-
19March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
Systematization of Recurrent New Product Development Management
Problems
Janaina M.H. Costa, Massachusetts Institute of
TechnologyHenrique Rozenfeld, University of So Paulo, Brazil
Creusa Sayuri Tahara Amaral, University of So Paulo,
BrazilRicardo M. Marcacinit, University of So Paulo, Brazil
Solange Oliveira Rezende, University of So Paulo, Brazil
and Morgan (2011) concluded that there is still a vast field for
improvement that can be implemented in NPD so that companies can
benefit from the entire potential of this process.
Engineering management is a knowledge area that includes product
development and process improvement. Since NPD is a business
process that involves many areas in companies, this research adopts
the Business Process Management (BPM) approach to support the
improvement of NPD. This approach has become a best practice for
helping companies sustain competitive advantages (Hung, 2006) by
promoting the alignment of business operations with strategic
priorities. This enables organizations to improve their processes
constantly throughout improvement projects, maintaining a holistic
vision of their business.
BPM represents a more systematic form of the Plan, Do, Check,
and Act (PDCA) concept. It is a cyclic approach comprised of the
phases of strategy definition; diagnosis and modeling of as-is and
to-be situations; and the definition, selection, and development of
improvement projects. Bucher and Winter (2009) affirm that
organizational excellence through process-oriented management,
takes place in different stages, that different approaches or
aspects thereof are predominant at different levels of
organizational development, and that almost each and every
organization has developed its own approach to BPM. The application
of BPM for the improvement of NPD processes is discussed by Costa
and Rozenfeld (2007).
This article focuses on the diagnostic phase, which is usually
supported by a cause-and-effect analysis. A well-known method for
this analysis is the Current Reality Tree (CRT) (Goldratt, 1994).
The CRT is a systematic method employed to identify unstructured
business problems (Watson et al., 2007) from which NPD improvement
projects can be outlined. A series of problems, called undesirable
effects and root causes, and the corresponding successfully
implemented improvement projects to eliminate them, serve as
lessons learned to be potentially reused in defining actions to
improve an NPD process. The application of the CRT method in NPD is
valid since, according to Letens (2011) many NPD problems are,
systemic and structural rather than partial and partial, meaning
that generally it is not worth trying to solve a specific problem
without having understood the other problems and factors associated
with it; however, to date, most organizations fail to take
advantage of this potential. Unfortunately, companies do not apply
this method due to the perception that the logic and construction
rules of the CRT are somehow intimidating, difficult, and time
consuming (Doggett, 2005).
This article has several aims. The first aim is to identify
recurrent problems from NPD diagnoses conducted in several
companies, focusing on the synthesis of cause-and-effect analysis
of NPD processes. In addition, categories are proposed to classify
the problems in order to help NPD practitioners identify
Research Manuscript accepted by Associate Editor Daim
Abstract: One of the ways to improve the New Product Development
(NPD) process is to eliminate the problems that arise over years of
practice. This article describes the systematization of recurrent
NPD management problems. The main NPD problems were found to be
recurrent; hence, the systematization resulting from this study
allows for the identification of NPD areas requiring special
attention from both practitioners and researchers. This
identification enables researchers to define new areas of academic
research, and practitioners to focus on specific improvement
projects. Eight case studies were conducted, in which 124 NPD
personnel were interviewed, involving the diagnosis of the NPD
process and the identification and selection of NPD improvement
projects. The diagnostic method applied was the Current Reality
Tree (CRT), which is a cognitive method for identifying undesirable
effects (problems) in a process. Text mining techniques were then
applied to identify similarities among these CRTs. Lastly, NPD
categories were created to classify the NPD problems. An analysis
of the rate of problems per category underlined the importance of
diagnosing the NPD process. It was concluded that process and
project management are just as critical as product strategy
definition and human resource management. Additionally, we
concluded that companies would gain greater benefits by focusing on
the aforementioned areas before investing in information and
communication technology. Potential pitfalls of NPD may be avoided
if companies adopt proactive management actions to mitigate their
NPD recurrent problems based on the results presented here.
Keywords: New Product Development, Process Improvement,
Diagnosis Method, Current Reality Tree
EMJ Focus Areas: Engineering Management: Past, Present &
Future, Innovation & New Product Development
The New Product Development (NPD) process is one of the main
business processes in companies seeking a competitive advantage
(Liker and Morgan, 2011); therefore, this process should be
assessed and improved continually in a cyclic sequence of process
diagnosis, definition, and execution of improvement projects.
Many companies still carry out NPD in expertise silos and are
unable to optimize the flow of product development (PD) information
across these silos. This information is usually pushed forward from
product concept to detailed design, until it reaches production.
These and other factors contribute to increased NPD rework, leading
to delays and increased NPD costs (Liker and Morgan, 2011).
Analyzing this and other problems, Liker
-
20 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
improvement projects. This should expedite new diagnoses and
contribute to a more effective definition of improvement projects,
thereby improving the BPM cycles. Finally, given the existence of
the discussion about the organizational and structural differences
between small, medium, and large companies, and the relevance of
this difference regarding their NPD processes (Huang et al., 2002;
Ledwith and ODwyer, 2009; Ledwith et al., 2006) (e.g., SMEs can be
more flexible and motivated, nevertheless they face greatest
restrictions of managerial, financial, and technological resources
(Huang et al., 2002)), this article attempts to answer the
following research question: Is the occurrence of problems per
category independent of company size?
Liker and Morgan (2011) suggest that a better perception of NPD
can be gained by in-depth case studies; therefore, the methodology
adopted here was multiple-case study research (Yin, 1994) involving
eight companies: two large automobile manufacturers, one large
white goods manufacturer, two medium-sized companies of the capital
goods sector, two small high-tech companies, and one research
laboratory. In the analytical phase, the recurrent problems
documented in the CRT were extracted and then systematized using
text mining techniques. The recurrent problems were classified
based on categories created and subsequently evaluated by
third-party experts.
This research contributes to engineering management by
identifying recurrent NPD problems for academia and companies.
Knowledge of these recurrent problems may lead to the definition of
process improvement projects aimed at enhancing NPD
performance.
The remainder of this article consists of a literature review on
NPD process, BPM, and cause-and-effect diagnosis; a description of
the research steps and discussion of the results; and, a
presentation of conclusions and future work.
Literature Review NPD Process: Problems, Critical Success
Factors and Challenges for Process ImprovementNew product
development (NPD) is a business process aimed at converting market
opportunities, technology, and customer needs into technical and
commercial solutions (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). Since effective
NPD is recognized as a core process that ensures the success of
companies, improving NPD is a key factor for the success of a
company. The importance of NPD continues to grow in response to
increasingly rapid technological advances and to globalization,
which has opened up markets worldwide to free trade, rendering the
marketplace highly competitive.
According to Ulrich and Eppinger (2003), NPD processes can be
considered a sequence of steps or activities that an enterprise
performs in order to conceive, design, and commercialize a product.
Because these activities involve information interchanges (Browning
and Eppinger, 2002), this process requires the cooperation of
people with varying levels of expertise and experience and from
different departments in the organization. Hence, effective
communication is a prerequisite in the management of NPD activities
as a continuous learning process (Soderquist, 2006; Gonzales and
Palacios, 2002).
A large number of NPD best practices, tools, methods, and
systems have been developed to help companies improve their NPD
process. Nonetheless, numerous companies have consistently failed
in their attempts to develop their products on time, within budget,
and with the expected features and quality (Cooper, 2001; Rozenfeld
et al., 2008). There is also a considerable body of literature that
seeks to identify the critical success factors
of NPD. The Product Development & Management Association
(PDMA) has sponsored best practice research projects to identify
NPD trends (Barczak et al., 2009; Khan, Barczak, and Moss, 2006;
Griffing, 1997). Cooper published several papers about NPD best
practices (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007; Cooper et al., 2004a;
Cooper et al., 2004b; Cooper et al., 2004c). The literature
contains a collection of works focusing on NPD improvement (Nepal
et al., 2011; Rozenfeld et al., 2008; Caffyn and Grantham, 2003;
Boer and Gertsen, 2003; Bessant and Francis, 1997; Bartezzaghi,
1997). Other authors have evaluated the body of research on NPD
over the years (Leon and Farris, 2011; Gerwin and Barrowman, 2002;
Krishnan and Ulrich, 2001). Only a few of these publications have
addressed the problems that occur during NPD (Baines et al., 2006;
Cooper and Kleinschmidit, 2007; Barczak et al., 2009); however, few
problems were identified without a broader and more systematic
assessment. Moreover, no reference was found of an empirical study
focusing on the identification and understanding of these
challenges and corresponding solutions.
In the PDMA survey, Barczak, Griffing, and Khan (2009) suggest
some practices to improve NPD, without a cause-and-effect analysis
of existing problems. The product development trends identified in
this survey were:
Use of a formal NPD, Development of a specific strategy for
product development, Measurement of NPD results, Expectation of
greater NPD efforts, Use of multifunctional teams, Execution of
different types of qualitative market surveys, andUse of design
tools such as CAD and computer simulations.
According to Cooper and Kleinschmidt (2007), the suitability of
human and financial resources and of expenditures on new product
research and development should be considered critical factors in
NPD. The authors also point out that the existence of a formal
product development process does not, per se, have much effect on
NPD performance. Also according to these authors, some companies
erroneously reengineer their NPD process simply to have a
documented process underpinned by good practices, without concern
for the execution of the process, which will not result in
successful product development. The modeling of this process should
take into account some of its specificities, e.g., that because it
is innovative and inventive it cannot be totally mechanized, even
though part of its structure is repetitive, and it should,
therefore be structured to facilitate project management (Browning
et al., 2006). In short, Browning et al. (2006) conclude than a
more generic approach may be more helpful and useful, providing a
positive impact on NPD performance.
Widely discussed in the literature (Leon and Farris, 2011), the
concept of waste is tied to non-value added activities performed in
a process (Womack and Jones, 2006). Its identification and
elimination are considered essential conditions for the
implementation of the lean approach (Baine et al., 2006). It should
be noted that the diagnosis of waste in NPD is considered a
challenge, since the problems inherent to this process are
structural and systemic rather than pointwise and/or partial
(Letens et al., 2011).
Due to so many challenges and best practices that lead to
success in NPD, companies find it difficult to identify which of
these challenges impact their processes and which critical success
factors they should adopt. Companies should evaluate their
opportunities for NPD improvement based on an assessment
-
21March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
of their real needs. Published best practices should be
evaluated before being implemented since, according to Bessant
(2005), companies have different specificities and learning
processes, and therefore the results expected from the
implementation of these best practices are not always achieved.
From the above, it can be concluded that there is a gap in the
literature about the identification and analysis of the main
problems that affect the efficiency and effectiveness of NPD, with
particular emphasis on the lack of empirical case studies for such
analyses. Our work proposes to fill this gap by systematizing
recurrent NPD problems found in multiple case studies, and by
discussing their occurrence in terms of NPD knowledge areas.
BPM as an Encompassing Approach to Improve NPDAccording to
Jeston and Nelis (2008), BPM is, the achievement of an
organizations objective through the improvement, management, and
control of essential business processes. It can be stated that BPM
is a structured and systematic approach to analyze, improve,
control, and manage processes in order to improve the quality of
products and services. This approach depends on the alignment of
business operations with strategic priorities, on operational
elements, on the use of modern tools and techniques, people
involvement, and most importantly, on a horizontal focus that
enables the clients requirements to be met in the best possible way
(Hung, 2006; Jeston and Nelis, 2008; Mallick and Schroeder, 2005;
Zairi, 1997).
Adopting a BPM approach allows the NPD process to be treated as
one of the companys processes that are constantly monitored based
on their performance indicators and analyzed in order to identify
opportunities for improvement. Based on the application of this
approach, change projects can be designed to improve the NPD
process according to the desired level of maturity (Rozenfeld et
al., 2008; Rozenfeld et al., 2009). Like most change management
methods, BPM methods are cyclic; comprising strategy definition,
diagnosis, and modeling of the current situation; definition of
improvement project portfolios; and the development of projects
(Costa and Rozenfeld, 2007).
In the first phase of the method, Defining the Change, the need
for change is evaluated together with the companys business
strategy. The diagnostic phase seeks to understand the problematic
situation to be changed; therefore, it is normal to carry out
cause-and-effect analysis or to model the as-is situation using a
process modeling notation. The main purpose of this phase is to
identify problems that disturb systems or processes. This
identification leads to the discovery of opportunities for
improvement. In the next phase, Evaluating the Portfolio of Change
Projects, the proposed improvement projects are analyzed and their
priorities are evaluated. This phase is implemented only if several
improvement projects have been considered; otherwise, the next
phase should be started. Defining a change project for minor
changes is unnecessary since such changes can simply be implemented
(e.g., by a Kaizen activity).
Each change project selected triggers the next phase, Planning
the Change, through the project and product scope. The project
objectives are defined and refined, and the project activities are
planned. In addition, the work breakdown structure (WBS) and
project schedule are developed. In the Analyzing the Concurrent
Situation phase, the problematic situation is diagnosed in greater
detail, the change requirements are developed, and the quantitative
and qualitative data of the present situation are compiled.
Subsequently, the Designing the Future Situation phase begins by
devising a solution, taking into account the initial objectives
and the project stakeholders opinions, thus minimizing possible
resistance. After the future situation has been modeled (to-be NPD
model), each project triggers the Implementing the Change phase.
This phase consists of training the people involved in the change,
implementing the change, and informing the stakeholders about the
projects situation. The last phase of the method, Validation,
should begin after a period of institutionalization of the change.
This phase involves ascertaining if any of the objectives has
shifted away from the initial plan. Furthermore, it involves
analyzing the initial problem and whether or not the requirements
have been met. Finally, the stakeholders are informed of the end of
the improvement project.
The diagnostic phase of BPM stands out because it is here that
improvement opportunities are identified, and consequently,
improvement projects are defined. This is the phase in which the
main problems are identified, and preferably their root causes as
well. Recurrent problems are frequently found in the same process,
which, if systematized, could be used as a reference for a new
diagnosis of the process in a company whose objective is to
identify its problems and improvement opportunities.
In this article, we investigate problems occurring during NPD
processes in order to pinpoint recurrent problems and thus
facilitate the diagnosis of a specific case. To this end, we adopt
a cause-and-effect diagnostic method to document problems that
occur during a project, as well as in the management of new product
development itself. As explained in the next section, a
cause-and-effect diagnostic is a useful tool not only for studying
the NPD process, and particularly for pointing out interpretative
problems, but also for addressing them.
Cause-and-Effect DiagnosisEvery problem has an underlying cause.
This statement is found in the literature in the most recent
studies aimed at the improvement of processes (Ishikawa, 1982;
Deming, 1986; Goldratt, 1994; Doggett, 2005). The Ishikawa
Cause-and-Effect Diagram, also called the Fish Bone Diagram
(Deming, 1986), the Current Reality Tree (CRT) (Goldratt, 1994),
the Interrelationship Diagram (Doggett, 2005), and Cognitive Maps
(Eden, 1992) are examples of methods and/or tools that are helpful
in the discovery of problems and in understanding their
relationships.
Doggett (2004) made a statistical comparison of three methods:
the Cause-and-Effect Diagram, Current Reality Tree, and
Interrelationship Diagram. In terms of the ease of learning these
methods, the author concluded that the CRT is the most complex one;
however, in terms of results, he considered the CRT the most
suitable method for identifying a larger number of problems and
root causes, as well as for discussing the target process. The
focus of this work is the identification of recurrent problems in
new product development. The CRT was adapted for this purpose and
is, therefore, the only one described in detail here.
Current Reality Tree is one of the thinking process tools of the
Theory of Constraints (Goldratt, 1994), designed to help identify
process constraints, called undesirable effects, which can be
considered a problem. According to Doggett (2005), It reflects the
most probable chain of cause-and-effect factors that contribute to
a specific set of circumstances and creates a basis for
understanding complex systems. The term tree indicates the fact
that the CRT creates dependence relationships, reality refers to
the problems that are peoples perception of that reality, and
current indicates the perception of a particular situation in a
certain period of time. The purpose of the CRT is to link
-
22 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
these effects or problems logically through cause-and-effect
relationships (Scoggin et al., 2003). CRT uses entities and arrows
to describe the process. The entities, normally represented by a
rectangle, are statements that express a problem, while the arrows
represent cause-and-effect relationships. Exhibit 1 illustrates
this link. The arrowheads represent the effects caused by the arrow
shafts, so effects should be read from top to bottom, i.e., effect
A is caused by effect 1, 2 and 3, and so on. The goal is to
identify root causes that impact the largest number of effects in
order to design improvement projects that eliminate as many
problems as possible.
As can be seen in Exhibit 1, a significant majority of
undesirable effects are caused by other effects or root causes;
therefore, it is essential to classify the effects to gain a better
understanding of the most significant problems that must be
eliminated. The undesirable effects located at the top of the tree
are called main effects because they do not cause other effects.
Moreover, these are also the problems of which people are usually
more aware. The effects in the middle of the tree are called
intermediate effects (IE). Some of these effects cause several
other effects; therefore, efforts should focus on eliminating them
as soon as they are identified. Finally, root causes are the
effects that give rise to all the other effects. People rarely
perceive the extent of the impact of root causes, whose
identification is the main goal when creating CRTs (Goldratt,
1994).
This classification is necessary to demonstrate that all effects
are considered symptoms of problems that impact the execution of
the process, i.e., these problems directly influence the
efficiency
and effectiveness of the process; therefore, it is important to
identify all these problems during the construction of the
tree.
An overview of the CRT construction method is given by Rahman
(2002). The author lists eight basic activities involved in
building a CRT:
List the undesirable effects by interviewing the process team1.
Connect two or more of the effects if they are causally 2.
relatedConnect all other effects3. Read the tree from the bottom up
and make the necessary 4. correctionsEvaluate if the tree as a
whole reflects reality5. When necessary, expand the tree to include
more effects6. Present the tree to a few people7. Make the
necessary corrections and complete the tree8.
Although the construction of a CRT is simple, it requires a
sophisticated rationale since effects are peoples perceptions of
something that is disturbing their system, so these thoughts are
not explicit. Since effects are peoples perceptions, the team
building the CRT should be careful to avoid inserting only their
own biases into the tree, since doing so would result in a tree
reflecting a personal rather than a commonly-held view of reality.
This risk can be eliminated by interviewing as many people as
possible and by setting up a team consisting of members from
different areas of the company.
A second concern about CRT is the identification of only one
root cause. Goldratt (1994) argues that, provided they are
Exhibit 1. Structure of the Current Reality Tree (Doggett,
2005)
(7) Standardization of practices is not a company value
(1) Operators do not use standard practices
(3) Some standard practices are
incorrect
(5) Standard practices are not updated regularly
(4) Some operations do not have
standard practices
(6) The company does not have a defined system for creating
and updating standard practices
(2) Company does not enforce the use of standard practices
-
23March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
investigated in depth, the problems of a system can be traced
back to a single root cause, and once this cause has been
eliminated, the system will work perfectly. It should be noted,
however, that even if a single root cause is identified, its
elimination through a single project is practically unfeasible;
therefore, as other authors have suggested (Doggett, 2005; Rahman
2002), the identification of more than one root cause should not be
considered negative.
The steps involved in this research and its application are
described below to demonstrate how the NPD problems were
systematized.
Research Methodology In order to achieve the aim of this
research, a combination of suitable research methods was outlined;
thus, three steps were carried out: (1) conducting NPD diagnosis;
(2) NPD diagnosis analysis; and (3) NPD problem classification.
Exhibit 2 shows the methods applied in the steps, involving case
studies in which the cause-and-effect diagnostic method was applied
to perform the NPD diagnosis and text mining techniques were
employed to cluster the problems of all the cause-and-effect
diagnoses. Finally, categories of NPD problems were defined and
validated by NPD process experts, allowing for an analysis of NPD
problems versus reports in the literature. The multiple case study
and text mining methods are described in detail below.
Multiple Case Study The case study approach was chosen as the
best way to construct the NPD diagnoses (Step 1). To this end,
cause-and-effect diagnoses were carried out at eight manufacturing
companies whose profiles are given in Exhibit 3. The Current
Reality Tree
(Goldratt, 1994) was adapted here to carry out the diagnoses.
The main activities performed during the construction of the
cause-and-effect diagnoses were: (1) planning of the NPD diagnosis
project; (2) becoming acquainted with the object of study; (3)
preparation of the interview guidelines; (4) conducting individual
interviews; (5) creation of a list of problems; (6) construction of
the tree; (7) validation of the tree, (8) assignment of improvement
projects; and (9) presentation of the tree to the NPD team and
stakeholders.
In the first activity, the number of researchers to conduct the
interviews, the number of people to be interviewed at each company,
and the number of NPD experts to validate the diagnosis jointly
with the companies was planned (Exhibit 4). We sought to select
interviewees from diverse areas that act in or interface with NPD,
e.g., product engineering, process engineering, project management,
purchasing, information technology, manufacturing, and
directors.
To ensure that every aspect of the NPD process was examined, a
checklist was created to guide the interviews during the diagnosis
(Appendix 1). In most cases, the interviews were conducted by two
researchers, who met with each interviewee in the company
individually. Individual interviews were used because, based on the
authors previous experience, interviewees find it easier to express
their concerns about problems that interfere in their activities
when their managers are not present.
During the interviews, the researchers used the interview
checklist as a guide to bring up problems. For each dimension, the
researchers asked the interviewee if he/she perceived any problem
concerning the theme. For example, at company C, the researchers
asked the interviewees, In your opinion, is there any problem
Exhibit 2. Research Methods
Multiple Case Studies Cause and Effect Analysis
Text Mining Clustering
1. Conducting NPD diagnoses
2. NPD diagnoses analysis
Literature revision Mann-Whitney Test
Systematization of Recurrent NPD problems
Research StepsMethods applied
3. NPD problems classification
Exhibit 3. Company Profiles
Company Size State of Growth Industry Sector Product Development
Newness
A Small Growing Robotics New to world
B Large Static Automobile Product improvement
C Medium Growing Capital Goods Product improvement
D Small Growing Industrial Design New to company
E Large Static Automobile Product improvement
F Small Growing Chemical New to world
G Small Static Laboratory Research New to company
H Large Static White Goods Product improvement
-
24 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
in how the new product development process is structured? Some
examples of responses are: We dont know why or for what the client
wants the improvement that sales passed on to us (product
engineer); There should be greater integration among the
departments (directors); and In engineering its each one for
himself, we dont know what anyone else is doing (designer). Based
on an analysis of these and other responses, the researchers
identified two problems: little integration of engineering with
other departments, and little integration among the people involved
in NPD. The causal relationships between these problems and the
rest of the list were established to create the cause-and-effect
tree. For example, for these two problems, both has as one of its
direct causes the problem lack of vision of the NPD to business
process which in turn is caused by the root cause management
methods and techniques are not valued. The case studies resulted in
eight cause-and-effect trees (due to space constraints, only the
tree of company C is presented in Appendix 2).
The trees were validated first with the specialists and later
with all the interviewees of the companies that participated in the
diagnosis. After validating the tree, the researchers analyzed and
identified the main improvement opportunities for each company.
These opportunities were formalized in an improvement project
charter document (improvement project list is presented in Appendix
3). The suggested improvement projects differed in size and scope
short, medium, and long term. To illustrate, one of the projects
proposed for company C was the Definition of a model of reference
of NPD with the use of gates, with emphasis on project management.
The implementation of each project aimed to eliminate or minimize
the presence of a set of problems. Lastly, the projects were
presented and analyzed by the NPD coordinators and by the
directorate of the companies, who defined the priority of their
implementation according to the strategies of each company. After
the case studies were completed and the eight cause-and-effect
trees were validated, research Step 2 was initiated to define
recurrent NPD problems. The results of this second step are
described below.
Text Mining In order to achieve the best results in Step 2 (NPD
diagnostic analysis), a multivariate data analysis technique called
cluster analysis was used to group similar objects. In this work,
we used a cluster strategy to organize a set of NPD problems into
groups and subgroups, based on the textual description of each NPD
problem. To this end, we adapted a text mining technique described
by Moura et al. (2008), which consists of four phases:
Initially, a set of NPD problems are pre-processed and 1.
transformed into a structured representation called a bag of words.
In this representation, each NPD problem is defined
with a vector di = (ai1; ai2; ... ; aim), where aij represents
the frequency of occurrence of the term j (word) in problem i. In
this phase, terms that are not representative for the domain (such
as articles, pronouns, and prepositions) are removed.Based on the
vector representations of each NPD problem, a 2. similarity matrix
of the problems is calculated. The similarity between two problems
di and dj is calculated by means of the cosine similarity measure,
which is the cosine angle between the two vectors (Equation 1)
(Marcacini and Rezende, 2010). The more similar the two NPD
problems are, the closer the value of the cosine similarity is to
1; otherwise, the value approaches 0.The similarity matrix of the
problems NPD is used as input 3. for the hierarchical clustering
algorithm Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean
(UPGMA). Initially, each NPD problem is considered a single group.
The two most similar groups in the similarity matrix are then
joined into one group. The process continues iteratively until all
the problems are grouped. As a result, the NPD problems are
organized hierarchically into a sequence of groups called a
dendrogram.Lastly, the most relevant terms for each group of NPD 4.
problems obtained in the previous phase are selected. To this end,
the terms most frequently employed for each group are used. This
phase helps identify the contents of the existing NPD problems in
each group (Moura and Rezende, 2007).
Cos( , ) = | | (1)After this data mining step, we sought to
answer the research
question for this article: Is the occurrence of problems per
category independent of company size? To this end, we put forward
the null hypothesis H0: The occurrence of problems per category is
independent of company size.
ResultsNPD Diagnostic Analysis and Definition of Recurrent
Problems The purpose of using text mining was to identify recurrent
problems. Recurrent problems are similar problems that occur in
more than one company. In other words, whenever the same problem
was found in at least two of the eight diagnoses carried out in
this study, it was considered a recurrent problem. Exhibit 5 shows
the number of problems per company, as well as the number of
recurrent problems. Since the eight companies have different NPD
processes (due to the wide diversity of their product types), the
average of 62% of similarity among their problems can be considered
a significant rate. The cause-and-effect trees each contained an
average of 56 problems that are not root causes
Exhibit 4. Number of Participants
Company Number of NPD Experts Number of Researchers Number of
Interviewees
A 1 2 4
B 2 3 27
C 1 5 11
D 1 2 4
E 2 3 29
F 1 3 14
G 2 2 3
H 1 2 32
-
25March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
(ranging from 45 to 69) and had an average of 85
cause-and-effect relationships (ranging from 57 to 104).
One of the main advantages of performing a cause-and-effect
diagnosis is that it allows for the identification of the root
causes that lead to problems. Defining root causes is a challenging
task. Nevertheless, companies should strive to identify and
eliminate them, since a project aimed solely at solving an
intermediate effect will usually have little effect in improving
the entire problematic situation. Exhibit 5 lists the average
number of recurrences of root causes per company. The 72% of
similarity among root causes indicates that companies share common
difficulties in managing their NPD processes; therefore, a
portfolio of common improvement projects can be proposed to address
the root causes (Appendix 3).
The investigation carried out in this research may serve to help
companies analyze their own root causes. Exhibit 6 lists the most
relevant NPD problems, i.e., recurrent problems (affecting at least
half the companies) and their root causes. Based on this list,
companies will be able to (1) identify NPD problems and root
causes, thereby expediting the diagnostic process; (2) use the list
to evaluate the impact of these problems on their NPD process; and
(3) prioritize NPD improvement projects based on a pragmatic
rationale.
Classification of NPD Problems The NPD problem analysis (Step 3)
concerns the possibility of classifying non-recurring and recurring
problems. The text mining did not result in a set of categories for
groups of recurring problems that justified grouping into larger
groups to create, for example, categories of groups; however, it is
worth noting that the purpose of text mining was to identify
similarities among the relevant problems of sample work, i.e., it
sought to demonstrate that NPD has recurring problems.
Having reached this conclusion, nine categories were established
to classify the problems based on knowledge areas suggested by
PDMABok (Griffin and Somermemeyer, 2007), CMMI (SEI, 2002) and
PMBOK (PMI, 2008). Although these three reports suggest more than
nine areas, it was not possible to identify all the areas in the
sample of work-related problems. We also believe that a category
should be added that is not included in the above-mentioned
Knowledge Management sources. We, therefore, added this new
category after the analysis of the dimensions of the NPD proposed
by Silva and Rozenfeld (2007), which highlights the current
importance of Knowledge Management in NPD processes. The nine major
categories were:
Cost Management: problems relating to NPD project and process
cost management, and their impact on manufacturing costs
(PMBok);Customer and Market Research: problems having to do with
bringing external insights into product innovation
and development and related to markets, channels, and
competitors (PDMA Bok);Information and Communication Technology:
problems relating to information technology, in this case involving
every system that might affect the NPD process (CMMi);Knowledge
Management: problems involving knowledge management, such as
knowledge transfer, product documentation management, etc. (Silva
and Rozenfeld);People, Teams, and Culture: problems of human
resources management and others emerging as a result of cultural
aspects of the company or department (PDMA Bok and PMBok);Process
Management: problems involving NPD process management and technical
NPD problems (PDMA Bok and CMMi);Project Management: problems
involving the management of product development projects (PMBok and
CMMi);Strategy and Planning: problems involving strategic issues,
encompassing corporate, process and/or product strategy levels (
PDMA Bok);Supply Chain Management: problems involving supplier
management through the NPD process. (PDMA Bok).
The definition of these categories offers an opportunity to
generalize and develop a grounded theory about the main NPD
problems.
The assumption that the proportion of the companies problems per
category is independent of their size was tested using the
Mann-Whitney nonparametric test. This test was chosen because it is
a nonparametric alternative to the t test for the comparison of
means when the samples are small (Montgomery et al., 1999). As
mentioned previously, Hypothesis H0 is that the average proportion
of problems per category is the same in large and small
companies.
Exhibit 7 presents the results of the comparisons made between
the group of large companies and the group of small companies for
the 9 categories. As can be seen, all the comparisons showed a
level of significance higher than 5% ( = 0.05). Thus, hypothesis H0
could not be rejected, so the assumption that the proportion of
problems is independent of company size was confirmed by the
Mann-Whitney test.
The analysis of the categories that companies should monitor
more carefully is, therefore, valid. Exhibit 8 shows the median
occurrence rate of problems according to their categories and per
company. This figure also allows for an analysis of the categories
that should be investigated in greater depth in order to determine
the reason for a high standard deviation. The categories that
proved to be the most problematic in the opinion of the companies
were: Process Management, Project Management, People, Teams and
Culture, and Strategy and Planning.
Exhibit 5. Analysis of the Average Number of Recurrent Problems
and Root Causes per Company
Companies A B C D E F G H Total
# Problems 45 60 55 56 57 53 50 69
# Recurrent problems 32 25 31 32 38 39 34 45
% Recurrent problems 71% 42% 56% 57% 67% 74% 68% 65% 62%
# Root causes 9 4 4 7 3 7 5 6
# Recurrent root causes 5 2 3 4 2 5 5 6
% Recurrent root causes 56% 50% 75% 57% 67% 71% 100% 100%
72%
-
26 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
Exhibit 6. List of Relevant NPD Problems
Occurrence NPD Recurrent Problems Root Cause
6 Absence / disability product portfolio management
6 Absence / disability product requirement management
5 Absence / disability strategic planning Yes
5 Absence / lack of benchmarking Yes
5 Absence / lack of human resource management Yes
5 Absence / lack of improvement processes Yes
5 Absence / lack of integration between NPD people Yes
5 Absence / lack of process vision Yes
5 Absence / lack of production process planning
5 Absence / lack of suppliers development
5 Absence / lack of training
5 High product cost
4 Absence / disability of engineering change management
4 Absence / disability product strategic planning
4 Absence / disability in performing teamwork Yes
4 Absence / disability in the circulation of information
4 Absence / disability in use of project management
techniques
4 Absence / failure to perform tests
4 Absence / lack of definition of roles / responsibilities
Yes
4 Absence / lack of measurement of costs
4 Absence / lack of procedures
4 Delay in launching products
4 High work load
4 Information system limited Yes
4 Lack of knowledge about NPD best practices Yes
4 Poorly defined organizational structure Yes
4 Reinventing the wheel Yes
4 Unmotivated staff
3 Absence / disability in classifying projects Yes
3 Absence / lack of formal process of project management Yes
3 Lack of NPD knowledge repository Yes
3 Strategic Planning deficient Yes
2 Absence / lack of formal NPD process Yes
2 Difficulty in identifying skills Yes
2 Lack of knowledge of project management best practices Yes
2 Lack of knowledge of TIC (technology information
communication) potential Yes
2 Problems of personal relationships Yes
2 Reduction of costs is main goal Yes
2 Technology immature Yes
-
27March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
The largest standard deviations in the categories involve
Project Management (=7%), People, Teams and Culture (=7%), Process
Management (=6%), and Strategy and Planning (=6%). In the case of
standard deviations in the Process Management and Project
Management categories, the analysis should focus on the specific
case of Company F, which contributed significantly in increasing
the standard deviations. Because this company develops highly
innovative and complex products, the focus on project management
can strongly affect the success of the NPD process. Thus, in the
case of this company, the perception of the extent to which project
management problems affect NPD was inversely correlated with
Process Management. Lastly, in the Strategy and Planning category,
the standard deviation was increased by Company B. This company did
not report Strategy and Planning-related problems, possibly because
it is a large company of the automotive sector whose strategic
planning is better structured due to its size.
An additional analysis is root cause analysis. Exhibit 9
presents the average rate of recurrent root causes versus recurrent
problems, by category. As can be seen in this figure, the four
categories that most strongly affect NPD were Process Management,
People, Teams and Culture, Strategy and Planning, and Information
Communication Technology.
We have compared our findings with the literature. The
categories with the most frequently recurring root causes were
consistent with the critical success factors (CSF) cited in the
literature. The CSF of supply chain management was not identified
in our study. Thus, the following discussion focuses on the
categories that are described in both this work and the literature.
Practitioners and researches should, therefore, consider them when
defining NPD process improvement projects.
The importance of NPD Process Management is discussed
extensively in the literature; however, the undesirable effects of
its failure are not clearly stated; for example, the lack of
process vision strongly impacts the success of NPD. This implies
that companies are not able to establish a structured NPD process,
and specifically, it results in the absence or lack of integration
between NPD personnel, as well as the notion that the NPD team is
simply an engineering team. start here This root cause has several
other consequences, e.g., the lack of or poorly stated NPD process
goals, lack of NPD process interfaces, and the absence or
insufficiency of procedures. A high-quality new product process is,
according to Cooper and Kleinschmidt (2007), one of the top four
factors that distinguishes the better performance of a business.
They state that well-performed front-end activities, sharp and
early product definition, tough Go/Kill decision points, and
quality of execution and thoroughness are the factors that support
high-quality NPD processes. These features were identified as the
top recurrent causes in our study, indicating that companies are
probably aware of the importance of these factors but unaware that
they lead to
Exhibit 7. Mann-Whitney Nonparametric Test
Small Companies (n=4) Large Companies (n=3)
Median Median W (p-value)
Process Management 0.27 0.32 13 (0,38)
Project Management 0.22 0.13 20 (0,22)
People, Teams and Culture 0.16 0.26 12 (0,22)
Strategy and Planning 0.11 0.13 14 (0,60)
Information Communication Technology 0.08 0.08 18 (0,60)
Knowledge Management 0.06 0.04 17 (0,86)
Cost Management 0.05 0.03 19 (0,38)
Customer and Market Research 0.03 0.03 16,5 (1,00)
Supply Chain Management 0.02 0 16 (1,00)
Exhibit 8. Analysis of NPD Categories per Company
Size Company Process ManagementProject
Management
People, Teams
and Culture
Strategy and
Planning
Information Communication
Technology
Knowledge Management
Cost Management
Customer and Market
Research
Supply Chain Management
Small A 31% 22% 13% 9% 6% 6% 6% 3% 3%
D 22% 22% 16% 13% 9% 16% 3% 0% 0%
F 18% 33% 15% 13% 5% 5% 3% 3% 5%
G 35% 12% 18% 9% 12% 0% 9% 6% 0%
Medium C 35% 16% 10% 19% 0% 3% 10% 3% 3%
Large B 32% 20% 32% 0% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0%
E 32% 13% 26% 13% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5%
H 33% 11% 16% 18% 9% 4% 4% 4% 0%
Median 32% 18% 16% 13% 7% 5% 4% 3% 2%
Standard deviation 6% 7% 7% 6% 4% 5% 3% 2% 2%
-
28 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
other problems; therefore, they would benefit from focusing
their immediate efforts on solving them. Even so, further research
would be useful to dig deeper into the reasons underlying these
problems and to devise best practices to assist companies that are
willing to improve the quality of their NPD process.
The second category that most strongly impacts NPD performance
is People, Teams and Culture. The development of a culture and an
organizational structure that emphasize the importance of
developing new products is recognized here as a critical factor for
achieving effective NPD processes. The case studies performed in
this research revealed a lack of these practices and the
consequences of their absence were reflected in the poor definition
of team structures, problematic interpersonal relationships within
the team, and inability to work as team. A consensus was found in
the literature concerning the importance of this issue (Barczak et
al., 2009; Schum and Lin, 2009; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007;
Gonzales and Palacios, 2002). Our findings indicate that the level
of competencies and skills of the NPD team is one of the factors
that strongly impact the performance of the NPD process. This
conclusion is consistent with the opinion of Barczak et al. (2009),
who emphasize the importance of cross-functional and NPD project
training. One of the main root causes we analyzed is the absence or
lack of integration among NPD personnel, and the extent of the
negative effects of this problem should be considered. Page and
Schirr (2005) and Shum and Lin (2009) also emphasize the importance
of this integration, stating that team integration and creating an
organization for collaboration and communication are NPD success
factors. Gonzalez and Palacios (2002) studied the effect of NPD
techniques on new product success and found that not all product
development techniques contribute significantly to successful NPD.
In the case of Spanish firms, they propose that incorrect
implementation and management could be the reason for this finding.
In their opinion, organizational and process changes are required
in order to apply these techniques to the best advantage, but such
changes are hindered by cultural barriers. In view of this finding
and the analysis of consequences of the root cause of absence/lack
of improvement, we believe it is imperative for companies willing
to make organizational changes to be fully aware of the root causes
of problems, enabling them to focus their efforts on the right
project at the right time. Liker and Morgan also emphasize the
importance of making improvements in this area. According to these
authors, communication problems and
departmental feuds are very frequent in companies, rendering the
process slow and with a high rate of rework.
Regarding the Strategy and Planning category, it was found that
the absence of or inadequate strategic planning strongly affects
the front-end of the NPD process where product strategy is defined.
These activities are critical to the performance of the process
because they define which new products should render the business
competitive and provide revenue; therefore, the poor execution of
these activities results in additional NPD problems (e.g., lack of
product modularity), and hence, poor standardization of component
interface specifications. The concerns regarding the importance of
new product strategy and planning raised in our research have also
been emphasized in the literature (Barczak et al., 2009, Page and
Schirr; 2008, Schum and Lin, 2009; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007;
Gonzales and Palacios, 2002). Cooper and Kleinschmidt (2007) point
out the importance of a defined new product strategy in which new
product goals are stated, areas of focus are delineated, the role
of new products is clearly communicated, and there is long-term
momentum. The importance of strategy goals focusing on innovation
and R&D was also mentioned by Barczak et al. (2009) and Cooper
and Kleinschmidt (2007), who agree that investments in innovation
are no longer an option, and that companies should, therefore,
attempt to provide a friendly environment for innovation, for
example, by providing support and senior management leadership for
innovation. Schum and Lin (2007) went a step further in motivating
innovation by affirming that stimulus, pace, and slack time for
innovation are observed in the best practices of the worlds most
innovative companies
Finally, although the category of Information and Communication
Technology is not among the top problematic categories, as
mentioned earlier, it ranks fourth among the categories with the
strongest impact on root causes. This position highlights the
importance of the implementation of integrated systems such as
Product Life-cycle Management (PLM) systems. Although NPD personnel
do not report many systems-related problems, the problems
identified can be considered critical because they cause or
contribute to the cause of other problems, e.g., absence/inadequacy
of engineering change management, lack of a NPD knowledge
repository, and reinvention of the wheel; therefore, this issue
must be discussed in depth so that it can be tackled efficiently,
evaluating the cost-benefit of such improvement projects. There is
a controversy about the
Exhibit 9. Analysis of NPD Categories by Problem Types
28%
22%
19%
16%
9%
6%
0% 0% 0%
30%
18%
12%
7%
18%
3%5% 5%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Process Management
People, Teams and Culture
Strategy and Planning
Information Communication
Project Management
Customer and Market
Knowledge Management
Cost Management
Supply Chain Management
Recurrent root causesRecurrent problems
%N
PD P
robl
ems
-
29March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
importance of this category. Authors who discuss the lean model
normally do not highlight IT-related improvements, e.g., Liker and
Morgan (2011).
As mentioned earlier, root causes are the most relevant problems
to be eliminated. Analysis of the study cases revealed that people
do not usually perceive these problems clearly as root causes, or
they are unaware of the extent to which these problems actually
affect the NPD process. The result of this misperception is that
companies focus their efforts on areas that fail to contribute as
expected toward improving NPD.
Conclusions and Future WorkIn this research, case studies were
conducted to build cause-and-effect trees of new product
development (NPD) problems. Our analysis focused on the NPD
processes of eight companies across a variety of sectors. The main
contribution of this work was the systematization of NPD problems.
The results confirm the conclusions of Letens et al. (2011) that
NPD problems are structural and systemic rather than local and/or
partial. The list of principal problems that interfere with the
efficiency and effectiveness of NPD presented here can be helpful
in gaining a better understanding of the process of improvement of
NPD and its activities. The classification of these problems into
NPD problem categories offers an excellent opportunity for
evaluating the NPD areas that most require improvements. The
categories created were Cost Management; Customer and Market
Research; Information and Communication Technology; Knowledge
Management; People, Teams and Culture; Process Management; Project
Management; Strategy and Planning and Supply Chain Management.
With regard to the research question, it can be concluded that
the occurrence of problems per category is independent of company
size. The results of the Mann-Whitney statistical test indicate
that there is no statistically significant difference in the
percentage of problems per category between small and large
companies. Further research is also needed to understand the
behavior of these categories according to different product types.
We are aware that the effects of possible interactions among
variables require additional study, and answers to these questions
can likely be found in research involving a larger sample size.
Despite these limitations, the results of this research suggest
several managerial implications for improving NPD processes. The
first of these implications is that effective diagnosis plays an
important role in improving the NPD process. Our case studies
clearly showed that NPD people tackle specific problems in the
belief that those problems are the most important ones requiring
solutions; however, after performing the diagnosis, they realized
that the problems they intended to address were not necessarily the
most important ones. This realization has enabled them to outline
improvement projects for more fundamental problems such as root
causes. In general, root causes are eliminated through medium
and/or long-term projects, while other improvements can be
accomplished by means of short-term actions; therefore,
understanding the importance of addressing the root causes of
problems in the NPD process also enabled them to balance their
portfolio of improvement projects with small, medium, and long-term
projects.
The cause-and-effect diagnosis proved to be an excellent method
to analyze NPD process deficiencies. It should be noted that the
belief in the identification of a single root cause is discouraged
by the authors of this research. As mentioned earlier, the majority
of NPD problems are structural and systemic, and a single root
cause would only be feasible in a partial and/or pointwise
diagnosis. Based on this research, it is also concluded
that the identification and understanding of NPD problems should
be considered by companies as a critical success factor for the
improvement of this process.
This diagnostic method enables teams seeking to improve NPD to
make a more informed choice of NPD improvement projects. Although
modeling the as-is situation has been recognized as a critical
success factor in defining action plans to achieve a desired to-be
situation, we found that performing CRTs can be a faster, and,
therefore less expensive way to establish action plans. The
experience gained in our case studies enables us to conclude that
cause-and-effect diagnoses, such as the CRT, and process modeling
should be considered mutually complementary. In other words, in an
initial improvement cycle such as the one presented here, a broader
diagnosis can be conducted to diagnose a variety of different types
of problems, while a second improvement cycle can be performed that
involves a second diagnosis, more focused on the dimensions of
activities and information of a process, in which the as-is
situation of the process is modeled. The CRT method allows for the
identification of other types of problems such as cultural and
management problems that cannot be represented in a process model;
however, we do not underestimate the advantages of process modeling
methods, especially for process improvement and system
implementation, for instance. Process modeling is critical for a
more detailed view of a process; however, this conclusion cannot be
generalized until further investigation is conducted to compare the
two methods.
The systematization of NPD problems may expedite company
diagnoses of the NPD process. Our case studies indicate that making
such diagnoses requires not only experience in the diagnostic
method but also in the NPD process itself. The list of relevant NPD
problems discussed here and presented in Appendix 2 can, therefore,
serve as a guide for companies aiming to invest in NPD
diagnosis.
The occurrence rate of the problems classified by category
indicated the NPD areas with the highest potential for improvement.
Our evaluation of the results of the two analyses recurrence of NPD
problems and recurrence of root causes clearly indicates that
companies should focus carefully on the following areas: Process
Management; People, Teams and Culture; Strategy and Planning;
Information, Communication and Technology Management; and Project
Management.
Examples of very recurrent root causes were: (a) absence/lack of
process vision, (b) lack of knowledge of NPD best practices, and
(c) lack of a knowledge repository. These root causes highlight the
fact that companies still fail to recognize these points as
potential for new improvement projects. The case studies also
clearly demonstrate that, by failing to apply a diagnostic method,
companies end up investing in methods and techniques that appear to
them to be more tangible; h, because the method used in this
research was based on case studies, we recognize that this proposal
requires further research and validation.
For future work, we suggest that the problems identified here be
expanded to take into account the impact of new areas of knowledge
on the effectiveness of NPD as a sustainable product development
process. An analysis of problems as they relate to lean categories
of waste could also be useful to aid in the identification of such
waste, thereby increasing the added value of new product
development. We trust that this discussion of recurrent NPD
problems will serve as a guide for improvements in the NPD process
and provide a stepping stone toward a better understanding of the
main barriers to NPD success and the benefits of diagnoses in this
process. In addition, NPD process
-
30 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
managers can begin to evaluate the problems listed herein and
identify them in their NPD processes in order to engage their teams
in carrying out improvement projects.
AcknowledgmentsThe authors are indebted to their University of
Sao Paulo colleagues for their helpful suggestions and to CNPq and
CAPES (Brazil) for their financial support.
ReferencesBaines, Tim, Howard Lightfoot, G. Gareth., M.
Williams, and
Richard Greenough, State-of-the-Art in Lean Design Engineering:
A Literature Review on White Collar Lean, Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 220:9 (September 2006), pp. 1539-1547.
Barczak, Gloria, Abbie Griffin, and Kenneth B. Kahn,
Perspective: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices:
Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 26:1 (January 2009), pp. 3-23.
Bartezzaghi, Emilio, Mariano Corso, and Roberto Verganti,
Continuous Improvement and Inter-Project Learning in New Product
Development, International Journal of Technology Management, 14:1
(1997), pp. 116-138.
Bessant, John, and David Francis, Implementing the New Product
Development Process, Technovation, 17:4 (April 1997), pp.
189-197.
Bessant, John., Richard Lamming, Hannah Noke, and Wendy
Phillips, Managing Innovation Beyond the Steady State,
Technovation, 25:12 (December 2005), pp. 1366-1376.
Boer, Harry, and Frank Gertsen, From Continuous Improvement to
Continuous Innovation: A (Retro)(Per)spective, International
Journal of Technology Management, 26:8 (2003), pp. 805-827.
Browning, Tyson R., Ernst Fricke, and Herbert Negele, Key
Concepts in Modeling Product Development Processes, Systems
Engineering, 9:2 (2006), pp. 104-128.
Browning, Tyson R., and Steven D. Eppinger, Modeling Impacts of
Process Architecture on Cost and Schedule Risk in Product
Development, IEEE Transaction Engineering Management, 49:4 (2002),
pp. 428-442.
Bucher, Tobias, Robert Winter, Project Types of Business Process
Management: Towards a Scenario Structure to Enable Situational
Method Engineering for Business Process Management, Business
Process Management Journal, 15:4 (2009), pp. 548-568.
Caffyn, Sarah, and Andrew Grantham, Fostering Continuous
Improvement within New Product Development Processes, International
Journal of Technology Management, 26:8 (2003), pp. 843-856.
Clark, Kim B., Takahiro Fujimoto, Product Development
Performance: Strategy, Organization and Management in the World
Auto Industry, Harvard Business School Press (1991).
Cooper, Robert G., Winning at New Products (3rd Ed.), Perseus
Pub. (2001).
Cooper, Robert G., Scott J. Edgett, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt,
Benchmarking Best NPD Practices I, Research Technology Management,
47:1 (Jan/Feb 2004), pp. 31-44.
Cooper, Robert G., Scott J. Edgett, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt,
Benchmarking Best NPD Practices II, Research Technology Management,
47:3 (May/Jun 2004), pp. 50-60.
Cooper, Robert G., Scott J. Edgett, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt,
Benchmarking Best NPD Practices III, Research
Technology Management, 47:6 (Nov/Dec 2004), pp. 43-56.Cooper,
Robert G., and Elko J. Kleinschmidt, Winning
Businesses in Product Development: The Critical Success Factors,
Research-Technology Management, 50:3(May/Jun 2007), pp. 52-66.
Costa, Janaina M.H., and Henrique Rozenfeld, Proposal of the BPM
Method for Improving NPD Processes, Product: Management and
Development, 5:1(2007), pp. 25-32.
Deming, W. Edwards, Out of the Crisis, MIT Press (1986).Doggett,
Anthony Mark. Root Cause Analysis : A Framework for
Tool Selection, Quality Management Journal, 12:4 (October 2005),
pp. 34-45.
Eden, Colin, On the Nature of Cognitive Maps, Journal of
Management Studies, 29:3 (May 1992), pp. 261-265.
Gerwin, Donald, and Nicholas J. Barrowman, An Evaluation of
Research on Integrated Product Development, Management Science,
48:7 (July 2002), pp. 938-953.
Goldratt, Eliyahu M., It`s Not Luck, North River Press
(1994)Gonzlez, Francisco J.M., and Toms M.B. Palacios, The
Effect
of New Product Development Techniques on New Product Success in
Spanish Firms, Industrial Marketing Management, 31:3 (April 2002),
pp. 261-271.
Griffin, Abbie, PDMA Research on New Product Development
Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices, Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 14:6 (November 1997), pp.
429-458.
Griffin, Abbie, and Stephen Somermemeyer, The PDMA Toolbok 3 for
New Product Development, John Wiley & Sons, Inc (2007).
Huang, Xueli, Geoffrey N. Soutar, and Alan Brown, New Product
Development Processes in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Some
Australian Evidence, Journal of Small Business Management, 40:1
(January 2002), pp. 27-42.
Hung, Richard Y., Business Process Management as Competitive
Advantage: A Review and Empirical Study, Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, 17:1(2006), pp. 21-40.
Ishikawa, Kaoru, Guide to Quality Control (2nd Rev. Ed.), Asian
Productivity Organization (1982).
Jeston, John, and Johan Nelis, Business Process Management
Practical Guidelines to Successful Implementations (2nd Ed.)
Elsevier (2008).
Kahn, Kenneth B., Gloria Barczak, and Roberta Moss, Perspective:
Establishing an NPD Best Practices Framework, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 23:2 (March 2006), pp. 106-116.
Krishnan, Viswanathan, and Karl T. Ulrich, Product Development
Decisions: A Review of the Literature, Management Science, 47:1
(January 2001), pp. 1-21.
Ledwith, Ann, and Michele ODwyer, Market Orientation, NPD
Performance, and Organizational Performance in Small Firms, Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 26:6 (November 2009),
pp.652-661.
Ledwith, Ann, Ita Richardson, and Ann Sheahan, Small Firm-Large
Firm Experiences in Managing NPD Projects, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, 13:3 (2006), pp. 425-440.
Leon, Hilda C. Martinez., and Jennifer A. Farris, Lean Product
Development Research: Current State and Future Directions,
Engineering Management Journal, 23:1(March 2011), pp. 29-52.
Letens, Geert, Jennifer A. Farris, and Eileen M. Van Aken, A
Multilevel Framework for Lean Product Development
-
31March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
System Design, Engineering Management Journal, 23:1 (March
2011), pp. 69-86.
Liker, Jeffrey K., and James Morgan, Lean Product Development as
a System: A Case Study of Body and Stamping Development at Ford,
Engineering Management Journal, 23:1 (March 2011), pp. 16-28.
Marcacini, Ricardo M., and Solange O. Rezende, Incremental
Construction of Topic Hierarchies Using Hierarchical Term
Clustering, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on
Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, (July 2010), pp.
553-558.
Montgomery, Douglas C., and George C. Runger, Applied Statistics
and Probability for Engineers (2nd Ed.), John Wiley & Sons
(1999).
Moura, Maria F., Ricardo M. Marcacini, Bruno M. Nogueira,
Solange O. Rezende, and Merley Conrado, A Proposal for Building
Domain Topic Taxonomies, Proceedings of the I Workshop on Web and
Text Intelligence, (October 2008), pp. 83-85.
Moura, Maria F., Solange O. Rezende, Choosing a Hierarchical
Cluster Labeling Method for a Specific Domain Document Collection,
Proceedings of the New Trends in Artificial Intelligence, (December
2007), pp. 812-823.
Nepal, Bimal P., Om Prakash Yadav, and Rajesh Solanki, Improving
the NPD Process by Applying Lean Principles: A Case Study,
Engineering Management Journal, 23:1 (March 2011), pp. 52-68.
Page, Albert L., Gary R. Schirr, Growth and Development of a
Body of Knowledge: 16 years of New Product Development Research,
1989-2004, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25:3(May
2008), pp. 233-248.
Project Management Institute (PMI), A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (4th Ed.) Newtown
Saquare (2008).
Rahman, Shams-ur, The Theory of Constraints Thinking Process
Approach to Developing Strategies in Supply Chains, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 32:10
(Special Issue 2002), pp. 809-828.
Rozenfeld, Henrique, Daniel C. Amaral, Creusa S.T. Amaral, and
Janaina M.H. Costa, NPD Improvement Through Process, Maturity, BPM
and Body-of-Knowledge Integration, Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Production Research - ICPR Americas,
(July 2008).
Rozenfeld, Henrique, S.T. Creusa, Janaina M.H. Costa, and Andrea
P. Jubileu, Knowledge-Oriented Process Portal with BPM Approach to
Leverage NPD Management, Knowledge and Process Management, 16:3
(2009), pp.134-145
Scoggin, Jacqueline M., Robert J. Segelhorst, and Richard A.
Reid, Applying the TOC Thinking Process in Manufacturing: A Case
Study, International Journal of Production Research, 41:4 (2003),
pp. 767-797.
SEI, Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMISM), Version 1.1
(March), Pittsburgh (2002).
Shum, Paul, Lin, and Grier, A World Class New Product
Development Best Practices Model, International Journal of
Production Research, 45:7 (Special Issue 2007), pp. 1609-1629.
Silva, Sergio L., and Henrique Rozenfeld, Model for Mapping
Knowledge Management in Product Development: A Case Study at a
Truck and Bus Manufacturer, International Journal of Automotive
Technology and Management, 7:2/3(2007), pp. 216-234.
Sderquist, Klas E. Organizing Knowledge Management and
Dissemination in New Product Development, Long Range
Planning, 39:5 (October 2006), pp. 497-523. Ulrich, Karl T., and
Steven D. Eppinger, Product Design and
Development (3rd Ed.) McGraw-Hill (2003).Watson, Kevin J., John
H. Blackstone, and Stanley C. Gardiner,
The Evolution of a Management Philosophy: The Theory of
Constraints, Journal of Operations Management, 25:2 (March 2007),
pp. 387-402.
Womack, James P., Daniel T. Jones, Lean Thinking, Simon and
Shuster (1996).
Yin, Robert K., Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage
Publications (1994).
Zairi, Mohamed, Business Process Management: A Boundaryless
Approach to Modern Competitiveness, Business Process Management
Journal, 3:1 (1997), pp. 64-80.
About the AuthorsJanaina M.H. Costa is a postdoctoral associate
in the Lean Advancement Initiative in the Engineering System
Division at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She received her
BS in business science from Unicep University and her MS and PhD in
industrial engineering from Sao Paulo University. Her research
interests are in product development, change management,
performance measurement, and healthcare systems performance
improvement.
Henrique Rozenfeld is a graduate of mechanical engineering,
Dr.-Ing. at WZL Aachen Germany. He is Coordinator of the Advanced
Manufacturing Nucleus (NUMA), Coordinator of the Research Group on
Integrated Engineering. He is a faculty member of the Industrial
Engineering Department at EESC So Paulo University, Brazil. He was
a visiting research scholar at University of Missouri System in
2003. He has served as a consultant on product development for many
companies, as advisor of 56 theses, and published more than 400
papers. His research interests are in product development, fuzzy
front-end, innovation, product life-cycle management, and
enterprise integration.
Creusa Sayuri Tahara Amaral holds a BSc in statistics and an MSc
in industrial engineering from the Federal University of So Carlos.
She earned her PhD in mechanical engineering and post-doctoral
degree in industrial engineering from the University of So Paulo.
She has developed work in the fields of statistics, manufacturing
simulation, NPD reference models and web systems development
Ricardo M. Marcacini is a PhD student in computer science at the
University of So Paulo (USP). He received a BS in information
systems and an MS in computer science from the Institute of
Mathematical and Computer Sciences (ICMC) at the University of So
Paulo. His research interests are text mining, text clustering, and
machine learning.
Solange Oliveira Rezende graduated in mathematics from the
Federal University of Uberlandia, received a Masters in computer
science and computational mathematics from the University of So
Paulo, and a PhD in mechanical engineering from the University of
So Paulo, So Carlos. She is currently an associate professor in the
Computer Science Department at the University of So Paulo. She has
experience in artificial intelligence, acting on machine learning,
text clustering, and data and text mining.
Contact: Dr. Janaina Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Engineering System Division, 77
Massachusetts Avenue, Building E38-674, Cambridge, MA 02139; phone:
617-324-8470; [email protected]
-
32 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
Appendix 1. Interview Checklist
Dimension Detailing of the Dimension
Product Performance, functionality and quality of the
product(s)
Monitoring of the product(s)
Activities / Information and Organization (NPD) Organizational
structure of NPD
Access to information/Internal and external communication/
Programming/Scheduling of daily activities
Resources (instruments, equipment and facilities) Availability
of resources
Performance of resources with respect to work needs
External relationships Relationships with suppliers
Overall relationships with clients
Strategies Creation and operation of the companys strategy
Deployment of strategic planning to NPD
Knowledge Competencies required for the companys NPD
Updating of knowledge of the NPD team
Process Strategic planning of the companys products
Product project planning and project management
Conceptual description of the product
Product detailing activities
Planning and detailing of the production process
Evaluation of prototype and accessory failures during NPD
Planning /development of sales, manufacturing, distribution, and
technical assistance processes for new products
Management of engineering changes: during and after new product
development
Improvement of new product development
-
33March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
Appendix 2. Example of Company Cs Current Reality Tree
-
34 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
Appendix 3. List of Suggested Improvement Projects
Identified
Adoption, training and application of the Failure Mode and
Effect Analysis (FMEA) technique in the new product development
process Definition of a procedure to evaluate the decision of make
or buy components of the productImplementation of requirements
management integrated with engineering change managementDefinition
of a human resources management policy to support NPDDefinition of
the organizational structure for NPD, including suppliers and
clientsDefinition of a procedure for the selection and management
of partnersImprovement of the organizational culture management
focusing on the improvement of product developmentDefinition of the
responsibilities of project managers and teamsSelection and
adoption of best project management practices Proposal of a visual
model of the phases of NPD, with indication of templates per
phaseDevelopment and management of a list of ongoing projects
Definition of a document template to describe the scope of the
projectDefinition of a procedure for communicating with top level
management systematically Development of a knowledge
repositoryDefinition of a process for sharing knowledge about new
product development management Definition of a process for sharing
knowledge about project knowledge management Definition of standard
nomenclature for projectsIncorporation of economic feasibility
studies for NPD projectsDefinition of a NPD reference model using
gates, with emphasis on project management Definition of a model of
performance indicators Development of a strategy for reduction of
the technology gapImplementation of Product Data Management (PDM)
systemsImplementation of project management software Implementation
of a product modularization strategy Definition of procedures for
the development of product cost reduction projects Formulation of
strategic product planningImplementation of a market analysis
process Analysis and planning of Information and Communication
Technologies to support NPD
-
Copyright of Engineering Management Journal is the property of
American Society for EngineeringManagement and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without thecopyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.