businesses joined networks based on a mix of dynamic networks with a high degree of dynamic where network partners constantly enter and leave. None of the businesses had joined a network without a formal network leader. |
Business competence context | Businesses felt that there was a high pressure on support competences and that they had to develop complementary competences either by internal development or by external recruiting in their networks. A high pressure on businesses core competences were realised and some of the businesses felt their competitive advantage on core competences were reduced or diminished by competitors. |
Sources to Product Development Ideas in General | Total |
Customers | 22 |
Suppliers | 3 |
Marketing | 4 |
Finance | 0 |
Sales | 16 |
Leadership/Management | 8 |
Production | 9 |
Product Development | 26 |
Human Resources | 0 |
Competition | 7 |
Others | 4 |
Do not know | 3 |
Total | 100 |
Physical Products | Service Products | Knowledge and Consultancy | |
Existing Product Portfolio | 81 | 11 | 8 |
New Products | 88 | 4 | 8 |
Product Development |
Strategic Areas |
|||
Known and Old Areas | Unknown and New Areas | Total | |
Total | 81 | 19 | 100 |
Std. Div. | 14.5 | 14.4 | |
Min | 40 | 0 | |
Max | 100 | 60 |
Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Small Adjustments | Old Products More than 3 Years with a Need for Major Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Years with a Need for Small Adjustments | New Products Older than 1 Years with a Need for Major Adjustments | ||
Total in % | 21.1 | 27.1 | 27.3 | 24.4 | 100 |
S Dev. | 17.4 | 24.2 | 25.5 | 23.6 | |
Min | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Max | 60 | 100 | 100 | 80 |
Known and Old Customer Groups | Unknown and New Customer Groups | Known and Old Customer Needs | Unknown and New Customer Needs | |
Total | 82 | 18 | 74 | 26 |
S Dev. | 14.7 | 14.6 | 19.6 | 19.3 |
Min | 30 | 0 | 30 | 0 |
Max | 100 | 70 | 100 | 70 |
Known Technology | Known Technology with Small Adjustments (Incremental Technology) | Completely New Technology (Radical Technology) | Total | |
Total | 61 | 25 | 14 | 100 |
S Dev. | 22.1 | 17.0 | 14.6 | |
Min | 15 | 0 | 0 | |
Max | 100 | 95 | 70 |
Markets with Low or No Competition | Markets with Medium or Intensive Competition | Markets with Fierce and Rival Competition | Total | |
Total | 9 | 37 | 54 | 100 |
S Dev. | 18.2 | 31.4 | 35.6 | |
Min | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Max | 70 | 100 | 100 |
No Degree of Innovation – Routine NPD Project | Medium Degree of Innovation – Modified PD with Minor Demandson Adjustments(Incremental) | High Degree of Innovation – with Many Elements of Innovation (Radical Innovation) | Total | |
Total | 36 | 36 | 28 | 100 |
S Dev. | 25.7 | 18.4 | 26.6 | |
Min | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Max | 100 | 80 | 100 |
Dimension | Incremental | Radical |
Where was the idea discovered | Known – On the market place | |
Initiator of idea | Known – By customers, sales and product development department. | |
Product type | Known – Hardware 83% Service 8.5%. Knowledge and consultancy 8.5% | |
Process type | Known – Physical processes 83% Digital processes 16% virtual processes 1%. | |
Strategic areas | Known and old areas (81%) unknown and new areas (19%). | |
Innovation degree | Low | |
Market | Old and well known markets | |
Customer group | Old and well known (82%) unknown (18%). | |
Customer needs | Known and Old Customer Needs Slightly (74%) Unknown and new customers needs (26%) slightly evolving. | |
Technology | Known Technology (61%) – Known Technology with Small Adjustments (Incremental Technology (25%) – Completely New Technology (Radical Technology) (14%) evolving. | |
Competition | Markets with Low or No Competition (9%) – Markets with Medium or Intensive Competition (37%) – Markets with Fierce and Rival Competition (54%). | |
Network | Old and narrow | |
Innovation- challenge and press on businesses competence | No Degree of Innovation – Routine NPD Project (36%) – Medium Degree of Innovation – Modified Product Development with Minor Demands on Adjustment (Incremental) (36%) – High Degree of Innovation – with Many Elements of Innovation (Radical Innovation)(28%). | |
Product development task |
Definition of Goals and Limits to Product Development Project | Yes | No | Do Not Know | Total |
Mission | 63 | 31 | 6 | 100 |
Goals | 94 | 6 | 0 | 100 |
Strategy | 50 | 38 | 13 | 100 |
Economic Resources | 94 | 6 | 0 | 100 |
Personnel/Organisational Resources | 75 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
Contact Limits to Network Partners | 59 | 38 | 3 | 100 |
Idea | Concept | PD Phase | Process Development Phase | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Prototype Test | Process Testing | |
Yes | 88 | 92 | 96 | 88 | 57 | 57 | 87 | 77 |
No | 12 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 35 | 30 | 4 | 23 |
Under constructions | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 9 | 0 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Informal Models | Idea | Concept | PD Phase | Process DevelopmentPhase | Idea Screening | Concept Screening | Prototype Test | Process Testing |
Yes | 71 | 62 | 86 | 52 | 35 | 30 | 80 | 50 |
No | 29 | 29 | 14 | 38 | 55 | 60 | 20 | 45 |
UnderConstructions | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 5 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Time | Costs | Performance | CIM | CI | Learning | |
Yes | 48 | 29 | 24 | 33 | 24 | 30 |
No | 10 | 14 | 19 | 19 | 14 | 25 |
ISC | 43 | 48 | 43 | 38 | 43 | 30 |
Do not know | 0 | 10 | 14 | 10 | 19 | 15 |
100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Idea Generation | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 38 | 8 | 65 | 54 | 43 | 95 | 0 | |
ISC | 27 | 73 | 0 | 8 | 11 | 3 | 92 | |
N | 32 | 19 | 35 | 35 | 43 | 3 | 3 | |
DN | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 5 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Concept Generation | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 49 | 9 | 43 | 44 | 43 | 83 | 0 | |
ISC | 23 | 77 | 6 | 15 | 23 | 3 | 91 | |
N | 26 | 11 | 51 | 41 | 34 | 14 | 3 | |
DN | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Product Development | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 22 | 14 | 30 | 35 | 68 | 95 | 3 | |
ISC | 30 | 5 | 32 | 43 | 24 | 3 | 0 | |
N | 46 | 78 | 32 | 19 | 5 | 3 | 92 | |
DN | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 5 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Process Development | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 11 | 11 | 9 | 31 | 75 | 69 | 3 | |
ISC | 17 | 19 | 31 | 36 | 22 | 22 | 0 | |
N | 69 | 64 | 57 | 31 | 3 | 6 | 94 | |
DN | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Idea Gate | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 25 | 9 | 41 | 45 | 38 | 75 | 0 | |
ISC | 47 | 6 | 41 | 32 | 25 | 16 | 0 | |
N | 25 | 81 | 16 | 16 | 34 | 9 | 97 | |
DN | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Concept Gate | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 45 | 13 | 33 | 40 | 38 | 73 | 0 | |
ISC | 31 | 0 | 50 | 43 | 21 | 17 | 0 | |
N | 21 | 83 | 13 | 10 | 41 | 10 | 97 | |
DN | 3 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 5 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Prototype Test | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | roduct Dev. | HRM |
Y | 14 | 5 | 65 | 27 | 70 | 86 | 0 | |
ISC | 17 | 5 | 35 | 43 | 22 | 11 | 3 | |
N | 61 | 81 | 35 | 30 | 8 | 3 | 89 | |
DN | 8 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Total | Process Test | Marketing | Finance | Sales | Management | Production | Product Dev. | HRM |
Y | 45 | 13 | 33 | 40 | 38 | 73 | 0 | |
ISC | 31 | 0 | 50 | 43 | 21 | 17 | 0 | |
N | 21 | 83 | 13 | 10 | 41 | 10 | 97 | |
DN | 3 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Management of Project (%) |
||||
Total | Std. Div. | Min | Max | |
Customer | 56 | 44 | 0 | 100 |
Supplier | 12 | 28 | 0 | 75 |
Marketing | 7 | 29 | 0 | 80 |
Finance | 1 | 14 | 0 | 45 |
Sales | 0 | 3 | 0 | 10 |
Management | 12 | 41 | 0 | 100 |
Production | 1 | 6 | 0 | 15 |
Product Development | 9 | 36 | 0 | 100 |
HRM | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Competition | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Common Leadership | 2 | 19 | 0 | 60 |
Do no know | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 100 |
Very Much | In Some Cases | No | Do Not Know | Total | |
ICT Communication Enabler | 15 | 45 | 33 | 6 | 100 |
Customer Enabler | 71 | 26 | 3 | 0 | 100 |
PD Model Enabler | 21 | 42 | 24 | 12 | 100 |
Network Enabler | 32 | 53 | 9 | 6 | 100 |
Innovation Enabler | 18 | 56 | 18 | 9 | 100 |
HRM Enabler | 9 | 29 | 56 | 6 | 100 |
Process Enabler | 15 | 62 | 18 | 6 | 100 |
Product to Process Enabler | 27 | 45 | 21 | 6 | 100 |
Modularisation Enabler | 29 | 34 | 17 | 20 | 100 |
E-Development Enabler | 9 | 37 | 37 | 17 | 100 |
Priorities | Time | Cost | Performance | CIM | CI | L |
1 | 41 | 22 | 46 | 27 | 27 | 19 |
2 | 32 | 32 | 38 | 32 | 30 | 38 |
3 | 14 | 30 | 3 | 19 | 24 | 22 |
4 | 11 | 11 | 5 | 16 | 14 | 8 |
5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 11 |
NA | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 3 |
100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Empirical Results – Survey | |||
Overall Research Questions to be Verified | Hypotheses to be Verified and Tested | Verified/Not Verified | |
1. | What is network based high speed NPD | HS NPD can be seen from different views (Macro environment, business, product, market, customer, technology, competitive and network view) | Verified |
HS NPD is a matter of right speed and not high speed. | Not Verified | ||
2. | What enablers to NB HS PD can be identified? | Businesses use different HS enablers. | Verified |
HS enablers are identical to the 10 enablers – 1–10 | Partly verified | ||
There can be more than these 10 enablers to HS PD | Verified | ||
The enablers will play a different role according to the PD situation and project (Secondary focus) | Not Verified | ||
The customer enabler, the network enabler and the PD model enabler plays an important role in the upper phase of the HS PD phase. | Partly verified | ||
3. | What framework models and processes in the idea and concept stage/gate of high speed product development based on networks can be measured | The HS PD projects can be divided into to radical and incremental PD projects | Verified |
The radical and the incremental PD projects follow different generic HS PD models and processes and can thereby be described by different generic frameworks | Not verified | ||
4. | What success criteria can be used for measuring high speed product development based on networks? | The success criteria for HS PD are dependent on the specific PD project – radical or incremental. | Partly Verified |
HS PD success criteria can be formulated as short term and long term success criteria. | Partly Verified | ||
Time, cost and performance are central success criteria in a short term perspective. | Verified | ||
Continuous improvement (CIM), continuous innovation (CI), and learning are central success criteria in a long term perspective to reach right time, right cost and right performance in NB HS PD. | Not verified |
Consequences | High Speed | Right Speed |
Time | ||
Cost/Value | ||
Performance | ||
Market fit | ||
Risk | ||
Uncertainty | ||
Continuous improvement | ||
Continuous innovation | ||
Learning |
“We have seen the creativity and the development of new products have stagnated. We feel it has something to do with the fact that there are too many employees and too many rules to work on.” (Lars Hansen TDC)
Main Results of the DOLLE Case | Main Results of DOLLE Case in Details |
Development of e-development in networks demands a strong trustful network | The case showed that the Dolle e-development network system demanded a strong and trustful network because the projects touch all parts of the network partners internal systems and procedures. |
The software part of an e-development project can be overcome but “the soft part of the network cooperation” can be difficult to overcome if the network partners do not have trust in each other. | The Dolle case showed where the barriers was to more NB HS NPD. It showed very clearly that it was not a matter of software integration and development but instead “the soft part” of the network cooperation |
When developing a e-development system where customers also are a part o the development team, then businesses should focus on how the customers perceive the product. | The cooperation with Dolle showed very clearly that Dolle had a major challenge to elaborate a e-development system that matched the customers terminology and there way of seeing and developing the product. This was the difficult part of the development of a e-development software. |
Starting from the identification of the emergent approaches and from the analysis of their effects within specific industrial and organisational contexts, the project will develop interpretative models and management tools intended to support managerial actions. Project objectives may therefore be articulated at the interpretative and the supportive levels. At an interpretative level, the objective is to identify and describe the emergent configurations of technological, organisational, and management tools, to identify the determinants of such configuration adoption, as well as analyse their impact on performances. In particular, the objectives are as follows: to describe processes through which knowledge, in its different forms, is assimilated, created, transferred, stored and retrieved; to identify the organisational mechanisms, the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and the Management Systems through which firms can influence such processes; analyse internal coherence between technological, organisational and managerial choices; analyse relationships between technologies, organisational mechanisms and Management tools and, then, identify the coming out of exhaustive configurations for Knowledge Management; identify relationships between different configurations and contingent characteristics at industrial, geographical and organisational level; identify each configuration effect in terms of innovative capabilities and quality of working life; At a supportive level, on the other hand, the objective is to identify implications for Knowledge Management analysis and re-design in terms of: support in ICT choice and coherent adoption in order to foster a more effective Knowledge Management, given the firm contingent situation and the improvement objectives/priorities; guide to analysis and improvement of Organisational Mechanisms – in terms, for example, of structures, network roles and mechanisms – in order to foster a more effective Knowledge Management, given the firm contingent situation and the improvement objectives/priorities; guide to the analysis and improvement of Management Systems – in terms, for example, of procedures, performance measurement systems, wage and reward systems – in order to foster a more effective Knowledge Management, given the firm contingent situation and the improvement objectives/priorities; analysis and improvement of the whole configuration for Knowledge Management. (Source: The Tom project description)
Main Results of DISPU | Main Results of DISPU in Detail |
The use of e-development software is very poor in SMEs | Some SME use some CAD, CAM software in their product development but the use of these systems are very poor and it is not integrated to the businesses other system. |
The SME’s do generally not develop new products with e-development software tools together with network partners | The DISPU research showed very clearly that the development on new products in network supported by e-development software was very poor. |
Development of new products in networks supported by e-development software demands that network partners trust each other. | The DISPU research project showed that many SMEs did not develop in network based on e-development software because they did not trust or saw themselves in a competitive dangerous situation if joining and implementing such a cooperation. Obviously the price of e-development software was a barrier to further implementation of network based e-development but the major barrier was trust to network partners. The DISPU project showed some few examples where networks had overcome this barrier by signing a strategic alliance and in these networks e-development was a major tool in the network based product development and further help the businesses to develop new products faster. |
Main Results of SMER | Main Results of SMER in Details |
The use of e-development software in networks is very poor | The SMER research showed very significant that the use of e-development software in networks was very poor. |
The product development model most used in SMEs is the stage-gate model | The SMER research verified that thee stage- gate model is the most used product development model |
The SME businesses focus mostly on narrow networks | The SMEs involved focus on narrow network partners mostly the geographic nearby. The research showed that the SMEs had more trust to the narrow network partners as they were known and easy to access. |
The product development projects are mostly on incremental product development projects | The SMER research showed very significantly that most product development projects was on incremental product development. |
Observations | Details |
Use of high speed enablers is low. | The use of high speed enablers seemed to be low. Although the students had access to and knowledge of several high speed enablers, they hardly ever used them |
The planning of the use of high speed enabler is poor, coincidental or non-existent. | The students mostly did not plan to use highs speed enablers. If anyone used the high speed enablers, they only did it by coincidence and often at a late point of time in the product development process. |
The students often felt stuck in the product development process and wanted to go back and restart. | Many product development projects seemed to be stuck in the product development process and seemed to have gone the wrong way. The students even wished that they had not moved so far and could not see any way back. The pressure on time prevented them from going back and redo their work. |
Speed and time pressed the students into a line of product development which they did not want. | Some of the students claimed that they were forced further into the product development “tunnel” because of the pressure on speed and time. They knew it was not an optimal way but they felt that it was not possible to go back. |
The students always adhered to a stage-gate model. | None of the product development projects used another model than the stage-gate model, even though they had been introduced to other PD models at the beginning of the TIP project. |
Those PD projects which seemed have difficulties at the beginning of the project turned out to be those with the best results. | As an observer of the product development process it was very peculiar to watch product development projects with serious problems in the first phase of the project turn out later to be the ones to come up with the best results. |
The students seemed to loose time in the initial phase and in the middle of the product development phase. | It was significant that the students’ product development projects lost time in the initial phase. The students forgot to stay and finalise a good product development architecture and plan. Therefore they encountered serious time problems later in the product development process. Also in the middle of the product development process it seemed as if the students lost time and motivation or access to solutions. |
The students do not use all their competences from the beginning of the product development project. | In all projects we could observe that the students did not use all their competences at the beginning. Especially the students of business economics waited for the designers and engineers to come up with “an answer”. Later it was the opposite when the designers waited for the students of business economics to give answers from the market. |
Observations | Observations in Details |
The network enabler is difficult to use trans-nationally. | The Bestcom project showed that it is very difficult to use the network enabler trans-nationally if the network partners do not see any need for or benefit of working together. The Bestcom project showed very clearly that businesses in the three countries focused on the narrow network although they could gain major benefits from working together in trans-national networks. |
High speed in product development becomes an issue when businesses are pressed on finance. | The Bestcom project showed that when businesses become pressed on finance, they begin to develop new products and to evolve existing products and projects at high speed. However, this will often be too late and additionally, it may turn out not to be not business economically optimal. |
Businesses that perform right speed have a good architecture behind their project development together with a manager who focuses on long-term success criteria. | The Bestcom project showed that the businesses who had developed a good architecture behind their project also were able to develop new projects and products at an optimal speed – right speed. Also, these businesses often had a manager who focused on long-term success criteria. |
SMEs develop new products and projects with a stage-gate model. | All SMEs in the Bestcom project turned out to develop their projects with a stage-gate model. This was interesting as this model was chosen exactly because they wanted to achieve high speed. |
Empirical Results – Other Empirical Results | |||
Overall Research Questions to be Verified | Hypotheses to be Verified and Tested | Verified/Not Verified | |
1. | What is network based high speed NPD | HS NPD can be seen from different views (Macro environment, business, product, market, customer, technology, competitive and network view). | Verified |
HS NPD is a matter of right speed and not high speed. | Verified | ||
2. | What enablers to NB HS PD can be identified? | Businesses use different HS enablers. | Verified |
HS enablers are identical to the 10 enablers – 1–10. | Partly verified | ||
There can be more than these 10 enablers to HS PD. | Verified | ||
The enablers will play a different role according to the PD situation and project (Secondary focus). | Verified | ||
The customer enabler, the network enabler and the PD model enabler plays an important role in the upper phase of the HS PD phase. | Partly verified | ||
3. | What framework models and processes in the idea and concept stage/gate of high speed product development based on networks can be measured | The HS PD projects can be divided into to radical and incremental PD projects. | Verified |
The radical and the incremental PD projects follow different generic HS PD models and processes and can thereby be described by different generic frameworks. | Partly verified | ||
4. | What success criteria can be used for measuring high speed product development based on networks? | The success criteria for HS PD are dependent on the specific PD project – radical or incremental. | Partly Verified |
HS PD success criteria can be formulated as short term and long term success criteria, | Partly Verified | ||
Time, cost and performance are central success criteria in a short term perspective. | Verified | ||
Continuous improvement (CIM), continuous innovation (CI), and learning are central suc cess criteria in a long term perspective to reach right time, right cost and right performance in NB HS PD. | Not verified |
Overall Research Questions | Hypotheses to be Tested | |
1. | What is high speed NPD? | What is time and speed in NB HS NPD? HS NPD can be seen from different points of view (Macro environment, business, product, market, customer, competitive and network view)HS is central in the second phase of the PD process – the PD phase.HS NPD is a matter of right speed and not high speed. |
2. | What framework in the idea and concept stage/gate of high speed product development based on networks can be measured? | |
3. | What enablers to HS PD can be identified? | |
4. | What success criteria can be used for measuring high speed product development based on networks? |
Views on Time from Different Actors in NB HS NPD | Theoretical Definition of Time | Practical Definition of Time |
The macro view – the society view either national or community view | From the point in time when the society, the nation, the community e.g. recognize the need or demand for a new product to the point in time when the product is introduced to the society. | Inside out but not with a SME business optimal view – physical time |
Market view | From the point in time when potential customer needs and demands are recognized (often before customers have realised the demand) to the point in time when the total product is delivered. | Inside out but not with a SME optimal business view – physical time |
Technical view | From the point in time when a new product is technically possible to develop to the point in time when it is delivered to sales and production. | Inside out but not with a SME business optimal view |
Network view | From the point in time when the network agrees on developing a new product to the point in time when the network decides to introduce the product to the market – the time when it is optimal to the network partners | A multi inside out or a mix of outside in and inside out view. Still not with an optimal business view |
Business view | The point in time when the business decides to develop a new product to the point in time when the business decides that it is optimal to introduce the product to the market. | Inside out view but not with an optimal business view |
The customer view | The point in time when needs or wants are identified by the customer to the point in time when the product is ready and available on the market for consuming. | Outside in view but not with an optimal business view – right time |
The competitor view | The point in time when the competitor recognises the want or need for a new product to the point in time when the product is introduced to the market by the competitor | Outside in but not with an optimal business view – right time |
The new marketing view | The point in time when the business possibility is recognised to the point in time when it is business optimal to the business to introduce the product to the market. | Outside in but with an optimal business view |
HS MI = High speed Market introduction RS MI = Right speed market introduction NS MI = Normal speed market introduction
“The time transformed into value and perceived value minus cost both direct and alternative which a product development project takes from identification of the potential product idea to the time the product is taken out of the market.
“The business economic optimal time is when the product is delivered to the market and when this introduction maximize
“The net profit per working hour from identification of the potential product idea to the time, when the product is taken out of the market”. Alternative cost and perceived value are calculated from the business optimal point and from both before and after the business optimal point of entry.
“The relative time according to which view the viewer has of the NPD project – either the Macro view, the business view, the market view, the technical view, the network view or the new marketing view”
“as the total physical time – man-hour, working days etc. that it takes to develop a new product from the idea enters the businesses’ product development system – idea stage – and to the product is introduced and implemented to the market”.
“the time (working days or man-hour) one product development process takes from an idea comes up in the business to the product is implemented to the marked” compared to the time (working days or man-hour) another product development process takes from an idea comes up in the business to the product is implemented to the marked” The empirical research verified that a product development project is said to run with a higher speed 1) if it reach the market before the other product development project 2) one product development project measured in time (working days) are developed faster than another product development project.”
Measurement | Working Days | Cost (Direct Cost) | |
NPD Time for project 1 | Cost of NPD project | 5 working days | 200,000 EURO |
NPD time for project 2 | Cost of NPD project 2 | 3 working days | 100,000 EURO |
Speed faster in project 2 | Saved cost and speed | 2 working days | 100,000 EURO |
SME Definition and Empirical Research | Theoretical Definition | |
Time | Physical time from idea start to market implementation | Relative time dependent on which view is taken and the business optimal point of entry |
Direct costs | Cost (both direct and alternative cost) – value and perceived value form before idea comes up to the product is taken out of the market. | |
Speed | Physical time savedDirect costs saved from one PD project to another | Relative time saved. Net profit gained from one product development project to another. |
Cost | Direct costs | Direct costs and alternative costs |
Performance | A product that match the businesses’ view of good performance | Right performance |
Source: Bohn and Lindgren, 2002.
“when the market is business economically optimal to the individual business to introduce the new product”
Source: Lindgren P. 2003.
the optimal time and the optimal speed of product development as correlated to performing product development with a speed and time that perform a product development process that match the business optimum time of entering the market.
Different Views on HS PD | Verified/Not Verified |
The business view | Verified |
The Macro view | Not verified |
The Market view | Verified |
The customer view | |
The competitor view | |
The Technological view | Verified |
The Network view | Not verified |
The Product view | Not verified |
The New marketing view | Verified in very few secondary businesses or product development projects and in one primary case. Not verified empirically. |
Focus | Innovation Phase | Product Development Phase | Process Development Phase |
Hypotheses | Innovation | Time | Cost |
Case | Innovation and performance | Time | Cost and time |
PUIN focus group | Innovation and performance | Time and performance | Time and cost |
Survey | Innovation and time | Time and performance | Time and cost |
Hypothesis verified/not verified | Verified but with and ad to performance and slightly to time | Verified with and ad to performance | Verified with and ad to time |
Stable | Evolving | Dynamic | |
Market | Yes | Yes | No |
Technology | Yes | Yes | No/yes |
Network | Yes | No/yes | No |
The business competence | Yes | No/yes | No |
Task of product development | |||
Radical | Yes | No/yes | No |
Incremental | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Product Development Stage and Gates | Idea Stage | Idea Gate | Concept Stage | Concept Gate | Prototype Stage | Prototype Gate | Process Development Gate | Process Development Gate |
Hypotheses | Innovation | Innovation | Innovation | Innovation | Time | Time | Cost | Cost |
Case research | Innovation and time | Time | Innovation (performance) and time | Time | Performance and time | Performance and time | Cost | Cost, performance and time |
PUIN focus group | Innovation and time | Time | Innovation (performance and time) | Time | Performance and time | Performance and time | Cost & Performance | Cost, performance and time |
Survey | Innovation and time | Time | Time | Performance and time | Performance and time | Cost & Performance | Cost, performance and time | |
Verified/not verified | Partly verified with an add to time | Not verified | Partly verified | Not verified | Partly verified with an add to time | Partly verified with an add to performance | Partly verified with an add to performance | Partly verified with an add to performance and time |
Types of Speed | Characteristics | Cases |
Idea to market introduction speed – “time to market speed” | The ability to speed the NPD project from idea to market introduction | Cases Nos. 39, 41, 1 and 63 |
Stage and gates speed | The ability to speed the single stage and gates within the product development project. | Cases No. 39 and 1 |
Transfer speed | Speed from one stage to another gate | Case No. 1 |
Complex speed | The ability to speed complex NPD projects | Case No. 64 |
Concurrent speed | The ability to speed several NPD projects at the same time | Cases Nos. 49 and 64. |
Market speed | The ability to speed incremental NPD on the market. | Cases Nos. 55 and 65 |
Radical Speed | The ability to speed radical PD projects | Case No. 66 |
Hypothesis | Case Research | Focus Group | Survey | Verified | |
PU model – formal | Stage-gate | Overall stage-gate – but combined with an informal model and processes | Overall Stage-gate combined with informal models and processes | Overall Stage-gate combined with informal models and processes | Partly verified |
Functions involved in initial phase | Sales, product development and production | Sales, product development and to some degree management | Sales, product development, management to some degree | Sales, product development and management | Partly verified |
Source: Lindgren & Bohn, 2002.
Source: Lindgren inspired by R. Verganti, 2002.
Dimension | Hypothesis | Case | PUIN Focus Group | Survey | Hypothesis Verified/Not Verified |
Where were the idea discovered | On the market place | on the market place, inside the business and by network partners | on the market place, inside the business and by network partners | on the market place, inside the business and by network partners | Partly verified |
Initiator of idea | Internal | All network partners and internal | All network partners and internal | All network partners and internal | Partly verified |
Literature Search | Case Research | Focus Group Interviews | Survey | Verified | |
Time | (+/–) | No | No specific focus | No specific focus | No |
Cost | Yes | Yes | No specific focus | No specific focus | (Yes) |
Performance | Yes | Yes | Yes | Not in focus | (Yes) |
CI | Yes | Not in focus | Not in focus | Not in focus | Not in focus |
CIM | Yes | Not in focus | Not in focus | Not in focus | Not in focus |
Learning | Yes | Not in focus | Not in focus | Not in focus | Not in focus |
Stage Gate Model | Flexible Model | |
Characteristics | ||
Markets | Familiar markets | Unfamiliar markets |
Technology | Familiar Technology | Unfamiliar Technology |
Network | Physical networks and stabilised ICT networks | Dynamic networks, ICT – networks, Virtual and dynamic networks |
Competences | Stable and physical competences | Dynamic and virtual competences |
Product | Products are mainly hardware | Products are mainly processes Software, services, |
Strength | When main components can be characterised as stable and in some case evolving on the product development field. | Flexible to sudden change in the main components on the product development field. |
Weakness | Inflexible to sudden change on the product development field | When product development turns out to be stable for a long period. |
Opportunities | When market, technology, network and competence turn to stabilise | When market, technology, network and competence turn to be dynamic and virtual |
Threats | “Trapped in a dynamic process” either in market, technology, network or competence – performance does not match demand of market. | “Trapped in a stable process” either in market, technology, network or competence – too much cost. |
Time for change of NPD – model and speed | Going from stabilised to dynamic PD – characteristicsWhen products turn to processes | Going from dynamic to stabilised PD – characteristicsWhen processes turn into products – standard modules |
NB HS NPD Short-Term and Long Term Success Criteria | Hypothesis | Case Research | PUIN Focus Group | Survey | Verified/Not Verified |
High Speed – Time | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Cost | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Performance | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Continuous improvement | Yes | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified |
Continuous Innovation | Yes | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified |
Learning | Yes | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified |
Right Time – Right Speed | Yes | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified |
Right Cost | Yes | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified |
Right Performance | Yes | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified |
“If we were to develop new products according to our ISO 9000 standard, products would never reach the market.” (Lyngsø)“I went down into production and forced my employees to break the rules of our product development model. I forced them to make faults to speed the development process. The employees were not happy due to their high quality feelings. They reached the high speed. It cost a lot – but we achieved a first mover advantage on the market” (AKV Langholt)
Source: Inspired by Lindgren & Bohn.
Hypothesis | Case | PUIN | Survey | Verified/ Not Verified | |
Market | Incremental | Mostly Incremental | Mostly Incremental | Mostly Incremental | Verified |
Technology | Radical | Mostly Incremental | Mostly Incremental | Medium | Partly verified |
Network | Radical | Mostly Incremental | Mostly Incremental | Medium | Not verified |
Innovativeness | Radical | Mostly Incremental | Mostly Incremental | Medium | Not verified |
Dimension | Hypothesis | Case | PUIN Focus Group | Survey | Hypothesis |
Innovation degree | High | High/Medium | Low/Medium | Medium/low | Not Verified |
Market | New | Old | Old | Old | Not verified |
Customer needs | New | Old | Old | Old | Not verified |
Customer group | Old | Old | Old | Old | Verified |
Customer technology | Old | Old | Old | Old | Verified |
Technology | New | Old/new | Old/new | Old/new | To some extent verified |
Network | Old and geographical narrow networks | Mainly old networks. When radical new networks | Mainly old networks. When radical new networks | Mainly old networks. When radical new networks | To some extent verified |
Competence’s | Middle | Middle | Middle | Middle | Verified |
Product management | mostly the business | mostly the business | mostly the business | mostly the business | verified |
Competition | Middle | Middle/high | Middle/high | Middle/high | Verified |
Product development task | Radical | Mostly incremental | Mostly incremental | Mostly incremental | Not verified |
Core | Hypothesis | Literature Search | Case Research | Focus Group Interviews | Survey | Verified |
Mission | Yes | Not verified | Partly verified | Partly verified | Partly verified | Partly verified |
Goals | Yes | Yes | Not verified | Partly verified | Partly verified | Partly verified |
Strategy | Yes | Yes | Verified but later in the process | Verified but later in the process | Partly verified | Partly verified but later in the process |
Economic Resources | Yes | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified |
Personal/ Organisational Resources | Yes | Not verified | Partly verified | Partly verified | Not verified | Not verified |
Contact Limits | Yes | Not verified | Partly verified | Partly verified | Not verified | Not Verified |
Does the Business Always Formulate aMission for the Product Development Project? | Yes | Verified |
Hypotheses | All | |
Case research | All | Yes |
PUIN focus group | All | Yes |
Survey | All | Yes |
Does the Business Always Formulate Goalsfor the Product Development Project? | Yes | Verified |
Hypotheses | All | |
Case research | All | Yes |
PUIN focus group | All | Yes |
Survey | % | Yes |
Does the Business Always Formulate theStrategy for the Product Development Project? | Yes | Verified |
Hypotheses | Yes | |
Case research | No | No |
PUIN focus group | No | No |
Survey | No | No |
Does the Business Always Formulate theResources of Personnel and Organisation? | Yes | Verified |
Hypotheses | Yes | |
Case research | Yes but firstly at the concept stage | (yes) |
PUIN focus group | Yes but firstly at the concept stage | (yes) |
Survey | % | (yes) |
High Speed Enablers | Literature Search | Case Research | Focus Group Interviews | Survey | Verified | |
1. | The ICT Enabler | Yes, in a few businesses | Yes, in a few businesses and very little | Yes, but in few businesses | Yes, but in few businesses | (+) |
2. | The customer Enabler | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
3. | PU model enabler | Yes | Yes – but mainly stage-gate | Yes – mainly stage-gate | Yes – mainly stage-gate | (+) |
4. | The Network Enabler | Yes | Yes – but mainly customer and to some extent suppliers Limit networks | Yes – but mainly customers and to some extent suppliers Limit networks | Yes – but mainly customers and to some extent suppliers Limit networks | (+) |
5. | The Innovation Enabler | Yes | No but in few businesses | No but in few businesses | No but in few businesses | – |
6. | The HRM Enabler | Yes | Yes – but few businesses | Yes – but few businesses and limit efforts | No | (–) |
7. | The Process Enabler | Yes | No | No | No | No |
8. | The Product to Process Enabler | Yes | To some extent – few businesses and limit efforts | No | To some extent | (+) |
9. | The Modularisation Enabler | Yes | Yes, but not fulfilled | Yes, but not fulfilled | Yes, but not fulfilled | (+) |
10. | The E-development Enabler | Yes, in a few businesses | Yes, in very few businesses | Yes, but in very few businesses | Yes, but in very few businesses | (–) |
Hypothetical HS PD Models | Case | Focus Group | Survey | Other | Verified |
Stage-gate model (Parallel or simultaneous PD) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Flexible models (Verganti model) | No | Partly | No | Partly | Partly verified |
“Task force model” (TDC task force model) | Partly | Partly | No | Partly | Partly verified |
“On the Market model” (Corso on the market model) | No | No | No | Partly | Not verified |
Informal HS PD Models | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Verified |
“Lindholst model” (Linco HS model) | Yes | Yes | No | No | Partly verified |
“10% overflow model” (Grundfos model) | No | Partly | No | No | Partly verified |
The network HS model(Italy model) | No | No | No | Partly | Partly verified |
Extra Enablers | Literature Search | Case Research | Focus Group Interviews | Survey | Verified |
Informal product development models and processes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Management | (–) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Types of NB HS NPD | Characteristics | Success Criteria | Product Development Models | Characteristics Related to Speed | Case Examples |
The traditional | Tries to gain HS by parallel and simultaneous product development activities. Has a lot of informal processes going on in the business | Cost, speed, performance and short term success criteria | Stage-gate model or Flexible models | Feels its impossible to speed the process further | AnsagerNEG Micon |
The rapid prototyper | Tries to gain HS by jumping over some stage- and gates | Speed, direct cost. | Stage-gate models or Rapid prototyping or no formal proto development model | Feels they are developing at the maximum speedpossible | Scanio, AKV |
The high speeder | Tries to gain HS by using a somewhat alternative very flexible way of developing new products. Very much team oriented and plays with the HRM and Management enabler. | Speed, performance, continuous improvement and to some extent learning | Stage-gate model or alternative model | Do not see any reason to why they cant speed product development more. | GSI Lumonics |
The right speed developer | The business focus on the product as an process | Focus on Perceived value direct and alternative cost and value. Focus on long term success criteria. Focus on knowledgeof NB RS NPD. | All types of product development models, a optimal mix of HS enablers | Focus on right speed. This means that when necessary then high speed and when not slow speed. The main focus is to enter the market at the right time and harvest maximum of the market | Zara, Ryan Air, Nike |
Types of Speed | Characteristics |
Idea – speed | The ability to speed new ideas coming to be absorbed by the product development process of the business |
Idea to market introduction speed – “time to market speed” | The ability to speed the NPD project from idea to market introduction |
Stage- and gates speed | The ability to speed the single stages and gates within the product development project |
Transfer speed | Speed from one stage to another gate |
Complex speed | The ability to speed complex NPD projects |
Concurrent speed | The ability to speed several NPD projects at the same time |
Market speed | The ability to speed incremental NPD on the market |
“product development is based on a continuously repeated market transaction and mutual gain where product development strategy and process integrate customers, suppliers, and other network partners into the businesses design, development, manufacturing and sales and marketing process”.
Source: Inspired by Svend Hollensen.
Demands to NB HS NPD | Literature Search | Case Research | Focus Group Interviews | Survey | Other | Verified |
Trust | Yes but in few businesses | Yes but in few businesses and very little | Yes but in few businesses | Yes but in few businesses | Yes | Yes |
Motivation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
PU model | Yes | Yes – but mainlystage-gate | Yes – mainly stage-gate | Yes – mainly stage-gate | Yes | Yes |
The Network partners must be strong | Yes | Yes – but mainly customer and to some extent suppliersLimit networks | Yes – but mainly customers and to some extent suppliersLimit networks | Yes – but mainly customers and to some extent suppliersLimit networks | Yes – but mainly customers and to some extent suppliersLimit networks | Yes |
A network culture must be establish in the business | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Verified |
HRM has to play a more active part in PD | No | Yes – but few businesses | Yes – but few businesses and limit efforts | No | Yes – but few businesses and limit efforts | Partly verified |
The business must focus on long term relationships | Yes | No | No | No | – | |
The business must focus on long term success criteria | Yes | To someextent – few businesses and limit efforts | No | To some extent | To some extent | Partly verified |
Barriers to NB HS NPD | Literature Search | Case Research | Focus Group Interviews | Survey | Other | Verified |
No Trust | Yes in few businesses | Yes in few businesses and very little | Yes but in few businesses | Yes but in few businesses | Yes | Yes |
Motivation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
PU – model | Yes | Yes – but mainlystage-gate | Yes – mainly stage-gate | Yes – mainly stage-gate | Yes | Yes |
The Network partners are too weak or not used to NB HS NPD | Yes | Yes – but mainly customer and to some extent suppliersLimit networks | Yes – but mainly customers and to some extent suppliersLimit networks | Yes – but mainly customers and to some extent suppliersLimit networks | Yes – but mainly customers and to some extent suppliersLimit networks | Yes |
Culture | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Verified |
HRM is not playing an active part in PD | No | Yes – but few businesses | Yes – but few businesses and limit efforts | No | Yes – but few businesses and limit efforts | Partly verified |
The process enabler | Yes | No | No | No | – | |
The businesses think product instead of process | Yes | To someextent – few businesses and limit efforts | No | To some extent | To some extent | Partly verified |
The modularisation enabler | Yes | Yes – but not fulfilled | Yes – but not fulfilled | Yes – but not fulfilled | (+) | |
E-development is not functioning | Yes – in a few businesses | Yes in very few businesses | Yes but in very few businesses | Yes – but in very few businesses | Yes – but in very few businesses | Partly verified |
Source: Adapted from McGrath, J. E., 1982.